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 eight one three, two seven two, five nine four zero.

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.

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

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

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

For action items, the meeting will be conducted as follows.

The agenda item will be introduced.

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

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

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

Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person.

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

Planning commissioners will ask questions.

Public comment will be closed.

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

With that introduction, I'd like to ask Commissioner Lauk to lead us in the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Would all please rise.

Heavenly Father, we come before you today with praise for your mighty power and guidance.

We thank you for this day, and thank you too for the many blessings in our lives for our great country and for the opportunity to live in freedom.

We ask your blessings on our leaders, and we ask that you give each one of us here today the wisdom to make the right choices so that our decisions will be in the best interest of the people of Hillsborough County.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

To the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

With that introduction, I would like to ask the clerk to please go ahead and call roll.

Good afternoon.

Here.

Here.

Kona.

Here.

Here.

Kugler.

Lincas.

Lauk.

Here.

Steven.

Here.

Sink.

Here.

Barry.

Here.

Or in here.

Joseph?

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Our first item of business is public input for items not scheduled for action on the agenda.

And we did not have anyone sign up in the public comment for that item.

So we will move on to agenda item number three, Citizens Advisory Committee Representative Report.

And the presenter is Mr.

Will Atkins.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I am this commission's nomination to the Transportation Planning Organization Citizen Advisory Committee.

And the probably the biggest story of quarter one, I think, is you know, the TPO board voted 13 to 2 to approve the I-4 uh widening.

Uh the Express Lanes Project from I75 to the county line.

Uh before that, the Citizen Advisory Committee had actually voted against that particular uh project.

Um the citizen advisory committee, the argument was straightforward that um adding freeway capacity induces more demand, uh, and that the 500 million that was being spent uh might be better spent on um transit, essentially.

And uh a couple of weeks after that, this commission voted 7 to 1 to reject the Ruskin uh commercial reclassification, citing inadequate capacity on four of the five impacted uh road segments.

And while I realize that this isn't quite an apples to apples comparison and that the money coming from the state for the highway expansion wasn't really up for the for debate, I just want to highlight that this commission's attention uh to a little bit of continued strain between uh transportation priorities and that in that particular case.

Uh you may see closer alignment to uh the citizen advisory committee to the TPO and this particular commission's priorities than from the TPO itself.

Uh on a more positive note, there is general alignment in terms of transit-oriented development.

Uh the TPO accepted the Bright Line stationary study last quarter, which endorsed the the exact kind of mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented land use patterns that this commission is also advancing through uh as an example the MOSE uh redesignation on Fowler.

Uh granted, the Bright Line study was accepted as a non-binding planning document, and no station was uh selected.

But in general, the 2 billion MOSE redevelopment is where all three bodies, the TPO, the Citizen Advisory Committee, and this commission were all generally moving in the same direction.

The only caution that I would offer that is as the MOSE development goes through its traffic study and the study identifies road improvements that need to happen, uh, those improvements are going to need to be uh formally added to the tip.

Um and based on current TIP timelines, uh, we're looking at probably a June time frame.

Um the required improvements will almost certainly miss this June's FY27 to 31 TIP update cycle.

Um, and then you would need an either a standalone tip amendment uh and all the things that that come along with that, or you'd have to wait until the following year's fiscal 28 to 32 cycle.

Um meanwhile, the development of uh MOSI itself could allow construction to begin as early as uh as I understand it later this year.

Um so in plain terms, the buildings could go up before the road improvements are even even in the list of priorities uh to uh get funding and start being built.

Um so the the planning commission has an opportunity now before the rezonings kind of finalized to require that the TIP coordination happen as a condition of approval rather than leaving it to kind of sort itself out afterward.

Um finally, I would just um suggest that you watch the regional MPO merger discussions.

Um as a tri-county MPO could shift uh investment priorities away from a Hillsborough central local network.

Uh so that's a governance change that could affect what this commission can rely on when we impose transportation conditions on development projects that you're uh taking a look at.

So those are my key takeaways from this immediate quarter.

This is my first quarter on the Citizen Advisory Committee to the T TPO.

So uh happy to take any questions or feedback or things that you would like me to kind of keep an eye on for the next quarter.

Other than that, that's all I have.

Thank you, Mr.

Atkins.

Are there any questions, comments, discussion items from the commissioners for Mr.

Atkins?

I'd just like to ask you what are your general thoughts of the CAC since you it's your first month there.

I'm glad to see you didn't come today with a letter of resignation and you actually seem like you're pretty engaged and gonna hang around.

So not at all.

No, it um it's it's good.

You know, um, when I came before this body uh seeking the nomination, you know, one of the questions was uh, you know, you hear that those meetings could go really long and might be tedious.

Um they they really haven't been they haven't been that bad.

And there's been uh obviously there's some issues that are complex that come up that require quite a bit of of discussion, but everyone in general has the best best interests of the city and the county at heart, and um, you know, we all we all work together and it's been it's been a good quarter so far.

That's good.

So yeah, if there's and I understand, you know, it's it's I mean, you sit, Commissioner, on the TPO itself.

So you you see as the Citizen Advisory Committee Chair uh Rick Fernandez comes and debriefs what the CAC is recommending to the TPO, you can see there are sometimes some some times when the CAC recommends something that the TPO does not accept, and that's as it is, you know.

Sometimes that happens.

Um my intention is as your nominee to that board is to make sure that the things that are that you all are trying to accomplish have a voice in that room as well, and that we try to stay you know rowing in the same direction as possible.

Sounds good.

Has there been any discussion on the CAC as to you know any thought from the CAC members?

I know they they are very, you know, vocal and they're very engaged with things as to how that's gonna transition when the merger comes about.

Everybody right now is kind of focused on how the political powers are gonna get laid out, how the money's gonna get laid out.

But we've started to have discussions about the small cities, and I'm also wondering about these committees.

Has there been any thought from any of the CAC members or any precursor discussions about them retaining that engagement, that voice that they have?

So I do know that the next CAC meeting, uh the MPO discussion is is the primary point.

It hasn't been on the agenda.

We haven't discussed it much on our agendas thus far.

Okay.

Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing what their thoughts are on that because they're a very important body, you know.

We like to hear from our citizens.

We like to hear their thoughts and opinions, and you know, they have a different perspective of things.

So I know at the high level, we haven't been focused on that.

Everybody at the TPO board's focused on who's on first with respect to elected officials.

So there is a conversation to be had about you know the citizen committees and what's gonna happen when the three merge.

So I I definitely like to hear what comes out of that.

Yeah, and there's already uh on the order of 20 people on the CAC with several seats still empty anyway.

So if you're talking about merging several of them together, it it you know unless you start making cuts, it could get quite large.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

There are there any other questions from the commissioners.

Commissioner Lincoln.

Um, I guess I'll just throw out there at first.

I want to say thank you for your service.

And it was a really interesting to hear this update.

And I do believe that that we as a body have already voted on the MOSE in favor of that.

So as far as us being able to kind of make a conditional, I think that ship has failed, so I just wanted to clarify that.

But I appreciate the idea.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

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

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for your report.

You bet.

All right.

Thanks.

And we will move on to our next agenda item.

Item number four, uh action items.

Our only action item today is Temple Terrace Land Development Code LDC text amendment section 12921.

Off-street parking and driveway requirements, and the presenter is presenters are Yanika Mills and Kim Ford.

Good afternoon, Yunika Mills Planning Commission staff.

I am here to introduce Mr.

Kim Ford, who will be reviewing with you uh land development code uh from the Temple Terrace uh code of ordinances regarding driveways, and then I'll come back and make my consistency finding after his presentation.

Hi, Kim Ford, City of Temple Terrace.

It's my second time uh with this code.

I'm gonna go through the presentation again.

If you have any questions, let me know, please.

Thank you.

We review right-of-way permit applications, and we've had a lot of discussion with people trying to get their applications completed.

And this code of amendment is to address a problem that we have primarily one problem is street water not being contained in the street, but going down people's driveways into their garages.

So we've got a detail from Hillsborough County's uh technical manual that it slopes upward, and so that's uh gonna be shown in the presentation.

Uh we've also improved some of the clarification and language in there to help the uh designers put it together more clearly and quickly so we can get their approvals done more rapidly.

On this page we have uh pavers that get a restraining edge, site distances outlined, tree routes are being removed below the driveways, aprons, uh the driveway apron design is described, ADA is met the driveway slopes upward and where the walkway would be.

Uh so it will maintain a two percent cross slope and a one to twenty longitudinal slope.

Inspections are required, and this has uh uh for communicating with us when the inspections are needed uh by the applicants.

Uh there's a detail from Hillsborough County's technical manual that shows uh on the cross section the driveway slope upward, and there's five feet in there for the sidewalk at the top.

Uh contractors are required to contact 811 for utility marking and the Hillsburg County driveway detail is being adopted.

Uh the percentage of the percentage of the driveway along the front property line is slightly increased to reduce on-site uh on street parking.

Uh one of the differences uh this has in it is that the tapers at the street curb add six feet to the width.

And for a long time we haven't been counting that toward their 25% in the middle of this page, it refers to 25% of the lot frontage.

And we're measuring it at the lot rather than at the curb to allow reduce on street parking.

Any questions?

Planning commission staff reviewed the land development code text amendment regarding off-street parking and driveways, and found that it's consistent based on land use objective 8.5 and policy 8.5.3, which speaks to development having to be consistent with the land development code.

Additionally, the request is consistent with mobility objective 1.3 and policy 1.4.1, which speak to relating to pedestrian safety and neighborhood walkability and the review of site plans prior to issuance of permits of driveways.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

All right.

And we had no one sign up in the public comments, no one sign up in the public comment for this item, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions.

Let's see, and a lot of excitement.

And oh, Commissioner Lauk, sorry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh quick question.

I always wonder with with some of these things, what was the genesis of this?

Why why that why the change now?

And I have a follow-up, a quick follow-up.

The change from the previous presentation or the change overall.

Change from existing uh to what we want to change it to.

Water in the street.

What's driving the change?

Water in the street is not contained.

If the slope and you can see there's a strike through on the detail that we have currently in the code, uh some of the numbers on that detail are wrong.

And it makes for a flat slope of a driveway that does not contain the water sufficiently up to the top of the curb.

For example, it's an open cut in the curb, and we let the water enter the yards rather than keep it in the street.

Okay, thank you.

Perfect.

Commissioner Cona.

Yeah, sorry.

Um, what kind of public um response did you get to this code?

We've uh been adjusting that uh for a number of months uh and presently with our right-of-way use permitting.

Okay.

So it's being uh received very well and no.

So this was advertised to the public in regards to we haven't adopted uh this revision at the City of Temple Terrace.

This is our first step.

Okay, thanks.

Comments, discussion items from the commissioners.

Not seeing any, then I will close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this one.

Any motions out there?

Commissioner Lincas.

Uh I'd like to make a motion to find the Temple Terrace Land Development Code Text Amendment amendment section 12-921 off street parking and driveway requirements consistent with the Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan.

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lincoln, a second to that motion by Commissioner Bowden.

Are there any questions, comments, discussion items 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.

Next up, we're done with our action items, and we will move to the budget.

Adoption of proposed FY27 budget.

Presenter is Melissa Zornita.

Good afternoon, Melissa Zornita, executive director.

Uh the budget items that are in front of you are a part of the second year of the two-year budget.

So they have been previously reviewed by the county, and what we are allowed in the second year is to make any necessary adjustments to the continuation budget that we're under.

Uh and the county as part of the budget instructions asked us to be very conservative in any changes that were being made, given the potential changes to property taxes and other things.

Um we have put forward just two decision units.

The first is a decision unit to the operating budget, um, which is for $38,650.

$300,000 of that would be for uh increased level of Office 365 licensing to increase to a G5 license, which allows for uh greater security enhancements as well as greater capabilities in doing record searches.

Um we've gotten a number of public record searches in the last year, um, which uh when we talked with the county about how they deal with similar record searches, they said, oh well, we have this kind of licensing and it allows you to search um things like Teams messages a lot easier.

Um we didn't have that level of licensing, so we would like to move to that.

Um additionally, there's uh five five thousand five hundred dollar cost increase for our two um fellowships for USF students to be interns in our office, and uh $3,150 increase to other rentals to cover costs related to uh personnel for public meetings.

Um we're very grateful that the school district does not charge us for the space to hold public meetings at their facilities, but they do charge for the personnel costs for uh security and janitorial services.

Um so that makes up the operating uh budget request.

The other part of the request is to the capital budget, and we are required annually to put in a request for whatever capital items that we need.

So right now in the second year it has a a zero there.

Um we are anticipating that two servers will be reaching their lifespan next year, and so uh with an estimated cost of eight thousand dollars each, the request for the capital budget is sixteen thousand dollars.

Um capital is anything that is over five thousand dollars in cost.

Um that is the the request.

Um, and we would be forwarding those items to the county with your approval.

Um that's all I've got.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Are there any questions, comments, discussion items from the commissioners?

Commissioner Lauk, I see you moving.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We discussed in the prep meeting last week.

I was wondering if you could speak to your thoughts on uh procuring like ChatGPT Enterprise for the staff and for the group or some other derivative of that, and if it's from a priority standpoint, where do you think that would rank?

Sure.

Um the utilization of AI is is absolutely something that some staff are doing on sort of a case-by-case basis.

Um our uh information technology director actually just put together last week a survey to find out what um are the predominant softwares that staff are using.

Um so that is something that I think we would need to do a little bit more of investigation on to understand the exact costs and um the benefits of an enterprise license, but it probably makes sense for us to move in that direction rather than having staff having individual accounts and that sort of thing.

So yes.

All right, Commissioner Cona.

Yeah, just to note did you get any recent pricing on the servers that you're trying to purchase?

Okay, good.

Yeah, because they've gone up quite a bit.

Yes.

Yeah.

Commissioner Bowden.

Yeah.

Uh and going back to the thing about the well, one is the upgrade of the Microsoft as well as the Chat GPT.

I'm thinking that if you upgrading Microsoft, it knows it has uh co-pilot.

It does.

You know, is apples and oranges.

I mean, it's it's sort of a what you prefer.

Is that a more enhanced uh co-pilot you think?

Uh has anyone said?

I don't know the answer to that.

That's a great question and um something we could find out more about.

I I do know some staff are using it because it comes embedded in the software they're already using.

And that's what I'm thinking.

If you if you're already purchasing an upgrade to your your Microsoft, then you know, instead of adding additional software package is something that's already embedded in you.

So what you know, that might be an idea.

Yeah.

That's a great suggestion.

We'll work into that.

I can give you a quick answer to that.

Chat GPT is the back end copilot.

So when you're using Copilot, it's run through Chat GPT servers.

Getting a private Chat GPT enterprise license would allow us to do further stuff like create documents or make it argue back and forth with each other depending on things that we put into it.

But ChatGPT OpenAI is the back end of Microsoft Copilot.

So yeah.

Okay.

Any other thoughts or questions or comments from the commissioners?

I just wanted to give a shout out to Commissioner Bowden, Commissioner Barry, Commissioner Orton for showing up to our very boring budgetary budgetary committee meeting and taking time out of their busy schedules to give their opinions and thoughts to help us keep this budget moving forward.

So kudos to you and those of you who weren't there, kudos to you too.

But you know, definitely try if you ever have time to show up.

It's definitely boring.

I totally understand why nobody wants to show up, but it definitely helps to have outside voices and outside ideas.

Commissioner Barry gave some some pretty good ideas to our accountant on some things to look at going forward during the meeting.

So we love to get that input always from all of you.

So I just wanted to put that advertisement out there for you.

And another great job I want to say by Ms.

Ornita and our staff with getting this budget together and keeping us online, keeping things tight and keeping things moving forward.

So hopefully the Board of County Commissioners will feel the same way as they have in the past and they'll you know keep us moving forward with what we need budget-wise.

So good job.

Thank you.

Commissioners for our close the public comment on this item.

We do need an action here, right?

Yeah, okay.

So I'm gonna close the public comment on this and open it up to motions from the commissioners for approving this FY27 budget and for submitting it to the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Kona.

Yeah, motion to um adopt the proposed uh fiscal year 27 budget.

Right.

Second.

All right.

The motion to approve the FY27 budget for submitted to the Board of County Commissioners by Commissioner Kona.

Second to that motion by Commissioner Lauk.

Any questions, 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.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up, we have briefings and presentations.

All right.

First is 6A, City of Plant City Comprehensive Plan Vision Update, and the presenters are Katrina Corcoran and Yannika Mills and Robin Baker.

Trio.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Vice Chair, Commissioners.

My name is Robin Baker.

I'm the director of planning and zoning for the City of Plant City, and I'm very excited to be here today to introduce this presentation to you.

First, I wanted to say thank you for all of you that came out for the dual commission meeting.

We really appreciate your interest and your comments.

One of the big parts of the conversation that came out of that meeting that I think is going to be so important to this update is the fact that the city of Plant City for a long time has been looked to as a rural town when in fact it was always designed to be the marketplace for the rural area around it.

And every bit of the city that's within the municipal boundary is considered an urban service area.

And so that's what makes this comprehensive plan so uh important this update important to me is because as we've grown so much over the last 10 years, and as we see ourselves in such a unique position that no one else in Hillsburg County has, and the fact that we're completely surrounded by unincorporated land, and according to the state statutes can be annexed into the city.

It's so important that we uh make a plan for the future that shows how we're going to grow as an urban service area, but also to um help support that rural area around us.

Uh again, thank you for having me here today, and thank you for your interest and your comments in this.

And I'll turn it over to Yanika Mills.

Robin Good afternoon again, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to uh provide you an overview of uh the comprehensive plan update process thus far and what we've encountered and heard as a result of community engagement uh regarding the vision update.

Um, as the start of the process, uh staff began with some baseline uh information to understand the existing conditions.

Uh here you can see uh the expected growth rate for plant city in employment as well as population.

Then staff kicked off the update uh by having a um a staff meeting with plant city staff in the spring of 2025 as well.

We've had uh several check-ins uh with you, the planning commission as well as the city commission.

Uh we checked in in August of 2025 and then again in January with a joint meeting uh to give you all a progress update um as well as receive some feedback uh regarding the vision update.

And then we did circle back with Plant City department staff uh for any final feedback uh of the vision.

So during this process, staff um ran a survey both in English as well as Spanish, and we attended many outreach events to get some feedback.

We received over 30,000 impressions from ads as well as 1700 responses from the survey.

Some of the topics that emerge were parks and green space, local businesses, community feel, and city services were important to the quality of life of the citizens of Plant City.

Some of the concerns we heard were that infrastructure is not keeping up with the pace of growth.

So after hearing feedback from you all as well as City Commission, as well as the citizens during the outreach process in January, staff reconvened after the joint meeting and added some statements related to Interstate 4.

We added some statements regarding the agricultural community.

We included schools within the vision.

And then the vision that you see before you this afternoon is what staff drafted.

Staff drafted a theme related to housing, being that we heard the need for a variety of housing types to fit all the demographics of Plant City.

As we move forward in this process, some of the things that we'll keep in mind while revising the future land use element, housing, as well as the intergovernmental element, are the legislative changes that are being proposed that may affect planning.

We'll also continue to look closely at how the city is defined and how rural area and the urban area of plant city interrelate and how that's going to be translated into policy language.

We'll also examine where growth should be focused in Plant City based on the demographics.

The next theme that was drafted related to transportation and the need to keep up with maintaining the roadways, local and regional connectivity, as well as providing different multimodal options in Plant City.

As we progress in this process, we will take into consideration the upcoming I4 widening, potential future transit connections, as well as keeping all of that information in context to what Plant City is.

This concludes my portion of the presentation.

I'm now going to turn it over to Katrina to complete the presentation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Katrina Corcoran, Planning Commission staff.

I'll be finishing out this presentation on our Plant City vision.

I will start with the next slide.

So continuing on with our vision themes and vision statements.

Next you'll see infrastructure services and public safety as well as resiliency.

Here we made some minor tweaks based on the conversation that happened at the joint workshop.

And as we move forward with the update, we'll be looking at the intergovernmental coordination, environmental and public facility element updates to really focus on policy language recognizing the importance of services to Plant City.

We'll be looking at coordination with other jurisdictions such as Hillsborough County, looking at policy language on how to address flooding and stormwater issues, and then finally other water resource issues for policy language such as septic to sewer.

On this slide, you'll see our parks and green space and environmental/slash agricultural vision themes and statements.

With this, you'll note that we added a second sentence to the parks and green space talking about trails being connected regionally.

So making sure that we're out including those folks in outreach.

Next up, we have hometown and community and economic development and local businesses.

For economic development and local businesses, we added the second sentence that you see here talking about diversifying the plant city economy through a variety of industries and employment opportunities, including a focus on industrial uses in appropriate areas such as the I-4 corridor.

For this, we'll be looking at the future land use element update, including policy language on economic development specific to Plant City, policy language on downtown and midtown, consideration of how those community focused events, such as the Strawberry Festival may impact the plan update.

And of course, expanding our outreach to include more voices as we move through the process.

Specifically at the joint workshop, it was mentioned to try to include the youth and high school students, but of course, we'll be trying to cast a wide net with that.

And then finally, these are our final two uh vision themes and statements for you today.

We have historic preservation and schools.

Um you'll note that we added a little bit about support and programs for the owners of historic buildings.

That is not always uh the city of Plant City, so we need to make sure that we identified that.

Um schools were also mentioned at our joint workshop as very important.

Uh we didn't have that as a vision statement previously, so we added this new statement that you see here.

Um, and then moving forward looking at the future land use element and the public school facilities updates.

Uh, it was noted that schools in Plant City need to keep up with growth, so that's something that we'll keep in mind with those as well.

Uh finally, for our upcoming schedule and next steps, we will be in front of the Plant City Commission on March 23rd.

Uh, we will be starting our comprehensive plan language revisions this spring and have further coordination with plant cities departments.

We'll continue to have status updates with you all throughout that process, and then just a friendly reminder on our 2050 plant city comprehensive plan update project page, which you see linked here.

Uh, we've been keeping that up with the latest information and drafts of the vision, um, all of our dates and things like that, as well as a um portion for folks to provide public comment throughout this process.

And with that, this concludes our presentation on the plant city comprehensive plant update vision.

Happy to answer any questions that you may have and take any more feedback that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Sink.

Um, quick question.

Um, I was kind of looking at like where the commercial areas are and then the density allotment directly next to it.

And I find that a lot of times you go directly from commercial into like R4 and R6.

Is there any desire for the people in Plant City to go to anything like missing middle or anything that would provide density to like duplexes, quadplexes?

Because the underlying is it's going to prevent anything with higher density that could drive affordability.

So is there a thought process of higher density going down to lower density instead of going from downtown into R4?

So just so um I'll give my answer and then I see my colleagues are behind me.

Um but I wanted to mention that that's uh missing middle is something that came up with the departments and our discussion with them and scoping for the plan update.

So that's certainly something that we'll be considering for future land use as well as the housing element update.

Um, in terms of your specifics there.

I mean, I think we definitely want to look at um transitional areas, um, whether that's rural to urban, that sort of thing.

So that's definitely something that we'll be looking at with the update, but I will definitely open it up to my colleagues behind me if they have anything to add for your question.

I've just wanted to let you know that the City of Plant City does things a little bit differently in the sense of future land use is not really future land use because our future land use is what establishes the density and intensity of projects, but everything else uh lies in the zoning districts.

But we don't have 25 zoning districts like Hillsborough County does that addresses density.

It's not addressed in our land development code at all.

So, what happens a lot of the time, even though you have that R4, R6 density there, you still may be able to achieve a duplex or something like that, because we only have basically three residential zoning categories, all of which allow a plethora of uh residential types within them.

They are going to limit the the amount of units, but if you're doing a duplex, obviously you only need two units per acre or or something of the nature.

And generally in those types of situations, we would round up on the density if it was less than two, uh, just for a duplex situation only.

Um, but outside of that, we do things a little bit differently, so it may look like they might not be able to achieve those things on those properties, but they actually could.

Thank you.

Yep, absolutely.

All right.

Were there any other questions, comments, discussion items from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

Look forward to this coming back or advancing more.

And we will move on to our next briefing item, which is 6B, Temple Terrace Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Section 12-834, drainage systems.

And the presenters are Yannika Mills and Kim Ford.

Good afternoon again, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to introduce Mr.

Kim Ford with Temple Terrace staff.

He'll be reviewing Temple Tierra's land development code amendment relating to drainage.

Uh this is just a briefing, so no no action is required on your part.

And Mr.

Kim Ford.

Thank you for having me.

This code is being put together compiled from what the water management district has in their applicant handbook.

It's what from what uh Hillsborough County has in the stormwater management technical manual.

Efforts made not to create or invent something that's not already there.

We've got codes here that are very meaningful on four pages and not 50 in a technical manual.

So going right through them.

Dynamic modeling is where you've got it coming in at different times from different places, and it's going out at some time in the future, and that is ICPR is the industry standard for stormwater modeling.

And we've got that referenced in here.

The um the code is asking for basic information that should normally be presented in a drainage report.

Uh pre and post basin maps.

Uh what is the rainfall?

Uh where is the seasonal high water table?

Uh geotechnical related information.

Uh these things are being asked for up front, so they're not missing when the report comes in, they should be already expected.

There's a reference to treatment.

Uh water management district now has a more complicated method of treatment, so we've deferred directly to them for that.

Uh as I referenced earlier, ICPR is a SCS NRCS method for uh calculating runoff and dynamic modeling.

And the stormwater tabulations refer to the rational method, which was the only method that was being referred to in our code, which uh is creates a problem.

Um here are some of the stormwater design frequencies that are being clarified for different situations.

The 25 year and the hundred year were uh accurately represented by the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall or the 25-year or the hundred year, and four inches per hour is typical in a DOT technical manual referred to for spread of flow, which is how far the water goes across the lane, and it should be contained in the street, either one lane for uh residential low uh volume roadway or half a lane for uh uh increased traffic.

There are requirements for separation of the water table from the base material, so the road does not uh is protected from water and occurring up into the base and damaging the roadway.

And the volume of the uh discharge is referred to.

We um we do not want to increase in the hundred year stage from discharge, and we are making sure that there's an adequate outfall for anybody that's coming in for development so that they're not discharging into a floodplain and creating a higher hundred-year base flood elevation than was already designated in that area.

Um the outfall conditions need to be looked at all the way downstream and not just locally to make sure where it crosses under a roadway or across the roadway that there's not an obstruction, and if there is, then the uh discharge from the pond would be uh more restricted.

So it's a demonstration on the uh applicant's part.

A floodplain compensation is typically cup for cup, which means if you fill uh a cup over here in the floodplain, you would take go to a place that's not in the floodplain and take a cup out and create the same amount of volume.

And that wasn't in the code, and now it is the recovery uh time is 72 hours, and that is uh referred to in the code.

We have under drain that uh hasn't been described, but the type two and the six inch under drain is more robust and is also referred to by others in other codes now and did not used to be.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments, discussions from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing a lot of motion.

Well, thank you for the information.

Look forward to it coming back and move on to our next agenda item.

Uh what's the number here?

6C HCCPA 2601 comprehensive plan map amendment 15728 through 15806 Westlake Drive, and the presenter is Andrea Papenrew.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Andrea Papindrew, Planning Commission staff.

This is HCCPA 26 01 15728 through 15806 Westlake Drive.

This is a publicly initiated map amendment.

It is small scale, and the site is approximately 15.04 acres.

The request is to go from the Wamama Village Residential 2 and Residential 4 future land use categories to the residential 4 future land use category.

In uh 2025, the Board of County Commissioners expanded the urban service area and changed all the rule WVR2 future land use category in Wamama to residential four, natural preservation, and residential one.

For this amendment, those split parcels are within the urban service area and were not subject to previous board direction.

Staff have identified these three parcels as the last properties with the WVR2 future land use category in Hillsborough County and are recommending a change to residential four to provide greater consistency with previous board direction.

So the site is in the southern portion of the county, it is in the urban service area.

Uh the site is within the Wamama Village Community Plan and the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

So this is an aerial of the subject site.

The site is east of Westlake Drive, northwest is 19th Avenue Northeast, and then further west uh is U.S.

Highway 301 South.

So the site is composed of three parcels.

The northernmost parcel is vacant land, and the other two are single family residential.

Surrounding the site is a mixture of agricultural land, single family residential, HOA common property, and vacant land.

To the east is the bomb road scrub and land owned by the Bullfrog Creek mitigation bank.

Uh and lastly, further north, east, west, and south are public quasi public institutional uses.

And a more zoomed out aerial map is included within your packets.

The three properties uh have an adopted future land use of Wamama Village Residential 2 and Residential 4.

Surrounding the site on all sides is the residential four future land use category.

Uh property to the east and further south and north of the site was changed to residential four by the board last year.

Further south is the natural preservation category.

Proposal is to go to the residential four future land use category.

The existing categories would allow approximately up to 43 units on site and up to 163,785 square feet.

The site is not within the Wamama downtown East District where commercial office and industrial uses may be considered.

So currently would allow consideration of residential support uses.

The proposed change to residential four would increase density up to 60 units and allow commercial consideration at the same intensity, but it would be subject to meeting commercial locational criteria.

Since these are the last WBR2 parcels in the county, if this amendment is adopted, there will be a future public amendment to remove the WBR2 language from the conference of plan.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments, discussions of this one?

Commissioners, not seeing any.

Then we'll thank you for the information.

Forward to it coming back and move on to our next agenda item 6D, HCCPA 26 02, comprehensive plan, map amendment 7607, 7 through 7709, Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road, Urban Service Area Expansion, and the presenter is Willow Mickey.

Good evening.

I'm Willow Mickey with your planning commission staff.

I will be briefing HCCPA 20 26 02, which is located at 7607 to 7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road.

This request is a privately initiated large scale map amendment.

It is made up of three parcels that total approximately 81.9 acres.

The applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area.

This amendment is associated with HCCPA 2603, which is a request to change the future land use category from Res 1 to Res 2.

This plan amendment is part of the January 2026 cycle, located in the rural area and is within the limits of the Tenota Sassa community plan.

And as I mentioned, it is associated with HCCPA 2603.

Here is an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink, and the blue line indicates the urban service area boundary.

It is located north of I4, east of Williams Road, and south of Joe Ebert Road.

Within the vicinity of the site, there are single family uses surrounding the site on all sides.

To the east, there is a middle school, and to the south are agricultural uses.

North of the site is a cemetery, and further east is a clinical treatment center.

The amendment would bring 81.9 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer.

And that concludes this briefing on this item.

I'm here for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the planning commissioners?

Comments?

Not seeing any.

We'll move on to our next agenda item.

Uh 6E HCCPA 26 03 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 7607 through 7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road, and the presenter is again Willow Mickey.

Willow Mickey again with your planning commission staff.

I'll be briefing HCCPA 2603 located at 7607 to 7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road.

This request is privately initiated large scale map amendment made up of three parcels totaling approximately 81.9 acres.

The request is to change the land use designation of these parcels from residential one to residential two.

This plan amendment is part of the January 2026 cycle located in the rural area and within the limits of the Tenota SASA community plan.

It is associated with the CPA 2602 that I just presented, which is requesting to bring the same parcels into the urban service area.

Here is the aerial photo again.

North is a cemetery, and further east, there is a clinical treatment center.

I just wanted to note that the original request included parcel 61568.000 with a proposed designation of residential nine.

However, this parcel has since been removed from the application.

Additionally, the initial application saw a residential four designation for the remaining three parcels, but this has been revised to residential two.

The site is in the residential one land use category.

Residential one allows for the consideration of agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, and multi-purpose projects.

Surrounding lane use categories include res one to the east, south and west, with res four to the north.

Public quasi public is located to the northwest.

An additional residential four lies further southeast.

There's also residential two located northeast of the site if you travel from the site approximately one mile north and a half mile east.

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

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

Currently under Res 1, the site can be considered for up to 81 dwelling units in 891 891 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential two would allow for the consideration of 163 dwelling units in 891,891 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment will result in a potential increase in development potential by allowing the consideration of higher residential density.

That concludes this briefing, and I'm here for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, thoughts, comments from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

Move on to our next agenda item 6F, HCCPA 26-04, comprehensive plan map amendment, Bird Island and Sunken Island, and the presenter presenter is Erica Larson, who is will be presenting remotely.

I'm not correct.

All right.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Erica Larson, Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HC CPA 26-04, located on Bird Island and Sunken Island.

And I'll give Katrina a minute to pull it up.

You're good, Erica.

I can go to the next slide.

Okay, yeah.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 49.72 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from not classified to natural preservation.

Next slide.

This is the general location map.

The site is in the rural area and within the limits of the Gibson community plan.

This amendment is located in the southwestern Hillsborough County region, west of the Alaphaea River, and southwest of the Mosaic Fertilizer Plant.

Next slide.

Here's an aerial of the site.

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

The site contains significant bird wildlife habitat, is located within the coastal high hazard area, and is also in the FEMA flood zone VE.

Next slide.

Currently, the adopted future land use designation is not classified for these two islands.

Heavy industrial is to the northeast, and residential one uses are to the east.

Next slide.

The applicant propose is proposing to amend the future land use category to natural preservation.

Um this amendment establishes a natural preservation future land use designation for bird and sunken islands where no future land use currently exists, thereby formalizing long-term environmental protection.

Next slide.

Next are the impacts.

Next slide.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments, thoughts on this one from the commissioners?

I did have a quick thought.

I was wondering if and if not, would does the port get to opine on this when it goes through as it goes forward here, or is it close enough to the shoreline to where the port's not gonna, it's clearly not going to be an issue for Port Tampa?

Um I'm not sure about that, but I can get back to you on that.

Okay.

Um if feasible and if they're willing to speak, obviously the port doesn't like to speak on a lot of things and just plays mum, but they are willing to speak.

I'd like to get their thoughts on this because I remember they I believe that they had some pretty strong opinions about the the Bear Can Island thing that was going on back then.

So these islands in the in the bay are kind of a touchy subject, so I'd like to get some thought on that.

Commissioner Lau.

And just to confirm this was privately initiated.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sink.

Just to get an idea of how many of these actually exist, the unclassified islands in Hillsborough County.

Do we have like a general idea?

Um I don't have a general idea.

However, I know like these islands specifically were created as a disposal area for dredge spoil to form in the Alafaya shipping channel and industrial port area.

So that's why they don't currently have a land use.

All right.

Might be good to see if we can get that information for the second go-round here.

So Mr.

College, he might know.

I know a little, I have I don't have an exact number, but we have been monitoring this over the years.

It's something I've been looking at.

There aren't a lot.

I'm Sean College Planning Commission staff.

There are a few.

The ones that come to mind are Beercan Island, which is mentioned, which is privately well, it's it's privately owned.

Um these two islands owned by Mosaic.

And those do not have land land use uh classifications as well.

We have been talking to the port with for many years about that, but we have not moved forward as of yet, and they've uh not offered to move forward as of yet with any classifications of those islands.

Those are the ones I'm aware of.

I haven't uh haven't seen any other ones.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, I guess uh the reason I'm asking is like how do we consistently like we're always looking to to do things consistently and like if we don't know how many are out there, like how are we gonna move forward in the future to make sure that we're not inconsistently handling these moving forward?

Thank you.

All right, good points, Commissioner Sink.

All right, you got your hands full with this one, so we'll be looking forward to it coming back.

All right, thanks for the information, and we will move on to our next agenda item, item 6G, uh HCCPA 2605 comprehensive plan map amendment 1830 Dorman Road Urban Service Area Expansion, and the presenter is Lillian Lenahan.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff here to present HC CPA 2605, located at 1830 Dorman Road.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is large in scale and approximately 190 acres.

The applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area, and this amendment is associated with HC CPA 2606, which is a request to change the future land use designation from agricultural rule one to five to residential two.

This is the general location map as already mentioned.

This is associated with HC CPA 2606.

It is located in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan and is located north of Dorman Road, east of Boyette Road, and south of Lithia Prankhurst Road.

Here is an aerial of the site.

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

The proposed amendment would bring approximately 190 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer.

This concludes my presentation for HCCPA 2605, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing any motion.

We'll move on to our next agenda item 6H, HCCPA 26-06, comprehensive plan map amendment 18308 Dorman Road, and the presenter is Lillian Linhan.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff, and I'm here to present HCCPA 2606, located 18308 Dorman Road.

Again, this is a privately initiated map amendment that is large in scale on approximately 190 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from agricultural rule one to five to residential two.

This is the general location map.

It is associated with HCCPA 2605.

It is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan, and is located north of Dorman Road, east of Boyot Road, and south of Lithia Pinecrest Road.

This is an aerial of the site.

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

Currently, the future land use designation is agricultural rule one to five.

This category allows for one dwelling unit per five gross acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, feedlots, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses and mining related activities.

Other future land use categories shown in this map include residential one, residential plan two, residential two, and natural preservation.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to residential two.

The residential two feature land use category allows for two 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, and multi-purpose projects.

Currently, under the agricultural rule one to five future land use, the site can consider up to 38 dwelling units or approximately two million square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future land use designation of residential two, the site can consider up to 380 dwelling units or approximately two million square feet of non-residential uses.

And during the rezoning process, commercial locational criteria may affect the allowable score of footage for potential non-residential development.

The proposed amendment will increase the maximum potential residential density and will not change the maximum potential non-residential intensity.

This includes my briefing for HCCPA 2606.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

I did have one quick question.

Could you put the map back up there again?

Uh which one?

The aerial?

Proposed, yeah.

Or proposed.

Yeah, the proposed, sorry.

Yeah, that would that one, no, the the the last one.

This one, okay.

No, yeah, right there, right there.

That it looks like it's gonna create a little island in the center there.

The property owner doesn't own that little chunk of agriculture.

There's two parcels there that they do not own that are not included as a part of this map amendment or in the um 2605 either.

Okay.

Interesting.

I will I always wonder about those little islands.

Do we have them?

I know we have them in a couple other places around the county, and I they always catch my eye when they pop up like that.

So think about it more.

I just add that question.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

Comments.

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the presentation, and we will move forward again.

Agenda item six I, HCCPA 26-07, comprehensive plan map amendment northwest of Hillsborough Avenue and George Road, and the presenter is Alexis Myers.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 2607, located northwest of Hillsboro Avenue and George Road.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 6.7 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential 6 and office commercial 20 to like um light industrial planned.

This is uh the general location map.

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

It is located north of Hillsborough Avenue and west of George Road.

Here is the area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink.

Vacant land is currently on the subject site.

The property is in the evacuation zone A, FEMA flood zone AE, and coastal high hazard area.

Light commercial uses are located south, west and east across uh George Road.

Light industrial uses are also to the east across George Road and west along Hillsboro Avenue.

Public Quazak uh public public uh quasi public institutional uses and uh single family uses are to the north and west.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential six and office commercial 20.

The res 6 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, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

Um the OC20 uh category allows 20 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, community commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses.

Other future land use categories shown in this map include urban mixed use 20 and community mixed use 12 to the east and residential 20 further southwest.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to light industrial plan.

The LIP category allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75.

Residential is not allowed in this category except limited accessory residential, for example, on-site security guards.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, light industrial uses such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials as a predominant uses, including support offices, warehousing, and retail uses.

Next are the impacts as far as existing conditions, currently under res six and OC20.

The site could consider up to 28 dwelling units or 51,945 square feet of non-residential uses under the proposed LIP designation.

The site could consider 155,835 square feet of non-residential uses.

The opposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density, allow greater commercial intensity, and introduce like industrial uses.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the planning commissioners on this one comments?

Not seeing any.

Then we'll thank you and move on to our next agenda item.

6 J HCCPA 26-08 comprehensive plan map amendment 151 through 157 East Fowler Avenue and 1020 10220 Harney Road.

And the presenter is Alexis Myers again.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 2608 located at 10051 to 10057 East Fowler Avenue.

And um zero two two zero Harney Road.

Okay.

Um this is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 1.28 acres.

Uh the applicant is requesting to change a future land use designation from residential forward to light industrial plan.

This is the general location map.

The site is in a rural area and within the limits of the Tonoda Sassa Community Plan.

It is located north of Harney Road and south of East Fowler Avenue.

Here is an area of the site.

The site is online in pink and the blue.

I'm sorry, the site is online in pink.

Light industrial single family and vacant land is currently located on the subject property.

The site is in the FEMA flood zone AE.

Single family uses are immediately west, north across East Fowler Avenue, and south across Harney Road.

Heavy and light commercial uses are located east and to the north.

Agriculture is to the south and east across Harney Road.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential four.

The Raspberry category allows four dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

The 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 includes suburban mixed use six to the north and residential one and agricultural estate one to 2.5 to the south.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to light industrial planned.

The LIP category allows a floor a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75.

Residential is not allowed in this category except for a limited accessory residential, for example, an on-site security guards.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, light industrial uses such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials as the predominant uses, including support offices, warehousing, and retail uses.

Next are the impacts.

Currently under Res 4, the site can consider up to five dwelling units or 13,939 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed LIP designation, the site could consider 41,817 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density, allow greater commercial intensity, and introduce light industrial uses.

And this concludes my presentation for ACCPA 2608.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information, and we will look forward to it coming back and move on to our next agenda item.

6K HCCPA 26-09 comprehensive plan map amendment southwest of State Road 60 and Turkey Creek Road, and the presenter is Tyreek Royal.

This request is privately initiated.

The request is to change the land use designation from energy innovation park to light industrial plan.

The location of the site is in the eastern portion of Hillsborough County.

It's a part of the January 2026 cycle.

It's within the urban service area, and it's not within the limits of the community plan.

On the screen, you can see an area of the site outlined in pink.

It's located south of State Road 60.

Uses include mobile home parks to the north.

Land use mix and regulatory structure.

The IP is a design as a renewable energy focused mixed use district, where alternative energy production research are the central components and must be developed first or concurrently with other uses.

It also requires at least 20% of the gross land area be dedicated to energy related uses, and that includes renewable technologies such as solar, wind, biomass, waste energy, and mandates of construction of renewable energy production production facilities with specific production outputs along with enhanced buffering, the requirement to connect to water and sewer and open route space requirement of 15% of the total area.

While the EIP allows industrial manufacturing warehouse uses, these are limited to 30% of the gross uh land area, and it permits uh residential pocket E, retail commercial office, agricultural research, and industrial uses within defined limits to support a mixed use environment.

The LIP category is traditionally an industrial land use designation intended primary for agricultural and light industrial activities, including processing, manufacturing, recycling, storage, rail housing related support offices, or um limit retail uses.

The LIP does not require renewable energy production and does not include structure mix of residential or research uses and does not impose specific land allocation percentages tied to energy production.

Overall, EIP functions as a specified energy innovation and mixed use district, whereas LIP serves as a conventional white industrial area focused on industrial activities.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners?

I did have a quick question.

This was privately initiated.

Yes.

Huh.

All right.

And it's gone from EIP to LIP.

Are there any other EIP properties around it?

I didn't know.

Yeah, it's just a portion, so you can see here.

Portion of a bigger parcel.

Yeah, so outlined in black, it's all EIP.

That's their proposed change to LIP and southern to the south is all designated EIP along with the West as well, and this small portion to the east.

Okay.

This is an interesting one.

And the county's gonna get to open on this one as it goes through, right?

Because I know these the county commissioners like came up with those land use categories back in the day for these sorts of things, didn't they?

Like especially the EIP, like that was their baby at one point.

The energy industrial park was a privately initiated text amendment to create that category by the landowners at one time and now, but now different people own the properties.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Yeah, some history when this comes back before us might be good to have.

So yeah, I'll look into this more history for you.

All right, so thank you.

Are there any other questions from the commissioner's comments?

This one not seeing any.

Well, thank you.

Move on to our next agenda item 6L, HCCPA 26-10, comprehensive plan map amendment, southeast of Kingsway Road and Ota Sassa Road, and the presenter is Lillianne Linehan.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HC CPA 2610, located southeast of Kingsway Road and Tenota Sassa Road.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 24.22 acres.

The applicant is requesting a change to future land use from agricultural rule one to five and residential one to residential two.

This is the general location map.

It is in the rural area within the limits of the Tenochtitless community plan.

It is located along Lake Tenota Sassa and is south of Tenota Sassa Road and east of North Kingsway Road.

The site is outlined in pink, and the site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by agricultural and single family land uses.

Currently, the future land use designation is agricultural rule one to five and residential one.

The agricultural rule one to five category allows one dwelling unit per five gross acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, feedlots, residential, neighborhood commercial, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities.

The residential one category allows one dwelling unit per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood, commercial offices, and multi-purpose projects.

The site is currently surrounded by the agricultural rule one to five and residential one future land use designations.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to residential two.

The residential two category allows for two dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

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

Currently, under the agricultural rule one to five and results residential one designation, the site could consider up to 16 dwelling units and 263,755 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future land use designation of residential two, the site could consider up to 48 dwelling units or 263,755,000 square seven.

Goodness, 263,755 square feet.

The proposed amendment will increase the maximum potential residential density and will not change the maximum potential non residential intensity.

This concludes my briefing for HCCPA 2610, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board on this one?

Comments, thoughts?

No.

Not seeing any.

Thank you for the information.

Look forward to it coming back.

We will move on to agenda item 6M, HCCPA 26-11, comprehensive plan text amendment, quarter preservation plan map update, and presenter is Katrina Corcoran.

Thanks for your patience.

Pulling that presentation up.

Is this coming through properly?

Awesome.

Uh good afternoon, Katrina Corker and Planning Commission staff.

I'll be presenting on HCCPA 2611.

Again, this is a text amendment to the quarter preservation plan map.

Some background on this request.

This is a publicly initiated text amendment.

The applicant is Hillsborough County's community and infrastructure planning department or CIP.

This is a text amendment adding an interchange, which is the Fort Hamner Interchange to the adopted quarter preservation plan map.

I'd like to note that although this is considered a text amendment, there is no policy language as a part of this amendment.

And this is a potential connection to proposed Fort Hamner Road, which I'll be providing more information on later in the presentation.

This slide shows the mobility sections map series, includes map one.

This shows the adopted quarter preservation plan map.

Some background on the quarter preservation plan.

It is utilized to protect future right-of-way from encroachment, provide connectivity, and ensure transportation corridors are adequate to serve plan growth and development patterns as defined in the future land use section.

The map identifies the number of additional lanes needed on existing corridors or for new roadway connections.

It also shows intersections and interchanges identified for either grade separation or reconfiguration.

In coordination with the land development code or LDC, the quarter preservation plan map is utilized to protect uh establish setbacks for development and provide clarity about development potential within the future right of way.

In terms of the LDC, the C quarter preservation plan map is utilized to enforce section 5.11 on transportation corridor management, particularly sections 5.11.05, which deals with consistency with the transportation plan and protection from encroachment, and 5.11.09, which deals with interim use of reserved land.

This slide shows the proposed changes as a part of this uh comprehensive plan amendment.

You can see at the very bottom there the proposed Fort Hamner Road interchange.

Again, this is a publicly initiated text amendment.

Um the interchange would be within existing I-75 right of way.

The interchange is not currently constructed, it is proposed in the area south of the Little Manatee River and north of the Manatee County line on I-75.

Adding this interchange to the quarter preservation plan map will align the map with the transportation planning organization's Access 2050 long-range transportation plan.

The proposed interchange is listed in the LRTP as an unfunded need.

And I know that was a little hard to see, so this shows a slightly more zoomed-in look at the proposed Fort Hamer interchange.

Um again, this is a potential future connection to a proposed roadway, which is Fort Hamner Road.

You can see it there in the orange intersecting with the red uh interchange circle.

That road would connect from the Hillsborough County line to US 41, and it is currently not constructed.

The roadway is a part of a separately privately initiated text amendment to the quarter preservation plan map that was adopted by the BOCC in January.

Um, just want to note that you'll uh notice that this is different than what was provided in your packet.

Um the roadway was not effective at the time of your packet, but is now effective as a part of this map, which is why it's shown here.

This concludes my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing a lot of excitement, so we'll thank you for the information and we will move on to our next agenda item.

6N, City of Tampa Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendments briefing.

Uh presume they're all going to be at once, so I'm just gonna list them off.

NA, Section 27-199, official schedule of dimensional regulations, and B, Article 2, Division 8, Chapter 27, subdivision procedures, NC, Section 27160, special street setbacks, and D, Section 27-283 to 0.12 off-street parking space standards, and E, Section 27-43, Section 27-156, table 4-1, Section 27-282.

Definition, schedule, schedule of permitted accessory and permanent uses and regulations for specified uses, and the presenter is Quinn Steele.

Good afternoon, Quinn Steel Planning Commission staff.

This item includes five LDC text amendments for the July 2025 cycle.

But with that, I will hand it over to Eric Cotton with the City of Tampa to give a brief overview.

Good afternoon, Planning Commissioner Cotton, City of Tampa.

So this is just the briefing.

So as y'all know, we do two hearing two cycles a month.

I mean two cycles per year.

We have tried to limit them given the fact that late 2026, probably early 2027 will be coming before the planning commission for the new, as y'all, I guess for the new code update.

We're updating the entire chapter 27.

So we're trying to limit what we saw what we do per cycle.

So we don't have that overflow overflow of or overlap of we're processing one thing while the consultant is proposing something different.

So right here at the planning commission briefing, it's March.

We'll be back again in April, like I indicated, and then we'll go to city council, either late April or early May for first reading and hopefully adoption by council in June of 2026.

So the first request was the council initiated amendment to um 27199, which is to increase the height in the channel district to what it to the same as it is in downtown, which is either the you know aviation authority approval and the federal aviation authoritable um approval.

So they instead of having the height limitation we have now, we're just allowed to go the same height as you would have in the downtown districts.

Um staff initiative text amendments, these these four are all based on well, three of the four are based on changes to the Florida statutes.

Um this is the first comprehensive update to the to the subdivision regulations in our code.

A lot of that has been prompted by changes to the Florida statutes governing that.

Special street setbacks.

It's been in the code since the 50s.

Actually, it was first ordinance was adopted before 1956, and that has special street setbacks.

So in addition to the normal setback, you'd have like kind of commercial piece of property.

There's additional setbacks that's required for specific road corridors.

We're proposing to eliminate that.

We've coordinated with the mobility department and we're all in agreement.

We just have to go before city council and have that discussion with council again.

And then um we were preempted on EV regulations by the state.

That goes back to the state of Florida now.

So we're taking that language out of our code for EV capable.

And a new category on our code will be certified recovery residences.

That's again a preemption by the state of Florida.

There's four levels ranging from I will say like a sober house living to what we currently have on our code professional residential treatment facilities, but this is another state preemption.

And any questions, if not, I'll see you back in May, April.

All right, are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

I did have a quick question on that electrical stuff that got removed.

That was for the commercial that where you were requiring commercial.

We were requiring any development that had 50 or more parking spaces to be EV capable, which meant they they just had to have the runway in the ground in the future, but that came that's we put that in the code two years ago, three years ago.

I remember that.

I voted against it.

I remember that.

I remember that.

No, you feel vindicated.

Commissioner Bowden.

Yeah, I just wanted to know what is the uh allowable height downtown now.

It's FAA H C A A.

It's whatever the aviation authority would allow.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Any other questions, comments?

Commissioners, not seeing any.

Well, thank you.

Look forward to it coming back.

Thank you.

Um item 60, Temple Terrace Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Section 12-40 and 12-922 commercial vehicles.

Presenter is Krista Kelly.

Okay.

Um good afternoon.

I'm sorry, good afternoon, Commissioners.

Krista Kelly Planning Commission staff.

The item before you today is a publicly initiated plan amendment to the Temple Terrace Land Development Code, section 1240 and section 12922 relating to commercial vehicles.

I will be turning this over to Alyssa Livingston, senior planner with the Temple Temple Terrace Community Development Department.

And she will present an overview of the proposed amendment.

This is a briefing, um, so no action is required at this time.

Following Alyssa's presentation, um, staff will be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Alissa Livingstone, senior planner for the City of Temple Terrace.

I'm here to present proposed text amendments to or land development code regarding the definition and allowance of certain commercial vehicles within residential districts.

This update is designed to provide greater flexibility for the residents across the city.

Specifically, the revisions focus on Section 1240 definitions and section 1292, commercial vehicle restrictions in residential districts.

The current definition of a commercial vehicle in Section 1240 over land development code has led to misinterpretations of what qualifies as a commercial vehicle in the city of Temple Terrace.

The proposed amendment provides a clear and easily understood definition of commercial vehicles.

The proposed amendment to section 1292, commercial vehicle restrictions in residential districts utilizes gross vehicle weight rating classifications from the Federal Highway Association.

For the purpose of this section, residential zoning district includes single family residential, multifamily residential, and the planned development districts that includes only residential dwellings.

This updated code will allow for these vehicles to be parked on residential streets and lots.

Given that there are no modifications of attached equipment or heavy racks.

This will ensure that the parking of these commercial vehicles will be compatible with the residential character of these areas.

Also, business related branding on vehicles will no longer prevent vehicles from being parked on residential lots and streets.

Given that these vehicles comply with the established weight and modification criteria in section 1292.

These amendments replace ambiguity with certainty by providing clear objective criteria for vehicle classification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes our presentation.

If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer or Alyssa.

Okay.

Are there any questions, comments, discussion items on this one from the commissioners?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

Look forward to it coming back.

Thank you.

And we are done with our presentations and briefing.

So we will go over to item number seven, evaluation of the executive director.

And the presenters are myself and Mr.

Tracy Robin, Planning Commission Attorney.

So I will turn it over to Mr.

Robin for direction on how you would like to do this.

Oh, your mic, your mic.

Excuse me.

I was thinking about something else for a minute when you started talking.

Um we circulated the annual evaluation reports to all of the board members and ask for them to complete those and initially each page, sign your name so that we can put together consensus of the of the board members' reviews for you and present them at the next meeting.

So if you have those with you, I'll be glad to pick those up.

So if you have those with you, I'll be glad to pick those up and uh we may have one from our absent commissioner as well.

Not yet.

Okay.

And we will um you know we'll have those compiled for you.

Does anybody need one?

I've got a couple of extras.

Maybe we had some handed out before the start of the meeting.

So we put one at everyone's seat so that they're running a little bit late on mine, Tracy, so I'm gonna turn it in on Wednesday to get it to you.

I'll be back up here on Wednesday morning.

Very good.

Anyone else?

All right.

All right.

Don't feel bad.

I was like I said, I whiffed on it too.

I had a lot going on, so I'm gonna have to get it done and turn it in late.

Um next item of business we have is item number eight, the executive director's report.

And the presenter is Melissa Zornita.

Hello again, Melissa Zornita, executive director.

Um at your seats is a copy of my report.

Um a couple of things that I wanted to highlight.

Um on February 17th, we transmitted or city council transmitted the future land use section, the housing section, and the coastal sections for the city of Tampa's comprehensive plan.

And you all have been on that journey with us as we've um that's taken a few twists and turns over the last summer.

Um so we were happy to have that transmitted to the state.

Um we did have a meeting with the state last week to um walk them through the different changes and the things that we had done in conjunction with City of Tampa legal staff to be sure that we were responsive to Senate Bill 180.

Um so we are looking forward to hearing from the state on their review um by the end of this month.

Um we've also had some discussions uh with the city of Tampa staff because there have been a number of staff transitions there.

Um you all regularly see Jennifer Malone um at the podium representing uh us as the lead for the city of Tampa team.

She has um left and for another job.

Um and also on the city staff side, um, City Planning Director Evan Johnson has left for another job.

So um uh we have uh recruited internally, and um uh Danny Collins will be moving into the City of Tampa liaison spot spot for us.

Um I understand that the city of Tampa is continuing to recruit for a city planning director.

So um yeah, lots of changes occurring.

Um but um I have been meeting on a regular basis with Jerry Lopez, who is the assistant director for development and um economic development who is over the city planning department, um, making sure that things uh stay on track.

So she's very actively involved on their side.

Um we have been uh we have kicked off the City of Temple Terraces comprehensive plan update with a visioning survey following a similar process to what's occurred in Plant City.

Um we have worked uh with Temple Terrace City staff.

Um we have a consultant assisting us with the outreach because we have a number of outreach projects occurring at the same time.

Um but uh we have a survey that is live on Temple Terrace's uh website and on our website.

We have um a video that has been created to explain that.

We have an open house that's gonna be occurring this Thursday from 6 to 8 at the Lightfoot Center.

Um so we're very excited about that being underway.

Um you'll note on the second page of my report that we will be we'll be concluding that survey um in April and then be looking at similar to what we did with Plant City to have a joint meeting with uh Temple Terrace City Council and you all to discuss the results of that survey and an update to their vision and and what their expectations are for the update of their comprehensive plan.

Um that timing somewhat falls into the summer, which I know is gonna be hard for us to schedule with vacations and and everything, but um so we'd be looking at probably May, June, July that time frame.

Um we'll get back in touch with you to poll on dates once we have a little bit more information from Temple Terrace.

Um we've had a number of meetings on the urban expansion area studies, um, in particular coordinating those with the city of Plant City because the next set of outreach at the beginning of uh April will be along the I-4 corridor.

Um I had the opportunity to go down to Manatee County and meet with uh their comprehensive planning division director to um coordinate on what's occurring in Manatee County and the Little Manatee South uh urban service area expansion area.

Um we've had some meetings with county staff to talk about plan amendments to remove the WVR2 as Andrea mentioned.

Um we see that that land use category can transition out of the future land use section of the comprehensive plan once we do not have any more land categorized under that land use category.

Um, but that also has components that are in the land development code, so that needs to be coordinated with the county staff.

Um similarly, um the RP2 land use category may be able to transition into something else now that it only will reside in the urban service area as opposed to in the rural area.

Um so we've been having some discussions with them about making some of those proactive changes.

Um Miss Scarantiva and I went to the Suncoast area realtors on Friday to give a presentation on the urban expansion area and the coastal high hazard area.

Um the team is going to the Farm Bureau today to give a presentation on the urban expansion area.

And so I wanted to mention that because if there are other groups that would be interested in any of these topics that we're working on, we would be happy to come and speak to them.

Um if you've got groups in Temple Terrace or in Plant City on their plan updates or in any of those areas that might be impacted or just interested stakeholders in the urban service area expansion.

Um, we'd be happy to meet with them.

Um a couple of upcoming uh things.

Uh the we have a retreat on your calendars for March 24th from 9 to 12.

Um, but I've heard from another commissioner who can't attend, and so I wanted to check in with you all to see if that date still works for folks, or if we should look at rescheduling that further out.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

You actually found a time that works for me.

Oh, okay.

Go ahead and I knew there were uh like two, there was no date that we pulled for that worked for everyone.

Um there were at least two people who couldn't make it for every date that we looked at previously.

Um, but when additional commissioners started to not be available, that was a red flag.

Um so it this side can't make it.

So that would mean we only have like six.

You can.

Oh, okay.

Okay, so that would be seven plus you all can make it.

So okay.

It's up to you, Mr.

Chair, if you would like to.

If you the U staff thinks it's good, then that's you know, that's fine.

That's there's no magic day when we're all gonna be there.

So now it has to be what it has to be.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, all right, we'll keep for moving ahead with March 24th.

Um, since uh that doesn't sound like too many more will not be able to miss it.

That's gonna be over at Thea.

We will have coffee and breakfast for you all.

Um, so uh you don't have to stop for coffee on your way in.

Um, and they have free parking.

We'll send out all the logistical information in advance.

Um great.

Then our regular next regular meeting will be April 13th.

We are anticipating it being here in the newly renovated boardroom.

They start renovations on Friday in here.

Um if something changes about that, we do have the 26th floor reserved for this meeting.

So the meeting will go on.

It just would be in a different location.

Um we will advise if anything changes about that.

Um I did want to give one last call to see if anybody else would be interested in attending the APA National Conference, which is April 25th through 28th in Detroit.

We've got Commissioner Lincoln and Commissioner Bowden who are attending.

Um, but wanted to make sure see if anybody else w would like to please let me know today.

Um the early registration deadline, I believe, is this Friday.

Um the other thing I wanted to mention was that uh we were notified last week by Commissioner Miller of the BOCC's um office that there will be an agenda item tomorrow requ uh where she will be requesting adding uh or requesting staff to develop a lithia community plan.

Um we've talked to her office that um that is something we we can do.

We can't do it starting next month under with our work program and all of the things that are in the queue to do, it's something we would probably look at starting in the fall.

Um but uh assuming that the board uh approves that, of course.

Um then we've got a list of some of the plan amendment updates uh primarily from the unincorporated county um from this last month.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

All right, Commissioner Lauk, I saw you moving.

No.

All right.

Anybody have any other questions or comments?

I was wondering.

He was the interim, wasn't he?

He had actually been made the permanent director a couple of months ago.

It was not that long before he left.

Huh.

Yeah.

It's gonna be interesting times in the city of Tampa.

Yeah.

All right.

All right.

Were there any other questions, comments for our executive director?

Not seeing any.

Then we'll thank you for the information.

And we will move on to our next agenda item, other business, chair's business.

I have none.

Old business.

I do have an old business item on the urban service boundary.

Um I wanted to bring a request to the board to see if there was any support.

I could get any support, I'm willing to hand the gavel to Commissioner Lauck and make a motion for crafting a letter to send to the board of county commissioners urging them to take up discussion on some of the items that we discussed in our past meeting, our February meeting and also our December meeting.

In those meetings, we identified a couple gaps in knowledge, gaps in agency capacity related to urban service boundary policies.

And so I wanted to write a letter to the Board of County Commissioners, again, just you know, urging them to take up discussion on these topics for them to consider and opine on them.

I figure at that sort of meeting, they could, if they had any comments from Ms.

Ornita, they could give her those comments.

She could bring those back to us.

It would give us a better idea of what the elected officials are thinking on these topics.

We've kind of gone back and forth on them extensively.

There's opinions on both sides of the aisle.

And so I was looking to see if there may be some support for crafting a letter to just send directly to the BOCC saying kind of, hey, these are these are the things we've been talking about.

What are what are you all's thoughts on them?

Commissioner Carnenis.

Do they maybe need a lunch and learn on the topic?

That's what I was thinking.

You know, at the last meeting, we had kind of talked about bringing in an outside.

We agreed that staff may not be the ones to to kind of do this and bringing in a third party representative and using funds to do that.

And the point was made that maybe we shouldn't waste money on things like that or use money in that way.

And when I thought about it deeper, it seemed to me that the final decision makers may need to, you know, get some more information on it also, so it may be you know beneficial for them to bring in a third party or have them direct what third party comes in because you know, at the end of the day, they're gonna have to get that information too.

But again, there's always the question of whether or not they even have appetite for these things at this point in time, you know what I mean.

So I figure, you know, kind of sending a flag up, asking the question.

What's you know, what do they think?

What are their thoughts, you know, and getting getting that feedback directly from the decision makers may be helpful to us in plotting ahead a course forward and a direction on these sorts of things.

So Commissioner Cardenas.

You know, I think your your question that day was very sophisticated and it kind of so much so that it created what it created here.

So I think that whatever is sent needs to provide some explanation behind that, some really good background and explanation, or just to got to create that mindset and create that understanding for it to be successful because otherwise it's gonna do the same thing it did here.

Well, I do have some language that I put forward that I'd like to see in the letter, and I can hand this out to everyone to take a look at.

Four, five, six, six on that side.

One, two, three, four, five, six, six down that side.

Because in the last meeting, it was also stated that if this board kind of wanted this to go forward, we'd probably should provide some substantiation and some ideas of pretty much what we wanted.

So I put together some language where it talks about, you know, I use staff's kind of start off to at the urban service and its boundary were established in 93 to focus on development in areas with planned infrastructure, limit public service costs, and preserve rural and agricultural lands.

And then I brought up the points that we raised, all of us, increasing frequency and intensity of privately initiated USA boundary expansions, um, that are focused in areas with limited infrastructure.

We have increasing public service costs, we have a loss of rural and agricultural lands by quantity and productivity.

We have decreasing housing availability and affordability and perceived inequality.

And I spoke about how we talked about that in the last meeting.

And those questions and those issues that we raised in the last meeting kind of led us to ask the question well, what is the empirical criteria that we use to evaluate the 80-20 ratio, right?

And so where did that number 80 20 come from back in history?

And when we asked those questions, we didn't get a lot of good answers to them.

It was kind of like nobody was really sure, and that led us to talking about bringing in a third party to look directly at those things, right?

Give us some information on them.

So based on those things, you know, I I think that would give the Board of County Commissioners some some things to discuss.

There are the unanswered questions having to do with the empirical career criteria for evaluating the 80-20 ratio, the origination, where did that number 8020 come from?

You know, some substantiation of it, some empirical evaluations going forward, whether that be, you know, comparing it to this county or that county, or what this or that other county has done.

And so this is sort of the language that I would like to see go forward.

Again, it's not saying, well, the the urban service boundary has to stay, the urban service boundary has to go, because again, I don't I don't I don't think we're there yet.

I think there's a lot of steps before we get to that, and ultimately it's going to be elected officials again who is gonna make that decision.

So what I'm trying to do here is send a letter up to them saying, Hey, there's there's all this stuff swirling in the air.

Can you can you all, you know, pull a meeting together?

You don't have to make any decisions on anything, but you know, just discuss it, just consider all these things that we've already talked about, right?

And again, if Ms.

Zornita's there or planning commission staff's there, maybe give planning commission staff or you know, the county departments whatever, you know, ideas or whatever they can draw from that feedback to you know come back to us with, and it'll give us a little more substance and direction on what we're doing.

Or they could just completely remove it from our hands and say, no, this is hugely important.

We need to take this up, we need to do what we need to do with this.

So, you know, it's sort of sending a red flag up and saying, hey, asking the question, you know, you you all are the you all are driving this bus, you know, where where should this bus be headed?

You know, where where are we kind of going on this bus?

Commissioner Connor, sorry.

Yes, no, I would be supportive of um sending this letter if we also include the uh county administrator as well on here.

I'd be amenable to that addition.

I'm surprised that yeah, it's in there, it's on the back.

Yeah, it's on the back by Miss Wise and Miss Hordell.

It's being sent to I I have it sent to just like staff did.

I got this from staff's letter.

I didn't this didn't come out of thin air.

It's going to Commissioner Cohen, Commissioner Myers, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Cepeda, Commissioner Bowles, Commissioner Wastel.

Obviously, it's directed to Chair Haig Chair Hagen, first of all, and then it'll go to uh Miss Wise, the county administrator, Mr.

Hordell, the deputy county administrator, Miss Mandel, the county attorney, Mr.

Gormley and Development Services, and Mr.

Bricky in uh management and budget.

Got it, didn't look at the kind of would go to all of them.

Commissioner Jemison.

I agree.

I think it's uh be a good move.

Kind of put them on point with it and get their feedback.

Okay.

Commissioner Bowden.

I I agree as well, because I mean you you do ask the question that was my big question, you know.

Uh is it has it been effective?

All right.

Well, in that case, I'm gonna go ahead and be wild and pass this gavel, which I may regret to Commissioner Lauk.

Commissioner Lauk, you're gonna be the one to call for the vote on this because I'm not gonna go over any heads.

I like to do it the old-fashioned democratic way by vote.

You know, I could easily get outvoted, and there might not be a second, but I will go ahead and make the motion that we again send this letter to the Board of County Commissioners.

Um again try to get their feedback.

I don't know if Mr.

Zornita wants to be there or if staff would be there, but I would definitely make the motion to send this letter on to the board of county commissioners.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We have a motion.

Do I hear a second?

I'll I had I just had a comment.

I'm sorry, I'm open for comments.

Thank you.

Um I um haven't fully had time to form exactly what the language might be, but I I feel like um some of the concerns that I've expressed aren't fully reflected in this letter.

And I think I'm trying to think where you'd have I haven't even had a chance to fully read it through.

But I do believe there might be an opportunity to say that there aren't there's not full consensus that this is a is an urgent issue, and I guess I just really feel um, you know, my conservativism on here relates to the um just the cost of something that was of this scope in light of the property tax issue that's forthcoming.

Um so I I think if we could reflect that this isn't necessarily something that there's full um planning commission interest in that would make me more comfortable with the letter.

Well, I'd be willing to put the the vote count.

I mean, if you vote against it, we we could put our names and what our votes were and the vote count, and that'll show and also I did also include as something we discussed because I list some of the things we've discussed in the past.

One of them is to do nothing, leave the policies as they currently are.

So I I definitely covered that, like it, you know, but again, it's gonna be up to the elected officials.

Um we're not telling anyone what to do here.

We just want them to discuss, you know, this is a topic openly.

No one's asking for any changes to anything.

We just bringing the topic up and asking for them to discuss it and consider it in general.

But I did include do nothing, leave the policies as they ex as they currently exist in the comprehensive plan, you know.

So but again, we could I would be willing to add the names and the votes to definitely put it at the top of the letter to show that you know this wasn't unanimous, there are different ideas and things like that.

I'm comfortable with that, that works.

Thank you.

And just input as a as a fellow commissioner, I think if you were to review like the list of remedies, I think that's the key.

You did a really good job of describing what they are.

There's a whole host of things, and they're not pointed to one remedy.

It effectively the letter effectively says, hey, we need to take a deep dive and look at this.

We feel like what we have in place isn't necessarily working.

And here are some of the remedies that we that we would potentially suggest.

And some of them don't drive with one another if you read through them.

Like they're conflicting.

You keep going, you got the gavel.

It's on you.

I don't know.

Motions to the floor.

Through me with a curveball, yeah.

I'll second the motion to continue discussion.

Okay.

We have a second to to continue the discussion.

Well, it allows us to comment and opine before we take our vote.

Any more feedback?

Quick question.

Was was this in a packet that got sent out?

Like, or I haven't seen this until just now.

So was this out there earlier that maybe I missed it?

No, I just brought it.

It's like most letters that we we rewrite.

Sometimes something happens here and someone brings up, oh well, I think we should send a letter to whoever, and we kind of hear it to die as craft language and give Ms.

Ornita an idea of what we want, and then the letter gets written and I sign it and it gets sent.

I guess my question is on the urgency for this.

Like generally, I like to read it, think about it, reflect on it, and say, okay, as a group, like where else can this make sure that all of our voices are heard?

So I guess I'm just uncomfortable voting on something that I just saw versus having some time to digest it.

Um my experience taught me that reflection usually brings out some better quality work.

So I'm just a little bit concerned about voting on something before I had to fully digest what it looks like.

Can I go?

Commissioner Long.

Good comments, any other comments?

I have one.

I did want to say that I didn't have to come up with this.

I could have just raised the motion and then in private crafted this letter with Mrs.

Ornita and signed it.

That's what happens when Commissioner Seaban or anyone else on here asked for a letter to commit anyone who asked for a letter to be sent to City of Tampa or whoever, that's the way it usually works.

So I'd I thought by bringing this and giving you all time to look at it, like Commissioner Lincoln's had her comments and changes.

You know, every anybody can come in with their changes.

I thought this was a good way to not be secretive and you know, playing those sorts of games.

So that was that's my attempt to sort of bring it bring it forward there.

So I just wanted to add that there in my defense.

Commissioner Cardinas.

Um you know, I I'm actually happy that you really did put this together.

I think I think everybody's thoughts is just like um, I think everybody just probably wants to read through it and just gotta take a moment with it before they uh vote on it.

But um I don't think that it's necessarily a pushback.

I think it's just like, huh, let's let's all get behind it and strong strongly behind it instead of just approving it.

So I think it's more so just that.

Quick question.

Um, well, I mean, I guess so.

One, I just wanted to say I think um Commissioner Joseph's um points that we made it, he made it the last hearing, very well encompassed my opinion on this topic as well.

Just the fact that I think that it needs further looking into because I think it's just something that we have that a lot of people don't necessarily understand why we have at this point anyway.

Um but I would say, you know, what if we can we table it to one of the next hearings like today?

Can we um vote on it later today at one at or is this our last opportunity?

And maybe you that's a question for maybe it's a question for Tracy.

Well, there's you could continue it.

Um you might want to you've got the time to to have have a recess.

Oh, yeah.

Or 15-20 minutes.

And have everybody have the opportunity to go to a quiet place and go through it, 30 minutes, whatever you think's necessary, and then you could come back and continue the meeting.

Okay.

Hold that thought.

Okay.

I see a light on down on my right.

This is a really poor man's version of the the chair here.

Um I'm just curious as to what answers we're really afraid that we're gonna be getting.

I think it's just I think it's trying to get some clarification on almost everything that we're seeing.

Um, you know, every time we meet.

Um I don't think you're asking for anything that's um outside of our scope.

So I I'm not sure what we're afraid of, you know, sending this letter up there.

It's not it's not gonna implement anything other than potentially better information, better rules that they can come up with to make our jobs easier.

I don't know why I don't know why we're scared to send a letter.

I'll make a I'll make a comment before we hear motions.

I think the the itemized numbers one through five are interesting to me in that they really encapsulate all the different views of this board that we've seen in the past.

So it's it's no secret that Commissioner Lincoln and I probably disagree on on the right application of the urban service boundary, right?

But there are things in there like the loss of rural and agriculture lands by quantity productivity, uh the perceived inequality in the application and impacts of the USA, decreasing housing availability, um, how do how do we pay for emergency services, water, sewer power, right?

The items that we're raising uh that are of concern, I think have done a really good job of talking about everybody's uh this body's different viewpoints on this in terms of like what the USA does and what it shouldn't do.

So um my two thought, my two cents.

For the record, I don't think that I'm afraid of this.

And it's I I don't support it.

I don't think it's a responsible use of money because I just feel like I think we were well served by um a staff report that talked about how deep the scope of this is for many, many urban or of our policies, it really underlies underscores it.

I I just find it to me and I said it last time, it's like let's reinvent zoning.

It feels arbitrary to me.

Um if we want to look at affordable housing, that's another thing.

If we want to look at how we preserve you know rural areas, if we want to look at how we fund infrastructure, I I personally disagree that this is a tool, the right tool for it.

Um so I I will be voting no, and I don't I'm happy to have that you know record accounted for on the letter.

Um, just because I I feel like this is a fundamentally uh disruptive thing that we haven't really put a real question behind.

And I I've stood by that.

I know I disagree with a lot of the folks here.

I just feel it feels um inconsistent with what our our roles and concern are.

I feel like we can be better informed.

We can talk about what the issues that we're concerned with, but I don't think this is like us the the one that we're I think our concerns are are about are we getting the right kind of development that we want to have.

I just don't think it's an urban service area issue.

So I I know I I that's my my two cents, not a fear issue, just a perspective on this, but thank you.

Okay, good comments, Commissioner Cardinas.

Um we're here reporting, uh we're here in the context of our positions are thinking about the citizens of the county.

So we definitely are responsible for whatever it is that we pass, however it is that we pass it, whether or not it's from the you know, the different types of developments, all this stuff, if we're using this urban service boundary to make decisions and it and it's affecting that, it it is something that is our responsibility.

My question to you is uh what would your how would you go about it?

I just still go back to what question are we trying to resolve?

I mean, that uh this list is like everything to me.

You know, are we having affordable housing?

Are we safely providing um your rural areas?

To me, it's just that we um have these are this is the everything questions.

If we can narrow down something that feels like this is the issue that we're concerned with, that's what I would be more comfortable with.

This feels like such a wide-ranging scope of things that I feel like it would be um so fundamental and so disruptive to our overall framework and planning.

So if if the issue is how are we paying for infrastructure, I think that's overwhelmingly what we hear from folks that they're concerned with.

That would be another issue.

Um if we're concerned about affordable housing, and I think you know there's a lot of trends that say that may not be the issue of substance moving forward, you know, and how we deal with that in light of property taxes.

There's a lot of that, but it the urban service area to me feels a little straw man, um, and I just don't see it as the substantive issue, and I just haven't felt like we've articulated what that issue is.

Um and I am concerned that it's I mean, you whenever we get any decision, it's the first thing we look at is it inside or outside the urban service area?

It's so fundamental to how we have the the future land use categories are built, how the zoning code is built, and how we fund infrastructure that if we of course we can ask questions of them, but I just think it would be an enormous scale of research, and um I feel like that may be irresponsible if we can't even articulate as a group what what the real concern is.

That's that's what just seems it's just feels um kind of uh swinging swinging wildly in the air.

So I think speaking for myself, I can't speak for the group, you know.

My question is what is the point?

And like, is it serving the goals that we're trying to accomplish by having it?

So it's much more broad than are we funding infrastructure appropriately, and more like do we need it and is it actually accomplishing what we want to accomplish, or is it some arbitrary line that's going to keep getting pushed and pulled?

And is that the best use of resources?

I saw a line on down there, Commissioner Kona.

Okay.

Commissioner Cardenas.

So my um couple thoughts.

Um, um are we giving them with this maybe something almost too broad that they don't have the purview to understand or scope to really, you know, they're they're dealing with a lot.

This is what we deal with.

So are we giving them something that's too broad?

And is is it is it maybe us that needs to sit down and and you know sharpen our pencil on this more and figure this out a little bit more and really um find the gray areas and add some color and come up with something.

Maybe this is that.

I haven't had a chance to read it, I'm not sure.

But my my just general thought is um one to say whatever it is that we send, I I do think that it needs to be uh directional and saying, hey, this is what we've arrived at to a certain extent, or this is what we think to a certain extent.

Um I again I haven't had a chance to really sit down and review this.

So it's just my thought.

Um that's I think that's a really helpful comment, and I just want to clarify.

I'm not sort of point-blank against the investigation of this.

Like if we were to say, let's look into what the triggers are for expanding it, let's look into what the urban reserves are.

And I forget the exact policies, but there's there's bit in addition to the expansion, there's another policy in South the South County that has a different dimension that's a little similar.

So I think if we maybe were to put together the various mechanisms we have for around this and and look at each one as have these kinds of discussions and say which ones are we concerned with, that might be an approach if we could narrow this scope that I would be really comfortable with.

It just feels too too big for them to even have a meaningful sense, you know, it's and obviously it's up to them.

So if we send this letter and they decide that, but I just feel like right now um the the scope here, it feels a little um over overblown.

Um so I appreciate that idea of how can we you know narrow this a little bit.

Um from my own information, I would ask staff.

Can we get a just a bulleted overview of the USA since 1993?

How many times is it expanded and just put someone on the spot?

What are the the original dimensions of it?

Have how often has it changed since 1993?

And now I'm talking about the onesie twosies private and publicly initiated things that come in and grab a hundred acres, twenty acres.

Have we substantially changed it since it was derived in 1993?

So the largest publicly initiated expansion of the urban service area happened last year with the bomb and why mama areas.

Um we uh I don't know its original dimensions off the top of my head.

Um, but certainly that type of information um is something staff could provide.

Um and we uh as well that was the course that staff was going down based on your all's direction last month was to develop uh educational workshop, including county staff to explain what you know how it works essentially today.

So we all had a baseline of information about how it would work, and then it was your all's direction that we have a facilitated workshop to identify some metrics around what should be evaluated related to it.

That was what we had taken away from the direction from last month.

Um but there have been a number of really good points made in this discussion as well.

So Commissioner Cardinas.

You know, so for one, um I I think the I and I'm not sure if you were asking this question or if you were asking what she answered, but um I think that the what are the metrics that it originally was created with, and are those the metrics exactly the same today?

That is I that's what we're trying to figure out, right?

Whether or not those metrics are actually helping or they're not helping and what what's going on and what we're decisions we're making.

So I think for one, that is really easy right there.

Has it changed?

If it hasn't changed, well, we all know society has changed in many, many different ways.

So we do know that it needs to change.

There's no way that it should be the same.

I think that that is one topic that I I I believe that from its inception to today, that's something that we should all be able to agree upon in the way technology has changed and the way everything has changed.

So if that has not changed, well, what what are the things that we need to look at today and how society has changed and and what you know, maybe not in relation to where we're having problems, but more so in relation to how we have change or where we are today and as a society, and then you know how then does those do those metrics need to change to accommodate that or to work with that?

So um, I I think that in itself might be a question simply it hasn't changed if it hasn't, or if it has.

I would like to say that that, you know, pointing to this list, Commissioner Lincoln calling it broad, this list speaks to what we've talked about.

We have been broad, we have been not focused.

This list of five things isn't what I'm sending to the board of county commissioners to talk about.

And I don't take the stance that some of you take that we are the all-knowing philosopher kings, and we need to tell the board of county commissioners what they need to look at in some couch way.

I think they're intelligent enough.

I know all of them very well.

I talk to them constantly, I'm at a very personal level with all of them.

I think they're especially this board is you know very wise enough with the help of these other department leaders that we're sending it to to have these discussions in a very you know educated and forthcoming way.

But more specifically, this letter asks the board of county commissioner to discuss and consider the origination, the empirical evaluation, and the quantitative impacts of the urban service area boundary policies within Hillsborough County, Florida.

So specifically what I'm asking them to do to do is what you're talking about is look at how it how it's evaluated, how do we evaluate its functioning?

How is it originally determined to evaluate its functioning?

Is there any metrics?

Maybe maybe public works has metrics that we don't know about because we don't do that here in the planning department.

And that's why I think the broader discussion needs to be had, you know, at their level.

They have one of the first the first things I put down, opposite to do nothing is request the BOCC schedule a meeting to consider and uh the identified gaps in institutional knowledge and capacity related to the USA, all right, in a more comprehensive and informed manner than be can be accomplished by planning commission board and staff.

Okay, so I do believe that they have the resources and the knowledge and everything that we don't have.

They are the elected officials who handle the money and can say this is a they might say this is a waste of time.

They might get this letter and be like, ah, look at this, we're not wasting money and time on this and put it in the trash and then the problem solved.

It's a moot point, you know what I mean?

Like Commissioner Lauk says, we can take our time and go forward in our little investigations and things that we want to look at, but if the elected officials feel like this is a pointless exercise and they're not they don't have the time or the money to deal with it, then it's a moot point for all of us.

You see what I mean?

So that's kind of why I'm trying to send this letter to get them to discuss it so that again they can give Miss Zornita a feel.

She hasn't had a feel to now.

She's she's ping-ponging between what we want and the unknown at the Board of County Commissioners and trying to do her best, and so is staff.

And I I feel for them, I understand what that's like.

It's it's not great to be caught in the middle like that.

So let's just send this letter to them.

And to Commissioner Kona's point, you know, let's not be afraid of what they're gonna do and have faith in these people.

You know, they are the elected officials of the county.

They can't just do what they want or else the voters are gonna run them down, you know what I mean?

So to me that that's that seems like the best way.

And I did try to again focus them in on specific things.

That's why I constantly mention specifically the 80-20 ratio.

That's something concrete that they can talk about.

How do we evaluate that 80-20 ratio?

I asked the question, why isn't it if it's if the 80-20 ratio is great and doing everything we think it should be doing in 33 years, why don't we make it 90-10?

I literally asked that question in this letter.

Why don't we why don't we make it stricter?

You know, and I mean that's discussion that we've had in the past.

I don't ask that to the BOCC.

I say that's discussion we've had at this board in the past, right?

So all these questions abide and and are floating in the air, and you know, I think that focusing on the fact that we have capacity and knowledge gaps, focusing that there's unknown explanations around the 80-20 ratio, and we need evaluative tools to understand the impacts that are coming from this urban service area and boundary, those three things to me are are three visceral, very focused things for them to put their teeth into and have discourse and consider at their elected level.

So that's my two sense on it.

Okay.

No more red lights.

I've heard a couple of different uh proposals and in way of motions.

So why don't we have a second, why don't we wipe the slate clean and open open the floor for a motion?

We did have a second.

Yeah, Commissioner could have a second.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, that's why I don't hold the gavel.

That's why I'm the backup.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Kona, can you restate?

We've had a lot of conversations.

You want me to restate the motion.

The motion that we forward this, we execute this letter and forward it to the BOCC and the also CC members on the back.

Um give an air to their feedback.

Obviously, Miss Arnita said she'd be there to see if they had any comments or questions.

And you know, let's listen out for what they say and see where they want to go with it.

Again, they might not want to do anything, they may say this is ridiculous, in which case we're done for now until someone else picks up the charge and tries to take it forward, you know what I mean?

So the motion is to execute this letter and forward it to the BOC.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

I think we probably want to kick it to the clerk at this point for a roll call.

If my spidey senses are telling me it might be a good idea.

Yes.

Yes.

Kona?

Yes.

Yes.

Lincas?

No.

Lauk?

Yes.

Steven?

Yes.

Sync?

No.

Joseph?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Eight to I'm sorry.

Seven to two, Commissioners Lincoln and Sync voted no.

Thank you.

I'm officially handling handing this back.

I'm I'm glad to get it back.

I was wasn't sure.

Yes, Commissioner Lincoln.

I guess I just wondered what the status of the potential workshop is.

Should we hold up on that?

That's the next question.

That was a great question.

One that I I would like to get some direction from you all on, because that was something staff um we've uh already had some discussions with uh assistant county administrator Greg Corridell and some other county staff about um having uh workshop we were aiming for the May Planning Commission meeting, regular meeting, having a workshop that would be educational in nature about the urban service area with other county departments there to present how they implement it.

Um the idea was that at the next meeting, Ms.

Dickens would have an agenda on the item to ask you all to to bring some of your questions regarding that, um, so that we could um make sure the departments were prepared to answer some of those questions in their presentations.

Um so that was what we were proceeding on.

We also were proceeding on the path of procuring an independent um consultant to we wanted that consultant to participate in that educational workshop and then also then be prepared to lead um at the uh if it worked in the schedule of the June planning commission meeting, a workshop to discuss the metrics um of evaluating the urban service area with you all.

Um so yes, I would like some direction on what if any of that you would like us to continue to proceeding proceed on.

I mean, offhand that sounds like a really helpful program, and it may um for me it might address the issues that I have where this where the points where I can find maybe common ground with some of the views here or better understand how to go forward could emerge more clearly, at least for me.

I um so I think that still sounds useful.

And I obviously we if if maybe the the county folks say this is dead in the water, then we regroup, but we can take it you know step by step.

So I think it sounds like a good plan.

I would be interested in seeing how this the county staff kind of use this.

I'll jump in.

I wanted to say I'd it's strange we just switched seats, Commissioner Lincoln, because now I feel like you know, as was said in the last meeting.

I don't it why are we spending money on it without understanding what the higher for me we're recommending body and our focus is the comp plan, like we make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

That's what we're here to do.

Then the Board of County Commissioners takes a decisive final action on things.

So to me, it seems like, and I I get what Commissioner Lauk's point, we're an independent body, and it's incumbent on us to do what's right for the citizenry, but you know, at a certain point, if we know this is going to the final decision makers, it seems like we should kind of hold off a little bit and see where they want to go with it before we start spending money and hiring consultants.

I mean, if we hire a consultant and they grab this letter and throw it in the trash and say they're silly, they shouldn't be spending money on that, and here we are spending money on it.

I you know, again, we're in we're independent.

We're with this board can can do, you know, within the letter of the law what it would what its authority is, but I I'd be hesitant.

I I kind of take up your stance that we might not want to be spending money like that.

We might now that we have something going directly to the elected officials, we might want to kind of wait and see a little bit.

So that's just my take on it.

Commissioner Cardenas.

I yeah, but my my thought is um our our boss are the citizens, not the elected officials.

So my my my thought is is that if we need to figure out where the metrics are off, how they should be, what they should be, we should be providing that and saying, hey, this is what we've been doing, this is what we should be doing.

Let's figure something out.

This is a this is a conversation that we need to have based on this, instead of asking them to look into something because it's our job to represent the citizens to do what's best for the citizens.

Well, actually, our bosses are the board of county commissioners in our city of Tampa, City of Temple Terrace, it's the municipalities' authorities having jurisdiction.

You're confusing an appointee, which we are, with an elected official.

And elected officials' bosses are the citizens, and that's why they are the final decision makers.

We are recommending board.

Yes, what we do is in service to the citizens here.

But okay, when we do our budget meeting, that that budget comes from the board of county commissioners.

So, you know, let's let's be a little you know what I mean.

Like you're correct, not jump out of our britches here, you know.

Oh, Commissioner Baden, I'm sorry.

Yeah, uh my thought is and I understand what you're saying exactly.

The letters were going to maybe we can cue this up, have it in cue, you know, this this workshop, but in anticipation of an answer from them versus on a schedule to have it just have it in queues and you know, staff who possibly can do these things.

If you're looking at a consultant who possibly, you know, this habit in queue, but not necessarily, you know, what it triggered here.

We understand which way the BOCC is going to go.

They do nothing, or if they come back and say this is whatever you know the decision is.

Right, I'm gonna go to Commissioner Seed and then I'll come to you, Commissioner Lau.

It's tough because we are a recommending body, but we're charged with re making appropriate recommendations based on what the comp plan says and who's to say if we're accomplishing the goals of the comp plan with the urban service area boundary if we don't know that it actually is accomplishing those goals and don't have any research to tell us whether or not it's doing what it was intended to do, and that was my point in saying what's the point because I don't actually know that it does what we've intended it to do.

So it's a little bit of a conflict.

I get both sides of the argument of yes, let's go ahead with the workshop and no, let's wait to see what they say.

But so I mean, I guess I could be convinced either way, but I see both points.

Commissioner Lauk.

I think we're conflating two of the objectives of the workshop.

One of them was just strictly for an educational standpoint for this body in terms of what it was designed to do, what it's doing today, what is what is some of the data that can be shared in terms of its usefulness.

How many how often are we getting uh applicants come in from private standpoint asking to expand the urban service area?

Why are they doing that?

There was a lot of education in the initial discussions around the urban service area, and I think secondary was would we recommend changes to the governing body?

I think it was a secondary, almost even a sub-bullet based on that workshop.

So I would be in favor of having the workshop from an education standpoint.

You know, unfortunately I've or fortunately I've been around for for one term.

I'm in my second, and you know, maybe I would learn something.

Good points, Commissioner Locke.

All good points.

I'll go to Commissioner Cardiana's now, I'll come back down this slide.

Maybe it should be hey, we've been doing this, we tripped over this.

We realized this we're seeing this potential.

Should we look into this more?

Well, we're not doing the letter right now.

We're giving Ms.

Zornita direction on how she's going forward.

So I I get it.

I'm just saying maybe the works sense should be something along those lines of saying, hey, we're seeing this.

Is this something that we should look into more, you know?

Well, if if they discuss it, they will, the letter's gone past.

So I don't generally don't like to direct the board of county commissioners what to do.

They're intelligent enough of people, they can they have enough staff, they have enough support that they can, you know, figure those things out through discourse in their own consideration.

But I definitely get your point.

I'm gonna go to Commissioner Sink first and then come back to you, Commissioner Lincoln.

Thank you.

I'm I'm kind of in line with Commissioner Lauk on this, which is like from the educational standpoint of what are we grading?

What's our what's our standard?

Like where'd it come from?

I don't think there's ever a downside because we can always pick up something new that we didn't know about.

So regardless we've been doing this a year or 10 years, sometimes you'll pick up something you didn't pick up before.

So I think it's useful to have a um more kind of like continued ed basically for us as a group.

Um so maybe it doesn't have to be a consultant um or a whole a huge amount of money expanded, but even just a baseline to get us all on the same page.

Um often I feel like language and terms and understanding that we're all talking the same language is also important.

And doing a refresher often reminds us of terminology and making sure that we are using it appropriately and we're understanding it appropriately.

Well said, well said, Commissioner Singh.

Commissioner Lincoln.

I think I'm I'm now kind of repeating some points that are made, but I also was not necessarily in favor of jumping to the point of getting to a consultant, but I my ears um noticed the idea of bringing some staff in and understanding and having some education.

So that's a piece that I feel like we probably could benefit from, but um, I think that we pace out the the bigger efforts till we hear from the commissioners.

All right, Commissioner Seaman.

My question um is for Mr.

Ornita, are we do we have data to be able to provide um commissioners with the kind of information we're so I guess a base level of information that we're looking for without having to hire a consultant?

You know, um how you know can you guys put all of that data together, or I guess the data you have without going through, you know, a whole lot of effort and a whole lot of time without a consultant.

I mean we have um uh a database of all of the comprehensive plan amendments so we can identify when there and at what frequency there have been amendments to the urban service area, um, the size of them, you know, when they occurred, uh all of those.

I mean, we have all of those records in-house so we can um put that together to demonstrate how it's changed over time and with what frequency.

Um yes, so we can do all of that.

Um I think uh and we will get all all of the records from the warehouse from when it originated to um see if there is information on like the 8020.

I think staff's already pulled pulled some of that, um, because some of that definitely predates the some of us who are here.

But um so we can try and piece together some of those historical facts as well.

Um then I think uh very much uh would rely on the county agencies to explain how then it works in terms of water and sewer provision and uh prioritization of infrastructure and um you know different things that are in the land development code and um you know I was really pleased at how readily their staff was willing to do that.

Um so um yeah so could we uh I guess that I think we could all we could do.

Could we ask them specifically the county staff to come as well equipped as they can with numbers and figures uh based on you know service costs and you know monies that have been paid out and maybe if there's any reduction of those fees that have been paid out over time by them for you know periphery development in the county things like that?

We can see um and and those types of questions are exactly the type of things that we were gonna try and tee up next month to try to to get all of your juices flowing and and give us a list of of questions so that we can try and set the the county staff staff up with some time to research answers in advance.

So that that was part of our plan was you know it we don't want them to be blindsided with stuff that they can't answer.

They want to be helpful to you all and be able to provide as many answers as possible.

And I would I just wanted to add, and I'll come to you afterwards, Commissioner Sank.

Um two things as you do this, because this board has a tendency to creep if I'll I'll put it that way, creep into purviews that aren't necessarily ultimately our own.

So while a lot of these questions are important and the county departments do have a the answers to a lot of these questions, we also have to realize that even if we don't like the answers to a lot of them, that's not really our purview.

You know, the taxation and the distribution of money and how you know public works programs and you know capital improvement program outlays get handled in certain ways, certain things go beyond us.

So in Ms.

Ornita, in those conversations, I would encourage you to be respectful and remember the purview of this board is you know, consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, right?

That's that's our focus.

We have elected officials and department heads to take care of all this other stuff, and yes, they will.

It's very complex, and there's a lot of other things that are going to need to happen, but all those people are very well seated to handle those things within their own purviews.

So that's you know, definitely mind ours.

The second thing I wanted to say was I've I guess I've sort of come around to this way of thinking.

It warms my heart to see agreement between Commissioner Lincoln and Commissioner Lauk.

So I can't sit here and ignore that.

So in many ways, I do feel like yes, we can do with some education as long as we're, you know, and Ms.

Zornity always do an excellent job of keeping those dollars in line, but uh more education as to to Commissioner Sync, well put point put words is is never a bad thing.

So I I would be okay with that sorta, I guess if we don't go too overboard with it.

Commissioner Sink.

Great.

So now my comment is I I'm curious to see the list of organizations that actually operate off it.

Like so I know the TPO, like the impact of the service area for TPO, like it's a big deal, like on wow, other planning and like what's the impact of the boundary for funding for interstate improvements for street improvements, like transportation improvement, like how is that done?

I know it's kind of within this the planning commission's purview, right?

We have TPO here, so like to understand how that all plays together because I think one of the things that we hear is we're not we're not providing the level of service that people are looking for from streets to sewers, uh utilities, all that stuff.

Why, and then what is how is that information being used by each one of those departments?

Oh good points and thoughts.

Did that give you any sort or did we just mess you up a whole bunch more?

No, there may be some additional folks who we want to pull in in the workshop and and I want to make sure that I I mean we were aiming at May, but I gotta make sure that we don't have a whole bunch of other items that you all need to take care of at the May meeting to have it then.

Um I think just to make sure, because I heard a lot of different directions, it might be helpful if somebody made a motion about what you want to have happen next, just so that if it seems like there's consensus for the educational workshop portion only, but I just want to make sure I'm getting it right.

I'll make a motion that we have just an educational workshop.

Um not pursuing hiring a consultant at this point, but just to learn more about the urban service area.

All right.

Second.

Second.

Motion.

I can't believe I'm gonna say this.

Motion by Commissioner Lincoln's seconded by Commissioner Lauk.

Are there any thoughts or any more comments, discussion?

And the motion was again to have just a plain educational workshop.

Staff will take care of it.

We're not gonna spend money on consultants at this point in time.

So it's kind of an in-house just educational baseline for all of us to get on the same page.

Um are there any thoughts, comments before we take our vote?

Thoughts slash comment.

I would encourage staff to offer a Zoom or Teams structure for this to ensure maximum participation rather than trying to find a spot where we're all in the same room together.

I think that'll just push it, it'll push it months out if if we're trying to drive in.

Okay.

We we were aiming to do it at your regular meeting date.

Is yeah, like a like have the regular meeting at two, and then if we if it the agenda is short, like we're anticipating we could have uh a substantive workshop.

But if it doesn't work out to do that, then that's a great suggestion.

Would this be the next regular meeting?

No, that we were looking at May.

May okay.

Commissioner Kugler gonna be back then.

Okay.

All right.

All right, so we have a motion and a second.

I'm gonna send it over to the clerk for a roll call vote on this one.

Yes.

Yes.

Kona?

Yes.

Jemison?

Yes.

Lincas?

Yes.

Lauk?

Yes.

Yes.

And Joseph?

Yes.

Motion carries nine to zero.

Wow, you see what happens when you two unite?

That's crazy.

We change the world.

We're just after good policies.

All right.

So all that's been taken care of and is in the books.

Um next up we have new business and recommendation to establish structured public comment time limits in the presenter.

Commissioner Kona.

Well, thank you.

Um of the things I brought up after our last meeting to Miss Sornita was um I'm a big proponent of um efficient government.

I sat sat on a lot of boards, and I think our chairman does an amazing job facilitating these meetings.

I do think that uh one of the things that we should look at is um how we allow um pretty much unlimited public comment on certain agenda items.

And I do think that um when we do that, I think it limits the ability of this board to really dig in to some of the agenda items that are before us when they are complex.

Um I think I think we have it in our purview to make adjustments to um the public input per agenda item, whether we put a specific time limit of 60 minutes per per item.

Um I know this doesn't really play an effect eight out of ten times, but the times that it does, I think it ultimately hurts the applicant uh for for being able to get um their point across to this to this board.

Uh I don't know how we would go about making a particular recommendation, but I do know we do limit staff to 15 minutes.

We do limit the applicant who is paying thousands of dollars to 15 minutes, and then 75 plus minutes of public comment.

Um, and then a uh three-minute response to that public comment seems to me a little unfair to the applicant.

I would like us to kind of look at, you know, potentially making some potential changes.

Um like I said, one thing off the bat was maybe just limit public comment per item to 60 minutes.

Because you know, we've sat here and we've listened to plenty of public comment where the first one um you know at three minutes in is the same comments 75 minutes in, uh, and we understand it, but also when we get to that point, our discussion is limited uh because of um almost pure exhaustion uh at at that particular point.

So um I don't know how we would go about uh making those changes.

I know it's in our policies.

Um, but I I think as a board, I think we should really kind of help with that.

I know uh the county has time limits when they're doing their final decision.

Um we we do not.

So I'm I'm open to putting this out there for discussion.

I'm happy to uh make a motion um to change things, but I would like us to talk about it first.

Thank you.

Yeah, when I heard about this and I asked Ms.

Ornita about it, I was in agreement with you myself.

I immediately thought of our last meeting last month that planned environmental community when the room was full.

I literally leaned over to Ms.

Zornita after adding up how many people were signed up to talk and saying it's gonna be you know, this is this is a lot of amount of time.

What time are we, you know, can we go till until we have to call it quits and then you know it's the end of the night continue.

So I think that's also a point germane to what you say.

If they're able to get so many people that it pushes us to what is it, 10 o'clock or 10 o'clock.

I mean it they could push us to 10 o'clock, and then we have to take a vote on whether or not we're going to continue.

And we we might still have more people waiting to talk, you know what I mean?

So that is sort of an issue.

So I'd like to hear from you, Tracy, on what options we might have.

Well, you're talking about an amend an amendment to the bylaws, which is something that uh it's been several years, maybe five years or more since the board has made any any real amendments to the bylaws.

And it's something that just doesn't happen very often.

The bylaws are cover legal issues, which this falls in the in the in the main in the vein of procedural issues, which it also falls within, as well as in some cases administrative stuff.

Um oftentimes it's been my experience over the years that when that happens, other board members when they stop and reread the bylaws, say, you know, I think we should make a tweak over here or a tweak over there as well.

So my suggestion to you would be to try and schedule a workshop.

Um maybe before a meeting, maybe on a meeting that starts at three, you do it at two.

Um so that we can discuss what the help you identify what your broad issues are.

I'll come prepared to address, you know, from a legal perspective, this particular issue.

Um I think uh I think we're gonna need to survey what our our other I'm not I'm not familiar, you may know off the top of your head what all of the four jurisdictions do at their public hearings, but to bring that information together and um then there then the board's got an opportunity to to examine on a broader basis um you know other issues that they may want to consider as well.

Uh and after we do after you do that, then we can bring it back if there's a consensus to bring it back and move forward uh with some particular changes, then we have a process that we need to follow on that as well.

Commissioner Lowe.

Regarding the bylaw changes, was the last bylaw change we made coming out of COVID when we required applicants to appear in person?

I I believe so.

I think it might have been.

Okay.

Because we were all in a state of, you know, we there had never been any virtual appearances before that.

Suddenly we were in a whole new environment.

And I think it would be a good idea to look at that as well.

That may be a piece of this puzzle.

I think we we passed that, if I remember correctly.

We voted on that requiring applicants to the other.

We have a section that requires physical attendance by the applicant.

Um but that is in the same section that talks about there's a section on public participation that allows for public comment on any act item that the planning commission is taking action on, and then there's a section on the actual procedures for the um an individual agenda item that allows for proponents and opponents to have three minutes each and doesn't have a limit.

So there are a couple of places where we might need to look at some changes.

Specific to this uh Commissioner Kona's suggestion, it's something I would be open to voting on this evening when we discussed it in our prep meeting, Melissa.

My initial reaction was I'm really an advocate for people coming out and speaking to what they believe is the right thing for the community and for the properties around them.

But after hearing hearing the uh the delivery and the the thoughts behind it I think the 60 minutes is is probably more than fair per topic.

Commissioner Lincoln I guess um this is not something where I know what the other potential alternatives are so the idea of some further education on that would be interesting to me and it strike strikes me like I think at the last meeting that a lot of folks just kind of want to go on the record that they're yay or nay to something so I just wondered what kinds of procedures maybe other jurisdictions do where um maybe as part of the procedure of the day that that could be a way to cut some of the comments.

So I'd be curious that's an area that if if there was to be an education piece on this I'd be curious to see how that may be included.

Yeah it's a good idea click click yay click nay and be done with it that that could you know make an app we'll go to Commissioner Sink then I'll come to you Commissioner Biden.

Yeah I think it's gonna be interesting in regards to limiting the time but you know you might hear a whole bunch of pro and then people speaking con opposite of it could end up being later down the queue and then they feel like they're unheard.

And also being that we're an advisory committee it's kind of our job to listen to the public and advise our officials on what we heard so they might limit it in the BOC because we're giving them recommendations on what we saw in this room based on the people who attended.

I do think it's interesting also to see if we are conveying the number of people who spoke for and against a project when it's going to the board of county commissioners.

So they actually know this many people showed up because if you get a room full of 50 people you know that there's passion about it.

So if there's a yay or nay that kind of can go to them and say okay this some people were for the group people are pro or con that way they have more information on the turnout and where to go with it.

But I'm always afraid to take away people's voices good points.

Commissioner Bowden uh some of the to what the commission was saying in regards to um the numbers and everything and and and also being sensitive to the time as well you know maybe you set a time limit and everyone doesn't get in but at least they have an opportunity to uh check a box or to online do something so at least they they had documented that they actually were against or for a particular item all right commissioner seaban um is our job to communicate how many people were for or against an item or is it to determine what is in compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Actually it's a genuine question.

I don't actually I mean listen to Ms Purview keeper here all of a sudden I understand just you know I but I it could be a factor how many people could be a factor I've actually genuine curiosity.

I mean I would say that your job is to arrive at a recommendation on consistency with the comprehensive plan.

We do when we have briefings with commissioners uh elect the city council members convey oh there were a lot of people you might want to watch the planning commission hearing on that one you know to be prepared for the to understand what's going on a lot of them already have watched your meetings to see what's coming if uh if when they know that it's the county's night or something like that.

So um they're they're usually getting a massive amount of emails as well when you all are getting that kind of crowd.

So they they're generally aware Commission.

Yeah a couple of things and I totally agree like I I am all for making sure that the public gets heard on on every issue.

I do also want you know to clarify we are the we are the public that has been chosen to ultimately you know make these these types of decisions.

I will say this most of these things um come at the 530 meeting um when in fact you know the two to five meeting um some of the land use policies that we uh you know have in here when maybe City of Temple Terrace comes and talks about um driveway slopes that affects a lot more people in the grand scheme of things and we get zero public comment on that uh which is why today I asked the question you know was it publicly notified do you have any public opinion on on set issue so I do think that you know the the private sector who these privately uh initiated ones you know they're spending thousands of dollars and I think sometimes um we are the public group that has been uh created to make those final decisions and unfortunately the last meeting that we had I couldn't even read the room anymore as to where this thing was going and the fact that Commissioner Joseph was for it shocked me and I'm like well I you know if I if I I just don't think we had enough time to really dig into and ask the questions that we needed to ask to to give that last one a fair shot at at passing because I think we had seventy five plus minutes of public comment for one agenda item.

And unfortunately, the last meeting that we had, I couldn't even read the room anymore as to where this thing was going.

And the fact that Commissioner Joseph was for it shocked me, and I'm like, well, I you know, if I if I I just don't think we had enough time to really dig into and ask the questions that we needed to ask to give that last one a fair shot at at passing because l I think we had 75 plus minutes of public comment for one agenda item.

Yeah.

So um I think ultimately that hurts the process.

I think it also, you know, with the I don't know what we charge.

I know we charge a lot more than we used to for these uh types of hearings.

So I think it needs to be at least tweaked.

I think some of the biggest changes that we do sometimes are in the two to five meetings, and we get zero public comment only because people can't get here, you know, at 5 30.

But they can get here at 5 30, and I I appreciate us waiting until 5 30 to do some of these these bigger ones.

But I do think we we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't figure out a way to uh make that a little bit more efficient because we're only gonna get more and more of these uh as we go through the process.

Like these aren't gonna get easier uh as we move through because there's not much land left to to do the types of things that we want.

So I think it's important that we at least put some sort of time limit on the amount um of public comment.

I think 60 minutes is something that I think we is more than a more than sufficient.

Commissioner Orton.

I've been on many city and county boards, and there is a time limit on just about every single one that I've been on.

But my question is who's going to make the decision on what's important and what's not and how long each person should have.

Right now we have three minutes, so are certain cases going to be, oh, this is a this type of case, we'll give them four minutes each, or if this that's going to take forever.

So we need to, I I believe have a set time for every case to be the same instead of this one will be four minutes each every night, or you know, just some more guidelines because it I've been to meetings that have lasted till one o'clock in the morning because of comments.

So I think there needs to be more guidelines or leave it the way it is.

I just want to say we're not it's three minutes per person, and that's hopefully not changing.

We're talking about the max when you add up all those three minutes, what what is that cap going to be?

Is it just going to be whatever it wants to be, or do we want to cut it off at this certain point in time?

But it's always three minutes per person as far as the bylaws are written right now.

So Commissioner Carnanis.

Yeah, I I mean I've I've felt like this for a really long time.

But I um I also think that even the citizens, if we said to them, hey, ten people can come, pick your most important, pick your whoever you believe can bring together a concise statement, a concise feeling of how everybody, you know, in the same way that they are all coming here and they care, they could probably get together and come up with something that is very thoughtful, very forward, and is concise and will allow us to make a good decision because at the end of it all, we do get tired and it is a long thing.

And after a certain point, it just all becomes gray.

And they lose more than than than anything in these individual situations.

All right, Ms.

Ornina.

If I um perhaps the the bylaws require that any bylaws amendment be heard at two regular meetings.

Um so I I would suggest that um perhaps a slightly different course than Mr.

Robin, which feels uncomfortable to fear from him.

But perhaps that we have uh we come back with some of this research on what the other local governments and maybe other boards um similar to us do um and uh and some information from Mr.

Robin on uh what some of the requirements might be in state statute um to a regular meeting instead of a workshop.

Um so then if you all at that point want to say this is the bylaws change you want to make, that counts as the first regular meeting, and then the next one you could vote on it.

Um and that vote has to be by a two-thirds majority.

I'd be I'd be applicable to that.

I think that's and then put it in old business until we figure out how we're gonna rectify rectify it or at least talk about it.

Okay, yeah.

What do you what are your thoughts, Mr.

Robin?

Because I kind of okay.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Well, that's that for that one.

And the next two were mine, which I have to bring up because it's not on this one in front of me.

Um a sec.

Uh right.

So I had discuss and consider amendments to the Hillsborough County comprehensive.

Oh, okay.

I had some in going back and writing the letter that I did, I went back because I'm a crazy man and started reading through all the documents of the of the agency.

So I read through the comprehensive plan in total.

Um I read through the policies and bylaws and I read through the procedures, plan amendments, procedures manual.

And when I went through the comp plan, I found just a couple errors in the comp plan that I wanted to make Miss Sornita and staff aware of so they can, and I don't know, hopefully we don't take up it doesn't take a text amendment to get them changed because they're scriveners sort of things.

It's nothing major, but um in what is it, goal number two, Ms.

Ornita, I believe you were aware we've talked about this in the past.

There's sort of like a page pagination error in the comp plan where like where you believe you're on like page 90 and you're actually on page like 91.

Well, in any case, if you go to page 26, go to page 26 and page 27 are duplicated for some reason.

They're the exact same with the exception of one policy down at the bottom.

So that causes a shift in the pagination of the whole document.

And the only reason I'm bringing all this stuff up real nitpicky stuff is because this document is accessed by tons of, you know, developers pay thousands of dollars and they try to use this document to direct their work, and when things don't jive and make sense, it causes consternation for them.

So take a look at page 26 and 27.

We can take care of that.

Okay, so that needs to be corrected.

And then I had a question about um goal five.

And I might want to get Tracy's kind of input on this.

Um in the comp plan, let me see if I can find my paper.

Has has a line in it.

Um well, first there was some numbering errors that I wanted to bring up.

Um go five objective goes from 5.2, this is page 77, 78.

So we go from objective 5.2 to objective 5.3 on page 78, and then it jumps to objective 33 for the RP2.

Which seems like it should be 5.4, and those should all be so that is because the RP2 language was a part of uh a lawsuit uh uh uh an administrative claim against the county that was held basically in abeyance until and then the it was dropped once the RP2 all became part of the urban service area.

So this plan amendment was done to the old plan.

And then the new plan got adopted while it was out there in limbo.

Okay, and this is how the county attorney's office told us to put it back in the plan.

Well, I'm gonna leave that alone because the county attorney said to do it that way.

Oh but yeah, we but that is part of what we're hoping to clean up okay with the amendments subsequent.

Yeah, I was reading through and I was like, how do we go from 5.3 to 33?

That makes no sense.

And then it jumps back down to 5.4, right?

Right.

It's it's numbered as if it was in the plan from before.

Okay.

That's that's fine.

County attorney, I'm I'm done with it.

That's I get it.

Um policy uh policy 5.6.15.

And I did this may be a question for Tracy, like I said, um this board's purview typically doesn't have to do with site planning stuff, but this policy reads residential uses adjacent to residential uses shall demonstrate compatibility through creation of similar lot patterns.

So lot lot patterning, isn't that not considered a site planning thing?

Should that even be in the comprehensive plan?

So this policy is in the section on the Waimama Village Residential 2.

Um was put in there to guide the creation of the land development code that implemented that section.

Okay.

Now that the Waimama Village Residential 2 is hopefully with Andrea's amendment going to go away from being on the map, the next step will be that all of these policies will ultimately be deleted.

Okay.

Because there will not be any applicability of this section of the comprehensive plan.

And that's fine.

Like that was my thought is that it should be removed, but does this when when things like this, and this this might be a question for Tracy, when things like this are in the comprehensive comprehensive plan, like if there's something written in here that has to do with site design, does that broaden our purview?

Does that allow us to then start to opine on site planning things, or are we still limited?

Because our our main purview is the comp plan.

So if we're finding consistency with the comp plan and the comp plan's talking about site design stuff, I think that's going to be dependent on context.

Okay.

In each case needs to be looked at separately.

Okay.

I mean, some of those we utilize in the review of land development code amendments and rezoning applications, thing things of uh other applications that staff reviews, but also things like land development code changes would come before this board, and if they're changing as will occur with the city of Tampa's rewrite of their land development code, they're gonna change the all of their zoning districts, and that's going to impact things like lot sizes and and that sort of thing.

So yes, in this case, that policy replacement lot size is a little bit different though.

Lotting a loting patterns and a lot size is different.

Lot size are talking about area, gross, you know, that's that's those are two different things.

When you're talking about a loting pattern, and the reason why this sparked my interest because when that PEC that I voted for that surprised Commissioner Kona came through here, that was this policy was one of the grounds used by staff to find it inconsistent.

You know, and even in our discussions, there was a lot of talk that started to veer out of our purview, I thought, but remembering that this policy existed in here, I was kind of okay to let it go because if we're talking about lotting patterns, I mean that's that's definitely site planning stuff, you know.

And I mean, and if staff use that for their determination, it seemed to me that okay, either staff can use it and we can't, or maybe we can't and staff can't, or we're both supposed to be equal, and I didn't have clarity when I came to that point.

I I didn't understand, you know, where where that line was drawn, if you will.

So it but I'm glad to hear that it's gonna be coming out hopefully in the future.

So pretty soon here, it won't be an issue.

Yes.

So I guess I'll leave that alone and see how it comes forward here.

But the this whole um set of policies related to the WVR2.

We are um working with the county as I said, they'll be needing to do some companion land development code amendments, but we're hoping that we'll be able to remove all of it in in this in the summer.

Okay, does that go for the RP2 also?

So the RP2 is a little bit more complicated because there are portions of RP2 still in the urban service area that covers fish hawk um uh fish hawk trails and um a couple other areas.

So what we're looking at is actually kind of reconfiguring the category to continue to work for those areas since and reflect that it's now a category that only is in the urban service area as opposed to the category that it used to be.

Well, and since that's the case, look at page 89 because there's only that's another this policy is RP2 and W VR2, you can tell when you read through it.

You guys basically they're duplicate almost.

They were.

So this policy same policy, the only two places in the entire comprehensive plan they appear is like you said, W VR2, and then here on page 89 in the RP2, it's policy 33A18 compatibility review.

Again, and it's the same exact wording as before where it brings in this lotting pattern kind of thing, similar lot patterns.

Make sure that that gets taken care of in that update.

All right.

And those were my only comments on the comp plan for now.

I may have more in the future here as I go back and scroll through it again.

Um running out of time on things, so um, that was it.

Did any other planning commissioners have any comments?

Yeah, I know I was gonna go to the next one.

I was just checking to see if anybody had any thoughts or comments, just be polite.

Nope.

All right, when we move to our next business item, um discuss and consider amendments to the Hillsborough County plan amendments procedure manual.

And what that is all about is I wanted to ask the question.

Um this board many times has to make motions that go against staff for one reason or another.

And we always kind of bump into this issue of you know, coming up with policies, you know, objectives, coming up with language to support what the board wants that may be in opposition to what staff has found.

And so I was trying to understand, well, why does staff make a recommendation at all?

Staff is not the one legislatively who's supposed to be making the recommendation to the elected bodies.

That's this board's responsibility.

So the question arose in my head why doesn't staff just give us an unbiased report showing both sides of the argument and then allow this board to make its decision and then forward its recommendation on to the elected officials.

This way, in the case that you know this board wants to do this or do that, they don't have to be kind of grabbing at straws to get policies to support things.

And also it kind of removes staff from being like, oh, you're like you guys get it a lot.

Oh, you're in this, you know, person's pocket or you're in this city's pocket, or you guys are doing something, your staff is found in a way that we don't like.

And it's it's a it's half and half.

Half the time they're supporting you.

They say staff has found great, this board needs to do exactly what staff says, but half the time they say staff is wrong.

This board needs to oppose staff and do this other thing.

So I wanted to ask the question why why is it?

And I'm sure there's legal historical reason why it's set up the way it is.

This I'm not making any motion here.

This is completely open question.

I'm just trying to ask the question.

Why doesn't staff not recommend and instead show both sides in an unbiased way and then leave the recommendations to the recommending body?

I I think the best way to try to explain this is to go back and look at the the role of the planning commission.

You sit or you you've got a professional staff who serves as the staff of the county when there's county plan movements, or one of the cities when there's city plan amendments.

They've got the history for how those policies were developed.

They know what the history has been in terms of uh evaluating them or how it's for consistency of interpretation, what how the staff has interpreted the plan.

And you really think it would be unfair to ask all of our board members to be that familiar with the plan and try to be consistent on every case with how they apply all of those goals, objectives, and policies in the plan.

Your staff does that for you and brings those recommendations, brings their recommendation based upon what the plan says, what they're you know, they're professionally, they're very intimate with those areas of of the plan, as you know, and they do it to bring it to help the board and give the board some professional planning guidance to help you make your decision.

Am I yeah?

But why why does that why does it have to be one side or the other?

I agree with what you said.

They are professionals, they they have the knowledge, they have the experience, they have the ocumen.

So why don't they show both sides and then let I mean our purview, our job isn't to be consistent, our job is to find consistency or inconsistency based on the information before us.

It doesn't say the planning commission board has to be consistent.

I realize that as an attorney that causes other issues when you're not consistent in other places.

Um I acknowledge that.

I I hear where you're coming from, but again, it seems to me that the professionals, like you say, the keepers should say, here's here's both sides.

At some sometimes, one side's gonna outweigh the other by their professional opinion, but it them making a recommendation seems kind of superfluous.

Again, they're not the recommending body.

So where does staff's recommendation, other than to serve our desires, even come in?

It seems like they should not recommend, just show us again what the facts are, and then let us decide from the facts.

Again, I don't I don't know how uh if I were sitting on this board without maybe maybe you've studied the plan enough to where you were you might be in a position to do this, but you'd have to know something about the history of how these provisions have been applied to know that they're being applied in in fairness to the applicants.

They're being applied fairly in case one and in case two through ten, even though they're different, they're different um parcels of property, maybe different land use categories, but there's a consistency in the application of those things.

How the board could do that in a consistent way.

Well, and I I would just add that we do have four comprehensive plans that you all are and and you all are volunteers, so I think that is uh why the expectation is for staff to do the heavy lift and present you all with uh a recommendation that is uh professionally vetted.

Um it's not to say that you all are going to uh agree with it every time, but uh that I think I would again I've never expected that the planning commission members have an expertise in all four comprehensive plans to be able to we don't need an expertise, we just need unbiased information put before us, and then from that's why I don't understand.

Staff still does the heavy lifting.

Staff's you the planning commission board members wouldn't do anything different, it'd be staff who'd be doing something different, and and it'd be without a recommendation and it'd be an unbiased report from staff.

You'd still do the research, you'd still take in applicant information, you'd still hear from the applicant, you still create your maps, but when you come to this board, at the end of the presentation, you wouldn't say staff's recommendation is you'd say these are the policies, make your decision, planning commission board.

So staff still does the work.

It doesn't require anyone to have to be crazy and read the comp plan like I do.

Staff still does all the work and they still present the data to us, but they just don't say, you know, in our opinion, do this or do that.

Again, because like Ms.

Ornita said, there's we can still go against staff, we can still clash it's our recommendation.

So what is what is the benefit?

I don't understand the benefit necessarily of staff's recommendation if we just especially I understand it in those instances when we approve staff's recommendation, I get that, but when we go against it, well what was the benefit of that?

You know, and I mean I don't I don't get what the benefit of that was at that point in time.

It's kind of like, and then we're we're limited as board members because we want to make a uh you know a finding in opposition to staff, and we don't have the policies that we need, and then it's like this scramble to come up with stuff.

Whereas again, if staff presented kind of an unbiased both sides, we can pick and choose as board members from kind of you know what we which might not be good.

I'm just asking the question here, you know.

And I mean, I don't, you know.

I I think your I mean your your staff's is the long-range planning staff, just as if they were employees of the county, let's just use the county.

Um in this case, they're not employees of the county, but they're designated by statute as the county's long-range planning staff.

And if if you lose the I haven't, I mean I'm cut catching this question is first blush.

Yeah, so I could probably come up with some other reasons given some time to think about this.

But those those staff members are gonna not only present to you here, but they're gonna go present to the board of county commissioners as in their capacity as the professional staff of the county via this agency.

Um whether or not you know, this board gets the final say so on whether that's the right recommendation.

But I think for consistency in the process for the consistency of the applicants who are applying for planning commission for for plan amendments, who need somebody to come in and talk to through from the beginning of the process to say for for the staff says, hey, we got a problem with this, or no, we think this fits really well.

Um they're out on site looking at the property, they're taking you know the pictures and doing all the background work that they do.

That the this process wouldn't function correctly without that kind of a record from a from a legal perspective.

Okay.

Well, keep thinking of it.

This dog I said there's no action.

We'll keep talking about it.

Definitely, I know I'm catching you on the off the cuff here, but think about it and I we'll have these conversations to keep going.

Uh Commissioner Kona, I saw your line on.

I'll just make one thing.

I I appreciate this kind of conversation, and I do I do believe staff should make a recommendation.

But I also think we can find whatever policy we want to make something consistent.

So it would be nice if the staff recommendation said could be considered consistent with under the said policies.

My professional opinion says it's inconsistent, but it's up to you now.

Um I think that is uh a level of due diligence that I think would be helpful to to this board.

Good point.

Good point.

I'm gonna go to Commissioner Lincoln, so then I'll come to you.

I just wanted to um kind of as as someone who is an AI CP planner and trains planners, many of whom are our staff in in the jurisdictions that we work in.

I think um there's just a a level of respect for the profession as custodians of the plan, and there is a role in the administrative process here that um I think is really important.

And you um so I think we need I think that we always we see um and uh in presentations, and I think it's a sign of a really good presentation when there's here's some things that the plan may be consistent with, here's some that it's inconsistent with, and then meet uh you know an unbalanced decision.

So I think the staff does a wonderful job of kind of giving us the scope of materials to work with, but I think that there's a level of respect for their for the staff part of this process that really needs to be um emphasized here, and I think the elected officials kind of often refer ask staff how do you feel about this, or how did you why did you interpret this?

I think their ability to kind of be allowed to state an opinion based on their professional knowledge as staff members of this is is really fundamental to why people are drawn to this profession and what people do.

So as someone who's you know who's who is committed to this as a profession, I think that it there's a a level of professional respect we afford those.

And I I want to say I don't want to take away any respect from staff.

That's why I keep repeating staff would still be doing heavy lifting.

We would still rely on staff.

We would not be having to read and do comp plants, though.

Again, it to me it's it's a it's a word.

I get stuck on words recommendation.

Staff's opinion is hugely important.

They're the ones doing the work, they're taking it in, they're dealing with the applicant.

But to me, it seems like their opinion is kind of stated in what policies they come up with to show without necessarily having to say staff's recommendation is so it's that that one word recommendation.

I have the utmost respect for planners.

You you all know me.

Um you know that staff's work, especially this agency staff's work is exceptional, you know, and I mean, so I just I saw recommendation, recommendation, and I was like, well, what is this other recommendation for?

I'll say this isn't the first time we've discussed staff reports and recommendations.

Uh I haven't taken the extreme view of saying let's not have staff give a recommendation in the past, but we did ask for changes in terms of should we take the recommendation and bring up a synopsis higher up in the report, which uh Melissa and team did maybe two or three years ago.

So if you think about the structure of the staff report, we used to have to dig four or five, sometimes ten pages down to figure out where staff's head was immediately.

And so I think that was a change, and at that time we also discussed uh Commissioner Cardinus may remember this.

I think that was the only one on the board, having staff put in the contrary view and outline uh under these provisions you could find it inconsistent.

Okay.

We don't believe it's necessarily true, but I think Tracy had some feedback at the time.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'm not going to.

And Melissa also had concerns with going down that road in terms of uh contradicting themselves in the staff report from a legal perspective and what could happen after.

So I don't know if you guys want to lean in and discuss that a little bit, and just for the record, I said extreme because of the USA comment a few months ago.

I just wanted to paint you in that picture.

But it it certain certainly does present a potential for a lot of legal problems if there's a challenge by the by the applicant um on on the on the process of how it was followed and consistency between coming from one, you know who's doing what and when it it weeds out a certain amount of accusations that there's politics behind how that staff report was presented and what the recommendations of the professional staff were.

And that's designed to protect the board and the agency as well.

Not again, not to say that you can't make it make a decision that's contrary.

You you have you have done that often.

Um but it's a starting point for you.

No, I'll conclude my thoughts and say, you know, some of the issues that I've I've taken up or championed or had with the staff reports is I do feel like we do get a very narrow view in terms of the way uh the staff reports are loyal to choose my words carefully here.

The staff reports are often written in a way uh where they only support the conclusion that was drawn by staff, and we'll also see that oftentimes in some of the presentations where we see like some of the visuals that come into play and like what some of the surrounding uses are.

Uh, we've had these discussions in the past, and I think we've we've gotten better in in those areas, and I appreciate that.

So I'll conclude with that.

Can I get to you after that where I've seen the the data is when the the applicant actually comes up and they bring uh opposing policies and I made I've had you know I was zoned in on a inconsistent award, which you have, but the applicant was up applicant comes up and brings you know a new idea, new thought.

And I have a different point of view.

So I think that if the uh the applicant's attorney uh the applicant as a whole, you know, is actually had done their work and and has a presentation that is uh compelling, then you know uh I can I can vote that that way.

But I that's my thought.

But I think that when it it kind of if we get it that it's kind of like this, it becomes a how do I interpret that versus uh someone else, so it may be a little more confusing, at least I when I see it from the staff, I say I can see that point of view, but at the like I say, once again if the applicant comes back and showed me a different view, then that kind of sways my thought.

I got it.

You just made something clear for me.

Yeah, when it's more balanced, it could be confusing to someone outside.

I think that may be what you were trying to say, Tracy.

That for someone like me, of course, being balanced, I can pick because I sort of know, but for someone else, when they're right there at the line, it's like I don't know what to do.

Whereas if staff says no, it's this one or it's that one, then it's a lot easier.

Even if it is opposing position, it may be a bit easier to you know oppose it at that point in time.

So I that that is interesting thought.

Miss Ornita, yes.

No, I just wanted to point out, and I appreciate that Commissioner Lauk has noticed some of the changes that we've made because um we have started including a section in all the staff reports on other related policies.

Sometimes those are not things that the the application actually conflicts with, it just may be additional policies that we didn't think it was directly the strongest things that it was consistent or inconsistent with, but it uh is additional policies that are applicable, but often it is things that are um from a differing point of view um on the application, and now we've included that same um discussion within our presentations to the planning commission.

So trying to provide more balance throughout the staff reports about what the comprehensive plan says about the application and then arriving at staff's conclusions.

So um that actually was a topic that we wanted to have some discussion around at the retreat um to to see how that was going.

So um uh we'll we'll thank you.

Sorry to jump the gun on you.

Commissioner Seabin.

Um I just want to speak to what Commissioner Bowden said.

So I understand, I agree with you that that you know an applicant can come up and make a counterpoint that makes a lot of sense and you know can change your opinion.

But then I almost wonder, you know, is that not necessarily fair to applicants who don't have a really advanced legal counsel or a very you know heightened knowledge um of the companies because you know, sometimes I find myself sitting here wishing I had more pictures, you know what I mean, because it kind of frustrates me sometimes when the applicant comes up and they gives a give us a whole different picture, and then I say, you know, well that it doesn't necessarily feel like we got the full picture to begin with occasionally, so thank you.

There are any other thoughts and opinions.

And I just want to say again, this is not in my opinion when I brought this up, and again, I want to say I don't have any action to take right now.

I just wanted to discuss this, but it's not a diminution of staff in any way.

For me, I'm very protective of this agency, Ms.

Ornito tell you and all the things I do, and staff gets beat up just kind of like you know, Commissioner Stevens just said, like, well, you're not being fair, or staff's not covering it the way we want it covered.

And to me, I thought, well, if they don't have to make a recommendation, and that kind of takes them out of the cross here, but you know, to Commissioners Bowden's point, I can see where not having that one side or the other can cause people a little bit of confusion and they're not sure, you know, going forward.

So there's a lot of different facets to this.

Like I said, Tracy, definitely keep thinking on it, and we'll definitely keep talking about it.

So Commissioner Seaman, yeah.

I didn't mean to beat you guys up.

I think you do a fantastic job just for the record.

I appreciate all the work.

All right.

Were there any other thoughts and opinions on this?

Again, there's nothing to be had here but discussion.

I just it popped into my head and I wanted to bring it up.

It's sort of a big issue that we bump into every now and then, and apparently was going to be discussed at the workshop.

So all right.

With that, then I will close comment on that one, and that's done.

And next up, I will go to committee reports.

Um does anybody have any committee reports out there for us?

I do have one quick one.

Um we had a TPO board meeting in February.

We had a new member come on, John King from Hart.

Um we also did a TIP amendment uh for Hart that drew some uh positive attention, 32 million dollar grant to replace diesel buses with CNG compressed natural gas models.

So that's gone forward.

There was a small bit of discussion around that, but it was a 16-0 vote that passed that one.

Um we then looked at a traffic signal prioritization study.

Um that there was a lot of discussion around.

Um all the different jurisdictional members had a lot of different ideas on where they wanted the study to go next, but ultimately we uh approved the study.

It was approved unanimously.

We were supposed to get uh meeting, uh presentation by Waymo, but that never happened.

Um Hart also provided an update on its comprehensive operations analysis, um, looking at service changes planned for 2026 and outreach efforts to support those service changes.

And last but not least, our executive director, I mean our chairman, um Chairman Ross, told us about some allegations, which I forgot to ask our CAC member about some allegations of sunshine law violations going on at the CAC board.

Um hopefully our I I assume, I presume our representative had no part in that.

But okay, good, thank you.

But uh we're gonna get the full details on that in the meeting that's coming up this Wednesday to see how that shook out.

Commission uh Chairman Ross didn't wasn't prepared to give us the full detail then, but did let us know that we were gonna be getting filled in more on that at this coming meeting.

So I will report back on that after this meeting.

Any questions for me or thoughts?

Not seeing any.

Nobody, all right.

Then that is it.

And at oh man, it's 5 30 already.

What time are we gonna come back?

She smiles at me.

She smiles at me six.

Yeah, I know.

Everything's pushed.

Okay, so we'll we'll be back at six o'clock for our first public hearing, which is a short one, hopefully.

And at 5 29 p.m., this regular meeting's adjourned.