Are we gonna sit here and say that this owner starts for dogs?

We're gonna head up to that dog call right now.

So we'll go out, we'll assess the situation.

Did you see those specs through there?

She was very upset about losing all of our cats.

She she called me up a few times in tears.

I need my photos.

I need to be able to tape this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see.

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

The Planning Commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live.

Move, learn, work, and play.

For more information about the Planning Commission, please call 813-272-5940.

Follow us on social media or visit our website at Planhillsboro.org.

Welcome everyone to the May 11th, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

We thank you for attending this meeting.

Your comments and participation are encouraged.

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

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

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

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

There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments when your name is called.

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

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

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

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

The agenda item will be introduced.

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

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

Members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chairman.

Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person.

Presentation should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission.

And the red dashed line shown here represents the boundary for the Ybor City Local Historic District to the north and east.

The surrounding area is mixed use with multifamily commercial and institutional uses.

Immediately south are Booker T Washington Elementary in the Robert W.

Saunders Library.

To the west is a church and a drive-thru restaurant with the GTE building further west in the Encore development just south of that.

The law union apartments, which are a part of the gas works development, are also located to the southeast within Channel District located further beyond the frame.

This is a photo looking directly at the subject site along South Henderson Avenue.

Looking east on East Scott Street, east of the subject site, these are the law union apartments, and the subject site is out of frame behind the camera.

This is looking south of the site along East Estall Street towards the elementary school, and the subject site is out of frame to the left.

Looking west along East Henderson Avenue, west of the subject site, and the subject site is behind the camera, out of frame.

And then looking west across North Nebraska Avenue towards downtown.

The subject site is out of frame to the rear, about 230 feet.

This map shows the adopted future land use as CMU 35, allowing medium density residential and commercial uses at 35 units per acre or 2.0 FAR, which surrounds the site on all sides.

So the east along 7th Avenue is UMU 60.

To the southeast are additional UMU 60 and RMU 100 parcels associated with the gas works development.

To the west of Nebraska Avenue includes UMU 60 and RMU 100 parcels.

Further south is recreation open space, which is Tampa Park Plaza, and further north is R20.

This map shows the proposed future land use as urban mixed use 60, which would allow high density and intensity mixed use development up to 60 units per acre or 3.25 FAR.

This amendment would increase the maximum density from 118 to 203 dwelling units in the allowable intensity from just over 295,000 square feet to just over 497,000 square feet of residential or non-residential uses.

This amendment would introduce the potential for commercial intensive uses and increase the allowable density and intensity on the site.

We sent this amendment out for agency review and did not receive any objections, although the school board noted that Washington Elementary and Blake High School are projected to exceed capacity.

In considering this amendment, staff reviewed compatibility with the Ybor City Local Historic District.

Any future development would be subject to design standards and review by the Barrio Latino Commission.

This process ensures that new development is compatible with the historic character in the surrounding area.

Planning Commission staff finds the report uh excuse me.

Planning commission staff finds the request supports a compact city form by directing growth to the Central Park Urban Village, which is an area intended to accommodate higher density mixed use development.

This site is also within a CRA and is currently underutilized, so redevelopment would support reinvestment in a more efficient use of land and infrastructure.

In addition, the site is located in close proximity to transit, multimodal infrastructure, including the transit emphasis corridor along Nebraska, the Tico Streetcar, HART bus service in Tampa Union Station, which supports higher density and intensity development in this location.

The request also supports policies related to ensuring an adequate supply of housing.

This amendment would provide additional opportunities for residential development in an area identified for growth, helping to accommodate the city's projected growth population.

Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and I am available for any questions.

Thank you.

Is there an applicant presentation?

Good evening.

Perfect.

Good evening, Megan Smith with Gardeboro Hudson here on behalf of the applicant, Tampa Park Apartments.

Want to thank Planning Commission staff for covering everything.

They did a fantastic job.

And feel like it was a very thorough review.

So just kind of wanted to touch a couple things and be quick and efficient with our time.

I'm gonna push this aside.

So as she said, you know, CBD periphery is immediately to the west following Nebraska for our site.

We're in the San Central Tampa Planning District in the Ybor Local Historic District.

The site really is the nucleus to some very prominent and dynamic neighborhoods within the city of Tampa.

We've got Seminole Heights, Ebor, Channel District, and downtown Tampa that we know are all growing.

Those are all within a five-minute commute from our location.

And so we really feel like this would help bring a um incentivize an area that is currently being underutilized.

Our request is to go from CMU 35 to UMU 60.

So that is the adopted to proposed map.

And then I know Quinn touched on this, but I want to kind of hit it once more that with that CBD periphery, about a third of the surrounding properties can actually double their FAR.

So what we're up against on both sides is you know 7.0, 6.0 FARs to the west and south, and then the UMU 60, kind of carrying on that gas works development as well as the Ebor Historic District within the UMU 60 portion of the properties.

Transportation wise, which supports the land use policies.

We've got Heart Route 9 that connects from downtown Tampa up to the university, as well as the streetcar is located just a 15-minute walk through Ibor, and then that can bring you into downtown Tampa as well.

So we feel like this is really connected with the surrounding areas and helps support that intensification.

And with that, I will conclude my presentation and I'm available for any questions.

All right, thank you very much.

We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions.

Not seeing Commissioner Lauk, you know?

All right.

Then I'm gonna go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Lauk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move that we find CPA 2601 consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan and forward this recommendation to Tampa City Council.

All right, a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Welk.

Second to that by Commissioner Kona.

Are any questions, comments, or discussions from the commissioners before we take our vote on this one?

Seeing any, then would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Next up, we have agenda item 2B, TACPA 26-02 comprehensive plan map amendment.

1701 East 2nd Avenue, and the presenter is Megan McCarthy.

Good evening, Megan McCarthy Planning Commission staff.

This is the hearing for TACPA 2602 located at 1701 East 2nd Avenue.

This is a privately initiated small scale amendment, and the subject site encompasses approximately 0.39 acres.

The request is to go from light industrial future land use designation to urban mixed use 60.

The subject site is located within the Central Tampa Planning District, the historic Ybor neighborhood, the Ebor City Local Historic District, as well as the coastal high hazard area.

This is an aerial of the subject site with the subject site outlined in yellow.

The surrounding area includes industrial uses directly to the east and south, as well as further east along Adamo Drive.

To the north and west are scattered commercial uses as well as residential further north of East Second Avenue.

While the subject site is not within the Ybor City Urban Village or the Port Activity Center, those boundaries are just to the north and south of the site, respectively.

Starting with our subject photo, subject site photos.

This is looking directly at the subject site from North 17th Street.

This is looking at industrial uses on the east side of the subject site with the subject site behind the camera.

This is looking at commercial uses on the west side of the subject site.

Here we are looking south of the subject site at the Salmon Expressway Overpass.

Next, we're looking west along Adamo Drive with the subject site in the frame.

And lastly, looking east along Adamo Drive.

This gives some perspective on the transition from industrial to mixed use designations over the last 20 years as a result of multiple plan amendments in the surrounding area, including 0626 as well as 0703, and more recently, Plan Amendment 2228, which approved multiple parcels to UMU 60, including the one directly north of our current subject site.

This is the adopted future land use map with the subject site outlined directly to the east and to the southeast are light and heavy industrial mixed use categories, including UMU 60, CMU 35, GMU 24, and CC35 comprise the rest of the surrounding area to the north, south, east, and west.

The teal line delineates the coastal high hazard area, the portion of the subject site located within the CHHA is just over 72%.

This is the proposed future land use map showing the site under the proposed UMU 60 designation.

Under the adopted flu of light industrial, the site is not eligible for residential development.

Currently, the site could be considered for 25,482 square feet of industrial uses.

Under the proposed UMU 60 designation, the site may be considered for 23 residential development units or 55,211 square feet of residential or non-residential uses.

The amendment would introduce the potential for residential uses and increase allowable residential and non-residential square footage and remove the consideration of industrial uses.

This application was sent to our partner agencies, and there were no objections to the request.

The City of Tampa planning department found the request comparable and compatible with the surrounding area and noted the potential conflict between land development code requirements and industrial development on this site.

Staff considered industrial preservation policies, as the site is currently under the light industrial flu designation and the industrial general zoning category, as well as policies related to the coastal high hazard area, being that all of the subject site is considered within the CHHA since the percentage within is over 50%.

As noted in the staff report and by the city of Tampa staff, due to minimum requirements for development within the IG zoning category, the parcel is unlikely to allow for the development of a true employment generating industrial use due to this factor, as well as documented trends towards mixed use staff on the subject site may be favorable for the requested increase in density and removal for the consideration of industrial uses on the site.

The proposed amendment is recommended to be found consistent with the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan, including policy related to compatibility with the surrounding development pattern, promotion of densities supported mixed use and transit, and encouraging adequate housing supply and in field development.

As the surrounding area is noted to be in transition to a more mixed use development pattern north of 20 west of north 21st Street.

Planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

And this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Is there an applicant presentation?

Good evening, Commissioners.

Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive with the law firm of Gardner Brewer Hudson.

I'll make this pretty brief.

I think this request is pretty straightforward.

Um I was before you in 2024 with a very large comprehensive plan amendment request, and we had it split into two halves.

We had a portion north of Atamo.

We also had what's been classified as Ybor Harbor.

Um in the north of Atamo portion, um, this piece was left out.

And um at the time, our client, the applicant, um, was in negotiations to acquire this little strip, but did not yet own it.

So given the fact that they did not have ownership of that piece of land, we did not include that in the rear in the original application.

So what we're requesting from you all this evening is a recommendation of approval for that UMU 60 that's currently located north of this strip to be extended to the south.

This is a very small site, um, as staff mentioned.

It's not overly suitable for industrial uses just given the size of it.

Typically, industrial uses you have a larger footprint, need more open space area.

Um, and this is currently, like I said, 0.4 acres, and it's currently serving as a parking lot.

Um, as Meg mentioned, this area is trending towards mixed use, both residential and commercial.

You all are very aware of that with gasworks and Ibor Harbor and some of the future PDAs that are currently in the queue right now to be heard at City Council.

Um, and then from a planning perspective, this is located along a transit emphasis corridor.

Atomo Drive is one of those, um, and it is located near the Ybor City Urban Village.

So, as Meg mentioned, staff found this consistent, and that's all I have, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

So, questions, comments, thoughts to the commissioners on this one.

Not seeing much action.

I'll go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open up two motions from the commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Connell.

Yeah, motion to find TA CPA 2602 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second.

All right, motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Kona.

Second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler.

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

Not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, aye.

So the cheese stands alone.

Commissioner Joseph against all the other planning commissioners in favor of and the motion carries two, three, six, seven to one.

All right.

Thank you very much.

And that is our last item, agenda item for this City of Tampa public hearings.

So I will go on ahead and adjourn this City of Tampa public hearing at 6.28 and read us into our Hillsborough County public hearing.

If everybody will bear with me for just a moment.

So welcome everyone to the May 11th, 2026 public hearing of the planning commission on Hillsborough County comprehensive plan amendments.

We thank you for attending this meeting.

Your comments and participation are encouraged.

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

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

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

Please be sure to state your name.

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.

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

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

The agenda item will be introduced.

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

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

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

Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person.

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

Planning commissioners will then ask questions.

Public comment will be closed.

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

To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns proposed changes to the comprehensive plan.

Presentation should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission.

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

The planning commission's purview and making recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.

And with that, I'd like to ask the clerk's representative to please please call roll again.

Cardinez.

Kona?

Here.

Jemison?

Here.

Coogler?

Here.

Lincoln.

Lauk.

Here.

Seven.

Here.

Sink?

Here.

Barry?

Here.

Orton.

Here.

Joseph.

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

First up, we have item 2A, HCCPA 26-07, comprehensive plan map amendment.

Northwest of Hillsborough Avenue and George Road, and the presenter is Alexis Myers.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HTCPA 2607, located northwest of Hillsborough 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 six and office commercial 20 to light industrial plan.

This is 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 Hillsburg Avenue and west of George Road.

Here is the area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink.

Bacon land is currently on the subject site.

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

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

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

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

Here are some pictures of the site.

This is looking at the subject site from George Road.

This is looking at the subject site from George Road as well.

Uh single family uses are located north and west of the subject site.

And then if you can see in the distance, it's single family right here.

This is looking west towards West Clifton Street from George Road.

The subject site is located on the left.

And this is looking east from George Road to the light commercial use.

The subject site is behind the uh photographer.

And this is looking west from the subject site, or I'm sorry, looking west of the subject site from George Road to the light commercial use.

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

The res six category allows six dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor error ratio of 0.25.

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

The OC20 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 feature 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 the predominant uses, including uh 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.

And the proposed LIP designation, the site could consider 155,835 square feet of non-residential uses.

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

I'm sorry, light industrial uses.

The following policies were considered by planning commission staff and evaluation of the amendment.

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

Though the request is uh related to some general policies, staff found four main areas of inconsistency.

Or I'm sorry, three main areas of inconsistency.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policy of the comprehensive plan.

The proposed amendment does not adequately demonstrate uh compatibility with the surrounding development pattern as envisioned by a future land use section, objective 3.1 in policy 3.1.3, given the proximity and prevalence of the single family uses.

The proposed amendment would disrupt the intended progression of land use intensities and fail to provide a gradual and compatible transition envisioned by future land use section policy 3.1.2.

This established pattern creates a logical progression of land use intensity from residential to commercial to mixed use and ultimately to industrial uses.

The subject site, located on the west side of George Road, falls outside of the area where higher intensity designations are currently uh concentrated.

The introduction introduction of light industrial uses at this location will result in a development that is inconsistent with the surrounding area and contrary to the policy framework intended to preserve and protect established residential communities as noted in future land use section objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.

While the request uh would introduce light industrial uses, the applicant would be required to do a PD site plan rezoning, uh which could contain mitigative uh strategy to address the existing residential to the West.

Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

And this concludes my presentation for 2607.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there an applicant presentation?

Good evening, commissioners.

Um PowerPoint.

Right there.

Right there.

Okay.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Gina Grimes.

I'm with the law firm of Bradley Aaron Bolton Cummings, 1001 Water Street.

Um, here this evening representing Cadence Partners, which is the applicant on this comp plan amendment from residential six and OC20 to um LIP.

Um you heard staff give their presentation.

Um they've recommended inconsistency, mainly based on the fact mainly based on the fact that they don't believe that it is compatible with the adjacent area.

We believe that the reason they came to this conclusion is that they only evaluated the um immediately adjacent area and didn't look at the larger area in context with this site.

Um, when you evaluate the uh the larger area, what you're gonna see is the residential six comp plan categories no longer appropriate in this location, and furthermore, our site is not suitable for residential development.

When you look at the expanded area, you also see that the location is consistent with the uses in the surrounding area.

As you saw, there were industrial uses, close proximity, there's also the airport in close proximity and a lot of commercial uses along Hillsborough Avenue.

Um, you're also gonna see that the location is consistent with the specific intent of the LIP policy and some other comp plan policies that we will address.

And then lastly, we believe that the potential impact in the staff report was somewhat overstated in that the they looked at the maximum development potential of the LIP as opposed to what we're actually proposing with the required PD.

When you look at the subject site, you already know the location of it, it's about six and a half acres.

One third of it is already got a comp plan category of OC20.

So two acres of it is already OC20.

As you heard from staff, it is vacant.

Why is it vacant?

That's a good question.

The residential six category and the RCC 9 zoning on this portion of the site only allows residential.

The property owner has marketed it for residential for about five or six years now.

And if you can't get residential or multifamily residential on a site in this market, you're never going to get it.

And the site has remained vacant.

And we've been told by, and the owner's been told by real estate professionals that the site itself is not appropriate for residential.

And the reason for that is the location and the configuration of the site.

If you look at it, it's 330 feet wide by almost 900 feet long.

A long rectangular lot like that makes it very difficult to get any development flexibility.

The professionals, the real estate professionals have said that the site is too small for multifamily residential development.

It can't support a surface parking lot and the on-site retention, forcing you to go to structured parking.

When you go to structured parking, as everybody knows, it substantially increases the price and the construction costs, making rents too high for this location.

Especially we're told because of the proximity to the residential, or I'm sorry, to the industrial on the on the other side of George Road and in the surrounding area.

So here is a comp plan map that was in the staff report, and this shows the existing uses in the adjacent area.

And this is the staff evaluated this.

And you'll see this the subject site.

The subject site is not immediately abutting residential.

To the north, you see that blue area is actually a full one acre parcel owned by Hillsborough County that's intended to be used for drainage.

You along the western boundary of the site, you see some blue underneath that black line.

That also is another drainage area.

So we don't directly abut the residential, although it is close by.

What's there is a small manufacturing facility.

Then you have several use car lots.

You have a new car lot, you have some auto repair there.

You can see a very small portion of gray right there next to the residential area.

And again, all this goes to the point that there is the there are these more intensive industrial and heavy commercial, light and commercial uses immediately adjacent to the residential area.

But when you go even further and zoom out even further, what you see, and this map is an actual future land use map.

These this is from the comp plan.

You can see the subject site with the blue arrow, it's in the bottom left-hand corner.

You can see it, it's this the parcel outlined there with the with the arrow.

You can see there's uh substantial amounts of industrial future land use categories in close proximity.

You also see more UMU 20 and the CMU 12, all of which are adjacent to this residential area.

And then when you go south of Hillsborough Avenue, you see something similar.

You see more industrial, more UMU and CMU directly abutting these residential areas.

And so the question is is how did this area get to the point where there is so many industrial and heavy commercial uses in such close proximity to the residential?

Well, the answer is pretty clear, it's Tampa International Airport, one of our community's most important and valuable assets.

And this site is actually 1,700 linear feet from the airport.

And I think it was unusual in this instance that the staff report did not address the proximity of the site to the airport, because it's really an important issue when it comes to whether residential is appropriate on this site.

TIA is going to cause daily impacts, 24 hours a day, probably on residential uses, things like noise, vibration, and even safety.

And that's why in your comp plan you have policies that address the airport and protecting the airport from incompatible uses in the area.

You also have a requirement, and both of these sections are cited, the comp plan sections are cited.

And that's the existence of the airport in this close proximity is probably one of the biggest reasons why we don't believe that residential is no longer appropriate in this area.

Another reason is the coastal high hazard area.

You have the coastal high hazard area covers all of that residential area and it covers some some portions of the site, and you also have the site in evacuation zone A.

You also have policies in your comp plan that address in coastal management that address development in the coastal high hazard area and providing incentives to move development out of those high risk areas.

You even have comp plan policies that discourage residential in the coastal high hazard area.

You have two provisions that I've cited here that flexes using the flex provision to increase density is not permitted in coastal high hazard, and you also have density bonuses that are prohibited in the coastal high hazard.

So we know you've heard why we believe that the residential is no longer appropriate for this site, but why is the site appropriate for light industrial?

Well, there's three reasons.

The first reason that is there's already a mix of industrial uses in the surrounding area.

I've walked you through there's many warehouses, heavy commercial at Paver Company, auto sales north and south of uh Hillsborough Avenue.

You also have a mix of industrial, light and heavy commercial flu categories in the surrounding area, and that's the second reason we believe that the light industrial is appropriate.

You have substantial amounts of the LI just a thousand feet from the site.

You have OC20, UMU 20, CMU 12, all of these are mixed, interspersed in very close proximity to this site.

And the third reason that we believe that the site is appropriate for LIP is because of the stated intent in the comp plan for the LIP category.

It's in supposed to be in areas located outside of concentrated industrial, but where the need for a site plan would benefit and to provide and ensure land use compatibility.

So I know that you said in your introductory remarks, Mr.

Chairman, that you can't consider the PD, but this is different because in LIP the PD is required by the comp plan.

So I I know you may not know the specifics of it, but I think they're important because this is what shows how you can have light industrial on this site and still be compatible with the adjacent residential area.

So we have a companion PD that's traveling with this comp plan amendment.

It's gonna be heard by the ZHM in June.

We have substantial setbacks in that PD.

We have over 100 feet on all three sides, and on the west side, we have a 50-foot setback.

Within those setbacks or buffer areas, buffer areas required by the land development code.

In those buffer areas, we have a buffer wall on three sides of the site.

We also have landscaping trees and shrubbery, and we have a retention pond that also forms somewhat of a buffer in that area.

Um don't forget, too, there's other compatibility considerations that we'd like you to consider, and one of those is that the LDC requirement for performance standards for manufacturing.

So there's standards to ensure that manufacturing operates and doesn't have impacts necessarily on adjacent uses dealing with lighting, sound vibration, and airborne discharges.

Another interesting point about this comp plan amendment and our companion PD is it turns out that our traffic analysis shows, and we submitted a traffic analysis with this comp plan amendment.

It shows that the proposed flu actually generates fewer, 1,600 fewer daily trips than the adopted comp plan policies or adopted comp plan categories.

So we think that's an important issue as far as compatibility concerns because it's gonna have what we're proposing is gonna have fewer impacts on the adjacent residential than what the existing flu category has.

Allow a total of 115,000 square feet of commercial.

We are proposing only 106,000 square feet of light industrial.

So that's a 0.365, about half of what the comp plan category allows.

And lastly, we'd like you to consider the fact that the uses are very limited.

This isn't just any light industrial use, it's only warehouse, wholesale, or manufacturing, just those three, and then temporary storage of the bulk list.

As you heard, it's in the um town and country community plan area.

However, there's not there's nothing in that plan that's act applicable to this.

And um, lastly, you heard no uh reviewing agencies have any objections.

Um again, the res six is not appropriate at this location, our site just can't accommodate residential.

Um the comp plan amendment to LIP is consistent with existing commercial uses and existing and industrial uses, and it's consistent with um existing commercial and industrial flu categories.

So we think our PD complements all that and provides the compatibility that the staff is you know rightfully looking for.

And so with that, we would ask that you recommend that this um plan amendment be found consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

If you have any questions, all right.

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

Commissioner Lauk, I see you moving.

Uh I think I heard it in the in the applicant's presentation.

What would be the linear footage to the nearest residential property line?

Not dwelling, but the actual property line from the light industry if we were to go to light industrial, or I guess it doesn't matter if it goes parcel to parcel.

What's this what's the um on the west?

Uh I want to show you on the west side of the site.

Where you have the R1.

It's it's there's uh the building, there's a 30-foot buffer, there's a there's a 20-foot drainage parcel, and then there's the property line to the residential on the on the west of that to the west of that, which is farther away from the existing industrial that you see to the south.

Uh well, 50.

Okay.

Right, but from the property line, there's 20 feet.

The correct property line on the other property line, yeah.

Right.

Coastal high hazard uh user error looking through and thumbing through the report, what percentage of the properties in the CHHA?

If any a lot of it, I would say it's a pretty good question.

Okay, so question for staff given the majority of this is in there if we were saying no to light industrial, we have a residential use on a portion of the property today.

If you could wave your magic wand, what would be the appropriate use for this property?

If it's not res six, it's not light industrial.

Res 6 would be kind of a tough pill given the CHHA.

What would staff recommend if you could wave a magic wand?

Um that is a good question.

Um, I know that the um that's a good question.

Um probably something less uh lesser intense than the light industrial planned.

Um think it would be better if it was on the eastern side of George Road, um, with along with those other more intensive uses uh before the subject site, um something less intensive.

Um yeah, and I would I would just add to that that the residential six category does allow for them to it it does not require them to build it for residential uses.

They could um build office or commercial uses under the residential six, those are allowed to be considered.

So unfortunately, we don't have a land use category that does not have residential allowance that is not light industrial.

So um that makes it hard to I mean, the all of the land use categories allow residential and office and commercial.

So I mean I'll say the applicant did say something interesting where this so closely ties to the PD when it's a light industrial case where if you look at like what's allowed under light industrial, which is like warehouse distribution centers, contractor yards, cabinet makers, auto repair, HVAC printing, light manufacturing assembly.

I mean, I think the devils in the details in terms of like what could potentially go there and with the concurrent PD, and I know we can't consider that.

So I mean I don't have a point there other than I'm not sure what the right long-term use for this is given the adjacent residential that's to it.

Um some thoughts.

Good thoughts, Commissioner Bowt.

Um, my my primary concern is it it it does the back of the property actually abuts to uh residential.

So you know when you consider I mean it is close to the airport, yes, so there's a uh uh certain amount of noise that you're gonna get, but uh but it's not in the airport's flight path.

So I'm just thinking about industrial and and the potential for the noise.

I will also just throw in a disclaimer here that if we're gonna go against staff, we're gonna need some policies.

So definitely be thinking about those, but let the conversation continue.

Commissioner Laup.

I think the biggest thing that I'm chewing on here in terms of consistency or inconsistency is and be willing to bet my bottom dollar that if we were to come in here uh with an expansion of the whole property going to res six that this probably would be recommended as inconsistent, which is the root of my question in terms of like coming back to staff saying what's the optimal long-term use for this property if it's not REST six, if there's some sort of development that's gonna come in, plan development with a bunch of residential, there's no way it's getting recommended for approval.

Being in the coastal high hazard.

I will say for my part in my review meeting, I brought up a lot of these points.

Um for me, we're not allowed to consider the zoning, but I always raise the point that the land use category, light industrial plan means that there's a PD process that's gonna go on some point in time.

I don't know what's gonna come of that PD process, but I do know that's another bite at the Apple, not only for this agency staff, which is a part of the zoning process to make sure that things like setbacks and buffers and screening get done, but also for other departments.

So for me, whenever I see the LIP come up, I'm almost an automatic, yeah, let it go through because again, at some future point, irrespective of all the oh, these are all the things that can happen that staff is forced to bring forward, you know, that second bite at the apple there is an important check on whatever development's gonna happen there.

So the applicant also brings up a lot of great points.

Commissioner Laup brings up a lot of great points.

It's strange that tonight we're putting residential stuff in the coastal high hazard all of a sudden instead of trying to take it out.

But I guess since it isn't close to McDill, it doesn't matter.

Um but again, and this all goes back to the points that I've spoken about for quite a while now on and I've set it down, Tracy and Melissa, but I'm gonna be picking it back up.

So I hope everybody's ready because it's coming.

But this idea that you know staff giving these recommendations that aren't kind of very broad and narrowly focusing on certain things, put staff in an awkward position.

You know, and I mean I you know, Miss Myers, you've done a great job.

It's a great presentation, great application.

But again, the way this agency set up with its systems puts staff in weird positions, and you know, it's I don't think it's the best thing, but you know, and I'll just leave that alone and bring it up at some future point in time.

But uh yeah, I would be willing to support the LIP going in there.

I'm not gonna pass the gavel and make a motion, but even in my briefing, my sense was this needed to go there, you know.

So it's my two cents on this.

Commissioner Kugler.

Yes, the uh one point about it sitting on the market for so long as a residential in in this these times in Tampa's is a good point.

I don't know what language to use to bring it as you as you mentioned, we have to come up with a uh um codes, objectives uh in order to go against staff recommendation.

I don't know how to say that, but it does seem that that it is it is an appropriate use in next to the airport for sure, and in there's a tremendous amount of industrial land very close.

Uh almost as close as the housing.

So it's it's I don't know what language to use for that, but uh maybe somebody who has a lot more experience with the um code would help Miss the applicant looks like she may have some suggestions, and usually Ms.

Dornita comes up with some suggestions for us if they're needed.

So I don't want to jump the gun, but I did cite some comp plan policies that um deal with uh protecting the airport um and the coastal high hazard area.

Okay, Commissioner Kona has them right there.

Yeah.

Oh Ms.

I would just mention as it relates to the airport policies, the airport policies are really geared towards the airport flight path and the protection of that, which this is outside of.

So I I just would caution about using those because this is not within the airport zone, and I mean we would absolutely not be support we do not put residential in the airport flight path.

So I just I I I want to be clear about that.

Okay.

Even though it's not in the flight path, it still does is affected by the noise and the vibration.

All right.

There are any other I can't see your mic there, Commissioner Jameson.

No, you're hiding out back there, huh?

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

It's not an easy one, I know.

Not seeing any Commissioner Orton.

I was I have a question.

Um the base flood elevation for this property is 14 feet.

So do they need to build 14 plus one of free board?

And if so, are they going to be flooding into the um single family homes on the west side?

I don't know the answer to that question if they have to be built that high, because I was trying to find part of the code for Hillsborough County, and all I could find was that um all properties located within the special flood hazard area shall have full compliance with the requirements of the Hillsborough Construction Code, and then it list ASCE 24.

And that is a list of codes that say this these different areas have to build one foot above base flood elevation.

So if that's the case, do they need to build at 15 feet?

And if that's so, are they going to be flooding into the neighbors?

The applicant looks like she was nodding her head, so I'll let her opine on that.

For the record, Gina Grimes, when you when you're building in areas like that and you have that flood elevation requirement, there's different standards for commercial and residential.

There are ways in which um with uh commercial uses or industrial uses that you can flood proof buildings to a higher height.

It it it it it base essentially achieves that higher height.

Where residential, they're much more stringent because of the threat to you know life.

And so they make you elevate to those higher to those higher standards.

So in this case, we're no fill um is you can't put uh the fill in in the um in a coast in certain areas that have those flood zone requirements, and all the retention is gonna be held on site.

There are two very large retention ponds that are going to be on site.

So um it should have no impact to the uh adjacent residential, not to mention there's a one-acre retention pond to the north of the site, as well as a drainage easement on the rear of the site already.

Thank you, Ms.

Grimes.

Commissioner Seaman.

Um just to note, I think in this area, if I remember correctly, base flood elevation is like 11 feet, so they probably won't have to build up much more than four.

Sorry.

I have the flood map from FEMO up right now, and it says 14 feet.

Okay.

Um regardless of what it is, I think you have to build a foot over base flood elevation, whatever that may be, and then any you know, civil engineer worth their degree in civil engineering would make sure a side balances so that it wouldn't be flooding into the neighborhood to the rear.

Commissioner Lau.

While we've jumped down Alice's rabbit hole, I'll just chime in.

Similar development on Sly and Benjamin on the other side of the veterans in this area.

There were four or five uh big warehouses that were developed, and when we have heavy rains, sly floods now between Benjamin and uh Anderson Road at that point.

So I'm gonna support this, but I would just call out on the PD and the civil engineering needs to be on point with that residential.

I'm gonna support consistency, I should say.

But the civil engineering review and plan on this needs to be on point with those residential properties to the west.

Just for those down the line who get the second bite of the apple.

All right.

I go once going twice.

And I'm gonna close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Goleman.

Motion to find HCCPA 2607 consistent with the comprehensive plan based on flu policy 2.23 and CM policy 3.1.14.

I'll second that.

All right, a motion of consistency finance citing policy 2.23 and CM policy 3.1.14, and a second to that by Commissioner Kugler.

Are there any questions, comments, or discussions from the commissioners before we go ahead and take our vote?

Those opposed?

No.

Who's that?

Bowden.

All right.

So that's seven to one.

Aye.

Bowden no.

And the motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up, we have item 2B, HCCPA 26-10, comprehensive plan map amendment, southeast of Kingsway Road and Tenota Sassa Road.

And the presenter is Lilianne Lennihan.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff here to present HCCPA 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 to change the future land use designation from agricultural rule one to five and residential one to residential two.

This is the general location map.

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

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

Here is an aerial of the site.

The site is outlined in pink.

Um and the site is currently under undeveloped and is surrounded by agricultural and single family land uses.

This is looking south from Tenota Sassa Road into the subject site.

This is looking north from Tenoda Sassa Soad into the Tenota Sassa Road into the subject site, and Lake Tenota Sasa is behind the tree line.

This is looking south from Tenota Sasa Road into the adjacent eastern parcel, and the subject site is to the right of this parcel.

This is also looking north from Tenota Sassa into the adjacent eastern parcel.

The subject site is to the left of this parcel in this photo.

This is looking west down Tenoda Sassa Road from the subject site.

The site is behind the photographer.

And this is looking east on Tenota Sassa Road from the subject site, and the site is behind the photographer.

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

The agricultural rule one to five 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.

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

And 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.

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 residential one designations, the site could consider up to 16 dwelling units or 263,755 square feet of non-residential uses.

And under the proposed future land use designation of residential two, the site could consider up to 48 dwelling units or 263,755 square feet of non-residential uses.

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

The proposed amendment received no formal objections and a list of full comments is provided within the report packet for review.

And while formulating our recommendation, planning commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request.

And though the request is related to several general policies, staff found three main areas of consist inconsistency.

The proposed request is inconsistent with flu's objective 1.2 and policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, which defines the rural area as a place intended to provide for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses and undeveloped natural areas, and that within the rural area density shown on the future land use map will be no higher than one drilling unit to five gross acres unless located within an area identified with a higher density land use category on the future land use map.

The site currently carries a split split future land use designation of agricultural rule one to five and residential one, which are which are both densities found within and are intended for the rural area.

The nearest suburban enclave within the rural area is located approximately 0.9 miles west of the site with the future land use designation of residential two, and the second closest is 1.4 1.04 miles northwest of the site with the future land use designation of residential six.

The existing future land use between these two suburban enclaves and the subject site is residential one and agricultural rule one to five.

While some of the surrounding areas contain higher designations of residential one, and this is higher than the general required one to five density.

The introduction of residential two within the rural area that it does not contain and is not in close proximity to a similar suburban enclave, planned village, or planned environmental community with a higher future land use designation of residential two is inconsistent with rural area objectives and policies.

Flood's objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and flu's policy 4.4.7 calls for lands fronting a water body to have density and or intensity comparable and compatible with other development parcels and lots fronting the water body outside of the urban service area.

The surrounding land use pattern is comprised of mostly low density single family residential and agricultural uses.

The surrounding areas to the east, west, and south of the site are generally large lot rural residential developments that contain future land use designations of agricultural rule one to five or residential one.

And the proposal request to change the future land use to residential two for suburban style development would not complement the existing development pattern within the area.

It would not serve as a transitional area between more suburban development pattern and more rural development patterns.

Based on the current existing future land use categories around Lake Tenota Sassa, the eastern portion of the lake is adjacent to agricultural rule one to five, and the western portion is surrounded by residential one.

There are no future land use categories along Lake Tenota Sassa that have a density of greater than one dwelling unit per acre.

A future land use designation of residential two along the southern edge of Lake Tenoda Sassa would result in a land use pattern that is not comparable and compatible to the current land use pattern fronting the lake outside of the urban service area, which is inconsistent with Flu's policy 4.4.7.

Lastly, the site is within the limits of the Tenochtis community plan.

Goal three of the community plan seeks to provide improved yet affordable infrastructure and a balance of residential, commercial, and other land uses while maintaining the rural area or rural nature of the Tonoda Sassa area.

Goal five of the community plan seeks to protect water, wildlife, air, soil, and true trees through effective planning, consistent enforcement of existing regulations and incentives.

Additionally, the community plan lists specific strategies that the community will use to achieve its goals.

Most notably, the plan requires minimum lot sizes of one acre for residential development within the residential one, agricultural state, and agricultural rural future land use categories, and it is explicitly stated within the strategies to protect the area's rural character.

The future land use change to residential two would allow for suburban style development within the rural area.

It would not protect the existing community care character that the Tenoda Sassa community plan intends to maintain within the rural area.

Goals three and five seek to balance private property rights with the protection of the environment and rural character.

And given that the site is located along Lake Tenota Sassa and within an agriculturally heavy area of the community, the residential two category would be too intense and would not further the goals of the community plan.

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

This concludes my presentation.

I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

Thank you.

Good evening, Isabel Albert with half uh 1000 North Ashley Drive.

Uh I have the presentation here that you could see.

So generally, um, staff did explain where the site was and the acreage and everything, and it has a split uh land use designation.

So when we reviewed this, when we first filed for this application, we actually requested for the AR portion for Res One.

And so that's the goal is to have one unit to the acre.

And I understand that you all don't look at the zoning, but we have to kind of look at what's what makes sense and what works.

And so at the same time, with the new stormwater ponds regulation that increased by over 22%, we said what can we really fit there?

And what can what what works there?

This is currently what's the zoning is.

The zoning is approved for 14 lots.

You'll see with a residential one is that one unit to the acre, and then the rest five.

So it's approved for 14 lots.

When we laid out the site and having to take into consideration that minimum one acre lot size, we went from having permitted 14 units to now we're 13 units that can fit there.

And so that just didn't make sense.

And so I remember I was talking with uh Mr.

Arnida, and I said, Well, we can either go like this and continue with with res one, but then at the plan development portion of it, I'm going to ask for half acre lots in order to get that one to one to one unit.

Or just be clean and just do the rest too to get out of this minimum requirement of the one acre minimum one acre lot.

That's the only reason why we're doing this is because we want to have smaller lots.

And if it was in any other plans, community plans that would be permitted.

And also part of the zoning, we also had to look at these improvements.

That what are we going to be hooked for?

And one of them in discussion with the um county engineer was to have improved the road from our site all the way to where the rest six is currently doing.

And so you have to consider all of that and say res one still is not helping us, and so therefore we're going to request RIS 2.

So this is brings us to the stormwater pond.

This is our plan that's under uh review with the county.

We're along the frontage there, there's not proposed anything prior to having two units that were proposed there.

We're not proposing any development on along the lake, and then we have our stormwater ponds where they're supposed to be located with the residents in the back.

But that still allows that development is one-to-one.

And if we didn't do that, we would be at 13 units.

Uh policies 3.1 says new development should recognize the existing community.

Um, as you heard, this is a mix of uses in this existing community.

We have agriculture, we have one to five.

We have along the lake one to one.

We have more intensive here, and then we have right there a wedding venue that people can uh as a commercial use.

And so the introduction of the half acre lot, but you're still one to one, is not disturbing that community.

They have to be you know in harmony with each other.

The residential to residential is not going to disturb the harmony of having um similar uses uh next to each other.

Look up objected 3.1, uh 3.2, 3.24.

That talks about the community plan.

And we and this is is in a community plan, it's the most community plan.

And it brings us the goal number three and number five, which also staff has um pointed out, but it includes the encouragement for our culture, but it protects the property owners' rights and value and establish the open space and green space and the low density, and that's what that you know one acre minimum is to ensure that there's still a low density in the rural service area.

But when you come and really develop it, if we did uh minimum one acre lots, we would be well below what the density would be permitted.

But by doing what we're requesting, we are still maintaining that one-to-one unit.

And environmental protection, we're not touching uh the frontage portion of the lake, it's like about two acres.

We're not um touching that.

Uh, other policies, 4.4, which is the neighborhood protection.

Uh this is maintained.

The neighborhood is still going to be um uh maintained as what it is.

There's no um there's there's no disturbance of what this what could possibly happen if this is developed.

Uh and then these are you know, again, like creation of like uses, creation of complementary uses, and all of that, you know, it meets all of those, as well as the 4.4.7 about the lake and front frontage that we are not um touching.

So these are the policies that I've listed for you tonight, uh, where we found that it is um consistent with the comprehensive plan by stating those same policies.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

We had one individual sign up in the public comment on this one, and I will call Robert Alvis.

Come on down.

You have three minutes, sir.

Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners.

My name is Robert Elvis.

I live at 11907, the notice has a road, which makes me the most affected person in Hillsborough County by this.

I am right next door.

Some of the staff's photographs had a picture of a car in a driveway.

That's my driveway.

This is ridiculous.

This is an agricultural area.

What they're asking for is to grade a subdivision in the place the subdivision does should not exist.

There are none there.

The closest place is up on Kingsway, and it's one to five.

That's all it should be there, but unfortunately, they've got a one to one ratio.

For some of it, 16 acres.

I urge you to defeat this.

It does not fit our area.

Getting rid of agricultural designation does not apply anywhere.

As they stated, we're surrounded by farms, a cattle ranch.

There are privately one to one houses there, privately built, no subdivisions, no extreme concentration like they're talking about.

So once again, I urge you to say no.

We have gone through this before a couple of years back when they tried something similar.

This is basically just a variation on a theme.

And it was defeated.

Go look it up.

You guys have the ability.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Three minute response to the applicant.

Commissioners, good evening.

William Malloy, 325 South Boulevard.

I'll be very quick and direct in what we're doing here.

If we could cluster this, we'd be asking for R1 across the entire site.

Um I know how important and protected the rural service area is.

I know the emotions that can ride on it.

I'm not going to talk about zoning, but when there is a zoning, this is going to come in at one to one.

The only reason for the R2 again is to allow us to cluster, give us a little bit of flexibility with our lot sizes so we don't end up plaiding roads in people's front yards, which is what could eventually happen here.

I do want to point out too, Isabel mentioned the accelerated stormwater program we have.

What we're doing at the north end of that property is going to be exceptional for that lake because according to these new rules we have, we can't let any outfall that's not treated or has any suspended matriculates leave our property.

So those two giant swimming pools will be a boon for the lake, and there's a reason we put them there.

That's the way the water's going south to north.

So given those, and the fact that we do have to construct a road right to the front door of a pocket of R6, I think are some points for consideration that this is not necessarily a suburban enclave, it's just a more custom rural development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Over to the commissioners now for questions, discussions.

Mr.

Kugler.

Yes, uh, I was um very impressed with Ms.

Lanahan's uh presentation.

It was very clear, very detailed, and uh I was very impressed.

I was a bit confused when um I believe the name is Isabel had presented the one to one.

I didn't understand what she was describing as where we're cutting it to half an acre and yet it's still one to one.

I it seemed to me that it was two to one rather than one to one, but I I maybe maybe you could clear that up for me.

Of course.

Um, with the new rules, the stormwater ponds, the more land is being used for that.

So we're now being restricted in the area to developed.

And so by doing so, when we actually quite engineered it out just to get an idea, but the and the the new rule just came in in January, so it's still very new to some of us.

And so I asked uh my engineers to to just plot out quickly what would be required and what do I end up with?

And I ended up with less units than in what I'm currently approved for.

But it still brings you, like if you look, it still would be very similar to the one to one.

So, in other words, the uh the houses remain the same number on a on a tighter footprint.

Correct.

Is what you're it's it's the half acre lot.

You need a minimum half acre because you're in the rural service area for you um weld and septic.

So it's the half acre lot, but just in this plan, it says minimum one acre lot because they want to maintain that low density.

Understood now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Are any other questions?

And before you jump in, I'll throw in there if anyone's gonna go against staff.

Remember, we're gonna need some policy, so keep that in mind.

Go ahead.

Just to be very clear about the one to one.

24 acres, 24 units.

That's that's exactly what we mean.

All right.

Any other thoughts, questions, comments?

Commissioner Sink.

I I I just struggle with this one a bit because in the in the area, if you look directly to the west, there's a road right on to Kingsway that has almost the same depth.

And there's seven, maybe eight units.

And for this area, it just seems like going to even 14 seems double.

Um I don't know, it just does not seem consistent with the area.

Any points.

Any other thoughts, questions, comments, Commissioner Bowden?

Yeah.

Um as I think through this, you know, being separated the comp plan with the zoning piece.

Well, you can only take one, yeah.

So so you know, so the zoning piece was kind of to me irrelevant because it was more of a smoking mirror type.

Uh uh, you know, to me.

So you know, I just wanted to make that comment.

You know, I would look at something a little more compelling as to why it was other than to give me information that I really can't use to make a decision.

Good thoughts.

All good thoughts, Ms.

Ornita.

Well, I I and I would just emphasize that the Thanona Sasa Community Plan does speak to wanting the minimum lot size of one acre in the residential one and the agricultural rural.

Um so yes, we did talk with the applicant about making the site all one land use category, because it is awkward when they have a split like that in the residential one.

Um and that would be I think consistent with the Thanona Sasa community plan, but um you know the the Thanona Sask Community Plan's very clear about wanting that one acre development pattern.

All right.

So going once, going twice.

I'm gonna close the public comment and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Kona.

Yeah, motion to find HC CPA 2610 inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

All right, Commissioner Democrats.

Oh, I gotta get over here.

Commissioner Kona with a motion of inconsistency finding Commissioner Jemison seconds that motion.

Are there any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote?

They would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed that motion carries unanimously.

All right.

That was our last item of business for tonight.

So at 726 p.m., this public hearing is adjourned.

Good night, everyone.