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.

Follow us on social media or visit our website at Planhillsborough.

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

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

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.org.

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

The agenda item will be introduced.

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

The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a fifteen-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, and upon a motion, a second and discussion of what will be taken.

That introduction, I'd like to ask Commissioner Sink to please lead us in invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

During this month of June, as communities across the country recognize pride and my reminded that the places we plan and shape should reflect the dignity, safety and belonging of all people.

Let our discussions be guided by fairness, integrity, patience, and a shared commitment to build a stronger, more inclusive global value.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Commissioner Sink.

All right.

Next up, I'll have the clerk please call role.

Bowden, Cardenas, Kona, Jemison, Kugler.

Here.

Lincos.

Lauk.

Seaben.

Oh.

Here.

Lincoln.

Seban stepped out for a moment, but she's here.

Sink.

Here.

Orton.

Renee Cayman sitting in from Michelle Orton today.

Tony Roderick S.

Here.

Chair Joseph.

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

All right.

Thank you very much.

We are going to swap agenda items really quick because one of our planning commissioners had to step out, so we don't actually have the voting quorum just yet.

So we will start off with agenda item 4A.

It's a presentation that we do not have to take action on.

And for that will be urban expansion area planning study, I-4 corridor corridor, and Little Manatee South status update.

And the presenter will be Sophia Garantila.

There we go.

All right.

So again, uh, thank you, Commissioner Sophia Garantiva, Planning Commission staff here presenting a status update on the urban expansion area study for the Little Manatee South and I-4 corridor study areas.

So since our December update, uh existing conditions and the market analysis work has been completed for both study areas and public engagement efforts have continued.

There is a lot of information that I'm going to be going through that was taken from the technical reports, so I'll just be highlighting the key findings and takeaways.

And for those interested in reviewing the reports in a little bit more detail, they are available through the links provided in the agenda item summary.

And then before I get started, uh I think it's helpful to go ahead and briefly revisit how the study originated.

So this process started with the unincorporated Hillsborough County's future land use update, which updated the urban service area or USA growth management policies.

It was during that effort that staff noted projections indicated the policy of accommodating 80% new growth and redevelopment within the urban service area.

Excuse me, would be would not be met by 2050.

So this led to the board's uh 2030 uh 2023 uh direction for staff to identify areas for potential expansion of the USA.

So again, staff identified the four areas as shown on the map.

Uh these areas were initially identified by analyzing locations outside the urban service area where population growth was projected to occur, additional analysis considered uh comprehensive plan policy, consideration uh concentrations of recent development activity, uh location of environmentally and publicly owned lands, and the distribution of developable and redevelopable land.

And this analysis was documented uh in a report presented to the Board of County uh commissioners on March 6th and is available on the project website.

And at that meeting, the board directed the two-phase approach that we've been uh following, which is phase one, uh which focused on the bomb and waiwama areas, which has since been completed, and then phase two, which focuses on the I-4 corridor and the Little Manatee South study areas.

Okay, so this brings us back to the goal of the study itself to provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on whether and where to consider future expansion of the urban service area.

Uh and this is using the urban expansion area policy framework in the uh future land use objective 1.3.

And as a reminder, the UAA framework uh requires a more comprehensive planning effort uh before any future uh USA expansion is uh considered, and that includes in evaluating infrastructure, transportation, environmental resources, fiscal impacts, public facilities, and community input.

And then before we get into the findings, uh this slide provides the quick overview of where we are in the overall study process.

Green represents the little Manatee South, purple represents the I-4 corridor, and the yellow line shows where we are today.

Purple represents the I-4 corridor, and the yellow line shows where we are today.

Since our December update, again, we've completed a few key milestones in both study areas.

Public engagement has continued with round one being completed and round two currently underway.

And the next major up uh phase of the study will focus on developing and evaluating land use scenarios.

And again, as mentioned, we are working in the second round of public engagement, and both areas are following the same engagement framework as shown with each round building on the previous one.

Round one was the existing conditions and initial community input.

Round two is helping inform scenario development through a place type activity.

Round three will present draft scenarios for feedback, and round four will focus on the preferred scenario and refined recommendations.

And in addition to community meetings, the project team has also continued outreach to stakeholder and community groups representing a variety of interests in both study areas.

Updates have also been given to the Board of County Commissioners.

And I'll touch on some of those study area-specific efforts and what we've heard a little later in the presentation.

So we've continued coordination with county departments, partner agencies, and adjacent jurisdictions throughout through the technical advisory committee.

This group has provided valuable data, technical feedback, support through the study, including assistance at community meetings.

So I wanted to take a moment to thank them for their time and continued involvement.

Now moving on to the existing conditions.

Starting with Little Manatee South.

So again, the Little Manatee South area here is outlined in red.

The area generally is bounded by the Little Manatee River to the north, US 41 to the east, and the county line to the south, and interstate 75 to the west.

In total, the study area encompasses approximately 10,213 acres.

In terms of demographics, the Little Manatee South study area is home to approximately 8,860 residents, living in about 3,500 households.

The area is an older population profile than the county overall.

And while the area remains predominantly rural today, it has continued to attract new residents over the past decade and is projected to continue growing through 2050.

In terms of land use and environmental considerations, agriculture remains the dominant land use throughout much of Little Mantee South, and it's more than and it's more than two-thirds of the study area that is designated agricultural rule one to five.

Residential developments generally concentrated along US 41 and the Little Mantee River, and the map here illustrates the environmental sensitivity throughout the study area.

The darker shaded areas represent lands with greater environmental sensitivity.

So in Little Mante South, those areas where the sensitivity of the environment is greater, are generally concentrated along the Little Manatee River and along the Curiosity and Wildcat Creeks.

And for transportation, US 1 currently serves as the primary roadway through the study area.

There's limited bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and relatively few program transportation improvements.

The map also shows several long-range planning efforts, including the proposed Fort Hamer Road extension, a potential future I-75 interchange, proposed trail corridors, and a future I-75 widening.

And in terms of utilities, there are currently no county water or wastewater utilities serving the area.

The only exception is a small area in the Sun City subdivision.

And the planned service expansions in the greater South County area will not be serving the Little Manatee South, so that's one water.

Any future expansion of the of water or wastewater into the study area would be accomplished one of three ways.

Extending the pipe across the Little Manatee River, relying on private developers to build new facilities and then turn them over to the county, or creating an interlocal agreement with Manatee County to get services from them.

There are no current fire stations, sheriff stations, or traditional public schools located within the study area.

There are two future fire stations that have been identified along US 41, but they remain unfunded, and the study area currently contains three parks.

So the existing contingent conditions tell us where the study area is today, and the market study then helps us understand what markets, what the market may support in the future.

So because the markets operate regionally, an analysis or the analysis evaluated a broader market area, then the Little Manatee South Study Area itself.

So you could see that on the map, the different colored submarket areas.

So in terms of the market study takeaways, the residential development represented the largest market opportunity.

The analysis also identified support for additional office, industrial, and retail development.

And it's important to remember that these figures represent demand within the broader market area and are not development forecasts for the study area itself, and they're intended to inform the scenario development.

In terms of public engagement, going back to that, in Little Manatee South.

Apologies.

In Little Manatee South, outreach has included two rounds of community meetings in online survey, public comments submitted through email and web forms, and field outreach as performed by the consultant team.

And then this slide highlights the priorities identified through that survey with protecting natural resources or natural areas and wildlife, ranking number one, and maintaining agricultural land ranking number two.

And then these results generally reinforce what we've been hearing out in the community in general.

With those themes again being consistent, we also heard concerns related to flooding, water supply, and the proposed I-75 interchange.

Overall, many of the discussions focus on how future growth could affect the area's character, environmental resources, and infrastructure.

With that, I'll go ahead and shift geographies and we'll take a look at the key findings from the I-4 existing conditions report.

Reminder, I-4 is outlined, the boundary is outlined in purple, and it compasses approximately 37,000 acres.

The area generally extends from the urban service area boundary to the west, and that the Tampa Bypass Canal to Plant City in the east, Sam Allen Road and Thanonasassa to the north, and then State Road 60 to the south.

And for additional context, the Plant City Vision Area boundary is also shown in yellow.

And demographically, I-4 corridor is significantly larger than Little Manatee South with approximately 31,000 residents in more than 10,000 households.

The area also has a younger population profile and larger household size than what we saw in Little Mansey South.

And looking ahead, the area is projected to grow, continue growing through 2050.

In terms of land use and environmental considerations, the I-4 corridor has a more diverse mix of land uses.

Although agriculture remains an important part of the care of the area's character, the environmental sensitivity map here shows that the environmental resources are distributed throughout the area with meant with most of the environmentally sensitive areas again shown in that darker shading located north of I-4.

And then from the transportation standpoint, I-4 stands out a little bit because of its access to the regional transportation network.

There is direct access to I-4, I-75, US-92, and State Roads 60 and 574, which support the residents' businesses and freight movement throughout the region.

And the report also identified several planned transportation improvements, including the widening projects on I-4 and I-75 and other implement improvements program through the county's capital improvement program.

Utility conditions in I-4 are again somewhat different than Little Mancy South.

There are pockets of utility service throughout the area, primarily through the county on the west and then through Plant City to the east, but significant portions of the study area still rely on well and septic systems.

And then for public facilities and services, emergency services.

And there are several several planned facility improvements that were identified, though some remain unfunded.

Overall, the area does have a more developed network of public facilities and services in place today, though the continued coordination with service providers will remain important as growth occurs.

And then similar to Manatee Little Manatee South, the market analysis looked beyond the study boundary to account for the broader market trends.

And the goal again is not to predict exactly what will occur within the study area, but rather to understand what the market may be able to support over time.

So a key takeaway from the I-4 corridor area was the strong demand for employment generating uses, particularly industrial development.

The analysis also identified additional demand for office and retail uses, and that's not entirely surprising given the corridor's access again to that regional transportation network.

In terms of public engagement, uh the public engagement activities in the area to date include uh round one of community meetings.

Again, the second round is starting this week.

We also had a survey, again, public comments and uh field outreach.

And then this slide again uh highlights the priorities identified through the survey, and it does uh change a little bit from Little Mancy South.

We're now maintaining agricultural land ranks the highest, and uh following following that protecting natural areas and wildlife.

And again, while the priorities were were similar, uh the conversations around those priorities were a little bit different in I-4 area.

Uh the themes identified through the overall uh public engagement were focused on rural character, infrastructure, flooding and drainage, uh, environmental resources, water quality, and water you uh water quality and utility service choice.

Uh but many of those uh discussions reflected the challenges associated with the existing growth and development pressures in the area.

I think that distinction will be important as we move into scenario development.

Uh so again, we've established uh where these studies are, uh the study areas are today, uh, what the market may support over time and what we've heard from the community so far.

Uh the next phase is where we're gonna be piecing those together.

We'll be uh in the I-4 corridor again this week, wrapping up round two, and the next phase of workbook will focus on developing scenarios for each study area, and based on that feedback we received round three, the study team will go ahead and refine scenarios, uh, complete the fiscal and infrastructure analyses and identify a preferred scenario.

Uh again, those findings will help inform the final recommendations that ultimately come back to the planning commission and the board of county commissioners.

So that concludes my presentation and the status update.

Staff is available for any questions, as is the consultant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good timing.

All right.

Practice.

Are there any questions or comments on this from some from the commissioners?

This is a presentation, so we don't have any real action to take on this one.

But any thoughts, questions, or comments on the study so far.

Commissioner Sink.

A quick question.

You mentioned choice in water and wastewater for the I-4.

Can you walk me through where those concerns are and what they entail?

Uh sure.

We did hear from folks the concern of having to potentially be forced to switch to water uh and wastewater services.

There are folks that like being on well and septic, and so that is that is part of the conversation that people don't want to be put on uh water and wastewater services.

All right, are there any other I did have a request for you when this comes back?

It's interesting to me.

This presentation makes it seem that the little manatee areas a little more sensitive than the I-4 area.

One stat, I guess, that you don't you don't speak about rural land use categories versus urban land use categories, and since you're kind of looking at it from land use, I can tell we aren't talking about like zoning or parcel level stuff.

I get it, that's not our purview.

But agricultural versus I'm sorry, rural versus urban land use categories.

I'd like to understand what quantity of each there are right out there.

So going forward from here forward, when we talk about little manatee, when we talk about I-4, I want to understand what the ratio of rural land use categories is to urban land use categories as defined in our comp plan.

Our comp plan does have a line between what is considered rural and what is considered urban.

So I think that might be a little give a little more light to what's going on in the two different areas.

Um I'm also interested in, I guess, and that'll come with time when the scenarios come out.

How we're gonna deal with like in Little Manatee, there seems like a lot of environmentally sensitive areas that we're gonna have to dance around.

Coastal high hazard is also a big issue down there.

So I'm I'm interested to see, and I'm gonna be patient to wait to see what the scenarios look like, but how we're gonna be able to fit all this population into a highly environmentally sensitive coastal high hazard area down there with little infrastructure from what I'm hearing right now.

I mean, it sounds like it's gonna be pretty expensive to build out down there, or we're gonna have to get some sort of partnership from the development community going forward.

There's not a lot of fire and emergency services, the roads you said weren't very good.

There's no water down there right now, so schools weren't very prevalent down there.

So, and again, I know this this process was brought forward as a process, not to necessarily look into the current urban service boundary and try to be more efficient with what we're doing.

The idea is to expand it.

We're just gonna expand it.

And this is these are the areas we're gonna expand it in.

So I'm gonna be really curious to see how we're just gonna expand it into an area like this that has all these little you know, kind of nuances that we're we're gonna be having to deal with.

So coming forward, I'd like some more information on that.

And again, like I said, I know it's gonna come forward in the scenarios, but when the scenarios do come forward, that's one thing I'm gonna have my eye on.

So any information or detail into that sort of thing as the scenarios come forward will be appreciated.

Understood.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner St.

I'm also curious about the feedback we're getting from organizations.

So, like I'm curious about the feedback of like the Hillsborough County Farm Bureau versus the Builders Association and the Board of Realtors, because the perspective of these people are completely different, and how does how will or how does the study balance those in a way that we can understand their positions?

So we did speak with um, and like you said, everyone does have a little bit of a different interest, um, but gathering all of that is the important part to see where those interests are, where they can intersect a little bit, um, and how those are gonna be again what is on the ground, what is happening today?

These are the experts in real estate in agricultural um, you know, economies and things like that.

So that's part of the reason we're going out and talking to them.

These are the people that live out there and they know what's going on.

Um, and that's again helping us inform what these scenarios are going to look like and the feasibility of some of those scenarios as well.

So all of that is being taken into account.

Um, and again I was I was pleasantly surprised um with uh personally the the Realtors Association, they did have a different perspective than I thought they would about the study.

Uh so it's it's surprising once you get out there and start talking to people out there in the in the community.

Any other questions I saw, Ms.

Learning?

Oh, Commissioner Lincoln.

I guess just um to to build on your your comments, Chair.

Um I guess I'm curious after seeing this information about Little Manatee South, if you could refresh my memory, and I think this kind of all started before I I joined the commission on why Little Manatee South is part of the consideration, and it does seem like it's important to look at given that there is a lot of growth pressure down in that area.

But I guess um the framing of are we definitely trying to do expansion in that area, or could the study tell us this may not be the right area?

Is is is it pretty open what the results could be in terms of of that area?

Um I'll tackle that one.

Um the well, first of all, the the part of the reason that the Little Mansea South area was selected was because when we looked at the rural area and the areas that have community plans, um the Little Manatee South adopted community plan today says that when there becomes the opportunity for the urban service area to be expanded, they would like to be considered for that.

So they in their community plan articulated that there could be a future where they were more than rural.

Um, and that was uh in the late 2000s that they adopted that was adopted.

Um so that was that was a factor that we looked at was well, this is a rural community that has expressed interest in maybe having something more that's kind of rare in our rural communities.

Um that being said, I did not uh take the Board of County Commissioners' direction to study these areas as the entire study area needs to be expanded into.

They want us to look at them.

The policies call for a certain type of study to be done and in these expansion areas, and that may identify that parts of them are more appropriate for expansion and other parts are not.

Um it may identify phasing that is appropriate, um, or that some parts are just should be left alone.

Um, so I think that is all a part of what we're gonna find through this study.

Um, if I could just ask one other question, and I know this is kind of a big question, so um, but just could you could you educate me a little bit about sort of what the process would look like?

When areas are should it should there be any area in any of these study areas that might be appropriate for expansion?

What would the process of looking at service exp service expansion look like?

Like if if water was to come out to these areas.

What's the process there?

How much are is the planning commission involved?

What does that look like?

I'm curious.

So we have been uh coordinating with the county on potentially what those processes will look like, but it it'll be hard to say until we have some of those scenarios to kind of go through that thinking process through that um, you know, uh thinking ahead and seeing what exactly could work, what might not work.

We're also um as part of the the charge the consultant has is also looking at some funding sources as well.

So if we do come across like uh maybe it the traditional ways of funding that the county has right now uh might not cover this, okay.

What are some other ways that might uh be able to be used in order to do that?

But again, it really is gonna depend on where those scenarios come and what that preferred scenario is gonna look like because then at that point is when we're gonna have uh that full infrastructure analysis and fiscal impact analysis done.

Thank you.

No problem.

Right.

There are any other questions, thoughts from the commission?

Commissioner Sink, one more question.

Um, in regards to community feedback and participation, was is there like an acceptable level that you would expect?

And then how does how did the responses and the number of responses compare to what you guys actually expected it to be in the first place?

Are you getting more people, less people, more feedback, less feedback?

Like, how does that look from compared to what you guys expected?

Uh so from what we expect, I mean, we've done a few uh community planning uh efforts.

So when we go out and update community plans, it's generally around the same, kind of the same size, for the exception of I4, that's a little bit larger.

Um, but we're seeing we're seeing a pretty healthy, I would consider, uh uh turnout in terms of people coming physically to the meetings and also participating um in the online surveys.

We are getting uh, I believe we have over 90, I believe at this point, plus emails from the community.

Uh so it has been pretty, I think it's been pretty robust from what we've seen so far.

And we continue and we encourage people to continue to uh you know stay in touch and uh send us their comments and continue going to the meetings.

Uh the more voices that we receive the better.

All right.

There are any other thoughts, questions.

I did have one more, two more comments.

First quick one was as we look at the I-4 area.

I think building on what Commissioner Lincoln said, but in a different area, we should really look at the I-4 areas around the I-4.

I haven't heard, and again, I'm sure this will all come as soon as the scenarios come out.

So I'm always getting ahead of myself here.

But when the when those scenarios do come out in the I-4 corridor, I think you know, that I-4 is a huge asset for years, decades now, we've tried to, you know, really build that area up.

So I think if there are areas where development makes sense, that seems to me like in and about the I-4 corridor would be a place where it makes sense.

So just some more discussion and I guess thoughtfulness and how we're using leveraging the I-4 and the areas in and adjacent to the I-4 in that, you know, area would be good to hear as we go forward.

And also, I was wondering, okay, if to going off what you said, which I agree with, you know, we're not just whole cloth expanding everywhere.

We're only gonna pick now at this point, because we're here where we are.

We're only gonna pick selected areas in these two study areas to expand into.

Will those areas that are left for us to actually do some expansion in, will that cover the population that we need to cover?

You know what I mean?

Like, because we we we were looking at this whole swath of area.

After we shrink it down and say, okay, well, development's only good in these areas, will we then have to jump to other areas of the county to be able to handle the population number, or is the population number just gonna fit into these small areas, or will the small areas have to flex to be able to carry the pop?

Because don't forget the whole thing that started this thing off was population projections, and we're trying to fit these population projections somewhere, and we're not trying to be more efficient with what we have, we just want to expand to fit them somewhere.

So once we shrink it down, are we sure they're gonna fit and how does that all that work?

Well, I don't know, I don't think we're at the point that we have the answer yet.

But I I will say that as part of the, for example, in the I-4 corridor, a part of that map that there was the yellow line, um, east of which is plant city's vision area.

We've discussed with Plant City that they would like to um as part of their plan update, do some mass the master planning of that area.

So we're not gonna have the entirety of that original study area complete because plant cities kind of coming from the other direction, looking at it as they're moving outwards.

So there are a number of different things that yes, we're gonna have to kind of put all the pieces of the puzzle together and see where we're at.

Okay.

Well, I'm glad to hear that that you're talking that we're talking in talks with Plant City and that intergovernmental role for this agency.

Again, I've said it before, I think is a huge one, and that's something that we should leverage a lot.

So I'm very happy to hear that that's going on.

So very good.

All right.

Any other thoughts or questions from the commissioner?

Commissioner Sink, you sure going once, going twice.

Good.

All right.

We'll thank you for the information then, and we will move on to our next agenda item.

Now that we have our quorum, we'll jump back really quick to the approval of minutes.

Um we have the approval of minutes for Hillsborough County Planning Commission regular meeting minutes April 13th, 2026, Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on unincorporated Hillsborough County Plan Amendments, April 13th, 2026.

Hillsborough County Planning Commission regular meeting minutes, May 11th, 2026, Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on City of Tampa Plan Amendments May 11th, 2026, and Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on unincorporated Hillsboro County Plan Amendments May 11th, 2026.

Is there a motion to approve out there?

Anyone?

Commissioner Kugler.

Yes, all right.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Kugler.

Is there a second out there?

Commissioner.

All right.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Kugler.

Second by Commissioner Lincoln.

Are there any discussions or comments from the commissioners before we take our vote?

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

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Next up, we will go back to our action items.

So we will go to 3A.

All right, so we'll go to 3A.

We will start our action items with Temple Terrace Land Development Code, LDC text amendment, section 12-827 easements, and the presenters are Krista Kelly and Kim Ford.

Um good afternoon, Commissioners.

Krista Kelly Planning Commission staff.

The item before you is a publicly initiated plan amendment to the Temple Terrace Land Development Code, Section 12827 relating to stormwater and drainage easements.

I will be turning uh the presentation over to Mr.

Kim Ford, engineer with the Temple Terrace Public Works Department, who will present an overview of the amendment.

Um this is an action item, so following Mr.

Ford's presentation, I will present the planning commission staff's finding on consistency with the comprehensive plan.

And hi.

My name's Kim Fordham with Public Works uh Engineering Department of Temple City of Temple Terrace.

Um here to present revisions to the land development code, provide clarification and guidance regarding in support of uh easements.

Uh easements include large areas on private property that have stormwater pipes and inlets.

City of Temple Terrace needs to do work in the drainage easements, and the homeowners do not homeowners do not.

I guess I'm trying to advance it, Krista.

Uh there we go.

Thank you.

Uh homeowners do not understand their shared responsibilities.

Uh restrictions that limit development and the city's right to access 12827A in our code requires a permit by the owner before working in an easement.

Owner must obtain a permit for alterations.

Um could be a shed, could be uh landscaping.

Uh we need to be careful so they don't block the drainage.

12827C describe share responsibilities.

Uh the owner is responsible typically for mowing, uh reducing vegetation and obstructions.

The city is responsible for major repairs.

12827 D identify specific purposes for drainage easements.

Uh an easement, a drainage easement is accessible by the city at any time uh regional blue access should be provided uh without exceptions, and uh we should be able to go in there and get our work done.

12827E explains responsibilities and restrictions.

Easements are recorded and transferred to subsequent owners.

Yes, um Christa Kelly Planning Commission staff again.

Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposed change to the land development code section 12-827 related to the stormwater and drainage easements and found the amendment consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan.

Specifically, the proposed amendment is consistent with the land use objective 8.5 and policy 8.5.3, which relates to development approvals and consistency with the land development code and state law.

In addition, the proposed amendment is consistent with land use policy 8.1.5 and stormwater policy 1.1.5, which encourage the construction design and use of easements to support existing and new growth and development.

Based on the review, staff recommends that the planning commission find this land development code amendment consistent with the Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan and forward this recommendation to the Temple Terrace City Council.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any question, and also the Temple Terrorist staff is here as well.

Thank you.

All right.

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

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

Commissioner Lincas.

I'll make a motion to find the Temple Terrace Land Development Code Text Amendment Section 12-827 easements consistent with the Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan.

All right.

Commissioner Kugler.

I'll second that.

All right.

We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lincoln's and second by Commissioner Kugler.

Any questions, comments from the planning 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 on our agenda, action item 3B, Temple Terrace Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Section 12-40.

Definitions and Section 12-81, reasonable accommodation procedures for recovery residences.

And the presenters are Yunika Mills and Alyssa Livingstone.

Good afternoon, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to introduce Alyssa Livingstone with Temple Tier Staff.

She'll be reviewing with you this afternoon land development code text amendment regarding recovery residences.

After her presentation, I'll be back for a staff consistency finding.487.

Florida statutes by establishing a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any land development code regulation that may prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence.

In this section, a disabled individual is defined as someone who qualifies as disabled or handicapped under the FHA and or ADA and has a disability as defined by Section 760.22 Florida statutes.

These individuals may request reasonable accommodations regarding the city's LDCs and procedures as provided by the Federal Fair Housing Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

To ensure administrative accountability, the community development department will date stamp completed applications upon receipt.

The applicant then has 30 days to provide the requested documentation.

Once an application is deemed complete, the city has 60 days to issue a final determination.

If a request is denied, the city must provide evidence-based reasons for the denial, identifying specific deficiencies or actions required for reconsideration.

To ensure predictable timelines, the code establishes the 60-day review period as a firm deadline.

Failure to meet this deadline results in a deemed approved status unless a written extension is mutually agreed upon by both parties.

These proposed amendments ensure that the city of Temple Terrace remains a compliant and inclusive community, fully aligned with federal fair housing protections.

By formalizing these procedures, we are providing certified recovery residences with a clear and consistent pathway for establishments under state mandated guidelines.

Staff recommends approval of these text amendments to ensure our land development code remains a precise and effective tool for the city.

Thank you.

Planning Commission staff reviewed this land development text code amendment and found it consistent based on land use objective 8.5 and policy 8.5.3, which states that developments must be consistent with the land development code.

Additionally, we found this uh requests consistent with policy 2.1.2, which speaks to housing residents to meet the needs of the community.

And that concludes my presentation.

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

All right, thank you very much.

I don't believe we had anyone sign up in the public comment for this one either, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this one.

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

Commissioner Lincas.

I'd like to uh make a motion to find Temple Terrace Land Development Code Text Amendment Section 12-40 definitions and section 12-81 reasonable accommodation procedures for recovery residences consistent with the temple terrace comprehensive plan.

Right, we got a motion of consistency finding.

Is there a second anywhere out there?

All right, seconded motion of commission motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lincoln's second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler.

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

Not seeing any, then would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

Last but not least, on our action items 3C, proposed revisions to policies of the Hillsborough County City County Planning Commission, and the presenter is Mr.

Sean College.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Sean Collins, Chief of Planning and Operation with your Planning Commission staff.

There's been a number of changes at the federal and state level recently with regard to diversity equity and inclusion.

Specifically, the state of Florida recently passed a law prohibiting local governments and counties from having such programs.

We don't have such programs at the planning commission, but we did look at all of our policies and such.

And we did find in our policies of the planning commission, which are policies that are adopted by the planning commissioners, a mention of diversity and contracting.

So in looking at the entirety of the policies, we recommending some changes.

We have this in your packet.

The substantive changes to the policies of the Planning Commission are on pages 10 and 11 of your packet of this item.

What we're proposing to do is to remove the diversity and contracting section.

We're proposing to make sure we include a small business enterprise aspect to contracting, which is something consistent with the state and federal law.

What we're finding is also within these policies, there's a great deal of reporting mentioned.

There's annual reporting with regard to diversity.

So we're gonna recommending to delete that and these quarterly reporting.

As you know, our executive director gives monthly at every meeting in her executive director's report, gives um a report on our contracts and such.

So we're going to keep that monthly reporting, strike the quarterly and any reporting is recommended.

There's also updating of the protected classes listed in the document.

This is the current standard with regard to non-discrimination.

And finally, what is being proposed, we have looked, and it is consistent with what our partners at the City of Tampa and the County are doing with regard to their policies and contracting.

Um this is an action item, and we recommended that you adopt these changes.

And that concludes my remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

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

Commissioner Kugler.

Yes.

Um is the thought that uh if we address it as a small business uh approach that we can um continue forward with uh diversity in our in our in our contracting because of that that might offset some of the um measures taken in the diversity EEI, the EI area.

Well, all I like to say in that is that small business enterprise is something again supported by the state of Florida and our partner local governments are doing that, and that small businesses are a good driving force of the economy, and it's good to support them.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners?

All right, then I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item.

Anybody commissioner Link is I um we'll make a motion to find the proposed revisions to the policies of the Hillsborough County, City County Planning Commission.

This is consistent with the plan, I guess.

Is that what it's finding with?

We're approving them.

Okay, approving it.

Okay.

All right, is there's Commissioner Kugler?

And second that, please.

All right.

So we have a motion to approve these changes to the policies, Hillsborough County City Planning Commission policies, and a second to that approval motion by Commissioner Kugler.

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

Would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Next up, we have 4B, which is a pseudo-action item, so I guess I might be wrong here.

Um unincorporated Hillsborough County urban service area options for next steps, and the presenter is Melissa Dickens.

Hi, good afternoon, Commissioners.

Melissa Dickens, Planning Commission staff.

One moment, let me pull up the presentation.

All right.

Um, you all have been having a number of good discussions over the past several months on the urban service area.

We've gotten a lot of good input from you.

We've heard from our county partners, and we wanted to take this opportunity to get your feedback on how we should move forward.

What should we do in terms of timing and approach for further analysis of the urban service area?

Um, so today uh we'll briefly recap the previous urban service area agenda items.

We recognize that different folks may have been here at different meetings.

We want to make sure that we bring everybody up to speed of where we've been over the past few months.

Then we'll outline some different options for you all to consider in terms of next steps for further evaluation, uh, both the timing of those steps and uh the approach.

And then our request, our humble request to staff is that you all um discuss and provide us with a motion on the preferred timing and approach for further evaluation.

Um so uh going back a few months, uh beginning with February 2026.

There were some discussions before this uh in November and December of 2025, but this is really when there was an agenda item before you all.

Uh we came before you all with a scope to evaluate the urban service area and potential alternatives.

You all said this is probably a little bit too much, and you wanted to do some additional study beforehand.

So your direction was to conduct an informational workshop and also engage a facilitator to gather perspectives from you all and help identify areas of consensus and concern.

Then at the March regular meeting, you all voted to transmit a letter to the Board of County Commissioners outlining some of the issues with the urban service area and requesting direction.

At that meeting, there was a little bit of a shift, and you all uh indicated that we should defer procurement of the facilitator pending Board of County Commissioner feedback, but still continue the plans for the informational workshop.

Then on the April uh 2026, I believe it was April 15th, uh, the Board of County Commissioners had an agenda item related to the letter, um, and they also mentioned uh the forthcoming UEA updates, which you all heard uh from Sophia earlier, they'll be hearing uh later this week.

They did not take any formal action at that meeting, um, but there was discussion about a future action item on the topic.

Then uh we came back before you in April to uh ask for some questions and topic areas you all would like to have uh discussed at the informational workshop.

And then most recently last month, um, you all uh heard from both our staff and the representatives from the various Hillsborough County departments, the property appraiser and the TPO to provide a broad overview of the urban service area.

Um we appreciate you all.

I know that was kind of a long, uh long informational item, but um we hope you found it valuable to understand the different nuances and how different folks use the urban service area.

Um, and then at that meeting, there was a discussion of continued examination of the urban service area, what would be some opportunities to hear from additional stakeholder groups, folks like uh the development community, the agricultural community, rural residents, and then there was also some informal discussion about areas for further uh evaluation.

So we heard um uh some support for agriculture, how can the urban service area policies be better aligned to support agriculture in the rural area?

How can we look at our policies related to infill and redevelopment within the urban service area?

How does the urban service area affect housing affordability?

Is there an opportunity to do a geospatial analysis to get some additional information on some of these issues, and then looking at the range of development patterns, rural, suburban, and urban.

And there has been a lot of great thoughtful, important discussion on this topic, and we think that the time is right to solidify how we move forward on this.

Um we'd like to get some additional direction from you all on the timing and what you would like the next phase of this discussion to look like.

Okay, so first we'll talk timing.

Um there are a few different options in terms of when we pursue this.

Um the first, well, the second option is option B, we can go ahead and pursue further examination at this time.

We can start some of the uh approaches that you'll see on the next couple of slides.

We also could pursue uh further examination following any future direction from the Board of County Commissioners.

Um, if you recall at that April meeting, there was mention of that, so that could be something that's out there.

And then option C, um, excuse me, that is a typo should say beginning of 2027, um, pursue further examination following the completion of the urban expansion area studies.

You heard an update from Sophia, that team is hard at work, so should we wait until that is completed to pursue further examination?

And I'll just add a note that you know, if we if we do decide to wait, we would suggest that we revisit the approaches because some context may have changed.

There may be some changes out there that we want to re-look at those approach options.

So you all can decide one or both of these items today.

And then there's a number of different ways that we could look at the further uh examination of the urban service area.

These options are not mutually exclusive.

You could pick more than one, you could pick all of them.

We really want to provide as many different options as possible for you all.

So uh the first is uh going back a few months to that idea of having a facilitator for you all to have some more discussions about identifying some of the key issues, refining those key issues, what exactly are we trying to uh help with?

What exactly um are we trying to uh help with?

How can we best help with issues like agriculture, our infill and redevelopment policies, affordability and our development patterns.

Uh and we would would hope we would intend that approach would also include some refined refined topics for evaluation.

Um those would reflect the areas of consensus and topics for additional study, um some options for performance metrics, which we know is is important to this this board, um, either potential analysis or geospatial evaluation, what would need to be looked at and what metrics would need to be defined, and then a draft scope of services for further analysis.

Uh the second option is uh facilitating stakeholders.

Um so this could either be done by a private consultant or a third-party organization to meet with stakeholders individually, hold focus groups or interviews, uh representing a range of different perspectives, and then come back to you all.

The the either the consultant or the third party would come back to you all, summarize and present their findings to you.

And then option C the public participation workshop.

This would be in accordance with the planning commission bylaws.

Um there would be an opportunity to hear from both specific stakeholders who could be invited as well as the general public.

And then option D, uh, Sophia mentioned those urban expansion area meetings.

We're having a number of those in the community over the next several months.

We heard that there was a desire to hear directly from rural residents.

So this could be another option.

You all are welcome to join us in either the I4 area or Little Manatee South to hear what some of the stakeholders are saying with respect to growth and development.

And I should say, um, just going back, I forgot to mention this, but in terms of the costs, we're trying to keep it under $50,000 so that we can have a more expedited procurement.

Um there are different rules when it's under $50,000, it's a little more expedient.

So that's why we've we've kept the initial facilitation that low.

That would just be the first step.

That would not be $50,000, gives us an extensive study, but really that would help uh that would provide enough for us to have a facilitation with you all or have stakeholder facilitation.

And then these items uh there would be no cost for either the public participation workshop or you all joining us at our public meetings.

And with that, um, our our requested action from you all is to provide a motion on the preferred timing option or approach option for the further examination of the urban service area.

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

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment on this one, so to the planning commissioners for questions, comments, discussions, thoughts.

Commissioner Kugler.

I was looking at the the timing um options, and uh timing A involves BOCC, which seems to me fairly important on this issue.

That's just my thought on on the timing one.

And uh as far as the approaches, um we've been dealing with this issue for a long time.

Um we are almost the consultants in a way on it.

So I'm wondering if perhaps uh perhaps C or D might be totally appropriate.

That's just thoughts and questions at the same time.

I I think that the BOCC probably would be well involved.

Well well to involve them on the timing part at least.

Thank you.

Thoughts, other thoughts or comments from the commissioners?

I did have a general, I didn't want to stop you when you came up, but there are so few of us here today.

I was thinking I've been obviously I've been the bull in the China shop on this one, pushing this thing forward, but I'm always sensitive to make sure that all the commissioners get to get their thoughts in.

I mean, you know me, I don't like to play games, political games and stuff like that.

I'd rather us all be here, us all get our thoughts in, and then the larger vote kind of sway to the day.

So I didn't know if we could push this action item, push this motion that you want till a time when we have more commissioners here to have more input on it.

It I could go either way, I'd sort of with the du jour of the board.

So if the board wants to take some action now, that's also fine with me.

But you know, I'd we're kind of light on people here today, and as Commissioner Kugler makes a good point, this board has kind of been, you know, what's moving this forward.

So, and I know the question is always of this board.

You want to get our input to give you all direction.

So I'm always kind of sensitive to try and make sure everybody, as many as possible, you can't be perfect, but as many as possible are able to get their inputs in.

So, Commissioner Seaban.

Is it possible to make a comment now and then come back to it maybe next month when everybody else is here?

Or should we just save the whole thing?

That's yeah, you can make comments all you want.

We can we can comment and talk and request and do I was talking about the specific action directing them to do this or directing them to do that.

But we can that's we can have open discussion here, and there's some thoughts or some ideas you want to have, you know, looked at or something.

Well it's pseudo a directive, but so maybe talk about it now, maybe but um so just a suggestion though.

Um, you know, we had talked about it in my briefing, but um in terms of getting outside um opinions on something like this, it had been it made sense to me, you know.

We did something like this in a similar fashion um when we updated the city of Tampa's uh future land use plan, or suggested to update it.

Um where I was thinking maybe something you had mentioned, you know, developer input, so maybe some sort of combination between I know that there are a lot of developers, residential developers involved in the Tampa Bay Builders Association, and then more commercial developers involved in ULI.

So maybe some sort of meeting with both of those groups where we can go and sit and not comment or I'll leave if somebody else comments, um, but just listen to what they have to say, possibly, and maybe you know, invite the BOCC to do the same.

Just a suggestion.

I'm gonna leave that to Mrs.

Ornita and you know, staff counsel, because you've been trying to get into those meetings for a while now and they seem to me.

Who, me?

Well, I I mean I'm allowed to go like in as an individual.

I just mean as far as you know, those opinions are concerned, I think it you know, developers are gonna probably be less likely to come to one of our meetings and sort of like bash their heads against the wall against opposition and maybe be open to speaking more freely in you know the type of group where their thoughts and viewpoints are more common.

That's a little bit different of a twist than the options that we're given.

Do you all have any thoughts on that, Ms.

Dickens, Ms.

Ornana?

I d uh uh well I I think um you know that certainly could be a possibility.

We could certainly look at that.

I think um we uh you know we have great conversations with with the ULI folks with TBBA folks, so I think that's certainly something that we could coordinate.

I think um the one thing that we would want to make sure that is also done is um how are we reaching the folks who are not in the development community, you know, the folks who might be the rural residents or the agricultural group.

So it we might just need to think about how are we making sure that they're included too.

Absolutely, and we had talked about that in my briefing.

You know, I know that you guys are hosting a lot of those meetings, so just maybe to get both kinds of opinions on something like this, that might also be helpful.

Yeah, yeah.

And I I would just say I don't think that I mean, I think we that could be a part of an option B where there's some facilitation of different types of stakeholder meetings and interviews, um, and maybe a report brought back.

Um I think the the nuance that Commissioner Seaban's adding is that maybe some of those stakeholder meetings, there's the ability for the planning commissioners to attend and kind of listen to them, and um and the and then in addition to getting a report on them.

But I I think that that could be B plus.

Yeah, there you go.

Commissioner And if there's any you know issue with us attending, of course, you know, a report is probably sufficient.

Okay, Commissioner Carnanis.

Yeah, I guess my only thought is um I remember was it last year or the year before we were working on the commercial corridor well Tampa and we had the local more so attorneys that were commenting on it.

Do you know recollect what I'm talking about?

Um I feel like we provided a guide and a direction in that.

I feel like in this type of situation we probably get to that point too where we have a little bit more of a guide and a direction before we're just blanketly like opening it.

Um, because then it could it's gonna take a different format where we may not even be going.

Commissioner Seaban.

My only thought as to that is I don't know that we have a direction where we're going yet.

So maybe getting other people's opinions might help us formulate a direction once we have I think you meant in with the meeting itself, not like our general direction.

He's talking about the the the format of the meeting that we have in that sense.

Yeah, I think I think the data that we figure out that we find we find where this is telling us to do that, or this is telling us to do that.

That's gonna provide that format and direction, or that's gonna tell us the points that we have to hit.

And then we have conversations over those points.

That's what we're just saying, let's just have a conversation.

Right.

We're just having conversation.

We're talking about who knows what, where if we have the data, we have some points.

Okay, this is what we're talking about.

These are the sections.

That's a good point.

Yeah, fair.

Different ways of looking at it.

Yeah.

Yeah, and if if I may, we also could potentially, I mean, we did segment these out just so there would be different options to refer to, but we could do something that is almost a hybrid of what you both are suggesting where maybe there's an initial conversation or consensus building with you all, and then we go out to the community so that there is a little more direction before we're out talking to the stakeholder groups.

So we could, you know, look at the different options and come back and see if that's something that we could propose for for next month.

She did say we could do all of them if we wanted.

So that that makes me think that with data, maybe we we can develop a questionnaire.

And that way, through that questionnaire, we're kind of creating a path.

Well, there's different ways of looking at it.

Some would say that if you talk to the people first, the people might let you know that there's not even a need to look for data.

So it's you know, potato.

But your point is valid.

I agree with you, and you make a valid, you know, different way of looking at it, but it's just all different ways of looking at it.

So Commissioner Lincas.

I guess um, so a takeaway for me from the workshop is that the a lot of the folks who were in the room and presented to us that day um really had fundamental ways that they were using the urban service area.

Um so I I didn't hear from those groups a lot of concerns about the urban service area, um, which I think is an important takeaway for our explorations that there were a lot of functions that this is is serving, and that they did I understood them to um generally be expressing support for it.

And that could be a subjective uh takeaway.

Um, but I I don't recall hearing a lot of concerns about it.

And in fact, I feel like a lot of what was expressed there was um that it's fundamental to the planning processes.

So I guess it's you know, and that does lean into points that I you know have expressed over the over those last few months where I do feel like it is a fundamental building block of the way planning is done here, and really really um this is a huge undertaking.

And yet I've also been persuaded in sitting in the room and listening to some of the conversation that there are some points of concern.

And I I I guess I'm still at a point where I don't know.

I I'm still a little bit um asking the same questions I have all along of like what what's the what are we doing here?

Why are we why are we breaking this apart?

But I guess if I were to look, there's some questions about why the 80%.

I I see a struggle with when we've got a decision right at the border.

Some folks see it one way, some folks see it in the other, and there's an interest in kind of how do we do that.

So if anything, I guess all of this together kind of leads me to think we've got a huge undertaking going on.

This only months to till it um wraps up if it's early 2027, I believe you said.

So I my inclination would be to let's get through that deep dive of knowledge that we're gonna get about these three areas that are under study now, see if that kind of informs a broader kind of perspective, and then I think this is really a very serious undertaking that should look narrowly at kind of like the structural issues of the of the of the of the the service area.

What the eight can we and I think I share concerns with some of the other planning commissioners here about could we find ways to make sure that we're absorbing a lot inside as well instead of just looking at sort of what we do outside?

So I think something like a I like the idea of the sort of a ULI type group coming in, some outside experts to really say, how do you do urban service areas right?

What's the best practices on that?

What are we doing here?

Um, but I think digesting that after we kind of learn about these processes that are underway personally makes sense to me.

And we've got this huge what if going on with property taxes and what that's gonna mean, because this is all tied into how we fund local services.

So all that said, I'm I'm inclined towards option C, I believe.

Um I believe that was the right one.

Let's kind of wait and see what we learn from these huge undertakings, these very uh the folks who are really involved in this process, whether it be residents or developers are gonna be watching this, have a voice, start to get involved, and and you know, there's no rush on this.

Um there's enough going on, I think, for people to digest on this, and then let's kind of figure out how we take the next steps with the focus on kind of the procedural issues of of you know, how do we do kind of simple expansions right at the border?

How do we think about the overall ways that we're expanding it and how do we think about funneling um population into expensary area too?

That would be my takeaway.

Right, Commissioner Seaman.

My the reason I brought it up is um mostly because I feel like last time when we were trying to get feedback on the uh city of Tampa's future land use um changes, it was like pulling teeth almost to get responses from developers.

And I think that there are a lot of developers who have really good ideas about these kinds of things, but maybe don't feel like those ideas might be receptive, received well.

Um so uh my thought was for the builders and for some of the local developers, you know, what are you seeing in other municipalities?

Do you think that there are ways that these fees might be go to better use or ways that we can redo some of these things so we can you know, how do you guys look at the urban service area?

Sh do you think that um that this is something we should have or not have, and why?

Do you think that um that there's gonna be a much bigger increase in infrastructure costs if we get rid of it, and if not, why?

And those are just kind of some of the questions I think, you know, outside of the experts, you know, that we have on the you know, the county staff and planning commission staff um who see how these fees come in and interpret them.

I think it could be sort of like the thing that you and I disagreed about last time.

You know, you can see it that you can read the numbers two different ways.

So that was my thought is you know, I wonder how they're interpreting all this.

And just a quick response.

I think that that that's one reason I do think the suggestion about a ULI kind of um organizing forum, which is would be developer led, and maybe not exactly the folks who have skid in the game, but sort of the the folks who represent best practice in the industry might be a good organizer for this.

I think they would be very sophisticated in handling it.

Right.

I did want to say um also an echo the comments on the presentation that we had last time with all county staff.

You did an excellent job pulling that together.

There was a lot of information in there, and it got to it was a huge step forward that I've been trying to push this agency and all of our thinking towards, you know, and starting to branch out from this idea of we like the urban service boundary versus we don't like the urban service boundary.

There's a larger question about the functioning of the urban service boundary.

Okay, we look historically at government and notice my color.

There's been policies in government that people just keep doing and keep doing and keep doing and keep doing and don't think about, right?

We have to stop at a certain point and think about what we're doing.

I get that the policy is in a thousand departments.

There were policies back in history that were in a thousand departments.

And if somebody didn't stop and say, hey, what are we doing here?

We need to change these policies, those policies wouldn't have changed.

So I I do agree that there's tons of departments around the county that are using this policy, but again, let's understand what we're using, right?

Instead of just saying that, okay, well, every year we we check these boxes and we can pat ourselves on the back because we're using what we're supposed to be using.

Let's understand how what we're using is impacting the community, how you know what it's producing, let's make sure it's producing what we want it to produce.

So I think those are the questions that this effort is really about.

Those are different questions than the U EA studies are about.

You know, those urban expansion areas again were birthed of a directive to expand the urban service area.

We're actually we're asking how is the urban service area functioning?

Those are two distinctly different questions.

So I tend to disagree a little bit with this idea that we should wait.

I think the urban expansion area study is necessary.

I think it's good.

I think the information we're receiving on it has been great and it needs to keep going.

But this process here has a completely different focus, you know, and I mean, and I do believe that the outcomes of this process are gonna be different than the outcomes of the urban expansion area process.

Again, it's not one versus the other, it's yes and it's all together and, you know, and I mean, but I don't think we should be afraid of either one.

You know, there's strong opinions on both sides.

One one side wants the urban service area completely removed, the other side wants the urban service area blindly maintained.

I tend to fall more in the middle of that, you know, and I mean no one knows democratic process, no one knows what the what the ultimate answer is gonna be or yield.

So I just always try to suggest calm.

Let's not all clutch our pearls and let's move forward with knowledge and focus and what we're doing.

And I do think that this process needs to move forward, you know.

I mean, these questions are germane, you know, those questions that I asked earlier when we were talking about the UEA study.

Well, it might not be good in certain areas, we may have to shrink it down, and then I'm good in my response.

Well, if we shrink it down, where's population?

These are real issues, you know.

I mean, so and this what we're talking about here starts to answer and direct information on how to respond to those issues.

Some of the things Commissioner Lincoln was talking about, the issues we have when we're at the edge, and this board does know what to do, being more efficient, directing it back in, you know, which you said about working with the different municipalities.

I think energy interjurisdictional working is going to be a key and important thing, you know what I mean.

And so looking at ways we can really do that, not in reaction to what the Board of County Commissioners said to do, but in ways we can with a good planning framework really set up, you know, mechanisms to do inner good interjurisdictional work when it comes to how we grow and you know put people places.

So I do think this needs to go forward.

I don't think we should necessarily wait on the board of county commissioners.

Again, my take when I was standing in that room is that they thought what we were talking about is a very important issue.

You know, they were there was even interest, again, I bring it up, there was interest about just using the urban areas, the urban transportation areas from FDOT as a quick solution.

We didn't, I mean Ms.

Ornita were like, well, those things need to be looked at, but when they start saying things like that, it lets me know that they're interested in it and they want more information and they want the things we're talking about, you know, the questions we're asked we're asking answered.

So to me, it's it's not a situation of waiting on them.

If they did, if they this wasn't important, they would have said, no, this isn't important, we're dealing with different things, we're dealing with this or that, you know, put that off to the side.

They even talked about another action coming up after this that they might may or may not take, may not may never come back up again.

They're busy with a lot of things, including raised baseball, so who knows.

But to me, that shows that this thing that we're talking about here is extremely important in this county.

So for us, as the overarching agency for the county, overarching board for the agency of the county to just sit back and say, Well, we're just gonna wait.

I I don't think that's appropriate.

Now, I was the one who was ready to wait before.

You know, we were gonna go get contracts and stuff, and I said, Hey, wait a minute, let's let's wait and make sure this is important.

I went down there in person, and to me, what I got from those individuals who sent me here who I work with in all sorts of different fashions is that it's important to them, you know, and they want to know.

So to me, it has to go forward, and I did want to make one other comment about that.

I am kind of apprehensive about it going forward and how this agency is gonna handle it again.

The meeting you did last time was good.

Your work to this point has been really great, but as this board has been being educated, so has staff in a lot of ways, right?

You all went back and found a lot of information you weren't you weren't sure about.

You found out great information where where the 8020 came from, you found that all sorts of maps of old urban service boundaries that have changed over time.

So staff's been educated a lot throughout this process, which is good, but it gives me kind of pause putting it in just freely putting it in staff's hands going forward, you know.

And I mean, I and again, don't take that as a knock.

When it comes to processing plan amendments, when it comes to updating the comp plans for Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plant City, this agency is par excellence.

The work that staff does is amazing, okay.

But that's a that's a heavy workload in and of itself.

Throwing geospatial geospatial analysis on top of that may not be the appropriate thing for us to do this staff, okay.

That's all I'm saying.

I have the utmost respect for the work that the staff does, and it it is great work.

But what we're talking about here is things that I feel that not a lot of people in this county have been looking at, you know, and I mean development services could have been looking at this, community planning and infrastructure could have been looking at this.

There's a lot of other people who could have been looking at this, and I feel that we're all in the same boat right now, and that it's been missed a little bit.

So I'm I'm kind of hesitant on who should be the one to take the lead going forward in this, because again, to Commissioner Kugler's point, this board has taken the lead so far going forward in this, you know.

So it and I and again, I have the utmost respect for this staff.

I you all do great work.

I definitely think it should be us, but I there's a pause for me in that, you know what I mean?

Because it took a struggle to get us to where we are now, you know, and I mean there's a lot of confusion, there's a lot of you know, different directions, different feelings.

So going forward, I don't want those miscommunications and you know, things to go on.

So any thoughts you have on that as we go forward on how to keep that clarity and make sure that you know we're doing what needs to be done would would be appreciated.

Sure.

Well, uh a couple of thoughts.

Um I think that on that point, option A of the different choices um of pass forward is is critically important.

Um because that gets us to really crystallizing all of the issues that you all want looked at, how you want them looked at, um, what are the metrics for looking at them and what this scope of services for a future consultant, you know, uh who uh because I I would agree that I think some of the the this evaluation is is uh it wasn't in our work program um uh to t to tackle this.

So I think that's that it we're gonna need to utilize a consultant to do a lot of this work.

Um, but I think having a facilitator to make sure we have some continued conversation and refinement of what that scope in a very detailed way with you all looks like is really important.

Um and and I say hiring a facilitator for that because quite honestly, like this has been a real quick ad to Melissa's workload um in the last few months, and uh I don't think you know it's necessarily sustainable to to have it be just on on uh continuing to hand be handled that way.

So um so that that's why we've we've structured option A in that way.

Um I also think and and I've thought a lot about the our appearance at the at the board of county commissioners, and um how you know they did in many cases they they said things, but they didn't really say things that were particularly directive um to the letter.

Um but you you're right, you could tell that they thought the issue was important, but they didn't really say what they wanted to be done next.

I think that um I feel very comfortable with us moving forward with option A through D on the approaches, um without having heard back from the Board of County Commissioners.

I think that when we get to the conclusion of option A and we have a scope in hand of what it is we want that next analysis, the real meat of this to look like, um we're gonna have a I'm gonna have a very clear picture of what kind of resources are needed, and that's gonna include not only resources internal to our agency, but what other type of budget might be needed, what type of uh participation from county staff and other departments might be needed, and I think at that point that really gives the board of county commissioners something to chew on and say, do you want to do this?

And are you willing to give us if we need funding for it?

Do you the staff support, all of that to do it?

Um and I think that right now it probably like it did to us at at that point in time, f felt a little nebulous, like yeah, okay, these are some good questions they're asking, but where do we really go from here?

Um I think we need to give them where to go from here.

Um, and that would be taking that next step of of well, one of the next steps.

You could do the others too at the same time, but um at least option A of uh and once we get to the conclusion of that, I think then we'd have something for them to react to.

Okay, I did want to echo that too.

I think all the options are really great, and the only two timing things obviously after what I just said I had a problem with were A and C, the ones where we wait, but the the totality of this thing that you just put before us, Ms.

Dickens is really great.

You could do all four.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cardenis.

Um couple things.

One, I feel like um what you presented from the get-go of this is the beginning of appealing of an onion.

And and I think that just like anything that's gonna be different, you know, you've got one side, you've got the other side.

You said look in the middle, and staff might have started over here, but look at where they are now, right?

And their staff is great, maybe they do things well.

And I think I think we I think hitting the gas on that is more of the option because this is a mountain and we're gonna have a ton of decisions, and we're never gonna get to the end of the decision if we don't make all these decisions as we're pushing through.

Because at the same time, if the raised things happen, that happens as all these other factors in our society like AI and all this other stuff is gonna keep on happening, everything's gonna start happening faster and faster and faster.

And I think that if we sit around and wait, I don't think that's the I don't I don't think that you know whether there's six commissioners here or ten commissioners here, I don't think that should make a difference.

Um I think that we all started it.

I think we have an idea of what we're looking at.

I think we need the data before we can bring other people to the to have the conversation because you know one developer is gonna say they need this and one builder is gonna say they need that, and of course they do because they're in business and they're you know, then there's nothing wrong with that, but at the same time that this is about how we're gonna help our community and how we're gonna grow and how we're gonna try to grow in a more in a smarter way and and look at the details of what we're using of my work.

Um we need that data, so I think it's important that we push forward, and I think option A it sounds like the one to to do that with thank you again for you know finding that in-between of what we need to try to grow in a in a better way.

All good points.

I noticed you throw thrown me under the bus for wanting to wait for everybody to come back there, Mr.

Cardenas.

I'm not gonna forget that.

Mr.

Kugler.

Yes, uh, thank you.

I in the lead up to the May presentation that you did a great job on.

Uh we had a little communication about what I was looking for.

Um I really was just trying to gather information because I look at the uh USA, the uh urban service area as a tool.

And and I promised you that I would reach out and look, you know, on the web for other options that are out there, just as a comparison.

And whenever you have a tool, if you misuse it, you can hurt yourself.

And if you have a tool that you use well, my my fear was that statistically I didn't know I don't I'd only been here a short time, and I didn't know if we have been misusing the USA.

In other words, have people been primarily digging around the edge of the urban area to try to uh get services brought to those areas, and that's where the investment seemed to be.

Or am I just looking at it from a short period of time recently that that's what was going on?

So I was hoping to find more information on what was what was really going on with the USA and how can we make it work because if it's a good tool, it should allow the right things in the right place and the wrong things not to happen.

Um you can still have farmland, you can still have preserved land, you can still have urban growth all together if you if you use the tool right.

And then when I looked at um Boulder and um Lexington, Kentucky and Portland, Oregon, they used a different model.

They used the um Urban Growth Boundary UGB, and I thought, okay, that's just another tool.

I hope we're using the right tool the right way, and and what can I do to use that tool the right way?

Maybe when we do our vote, um seeing where somebody with a large investment is trying to get public monies to bring service in may not be the best approach.

That may actually create what I'm used to in the northeastern cities of uh a dead city center, you know, it during turn certain times of history, dead city center and uh and uh and a large ring uh activity area around suburban growth and suburban sprawl.

And I was thinking we don't those are the things we're trying to avoid.

So just getting information was what I was really primarily looking for.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

And if there's anything else that we can provide in terms of information, we'd be happy to um try and bring that back too.

So thank you.

Are there any thoughts, any comments?

Ex officios, you can chime in too, you know.

Y'all you guys just sit down there just listening and smiling now.

All right.

Any other comments, thoughts from the commissioners, ideas?

All right.

Then if not, I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one, and I guess Commissioner Carnanis wants to make a motion.

Uh make a motion that we move forward with option A.

Do we have a option A for the approach?

That's the uh facilitation of you all, the planning commissioner facilitation.

And then the timing.

It I heard a few different things, so it was either uh we could move forward at this time, or we could wait until the UEA studies are done, or we could um wait until there was further direction on the BOCC.

It seemed like from staff's perspective, we were seemed like there was maybe some consensus on the more consensus on the approach, but I just want to make sure we captured you all's thoughts accurately on the timing.

Uh my thought is moving forward sooner than later.

Okay, so that would be that your motion?

Well, because we're at motion time now.

You want to figure we could talk about it.

Okay, but that's okay.

So, what does that mean for the options?

I guess is my question.

So the um the approach is to um procure a consultant to facilitate discussions among the planning commissioners to identify and refine key issues related to agriculture and fill and redevelopment, housing affordability, and development patterns, and then a deliverable would include the refined topics that you all want to examine, topics of consensus on the detailed issues, topics for additional study, performance metrics, um, options, and a draft scope of services for further analysis.

I'm gonna Yeah, go ahead.

I'm gonna say and I just keep repeating it.

I still hear I hear I just heard everything in planning.

Affordable housing, redevelopment, um agriculture.

I think it's it's a still like what you said, um Mr.

Cardana says it's like an onion skit.

This is a huge thing to me, it feels really like wild still.

Um I don't feel like we know what we're doing.

I don't feel like we have a focus.

I feel like it seems like everything in planning.

And unless we and I just don't I feel like we've already brought this to the commission.

I I'm really comfortable with waiting for them to say there's something here that we think is a problem, but to me, there's no rush, we don't even know what we're talking about still.

That's and I don't mean to be critical.

I just feel like we're still we're talking about everything in planning.

If we were saying we have this community plan that we really want to work on, or we have an issue with the 80 percent, or we have an issue with the boundaries, or something that but uh to me it feels like an extraordinary amount of money during a time where that's really under crunch right now.

Um and I feel like we're making legislative direction without really knowing why, without really fully consulting with the commissioners.

I I don't I don't feel as a board that we're doing any moving ahead on something that feels productive.

And I I just I just continue to feel that this is just not uh uh a logical progression and we're we keep spending more money, more time, more staff time when we've got really big projects that were directed by the elected officials that we're learning about this issue on.

So if if the board were to come and say, hey, yeah, y'all are on to something, let's move forward with that.

We've had that conversation with them.

I I would be all for it, but I I don't see what we're doing yet.

To me, what you just talked about, let's look at all these things is is everything in urban planning, and we I don't think we've come to a consensus about what we're looking at.

And I I'm not I'm not trying to be difficult at all.

I thought it's been an interesting conversation, but until we can say we want to really focus on making sure we get more growth in the urban service area, or something that we can say in a 30-second elevator speech, we're just like wildly batting, and I just I haven't been convinced that we know what we're doing yet, and I don't think spending a lot more money on a consultant right now makes sense for them.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, Commissioner Lincoln, you don't have to apologize for that.

But I will say that they staff, because obviously this is staff's presentation that you're going under the bus.

We still love staff, though be clean.

Um they they did limit it to 50k.

So you're saying a lot of money, they they did try and squeeze it down so we're not spending the big end of the consulting fee.

The second comment I wanted to make on what you said is that I think that's kind of what the facilitator is doing, is precisely they agree what you're saying is valid, is that everything's kind of nebulous right now, and what that facilitator that they get for 50k is gonna do is shrink it down to what we need to be looking at.

So that's that's kind of am I wrong, Ms.

Dickens?

No, that's correct.

I mean that because it it um and you know, we think it would be helpful to have a formal facilitated discussion because you know you all are you're both are saying the same thing.

There's a lot of different viewpoints, there's a lot of different ideas, and so we as a staff need you know some help facilitating what is most important and crystallizing those issues.

Right.

Commissioner Cardenis.

So I'm envisioning something where we've got a set of questions, we're all going through these sets of questions, we're answering these questions, and they're gonna use that to search and find data and develop an understanding of what we're looking for, and I think that that information is gonna be what gives us more direction in in what we're looking for.

Otherwise, we don't have that.

Well, we need that information.

At this level, what she's talking about with the facilitator is not them finding data yet.

It's what they're gonna get from us what data we want our actual anal analytical consultant to look for.

So we need a facilitator to kind of organize all these ideas, like Commissioner Lincoln said, kind of have all these ideas floating around in space, bringing it a facilitator to get to the meat of which of these ideas is important.

Is it traffic infrastructure?

Is it affordable housing?

Is it development on the edge of the urban service boundary?

Those sorts of things.

And then once that facilitator has that list of things that are key and important, then we can turn and look at okay, well, what kind of consultant do we need to analyze those list of things?

And that consultant will get us the data on those lists of things that we'll be able to answer questions with.

So it's more of a reason to move forward because we're still a couple steps away.

Right and getting to that.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Well, you can look at it that way.

Let me not, there's others who look at it differently.

So there's all kinds of viewpoints here.

Everybody's entitled to them.

But that's is one way of looking at it.

Commissioner Seaman.

I mostly have a question for staff.

So this you know, we're gonna proceed forward anyway, and you had mentioned to me that we're gonna do um outreach in within you know the rural areas of the county no matter what, correct?

Well, we yes, that is a part of the scope of the urban expansion area study that Sophia presented earlier.

So that's gonna happen regardless, because that's a part of that separate study.

So option D was simply inviting y'all, which you're always invited to come to any of the community meetings that we host, but wanted to more overtly invite you all since you had mentioned wanting to hear from rural residents at the last workshop.

Okay, so my only comment is kind of unrelated to what we were just talking about, but um if we're moving ahead with option D no matter what and having the public outreach meetings to which we are invited, my I would suggest that we also get opinions of the people who are implementing these kinds of things via option B.

Is so I don't really know.

Can we vote for you said we could vote for multiple of them?

Sure, and just to clarify, um, at the option the the UEA um outreach that you all are invited to, they're also meeting with some of the other stakeholders that you wanted to hear from.

So, like I know that they've met with TBBA, they're meeting with the agricultural community.

That is just happening within um the lens of those particular uh studies.

So it would not necessarily be an apples to apples, like we're doing this for the UEA.

We want to always invite you, but we're saying we have three a month.

Please come if you want to hear directly.

Um, but we are hearing from um a number of different stakeholders through that process.

So I I guess I wanted to clarify that it would not necessarily be the same as having a facilitated discussion of a particular stakeholder group.

Okay, understood, thank you.

All right, so back to the motion, unless there was some comments over here, just checking peeking one time.

No, back to the motion that was at the floor, Mr.

We have to make a motion this meeting.

Uh now that I'm realizing this uh correctly, um I guess my motion is for option B and option A.

Okay.

Okay, so both the facilitation of you all and the stakeholder facilitation, does it um question from staff?

Does it make sense to have one before the other?

Um maybe that's something we can look at and kind of evaluate and um move forward with because I think we could, you know, it's really kind of a to some of the previous discussion, kind of a chicken or egg thing.

Do our does our lens does you all's lens, excuse me, inform the um the stakeholders, what questions asked the stakeholders?

Do the stakeholders inform what you all look at?

Um, I mean uh the if I may, I think Melissa's Arnita's suggestion of doing the you uh getting facilitation from you all first probably makes a little bit more sense just so then you all are continuing to drive the conversation, so um that might be something to consider.

That's the way that I see it.

I kind of think that we need to provide some direction.

Okay.

So in sequential order, does that mean you're thinking?

We recommend stakeholders recommend and then facilitator, or we usit facilitator stakeholders, we need the stakeholders last year.

Last.

Correct.

Facilitator first.

Okay.

What you were saying was we we would lead the fill facilitator.

Okay.

So us, then A, then B.

Correct.

Okay.

Second.

Wait.

Did we get the timing thing down?

Yes, I understand it.

We're starting with facilitation of you all as a first step and then moving to stakeholder facilitation.

And Melissa, is that gonna cause an issue in terms of we would need two separate contracts, or how would you like me to we'll we'll figure that out.

Okay, all right.

And bring back whatever we need.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't know whether it would be the same person or two separate.

We'll have to figure that out.

Okay.

Um but we do need some clarification on the timing options, whether you want us to move forward with this at this time or sometime later.

Mike, yeah.

I'd said option B, so at this time.

Okay.

That's what he meant by option B.

Oh, okay.

So B and A.

B timing A option.

Okay.

I misunderstood, so I'm glad we clarified.

Okay, so you're saying B and then option A.

Okay, so we understand option.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Under under timing option B, under approach option A.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Seaban.

Can I ask you to revise your timing to option B, approach option A and B.

For because B B is the stakeholder and we wrong?

I agree with that too.

Okay.

Yeah, oh yeah.

A is the the uh facilitator.

So you can I should have done different number.

Timing B approach A and B.

Timing A.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no timing B.

Approach A and B.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Next time I'll do like Roman.

Approach options A and B.

Okay.

So the motion is timing option B approaches A and B.

Commissioner Sink.

I support that.

Now we got a second.

I didn't even expect that.

I'm generally just about moving forward.

Unless we have people talking about it and getting things moving forward, we're just gonna play patty cake for a long time.

Okay.

Are there any other thoughts?

Questions?

So we have a motion by Commissioner Cardenis to direct staff to move forward with timing option B and approach options A and B.

Second to that motion by Commissioner Sink.

All right.

Any more thoughts, ideas, comments before we go on ahead and take this vote.

I'm gonna go ahead and throw it over to the clerk because I know this is gonna need a roll call.

So Cardinus.

Yes.

Kugler?

Yes.

Lincos?

Uh yes.

Stephen?

Yes.

Sink.

Yes.

Joseph?

Yes.

Motion carried six to zero.

All right.

I guess we do all the control call for you.

Thank you all for thank you for the hard work.

All right.

Now that we've made it past that hill.

All right.

Next up we have briefings.

So we have no actions on these.

We're just getting a bunch of information.

Everybody can relax a little bit.

And our first briefing is 5A.

HCCPA 26-02 comprehensive plan map amendment.

7607-7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road Urban Service Area Expansion.

Here we go again.

And we're set her as Willow Mickey.

Good afternoon, Willow Mickey with your planning commission staff.

I will be briefing HCCPA 2602, 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 residential one to residential two and residential four.

This plan amendment is part of the April 2026 cycle, located in the rural area, and is within the limits of the Tenoda SASA community plan.

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

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

The blue line indicates the urban service area boundary.

It is located north of I-4, 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 west, 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.

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

And that concludes the briefing on this item.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information and sort of look forward to that when coming back to us.

And there's more.

Next up, we have go back.

Item 5B, HCCPA 26-03, comprehensive plan map amendment 7607, 7709, Williams Road, and Bessie Dix Road and presenter is Willow Mickey.

Good afternoon.

I'm Willow Mickey with your planning commission staff.

I would rebriefing HCCP 2603, located at 7607 to 7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road.

This request is privately initiated in a large scale map amendment.

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

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

Here's an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

It is located north of I-4, east of Williams Road, and south of Joe Joe Ebert Road.

And just to note that the original request included parcel 61568 with a proposed designation of res 9, however, this parcel has since been removed from the application.

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

The site is in the residential one land use category.

Wait, sorry.

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

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

Public quasi public is located to the northwest, and additional res four lies further southeast.

There is also res two located northeast of the site.

If you travel from the site approximately one mile north and a half mile east.

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

The change to um the change to residential two and residential four for would allow for the consideration of 189 dwelling units in 881,891 square feet of non-residential uses.

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

That concludes the briefing, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing any.

We'll thank you for the information.

And we will move on to our next agenda item, which is not going to be presented.

5C was moved into the next cycle, July 2026.

So next month, next month's meeting, sorry, July 2026.

So we'll hear that one then and we'll move on to item 5D, HCCPA 26-13, comprehensive plan map amendment.

2909 Durr or Dare Road, and presenter is Tyreek Royal.

Yeah, good afternoon, everyone.

Tyreek Royal Planning Commission staff.

Today I'll be presenting HCCPA 2613-2909 Durr Road.

The request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment, approximately 1.12 acres.

The request is to change the future land use designation for residential one to residential two.

The location of the sites in the east portion of Pillsburg County reported to April 2026 cycle.

So then the rural area now located within a community plan.

Here you can see an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

The sites in the residential one future lanes category allows for consideration for agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, multi-purpose projects.

Commercial uses are subject to locational criteria.

As stated before, the applicants requesting a change to residential two.

The residential two future lane use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial office uses and multi-purpose projects.

The change from residential one to residential two would allow for increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density.

The density of one dwelling unit per gross acre would increase the two dwelling units per acre.

The commercial intensity would remain the same at a point two five APR or approximately 12,000 square feet.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Not seeing any.

Well thank you.

And we will move on to our next agenda.

Item 5 EHCPA 26-14.

Comprehensive plan map amendment 15640 Carleton Lake Road and the presenter is Tyreek Royal again.

Thank you.

Ty Cruel again, Planning Commission staff.

This is HCCPA 2614 located at 15640 Carlton Lake Road.

This request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment, approximately 9.57 acres in size.

The request is to change the land use designation from agricultural rule 1 to 5 to agricultural estate 1 to 2.5.

The location of the site is in the southeastern portion of Hillsborough County, also part of the April 2026 cycle within the rural area and located within limits of the bomb and South Shore Area Wide Systems Community Planes.

Here's an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

The Urbus Serious areas dictated by the blue line.

It's approximately half a mile away.

Currently the site has a designation of agricultural rule 1 to 5.

It allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, fee lots, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, industrial uses related agricultural and mining related activities.

The change from AR1 to 5 to AE 102.5 would allow for increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density.

The density of one dwelling unit per five gross acres would increase for uh to one dwelling unit to for every 2.5 gross acres.

Commercial intensity would remain the same at a point two five FAR or approximately 104,000 square feet for non-residential uses.

And that concludes my briefing.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

And we'll move on to our next agenda item.

ACCPA 26-15, comprehensive plan map amendment 1908 Front Street, and the presenter is Lillian Lenahan.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 2615, located at 1908 Front Street.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 0.26 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential four to residential 12.

This is the general location map.

It is in the urban service area within the limits of the Val Rico community plan.

It is located north of Main Street, west of Front Street, and east of 4th Street.

Here is an area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink.

There are single family residential uses to the northwest and south of the site, and directly west of the site is an existing commercial use.

That is a restaurant known as Fat Willys Fish Camp.

And directly south of the site is a county-owned park.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential four.

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

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

The site is currently surrounded by the residential four designation on all sides, with some residential six located further south of the site.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to residential 12.

The residential 12 category allows for a maximum of 12 dwelling units per gross acre and maximum floor error ratio of 0.5.

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

Under existing conditions with the residential four designation, the site can be considered for a maximum of one dwelling unit or 2,831 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future land use designation of residential residential 12, the site can be considered for a maximum of three dwelling units, or 5,662 square feet of non-residential uses.

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

This includes my briefing for this item, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing any at this time.

Thank you.

And move on to our next agenda item.

Item 5G.

HCCPA 26-16 comprehensive plan map amendment 12401 North 22nd Street.

And the presenter is Alexis Myers.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HTCPA 2616 located at 12401 North 22nd Street.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 13.83 acres.

The applicant is requesting a change of future land use designation from residential 20 to residential 35.

This is the general location map.

It is in the urban service area within the limits of the university area community plan, is located east of North 22nd Street and south of University Club Drive.

Here is the area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink, and a blue dotted line indicates the Tampa jurisdictional boundary.

The subject property is the villas at Unison Senior Living Living Facility.

The site is in the centers and connections, VEMA Flood Zone X, and have well has wetlands on the property.

The seacoast at Upton Oaks Assisted Living Facility is located to the west.

Additional group homes are located to the northwest across North 22nd Street and further southeast.

The Veridian Apartments in College Town and USF off-campus housing are to the north.

The park at Orbido apartments are to the west, and more multifamily uses are further east and south.

The James A.

Haley Veterans Hospital is to the northeast.

And then the University of South Florida is to the east across Bruce B.

Downs Boulevard.

Single family uses are to the east and further north.

And the University Mall and Sunray Cinnamon is to the south.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential 20.

The Res 20 future land use category allows 20 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75.

The Res 20 category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and missed use uh developments.

Other future land use categories shown in this map include innovation corridor mixed use 35, an office commercial 20 to the south, and residential six to the east.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to residential 35, which allows 35 dwelling units per gross acre or floor area ratio of 1.0.

The Res 35 designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments.

Non-residential uses, not part of the vertically integrated building, shall meet established locational criteria.

Next are the impacts.

As far as existing conditions, currently under Res 20, the site could consider 276 dwelling units or 451,826 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed res 35 designation, the site could consider up to 484 dwelling units or a 602,434 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment will result in an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density and uh non-residential non-residential intensity.

And this concludes my presentation for HCCPA 2616, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

All right.

Thank you for the information and move on to our next agenda item 5H, HCCPA 26-18, comprehensive plan map amendment, Causeway Boulevard Sub-area A, and the presenter is Lillianne Lennon.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff, and I'm here to present HCCPA 2618, located at Causeway Boulevard, and this is sub-area A.

This request comes from the Florida State University future land use map study that was conducted conducted in 2024.

As part of this future land use section update, planning commission staff engaged with students in an FSU capstone class to study four different areas of the unincorporated Hillsborough County, where there have been historical and recent development pressure as well as areas that were identified as needing to be researched based upon development trends.

These areas included subsets of the university area, the Port of Tampa, Brandon Crossings, and Causeway Boulevard.

This effort is part of that study and recommendations on next steps.

Due to the size and the varying recommendations of the Causeway Boulevard study area, staff decided to break down the study area into three separate requests.

And this is the first of three total plan amendments being publicly initiated for this area.

This request in particular is to go from the currently adopted future land use category of residential six to neighborhood mixed use six.

And this amendment is large in scale and approximately 73.12 acres.

This is the general location map.

It is part of the April 2026 cycle of amendments.

It's in the urban service area and within the limits of the Palm River Progress Community Plan.

And a portion of this particular amendment is located within the coastal high hazard area.

This is a map that shows the location of all three publicly initiated amendments you will see along Causeway Boulevard.

2618, which is this current amendment, is outlined in purple.

2619 is outlined in light green, and 2026 20 is outlined in the dark green.

Here is an aerial of the site for the current amendment 2618.

The site is outlined in pink.

The site is south of Causeway Boulevard and is bound by 54th Street to the west and extends all the way to 76th Street to the east.

Existing land uses within the site area include residential, vacant, and public, quasi public, and institutional uses.

And the uses to the north of the site along Causeway are comprised of mainly industrial and commercial uses, and to the south is mainly single family residential.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential six.

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

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

The site is bordered by Office Commercial 20 to the north and east directly along Causeway Boulevard.

There's light industrial along the far western edge of the site, and to the south of the site is more residential six.

The applicant is proposing, well, we are proposing to amend the future land use category to neighborhood mixed use six.

The neighborhood mixed use six category allows for a maximum of six dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25 for neighborhood commercial uses, and office research corporate parks and multi-purpose and mixed use projects may achieve a floor area ratio of up to 0.35.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, multi-purpose and clustered residential and or mixed use projects.

Under the existing conditions with the residential six designation, the site could be considered for a maximum of 438 dwelling units or 796,276 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use six, the site could be considered for a maximum of 438 dwelling units or approximately 1,100,000 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment will allow for an increase in the allowable range of uses and the maximum allowable intensity of increase the maximum allowable intensity of specific uses with no increase in density.

This concludes my presentation for this item, and I'm here if you have any questions.

All right, thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners?

I did have one question.

This is us, you said it's publicly initiated.

What is why are we what is the deal with it?

Why are we doing this?

Um it has to do with a study that was conducted in 2024, a part of the future land use section update is studied for.