test test.
>> nigel joseph: welcome,
everyone, to the MAY 11th,
2026 public hearing of the
planning commission on city of
tampa comprehensive plan
amendments.
We thank you for attending this
meeting.
Your comments and participation
are encouraged.
For those attending in-person
and wishing to speak on any
agenda item, please sign the
register at the rear of the room
and turn off any devices that
MAY be a distraction.
To minimize feedback, all online
participants in the meeting will
be muted until it is their
opportunity to speak.
Planning commissioners should
unmute themselves to indicate
that they would like to speak.
Please be sure to state your
name at the beginning of your
remarks for the benefit of the
clerk.
There will be an opportunity for
members of the public to provide
comments.
When your name is called, you
will be unmuted when it is your
time to speak.
Wait until the chair calls on
you to begin speaking.
State your
state your name at the beginning
of your comments and adhere to
the time limits.
If anybody is watching via htv
and would like to provide
comments for the local
government hearing, please email
them to planner@plancom.Org.
For those of you who are not
familiar with our process, the
meeting will be conducted a
follows.
The agenda item will be
introduced, staff will give
their presentation with a
15-minute time limit.
The applicant will be given the
opportunity to make a
presentation with a 15-minute
time limit.
Following presentations, members
of the public MAY address the
planning commission when
recognized by the CHAIRMAN.
Public comment will be heard for
three minutes per person.
The applicant will be afforded a
three-minute period for rebuttal
or response.
Planning commissioners will ask
questions.
Public comment will be closed.
Then upon a motion, second and
discussion, a vote will be
taken.
To all participants, please note
that tonight's hearing concerns
proposed changes to the
comprehensive plan.
Presentations should not include
matters related to zoning
applications and site plans that
are not before the commission.
Zoning conditions are not
relevant to plan amendments and
MAY not be considered by the
planning commission.
The planning commission's
purview in making a
recommendation is requiremented
to consistency or inconsistency
with the comprehensive plan and
with that, I'd like to ask the
clerk's representative to please
call roll.
>> good evning, commissioners.
Bowden.
>> here.
>> cardenas.
Cona.
>> here.
>> jemison.
>> here.
>> kugler.
>> here.
>> linkous.
Louk.
>> here.
>> sieben.
Sienk.
>> here.
>> berry.
>> here.
>> orton.
>> here.
>> joseph.
>> nigel joseph: here.
>> you have a quorum, sir.
>> nigel joseph: thank you.
All right.
Our first item of business is
2a, ta/cpa 26-01, comprehensive
plan map amendment 1605 north
waters court and the presenter
is quinn steele.
>> good evening, qunn steele,
planning commission staff.
This item is ta/cpa 26-01 for
1605 north waters court.
The request before you is
privately initiated and small
scale.
Covering approximately
3.39 acres and the request is to
change the future land use
designation from community mixed
use 35 to urban mixed use 60.
Here is a general location map.
The subject site is located
within the central tampa
planning district.
The central park urban village.
The historic ybor neighborhood.
The ybor city local historic
district and the central park
cra.
This map shows an aerial of the
subject site outlined in yellow.
I did want to mention there has
been a lot of recent development
in the surrounding area so this
aerial MAY not fully reflect
current conditions.
their site fronts east 7th
avenue a major commercial
corridor in ybor city and
located about 230 feet east of
north nebraska avenue which is a
designated transit emphasis
corridor.
Nebraska avenue also marks the
boundary for the cbd periphery,
west of nebraska and south of
east 3rd avenue allows desity
and intensity bonuses up to 2.5%
of
200%under the designation and the
red dashed line shown here
represents the boundary for the
ybor city local historic
district to the north and east.
The surrounding area is mixed
use with multi-family commercial
and institutional uses
immediately south are booker t.
Washington and the robert w.
Saunders library.
To the west is a church and
drive-thru restaurant is the gte
building.
The gasworx development are to
the southeast with the channel
district further beyond the
frame.
This is a photo looking directly
is he subject site along south
henderson avenue.
Looking east or east scott site,
these are the law union
apartments and the subject site
is out of frame behind the
camera.
This is looking south of the
site along estelle street
towards the elementary school
and the subject site is out of
frame to the left.
Looking west along east
henderson avenue, west of the
subject site and the subject
site is behind the camera out of
frame.
And then looking west across
north nebraska avenue towards
downtown, the subject site is
out of frame to the rear about
230 feet.
This map shows the adopted
future land use as cmu-35
allowing medium density
residential and commercial uses
at 35 units per acre or 2.0
F.A.R. Which surrounds the site
on all sides.
To the east along 7th avenue
is umu-60, there are additional
parcels associated with the
gasworx development.
To the west of nebraska avenue
includes umu-60 and rmu-35.
Further is recreation open space
tampa park plaza and further
north is r-20.
This map shows the proposed
future land use as urban mixed
use 60 which would allow high
density and intensity, mixed use
development up to 60 units per
acre or 3.25 F.A.R.
This amendment would increase
the maximum from 118 to 203
dwelling units and the allowable
intensity from just over 295,000
square feet to just over 497,000
square feet for residential or
non-residential uses.
It would introduce commercial
intensive uses and increase the
allowable density and intensity
on the site.
We sent this amendment out for
agency review and did not
receive any objections, although
the school board noted that
washington elementary and blake
high school are projected to
exceed capacity.
In considering this amendment,
staff reviewed compatibility
with the ybor city local
historic district.
Any future development would be
subject to design standards by
the barrio latin america
commission, it is compatible
with the historic character and
surrounding area.
Planning commission staff finds
the report -- excuse me.
Planning commission staff finds
the request supports a compact
city form by directing growth to
the central park urban village
which is an ara intended to
accommodate higher density mixed
use development.
This site is also within a cra
and currently underutilized so
it would have more efficient use
of land and infrastructure.
In addition the site is located
in close proximity to transit,
multimodal infrastructure
including the corridor along
nebraska, teco, hart bus station
and higher density and intensity
in this location.
It has policies ensuring
adequate supply of housing.
This would provide opportunities
for growth helping to
accommodate the city's projected
growth population.
Planning commission staff
recommends tht the proposed map
amendment be found consistent
with the goals, objectives and
policies of the tampa
comprehensive plan.
And I am available for any
questions.
>> nigel joseph: thank you.
Is there an applicant
presentation?
>> good evening.
Good evening, megan smith here
on behalf of the applicant,
tampa park apartments.
Want to thank planning
commission staff for covering
everything.
They did a fantastic job and
feel like it was a very thorough
review.
Kind of wanted to touch on a
couple of things and be quick
and efficient with our time.
So as she said, cbd periphery is
immediately to the west
following nebraska.
For our site, we are in the
central tampa planning district
and local ybor historic
district.
We've got seminole heights,
ybor, channel district and
downtown tampa that we know are
all growing.
Those are within a five-minute
commute from our location.
And so we really feel like this
would help bring and incentivize
an area that is currently being
underutilized.
Our request is to go from cmu-35
to umu-60 so that is the adopted
proposed map.
And then I know quinn touched on
this and I want to hit it once
more.
With that cbd periphery, about a
third of the surrounding
properties can actually double
their F.A.R.
So what we are up against on
both sides is 7.0 and 6.0 F.A.R.
To the west and south and umu-60
carrying on that gasworx
development as well as the ybor
historic district.
Transportation wise, which
supports the land use policies,
we've got hart route 9 that
connects from downtown tampa up
to the university as well as the
streetcar is located just a
15-minute walk through ybor.
And then that can bring you into
downtown tampa as well.
So we feel like this is really
connected with the surrounding
areas and helps support that
intensification.
and with that, I will conclude
my presentation and I'm
available for any questions.
>> nigel joseph: all right.
Thank you very much.
We didn't have anyone sign up in
the public comment for this one
so I will turn it over to the
commissioners for questions,
comments, discussions.
Not seeing -- commissioner louk,
no?
All right.
Then I'm going to go on ahead
and close the public comment on
this and open it up to motions
from the commissioners on this
item.
Commissioner louk.
>> thank you, MR. Chair.
I move we find cpa 26-01
consistent with the tampa
comprehensive plan and forward
this representation to tampa
city council.
>> second.
>> nigel joseph: all right, a
motion of consistency by
commissioner louk, second by
commissioner cona.
Any questions, comments or
discussions from the
commissioners before we take our
vote on this one?
Not seeing any, then would all
signify their agreement by
saying aye.
[Ayes]
Those opposed?
That motion carries unanimously.
All right.
Next up, we hae agenda item 2b,
ta/cpa 26-02, comprehensive plan
map amendment 1701 east 2nd
avenue and the presenter is meg
Mccarthy.
>> good evening, meaghan
Mccarthy, planning commission
staff.
This is the hearing for ta/cpa
2026-02 located at 1701 east
2nd avenue.
This is a privately initiated
small scale amendment.
And the subject site encompasses
approximately.39 acres.
The request is to go from light
industrial future land use
designation to urban mixed use
60.
The subject site is located
within the central tampa
planning district.
The historic ybor neighborhood,
ybor city local historic
district as well as the coastal
high hazard area.
This is an aerial of the subject
site with the subject site
outlined in yellow.
The surrounding area includes
industrial uses.
Directly to the east and south,
as well as further east along
adamo drive.
Scattered commercial uses as
well as residential further
north of east second avenue.
While the subject site is not
within the ybor city urban
village or port activity center,
those boundaries are just to the
north and south of the site
respectively.
Starting with our subject site
photos, this is looking directly
at the subject site from north
17th street.
This is looking at industrial
uses on the east side of the
subject site with the subject
site behind the camera.
This is looking at commercial
uses on the west side of the
subject site.
Here we are looking south of the
subject site at the salmon
expressway overpass.
Next we're looking west along
adamo drive with the subject
site in the frame.
And lastly looking east along
adamo drive.
This is -- here we have
referenced an historic map taken
from ta/cpa 06-26 before it was
approved to change the area
outlined in pink from heavy
industrial to the urban mixed
use 60 that you'll see on the
next slide.
This gives some perspective on
the transition from industrial
to mixed use designations over
the last 20 years as a result of
multiple plan amendments in the
surrounding area including 06-26
as well as 07-03, and more
recently plan amendment 22-28
which approved multiple parcels
to umu-60 including the one
directly north of our current
subject site.
This is the adopted future land
use map with the subject site
outlined directly to the east
and to the southeast are light
and heavy industrial.
Mixed use categories including
umu-60, cmu-35, gmu-24 and cc-35
comprise the rest of the
surrounding area to the north,
south, east and west.
The teal line delineates the
coastal high hazard area, the
portion of the subject site
within the chha is just over
[Inaudible].
Under the adopted F.L.U. Of
light industrial, the site not
eligible for residential
development.
Currently the site can be
considered for 25,482 square
feet of industrial uses.
Under the proposed umu-60
designation, the site MAY be
considered for 23 residential
development units or 55,211
square feet of residential or
non-residential uses.
The amendment would introduce
the potential for residential
uses and increase allowable
residential and non-residential
square footage and remove the
consideration of industrial
uses.
This application was sent to our
partner agencies and there were
no options to the request.
The city of tampa planning
department found the request
comparable and compatible with
the surrounding area and noted
the potential conflict between
land development code
requirements and industrial
development on this site.
Staff considered industrial
preservation policies as the
site is currently under the
light industrial F.L.U.
Designation and the industrial
general zoning category.
As well as policies related to
the coastal high hazard area
being that all of the subject
site is considered within the
chha since the percentage within
is over 50%.
As noted in the staff report and
by the city of tampa staff, due
to minimum requirements for
development within the zoning
category the parcel is unlikely
to allow for the development of
a true employment generating
industrial use.
Due to this factor as well as
documented trends towards mixed
use, staff found the request
consistency and removal for
consideration of industrial uses
on the site.
The proposed amendment is
recommended to be found
consistent with the policies and
objectives of the comprehensive
plan including policy related to
compatibility with the
surrounding development pattern,
promotion of densities
supportive of mixed use and
transit and encouraging adequate
housing supply and infill
development.
As the surrounding area is noted
to be in transition to a more
mixed use development pattern
north of -- west of north 21st
street.
Planning commission staff
recommends that the proposed map
amendment be found consistency
with the goals, objectives and
policies of the tampa
comprehensive plan and this
concludes my presentation.
I'm available for any questions.
>> nigel joseph: thank you.
Is there an applicant
presentation?
>> good evening, commissioners,
alex schaler, 400 north ashley
drive with gardner brewer
hudson.
I'll make this brief.
I think this request is pretty
straightforward.
I was before you in 2024 with a
very large comprehensive plan
amendment request and we had it
split into two halves.
We had a portion north of adamo.
We also had what's been
classified as ybor harbor.
In the north of adamo portion,
this piece was left out.
And at the time, our client, the
applicant, was in negotiations
to acquire this little strip but
did not yet own it.
Given the fact that they did not
have ownership of that piece of
land, we did not include that in
the original application.
So what we're requesting from
you all this evening is a
recommendation of approval for
that umu-60 that's currently
located north of this strip to
be extended to the south.
This is a very small site.
As staff mentioned, it's not
overly suitable for industrial
uses just given the size of it.
Typically industrial use vs a
larger footprint and need more
open space area.
And this is currently, like I
said,.4 acres and it's
currently serving as a parking
lot.
As meg mentioned, this area is
trending towards mixed use.
Both residential and commercial,
you all are very aware of that
with gasworx and ybor harbor and
some of the future PDAs in the
queue to be heard at city
council.
From a planning perspective,
this is located along a transit
emphasis corridor.
Adamo drive is one of those and
it is located near the ybor city
urban village.
So as meg mentioned, staff found
this consistent and that's all I
have.
But I'm happy to answer any
questions.
>> nigel joseph: thank you.
We didn't have anyone sign up in
the public comment for this one
either, so questions, comments,
thoughts to the commissioners on
this one?
Not seeing much action, I'll go
on ahead and close the public
comment on this one and open it
up to motions from the
commissioners on this item.
Commissioner cona.
>> yeah, motion to find ta/cpa
26 -- 02 consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
>> second.
>> nigel joseph: all right.
motion of consistency finding by
commissioner cona.
Second to that motion by
commissioner kugler.
Any questions, comments or
statements from the
commissioners before we take our
vote in not seeing any, then
will all signify their
agreement by saying aye.
[Ayes]
Those opposed.
[Aye]
So the cheese stands alone.
[Laughter]
Commissioner
commissioner joseph against, all
the other planning commissioners
in favor of and the motion
carries 7-1.
All right.
Thank you very much.
And that is our last item,
agenda item for this city of
tampa public hearing.
I will go on ahead and adjourn
this city of tampa public
hearing at 6:28 and read us into
our hillsborough county public
hearing if everybody will bear
with me for just a moment.
Welcome, everyone, to the MAY
11th, 2026 public hearing of
the planning commission on
hillsborough county
comprehensive plan amendments.
We thank you for attending this
meeting.
Your comments and participation
are encouraged.
For those attending in-person
arn
and wishing to speak, please
sign the agenda at the rear of
the room and turn off devices.
All online participants in the
meeting will be muted until it
is their opportunity to speak.
Planning commissioners should
unmute themselves to indicate
they would like to speak.
Please be sure to state your
name at the beginning of your
remarks for the benefit of the
clerk.
There will be an opportunity for
members of the public to provide
comments.
When your name is called, you
will be unmuted when it is your
turn to speak.
Please wait until the chair
calls on you to begin speaking.
State your name at the beginning
of your comments and adhere to
the time limits.
If anyone has difficulties or is
watching via htv and would like
to provide comments to be
included in the record for the
local government hearing, please
email them to
planner@plancom.Org.
For those of you who are not
familiar with our process, the
meeting will be conducted as
follows.
The agenda item will be
introduced.
Staff will give their
presentation with a 15-minute
time limit.
The applicant will be given the
opportunity to make a
presentation with a 15-minute
time limit.
Following presentations, members
of the public MAY address the
planning commission when
recognized by the CHAIRMAN.
Public comment will be heard for
three minutes per person.
The applicant will be afforded a
three-minute period for rebuttal
or response.
Planning commissioners will then
ask questions.
Public comment will be closed.
Upon a motion, a second and
discussion, a vote will be
taken.
To all participants, please note
that tonight's hearing concerns
proposed changes to the
comprehensive plan.
Presentations should not include
matters related to zoning
applications and site plans that
are not before the commission.
Zoning conditions are not
relevant to plan amendments and
MAY not be considered by the
planning commission.
The planning commission's
purview in making a
recommendation is limited to
consistency or inconsistency
with the comprehensive plan.
With that, I'd like to ask the
clerk's representative to please
call roll again.
>> bowden.
>> here.
>> cardenas.
Cona.
>> here.
>> jemison.
>> here.
>> kugler.
>> here.
>> linkous.
Louk.
>> here.
>> sieben.
Sienk.
>> here.
>> berry.
>> here.
>> orton.
>> here.
>> joseph.
>> nigel joseph: here.
>> you have a quorum, sir.
>> nigel joseph: thank you.
All right.
First up, we have item 2a,
hc/cpa 26-07, comprehensive plan
map amendment northwest of
hillsborough avenue and george
road and the presenter is alexis
myers.
>> good evening, alexis myers,
planning commission staff.
I'm here to present hc/cpa 26-07
located northwest of
hillsborough avenue and george
road.
This is a privately initiated
map amendment that is small in
scale and approximately
6.7 acres.
The applicant is requesting to
change the future land use
designation from residential 6
and office commercial 20 to
light industrial planned.
This is the general location
map.
It is in the urban service area
within the limits of the town
'n' country community plan.
It is located north of
hillsborough avenue and west of
george road.
Here is an aerial of the site.
The site is outlined in pink.
Vacant land is on the subject
site.
The property is in the
evacuation zone "a," fema ae,
public/quasi-public
institutional and single-family
uses to the north and west,
light commercial uses located
south, west and east across
george road.
Light industrial uses are also
to the east across george road
and west of hillsborough avenue.
Here are some pictures of the
site.
This is looking at the subject
site from george road.
This is looking at the subject
site from george road as well.
Single-family uses are located
north and west of the subject
site.
And then if you can see in the
distance, it's single-family
right here.
This is looking west towards
west clifton street from george
road.
The subject site is located on
the left.
And this is looking east from
george road to the light
commercial use.
The subject site is behind the
photographer.
And this is looking west from
the subject site.
I'm sorry, looking west of the
subject site from george road to
the light commercial use.
Currently the future land use
designation is residential 6 and
office commercial 20.
The res-6 category allows six
dwelling units per gross
undertaker
acre.This designation allows for the
consideration of agricultural,
residential, neighborhood
commercial, office uses,
multipurpose projects and mixed
use development.
That category allows 20 dwelling
units per gross acre and maximum
floor area ratio of 0.75.
This designation allows for the
consideration of agricultural,
community commercial type uses,
office uses, mixed use
developments and compatible
residential uses.
Other future land use categories
shown in this map include urban
mixed use 20 and community mixed
use 12 to the east and
residential 20 further
southwest.
The applicant is proposing to
amend the future land use
category to light industrial
planned.
The li-p category allows for a
maximum floor area median income area ratio of.75.
This designation allows for the
consideration of agricultural,
light industrial uses such as
processing, manufacturing,
recycling and storage materials
as predominantly uses including
support uses, warehousing and
retail uses.
Next are the impacts.
As far as conditions, currently
under res-6 and oc-20, the site
can have 28 dwelling units or
51,945 square feet of
residential uses.
The proposed amendment will
eliminate any potential
residential density, allow
greater commercial intensity and
introduce light industrial uses.
The following policies were
considered by planning
commission staff in evaluation
of the amendment.
While formulating or
recommendation, pc staff reviews
all related policies regarding
the proposed request.
Though the request is related to
some general policies, staff
found four main areas of
inconsistency -- I'm sorry, four
main areas of inconsistency.
It isn't consistency with the
following policies and
procedures of the comprehensive
plan.
It does not demonstrate
compatibility with the
surrounding development pattern
as envisioned by future land use
section objective 3.1 and policy
3.1.3 due to the single-family
uses.
The proposed amendment would
disrupt the intent and
progression of lad use
intensities and fail to provide
a gradual and compatible
transition envisioned by future
land use policy 3.1.2.
This established pattern creates
a logical progression of land
use from residential to
commercial to mixed use and
ultimately to industrial uses.
The subject site located on the
west side of george road falls
outside of the area where higher
intensity designations are
currently concentrated.
The introduction of light
industrial uses at this location
will result in a development
that is inconsistent with the
surrounding area and contrary to
the policy framework intended to
preserve and protect established
residential communities as noted
in future land use section
objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.
While the request would
introduce light industrial uses,
the applicant would be required
to do a pd site plan rezoning
which could contain mitigative
strategies to address the
existing residential to the
west.
Planning commission staff
recommends that the proposed map
amendment be found inconsistent
with the goals, objectives and
policies of the unincorporated
hillsborough county
comprehensive plan and this
concludes my presentation for
26-07.
>> nigel joseph: thank you.
Is there an applicant
presentation?
>> good evening, commissioners.
I have a powerpoint.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is gina grimes.
I'm with the law firm of bradley
aaron and cummings, water
street, here representing
cadence partners which is the
applicant on this comp plan from
residential 6 and oc-20 to li-p.
You have heard staff give their
presentation.
They have recommended
inconsistency mainly based on
the fact -- I'm sorry.
Mainly based on the fact that
they don't believe that it is
compatible with the adjacent
area.
We believe that the reason they
came to this conclusion is that
they only evaluated the
immediately applicant area and
didn't look at the larger area
in context with this site.
When you evaluate the larger
area, what you are going to see
is the residential 6 comp plan
category is no longer
appropriate in this location.
And furthermore, our site is not
suitable for residential
development.
When you look at the expanded
area, you also see that the
location is consistent with the
uses in the surrounding area.
As you saw, there were
industrial uses in close
proximity.
There's also the airport in
close proximity and a lot of
commercial uses along
hillsborough avenue.
You are also going to see that
the location is consistent with
the specific intent of the li-p
policy and some other comp plan
policies that we will address.
And then lastly, we believe that
the potential impact in the
staff report was somewhat
overstated in that they looked
at the maximum development
potential of the li-p as opposed
to what we're actually proposing
with the required pd.
When you look at the subject
site, you already know the
location of it.
It's about sx and a half acres.
1/3 of it has already got a comp
plan category of oc-20.
So two acres of it is already
oc-20.
As you heard from staff, it is
vacant.
Why is it vacant?
That's a good question.
The residential 6 category and
the rc9 zoning on this portion
of the site only allows
residential.
The property owner has marketed
it for residential for about
five or six years now.
And if you can't get residential
or multi-family residential on a
site in this market, you're
never going to get it.
And the site has remained
vacant.
And we have been told by -- and
the owner has been told by real
estate professionals that the
site itself is not appropriate
for residential.
And the reason for that is the
location and the configuration
of the site.
If you look at it, it's 330 feet
wide by almost 900 feet long.
A long rectangular lot like that
makes it very difficult to get
any development flexibility.
The professionals, the real
estate professionals have said
that the site is too small for
multi-family residential
development.
It can't support a surface
parking lot and the on-site
retention forcing you to go to
structured parking.
When you go to structured
parking, as everybody knows, it
substantially increases the
price and the construction costs
making rents too high for this
location.
Especially we're told because of
the proximity to the residential -- I'm sorry, to the
industrial on the other side of
george road and in the
surrounding area.
So here is a comp plan map that
was in the staff report.
And this shows the existing uses
in the adjacent area.
And this is -- the staff
evaluated this.
You'll see the subject site.
The subject site is not
immediately abutting
residential.
To the north you see the blue
area is actually a full one acre
parcel owned by hillsborough
county that's intended to be
used for drainage.
Along the western boundary of
the site, you see some blue
underneath that black line.
That also is another drainage
area.
So we don't directly abut the
residential, although it is
close-by.
To the east of the site, you see
what's called light industrial.
I don't think that industrial
was all that light because what
it contains is a paver company
and a lot of outdoor storage and
paver trucks that take material
to various sites.
You also have a used car lot.
To the east of that is an
industrial mini warehouse
facility.
South along of the site, along
hillsborough avenue, you have a
convenience store.
You have some industrial
already.
What's will is a small
manufacturing facility.
Then you have several used car
lots.
You have a new car lot.
You have some auto repair there.
you can see a very small portion
of gray right there next to the
residential area.
And again, all this goes to the
point that there are these more
intensive industrial and heavy
commercial and light commercial
uses immediately adjacent to the
residential area.
But when you go even further,
and zoom out even further, what
you see -- and this map is an
actual future land use map.
This is from the comp plan.
You can see the subject site
with the blue arrows in the
bottom left-hand corner.
You can see it, the parcel
outlined there with the arrow.
You can see there's substantial
amounts of industrial future
land use categories in close
proximity.
You also see more umu-20 and the
cmu-12, all of which are
adjacent to this residential
area.
And then when you go south of
hillsborough avenue, you see
something similar.
You see more industrial, more
umu and cmu directly abutting
these residential areas.
And so the question is, how did
this area get to the point where
there is so many industrial and
heavy commercial uses in such
close proximity to the
residential?
Well, the answer is pretty
clear.
It's tampa international
airport.
One of our community's most
important and valuable assets.
And this site is actually 1700
linear feet from the airport.
And I think it was unusual in
this instance that the staff
report did not address the
proximity of the site to the
airport because it's really an
important issue when it comes to
whether residential is
appropriate on this site.
Tia is going to cause daily
impacts 24 hours a day probably
on residential uses, things like
noise, vibration and even
safety.
And that's why in your comp plan
you have policies that address
the airport and protecting the
airport from incompatible uses
in the area.
You also have a requirement --
and both of these sections are
cited.
The comp plan sections are
cited.
You also have a requirement that
a noise exposure study is
supposed to be evaluated so that
you all can reassess the
appropriate location of
compatible and incompatible land
uses to support the airport.
And the existence of the airport
in this proximity is probably
one of the biggest reasons why
we don't believe that
residential is no longer
appropriate in this area.
Another reason is the coastal
high hazard area.
You have the coastal high hazard
area covers all of that
residential area and it covers
some portions of the site.
And you also have the site in
evacuation zone "a."
you also have policies in your
comp plan that address -- in
coastal management that address
development in the coastal high
hazard area and providing
incentives to move development
out of those high-risk areas.
You even have comp plan policies
that discourage residential in
the coastal high hazard area.
You have two provisions that I
have cited here that flexes,
using the flex provision to
increased density is not
permitted in the coastal high
hazard and you also have density
bonuses that are prohibited in
the coastal high hazard.
So we know -- you have heard why
we believe that the residential
is no larger appropriate for
this site.
But why is the site appropriate
for light industrial?
Well, there's three reasons.
The first reason is there's
already a mix of industrial uses
in the surrounding area.
I have walked you through.
There's mini warehouses, heavy
commercial, a paver company,
auto sales north and south of
hillsborough avenue.
You also have a mix of
industrial, light and heavy
commercial F.L.U. Categories in
the surrounding area.
And that's the second reason
that we believe that the light
industrial was appropriate.
You have substantial amounts of
the li, just 1,000 feet from the
site.
You have oc-20, umu-20, cmu-12.
All of these are mixed
interspersed in very close
proximity to this site.
And the third reason that we
believe that the site is
appropriate for li-p is because
of the stated intent in the comp
plan for the li-p category.
It's supposed to be in areas
located outside of concentrated
industrial.
But where the need for a site
plan would benefit and ensure
land use compatibility.
So I know that you said in your
introductory remarks,
MR. CHAIRMAN, that you can't
consider the pd, but this is
different because in li-p the pd
is required by the comp plan.
So I know you MAY not know the
specifics of it, but I think
they are upon because this is
what shows how you can have
light industrial on the site and
still be compatible with the
adjacent residential area.
So we have a companion pd that's
traveling with this comp plan
amendment.
It's going to be heard by the
zhm in JUNE.
We have substantial setbacks in
that pd.
We have over 100 feet on three
sides and on the west side are
50 feet.
We have buffer areas by the land
development code.
In those buffer areas, we have a
buffer wall on three sides of
the site.
We have landscaping trees and
shrubbery and we have a
retention pond that also forms
somewhat of a buffer in that
area.
Don't forget, too, there's other
compatibility considerations
that we'd like you to consider.
And one of those is the ldc
requirement for performance
standards for manufacturing.
So there are standards to ensure
that manufacturing operates and
doesn't have impacts necessarily
on adjacent uses dealing with
lighting, sound, vibration and
airborne discharges.
Another interesting point about
this comp plan amendment and our
companion pd is it terms
turns out our
traffic analysis shows -- we
submit add traffic analysis with
this comp plan amendment.
It showed the proposed F.L.U.
Actually generates fewer, 1600
fewer daily trips than the
adopted comp plan policies -- or
adopted comp plan categories.
So we think that's an important
issue as far as compatibility
concerns because it's going to
have -- what we are proposing is
going to have fewer impacts on
the adjacent residential than
what the existing F.L.U.
Category has.
A couple more points dealing
with compatibility is that we
are proposing lesser amounts of
square footage than what the
current F.L.U. Categories allow.
Together, the oc-20 and the
res-6 allow a total of 115,000
square feet of commercial.
We are proposing only 106,000
square feet of light industrial.
So that's a.365, about half of
what the comp plan category
allows.
Lastly we'd like you to consider
the fact that the uses are very
limited.
This isn't just any light
industrial use.
It's only warehouse, wholesale
or manufacturing.
Just those three.
And then temporary storage of
the bulk goods.
As you have heard, it's in the
town 'n' country community plan
area.
However, there's nothing in that
plan that's applicable to this.
And lastly, you heard no
reviewing agencies have any
objections.
Again, the res-6 is not
appropriate at this location.
Our site just can't accommodate
residential.
The comp plan amendment to li-p
is consistent with existing
commercial uses and industrial
uses and is consistent with
existing commercial and
industrial F.L.U. Categories.
So we think our pd complements
all that and provides the
compatibility that the staff is
rightfully looking for.
So with that, we would ask that
you recommend that this plan
amendment be found consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
>> nigel joseph: thank you.
We didn't have anyone sign up in
the public comment for this one.
I will turn it over to the
commissioners for questions,
comments, discussions on this
one.
Commissioner louk, I see you
moving.
>> I think I heard it in the
applicant's presentation.
What would be the linear footage
of the nearest residential
property line?
Not dwelling but the atual
property line.
From the light industrial, if we
were to go to light industrial.
I guess it doesn't matter,
parcel to parcel, what's the --
>> yeah.
On the west -- I want to show
you.
On the west side of the site --
>> you have the --
>> there's a building.
There's a 30-foot buffer.
There's a 20-foot drainage
parcel.
And then there's the property
line to the residential on the
west of that, to the west of
that.
Which is farther away from the
existing industrial that you see
in the south.
Pardon?
about 50.
>> from the property line,
there's 20 feet --
>> correct.
>> to the property line to the
other property line.
>> right.
>> coastal high hazard, user
error, looking through and
thumbing through the report,
what percentage of the property
is in the chha, if any?
>> nigel joseph: a lot of it.
>> I would say it's a pretty
good --
>> so question for staff, given
the majority of this is in
there, if we were saying no to
light industrial, we have a
residential use on a portion of
the property today, if you could
wave your magic wand, what would
be the appropriate use for this
property?
If it's not res-6 or light
industrial, res-6 would be a
tough pill given the chha.
What would staff recommend if
you could wave a magic wand?
>> that is a good question.
Probably something lesser
intense than the light
industrial planned.
I think it would be better if it
was on the eastern side of
george road along with those
other more intensive uses before
the subject site, something less
intensive.
>> yeah.
And I would just add to that,
the residential 6 category does
allow for them to -- it does not
require them to build it for
residential uses.
They could build office or
commercial uses under the
residential 6.
Those are allowed to be
considered so unfortunately, we
don't have a land use category
that does not have residential
allowance that is not light
industrial.
That makes it hard.
All the land use categories
allow residential and office and
commercial.
>> I'll say the applicant did
say something interesting where
this so closely ties to the pd
when it's the light industrial
case.
When you look at what's allowed
under light industrial which is
like warehouse, distribution
interests, contractor yards,
cabinet makers, auto repair,
hvac, light printing, light
manufacturing assembly, the
definitely
devil is in the details of what
could potentially go there with
the concurrent pd.
I know we can't consider that.
So I mean I don't have a point
there other than I'm is
I'm not sure
what the right long-term use is
to it given the residential use.
Those are thoughts.
>> nigel joseph: good thoughts,
commissioner bowden.
>> look, my primary concern is
the property actually abuts to
residential.
So, you know, when you
consider -- I mean it is close
to the aircraft,
airport, yes.
So there's a certain amount of
noise that you're going to get.
But it's not in the airport's
flight path.
So I'm just thinking about
industrial and the potential for
the noise.
>> nigel joseph: I will also
just throw in a disclaimer here
if we're going to go against
staff, we're going to need some
policy.
Definitely be thinking about
those.
Let the conversation continue.
Commissioner louk.
>> I think the biggest thing I'm
chewing on here in terms of
consistency or inconsistency,
I'll be willing to bet my bottom
dollar if we were to come in
here with the expansion of the
whole property going to res-6,
this probably would be
recommended as inconsistent
which is the root of my question
in terms of like coming back to
staff saying what's the optimal
long-term use for this property
if it's not res-6.
If there's some sort of
development going to come in,
planned development with a bunch
of residential, there's no way
it's going recommended for
approval being in the coastal
high hazard.
>> nigel joseph: I will say for
my part in my review meeting, I
brought up a lot of these
points.
For me, we're not allowed to
consider the zoning, but I
always raise the point that the
land use category light
industrial planned means that
there's a pd process that's
going to go on at some point in
time.
I don't know what's going to
come of that pd process, but I
do know that's another bite at
the apple, not only for this
agency staff, which is a part of
the zoning process to make sure
that things like setbacks and
buffers and screening get done.
But also for other departments.
So for me, whenever I see the
li-p come up, I'm almost in
automatic yeah, let it go
through because, again, at some
future point irrespective of all
of these things that can happen
that staff is forced to bring
forward, you know, that second
bite at the apple there is an
important check on whatever
development is going to happen
there.
So the applicant also brings up
a lot of great points.
Commissioner louk brings up a
lot of great points.
It's strange that tonight we're
putting residential stuff in the
coastal high hazard, all of a
sudden, instead of trying to
take it out.
But I guess since it isn't close
to Macdill it doesn't matter.
But again, this all goes back to
the points that I have spoken
about for quite a while now.
And I have said it down tracy
and melissa but I'm going to be
picking it back up.
Be ready because it's coming.
But this idea of staff giving
these recommendations that
aren't kind of very broad and
narrowly focusing on certain
things puts staff in an awkward
position, you know.
MS. Myers, you have done a great
job, great presentation, great
application.
But again, the way this agency
is set up with its systems puts
staff in weird positions.
And, you know, I don't think
it's the best thing, but, you
know -- and I'll just leave that
alone and bring it up at some
future point in time.
But yeah, I would be willing to
support the li-p going in there.
I'm not going to pass the gavel
and make a motion, but even in
my briefing, my sense was this
needed to go there, you know.
So it's my 2 cents on this.
Commissioner kugler.
>> yes.
One point about it sitting on
the market for so long as a
residential in these times in
tampa is a good point.
I don't know what language to
use to bring it.
As you mentioned, we have to
come up with codes and
objectives in order to go
against staff recommendation.
I don't know how to say that.
But it does seem that it is an
appropriate use next to the
airport for sure.
And there's a tremendous amount
of industrial land very close,
almost as close as the housing.
So I don't know what language to
use for that, but maybe somebody
with a lot more experience with
the code would help.
>> nigel joseph: the applicant
looks like she MAY have some
suggestions.
Usually MS. Zornitta comes up
with some sggestions for us if
they are needed.
>> I don't want to jump the gun,
but I did cite some comp plan
policies that deal with
protecting the airport and the
coastal high hazard area.
>> nigel joseph: okay.
Commissioner cona has them.
>> right there.
>> nigel joseph: MS. Zornitta.
>> related to the airport
policies, it is geared toward
the airport flight path which
this is outside of.
I just would caution about using
those because this is not within
the airport zone.
And I mean we would absolutely
not be supportive -- we do not
put residential in the airport
flight path, so I just want to
be clear about that.
Okay.
>> even though it's not in the
flight path, it still is
affected by the noise and the
vibration.
>> nigel joseph: all right.
Are there any other -- I can't
see your mic there, commissioner commissioner
jemison.
You're hiding out back there.
Any other comments or thoughts
or questions from the
commissioners on this one?
It's not an easy one, I know.
Are they going to be flooding
into the single-family homes on
the west side?
I don't know the answer to that
question if they have to be
built that high, because I was
trying to find part of the code
for hillsborough county, and all
I could find was that all
properties located within the
special flood hazard area shall
have full compliance of the
hillsborough construction code,
and then it lists asce24 and
that is a list of codes that say
these different areas have to
build one foot above base flood
elevation.
So if that's the case, do they
need to build at 15 feet?
And if that's so, are they going
to be flooding into the
neighbors?
>> applicant looks like she was
nodding her head, so I will let
her opine on that.
>> if
for the record, gina grimes.
When you are building in areas
like that and you have that
elevation requirement, there are
different standards for
commercial and residential.
there are ways in which with
commercial uses or industrial
uses, that you can flood proof
buildings to a higher height.
It essentially achieves that
higher height where residential,
they're much more stringent
because of the threat to, you
know, life.
And so they make you elevate to
those higher, to those higher
standards.
So in this case, no fill is, you
can't put the fill in certain
areas that have those floods
zone requirements.
And all the retingz is going to
be held on site.
There are two very large
retention ponds that are going
to be on site.
So it should have no impact to
the adjacent residential, not to
mention there is a one-acre
retention pond to the north of
the site as well as a drainage
easement on the rear of the site
already.
>> andrew ross: thank
>> thank you, MS. Grimes.
Commissioner.
>> just to note, I think in this
area if I remember correctly
base flood elevation is 11 feet
so they probably won't have to
build up more than -- sorry.
>> I have the flood map from
fema up right now, and it says
14 feet.
>> okay.
Regardless of what it is, I
think you have to build a foot
over base flood elevation,
whatever that MAY be, and then
any, you know, civil engineer
worth their degree in civil
engineering would make sure a
site balance so that it wouldn't
be understooding -- flooding
into the neighborhood to the
rear.
>> chair: while we've jumped
down allison's rabbit hole, I
will chime in.
Similar development on sligh and
veterans in this area, it where
four -- there are four or five
big warehouses developed and
when we have heavy rains, sligh
floods now between benjamin and
anderson road at that point, so
I'm going to support this, but I
would just call out in the pd
and the civil engineering needs
to be on point with that
residential.
I'm going to support consistency
I should say.
But the civil engineering review
and plan on this needs to be on
point with those residential
properties.
To the west.
Just for those down the line who
get the second bite at the
apple.
>> chair: all right.
Are there any other thoughts?
Comments?
Questions?
Discussion items on this one?
Going once, going twice.
I'm going to close the public
comment on this one and open it
up to motions from the
commissioners on this item.
Commissioner.
>> motion to find hc/cpa 26-07
consistent with the
comprehensive plan based on flu
policy 2.23 and cm policy
3.1.14.
>> second that.
>> chair: all right, a motion of
consistency finding, citing
policy 2.23 and cm policy 3.1.14
and a second to that by
commissioner cueingler.
Are there any questions,
comments, or discussions from
the commissioners before we go
ahead and take our vote?
All signify they are agreement
by saying -- their agreement by
saying aye.
Those opposed?
Bowden.
All right, so that's 7-1 ayes,
bowden no.
And the motion carries.
All right.
Next up we have item 2b, hc/cpa
26-10 comprehensive plan map
amendment, southeast of kingsway
road and thonotosassa road and
presenter is lilyann linehan.
>> good evening, commissioners,
lilyann linehan planning
commission staff here to present
c/cpa 26-10 located southeast
f kingsway road and
thonotosassa road.
This is a privately initiated
map amendment that is small in
scale and approximately
24.22 acres.
The applicant is requesting to
change the future land use
designation from
agricultural-rural-1/5 and
residential 1 to residential-2.
This is the general location
map.
It in the rural area within the
limits of the thonotosassa
community plan.
It is located along lake thon
totosassa and north of east
kingsway road.
Here is an aerial of the site.
The site is outlined in pink.
And the site is currently
undeveloped
developed and is surrounded by
agricultural and single-family
land uses.
This is looking south of
thonotosassa road into the
subject site.
This is looking north from thon thon
tosatta road.
This is looking south from
thonotosassa road into the
adjacent eastern parcel and the
subject site is to the right of
this parcel.
Thus is also looking north from
thonotosassa into the adjacent
eastern parcel.
The subject site is to the left
of this parcel in this photo.
This is looking west down
thonotosassa road from the
subject site.
This
the site is behind the
photographer and this is looking
east down thonotosassa road from
the subject site and the site is
behind the photographer.
Currently the future land use
designation is
agricultural-rural-1/5 and
residential 1.
The agricultural-rural-1/5
category allows for one dwelling
unit per five gross acres and a
`maximum floor area ratio of.25.
This designation allows for the
consideration of farms, ranches,
feed lots, residential,
neighborhood commercial,
offices, industrial uses related
to agricultural uses, and mining
related activities.
The residential 1 category
allows for one dwelling unit per
gross acre and a maximum floor
area ratio of.25 and this
designation allows for the
consideration of agricultural
farms, ranches, residential,
eighborhood, commercial,
offices, and multipurpose
projects.
The site is currently surrounded
by the agricultural rurlt 1
rural
1 to 5 and residential 1 future
land use designations.
the applicant is proposing to
amend the future land use
category to residential-2.
The residential-2 category
allows for 2 dwelling units per
gross acre and a maximum floor
area
ratio of.25.
This designation allow there is
is -- for the consideration of
the agricultural, residential,
multifamily and multipurpose
projects.
Currently under the
agricultural-rural res 1 to 5
the site could consider up to 16
dwelling units or 263,755 square
feet of nonresidential uses.
And under the proposed future
land use designation of
residential-2 the site could
consider up to 48 dwelling units
or 263,755 square feet of
nonresidential use.
The proposed amendment will
increase the maximum potential
residential density and will not
change the maximum potential
nonresidential intensity.
The proposed amendment received
no formal objections, and the
list of full comments is
provided within the report
packet for review.
While formulating our
recommendation, planning
commission staff reviews all
related policies regarding the
proposed request, and though the
request is related to several
general policies, staff found
three main areas of
inconsistency.
The proposed request is
inconsistent with flu's
objective up with.2 and
policies 1
1.2.1 and 1.2.2 which
defines the rural area as a
place intended to provide for
long-term agricultural uses,
large lot rural residential
uses, and undeveloped natural
areas.
And that within the rural area,
densities showp on the future
land use map will be no higher
than one dwelling unit to five
gross acres unless located
within an area identified with
the higher density land use
category on the future land use
map at, as a suburbening
enclave, planned village,
planned development, pursuant to
the planned environmental
community or rural community
which carry higher densities.
The site currently carries a
split future land use
designation of
agricultural-rural-1/5 and
residential 1 which are both
densities found within and are
intended for the rural area.
The nearest suburban enclave
within the rural area is located
approximately.9 miles west of
the site with the future land
use designation of residential-2
and the second closest is
1.04 miles northwest of the site
with a future land use
designation of residential 6.
The existing future land use
between these two suburban
enclaves and the subject site is
residential 1 and
agricultural-rural-1/5.
While some of the surrounding
areas contain higher
designations of residential 1
and this is higher than the
general required 1 to 5 density,
the introduction of
residential-2 within the rural
area that is not contain and is
not in close proximity to a
similar suburban enclave with a
higher future land use
designation of residential-2 is
inconsistent with rural area
objectives and policies.
Those objectives 4.4 and policy
4.4.1 require new development to
be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood and
flu's policy 4.4
4.4.7 calls for
lands fronting a water body to
have density and/or intensity
comparable and compatible with
other development parcels and
lots fronting the water body
outside of the urban service
area.
The surrounding land use
patterns comprise of mostly low
density single-family
residential and agricultural
uses.
The surrounding areas to the
east, west, and south of the
site are generally large lot
rural residential developments
that contain future land use
designations of
agricultural-rural-1/5 or
residential 1.
And the proposed request to
change the future land use to
residential-2 for suburban style
development would not complement
the existing development pattern
within the area.
And it would not serve as a
transitional area between more
suburban development pattern and
more rural development patterns.
Based on the current existing
future land use categories
around lake thonotosassa, the
eastern portion of the lake is
adjacent to
agricultural-rural-1/5 and the
western portion is surrounded by
residential 1.
There are no future land use
categories along lake
thonotosassa with a density
greater thatten 1 dwelling unit
per acre.
A flews
future land use of
residential-2 would not
comparable and compatible which
is inconsistent with flu's
policy 4.4.7.
Lastly this site is within the
limits of the thonotosassa
community plan.
Goal 3 of the community plan
seeks to provide improved yet
affordable infrastructure and a
balance of residential,
commercial, and other land uses
while maintaining the rural area
or rural nature of the
thonotosassa area.
Goal 5 of the community plan
seeks to protect water,
wildlife, air, soil, and trees
through effective planning,
consistent enforcement of
existing regulations, and
incentives.
Additionally, the community plan
lists specific strategies that
the community will use to
achieve its goals.
Post notably the plan -- most
notably the plan requires
minimum lot sizes of one acre
for residential development
within the residential 1
agricultural estate and
agricultural-rural future land
use categories and it is
explicitly stated within the
strategies to protect the area's
rural character.
The future land use change to
residential-2 would allow for
suburban style development
within the rural area, and would
not protect the existing
community character that the
thonotosassa community plan
intends to maintain within the
rural area.
goals 3 and 5 seek to balance
private property rights with the
protection of the environment
and rural character, and given
that the site is located along
lake thonotosassa and within an
agriculturally heavy area of the
community, a residential-2
category would be too intense
and would not further the goals
of the community plan.
Planning commission staff
recommends that the proposed map
amendment by found inconsistent
with the goals, objectiveses,
and policies of the
unincorporated hillsborough
county comprehensive plan, this
concludes my presentation, I'm
here if you have any questions.
>> chair: thank you.
Does the applicant have a
presentation?
>> thank you.
Good evening, isabelle albert
with halff, 1,000 north ashley
drive.
I have the presentation here you
can see.
So generally staff did explain
where the site was and the
acreage and everything, and it
has a split land use
designation.
So when rewe reviewed this, when
we first filed for this
application, we actually
requested for the ar portion for
res 1.
So that's a goal is to have one
unit to the acre.
And I understand that you all
don't look at the zoning, but we
have to kind of look at what's,
`what makes sense and what works,
and so at the same time, with
the new stormwater pond
regulation that increased by
over 22%, it's like what can we
really fit there, what works
there.
This is currently what's the
zoning is.
The zoning is approved for
14-point lots.
You'll see where the residential
1 is that one-unit to the acre
and then the res 5, so it's
approved for 14 lots.
When we laid out the site and
having to take into
consideration the minimum one
laker lot size, we went from
having permitted 14 units to now
13 units that can fit there.
And so that just didn't make
sense.
And so I remember I was talking
with MS. Zornitta, I said well
we can either go like this and
continue with, with res 1, but
then at the plan development
portion of it, I'm going to ask
for half-acre lots in order to
get that one to one unit.
Or just be clean and just do the
res-2 to get out of this minimum
requirement of the minimum
one-acre lot.
That's the only reason why we're
doing this is because we want to
have smarter lots.
And if it was in any other
plans, community plans that
would be permitted.
And also part of the zoning, we
also had to look at these
improvements that, what are we
going to be hooked for.
And one of them in discussion
with the county engineer was to
have improve the road from our
site all the way to where the
res-6 is currently doing.
And so you have to consider all
of that and say res 1 still is
not helping us and so therefore,
we're going to request res-2.
So this is brings us to the
stormwater pond.
this is our plan that's under
review with the county where
along the frontage there,
there's not proposed anything
prior to having two units that
were proposed there, we're not
proposing any development on,
along the lake, and then we have
our stormwater ponds where
they're supposed to be located
with the residence in the back.
But that still allows, that
development is one to one.
And if we didn't do that, we
would be at 13 units.
We also looked at the
comprehensive plan policies,
policies 3.1 says new
development should recognize the
existing community.
As you heard this is a mix of
uses in this existing community.
We have agriculture, we have one
to five, we have along the lake,
one to one, we have more
intensive here and then we have
right there a wedding venue that
people can as a commercial use.
And so the introduction of the
half acre lot but you're still
one to one is not disturbing
that community.
They have to be, you know, in
harmony with each other.
The residential to residential
is not going to disturb the
harmony of having similar uses
next to each other.
Look at objective 3.1, 3.2,
3.24, that talks about the
community plan, and this is in
community plan thonotosassa
community plan.
And it brings us the gold number
3 and number 5, which also staff
has pointed out, but it includes
the encouragement for grrg but
it protects the property owner's
rights and value and establish
the open space and greenspace
and the low density, and that's
what that you know one acre in
am mm is to ensure that --
minimum is to ensure that there
is still a low density in the
rural service areaerment but
when you come and really develop
it, if we did minimum one acre
lots, we would be well below
what the density would be
permitted, but by doing what
we're requesting, we are still
maintaining that one to one
unit.
And environmental protection
we're not tuching the frontage
portion of the lake.
It's like about two acres.
We're not touching that.
Other policies 4.4 which is the
neighborhood protection, this is
maintain, the neighborhood is
still going to be maintained as
what it is, there is no, there's
no disturbance of what could
possibly happen if this is
developed.
And then these are, you know,
again, like creation of like
uses, creation of complementary
uses, and all of that you know
it meets all of othose as well
as the 4.4.7 about the lake
frontage that we are not
touching.
So these are the policies that
I've listed for you tonight
where we found that it is
consistent with the
comprehensive plan by stating
those same policies.
That concludes my presentation.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
We had one individual signed --
joo thank you.
We had one individual sign up in
the public comment on this one,
and I will call robert
alvis.
Come on down.
you have three minutes, sir.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners.
My name is robert alvis.
I live at 11907 thonotosassa
road, the mkes me the most
affected person in hillsborough
county by this.
I amright
I am right next door.
Some of the staff's photographs
had a picture of a car in a
driveway, that's my driveway.
This is ridiculous.
This is an agricultural area.
What they're asking for is to
create a subdivision in the
place a subdivision does --
should not exist.
There are nub
none there.
There are none on that side of
the road.
Closest place is up on kingsway
and it's one to five.
That's all it should be there,
but unfortunately, they have got
a one to one ratio.
Or some oit, 16 acres.
I urge you to defeat this.
It does not fit our area.
Getting rid of agricultural
designation does not apply
anywhere.
As they stated, we're surrounded
by farms, cattle ranch.
There are privately one-to-one
houses there, privately built.
No subdivisions.
No extreme concentration like
they're talking about.
So once again, I urge you to say
no.
We have gone through this before
a couple of years back when they
tried something similar.
This is basically just a
variation on a theme.
And it was defeated.
I won't go into why.
It's public record.
so look it up.
You guys have the ability.
I will stop there and thank you
for your time.
>> chair: thank you, sir.
All right.
Three empty response to the
applicant.
>> commissioners, good evening,
william mu loy, 325 south
boulevard.
I'll be very quick and direct on
what we're doing here.
If we could cluster this we
would be asking for r1 across
the entire site.
I know how important and
protected the rural service area
is.
I know the emotions that can
ride on it.
I'm fought going to talk about
zone -- not going to talk about
zoning but when there is a
zoning, this is going to come in
at one-to-one.
The only reason for the r2 again
is to allow us to cluster, give
us a little bit of flexibility
with our lot sizes so we don't
end up platting roads in
people's front yards which is
what could eventually happen
here.
I do want to point out too,
isabelle mentioned the
accelerated stormwater program
we have.
What we're doing at the north
end of that property is going to
be exceptional for that lake
because according to these new
rules we have, we can't let any
outfall that's not treated or
has any suspended particulates
leave our property.
So those two giant swimming
pools will be a boon for the
lake and there is a reason we
put them there.
that's the way the water's going
south to north.
So given those and the fact that
we do have to construct a road
rights to the front door of a
pocket of r6 I think are points
for consideration that this is
not a rural enclave but it's a
point for -- suburban enclave.
It's a point for rural
development.
>> chair: all right, any
questions or discussion?
MR. Kugler.
>> yes, I was very impressed
with missouri
MS. Linehan's presentation,
it was very detailed.
It
I was a bit confused when I
believe it was the name isabelle
had presented the one-to-one.
I didn't understand what she was
describing as where, we're
cutting it to half an acre and
yet it's still one-to-one.
It seemed to me that it was two
to one rather than one to
one-to-one,
maybe you can clear that up for
me.
>> of course, with the new
rules, the stormwater ponds more
land is being used for that.
So if we're now being restricted
in the area to developed, and so
by doing so, when we actually
quite engineered it out just to
get an idea, but the, and the
new rule just came in JANUARY so
it's still very new to some of
us, and so I asked my engineers
to just plot out quickly what
would be required, and what do I
enup with, and I ended up with
`less units than what I'm
currently approved for.
But it's still brings you, if
you look it still would be very
similar to the one-to-one.
>> so in other words the
houses remain the sime number on
a tighter lot.
>> you need a half acre because
you're in the rural service area
for, well and septic.
It's the half acre lot but just
in this plan it says minimum
one-acre lot, because they want
to maintain that low density.
>> I understand now.
Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> chair: all right.
Are there any other questions,
before you jump in, I'll throw
in there if anyone's going to go
against staff, remember we're
going to need some spallacies to
keep that in mind.
>> just to be very clear about
one to one, 24 acres, 24 units.
That's exactly what we mean.
>> chair: all right.
Any other thoughts?
Questions?
Comments?
Commissioners sink.
>> I
sienk.
>> I struggle with this one
because if you look at the area
to the west, there's a road
right on the kingsway it's
almost the same depth and there
are seven, maybe eight units,
and for this area it just seems
like even 14 seems double I
don't know it just does not seem
consistent with the area.
>> chair: good points.
Any other thoughts?
Questions, comments?
Commissioner bowden.
>> yeah, I'm, and as I think
through this, you know, being
separating the comp plan with
the zining piece, you know, and
I can only take one or the other
into consideration, and --
>> chair: you can only take one,
yeah.
>> so you know, so the zoning
piece was kind of to me
irrelevant because it was more
of -- more -- you know, to me.
So I just wanted to make tat
comment.
You know, I would look a little
more comp -- look fr something a
little more compelling as to why
it was other than to give me
information that I really can't
use to make a decision.
>> chair: good thoughts.
Good thoughts.
MS. Zornitta.
>> and I would just emphasize
that the thonotosassa community
plan does speak to wanting the
minimum lot size of one acre in
the residential 1 and the
agricultural-rural, so yes, we
did talk with the applicant
about making the site all one
land use category because it is
awkward when they have a split
like that in the residential 1,
and that would be I think
consistent with the thonotosassa
community plan, but you know,
the thonotosassa community
plan's very clear about wanting
that one acre development
pattern.
>> chair: all right.
Are there any other questions?
Comments?
Thoughts from commissioners?
Not seeing a lot of excitement
around the dais here, so going
once, going twice, I'm going to
to close the public comment and
open it up to motions from the
commissioners on this item.
Commissioner cona.
>> yeah, motion to find hc/cpa
26-10 inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan.
>> chair: all right,
commissioner jemison.
>> second.
>> chair: commissioner cona with
a motion of inconsistency
finding, commissioner jemison
seconds that motion.
Are there any questions,
comments, thoughts from the
commissioners before we take our
vote?
And we would all signify their
agreement by saying aye.
Those opposed?
That motion carries unanimously.
All right.
That was our last item of
business for tonight, so at 7:26 P.M., this public hearing
is adjourned.