[10:22] test test.
[11:15] >> nigel joseph: welcome,
[11:16] everyone, to the MAY 11th,
[11:17] 2026 public hearing of the
[11:19] planning commission on city of
[11:20] tampa comprehensive plan
[11:20] amendments.
[11:21] We thank you for attending this
[11:22] meeting.
[11:22] Your comments and participation
[11:24] are encouraged.
[11:25] For those attending in-person
[11:27] and wishing to speak on any
[11:29] agenda item, please sign the
[11:30] register at the rear of the room
[11:32] and turn off any devices that
[11:33] MAY be a distraction.
[11:35] To minimize feedback, all online
[11:36] participants in the meeting will
[11:37] be muted until it is their
[11:37] opportunity to speak.
[11:39] Planning commissioners should
[11:40] unmute themselves to indicate
[11:42] that they would like to speak.
[11:43] Please be sure to state your
[11:44] name at the beginning of your
[11:45] remarks for the benefit of the
[11:45] clerk.
[11:46] There will be an opportunity for
[11:48] members of the public to provide
[11:48] comments.
[11:51] When your name is called, you
[11:52] will be unmuted when it is your
[11:53] time to speak.
[11:54] Wait until the chair calls on
[11:55] you to begin speaking.
[11:56] State your
[11:58] state your name at the beginning
[11:59] of your comments and adhere to
[12:00] the time limits.
[12:02] If anybody is watching via htv
[12:03] and would like to provide
[12:04] comments for the local
[12:05] government hearing, please email
[12:09] them to planner@plancom.Org.
[12:10] For those of you who are not
[12:11] familiar with our process, the
[12:12] meeting will be conducted a
[12:13] follows.
[12:14] The agenda item will be
[12:15] introduced, staff will give
[12:16] their presentation with a
[12:17] 15-minute time limit.
[12:19] The applicant will be given the
[12:19] opportunity to make a
[12:21] presentation with a 15-minute
[12:21] time limit.
[12:23] Following presentations, members
[12:23] of the public MAY address the
[12:26] planning commission when
[12:27] recognized by the CHAIRMAN.
[12:28] Public comment will be heard for
[12:30] three minutes per person.
[12:32] The applicant will be afforded a
[12:33] three-minute period for rebuttal
[12:34] or response.
[12:35] Planning commissioners will ask
[12:35] questions.
[12:36] Public comment will be closed.
[12:38] Then upon a motion, second and
[12:40] discussion, a vote will be
[12:41] taken.
[12:42] To all participants, please note
[12:44] that tonight's hearing concerns
[12:45] proposed changes to the
[12:48] comprehensive plan.
[12:49] Presentations should not include
[12:50] matters related to zoning
[12:51] applications and site plans that
[12:52] are not before the commission.
[12:53] Zoning conditions are not
[12:54] relevant to plan amendments and
[12:55] MAY not be considered by the
[12:57] planning commission.
[12:58] The planning commission's
[12:59] purview in making a
[13:00] recommendation is requiremented
[13:02] to consistency or inconsistency
[13:03] with the comprehensive plan and
[13:05] with that, I'd like to ask the
[13:06] clerk's representative to please
[13:08] call roll.
[13:10] >> good evning, commissioners.
[13:11] Bowden.
[13:14] >> here.
[13:14] >> cardenas.
[13:16] Cona.
[13:16] >> here.
[13:18] >> jemison.
[13:21] >> here.
[13:21] >> kugler.
[13:22] >> here.
[13:22] >> linkous.
[13:24] Louk.
[13:26] >> here.
[13:27] >> sieben.
[13:28] Sienk.
[13:30] >> here.
[13:31] >> berry.
[13:31] >> here.
[13:33] >> orton.
[13:33] >> here.
[13:34] >> joseph.
[13:34] >> nigel joseph: here.
[13:35] >> you have a quorum, sir.
[13:38] >> nigel joseph: thank you.
[13:39] All right.
[13:43] Our first item of business is
[13:46] 2a, ta/cpa 26-01, comprehensive
[13:49] plan map amendment 1605 north
[13:50] waters court and the presenter
[13:51] is quinn steele.
[13:52] >> good evening, qunn steele,
[13:53] planning commission staff.
[14:00] This item is ta/cpa 26-01 for
[14:01] 1605 north waters court.
[14:02] The request before you is
[14:04] privately initiated and small
[14:04] scale.
[14:06] Covering approximately
[14:07] 3.39 acres and the request is to
[14:09] change the future land use
[14:10] designation from community mixed
[14:13] use 35 to urban mixed use 60.
[14:15] Here is a general location map.
[14:16] The subject site is located
[14:17] within the central tampa
[14:18] planning district.
[14:20] The central park urban village.
[14:22] The historic ybor neighborhood.
[14:24] The ybor city local historic
[14:26] district and the central park
[14:26] cra.
[14:28] This map shows an aerial of the
[14:29] subject site outlined in yellow.
[14:31] I did want to mention there has
[14:32] been a lot of recent development
[14:34] in the surrounding area so this
[14:35] aerial MAY not fully reflect
[14:37] current conditions.
[14:39] their site fronts east 7th
[14:41] avenue a major commercial
[14:42] corridor in ybor city and
[14:44] located about 230 feet east of
[14:46] north nebraska avenue which is a
[14:47] designated transit emphasis
[14:48] corridor.
[14:49] Nebraska avenue also marks the
[14:51] boundary for the cbd periphery,
[14:54] west of nebraska and south of
[14:56] east 3rd avenue allows desity
[14:58] and intensity bonuses up to 2.5%
[14:58] of
[15:02] 200%under the designation and the
[15:04] red dashed line shown here
[15:05] represents the boundary for the
[15:06] ybor city local historic
[15:08] district to the north and east.
[15:09] The surrounding area is mixed
[15:11] use with multi-family commercial
[15:13] and institutional uses
[15:16] immediately south are booker t.
[15:18] Washington and the robert w.
[15:18] Saunders library.
[15:21] To the west is a church and
[15:26] drive-thru restaurant is the gte
[15:27] building.
[15:30] The gasworx development are to
[15:32] the southeast with the channel
[15:34] district further beyond the
[15:34] frame.
[15:36] This is a photo looking directly
[15:39] is he subject site along south
[15:40] henderson avenue.
[15:42] Looking east or east scott site,
[15:45] these are the law union
[15:46] apartments and the subject site
[15:48] is out of frame behind the
[15:48] camera.
[15:50] This is looking south of the
[15:52] site along estelle street
[15:53] towards the elementary school
[15:54] and the subject site is out of
[15:56] frame to the left.
[15:57] Looking west along east
[15:58] henderson avenue, west of the
[16:00] subject site and the subject
[16:02] site is behind the camera out of
[16:02] frame.
[16:04] And then looking west across
[16:05] north nebraska avenue towards
[16:06] downtown, the subject site is
[16:10] out of frame to the rear about
[16:11] 230 feet.
[16:12] This map shows the adopted
[16:15] future land use as cmu-35
[16:16] allowing medium density
[16:17] residential and commercial uses
[16:20] at 35 units per acre or 2.0
[16:21] F.A.R. Which surrounds the site
[16:21] on all sides.
[16:25] To the east along 7th avenue
[16:28] is umu-60, there are additional
[16:31] parcels associated with the
[16:32] gasworx development.
[16:34] To the west of nebraska avenue
[16:38] includes umu-60 and rmu-35.
[16:39] Further is recreation open space
[16:40] tampa park plaza and further
[16:41] north is r-20.
[16:43] This map shows the proposed
[16:45] future land use as urban mixed
[16:47] use 60 which would allow high
[16:49] density and intensity, mixed use
[16:50] development up to 60 units per
[16:53] acre or 3.25 F.A.R.
[16:55] This amendment would increase
[16:57] the maximum from 118 to 203
[16:58] dwelling units and the allowable
[17:02] intensity from just over 295,000
[17:07] square feet to just over 497,000
[17:08] square feet for residential or
[17:09] non-residential uses.
[17:11] It would introduce commercial
[17:12] intensive uses and increase the
[17:13] allowable density and intensity
[17:14] on the site.
[17:16] We sent this amendment out for
[17:17] agency review and did not
[17:18] receive any objections, although
[17:20] the school board noted that
[17:20] washington elementary and blake
[17:22] high school are projected to
[17:25] exceed capacity.
[17:27] In considering this amendment,
[17:27] staff reviewed compatibility
[17:29] with the ybor city local
[17:31] historic district.
[17:31] Any future development would be
[17:35] subject to design standards by
[17:38] the barrio latin america
[17:38] commission, it is compatible
[17:40] with the historic character and
[17:43] surrounding area.
[17:45] Planning commission staff finds
[17:46] the report -- excuse me.
[17:47] Planning commission staff finds
[17:49] the request supports a compact
[17:51] city form by directing growth to
[17:52] the central park urban village
[17:55] which is an ara intended to
[17:55] accommodate higher density mixed
[17:56] use development.
[17:59] This site is also within a cra
[18:02] and currently underutilized so
[18:03] it would have more efficient use
[18:04] of land and infrastructure.
[18:07] In addition the site is located
[18:10] in close proximity to transit,
[18:11] multimodal infrastructure
[18:14] including the corridor along
[18:18] nebraska, teco, hart bus station
[18:19] and higher density and intensity
[18:20] in this location.
[18:23] It has policies ensuring
[18:25] adequate supply of housing.
[18:28] This would provide opportunities
[18:29] for growth helping to
[18:30] accommodate the city's projected
[18:31] growth population.
[18:32] Planning commission staff
[18:33] recommends tht the proposed map
[18:34] amendment be found consistent
[18:36] with the goals, objectives and
[18:37] policies of the tampa
[18:38] comprehensive plan.
[18:39] And I am available for any
[18:40] questions.
[18:40] >> nigel joseph: thank you.
[18:45] Is there an applicant
[18:45] presentation?
[18:59] >> good evening.
[19:01] Good evening, megan smith here
[19:03] on behalf of the applicant,
[19:04] tampa park apartments.
[19:05] Want to thank planning
[19:06] commission staff for covering
[19:07] everything.
[19:08] They did a fantastic job and
[19:10] feel like it was a very thorough
[19:11] review.
[19:12] Kind of wanted to touch on a
[19:13] couple of things and be quick
[19:15] and efficient with our time.
[19:18] So as she said, cbd periphery is
[19:19] immediately to the west
[19:20] following nebraska.
[19:25] For our site, we are in the
[19:27] central tampa planning district
[19:32] and local ybor historic
[19:33] district.
[19:35] We've got seminole heights,
[19:35] ybor, channel district and
[19:37] downtown tampa that we know are
[19:38] all growing.
[19:39] Those are within a five-minute
[19:41] commute from our location.
[19:43] And so we really feel like this
[19:46] would help bring and incentivize
[19:50] an area that is currently being
[19:50] underutilized.
[19:53] Our request is to go from cmu-35
[19:55] to umu-60 so that is the adopted
[19:56] proposed map.
[19:59] And then I know quinn touched on
[20:01] this and I want to hit it once
[20:01] more.
[20:02] With that cbd periphery, about a
[20:04] third of the surrounding
[20:05] properties can actually double
[20:05] their F.A.R.
[20:08] So what we are up against on
[20:11] both sides is 7.0 and 6.0 F.A.R.
[20:14] To the west and south and umu-60
[20:16] carrying on that gasworx
[20:17] development as well as the ybor
[20:20] historic district.
[20:22] Transportation wise, which
[20:23] supports the land use policies,
[20:25] we've got hart route 9 that
[20:26] connects from downtown tampa up
[20:28] to the university as well as the
[20:30] streetcar is located just a
[20:31] 15-minute walk through ybor.
[20:33] And then that can bring you into
[20:34] downtown tampa as well.
[20:36] So we feel like this is really
[20:37] connected with the surrounding
[20:39] areas and helps support that
[20:40] intensification.
[20:41] and with that, I will conclude
[20:42] my presentation and I'm
[20:44] available for any questions.
[20:44] >> nigel joseph: all right.
[20:45] Thank you very much.
[20:47] We didn't have anyone sign up in
[20:48] the public comment for this one
[20:50] so I will turn it over to the
[20:52] commissioners for questions,
[20:56] comments, discussions.
[20:59] Not seeing -- commissioner louk,
[20:59] no?
[20:59] All right.
[21:02] Then I'm going to go on ahead
[21:03] and close the public comment on
[21:05] this and open it up to motions
[21:06] from the commissioners on this
[21:07] item.
[21:07] Commissioner louk.
[21:08] >> thank you, MR. Chair.
[21:12] I move we find cpa 26-01
[21:12] consistent with the tampa
[21:14] comprehensive plan and forward
[21:15] this representation to tampa
[21:17] city council.
[21:18] >> second.
[21:18] >> nigel joseph: all right, a
[21:19] motion of consistency by
[21:21] commissioner louk, second by
[21:21] commissioner cona.
[21:23] Any questions, comments or
[21:24] discussions from the
[21:25] commissioners before we take our
[21:26] vote on this one?
[21:27] Not seeing any, then would all
[21:29] signify their agreement by
[21:30] saying aye.
[21:30] [Ayes]
[21:32] Those opposed?
[21:34] That motion carries unanimously.
[21:35] All right.
[21:39] Next up, we hae agenda item 2b,
[21:43] ta/cpa 26-02, comprehensive plan
[21:46] map amendment 1701 east 2nd
[21:50] avenue and the presenter is meg
[21:53] Mccarthy.
[21:56] >> good evening, meaghan
[21:56] Mccarthy, planning commission
[21:57] staff.
[22:00] This is the hearing for ta/cpa
[22:03] 2026-02 located at 1701 east
[22:04] 2nd avenue.
[22:06] This is a privately initiated
[22:07] small scale amendment.
[22:12] And the subject site encompasses
[22:13] approximately.39 acres.
[22:15] The request is to go from light
[22:15] industrial future land use
[22:19] designation to urban mixed use
[22:19] 60.
[22:20] The subject site is located
[22:22] within the central tampa
[22:23] planning district.
[22:25] The historic ybor neighborhood,
[22:27] ybor city local historic
[22:30] district as well as the coastal
[22:31] high hazard area.
[22:32] This is an aerial of the subject
[22:33] site with the subject site
[22:35] outlined in yellow.
[22:37] The surrounding area includes
[22:37] industrial uses.
[22:39] Directly to the east and south,
[22:43] as well as further east along
[22:45] adamo drive.
[22:46] Scattered commercial uses as
[22:48] well as residential further
[22:50] north of east second avenue.
[22:51] While the subject site is not
[22:52] within the ybor city urban
[22:54] village or port activity center,
[22:55] those boundaries are just to the
[22:59] north and south of the site
[23:00] respectively.
[23:02] Starting with our subject site
[23:03] photos, this is looking directly
[23:05] at the subject site from north
[23:07] 17th street.
[23:09] This is looking at industrial
[23:10] uses on the east side of the
[23:12] subject site with the subject
[23:14] site behind the camera.
[23:16] This is looking at commercial
[23:17] uses on the west side of the
[23:20] subject site.
[23:21] Here we are looking south of the
[23:24] subject site at the salmon
[23:25] expressway overpass.
[23:28] Next we're looking west along
[23:29] adamo drive with the subject
[23:31] site in the frame.
[23:34] And lastly looking east along
[23:37] adamo drive.
[23:39] This is -- here we have
[23:40] referenced an historic map taken
[23:43] from ta/cpa 06-26 before it was
[23:44] approved to change the area
[23:46] outlined in pink from heavy
[23:47] industrial to the urban mixed
[23:49] use 60 that you'll see on the
[23:50] next slide.
[23:51] This gives some perspective on
[23:54] the transition from industrial
[23:55] to mixed use designations over
[23:57] the last 20 years as a result of
[23:59] multiple plan amendments in the
[24:02] surrounding area including 06-26
[24:04] as well as 07-03, and more
[24:07] recently plan amendment 22-28
[24:09] which approved multiple parcels
[24:10] to umu-60 including the one
[24:12] directly north of our current
[24:15] subject site.
[24:18] This is the adopted future land
[24:21] use map with the subject site
[24:22] outlined directly to the east
[24:24] and to the southeast are light
[24:26] and heavy industrial.
[24:28] Mixed use categories including
[24:32] umu-60, cmu-35, gmu-24 and cc-35
[24:34] comprise the rest of the
[24:35] surrounding area to the north,
[24:37] south, east and west.
[24:40] The teal line delineates the
[24:41] coastal high hazard area, the
[24:42] portion of the subject site
[24:54] within the chha is just over
[24:54] [Inaudible].
[24:56] Under the adopted F.L.U. Of
[24:59] light industrial, the site not
[25:00] eligible for residential
[25:00] development.
[25:02] Currently the site can be
[25:04] considered for 25,482 square
[25:05] feet of industrial uses.
[25:08] Under the proposed umu-60
[25:09] designation, the site MAY be
[25:11] considered for 23 residential
[25:13] development units or 55,211
[25:15] square feet of residential or
[25:17] non-residential uses.
[25:18] The amendment would introduce
[25:20] the potential for residential
[25:22] uses and increase allowable
[25:24] residential and non-residential
[25:25] square footage and remove the
[25:29] consideration of industrial
[25:29] uses.
[25:31] This application was sent to our
[25:32] partner agencies and there were
[25:35] no options to the request.
[25:35] The city of tampa planning
[25:36] department found the request
[25:37] comparable and compatible with
[25:40] the surrounding area and noted
[25:42] the potential conflict between
[25:43] land development code
[25:44] requirements and industrial
[25:48] development on this site.
[25:50] Staff considered industrial
[25:51] preservation policies as the
[25:52] site is currently under the
[25:54] light industrial F.L.U.
[25:56] Designation and the industrial
[25:57] general zoning category.
[25:59] As well as policies related to
[26:00] the coastal high hazard area
[26:01] being that all of the subject
[26:03] site is considered within the
[26:05] chha since the percentage within
[26:06] is over 50%.
[26:08] As noted in the staff report and
[26:11] by the city of tampa staff, due
[26:13] to minimum requirements for
[26:15] development within the zoning
[26:17] category the parcel is unlikely
[26:19] to allow for the development of
[26:20] a true employment generating
[26:20] industrial use.
[26:23] Due to this factor as well as
[26:26] documented trends towards mixed
[26:29] use, staff found the request
[26:30] consistency and removal for
[26:31] consideration of industrial uses
[26:35] on the site.
[26:36] The proposed amendment is
[26:39] recommended to be found
[26:40] consistent with the policies and
[26:41] objectives of the comprehensive
[26:43] plan including policy related to
[26:45] compatibility with the
[26:46] surrounding development pattern,
[26:48] promotion of densities
[26:49] supportive of mixed use and
[26:52] transit and encouraging adequate
[26:54] housing supply and infill
[26:54] development.
[26:55] As the surrounding area is noted
[26:57] to be in transition to a more
[27:00] mixed use development pattern
[27:05] north of -- west of north 21st
[27:05] street.
[27:05] Planning commission staff
[27:07] recommends that the proposed map
[27:08] amendment be found consistency
[27:10] with the goals, objectives and
[27:11] policies of the tampa
[27:12] comprehensive plan and this
[27:13] concludes my presentation.
[27:14] I'm available for any questions.
[27:15] >> nigel joseph: thank you.
[27:22] Is there an applicant
[27:29] presentation?
[27:31] >> good evening, commissioners,
[27:33] alex schaler, 400 north ashley
[27:36] drive with gardner brewer
[27:37] hudson.
[27:37] I'll make this brief.
[27:40] I think this request is pretty
[27:40] straightforward.
[27:43] I was before you in 2024 with a
[27:45] very large comprehensive plan
[27:46] amendment request and we had it
[27:48] split into two halves.
[27:50] We had a portion north of adamo.
[27:52] We also had what's been
[27:55] classified as ybor harbor.
[27:58] In the north of adamo portion,
[28:00] this piece was left out.
[28:03] And at the time, our client, the
[28:04] applicant, was in negotiations
[28:06] to acquire this little strip but
[28:07] did not yet own it.
[28:09] Given the fact that they did not
[28:10] have ownership of that piece of
[28:13] land, we did not include that in
[28:14] the original application.
[28:15] So what we're requesting from
[28:18] you all this evening is a
[28:20] recommendation of approval for
[28:22] that umu-60 that's currently
[28:24] located north of this strip to
[28:27] be extended to the south.
[28:29] This is a very small site.
[28:31] As staff mentioned, it's not
[28:33] overly suitable for industrial
[28:36] uses just given the size of it.
[28:37] Typically industrial use vs a
[28:38] larger footprint and need more
[28:39] open space area.
[28:41] And this is currently, like I
[28:42] said,.4 acres and it's
[28:45] currently serving as a parking
[28:45] lot.
[28:47] As meg mentioned, this area is
[28:48] trending towards mixed use.
[28:49] Both residential and commercial,
[28:53] you all are very aware of that
[28:55] with gasworx and ybor harbor and
[28:59] some of the future PDAs in the
[29:00] queue to be heard at city
[29:01] council.
[29:02] From a planning perspective,
[29:04] this is located along a transit
[29:05] emphasis corridor.
[29:06] Adamo drive is one of those and
[29:08] it is located near the ybor city
[29:09] urban village.
[29:11] So as meg mentioned, staff found
[29:12] this consistent and that's all I
[29:12] have.
[29:15] But I'm happy to answer any
[29:15] questions.
[29:16] >> nigel joseph: thank you.
[29:17] We didn't have anyone sign up in
[29:18] the public comment for this one
[29:20] either, so questions, comments,
[29:22] thoughts to the commissioners on
[29:24] this one?
[29:26] Not seeing much action, I'll go
[29:27] on ahead and close the public
[29:29] comment on this one and open it
[29:30] up to motions from the
[29:32] commissioners on this item.
[29:33] Commissioner cona.
[29:37] >> yeah, motion to find ta/cpa
[29:38] 26 -- 02 consistent with the
[29:39] comprehensive plan.
[29:39] >> second.
[29:40] >> nigel joseph: all right.
[29:41] motion of consistency finding by
[29:42] commissioner cona.
[29:43] Second to that motion by
[29:45] commissioner kugler.
[29:47] Any questions, comments or
[29:47] statements from the
[29:48] commissioners before we take our
[29:50] vote in not seeing any, then
[29:52] will all signify their
[29:54] agreement by saying aye.
[29:54] [Ayes]
[29:56] Those opposed.
[29:56] [Aye]
[30:00] So the cheese stands alone.
[30:01] [Laughter]
[30:01] Commissioner
[30:03] commissioner joseph against, all
[30:04] the other planning commissioners
[30:09] in favor of and the motion
[30:10] carries 7-1.
[30:10] All right.
[30:12] Thank you very much.
[30:15] And that is our last item,
[30:17] agenda item for this city of
[30:17] tampa public hearing.
[30:21] I will go on ahead and adjourn
[30:21] this city of tampa public
[30:25] hearing at 6:28 and read us into
[30:26] our hillsborough county public
[30:27] hearing if everybody will bear
[30:30] with me for just a moment.
[30:33] Welcome, everyone, to the MAY
[30:33] 11th, 2026 public hearing of
[30:34] the planning commission on
[30:35] hillsborough county
[30:37] comprehensive plan amendments.
[30:39] We thank you for attending this
[30:39] meeting.
[30:39] Your comments and participation
[30:41] are encouraged.
[30:42] For those attending in-person
[30:43] arn
[30:45] and wishing to speak, please
[30:46] sign the agenda at the rear of
[30:49] the room and turn off devices.
[30:50] All online participants in the
[30:52] meeting will be muted until it
[30:53] is their opportunity to speak.
[30:54] Planning commissioners should
[30:56] unmute themselves to indicate
[30:58] they would like to speak.
[31:00] Please be sure to state your
[31:02] name at the beginning of your
[31:03] remarks for the benefit of the
[31:03] clerk.
[31:04] There will be an opportunity for
[31:07] members of the public to provide
[31:07] comments.
[31:08] When your name is called, you
[31:10] will be unmuted when it is your
[31:11] turn to speak.
[31:12] Please wait until the chair
[31:14] calls on you to begin speaking.
[31:14] State your name at the beginning
[31:15] of your comments and adhere to
[31:17] the time limits.
[31:19] If anyone has difficulties or is
[31:20] watching via htv and would like
[31:22] to provide comments to be
[31:24] included in the record for the
[31:25] local government hearing, please
[31:28] email them to
[31:28] planner@plancom.Org.
[31:29] For those of you who are not
[31:30] familiar with our process, the
[31:31] meeting will be conducted as
[31:32] follows.
[31:33] The agenda item will be
[31:33] introduced.
[31:34] Staff will give their
[31:35] presentation with a 15-minute
[31:35] time limit.
[31:37] The applicant will be given the
[31:37] opportunity to make a
[31:38] presentation with a 15-minute
[31:39] time limit.
[31:41] Following presentations, members
[31:42] of the public MAY address the
[31:43] planning commission when
[31:45] recognized by the CHAIRMAN.
[31:45] Public comment will be heard for
[31:46] three minutes per person.
[31:48] The applicant will be afforded a
[31:49] three-minute period for rebuttal
[31:50] or response.
[31:51] Planning commissioners will then
[31:52] ask questions.
[31:53] Public comment will be closed.
[31:55] Upon a motion, a second and
[31:57] discussion, a vote will be
[31:58] taken.
[31:59] To all participants, please note
[32:01] that tonight's hearing concerns
[32:01] proposed changes to the
[32:03] comprehensive plan.
[32:04] Presentations should not include
[32:05] matters related to zoning
[32:06] applications and site plans that
[32:08] are not before the commission.
[32:09] Zoning conditions are not
[32:10] relevant to plan amendments and
[32:12] MAY not be considered by the
[32:12] planning commission.
[32:13] The planning commission's
[32:14] purview in making a
[32:16] recommendation is limited to
[32:17] consistency or inconsistency
[32:18] with the comprehensive plan.
[32:20] With that, I'd like to ask the
[32:22] clerk's representative to please
[32:26] call roll again.
[32:27] >> bowden.
[32:29] >> here.
[32:29] >> cardenas.
[32:31] Cona.
[32:31] >> here.
[32:33] >> jemison.
[32:34] >> here.
[32:35] >> kugler.
[32:36] >> here.
[32:37] >> linkous.
[32:38] Louk.
[32:40] >> here.
[32:41] >> sieben.
[32:42] Sienk.
[32:43] >> here.
[32:44] >> berry.
[32:44] >> here.
[32:45] >> orton.
[32:45] >> here.
[32:46] >> joseph.
[32:47] >> nigel joseph: here.
[32:48] >> you have a quorum, sir.
[32:49] >> nigel joseph: thank you.
[32:49] All right.
[32:53] First up, we have item 2a,
[32:56] hc/cpa 26-07, comprehensive plan
[32:58] map amendment northwest of
[32:59] hillsborough avenue and george
[33:02] road and the presenter is alexis
[33:02] myers.
[33:04] >> good evening, alexis myers,
[33:05] planning commission staff.
[33:08] I'm here to present hc/cpa 26-07
[33:09] located northwest of
[33:10] hillsborough avenue and george
[33:11] road.
[33:12] This is a privately initiated
[33:13] map amendment that is small in
[33:15] scale and approximately
[33:16] 6.7 acres.
[33:17] The applicant is requesting to
[33:17] change the future land use
[33:19] designation from residential 6
[33:22] and office commercial 20 to
[33:23] light industrial planned.
[33:25] This is the general location
[33:25] map.
[33:27] It is in the urban service area
[33:28] within the limits of the town
[33:29] 'n' country community plan.
[33:31] It is located north of
[33:32] hillsborough avenue and west of
[33:35] george road.
[33:36] Here is an aerial of the site.
[33:39] The site is outlined in pink.
[33:40] Vacant land is on the subject
[33:40] site.
[33:42] The property is in the
[33:48] evacuation zone "a," fema ae,
[33:48] public/quasi-public
[33:49] institutional and single-family
[33:50] uses to the north and west,
[33:52] light commercial uses located
[33:53] south, west and east across
[33:54] george road.
[33:55] Light industrial uses are also
[33:58] to the east across george road
[34:02] and west of hillsborough avenue.
[34:04] Here are some pictures of the
[34:04] site.
[34:05] This is looking at the subject
[34:08] site from george road.
[34:09] This is looking at the subject
[34:11] site from george road as well.
[34:12] Single-family uses are located
[34:14] north and west of the subject
[34:14] site.
[34:16] And then if you can see in the
[34:17] distance, it's single-family
[34:19] right here.
[34:21] This is looking west towards
[34:22] west clifton street from george
[34:23] road.
[34:24] The subject site is located on
[34:27] the left.
[34:28] And this is looking east from
[34:29] george road to the light
[34:31] commercial use.
[34:34] The subject site is behind the
[34:35] photographer.
[34:36] And this is looking west from
[34:37] the subject site.
[34:40] I'm sorry, looking west of the
[34:41] subject site from george road to
[34:44] the light commercial use.
[34:45] Currently the future land use
[34:46] designation is residential 6 and
[34:47] office commercial 20.
[34:50] The res-6 category allows six
[34:52] dwelling units per gross
[34:52] undertaker
[34:56] acre.This designation allows for the
[34:59] consideration of agricultural,
[34:59] residential, neighborhood
[35:01] commercial, office uses,
[35:02] multipurpose projects and mixed
[35:05] use development.
[35:07] That category allows 20 dwelling
[35:08] units per gross acre and maximum
[35:10] floor area ratio of 0.75.
[35:12] This designation allows for the
[35:13] consideration of agricultural,
[35:14] community commercial type uses,
[35:16] office uses, mixed use
[35:17] developments and compatible
[35:19] residential uses.
[35:20] Other future land use categories
[35:23] shown in this map include urban
[35:25] mixed use 20 and community mixed
[35:27] use 12 to the east and
[35:29] residential 20 further
[35:29] southwest.
[35:30] The applicant is proposing to
[35:31] amend the future land use
[35:33] category to light industrial
[35:34] planned.
[35:36] The li-p category allows for a
[35:44] maximum floor area median income area ratio of.75.
[35:45] This designation allows for the
[35:46] consideration of agricultural,
[35:48] light industrial uses such as
[35:50] processing, manufacturing,
[35:53] recycling and storage materials
[35:55] as predominantly uses including
[35:57] support uses, warehousing and
[35:58] retail uses.
[36:00] Next are the impacts.
[36:02] As far as conditions, currently
[36:07] under res-6 and oc-20, the site
[36:11] can have 28 dwelling units or
[36:13] 51,945 square feet of
[36:17] residential uses.
[36:18] The proposed amendment will
[36:19] eliminate any potential
[36:21] residential density, allow
[36:23] greater commercial intensity and
[36:26] introduce light industrial uses.
[36:28] The following policies were
[36:28] considered by planning
[36:30] commission staff in evaluation
[36:31] of the amendment.
[36:32] While formulating or
[36:34] recommendation, pc staff reviews
[36:36] all related policies regarding
[36:36] the proposed request.
[36:38] Though the request is related to
[36:39] some general policies, staff
[36:43] found four main areas of
[36:44] inconsistency -- I'm sorry, four
[36:47] main areas of inconsistency.
[36:51] It isn't consistency with the
[36:52] following policies and
[36:52] procedures of the comprehensive
[36:52] plan.
[36:54] It does not demonstrate
[36:55] compatibility with the
[36:56] surrounding development pattern
[36:59] as envisioned by future land use
[37:02] section objective 3.1 and policy
[37:03] 3.1.3 due to the single-family
[37:04] uses.
[37:05] The proposed amendment would
[37:06] disrupt the intent and
[37:07] progression of lad use
[37:09] intensities and fail to provide
[37:11] a gradual and compatible
[37:12] transition envisioned by future
[37:14] land use policy 3.1.2.
[37:16] This established pattern creates
[37:17] a logical progression of land
[37:19] use from residential to
[37:20] commercial to mixed use and
[37:23] ultimately to industrial uses.
[37:24] The subject site located on the
[37:27] west side of george road falls
[37:29] outside of the area where higher
[37:31] intensity designations are
[37:34] currently concentrated.
[37:36] The introduction of light
[37:37] industrial uses at this location
[37:38] will result in a development
[37:40] that is inconsistent with the
[37:41] surrounding area and contrary to
[37:42] the policy framework intended to
[37:44] preserve and protect established
[37:46] residential communities as noted
[37:48] in future land use section
[37:50] objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.
[37:51] While the request would
[37:53] introduce light industrial uses,
[37:54] the applicant would be required
[37:57] to do a pd site plan rezoning
[37:59] which could contain mitigative
[38:00] strategies to address the
[38:03] existing residential to the
[38:03] west.
[38:04] Planning commission staff
[38:05] recommends that the proposed map
[38:07] amendment be found inconsistent
[38:09] with the goals, objectives and
[38:11] policies of the unincorporated
[38:12] hillsborough county
[38:12] comprehensive plan and this
[38:15] concludes my presentation for
[38:15] 26-07.
[38:16] >> nigel joseph: thank you.
[38:20] Is there an applicant
[38:21] presentation?
[38:23] >> good evening, commissioners.
[38:41] I have a powerpoint.
[38:42] Good evening, commissioners.
[38:43] My name is gina grimes.
[38:47] I'm with the law firm of bradley
[38:50] aaron and cummings, water
[38:51] street, here representing
[38:52] cadence partners which is the
[38:55] applicant on this comp plan from
[38:58] residential 6 and oc-20 to li-p.
[39:02] You have heard staff give their
[39:03] presentation.
[39:03] They have recommended
[39:07] inconsistency mainly based on
[39:09] the fact -- I'm sorry.
[39:10] Mainly based on the fact that
[39:12] they don't believe that it is
[39:14] compatible with the adjacent
[39:15] area.
[39:16] We believe that the reason they
[39:18] came to this conclusion is that
[39:20] they only evaluated the
[39:21] immediately applicant area and
[39:24] didn't look at the larger area
[39:25] in context with this site.
[39:28] When you evaluate the larger
[39:30] area, what you are going to see
[39:32] is the residential 6 comp plan
[39:33] category is no longer
[39:35] appropriate in this location.
[39:37] And furthermore, our site is not
[39:38] suitable for residential
[39:38] development.
[39:40] When you look at the expanded
[39:41] area, you also see that the
[39:43] location is consistent with the
[39:45] uses in the surrounding area.
[39:47] As you saw, there were
[39:48] industrial uses in close
[39:48] proximity.
[39:50] There's also the airport in
[39:51] close proximity and a lot of
[39:52] commercial uses along
[39:53] hillsborough avenue.
[39:55] You are also going to see that
[39:58] the location is consistent with
[40:00] the specific intent of the li-p
[40:02] policy and some other comp plan
[40:03] policies that we will address.
[40:07] And then lastly, we believe that
[40:09] the potential impact in the
[40:11] staff report was somewhat
[40:14] overstated in that they looked
[40:15] at the maximum development
[40:17] potential of the li-p as opposed
[40:19] to what we're actually proposing
[40:22] with the required pd.
[40:24] When you look at the subject
[40:25] site, you already know the
[40:28] location of it.
[40:30] It's about sx and a half acres.
[40:32] 1/3 of it has already got a comp
[40:34] plan category of oc-20.
[40:36] So two acres of it is already
[40:37] oc-20.
[40:39] As you heard from staff, it is
[40:39] vacant.
[40:40] Why is it vacant?
[40:42] That's a good question.
[40:45] The residential 6 category and
[40:47] the rc9 zoning on this portion
[40:50] of the site only allows
[40:50] residential.
[40:51] The property owner has marketed
[40:52] it for residential for about
[40:54] five or six years now.
[40:56] And if you can't get residential
[40:58] or multi-family residential on a
[40:59] site in this market, you're
[41:01] never going to get it.
[41:03] And the site has remained
[41:03] vacant.
[41:05] And we have been told by -- and
[41:07] the owner has been told by real
[41:08] estate professionals that the
[41:11] site itself is not appropriate
[41:12] for residential.
[41:15] And the reason for that is the
[41:16] location and the configuration
[41:16] of the site.
[41:19] If you look at it, it's 330 feet
[41:22] wide by almost 900 feet long.
[41:24] A long rectangular lot like that
[41:26] makes it very difficult to get
[41:28] any development flexibility.
[41:29] The professionals, the real
[41:30] estate professionals have said
[41:33] that the site is too small for
[41:34] multi-family residential
[41:34] development.
[41:36] It can't support a surface
[41:39] parking lot and the on-site
[41:41] retention forcing you to go to
[41:42] structured parking.
[41:44] When you go to structured
[41:45] parking, as everybody knows, it
[41:46] substantially increases the
[41:49] price and the construction costs
[41:52] making rents too high for this
[41:52] location.
[41:54] Especially we're told because of
[41:58] the proximity to the residential -- I'm sorry, to the
[42:00] industrial on the other side of
[42:02] george road and in the
[42:02] surrounding area.
[42:04] So here is a comp plan map that
[42:06] was in the staff report.
[42:08] And this shows the existing uses
[42:09] in the adjacent area.
[42:12] And this is -- the staff
[42:14] evaluated this.
[42:15] You'll see the subject site.
[42:16] The subject site is not
[42:18] immediately abutting
[42:19] residential.
[42:20] To the north you see the blue
[42:22] area is actually a full one acre
[42:24] parcel owned by hillsborough
[42:25] county that's intended to be
[42:27] used for drainage.
[42:28] Along the western boundary of
[42:30] the site, you see some blue
[42:32] underneath that black line.
[42:34] That also is another drainage
[42:34] area.
[42:36] So we don't directly abut the
[42:39] residential, although it is
[42:39] close-by.
[42:41] To the east of the site, you see
[42:43] what's called light industrial.
[42:44] I don't think that industrial
[42:47] was all that light because what
[42:50] it contains is a paver company
[42:54] and a lot of outdoor storage and
[42:56] paver trucks that take material
[42:57] to various sites.
[43:01] You also have a used car lot.
[43:04] To the east of that is an
[43:06] industrial mini warehouse
[43:07] facility.
[43:09] South along of the site, along
[43:12] hillsborough avenue, you have a
[43:12] convenience store.
[43:14] You have some industrial
[43:14] already.
[43:17] What's will is a small
[43:18] manufacturing facility.
[43:19] Then you have several used car
[43:20] lots.
[43:21] You have a new car lot.
[43:22] You have some auto repair there.
[43:25] you can see a very small portion
[43:27] of gray right there next to the
[43:28] residential area.
[43:30] And again, all this goes to the
[43:33] point that there are these more
[43:34] intensive industrial and heavy
[43:37] commercial and light commercial
[43:39] uses immediately adjacent to the
[43:39] residential area.
[43:42] But when you go even further,
[43:44] and zoom out even further, what
[43:47] you see -- and this map is an
[43:49] actual future land use map.
[43:50] This is from the comp plan.
[43:52] You can see the subject site
[43:56] with the blue arrows in the
[43:56] bottom left-hand corner.
[43:59] You can see it, the parcel
[44:02] outlined there with the arrow.
[44:05] You can see there's substantial
[44:07] amounts of industrial future
[44:09] land use categories in close
[44:09] proximity.
[44:12] You also see more umu-20 and the
[44:15] cmu-12, all of which are
[44:17] adjacent to this residential
[44:17] area.
[44:18] And then when you go south of
[44:20] hillsborough avenue, you see
[44:21] something similar.
[44:23] You see more industrial, more
[44:25] umu and cmu directly abutting
[44:27] these residential areas.
[44:30] And so the question is, how did
[44:32] this area get to the point where
[44:36] there is so many industrial and
[44:37] heavy commercial uses in such
[44:39] close proximity to the
[44:39] residential?
[44:41] Well, the answer is pretty
[44:42] clear.
[44:43] It's tampa international
[44:43] airport.
[44:47] One of our community's most
[44:49] important and valuable assets.
[44:53] And this site is actually 1700
[44:55] linear feet from the airport.
[44:58] And I think it was unusual in
[44:59] this instance that the staff
[45:02] report did not address the
[45:04] proximity of the site to the
[45:05] airport because it's really an
[45:08] important issue when it comes to
[45:09] whether residential is
[45:11] appropriate on this site.
[45:13] Tia is going to cause daily
[45:14] impacts 24 hours a day probably
[45:17] on residential uses, things like
[45:18] noise, vibration and even
[45:18] safety.
[45:19] And that's why in your comp plan
[45:22] you have policies that address
[45:23] the airport and protecting the
[45:25] airport from incompatible uses
[45:26] in the area.
[45:30] You also have a requirement --
[45:32] and both of these sections are
[45:32] cited.
[45:34] The comp plan sections are
[45:34] cited.
[45:36] You also have a requirement that
[45:38] a noise exposure study is
[45:39] supposed to be evaluated so that
[45:40] you all can reassess the
[45:42] appropriate location of
[45:44] compatible and incompatible land
[45:48] uses to support the airport.
[45:50] And the existence of the airport
[45:52] in this proximity is probably
[45:53] one of the biggest reasons why
[45:57] we don't believe that
[45:58] residential is no longer
[45:59] appropriate in this area.
[46:01] Another reason is the coastal
[46:05] high hazard area.
[46:08] You have the coastal high hazard
[46:09] area covers all of that
[46:10] residential area and it covers
[46:12] some portions of the site.
[46:15] And you also have the site in
[46:16] evacuation zone "a."
[46:19] you also have policies in your
[46:24] comp plan that address -- in
[46:25] coastal management that address
[46:26] development in the coastal high
[46:28] hazard area and providing
[46:30] incentives to move development
[46:31] out of those high-risk areas.
[46:35] You even have comp plan policies
[46:37] that discourage residential in
[46:38] the coastal high hazard area.
[46:40] You have two provisions that I
[46:43] have cited here that flexes,
[46:45] using the flex provision to
[46:46] increased density is not
[46:47] permitted in the coastal high
[46:50] hazard and you also have density
[46:52] bonuses that are prohibited in
[46:54] the coastal high hazard.
[46:56] So we know -- you have heard why
[46:58] we believe that the residential
[47:00] is no larger appropriate for
[47:01] this site.
[47:03] But why is the site appropriate
[47:04] for light industrial?
[47:06] Well, there's three reasons.
[47:07] The first reason is there's
[47:09] already a mix of industrial uses
[47:11] in the surrounding area.
[47:13] I have walked you through.
[47:15] There's mini warehouses, heavy
[47:17] commercial, a paver company,
[47:20] auto sales north and south of
[47:21] hillsborough avenue.
[47:23] You also have a mix of
[47:27] industrial, light and heavy
[47:28] commercial F.L.U. Categories in
[47:28] the surrounding area.
[47:30] And that's the second reason
[47:31] that we believe that the light
[47:34] industrial was appropriate.
[47:36] You have substantial amounts of
[47:39] the li, just 1,000 feet from the
[47:39] site.
[47:42] You have oc-20, umu-20, cmu-12.
[47:45] All of these are mixed
[47:46] interspersed in very close
[47:48] proximity to this site.
[47:51] And the third reason that we
[47:53] believe that the site is
[47:55] appropriate for li-p is because
[47:57] of the stated intent in the comp
[48:00] plan for the li-p category.
[48:02] It's supposed to be in areas
[48:07] located outside of concentrated
[48:08] industrial.
[48:09] But where the need for a site
[48:11] plan would benefit and ensure
[48:13] land use compatibility.
[48:16] So I know that you said in your
[48:17] introductory remarks,
[48:17] MR. CHAIRMAN, that you can't
[48:20] consider the pd, but this is
[48:22] different because in li-p the pd
[48:24] is required by the comp plan.
[48:26] So I know you MAY not know the
[48:28] specifics of it, but I think
[48:29] they are upon because this is
[48:31] what shows how you can have
[48:33] light industrial on the site and
[48:34] still be compatible with the
[48:39] adjacent residential area.
[48:41] So we have a companion pd that's
[48:42] traveling with this comp plan
[48:42] amendment.
[48:45] It's going to be heard by the
[48:46] zhm in JUNE.
[48:50] We have substantial setbacks in
[48:54] that pd.
[48:56] We have over 100 feet on three
[49:00] sides and on the west side are
[49:00] 50 feet.
[49:02] We have buffer areas by the land
[49:02] development code.
[49:04] In those buffer areas, we have a
[49:05] buffer wall on three sides of
[49:10] the site.
[49:12] We have landscaping trees and
[49:13] shrubbery and we have a
[49:15] retention pond that also forms
[49:16] somewhat of a buffer in that
[49:17] area.
[49:19] Don't forget, too, there's other
[49:20] compatibility considerations
[49:22] that we'd like you to consider.
[49:24] And one of those is the ldc
[49:26] requirement for performance
[49:27] standards for manufacturing.
[49:30] So there are standards to ensure
[49:32] that manufacturing operates and
[49:33] doesn't have impacts necessarily
[49:35] on adjacent uses dealing with
[49:38] lighting, sound, vibration and
[49:39] airborne discharges.
[49:41] Another interesting point about
[49:43] this comp plan amendment and our
[49:46] companion pd is it terms
[49:48] turns out our
[49:49] traffic analysis shows -- we
[49:51] submit add traffic analysis with
[49:52] this comp plan amendment.
[49:55] It showed the proposed F.L.U.
[49:56] Actually generates fewer, 1600
[49:58] fewer daily trips than the
[50:01] adopted comp plan policies -- or
[50:03] adopted comp plan categories.
[50:05] So we think that's an important
[50:07] issue as far as compatibility
[50:08] concerns because it's going to
[50:10] have -- what we are proposing is
[50:12] going to have fewer impacts on
[50:13] the adjacent residential than
[50:14] what the existing F.L.U.
[50:16] Category has.
[50:19] A couple more points dealing
[50:21] with compatibility is that we
[50:24] are proposing lesser amounts of
[50:26] square footage than what the
[50:28] current F.L.U. Categories allow.
[50:30] Together, the oc-20 and the
[50:34] res-6 allow a total of 115,000
[50:35] square feet of commercial.
[50:38] We are proposing only 106,000
[50:41] square feet of light industrial.
[50:43] So that's a.365, about half of
[50:45] what the comp plan category
[50:46] allows.
[50:47] Lastly we'd like you to consider
[50:49] the fact that the uses are very
[50:49] limited.
[50:50] This isn't just any light
[50:51] industrial use.
[50:53] It's only warehouse, wholesale
[50:54] or manufacturing.
[50:55] Just those three.
[50:56] And then temporary storage of
[50:58] the bulk goods.
[51:00] As you have heard, it's in the
[51:02] town 'n' country community plan
[51:03] area.
[51:04] However, there's nothing in that
[51:06] plan that's applicable to this.
[51:09] And lastly, you heard no
[51:13] reviewing agencies have any
[51:14] objections.
[51:15] Again, the res-6 is not
[51:17] appropriate at this location.
[51:20] Our site just can't accommodate
[51:20] residential.
[51:23] The comp plan amendment to li-p
[51:25] is consistent with existing
[51:28] commercial uses and industrial
[51:32] uses and is consistent with
[51:34] existing commercial and
[51:35] industrial F.L.U. Categories.
[51:39] So we think our pd complements
[51:40] all that and provides the
[51:43] compatibility that the staff is
[51:43] rightfully looking for.
[51:46] So with that, we would ask that
[51:49] you recommend that this plan
[51:50] amendment be found consistent
[51:52] with the comprehensive plan.
[51:55] >> nigel joseph: thank you.
[51:57] We didn't have anyone sign up in
[51:59] the public comment for this one.
[52:01] I will turn it over to the
[52:02] commissioners for questions,
[52:08] comments, discussions on this
[52:08] one.
[52:10] Commissioner louk, I see you
[52:11] moving.
[52:13] >> I think I heard it in the
[52:14] applicant's presentation.
[52:15] What would be the linear footage
[52:17] of the nearest residential
[52:18] property line?
[52:19] Not dwelling but the atual
[52:22] property line.
[52:24] From the light industrial, if we
[52:25] were to go to light industrial.
[52:26] I guess it doesn't matter,
[52:29] parcel to parcel, what's the --
[52:29] >> yeah.
[52:32] On the west -- I want to show
[52:32] you.
[52:34] On the west side of the site --
[52:37] >> you have the --
[52:38] >> there's a building.
[52:39] There's a 30-foot buffer.
[52:42] There's a 20-foot drainage
[52:42] parcel.
[52:45] And then there's the property
[52:46] line to the residential on the
[52:48] west of that, to the west of
[52:49] that.
[52:51] Which is farther away from the
[52:52] existing industrial that you see
[52:59] in the south.
[53:00] Pardon?
[53:01] about 50.
[53:03] >> from the property line,
[53:04] there's 20 feet --
[53:04] >> correct.
[53:05] >> to the property line to the
[53:09] other property line.
[53:09] >> right.
[53:11] >> coastal high hazard, user
[53:13] error, looking through and
[53:14] thumbing through the report,
[53:15] what percentage of the property
[53:18] is in the chha, if any?
[53:19] >> nigel joseph: a lot of it.
[53:23] >> I would say it's a pretty
[53:23] good --
[53:24] >> so question for staff, given
[53:28] the majority of this is in
[53:29] there, if we were saying no to
[53:32] light industrial, we have a
[53:33] residential use on a portion of
[53:34] the property today, if you could
[53:36] wave your magic wand, what would
[53:41] be the appropriate use for this
[53:43] property?
[53:45] If it's not res-6 or light
[53:47] industrial, res-6 would be a
[53:48] tough pill given the chha.
[53:50] What would staff recommend if
[53:52] you could wave a magic wand?
[54:04] >> that is a good question.
[54:06] Probably something lesser
[54:07] intense than the light
[54:07] industrial planned.
[54:09] I think it would be better if it
[54:10] was on the eastern side of
[54:11] george road along with those
[54:15] other more intensive uses before
[54:18] the subject site, something less
[54:18] intensive.
[54:19] >> yeah.
[54:22] And I would just add to that,
[54:24] the residential 6 category does
[54:27] allow for them to -- it does not
[54:30] require them to build it for
[54:32] residential uses.
[54:34] They could build office or
[54:36] commercial uses under the
[54:37] residential 6.
[54:42] Those are allowed to be
[54:45] considered so unfortunately, we
[54:47] don't have a land use category
[54:50] that does not have residential
[54:57] allowance that is not light
[55:00] industrial.
[55:01] That makes it hard.
[55:04] All the land use categories
[55:07] allow residential and office and
[55:07] commercial.
[55:08] >> I'll say the applicant did
[55:11] say something interesting where
[55:13] this so closely ties to the pd
[55:14] when it's the light industrial
[55:15] case.
[55:16] When you look at what's allowed
[55:17] under light industrial which is
[55:19] like warehouse, distribution
[55:20] interests, contractor yards,
[55:23] cabinet makers, auto repair,
[55:25] hvac, light printing, light
[55:26] manufacturing assembly, the
[55:27] definitely
[55:29] devil is in the details of what
[55:30] could potentially go there with
[55:31] the concurrent pd.
[55:33] I know we can't consider that.
[55:37] So I mean I don't have a point
[55:39] there other than I'm is
[55:41] I'm not sure
[55:43] what the right long-term use is
[55:47] to it given the residential use.
[55:48] Those are thoughts.
[55:49] >> nigel joseph: good thoughts,
[55:51] commissioner bowden.
[55:53] >> look, my primary concern is
[55:58] the property actually abuts to
[55:58] residential.
[56:00] So, you know, when you
[56:02] consider -- I mean it is close
[56:03] to the aircraft,
[56:04] airport, yes.
[56:06] So there's a certain amount of
[56:08] noise that you're going to get.
[56:10] But it's not in the airport's
[56:14] flight path.
[56:17] So I'm just thinking about
[56:18] industrial and the potential for
[56:21] the noise.
[56:21] >> nigel joseph: I will also
[56:23] just throw in a disclaimer here
[56:25] if we're going to go against
[56:26] staff, we're going to need some
[56:26] policy.
[56:27] Definitely be thinking about
[56:27] those.
[56:29] Let the conversation continue.
[56:30] Commissioner louk.
[56:31] >> I think the biggest thing I'm
[56:33] chewing on here in terms of
[56:35] consistency or inconsistency,
[56:36] I'll be willing to bet my bottom
[56:38] dollar if we were to come in
[56:39] here with the expansion of the
[56:40] whole property going to res-6,
[56:42] this probably would be
[56:43] recommended as inconsistent
[56:45] which is the root of my question
[56:47] in terms of like coming back to
[56:48] staff saying what's the optimal
[56:50] long-term use for this property
[56:51] if it's not res-6.
[56:52] If there's some sort of
[56:54] development going to come in,
[56:55] planned development with a bunch
[56:57] of residential, there's no way
[56:59] it's going recommended for
[57:01] approval being in the coastal
[57:02] high hazard.
[57:03] >> nigel joseph: I will say for
[57:05] my part in my review meeting, I
[57:06] brought up a lot of these
[57:07] points.
[57:09] For me, we're not allowed to
[57:11] consider the zoning, but I
[57:12] always raise the point that the
[57:15] land use category light
[57:16] industrial planned means that
[57:18] there's a pd process that's
[57:20] going to go on at some point in
[57:20] time.
[57:21] I don't know what's going to
[57:22] come of that pd process, but I
[57:24] do know that's another bite at
[57:25] the apple, not only for this
[57:27] agency staff, which is a part of
[57:28] the zoning process to make sure
[57:30] that things like setbacks and
[57:32] buffers and screening get done.
[57:34] But also for other departments.
[57:36] So for me, whenever I see the
[57:38] li-p come up, I'm almost in
[57:39] automatic yeah, let it go
[57:42] through because, again, at some
[57:44] future point irrespective of all
[57:46] of these things that can happen
[57:48] that staff is forced to bring
[57:49] forward, you know, that second
[57:50] bite at the apple there is an
[57:52] important check on whatever
[57:54] development is going to happen
[57:54] there.
[57:56] So the applicant also brings up
[57:57] a lot of great points.
[57:58] Commissioner louk brings up a
[58:00] lot of great points.
[58:02] It's strange that tonight we're
[58:04] putting residential stuff in the
[58:06] coastal high hazard, all of a
[58:07] sudden, instead of trying to
[58:07] take it out.
[58:09] But I guess since it isn't close
[58:12] to Macdill it doesn't matter.
[58:14] But again, this all goes back to
[58:15] the points that I have spoken
[58:19] about for quite a while now.
[58:21] And I have said it down tracy
[58:23] and melissa but I'm going to be
[58:24] picking it back up.
[58:26] Be ready because it's coming.
[58:27] But this idea of staff giving
[58:29] these recommendations that
[58:31] aren't kind of very broad and
[58:33] narrowly focusing on certain
[58:37] things puts staff in an awkward
[58:37] position, you know.
[58:39] MS. Myers, you have done a great
[58:41] job, great presentation, great
[58:41] application.
[58:43] But again, the way this agency
[58:45] is set up with its systems puts
[58:47] staff in weird positions.
[58:49] And, you know, I don't think
[58:52] it's the best thing, but, you
[58:54] know -- and I'll just leave that
[58:56] alone and bring it up at some
[58:57] future point in time.
[58:59] But yeah, I would be willing to
[59:00] support the li-p going in there.
[59:02] I'm not going to pass the gavel
[59:04] and make a motion, but even in
[59:06] my briefing, my sense was this
[59:08] needed to go there, you know.
[59:11] So it's my 2 cents on this.
[59:13] Commissioner kugler.
[59:13] >> yes.
[59:14] One point about it sitting on
[59:17] the market for so long as a
[59:19] residential in these times in
[59:20] tampa is a good point.
[59:21] I don't know what language to
[59:23] use to bring it.
[59:25] As you mentioned, we have to
[59:28] come up with codes and
[59:30] objectives in order to go
[59:31] against staff recommendation.
[59:33] I don't know how to say that.
[59:37] But it does seem that it is an
[59:39] appropriate use next to the
[59:40] airport for sure.
[59:42] And there's a tremendous amount
[59:46] of industrial land very close,
[59:48] almost as close as the housing.
[59:50] So I don't know what language to
[59:52] use for that, but maybe somebody
[59:54] with a lot more experience with
[1:00:00] the code would help.
[1:00:00] >> nigel joseph: the applicant
[1:00:01] looks like she MAY have some
[1:00:02] suggestions.
[1:00:03] Usually MS. Zornitta comes up
[1:00:04] with some sggestions for us if
[1:00:05] they are needed.
[1:00:07] >> I don't want to jump the gun,
[1:00:10] but I did cite some comp plan
[1:00:13] policies that deal with
[1:00:15] protecting the airport and the
[1:00:16] coastal high hazard area.
[1:00:17] >> nigel joseph: okay.
[1:00:18] Commissioner cona has them.
[1:00:28] >> right there.
[1:00:28] >> nigel joseph: MS. Zornitta.
[1:00:31] >> related to the airport
[1:00:33] policies, it is geared toward
[1:00:34] the airport flight path which
[1:00:35] this is outside of.
[1:00:37] I just would caution about using
[1:00:40] those because this is not within
[1:00:41] the airport zone.
[1:00:43] And I mean we would absolutely
[1:00:44] not be supportive -- we do not
[1:00:46] put residential in the airport
[1:00:48] flight path, so I just want to
[1:00:51] be clear about that.
[1:00:51] Okay.
[1:00:52] >> even though it's not in the
[1:00:54] flight path, it still is
[1:00:56] affected by the noise and the
[1:00:56] vibration.
[1:00:57] >> nigel joseph: all right.
[1:00:58] Are there any other -- I can't
[1:01:02] see your mic there, commissioner commissioner
[1:01:03] jemison.
[1:01:04] You're hiding out back there.
[1:01:06] Any other comments or thoughts
[1:01:07] or questions from the
[1:01:08] commissioners on this one?
[1:01:12] It's not an easy one, I know.
[1:01:32] Are they going to be flooding
[1:01:33] into the single-family homes on
[1:01:34] the west side?
[1:01:35] I don't know the answer to that
[1:01:36] question if they have to be
[1:01:38] built that high, because I was
[1:01:43] trying to find part of the code
[1:01:44] for hillsborough county, and all
[1:01:48] I could find was that all
[1:01:49] properties located within the
[1:01:52] special flood hazard area shall
[1:01:53] have full compliance of the
[1:01:54] hillsborough construction code,
[1:01:57] and then it lists asce24 and
[1:02:01] that is a list of codes that say
[1:02:02] these different areas have to
[1:02:04] build one foot above base flood
[1:02:04] elevation.
[1:02:06] So if that's the case, do they
[1:02:09] need to build at 15 feet?
[1:02:12] And if that's so, are they going
[1:02:12] to be flooding into the
[1:02:19] neighbors?
[1:02:20] >> applicant looks like she was
[1:02:22] nodding her head, so I will let
[1:02:24] her opine on that.
[1:02:24] >> if
[1:02:26] for the record, gina grimes.
[1:02:27] When you are building in areas
[1:02:29] like that and you have that
[1:02:30] elevation requirement, there are
[1:02:31] different standards for
[1:02:32] commercial and residential.
[1:02:35] there are ways in which with
[1:02:36] commercial uses or industrial
[1:02:39] uses, that you can flood proof
[1:02:42] buildings to a higher height.
[1:02:43] It essentially achieves that
[1:02:45] higher height where residential,
[1:02:47] they're much more stringent
[1:02:48] because of the threat to, you
[1:02:49] know, life.
[1:02:52] And so they make you elevate to
[1:02:53] those higher, to those higher
[1:02:54] standards.
[1:02:59] So in this case, no fill is, you
[1:03:02] can't put the fill in certain
[1:03:04] areas that have those floods
[1:03:05] zone requirements.
[1:03:07] And all the retingz is going to
[1:03:07] be held on site.
[1:03:09] There are two very large
[1:03:11] retention ponds that are going
[1:03:12] to be on site.
[1:03:14] So it should have no impact to
[1:03:16] the adjacent residential, not to
[1:03:18] mention there is a one-acre
[1:03:20] retention pond to the north of
[1:03:23] the site as well as a drainage
[1:03:25] easement on the rear of the site
[1:03:25] already.
[1:03:26] >> andrew ross: thank
[1:03:29] >> thank you, MS. Grimes.
[1:03:30] Commissioner.
[1:03:31] >> just to note, I think in this
[1:03:32] area if I remember correctly
[1:03:34] base flood elevation is 11 feet
[1:03:37] so they probably won't have to
[1:03:38] build up more than -- sorry.
[1:03:41] >> I have the flood map from
[1:03:42] fema up right now, and it says
[1:03:46] 14 feet.
[1:03:46] >> okay.
[1:03:47] Regardless of what it is, I
[1:03:49] think you have to build a foot
[1:03:50] over base flood elevation,
[1:03:52] whatever that MAY be, and then
[1:03:54] any, you know, civil engineer
[1:03:56] worth their degree in civil
[1:03:59] engineering would make sure a
[1:04:01] site balance so that it wouldn't
[1:04:03] be understooding -- flooding
[1:04:05] into the neighborhood to the
[1:04:07] rear.
[1:04:08] >> chair: while we've jumped
[1:04:11] down allison's rabbit hole, I
[1:04:12] will chime in.
[1:04:13] Similar development on sligh and
[1:04:14] veterans in this area, it where
[1:04:17] four -- there are four or five
[1:04:18] big warehouses developed and
[1:04:20] when we have heavy rains, sligh
[1:04:25] floods now between benjamin and
[1:04:26] anderson road at that point, so
[1:04:28] I'm going to support this, but I
[1:04:30] would just call out in the pd
[1:04:32] and the civil engineering needs
[1:04:33] to be on point with that
[1:04:34] residential.
[1:04:35] I'm going to support consistency
[1:04:37] I should say.
[1:04:38] But the civil engineering review
[1:04:39] and plan on this needs to be on
[1:04:41] point with those residential
[1:04:42] properties.
[1:04:43] To the west.
[1:04:44] Just for those down the line who
[1:04:45] get the second bite at the
[1:04:48] apple.
[1:04:50] >> chair: all right.
[1:04:52] Are there any other thoughts?
[1:04:52] Comments?
[1:04:53] Questions?
[1:05:00] Discussion items on this one?
[1:05:01] Going once, going twice.
[1:05:02] I'm going to close the public
[1:05:03] comment on this one and open it
[1:05:04] up to motions from the
[1:05:07] commissioners on this item.
[1:05:07] Commissioner.
[1:05:10] >> motion to find hc/cpa 26-07
[1:05:11] consistent with the
[1:05:13] comprehensive plan based on flu
[1:05:16] policy 2.23 and cm policy
[1:05:18] 3.1.14.
[1:05:19] >> second that.
[1:05:20] >> chair: all right, a motion of
[1:05:24] consistency finding, citing
[1:05:26] policy 2.23 and cm policy 3.1.14
[1:05:27] and a second to that by
[1:05:28] commissioner cueingler.
[1:05:30] Are there any questions,
[1:05:31] comments, or discussions from
[1:05:33] the commissioners before we go
[1:05:36] ahead and take our vote?
[1:05:37] All signify they are agreement
[1:05:39] by saying -- their agreement by
[1:05:40] saying aye.
[1:05:41] Those opposed?
[1:05:42] Bowden.
[1:05:44] All right, so that's 7-1 ayes,
[1:05:46] bowden no.
[1:05:50] And the motion carries.
[1:05:53] All right.
[1:05:58] Next up we have item 2b, hc/cpa
[1:06:00] 26-10 comprehensive plan map
[1:06:01] amendment, southeast of kingsway
[1:06:03] road and thonotosassa road and
[1:06:09] presenter is lilyann linehan.
[1:06:12] >> good evening, commissioners,
[1:06:13] lilyann linehan planning
[1:06:15] commission staff here to present
[1:06:17] c/cpa 26-10 located southeast
[1:06:19] f kingsway road and
[1:06:20] thonotosassa road.
[1:06:21] This is a privately initiated
[1:06:22] map amendment that is small in
[1:06:24] scale and approximately
[1:06:25] 24.22 acres.
[1:06:26] The applicant is requesting to
[1:06:27] change the future land use
[1:06:29] designation from
[1:06:32] agricultural-rural-1/5 and
[1:06:34] residential 1 to residential-2.
[1:06:37] This is the general location
[1:06:38] map.
[1:06:40] It in the rural area within the
[1:06:41] limits of the thonotosassa
[1:06:42] community plan.
[1:06:44] It is located along lake thon
[1:06:47] totosassa and north of east
[1:06:47] kingsway road.
[1:06:48] Here is an aerial of the site.
[1:06:51] The site is outlined in pink.
[1:06:52] And the site is currently
[1:06:53] undeveloped
[1:06:55] developed and is surrounded by
[1:06:56] agricultural and single-family
[1:06:59] land uses.
[1:07:01] This is looking south of
[1:07:02] thonotosassa road into the
[1:07:05] subject site.
[1:07:14] This is looking north from thon thon
[1:07:14] tosatta road.
[1:07:16] This is looking south from
[1:07:17] thonotosassa road into the
[1:07:18] adjacent eastern parcel and the
[1:07:20] subject site is to the right of
[1:07:23] this parcel.
[1:07:26] Thus is also looking north from
[1:07:27] thonotosassa into the adjacent
[1:07:28] eastern parcel.
[1:07:29] The subject site is to the left
[1:07:32] of this parcel in this photo.
[1:07:34] This is looking west down
[1:07:36] thonotosassa road from the
[1:07:36] subject site.
[1:07:37] This
[1:07:39] the site is behind the
[1:07:40] photographer and this is looking
[1:07:41] east down thonotosassa road from
[1:07:42] the subject site and the site is
[1:07:45] behind the photographer.
[1:07:47] Currently the future land use
[1:07:48] designation is
[1:07:50] agricultural-rural-1/5 and
[1:07:51] residential 1.
[1:07:52] The agricultural-rural-1/5
[1:07:54] category allows for one dwelling
[1:07:56] unit per five gross acres and a
[1:07:58] `maximum floor area ratio of.25.
[1:08:00] This designation allows for the
[1:08:01] consideration of farms, ranches,
[1:08:02] feed lots, residential,
[1:08:04] neighborhood commercial,
[1:08:05] offices, industrial uses related
[1:08:07] to agricultural uses, and mining
[1:08:08] related activities.
[1:08:09] The residential 1 category
[1:08:11] allows for one dwelling unit per
[1:08:13] gross acre and a maximum floor
[1:08:15] area ratio of.25 and this
[1:08:16] designation allows for the
[1:08:18] consideration of agricultural
[1:08:19] farms, ranches, residential,
[1:08:20] eighborhood, commercial,
[1:08:21] offices, and multipurpose
[1:08:23] projects.
[1:08:24] The site is currently surrounded
[1:08:26] by the agricultural rurlt 1
[1:08:27] rural
[1:08:28] 1 to 5 and residential 1 future
[1:08:29] land use designations.
[1:08:31] the applicant is proposing to
[1:08:32] amend the future land use
[1:08:34] category to residential-2.
[1:08:35] The residential-2 category
[1:08:37] allows for 2 dwelling units per
[1:08:38] gross acre and a maximum floor
[1:08:39] area
[1:08:42] ratio of.25.
[1:08:44] This designation allow there is
[1:08:46] is -- for the consideration of
[1:08:49] the agricultural, residential,
[1:08:51] multifamily and multipurpose
[1:08:52] projects.
[1:08:53] Currently under the
[1:08:55] agricultural-rural res 1 to 5
[1:08:57] the site could consider up to 16
[1:09:00] dwelling units or 263,755 square
[1:09:02] feet of nonresidential uses.
[1:09:03] And under the proposed future
[1:09:05] land use designation of
[1:09:06] residential-2 the site could
[1:09:10] consider up to 48 dwelling units
[1:09:11] or 263,755 square feet of
[1:09:12] nonresidential use.
[1:09:13] The proposed amendment will
[1:09:15] increase the maximum potential
[1:09:16] residential density and will not
[1:09:18] change the maximum potential
[1:09:21] nonresidential intensity.
[1:09:23] The proposed amendment received
[1:09:24] no formal objections, and the
[1:09:25] list of full comments is
[1:09:27] provided within the report
[1:09:28] packet for review.
[1:09:29] While formulating our
[1:09:30] recommendation, planning
[1:09:31] commission staff reviews all
[1:09:33] related policies regarding the
[1:09:34] proposed request, and though the
[1:09:35] request is related to several
[1:09:37] general policies, staff found
[1:09:39] three main areas of
[1:09:40] inconsistency.
[1:09:41] The proposed request is
[1:09:42] inconsistent with flu's
[1:09:44] objective up with.2 and
[1:09:45] policies 1
[1:09:49] 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 which
[1:09:50] defines the rural area as a
[1:09:51] place intended to provide for
[1:09:52] long-term agricultural uses,
[1:09:54] large lot rural residential
[1:09:55] uses, and undeveloped natural
[1:09:56] areas.
[1:09:58] And that within the rural area,
[1:09:59] densities showp on the future
[1:10:00] land use map will be no higher
[1:10:03] than one dwelling unit to five
[1:10:04] gross acres unless located
[1:10:05] within an area identified with
[1:10:06] the higher density land use
[1:10:08] category on the future land use
[1:10:10] map at, as a suburbening
[1:10:11] enclave, planned village,
[1:10:12] planned development, pursuant to
[1:10:15] the planned environmental
[1:10:16] community or rural community
[1:10:17] which carry higher densities.
[1:10:18] The site currently carries a
[1:10:19] split future land use
[1:10:20] designation of
[1:10:22] agricultural-rural-1/5 and
[1:10:23] residential 1 which are both
[1:10:24] densities found within and are
[1:10:26] intended for the rural area.
[1:10:27] The nearest suburban enclave
[1:10:30] within the rural area is located
[1:10:31] approximately.9 miles west of
[1:10:32] the site with the future land
[1:10:34] use designation of residential-2
[1:10:38] and the second closest is
[1:10:40] 1.04 miles northwest of the site
[1:10:41] with a future land use
[1:10:42] designation of residential 6.
[1:10:43] The existing future land use
[1:10:45] between these two suburban
[1:10:46] enclaves and the subject site is
[1:10:49] residential 1 and
[1:10:50] agricultural-rural-1/5.
[1:10:50] While some of the surrounding
[1:10:52] areas contain higher
[1:10:54] designations of residential 1
[1:10:55] and this is higher than the
[1:10:56] general required 1 to 5 density,
[1:10:58] the introduction of
[1:10:59] residential-2 within the rural
[1:11:01] area that is not contain and is
[1:11:04] not in close proximity to a
[1:11:07] similar suburban enclave with a
[1:11:07] higher future land use
[1:11:10] designation of residential-2 is
[1:11:11] inconsistent with rural area
[1:11:13] objectives and policies.
[1:11:16] Those objectives 4.4 and policy
[1:11:18] 4.4.1 require new development to
[1:11:19] be compatible with the
[1:11:20] surrounding neighborhood and
[1:11:21] flu's policy 4.4
[1:11:23] 4.4.7 calls for
[1:11:24] lands fronting a water body to
[1:11:26] have density and/or intensity
[1:11:28] comparable and compatible with
[1:11:29] other development parcels and
[1:11:30] lots fronting the water body
[1:11:32] outside of the urban service
[1:11:33] area.
[1:11:34] The surrounding land use
[1:11:36] patterns comprise of mostly low
[1:11:37] density single-family
[1:11:38] residential and agricultural
[1:11:39] uses.
[1:11:40] The surrounding areas to the
[1:11:41] east, west, and south of the
[1:11:43] site are generally large lot
[1:11:44] rural residential developments
[1:11:45] that contain future land use
[1:11:47] designations of
[1:11:48] agricultural-rural-1/5 or
[1:11:49] residential 1.
[1:11:50] And the proposed request to
[1:11:51] change the future land use to
[1:11:53] residential-2 for suburban style
[1:11:54] development would not complement
[1:11:55] the existing development pattern
[1:11:56] within the area.
[1:11:57] And it would not serve as a
[1:11:59] transitional area between more
[1:12:00] suburban development pattern and
[1:12:02] more rural development patterns.
[1:12:03] Based on the current existing
[1:12:04] future land use categories
[1:12:06] around lake thonotosassa, the
[1:12:07] eastern portion of the lake is
[1:12:09] adjacent to
[1:12:10] agricultural-rural-1/5 and the
[1:12:13] western portion is surrounded by
[1:12:13] residential 1.
[1:12:15] There are no future land use
[1:12:17] categories along lake
[1:12:18] thonotosassa with a density
[1:12:19] greater thatten 1 dwelling unit
[1:12:21] per acre.
[1:12:23] A flews
[1:12:27] future land use of
[1:12:28] residential-2 would not
[1:12:31] comparable and compatible which
[1:12:34] is inconsistent with flu's
[1:12:34] policy 4.4.7.
[1:12:35] Lastly this site is within the
[1:12:37] limits of the thonotosassa
[1:12:37] community plan.
[1:12:38] Goal 3 of the community plan
[1:12:40] seeks to provide improved yet
[1:12:41] affordable infrastructure and a
[1:12:42] balance of residential,
[1:12:43] commercial, and other land uses
[1:12:45] while maintaining the rural area
[1:12:48] or rural nature of the
[1:12:49] thonotosassa area.
[1:12:50] Goal 5 of the community plan
[1:12:51] seeks to protect water,
[1:12:53] wildlife, air, soil, and trees
[1:12:55] through effective planning,
[1:12:56] consistent enforcement of
[1:12:57] existing regulations, and
[1:12:58] incentives.
[1:12:59] Additionally, the community plan
[1:13:01] lists specific strategies that
[1:13:02] the community will use to
[1:13:04] achieve its goals.
[1:13:05] Post notably the plan -- most
[1:13:07] notably the plan requires
[1:13:08] minimum lot sizes of one acre
[1:13:08] for residential development
[1:13:11] within the residential 1
[1:13:12] agricultural estate and
[1:13:13] agricultural-rural future land
[1:13:14] use categories and it is
[1:13:15] explicitly stated within the
[1:13:16] strategies to protect the area's
[1:13:17] rural character.
[1:13:18] The future land use change to
[1:13:20] residential-2 would allow for
[1:13:21] suburban style development
[1:13:22] within the rural area, and would
[1:13:24] not protect the existing
[1:13:25] community character that the
[1:13:26] thonotosassa community plan
[1:13:27] intends to maintain within the
[1:13:29] rural area.
[1:13:30] goals 3 and 5 seek to balance
[1:13:31] private property rights with the
[1:13:33] protection of the environment
[1:13:34] and rural character, and given
[1:13:36] that the site is located along
[1:13:38] lake thonotosassa and within an
[1:13:39] agriculturally heavy area of the
[1:13:40] community, a residential-2
[1:13:42] category would be too intense
[1:13:43] and would not further the goals
[1:13:45] of the community plan.
[1:13:46] Planning commission staff
[1:13:47] recommends that the proposed map
[1:13:48] amendment by found inconsistent
[1:13:50] with the goals, objectiveses,
[1:13:51] and policies of the
[1:13:51] unincorporated hillsborough
[1:13:53] county comprehensive plan, this
[1:13:54] concludes my presentation, I'm
[1:13:56] here if you have any questions.
[1:13:57] >> chair: thank you.
[1:13:58] Does the applicant have a
[1:14:03] presentation?
[1:14:04] >> thank you.
[1:14:05] Good evening, isabelle albert
[1:14:10] with halff, 1,000 north ashley
[1:14:10] drive.
[1:14:11] I have the presentation here you
[1:14:12] can see.
[1:14:13] So generally staff did explain
[1:14:15] where the site was and the
[1:14:16] acreage and everything, and it
[1:14:19] has a split land use
[1:14:19] designation.
[1:14:21] So when rewe reviewed this, when
[1:14:23] we first filed for this
[1:14:24] application, we actually
[1:14:26] requested for the ar portion for
[1:14:26] res 1.
[1:14:27] So that's a goal is to have one
[1:14:29] unit to the acre.
[1:14:31] And I understand that you all
[1:14:32] don't look at the zoning, but we
[1:14:34] have to kind of look at what's,
[1:14:36] `what makes sense and what works,
[1:14:38] and so at the same time, with
[1:14:39] the new stormwater pond
[1:14:41] regulation that increased by
[1:14:44] over 22%, it's like what can we
[1:14:49] really fit there, what works
[1:14:49] there.
[1:14:50] This is currently what's the
[1:14:51] zoning is.
[1:14:52] The zoning is approved for
[1:14:53] 14-point lots.
[1:14:54] You'll see where the residential
[1:14:55] 1 is that one-unit to the acre
[1:14:57] and then the res 5, so it's
[1:15:02] approved for 14 lots.
[1:15:03] When we laid out the site and
[1:15:05] having to take into
[1:15:06] consideration the minimum one
[1:15:08] laker lot size, we went from
[1:15:10] having permitted 14 units to now
[1:15:11] 13 units that can fit there.
[1:15:13] And so that just didn't make
[1:15:13] sense.
[1:15:16] And so I remember I was talking
[1:15:17] with MS. Zornitta, I said well
[1:15:20] we can either go like this and
[1:15:21] continue with, with res 1, but
[1:15:23] then at the plan development
[1:15:25] portion of it, I'm going to ask
[1:15:26] for half-acre lots in order to
[1:15:30] get that one to one unit.
[1:15:31] Or just be clean and just do the
[1:15:34] res-2 to get out of this minimum
[1:15:36] requirement of the minimum
[1:15:36] one-acre lot.
[1:15:37] That's the only reason why we're
[1:15:39] doing this is because we want to
[1:15:40] have smarter lots.
[1:15:42] And if it was in any other
[1:15:43] plans, community plans that
[1:15:46] would be permitted.
[1:15:48] And also part of the zoning, we
[1:15:49] also had to look at these
[1:15:51] improvements that, what are we
[1:15:53] going to be hooked for.
[1:15:55] And one of them in discussion
[1:15:56] with the county engineer was to
[1:15:59] have improve the road from our
[1:16:00] site all the way to where the
[1:16:02] res-6 is currently doing.
[1:16:03] And so you have to consider all
[1:16:05] of that and say res 1 still is
[1:16:07] not helping us and so therefore,
[1:16:11] we're going to request res-2.
[1:16:13] So this is brings us to the
[1:16:14] stormwater pond.
[1:16:17] this is our plan that's under
[1:16:19] review with the county where
[1:16:21] along the frontage there,
[1:16:23] there's not proposed anything
[1:16:25] prior to having two units that
[1:16:26] were proposed there, we're not
[1:16:28] proposing any development on,
[1:16:29] along the lake, and then we have
[1:16:31] our stormwater ponds where
[1:16:32] they're supposed to be located
[1:16:35] with the residence in the back.
[1:16:38] But that still allows, that
[1:16:39] development is one to one.
[1:16:41] And if we didn't do that, we
[1:16:45] would be at 13 units.
[1:16:46] We also looked at the
[1:16:49] comprehensive plan policies,
[1:16:50] policies 3.1 says new
[1:16:52] development should recognize the
[1:16:53] existing community.
[1:16:55] As you heard this is a mix of
[1:16:58] uses in this existing community.
[1:16:59] We have agriculture, we have one
[1:17:01] to five, we have along the lake,
[1:17:03] one to one, we have more
[1:17:05] intensive here and then we have
[1:17:07] right there a wedding venue that
[1:17:09] people can as a commercial use.
[1:17:12] And so the introduction of the
[1:17:14] half acre lot but you're still
[1:17:15] one to one is not disturbing
[1:17:20] that community.
[1:17:22] They have to be, you know, in
[1:17:24] harmony with each other.
[1:17:25] The residential to residential
[1:17:27] is not going to disturb the
[1:17:29] harmony of having similar uses
[1:17:34] next to each other.
[1:17:37] Look at objective 3.1, 3.2,
[1:17:39] 3.24, that talks about the
[1:17:42] community plan, and this is in
[1:17:43] community plan thonotosassa
[1:17:45] community plan.
[1:17:47] And it brings us the gold number
[1:17:50] 3 and number 5, which also staff
[1:17:52] has pointed out, but it includes
[1:17:54] the encouragement for grrg but
[1:17:55] it protects the property owner's
[1:17:57] rights and value and establish
[1:17:58] the open space and greenspace
[1:18:00] and the low density, and that's
[1:18:02] what that you know one acre in
[1:18:04] am mm is to ensure that --
[1:18:05] minimum is to ensure that there
[1:18:06] is still a low density in the
[1:18:07] rural service areaerment but
[1:18:08] when you come and really develop
[1:18:11] it, if we did minimum one acre
[1:18:13] lots, we would be well below
[1:18:14] what the density would be
[1:18:16] permitted, but by doing what
[1:18:18] we're requesting, we are still
[1:18:23] maintaining that one to one
[1:18:23] unit.
[1:18:24] And environmental protection
[1:18:26] we're not tuching the frontage
[1:18:27] portion of the lake.
[1:18:28] It's like about two acres.
[1:18:31] We're not touching that.
[1:18:33] Other policies 4.4 which is the
[1:18:35] neighborhood protection, this is
[1:18:36] maintain, the neighborhood is
[1:18:39] still going to be maintained as
[1:18:45] what it is, there is no, there's
[1:18:47] no disturbance of what could
[1:18:49] possibly happen if this is
[1:18:50] developed.
[1:18:52] And then these are, you know,
[1:18:54] again, like creation of like
[1:18:56] uses, creation of complementary
[1:18:57] uses, and all of that you know
[1:18:59] it meets all of othose as well
[1:19:02] as the 4.4.7 about the lake
[1:19:05] frontage that we are not
[1:19:06] touching.
[1:19:07] So these are the policies that
[1:19:09] I've listed for you tonight
[1:19:12] where we found that it is
[1:19:13] consistent with the
[1:19:14] comprehensive plan by stating
[1:19:16] those same policies.
[1:19:20] That concludes my presentation.
[1:19:20] >> ken hagan: thank you.
[1:19:22] We had one individual signed --
[1:19:22] joo thank you.
[1:19:23] We had one individual sign up in
[1:19:31] the public comment on this one,
[1:19:33] and I will call robert
[1:19:33] alvis.
[1:19:34] Come on down.
[1:19:37] you have three minutes, sir.
[1:19:38] >> MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners.
[1:19:40] My name is robert alvis.
[1:19:44] I live at 11907 thonotosassa
[1:19:46] road, the mkes me the most
[1:19:48] affected person in hillsborough
[1:19:50] county by this.
[1:19:51] I amright
[1:19:53] I am right next door.
[1:19:54] Some of the staff's photographs
[1:19:57] had a picture of a car in a
[1:20:00] driveway, that's my driveway.
[1:20:02] This is ridiculous.
[1:20:06] This is an agricultural area.
[1:20:08] What they're asking for is to
[1:20:09] create a subdivision in the
[1:20:11] place a subdivision does --
[1:20:13] should not exist.
[1:20:14] There are nub
[1:20:15] none there.
[1:20:16] There are none on that side of
[1:20:18] the road.
[1:20:19] Closest place is up on kingsway
[1:20:23] and it's one to five.
[1:20:24] That's all it should be there,
[1:20:26] but unfortunately, they have got
[1:20:29] a one to one ratio.
[1:20:34] Or some oit, 16 acres.
[1:20:37] I urge you to defeat this.
[1:20:41] It does not fit our area.
[1:20:43] Getting rid of agricultural
[1:20:45] designation does not apply
[1:20:46] anywhere.
[1:20:49] As they stated, we're surrounded
[1:20:52] by farms, cattle ranch.
[1:20:54] There are privately one-to-one
[1:20:56] houses there, privately built.
[1:20:59] No subdivisions.
[1:21:01] No extreme concentration like
[1:21:04] they're talking about.
[1:21:10] So once again, I urge you to say
[1:21:11] no.
[1:21:13] We have gone through this before
[1:21:15] a couple of years back when they
[1:21:17] tried something similar.
[1:21:20] This is basically just a
[1:21:22] variation on a theme.
[1:21:24] And it was defeated.
[1:21:26] I won't go into why.
[1:21:27] It's public record.
[1:21:29] so look it up.
[1:21:34] You guys have the ability.
[1:21:35] I will stop there and thank you
[1:21:37] for your time.
[1:21:39] >> chair: thank you, sir.
[1:21:41] All right.
[1:21:48] Three empty response to the
[1:21:51] applicant.
[1:21:52] >> commissioners, good evening,
[1:21:54] william mu loy, 325 south
[1:21:55] boulevard.
[1:21:57] I'll be very quick and direct on
[1:21:58] what we're doing here.
[1:21:58] If we could cluster this we
[1:22:00] would be asking for r1 across
[1:22:01] the entire site.
[1:22:04] I know how important and
[1:22:06] protected the rural service area
[1:22:06] is.
[1:22:08] I know the emotions that can
[1:22:09] ride on it.
[1:22:10] I'm fought going to talk about
[1:22:11] zone -- not going to talk about
[1:22:12] zoning but when there is a
[1:22:13] zoning, this is going to come in
[1:22:14] at one-to-one.
[1:22:16] The only reason for the r2 again
[1:22:17] is to allow us to cluster, give
[1:22:18] us a little bit of flexibility
[1:22:20] with our lot sizes so we don't
[1:22:23] end up platting roads in
[1:22:24] people's front yards which is
[1:22:25] what could eventually happen
[1:22:26] here.
[1:22:27] I do want to point out too,
[1:22:30] isabelle mentioned the
[1:22:31] accelerated stormwater program
[1:22:32] we have.
[1:22:33] What we're doing at the north
[1:22:34] end of that property is going to
[1:22:35] be exceptional for that lake
[1:22:36] because according to these new
[1:22:38] rules we have, we can't let any
[1:22:40] outfall that's not treated or
[1:22:41] has any suspended particulates
[1:22:43] leave our property.
[1:22:44] So those two giant swimming
[1:22:45] pools will be a boon for the
[1:22:46] lake and there is a reason we
[1:22:47] put them there.
[1:22:48] that's the way the water's going
[1:22:49] south to north.
[1:22:51] So given those and the fact that
[1:22:52] we do have to construct a road
[1:22:54] rights to the front door of a
[1:23:01] pocket of r6 I think are points
[1:23:04] for consideration that this is
[1:23:07] not a rural enclave but it's a
[1:23:09] point for -- suburban enclave.
[1:23:11] It's a point for rural
[1:23:11] development.
[1:23:12] >> chair: all right, any
[1:23:15] questions or discussion?
[1:23:16] MR. Kugler.
[1:23:17] >> yes, I was very impressed
[1:23:18] with missouri
[1:23:21] MS. Linehan's presentation,
[1:23:23] it was very detailed.
[1:23:24] It
[1:23:26] I was a bit confused when I
[1:23:27] believe it was the name isabelle
[1:23:29] had presented the one-to-one.
[1:23:32] I didn't understand what she was
[1:23:34] describing as where, we're
[1:23:35] cutting it to half an acre and
[1:23:37] yet it's still one-to-one.
[1:23:39] It seemed to me that it was two
[1:23:40] to one rather than one to
[1:23:41] one-to-one,
[1:23:42] maybe you can clear that up for
[1:23:49] me.
[1:23:50] >> of course, with the new
[1:23:51] rules, the stormwater ponds more
[1:23:52] land is being used for that.
[1:23:54] So if we're now being restricted
[1:23:57] in the area to developed, and so
[1:23:59] by doing so, when we actually
[1:24:01] quite engineered it out just to
[1:24:04] get an idea, but the, and the
[1:24:05] new rule just came in JANUARY so
[1:24:06] it's still very new to some of
[1:24:09] us, and so I asked my engineers
[1:24:11] to just plot out quickly what
[1:24:13] would be required, and what do I
[1:24:14] enup with, and I ended up with
[1:24:16] `less units than what I'm
[1:24:17] currently approved for.
[1:24:19] But it's still brings you, if
[1:24:20] you look it still would be very
[1:24:28] similar to the one-to-one.
[1:24:29] >> so in other words the
[1:24:31] houses remain the sime number on
[1:24:34] a tighter lot.
[1:24:35] >> you need a half acre because
[1:24:36] you're in the rural service area
[1:24:39] for, well and septic.
[1:24:41] It's the half acre lot but just
[1:24:43] in this plan it says minimum
[1:24:45] one-acre lot, because they want
[1:24:48] to maintain that low density.
[1:24:48] >> I understand now.
[1:24:49] Thank you.
[1:24:50] >> thank you.
[1:24:52] >> chair: all right.
[1:24:53] Are there any other questions,
[1:24:54] before you jump in, I'll throw
[1:24:56] in there if anyone's going to go
[1:24:58] against staff, remember we're
[1:25:00] going to need some spallacies to
[1:25:01] keep that in mind.
[1:25:04] >> just to be very clear about
[1:25:06] one to one, 24 acres, 24 units.
[1:25:08] That's exactly what we mean.
[1:25:09] >> chair: all right.
[1:25:10] Any other thoughts?
[1:25:12] Questions?
[1:25:13] Comments?
[1:25:14] Commissioners sink.
[1:25:16] >> I
[1:25:20] sienk.
[1:25:21] >> I struggle with this one
[1:25:22] because if you look at the area
[1:25:24] to the west, there's a road
[1:25:25] right on the kingsway it's
[1:25:27] almost the same depth and there
[1:25:29] are seven, maybe eight units,
[1:25:31] and for this area it just seems
[1:25:36] like even 14 seems double I
[1:25:38] don't know it just does not seem
[1:25:43] consistent with the area.
[1:25:44] >> chair: good points.
[1:25:45] Any other thoughts?
[1:25:46] Questions, comments?
[1:25:50] Commissioner bowden.
[1:25:53] >> yeah, I'm, and as I think
[1:25:55] through this, you know, being
[1:25:57] separating the comp plan with
[1:26:00] the zining piece, you know, and
[1:26:04] I can only take one or the other
[1:26:05] into consideration, and --
[1:26:08] >> chair: you can only take one,
[1:26:08] yeah.
[1:26:10] >> so you know, so the zoning
[1:26:13] piece was kind of to me
[1:26:15] irrelevant because it was more
[1:26:20] of -- more -- you know, to me.
[1:26:23] So I just wanted to make tat
[1:26:23] comment.
[1:26:25] You know, I would look a little
[1:26:27] more comp -- look fr something a
[1:26:29] little more compelling as to why
[1:26:31] it was other than to give me
[1:26:32] information that I really can't
[1:26:38] use to make a decision.
[1:26:38] >> chair: good thoughts.
[1:26:39] Good thoughts.
[1:26:40] MS. Zornitta.
[1:26:43] >> and I would just emphasize
[1:26:45] that the thonotosassa community
[1:26:48] plan does speak to wanting the
[1:26:51] minimum lot size of one acre in
[1:26:55] the residential 1 and the
[1:26:57] agricultural-rural, so yes, we
[1:26:59] did talk with the applicant
[1:27:01] about making the site all one
[1:27:03] land use category because it is
[1:27:05] awkward when they have a split
[1:27:09] like that in the residential 1,
[1:27:12] and that would be I think
[1:27:14] consistent with the thonotosassa
[1:27:17] community plan, but you know,
[1:27:18] the thonotosassa community
[1:27:20] plan's very clear about wanting
[1:27:27] that one acre development
[1:27:28] pattern.
[1:27:28] >> chair: all right.
[1:27:30] Are there any other questions?
[1:27:31] Comments?
[1:27:32] Thoughts from commissioners?
[1:27:34] Not seeing a lot of excitement
[1:27:36] around the dais here, so going
[1:27:40] once, going twice, I'm going to
[1:27:41] to close the public comment and
[1:27:42] open it up to motions from the
[1:27:43] commissioners on this item.
[1:27:43] Commissioner cona.
[1:27:46] >> yeah, motion to find hc/cpa
[1:27:48] 26-10 inconsistent with the
[1:27:48] comprehensive plan.
[1:27:49] >> chair: all right,
[1:27:51] commissioner jemison.
[1:27:52] >> second.
[1:27:53] >> chair: commissioner cona with
[1:27:54] a motion of inconsistency
[1:27:55] finding, commissioner jemison
[1:27:55] seconds that motion.
[1:27:57] Are there any questions,
[1:27:57] comments, thoughts from the
[1:27:59] commissioners before we take our
[1:28:00] vote?
[1:28:01] And we would all signify their
[1:28:03] agreement by saying aye.
[1:28:05] Those opposed?
[1:28:07] That motion carries unanimously.
[1:28:08] All right.
[1:28:10] That was our last item of
[1:28:14] business for tonight, so at 7:26 P.M., this public hearing
[1:28:15] is adjourned.