Zoning Hearing Master - Regular Meeting

NIGEL JOSEPH: HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY, AND WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 12th, 2026 PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. WE THANK YO FOR ATTENDING THIS MEETING. YOUR COMMENTS AND PARTICIPATION ARE ENCOURAGED. FOR THOSE ATTENDING IN-PERSON AND WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE SIGN THE REGISTER AT THE REAR OF THE ROOM AND TURN OFF ANY DEVICES THAT MAY BE A DISTRACTION. TO MINIMIZE FEEDBACK IN THE AUDIO, ALL ONLINE PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING WILL BE MUTED UNTIL IT IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SHOULD UNMUTE THEMSELVES TO INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. PLEASE BE SURE TO STATE YOUR NAME AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CLERK. THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE COMMENTS. WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, 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-MINUTE. THE APPLICANT WILL BE IF I WERE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION WITH A 15-MINUTE TIME LIMIT. FOLLOWING PRESENTATIONS, MMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMISSION 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 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 OPENING, I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND CALL ROLL.

GOOD EVENING. BOWDEN. HERE. CARDENAS. HERE. CONA. HERE. JEMISON. KUGLER. HERE. LINKOUS. HERE. LOUK. HERE. SIEBEN. SINK. BARRY. HERE. ORTON. HERE. JOSEPH. HERE. YOU HAVE A QUORUM, SIR.

THANK YOU. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS -- ACTUALLY BEFORE WE GET INTO OUR ACTION ITEMS, I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE 2B, HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY CYCLE. THAT'S THE 117 NORTH DOVER ROAD. WE WILL NOT BE HEARING OR TAKING ACTION ON THAT TONIGHT IN CASE ANYBODY WAS HERE FOR THAT. YOU CAN GET OUT OF HERE INSTEAD OF HANGING OUT LATE. 2A, HC/CPA 25-01, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 2002 WEST HIGHWAY 60 AND THE PRESENTER IS TYREK ROYAL.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. TYREK ROYAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. TODAY I WILL BE PRESENTING HC/CPA 25-01, 2002 WEST HIGHWAY 60. THIS REQUEST IS PRIVATELY INITIATED SMALL SCALE MAP AMENDMENT WITH APPROXIMATELY 9.. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE STABILIZATION FROM RESIDENTIAL 1 TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE 6 AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON AUGUST 14th, 2025, THE ORIGINAL PRIVATELY INITIATED REQUEST SAW THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20. THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IS IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WITHIN THE RURAL AREA, WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA AND NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A COMMUNITY PLAN. THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE OUTLINED IN PINK LOCATED NORTH OF STATE ROAD 60. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE AGRICULTURAL TO THE WEST AND SOUTH, SINGLE-FAMILY USES TO THE NORTH AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES TO THE EAST. THE SERVICE AREA IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN BLUE. THIS IS A PHOTO FACING NORTH TOWARDS THE SUBJECT SITE. AND HERE IS A PHOTO FACING SOUTH WITH THE SUBJECT SITE BEING BEHIND THE CAMERA. AND HERE'S AN EAST VIEW OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE SITE BEING LOCATED TO THE LEFT. AND FINALLY, THERE'S A WEST VEW OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SITE IS BEING LOCATED TO THE RIGHT. THE SITE IS IN A RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND ALLOWS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR AGRICULTURAL, FARMS, RANCHES, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS. COMMERCIAL USES ARE SUBJECT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 1.7 MILES FROM THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. AND THE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC IS THE PARK TO THE SOUTHWEST. OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 HAS HAD THAT DESIGNATION SINCE AT LEAST 1999 AND CONDUCTING BUSINESS AS FARMING EQUIPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE FROM RES-1 TO SMU-6 THAT ALLOWS FOR AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE

USES, RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK USES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MULTIPURPOSE, CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE. OFFICE USES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. ON TO THE IMPACTS, THE CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL 1 TO SMU-6 WOULD ALLOW FOR INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND GREATER COMMERCIAL INTENSITY. THE DENSITY OF 1 PER ACRE WOULD INCREASE TO 6. AND THE COMMERCIAL FROM .25 F.A.R. TO .5 F.A.R. OR APPROXIMATELY 206,000 SQUARE FEET. THE FOLLOWING POLICIES WERE CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND EVALUATION OF THIS AMENDMENT. AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND FOUND IT TO BE INCONSISTENT BASED UPON THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLAN INCLUDING OBJECTIVE 1.2 RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN EXPECTED IN THE RURAL AREA. THE RURAL AREA IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR LONG-TERM AGRICULTURE USES, LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND UNDEVELOPED NATURAL AREAS. THE CHANGE TO SMU-6 REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN INTENSITY AND CHARACTER. THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET F.L.U. 4.4 OR 4.4.1 THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF SCALE, INTENSITY AND CHARACTER. THE SURROUNDING LAND USE CHARACTER IS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. F.L.U. OBJECTIVE 1.2 EXPLAINS HOW THE ALLOWABLE RANGE OF USES WOULD BE PERFECTED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE. THE CATEGORY WOULD INCREASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND LOCATION THAT'S CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES. AND THEREFORE, IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF OBJECTIVE 2.2. WITH THAT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT HC/CPA 25-01 BE FOUND INCONSISTENT WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION?

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAUM IS TODD PRESSMAN 200 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH NUMBER 451 IN ST. PETERSBURG. THANK YOU, TYREK FOR THIS REPORT. MR. CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBERS, THIS IS KIND OF INTERESTING BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THIS SITE VERY RECENTLY. AND THEIR REMAPPED, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT ASKED US TO REDUCE THE CATEGORY PROPOSED TO SMU-6 WHICH, OF COURSE, WE ARE HAPPY TO DO. SO THIS HAS BEEN TO YOU, BACK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SEEKING A LESSER CATEGORY. AND THAT IS BEFORE YOU, BEFORE THIS EVENING. A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL HOW THIS CAME TO YOU. AS INDICATED, TYREK HAS SHOWN YOU THE SITE IS OUT IN THE PLANT CITY AREA. THIS IS AS SHOWN IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. FUTURE LAND USE MAP. NOW, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE BUSINESS AND THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER RUNS A FAMILY TRUCKING BUSINESS. THEY ARE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT BUSINESS. SO THEY ARE RUNNING NAVARRO PRODUCE FROM TEXAS TO FLORIDA. THEY BRING PRODUCTS BACK AND FORTH PRIMARILY HERE. THEY MAKE WEEKLY RUNS BRINGING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BACK TO THE COUNTY WITH MULTIPLE TRUCKS. SO THIS IS THEIR FAMILY BUSINESS. AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THEIR TRUCKS THAT THEY ARE IN THE AGRICULTURE SUPPORT BUSINESS. THEY PRIMARILY HAVE BEEN TO THE PLANT CITY FARM AND FLEA MARKET WHICH IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THIS PART OF THE STATE IF NOT THE WHOLE STATE. THEY CLAIM THE LARGEST IN FLORIDA ON THEIR BILL BORE. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE, AND WHAT'S ACTUALLY THERE IN TERMS OF USES, THERE IS A HAPPY PETS PET BOARDING SITE NEXT-DOOR. THERE'S A TREMENDOUS FOREST BUFFER TO THE NORTH. FURTHER TO THE EAST IS A CHURCH COMPOUND. AND NEXT-DOOR, INTERESTINGLY

ENOUGH, WHICH I'LL GO THROUGH SOME POINTS WITH YOU, IS A LARGE INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE USE PRIMARILY FARM AND FARMING EQUIPMENT. THIS IS A DAY CARE NEXT-DOOR. THIS IS THE -- I REFER TO IT AS THE CHURCH, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. NEXT LOT PARCEL TO THE EAST, WHICH APPEARS TO BE PRETTY BUSY. AND THIS IS THE SITE AS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS IT. SO WHAT'S INTERESTING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS, IS THAT THE USE NEXT-DOOR IS PROPOSED TO BE REALLY THE SAME USE WE'RE PROPOSING HERE WHICH IS THE PARKING AND A SITE FOR VEHICLE PARKING. THAT'S THE USE THAT'S PROPOSED. TO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE NEXT-DOOR AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S TRUCKS PARKED, IT BECOMES KIND OF A DISPARITY THAT ON ONE SIDE OF THE FENCE THEY CAN DO WHAT WANT IT DO HERE BUT WE CAN'T DO IT HERE BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING ZONING SITUATION. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT NEXT-DOOR. WE WANT TO DO THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. A LOT OF BUREAUCRACY, A LOT OF MIXTURE OF ISSUES AND CATEGORIES DON'T ALLOW IT. WE'D LIKE TO DO THE SAME THING. NOW, TRAFFIC COUNTS, STATE ROAD 60 AT THAT POINT IS VERY BUSY, 21,500 VEHICLES PER DAY. IT IS PART OF THE STATE ARTERIAL PRINCIPAL ARTERY IN THE COUNTY AND ALSO ON THE TRUCK ROAD UNDER THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMMISSION TRUCK ROUTE PLAN. THE ROADWAY THAT THEY ACCESS O IS A VERY INTENSIVE ROADWAY. ZONING PLAN -- DON'T WANT TO SHOW ZONING PLANS, MR. CHAIRMAN. NOW, I THINK ONE AREA THAT YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM YOUR STAFF IS THAT THERE'S AN ENTIRE CHAPTER OF YOUR COMP PLAN FOR AGRICULTURE. WHICH IS A DIRECTIVE TO SUPPORT AGRICULTURE AS A REALLY HIGH PRIORITY. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OBJECTIVE 5.1, RECOGNITION AS A VALUABLE

ECONOMIC RESOURCE. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHALL PROMOTE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BY RECOGNIZING AND PROVIDING FOR ITS UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND USE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION. 5.2.5 OF YOUR COMP PLAN, AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE SUPPORT USES ARE THE PREFERRED USES IN THE RURAL AREA. NOW, YOUR STAFF DID A FINE REPORT AND THEY LOOKED AT IT VERY CLOSELY, BUT YOU DID NOT SEE THESE CATEGORIES OR THESE POLICIES THAT TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY THAT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY IS THE PREFERRED USE IN THE RURAL AREAS. 5.2.4, AGRICULTURAL RELATED USES MORE INTENSITY THAN NEIGHBORHOODS SERVING COMMERCIAL MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE RURAL LAND USE CATEGORIES. 5.1.08, SUPPORT EXISTING AGRICULTURE USES AS AN HISTORICAL COMPONENT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE TO THE COUNTY. 5.1.1, ENCOURAGE AGRICULTURAL USES WITH AND AROUND SUCH CENTERS REFERRING TO AGRICULTURE MARKET CENTERS WHICH THEY ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH ON A WEEKLY BASIS. 5.1.6, AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE RELATED USES SHALL BE PERMITTED IN NON-RURAL LAND USE CATEGORY AS WELL TRUTH THE WHOLE COUNTY. SO WHILE YOUR STAFF LOOKS AT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THE TYPICAL ELEMENTS THAT THEY DO IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, THERE'S AN ENTIRE CHAPTER THAT TELLS YOU THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY, THIS IS A USE THAT'S IMPORTANT NOT JUST TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BUT ECONOMICALLY AND HISTORICALLY. AND I'LL TELL YOU, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THREE MAJOR HEARINGS. MUST HAVE DONE THREE OR FOUR PUBLIC NOTICES. I DON'T RECALL A SINGLE PERSON COMING FORWARD IN OPPOSITION OR HAVING CONCERNS ABOUT THE ISSUE. SO WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS, WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ONE, SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO OUR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS AND DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER. WE HEARD THIS CAME TO US BEFORE. CAN WE GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT?

YEAH. SO IT WENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORIGINALLY AS AN OFFICE COMMERCIAL USE. THEY SENT IT BACK BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT C-20 WAS TOO INTENSIVE IN THE RURAL AREA. THEY BRIEFED WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. ALWAYS THEY DID SEND IT BACK AS SMU-6, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE IT'S A LESS INTENSE USE. THEY STILL COMMENTED THAT IT'S AN INTENSE USE FOR THE RURAL AREA DURING OUR WORKSHOP. NIGEL JOSEPH: MR. PRESSMAN, YES? WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT TO TYREK, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIFICALLY REMANDED IT BACK INTO THE SYSTEM AND INTO THE CYCLE. THANK YOU. NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. IS THAT CORRECT? THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SENT IT BACK TO US AS WANTING AN SMU-6 ON IT?

YES. THEY SENT IT BACK AS OPPOSED TO OFFICE EARLY 20 BECAUSE IT WAS A LESSER INTENSE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. NIGEL JOSEPH: BUT THEY COULD HAVE DENIED IT OUTRIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. NIGEL JOSEPH: IS THAT GOOD? COMMISSIONER KUGLER. YES, FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER CONA'S COMMENTS, I SAW THAT AGRICULTURAL CODE 5.2.5 WAS REFERENCED. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PROMOTING AGRICULTURE, BUT MAYBE I MISREAD THE IDEA OF THE PROJECT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT 5.2.5 AGRICULTURE WAS BROUGHT IN BECAUSE THE CHANGE OF LAND USE LOOKS LIKE IT'S AIMING TOWARD HOUSING AND OFFICE SPACE.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE DURING THESE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC CATEGORY AND NOT THE ACTUAL USE. SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT'S ALLOWABLE IN THE SMU-6. I THINK THE APPLICANT WAS TRYING TO SPECIFY THAT AGRICULTURE USES OR WHAT THE INTENT IS, WHICH IS ALREADY ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL 1, THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. NIGEL JOSEPH: MS. ZORNITTA.

YEAH. I WOULD JUST ADD THAT USES THAT ARE AGRICULTURALLY RELATED AND MORE INTENSIVE, TYPICALLY THE RESIDENTIAL 1 LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWS UP TO A COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT. BUT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO LOOK A TRACTOR REPAIR SHOP, THAT IS CLEARLY AN AGRICULTURALLY RELATED USE AND IT'S MORE INTENSIVE THAN WHAT'S TYPICALLY ALLOWED IN CG. THAT POLICY SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THAT CAN OCCUR IN OUR RURAL LAND USE CATEGORIES BECAUSE THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR IT TO BE LOCATED. SO IF THE CI USE AS WAS ONLY RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL USES, LIKE A TRACTOR REPAIR STORE WOULD BE, THEN IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LAND USE CATEGORY THEY HAVE TODAY, JUST LIKE A TOMATO PROCESSING PLANT WOULD BE IN RUSKIN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK THAT PERHAPS -- AND MAYBE MR. PRESSMAN CAN EXPAND ON THIS. SOME OF THE ISSUE MAY BE THE WAY THE USE IS CLASSIFIED IN ITS ZONING THAT IT NEEDS THE CI ZONING TO BE A BIT MORE BROAD THAN SOLELY AGRICULTURALLY RELATE SNRD YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AND IN THE DIRECTION OF THE ZONING, LET ME ALSO SAY WHAT YOU STATE IN REPORTS AND SUCH, THE COMPANION REZONING IS A PD BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FIT SPECIFICALLY INTO THAT R-1 CATEGORY. SO WE ARE FORCED TO -- THERE WAS AN I HAD SIN CEASE IN THE CODE AND I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT DOING JUST A LAND USE AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE RURAL CATEGORIES BUT IT JUST DIDN'T FIT ON THIS SITE. WE HAD TO GO FOR THE PD AND THE DIRECTION SHE JUST EXPLAINED. THANK YOU.

SO YES, TYPICALLY WE WOULD ALLOW AN AGRICULTURALLY RELATED COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE USE. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO A PLAN AMENDMENT. THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO JUST DO A ZONING. I THINK BECAUSE THERE'S SOME NUANCES TO THEIR USE THAT MIGHT NEED A LITTLE BIT BROADER THAN THAT, THAT'S WHY THEY ENDED UP IN THIS PROCESS. NIGEL JOSEPH: COMMISSIONER LOUK.

MR. PRESSMAN HIT EXACTLY ON MY QUESTION. IF YOU LOOK AT AR-1-5, THERE ARE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE, TRUCKS DIRECTLY TIED TO FARMING, LAND MANAGEMENT OR AG SERVICES, OPEN STORAGE ASSOCIATED WITH AG OPERATIONS. SO I'M WONDERING WHY THE APPLICANT CHOSE AND REMAND THE DESIGNATION IT IS VERSUS LIKE ONE OF THE AR DESIGNATIONS.

WELL, LET ME CLARIFY, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THE REMAPPED. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MADE A MOTION FOR THE REMAND. I CAN'T MAKE REMANDS AND DON'T MAKE MOTIONS. YOU GUYS DO AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DO. THE BEST WAY I CAN ANSWER WITHOUT GETTING INTO ZONING TOO DEEPLY IS THERE'S MORE THAN ONE USE HERE WHICH SUPPORTS THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. ONCE YOU GET INTO MORE THAN ONE USE, YOU CAN'T DO EUCLIDIAN ZONING. YOU HAVE TO DO PD. SO WE HAVE A RESIDENCE AND WE HAVE A SMALL HOME OFFICE. HE ASKED THE QUESTION SO I'M TRYING TO RESPOND. [INDISTINCT CONVERSATION] IF YOU LOOK AT AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT USES, THAT WAS ONE DIRECTION WE COULD GO BUT BECAUSE OF THE OTHER ANCILLARY ACCESSORY USES OR VIRTUAL SMALLER USES AGAIN WE HAD TO GO FOR THE PD.

THE REQUEST MAKES SENSE. THANKS. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LOUK. I'M NOT SURE. DID YOU GET YOUR ANSWER? HOW DID WE RULE ON THIS LAST TIME? I'M CURIOUS REGARDING THAT FACT. NIGEL JOSEPH: WHEN IT CAME TO US, HOW DID WE -- I BELIEVE IT WAS FOUND INCONSISTENT. NIGEL JOSEPH: I THINK SO, TOO. OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? NOT SEEING ANY, I WILL REMIND ANYONE IF YOU MAKE A MOTION AGAINST STAFF, DEFINITELY WANT TO HAVE SOME POLICIES. MR. PRESSMAN GAVE A GOOD BUNCH OF THEM IF ANYBODY WANTED TO USE THOSE, JUST SAYING. ALL RIGHT, SO I WILL SEE IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS. GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, NOT SEEING ANY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND OPEN IT UP TO MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER CONA.

BECAUSE IT SEEMS WE'VE GOTTEN SOME DIRECTION FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION WE FIND HC/CPA 25-01 CONSIST WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BASED ON OBJECTIVES 5.1 AND THEN POLICIES 5.2. A, 5.2.4, 5.1.8. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION OF CONSISTENCY FINDING BY COMMISSIONER CONA. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION OUT THERE CITING OBJECTIVE 5.1, POLICY 5.2.5, POLICY 5.2.4 AND 5.1.8. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND ANYWHERE OUT THERE? I'LL SECOND IT.

NIGEL JOSEPH: COMMISSIONER LINKOUS, WE'VE GOT A SECOND. MOTION OF CONSISTENCY BY COMMISSIONER CONA, SECOND TO THAT BY COMMISSIONER LINKOUS CITING OBJECTIVE 5.1, POLICY 5.2.5, 5.2.4 AND 5.1.8. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS NEEDED FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? AGAIN VOTING FOR A CONSISTENCY FINDING HERE. WOULD ALL SIGNIFY THEIR AGREEMENT BY SAYING AYE. [AYES] THOSE OPPOSED? WE'RE GOING TO KICK IT OVER TO A ROLL CALL. BOWDEN. NAY. CARDENAS. CONA. AYE. KUGLER. NAY. LINKOUS.

AYE. LOUK. AYE. SIEBEN. JOSEPH. NIGEL JOSEPH: AYE. MOTION CARRIES 6-2. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. NEXT UP WE HAVE ITEM 2C, BECAUSE AGAIN 2B HAS BEEN CONTINUED. ITEM 2C, HC/CPA 25-30, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT SOUTH SIDE OF 11th AVENUE AND EAST OF 27th STREET SOUTHEAST. AND THE PRESENTER IS DAVID HEY. MIC.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE NEXT ITEM FOR YOUR REVIEW IS HC/CPA 25-30. IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST AND EAST OF 27th STREET SOUTHEAST DOWN IN RUSKIN. THE REQUEST IS PRIVATELY INITIATED IS SMALL SCALE. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES. CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT SITE HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF SUBURBAN MIXED USE 6 AND THE APPLICANT IS WISHING TO GO TO THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. HERE WE HAVE A GENERAL LOCATION MAP. IT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DOWN IN RUSKIN. IT IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT DOES FALL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN AND ALSO WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. HERE WE HAVE THE AERIAL OF THE SITE, THE SUBJECT SITE IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW. THIS IS 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST. YOU'VE GOT EAST COLLEGE AVENUE TO THE NORTH. THIS IS THE INTERCHANGE WITH I-75 WHICH YOU CAN SEE DOWN HERE RUNNING NORTH SOUTH BASICALLY. THIS IS 27th STREET SOUTHEAST. THIS IS THE MAIN ROADWAY THAT GAINS ACCESS INTO 11th. THIS IS A DEAD END ROAD. THIS IS THE MOFFITT SOUTHSHORE CAMPUS THAT HAS JUST BEEN COMPLETED. THIS SURROUNDING AREA, THERE'S A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL USES, LARGER LOT AND THEN MOBILE HOMES ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE IS A NON-RESIDENTIAL AUTO USE LOCATED TO THE NORTH THAT FROM OUR RECORDS SEEMS TO BE NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S AS-1. THEN YOU'VE GOT ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL FURTHER TO THE WEST. HERE WE'VE GOT SOME PICTURES OF

THE SUBJECT SITE. HERE WE'VE LOOKING SOUTHEAST INTO THE SUBJECT SITE FROM 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST. NOW WE'RE LOOKING SOUTHWEST TOWARD THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES. THAT'S THE MOBILE HOMES. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED OUT OF FRAME ON THE LEFT SO IT'S JUST OVER HERE. HERE WE'RE LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST TOWARDS THE AS-1 ZONED PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED BEHIND KIND OF ON THE LEFT. HERE NOW WE'RE LOOKING WEST DOWN 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST TOWARD THAT 27th STREET. IT'S IN THE DISTANCE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE ON THE LEFT. NOW WE'RE LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED OUT OF FRAME OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT. AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING SOUTHEAST AGAIN FROM 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE ASSISTANCE DOWN HERE ON THE LEFT. HERE WE HAVE THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT SITE AND ALL THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT OR STEAGHTED THAT SMU-6. THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, EVEN SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PERMITTED THROUGH PDs IN THE SMU-6. THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY IS UNIMPROVED. THIS NORTH-SOUTH RI SOUTH RIGHT. TO THE EAST AROUND THE INTERSECTION, THIS DARKER KIND OF PINK IS THAT COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. SOUTH OF 14th AVENUE SOUTHEAST, IT GOES DOWN TO THE RESIDENTIAL 4. THE BLUE LINE HERE IS THE URBAN

SERVICE AREA SO ALL THIS PROPERTY SOUTH OF THIS LINE IS WITHIN THE RURAL AREA. AND THEN WE DO HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL 1 TUCKED DOWN HERE IN THE CORNER. SO HERE'S THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT SITE. IT CHANGES TO THAT OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THE CLOSEST OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20, THERE IS SOME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS INTERCHANGE OFF THE MAP, KIND OF UP HERE CLOSER TO SUN CITY. AGAIN, THIS ROAD DOES NOT GO THROUGH AS IT'S SHOWN THERE. NOW WE HAVE THE OVERALL IMPACTS UNDER THE EXISTING SMU-6. THE SUBJECT SITE CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 28 RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR A MAXIMUM NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UP TO APPROXIMATELY 102,000 SQUARE FEET. UNDER THE PROPOSED OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20, THAT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL INCREASES. THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL GOES UP TO 94 DWELLING UNITS AND THE POTENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL INCREASES TO 153,000 APPROXIMATELY SQUARE FEET. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THOUGH THE DENSITY INCREASES FROM 6 TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO INCREASES FROM .5 TO .75 UNDER THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED UNDER ANY PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT THE ZONING STAGE UNDER THE EXISTING SMU-6 WOULD NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. WE DID GET SOME AGENCY COMMENTS. THE TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY DID NOTE THAT BASED ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THERE WILL NOT BE ADEQUATE CAPACITY ON FOUR OF THE FIVE ROADWAY SEGMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE

ADDITIONAL TRIPS BY THE PROPOSED FLUCHT IN THE FUTURE SCENARIO. THAT'S INCLUDED WITHIN YOUR AGENCY COMMENTS SECTION OF THE REPORT. EPC DID COMMENT THAT THE SUBJECT SITE APPEARS TO CONTAIN WETLANDS. AND THE SCHOOL BOARD DID COMMENT THAT THERE SEEMS AT THIS TIME TO BE ADEQUATE CAPACITY AT THE EXISTING DESIGNATED SCHOOLS WITHIN THE AREA. WHILE FORMULATING OUR RECOMMENDATION, PC STAFF REVIEWS ALL RELATED POLICIES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REQUEST. THOUGH THE REQUEST IS RELATED TO SEVERAL GENERAL POLICIES, STAFF FOUND TWO MAIN AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY. FIRST, STAFF FINDS THAT INTRODUCTION OF OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AT THIS LOCATION AT THE END OF A LOCAL DEAD END RESIDENTIAL ROAD POSES POTENTIAL COMPATIBILITY ISSUES AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL POLICIES RELATED TO NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND OVERALL COMPATIBILITY. THE EXISTING SMU-6 CATEGORY IS DESIGNATED AS SUBURBAN LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE ADOPTED COMP PLAN AND SURROUNDS THE SITE ON ALL THOSE FOUR SIDES. THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 IS AN URBAN DESIGNATED CATEGORY. THE NEAREST URBAN DESIGNATED LAND USE CATEGORY IS THAT COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12 WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND ALSO LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 75 AND COLLEGE AVENUE. ADDITIONALLY, THOUGH THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 CATEGORY REMOVES CONSIDERATION FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES, THE REMAINING PARCELS ALONG THIS PORTION OF 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST WILL RETAIN CONSIDERATION FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES THROUGH THE REMAINING ADOPTED SMU-6. SO THE STAFF'S FINDING IS THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE POTENTIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES WOULD HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG THIS PORTION OF 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST BECAUSE ALL OTHER PARCELS WOULD BE ALLOWED THAT CONSIDERATION. BUT STAFF FOUND MORE SIGNIFICANT IS THAT THE PROPOSED OFFICE

COMMERCIAL 20 ALLOWS CONSIDERATION OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WITH UP TO 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, A POTENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT AT THE END OF THIS LOCAL ROADWAY WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE AREA, SUCH AS INCREASING TRAFFIC ON THE EXISTING LARGER LOT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL PATTERN ALONG THIS PORTION OF 11th AVENUE. MOREOVER, THE OVERALL BUILDING MASSING COULD POSE NEGATIVE EFFECTS AS MOST EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THAT PORTION OF THAT ROADWAY ARE SINGLE STORY. FOR THE RECORD, THERE WAS A RELATED REZONING WITH THE APPLICANT SEEKING A CI ZONING DISTRICT WHICH UNDER THE CURRENT SMU-6 DESIGNATION COULD BE CONSIDERED ON SITE BUT WOULD REQUIRE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO DEMONSTRATE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT REDUCE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES. THE REQUESTED OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 REMOVES THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SINCE CI USES ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND THE OVERALL EXISTING DENSITY UNDER THE SMU-6 CATEGORY ALIGNS WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG THIS PORTION OF 11th AVENUE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE REQUEST OF OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 WHICH INCREASES OVERALL DENSITY IN NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AGAIN AT THE END OF A LOCAL DEAD END ROADWAY, BUT IT ALSO REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT TO DEMONSTRATE MITIGATION MEASURES BY REQUIRING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT THE REZONING STAGE COULD POTENTIALLY CREATE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES LOCATED WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. IN REGARDS TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN SUPPORTS THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. STAFF FOUND THE APPROPRIATION FOR A MULTISTORY MULTI-FAMILY AT AN URBAN LEVEL OF DENSITY WOULD NOT BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE EXISTING LARGER LOT SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS PORTION OF 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST.

BASED ON THE ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST BE FOUND INCONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? I BELIEVE SO.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS TODD PRESSMAN, 200 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, NUMBER 241 ST. PETERSBURG. THIS IS HC/CPA 2025-30. AS MR. HEY INDICATED, THIS IS COMPANION FOR COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. WE ARE IN THE SOUTH AREA OF THE COUNTY. REQUEST IS SMU-6 TO OC-20 FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES. YOU SEE THAT WE ARE LOCATED SOMEWHAT BETWEEN SUN CITY CENTER BOULEVARD AND I-75. THIS IS AS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS IT. AND YOU SEE A LITTLE CLOSER, WE ARE AT THE END OF 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST. SO ON ONE SIDE, AS MR. HEY INDICATED, IS AN UNIMPROVE ROADWAY WHICH CONNECTS TO NOWHERE BECAUSE IT'S A LONG STRETCH OF UNIMPROVED WETLANDS AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME OTHER USES GOING ON IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SHOWS THE WETLANDS, NATIONAL WETLANDS SHOWS THE WETLANDS AT THE SITE. AND THE REASON I SHOW YOU A FEW SLIDES OF THAT IS BECAUSE ONE VERY IMPORTANT INTEGRAL PART OF THIS REQUEST IS THIS IS A VERY ISOLATED PROPERTY AT THE END OF 11th AVENUE SOUTH. AND WE HAVE HAD TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FROM THE IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A LITTLE BIT. SO WHEN YOU LOOK DOWN 11th AVENUE, YOU SEE IT'S A DEAD END. NO OTHER OWNERS THERE THAT ARE OPERATING EXCEPT CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY. I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THE AREA NOW IS ALL SMU-6. THAT'S AN INTENSIVE CATEGORY. THE ENTIRE AREA IS SMU-6 AND CMU-12.

THIS IS AN AREA DESIGNATED FOR VERY INTENSE AND OPERATIONS THAT SUPPORT SMU-6 AND OC-20. THIS IS A LARGE AREA OF INTENSIVE FUTURE LAND USE COULD CATEGORY. SO THE EXISTING SMU-6 RECOGNIZES CORPORATE PARKS, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MULTIPURPOSE, WHICH, QUITE FRANKLY, IS MORE T THAN WT WE'RE SEEKING UNDER THE ZONING. I WON'T SAY ANYTHING MORE ON THAT. CURRENT SMU-6 AGAIN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MULTIPURPOSE PARK USES, CORPORATE PARK USES AND HIGH F.A.R. SO WE MAY BE ASKING FOR A HIGHER CATEGORY, BUT I THINK IT'S CRITICAL AND WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THE EXISTING AREA IS DESIGNATED AS VERY INTENSE. NOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION -- AND MR. HEY DID INDICATE SOME OF THIS. THAT THEY ANALYZED ALL PARCELS LOCATED EAST OF 24th AVENUE SOUTHEAST, SOUTH OF COLLEGE AVENUE, WEST OF 75. AND THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ALONG PARCELS FRONTING COLLEGE AVENUE, THOSE INCLUDE MOFFITT, SOUTHSHORE CAMPUS AND THE EXTRA SPACE STORAGE FACILITY. THESE VERY INTENSE USES -- HE SHOWED YOU THOSE ON AN AERIAL -- ARE MOVING IN THIS AREA FOLLOW UP ON THE SMU-6 AND INTENSITY OF NOT JUST THIS PARCEL BUT THE ENTIRE VICINITY. THESE ARE THE TWO LOCATION THAT IS MR. HEY REFERRED YOU TO. RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN UNDER GOAL 2 REFERS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WIS GROWTH AND JOBS IN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY, STRATEGY ENSURE THERE ARE APPROPRIATE LAND AREAS ZONED FOR OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS WOULD BE AN INTENSIVE SITE UNDER OC-20. WE BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS THIS GOAL IN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN. NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE USES IN THE AREA, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS DIXIE WRECKING AND BOWMAN'S WRECKING WHICH ARE VERY

INTENSIVE AUTO VEHICLE STORAGE, RECYCLING, ALL TYPES OF INTENSIVE VEHICLE MODIFICATIONS. YOU CAN SEE HERE, INCLUDING A WRECKER SERVICE. BUT I THINK WHAT'S CRITICAL, THE SECOND CRITICAL POINT -- THE FIRST CRITICAL POINT IS THE INTENSITY OF THE VICINITY BY FUTURE LAND USE. ALSO BY THE USES, BUT THIRD CRITICAL POINT IS THAT WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FROM VIRTUALLY ANY OF THE IMPACTED OR NEARBY OR ABUTTING NEIGHBORS. AND THAT IS SUBMITTED TO YOU BY PETITION. THEY WERE DONE DOOR BY DOOR BY THE APPLICANT. WHICH REALLY SHOW YOU THAT WHEN YOU REPORT OR YOUR STAFF REPORT INDICATES COMPATIBILITY AND COHESION OR CONCERNS ABOUT ABUTTING OWNERS, YOU HAVE ON RECORD THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE FOR THE USE. SO WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS, WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE ONLY HAD ONE INDIVIDUAL SIGN UP IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ONE. AND THAT'S JOHNNY SOAP. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR.

I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. JUST FORTUNATE TO HAVE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT WE'RE SEEKING THERE TO EXIST. BEEN THERE SEVEN YEARS. MAYBE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BUT BEEN THERE SEVEN YEARS WITH ZERO COMPLAINTS. A PROBLEM CAME UP M. I GOT WITH HIM THE DAY AFTER I FOUND OUT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT NONE OF THIS STUFF HERE. I GOT AHOLD OF TODD HERE TO HELP ME WITH THE SITUATION THE DAY AFTER WE FOUND OUT. WE DIDN'T REALIZE IT UNTIL WE STOPPED GETTING MAIL. WE COLD THE POST OFFICE AND ALL^, THAT'S WHAT STARTED IT. THEN CODE CAME OUT THERE, OH, NO, MAN, THIS DON'T FIT AND WE ADDRESSED IT. ZERO COMPLAINTS FOR SEVEN YEARS. AND HE SHOWED YOU BRIEFLY RIGHT THERE, BUT WE HAVE A LOT -- WE ACTUALLY WENT PAST THAT. WE HAVE THEM ON 11th GOING ON DOWN AND ON THE CORNER OF 27th, THE ABUTTING CHURCH. EVERYONE IS PULLING FOR US SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO EXIST THERE AS A COHESIVE. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE TO RUSKIN, OTHER THAN SEEING WHAT YOU SEE HERE. IT'S DIFFERENT ANYWAY, YOU KNOW. BUT WE'RE PUSHING THROUGH SO I CAN STAY IN BUSINESS, KEEP THE GUYS I'VE GOT GOING. AND I LIKE IT WHERE I GREW UP AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOR YEARS, YOU KNOW, RIVERVIEW RUSKIN AREA. WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR HELP AND TO CONSIDER WHAT TODD SHOWED YOU. IF YOU HAVE TO GO LOOK AND ASK. IF YOU READ THE PETITION, I HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING THEM ALL SIGNED OTHER THAN CATCHING SOME PEOPLE AT HOME. AND WE HAVE THEM GOING PAST 27th AND ON DOWN. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF SUPPORT AND WE'VE GOT A STEP AFTER Y'ALL. WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT TODAY. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS THAT'S IT.

CAN YOU SAY YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? JOHNNY SOAP. NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU, SIR. DID YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS IN RESPONSE, MR. PRESSMAN? IT IS YOUR -- I'LL SAY VERY QUICKLY THAT WE HAVE HAD THE ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IS HERE. BUT NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD IN OPPOSITION. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY LETTERS OR EMAILS THAT I RECALL COMING IN IN OPPOSITION.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. NOW, OVER TO OUR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSIONS OF THIS ONE. AND I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYONE IF THIS ENDS UP IN AN OPPOSITION TO WHAT STAFF HAS FOUND, THE INCONSISTENT FINDING, WE NEED SOME POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES AND SOME KIND OF SOMETHING TO ATTACH TO IT. EVERYBODY BE KEEPING THAT IN MIND AS WE GO THROUGH OUR CONVERSATIONS HERE. MS. ZORNITTA.

I JUST FEEL COMPELLED TO REITERATE THAT THE LAND USE CATEGORY THAT THEY HAVE TODAY, THE SMU-6 ALLOWS THE USE THEY WANT TO DO. SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR LAND USE CATEGORY TO DO THIS USE. AND I GUESS WHAT THE LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE DOES, ITS TO ITS OPEN UP THE POSSIBILITY FOR 20 UNITS PER ACRE. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO TODAY, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE USES THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE LAND USE CATEGORY. THAT'S WHY THE LAND USE THEY HAVE TODAY ALLOWS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THEM TO HAVE.

NIGEL JOSEPH: YEAH. COMMISSIONER KUGLER. THANK YOU FOR THAT POINT, THAT WAS GREAT. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT WAS PERHAPS -- FROM MR. SOAP'S COMMENTS, THAT IT WAS AN ISSUE WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT OF SOME SORT THAT HE RISKED HAVING TO SHUT DOWN. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE PERHAPS THAT WAS PREMATURE OR SOMETHING HAPPENED THERE THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED AS FAR AS CODE ENFORCEMENT. AND THAT WAS WHAT SPURRED THE IDEA OF GOING FOR ANOTHER DESIGNATION. WAS IT A NON-CONFORMING USE ISSUE IN THIS CASE?

WELL, THAT MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS, WHAT TYPE OF ZONING REMEDY THEY CHOOSE TO PURSUE. AND MAYBE MR. PRESSMAN WOULD CHOOSE -- BECAUSE UNDER THE SMU-6 CATEGORY, THEY DO BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THEIR PROPERTY -- THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO A PD ZONING. THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 CATEGORY DOES NOT REQUIRE A PD. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S TRADING OFF 20 UNITS PER ACRE POTENTIALLY FOR THAT. BUT, MR. PRESSMAN MAY WANT TO ANSWER THAT.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THAT WAS MY QUESTION FOR YOU. I WAS GOING TO HAVE MR. PRESSMAN, WHY NOT JUST DO A PD?

WELL, WE HAD TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT TO DO. AND WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE USES, THAT REQUIRES -- YOU CAN'T DO IT EUCLIDIAN. BUT THE USES THAT HE HAD FIT INTO CI AND THEN THE USES THAT HE WAS PROPOSING AND WANTED TO HAVE DO FIT INTO THE CI. AND BYPASSED THE PD. AND THE PDs ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO DO. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE FROM SCRATCH. AND WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT, HOW WE WANTED TO DO IT. AND WE JUST MADE THE DECISION REALLY TO GO THIS WAY.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I'M NOT SEEING A LOT OF EXCITEMENT. COMMISSIONER LOUK. IS THERE A POLICY IN PLACE THAT PREVENTS URBAN LAND USES BEYOND COLLEGE AVENUE IN THIS AREA OF RUSKIN? OR GENERALLY SPEAKING, IS THAT COLLEGE AVENUE A BRIGHT LINE? DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

I'LL READ IT THE WAY I WROTE IT. WHAT IS THE CLEAR LONG-TERM POLICY BOUNDARY THAT PREVENTS URBAN LAND USE FOR EXTENDING BEYOND COLLEGE AVENUE IN THE AREA OF RUSKIN? AND WHY IS THIS PARCEL ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THAT LINE DESPITE BEING IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA?

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY POLICY RESTRICTING THAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CAN'T EXPAND INTO RUSKIN OR, YOU KNOW, FURTHER IN. THERE IS NO LIKE DRAWN LINE ANYWHERE. BUT I THINK WHEN STAFF LOOKED AT IT, THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF BEING AT THE END OF A ROAD AND THAT THE -- IT MAY -- STAFF MIGHT HAVE LOOKED AT IT DIFFERENTLY IF THAT NORTH-SOUTH ROAD EXITED AND -- EXISTED. BUT ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT IT ISN'T THERE. SO WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE, WE LOOKED AT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT. I KNOW THIS APPLICANT IS NOT PURSUING A MULTI-FAMILY, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE POTENTIALS THAT ARE THERE. STAFF HAD TO LOOK AT, IS THIS APPROPRIATE TO PUT IT -- TO START BASICALLY AN EXPANSION AT THE END OF A DEAD-END ROAD INSTEAD OF MAYBE A LOGICAL TRANSITION OF FROM COLLEGE, MAYBE THE PARCEL SOUTH OF COLLEGE AVENUE. LIKE DIRECTLY WITH VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM COLLEGE SO IT'S NOT INTRUDING INTO LIKE AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M SURPRISED WE CALL IT A DEAD-END ROAD WHEN AN EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTS. IF WE CHANGE AND SOME PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WERE TO HAPPEN, THAT ROADWAY WOULD BE UTILIZED AND THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO ADD ACCESS USING THAT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. TO SAY IT IS A DEAD END IS NOT ACCURATE. IT'S THERE AND DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE AND IT CAN BE EXPANDED IF THE COUNTY WOULD DEEM IT SO. WHATEVER ZONING OR WHATEVER PROCESS TAKES PLACE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARILY ACCURATE TO SAY IT'S ON A DEAD-END ROAD. WELL, IN OUR VIEW, THERE'S NO DOCUMENTED PLAN ANYWHERE WITHIN THE COUNTY TO IMPROVE THAT ROAD. RIGHT.

THERE'S ALSO A QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY WIDE ENOUGH TO MEET CURRENT STANDARDS FOR ROADWAYS UNDER TODAY'S STANDARDS. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR THE ROAD ITSELF? I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, DAVID. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH? THE PHYSICAL RIVALRY MAY NOT BE WIDE ENOUGH TO FIT THE STANDARD COUNTY ROAD. SO IF THE COUNTY FOUND MONEY AND DESIGNATED THAT AS A LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT, THERE MAY HAVE TO BE PROPERTY ACQUISITION TO GET IT TO THE APPROPRIATE SIZE.

I HEARD A LOT OF MAYS. DO WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTS? I DON'T WANT IT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND STAFF SAYING WE'RE ON A DEAD-END ROAD WHEN WE HAVE A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT EXISTS. IF IT WENT TO SITE PLAN AND WENT THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THROUGH THE MULTITUDE OF LAYERS OF THE COUNTY PERMITS AND THE DEVELOPER PAYS FOR SOME OF THOSE UPGRADES, IT'S A ROAD THAT EXISTS TODAY FROM A RIGHT-OF-WAY STANDPOINT. DO WE KNOW HOW WIDE THAT ROAD IS OR DO WE NOT? I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. I DON'T HAVE IT. BUT WHEN WE MEASURED IT ON OUR COMPUTER, IT WAS ABOUT 30 FEET.

I AGREE WITH YOU FROM AN ACCESS STANDPOINT IN STAFF'S FINDING. WHEN I HEAR THERE'S A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT EXISTS TODAY AND IT'S NOT A DEAD END AS PORTRAYED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THEN IT GIVES ME SOME PAUSE AND MAKES ME RECONSIDER MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ON THIS.

YEAH. JUST WE ALWAYS LOOK AT THE PHYSICAL ACTUAL ROADWAYS THAT ARE IMPROVED AND THEN WE ALSO LOOK AT ANY TONIGHTED PLANS BY THE COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS. IF IT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN ONE OF THOSE, STAFF USUALLY INTERPRETS IT AS IT'S AN UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY SO THERE'S NO ACCESS, CURRENT ACCESS TO IT. AND WHEN WE DESCRIBE IT TAS A DEAD-END ROAD, IT'S IN STAFF'S VIEW CURRENTLY A DEAD-END ROAD, YEAH. THANK YOU. SURE. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. YES, COMMISSIONER SIEBEN.

MR. PRESSMAN, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S INFORMATION, COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND EXPLAIN WHY A PD IS EXPENSIVE OR TOO EXPENSIVE OR TOO CUMBERSOME? WELL, I'LL SAY WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BUT TAKING VACANT LAND FROM SCRATCH WITHOUT EVEN A SURVEY, THERE'S JUST TREMENDOUS COST WITH SURVEYS, ENVIRONMENTAL, CIVIL ENGINEERS. WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE. IT WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION TO MAKE BUT THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO.

ARE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERING REQUIRED FOR PD? OH, YEAH. PDs ARE GOING THROUGH MONTH AFTER MONTH OF REVIEW. THE STANDARDS ARE VERY HIGH. THEY REQUIRE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PLANNING AND DETAILS. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY, IN YOUR OPINION, YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME -- SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IN YOUR OPINION -- YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME -- IS THE COST TO A CLIENT? JUST FOR MY OWN CURIOSITY PURPOSES. COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM $30,000 TO $50,000, COULD BE MORE. OKAY, THANK YOU.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, THOUGHTS? I THINK HIS LIGHT IS JUST ON. COMMISSIONER KUGLER, YOU DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, DO YOU? YEAH, NO. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. COMMISSIONER LINKOUS. I GUESS I'M JUST GOING TO NOTE SOME OF THE AGENCY COMMENTS AND IN PARTICULAR THE LIMITED CAPACITY THAT'S PRESENT THERE NOW, YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE A CONCERN FOR MY DECISION.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? GOING ONCE. COMMISCOMMISSIONER BOWDEN. THE THING THAT I HEARD AND READ FROM THE REPORT, THE CITY GOT THE DIFFERENT PETITIONS SIGNED AND ALSO KNOW THE AREA. THEY ARE A NUMBER OF NON-CONFORMING BUSINESSES IN THOSE AREAS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF SWAYS ME TO, YOU KNOW, NOT WANT TO OVERTURN THE STAFF'S FINDINGS.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COMMISSIONER LOUK.

I'LL JUST SAY THIS. I USUALLY DON'T TIP MY HAND THESE DAYS. I'M GOING TO VOTE WITH STAFF ON THIS BUT ALSO SAY FROM A MOVE-FORWARD STANDPOINT, IN THE PREVIOUS REPORT WE NOTED A FUTURE ROAD EXPANSION ON STATE HIGHWAY 60. WE DIDN'T TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT RIERNL THAT EXISTED AND WE ARE OBVIOUSLY CHARGED WITH LONG-TERM VISION HERE. WHEN WE LOOK AT ROADS THAT ARE ADJACENT AND AROUND IT, I THINK IT'S TO DESIGNATE WHAT THEY ARE TO BE IF WE WENT THROUGH A FULL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND NOT HANG ON A DEAD END SPACE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE HOLISTIC PLAN LONG-TERM AND NOT JUST TODAY AND MAKE OUR DECISIONS ON WHAT IS THERE TODAY. I AGREE THE ACCESS ISN'T RIGHT TODAY. I AGREE THAT IT IS ON A CURRENT DEAD-END ROAD BUT THERE IS A PUBLIC RIVAL RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT S AND IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. I THINK WE MISSED THE MARK ON THAT ONE. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK LONG-TERM AROUND WHAT THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE POTENTIALLY 5, 10, 20 YEARS AND NOT JUST WHAT EXISTS TODAY.

NIGEL JOSEPH: GOOD POINTS. WAY TO BE BRAVE AND TIP YOUR HAND, COMMISSIONER LOUK. US A NEW YOU THIS YEAR. [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. THEN I AM GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE AND OPEN IT UP TO MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER LINKOUS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FIND HC/CPA 25-30 INCONSISTENT WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. WHICH ONE OF YOU -- I HEARD TWO. FLIP A COIN OVER THERE. COMMISSIONER BOWDEN, ALL RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] GOT A MOTION OF INCONES BY COMMISSIONER LINKOUS, A SECOND TO THAT MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOWDEN. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE TAKE OUR VOTE? I WOULD VOTE ROLL CALL, MR. CHAIR. NIGEL JOSEPH: WE'LL KICK IT OVER TO TE CHAIR FOR ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ONE. BOWDEN. YES. CARDENAS. CONA. NO. KUGLER. YES. LINKOUS. YES. LOUK. YES. SIEBEN. JOSEPH. NIGEL JOSEPH: YES.

MOTION CARRIES 7-1. COMMISSIONER CONA VOTED NO. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. YES, COMMISSIONER SIEBEN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WITHIN OUR PRVIEW BUT YOU KNOW I LIKE TO DO THINGS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW NECESSARILY. YOU KNOW, I FIND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY DO TEND TO PREFER PDs I THINK IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I THINK THERE'S SOME PRESSURE TO PURSUE THAT PATH. I THINK MR. PRESSMAN'S POINT IS WELL MADE THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY BURDENSOME FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IN TRYING TO DO WHAT THEY CAN CAN THEIR LAND AND CREATE A HIGHEST AND BEST USE. I WONDER IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT CAN BE RESEARCHED THAT COULD PROVIDE US WITH SOME ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS POTENTIALLY OR SOME, YOU KNOW, FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE REQUIRED TO PURSUE A PD IF THIS IS THE PATH THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WANT TO TAKE. AND I JUST THINK THAT'S MAYBE SOMETHING WE COULD PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO AND MAYBE THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OR THE COUNTY TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT PREVIOUSLY.

NIGEL JOSEPH: I THINK MS. ZORNITTA HAS AN ANSWER.

YEAH. SO IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU SAY THAT. BACK IN 2008 WHEN WE UPDATED THE PLAN THEN, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THE PLAN CALLED FOR A PD TO OCCUR, PARTICULARLY IN MIXED USE CATEGORIES. SO WE WROTE IN SOME LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWED FOR AND CALLED FOR THE COUNTY TO ESTABLISH STANDARD ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALIGNED WITH THE MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THAT WAS IN 2008. WHEN WE UPDATED THE PLAN THIS LAST TIME IN -- WHAT WAS THAT? WE FINISHED IT IN '24. THEY HAD NOT DONE THAT. SO WE TOOK THAT LANGUAGE OUT. BUT WE HAD THE IDEA THAT THE PD PART OF THIS WOULD SUNSET BACK IN 2008 BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZED THAT PDs ARE MORE TIME AND MONEY AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO YES, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT APPROACH AS IT RELATES TO THESE CATEGORIES. IT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT IS THE SIZE THRESHOLD THAT IS TWO ACRES. WE HAVE A DIFFERENT THRESHOLD IN THE PLAN FOR WHEN IT IS REQUIRED THAT THEY ACTUALLY DO A MIX OF USES ON THE SITE THAT'S MUCH HIGHER. SO THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY TO INCREASE THE SIZE THRESHOLD. SO SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DO A PD. I MEAN THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS THAT COME TO MIND. SO AT ANY RATE, YES. WE'D BE HAPPY TO EXPLORE THAT.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MAYBE CONSIDER THAT FOR THE CITY AS WELL. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY IS PART OF THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE IS VERY ACTIVELY LOOKING AT THAT. WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THE DRAFTS OF THAT CODE, BUT I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR GOALS OF THAT REWRITE -- WAS TO REDUCE THE RELIANCE ON THE PD PROCESS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE CITY WHO COULD SPEAK TO THAT? NOT TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY CITY ITEMS. OKAY. BUT WE COULD TALK TO THEM ABOUT THAT AS WELL. ALL RIGHT, THANKS. SURE.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? NO. THEN WE WILL THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR INFORMATION. COMMISSIONER SOAP, YOU HAVE ONE MORE STOP AT THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS, SHOW UP TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THAT POINT IN TIME. THIS ISN'T THE FINAL SO YOU'VE STILL GOT MORE TO GO. NEXT UP, WE HAVE ITEM 2D, HC/CPA 25-31, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 12780 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD AND 2922 SHADY ACRES ROAD. AND THE PRESENTER IS TYREK ROYAL.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. TYREK ROYAL, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. I'LL BE PRESENTING HC/CPA 25-31 AT 12780 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD AND 2922 SHADY ACRES ROAD. THIS IS A SMALL SCALE MAP AMENDMENT WITH 4.45 ACRES. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE LAND USE ZEATH FROM RESIDENTIAL 1 TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IS IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. IT'S WITHIN THE RURAL AREA AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN. THIS IS THE AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE STOUT LINED IN PIMG LOCATED NORTH OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD. IT EXHIBITS A MIX OF LAND USES BY A DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY AND MOBILE HOME PARKS AS WELL AS THE CORRIDOR ALONG MLK THAT CONTAINS SEVERAL LONG-ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL AND UTILITY RELATED USES. RAILROAD TRACK RUNS PARALLEL TO MLK. TO THE EAST IS A U-HAUL AND VEHICLE STORAGE AND RV STORAGE WITH REPAIR OPERATIONS. FURTHER USE IS THE TAMPA BAY FISHERIES DIRECTLY WEST OF THE SITE IS A PUBLIC COMMENT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER. THESE ARE PHOTO VIEWS LOOKING TOWARDS THE SUBJECT SITE. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD IS BEHIND THE CAMERA. THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS MLK, THE SUBJECT SITE IS BEHIND THE CAMERA. YOU CAN SEE THE CSX RAILROAD TRACK IN THE VIEW. AND THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS SHADY ACRES AND MLK. THE SUBJECT SITE IS TO THE LEFT. THE SITE IS IN THE RES-1 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND LEWIS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL, FARMS, RARNS, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICES, MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS, COMMERCIAL USES ARE SUBJECT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. DESIGNATED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND TAMPA BAY FISHERIES YOU SEE HERE IN OPERATION NEARLY 30 YEARS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A

CHANGE OF THE FUTURE LAND USE FROM RES-1 TO LI. THE LI ALLOWS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR AGRICULTURAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES SUCH AS PROCESSING, MANUFACTURING, RECYCLING AND STORAGE OF MATERIALS AS A PREDOMINANT USE INCLUDING SUPPORT OFFICES, WAREHOUSING AND RETAIL USES. HERE'S THE IMPACTS. IT WOULD ELIMINATE ANY RESIDENTIAL CONTINUES AND HIGHER COMMERCIAL INTENSITY. THE DENSITY OF 1 DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE WOULD BE ELIMINATED AND FROM .25 F.A.R. AND 48,000 SQUARE FEET TO .75 OR APPROXIMATELY 175,000 SQUARE FEET. WE SENT THIS OUT FOR AGENCY REVIEW AND RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT COMMENTED BASED ON TRAFFIC THERE IS NOT CAPACITY EXCEPT FROM V VALRICO TO McINTOSH. IT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OUTLINED IN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER RISK, CONTAMINATION FROM RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USES. THE FOLLOWING POLICIES WERE CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF IN EVALUATION OF THIS AMENDMENT. AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND FOUND IT INCONSISTENT BASED ON THE GOALS GOALS OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING OBJECTIVE 1.2 RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT PATTERN EXPECTED IN THE RURAL AREA, RURAL AREA IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE LONG-TERM AGRICULTURAL USES, LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE PRESERVATION OF UNDEVELOPED NATURAL AREAS WHILE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES MAY EXIST IN THE RURAL AREA, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE MAXIMUM INTENSIVE AND DEVELOPMENT BEYOND WHAT IS TYPICALLY CONTEMPLATED IN AREAS MORE RURAL IN NATURE. F.L.U. OBJECTIVE 4.4 REQUIRE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES ARE FURTHER EAST AND A COMMUNICATION TOWER TO THE WEST, THE PREDOMINANT IS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURE USES. THE REQUESTED LI DESIGNATION WOULD NOT COMPLEMENT OR APPROPRIATELY INTEGRATE WITH USING RURAL CHARACTER. F.L.U. POLICY 4.8.1 REQUIRES HIGH INTENSITY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE LOCATED EXTERNAL TO EMERGING AND ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACCESSED BY ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR ROADWAYS. WHILE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS FRONTAGE ALONG MLK, THE SITE IS NOT EXTERNAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WITH THAT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT HC/CPA 25-31 BE FOUND INCONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMP PLAN. THANK YOU.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION?

GOOD EVENING, TODD PRESSMAN, 451 ST. PETERSBURG. THIS IS HC/CPA 25-31 WITH A COMPANION 25-1281. WE ARE LOCATED IN THE GENERAL SEFFNER AREA AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. MLK JR. BOULEVARD A LITTLE CLOSER. WE ARE LOCATED EAST OF VALRICO ROAD AND WEST OF McINTOSH ON 574 AND THIS IS AS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS IT ALONG MLK BOULEVARD. THE SITE IS COMPOSED OF TWO PARCELS, BOTH UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. THE ISSUES ARE RES-1 TO LI. AGAIN, THERE'S A ZONING COMPANION FROM AS-1 TO CI. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP OF THE AREA, YOU SEE THAT IT IS INTENSIVE. THE SITE IS DESIGNATED IN WHITE. THE SITE -- YOU HAVE A CI TYPE ZONING USE ON ONE SIDE AND YOU HAVE A CG ZONING, CNN ZONING, PD-C WHICH IS COMMERCIAL ZONING, OLDER DESIGNATION AND TWO MANUFACTURING CATEGORIES. THE EXISTING IS A RADIO TOWER COMPLEX ABUTTING AND THEN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TRUCK USES WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU BY PHOTOS THAT EXTEND UP TO THE EAST. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THIS AND REPORT TO YOU AND TELL YOU IT IS A SITE THAT IS A CORRIDOR ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD THAT HAS SEVERAL LONG ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AND UTILITY RELATED USES AND A RAILROAD LINE PARALLELS THE BOULEVARD. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LAND USE, UP LI-P ON ONE SIDE AND LI ON ONE SIDE, NOT ABUTTING, OF COURSE, BUT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SITE BEFORE YOU. AND THIS IS SUBSTANTIAL OF THE PD-C ON ONE OF THOSE ZONING

CATEGORIES I SHOWED YOU WHICH ALLOWS A WIDE RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES. NOW, IMPORTANTLY ABUTTING ON THE WEST WAS A SPECIAL USE APPROVAL, ON-0326 WHICH IS REFERRED TO AS A RADIO TOWER FARM. SOMETIMES WHAT IT WAS REFERRED TO. BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTES IN REGARD TO THAT USE ABUTTING ON THE WEST IS THAT IS A SITE FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TOWERS WHICH ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN HIGHER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS DUE TO THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS. SO APPROVAL ABUTTING WEST IS A VERY INTENSIVE USE ALREADY. AND AT THAT TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ZHM ALL APPROVED THAT USE AND NOW LOOKING ABUTTING EAST. WE HAVE INTENSIVE TRUCKING USE TO THE EAST. THIS IS RIGHT ACROSS THAT SMALL SHADY ACRES ROAD AND THEN EXISTING THE NEXT EASTWARD WOULD BE THIS SITE AGAIN ANOTHER TRUCKING USE. AND EXISTING ON CG, EASTWARD AGAIN IS THIS TRUCKING AND U-HAUL RETAIL USE. AGAIN THE ZONING MAP YOU SEE THAT INTENSITY. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IS THE RX RAILROAD TRACK AND RAILROAD CORRIDOR WHICH RUNS ALONG THE ROADWAY. YOU CAN SEE IT HERE. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTES AGAIN A RAILROAD TRACK RUNS ALONG MLK JR. BOULEVARD REFLECTING THE AREA'S ROLE AS TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICE CORRIDOR. IT IS A VERY INTENSIVE CORRIDOR ON TRAFFIC COUNTS BETWEEN 14,000 AND 11,000 A DAY. IT IS PART OF THE TRUCK ROUTE PLAN FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THIS IS NOT TITLED WELL. WHEN WE CAME IN FOR REZONING FOR THE SITE, PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT OF

THE PLANNINGS ON THE REZONING AT THAT TIME WHICH IS THAT DEVELOP RELATES TO THE PREDOMINANT CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDINGS. IT'S A REASONABLE COMPATIBLE FIT. SO SURROUNDED BY A MIX OF HIGHER INTENSITY USES. GOAL 3 OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN DIRECTS TOWARD U.S. 92 AND MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD CORRIDORS AND FOUND IT COMPATIBLE. REFERRING TO SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 3, SPECIFICALLY THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE ON, A VERY INTENSIVE ROADWAY AND AS YOUR STAFF INDICATES, IS A VERY INTENSIVE CORRIDOR ALONG WITH THE RAILROAD TRACK. GOAL 3, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO IT AND ENCOURAGE REVITALIZATION OF OLDER USES WHICH I THINK IS THIS AREA. WE ALSO HAVE DEVELOPED A SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FOR THE REQUEST WITH THESE PETITIONS. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, SIGNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHICH RELATES TO ALL OF THE -- VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE ABUTTING OWNERS AND A FEW MORE OF THE SITE AND ON THE OTHER SITE IS THE RADIO TOWER FARM WHICH IS THE INTENSIVE USE. SO THE SITE IS SURROUNDED EITHER BY SUPPORTERS OR INTENSIVE ZONING, INTENSIVE ZONING OR INTENSIVE USE. SO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS, WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION. ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ONE, SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSIONS. AND A REMINDER ON THIS ONE ALSO, IF WE'RE GOING TO OVERTURN STAFF'S INCONSISTENT OR VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO STAFF'S INCONSISTENT, WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO NEED SOME POLICIES, OBJECTIVES, GOALS POSSIBLY FROM COMMUNITY PLANS. YES, COMMISSIONER LOUK. QUESTION FOR STAFF. REGARDLESS OF THIS APPLICATION, DO WE FEEL LIKE THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE OF RES-1 IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA TODAY? AND I DON'T JUST MEAN THIS PARCEL, BUT I MEAN THIS CORRIDOR.

HEATHERE'S A COMMERCIAL CORRR ALONG MLK. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SPECIFIC USE OF COMMERCIAL IS ALLOWED IN THE RES-1. AND I THINK A CHANGE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS TOO INTENSE OF A FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY ESPECIALLY WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT WE SEE IN THIS AREA, SPECIFICALLY IN THE RURAL AREA. NIGEL JOSEPH: MS. ZORNITTA.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ADD -- BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT THAT TYREK MAKES. THE RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES DO ALLOW NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, LIKE OFFICES AND COMMERCIAL ALONG A CORRIDOR LIKE THIS. BUT THIS AREA IS A PART OF THE URBAN EXPANSION AREA THAT WE ARE STUDYING. SO IT IS PROBABLY AN AREA THAT OVER TIME WILL TRANSITION IN SOME WAY. WE JUST HAVEN'T COMPLETED THE STUDY TO DETERMINE HOW. THANK YOU. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? YEAH, COMMISSIONER KUGLER.

YES. JUST A THOUGHT. AND THIS IS PROBABLY FARTHER INTO THE FUTURE, BUT A LOT OF OUR COMP PLAN DOES LOOK FAR INTO THE FUTURE. AND THE THOUGHT IS THAT AT SOME POINT TAMPA IS EXPANDING, PLANT CITY IS EXPANDING AND TOWARD EACH OTHER. AT WHAT POINT DOES TAMPA SWALLOW UP PLANT CITY OR VISA VERSA. IF WE DON'T THINK AHEAD AND START TO CREATE OTHER CORRIDORS THAT PROVIDE A SEPARATION OF SPACE. SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU DON'T NOTICE IT IN ONE MOMENT, BUT AT A CERTAIN POINT YOU LOSE ENOUGH OF THIS AND THEN YOU SEE THAT YOU HAVE LOT THE IDENTITY OF THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S I THINK PART OF WHY OUR COMP PLAN EXISTS -- IS TO KEEP THOSE STABILITIES IN PLACE TO SOME EXTENT AND MANAGE GROWTH.

NIGEL JOSEPH: GOOD THOUGHTS. COMMISSIONER LINKOUS. YEAH. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT AND I THINK IT BUILDS ON WHAT MS. CITY ATTORNEA SAID. A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH IS PROBABLY WHAT IS CALLED FOR IN THIS AREA. NIGEL JOSEPH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LOUK, I SEE YOU MOVING.

YEAH. I GUESS THE LAST -- I DDN'T MAKE THE POINT THE LAST TIME I MADE THE QUESTION. THE POINT I MAKE IS THE MARKET IS TELLING US EXACTLY WHAT THIS AREA SHOULD BE BECAUSE IT IS WHAT IT IS TODAY WHEN YOU SEE THE USES UP AND DOWN THIS HEAVILY TRAVELED CORRIDOR WITH THE RAILROAD TRACKS. RES-1 IS CERTAINLY NOT THE APPROPRIATE LONG-TERM LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THIS. WE CAN ARGUE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL RELATED. BUT WHERE WE SIT TODAY IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AND WE REALLY TO NEED TO TAKE A LONG-TERM LOOK AT THIS AREA. I'M GLAD IT'S PART OF THE PLAN. NIGEL JOSEPH: MR. PRESSMAN, I SEE YOU MOVING OVER THERE. YOU HAD SOME THOUGHTS?

JUST TO RESPOND, IF I CAN GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT. SO JUST TO -- I'M LOOKING FOR THE ONE -- HERE IT IS. I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THERE IS LI TO THE EAST AND THERE'S LI TO THE WEST. AND I THINK IN REGARD TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, I THINK THE COMMUNITY PLAN POLICY, AS INDICATED IN THE RURAL OR RURAL AREA, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN NOTES TWO CORRIDORS THAT COMMERCIAL AND MORE INTENSIVE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO. AND I THINK I JUST SAY THAT IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE GOOD COMMENTS I HEARD FROM THE BOARD. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

NIGEL JOSEPH: NO PROBLEM. MR. PRESSMAN, IT'S FUNNY. IN MY BRIEFING, THAT MAP YOU PUT UP THERE WAS EXACTLY THE COMMENT I MADE TO MS. ZORNITTA. THERE'S INDUSTRIAL HERE AND INDUSTRIAL THERE AND IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD. THEN WE HAD THE SAME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE IT DIRECTS THAT SORT OF STUFF RIGHT TO MLK. I MADE ALMOST THE EXACT SAME POINTS YOU'RE MAKING HERE IN MY BRIEFING. AND I ALSO FOUND STAFF'S DECISION A LITTLE BIT STRANGE. BUT STAFF WILL BE STAFF. I WOULD SAY GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE, MR. CHAIRMAN. [LAUGHTER]

NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, IDEAS, OPINIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? AGAIN, REMEMBER, IF WE'RE MAKING A MOTION DIFFERENT FROM STAFF'S, WE NEED SOME POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES, SOMETHING TO GO WITH IT, SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. AND GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE ON THE COMMENTARY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT THEN AND OPEN IT UP TO MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER CONA. WHICH ONE ARE WE ON? "E"? NIGEL JOSEPH: "D."

I PUT MY CHECK DOWN TOO SOON. I MAKE A MOTION TO FIND HC/CPA 25-31 CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BASED ON THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL NUMBER 3. SECOND. NIGEL JOSEPH: ARE WE OKAY WITH ONE GOAL, TRACY? OR DO WE USUALLY WANT TO HAVE AT LEAST A COUPLE OR TWO? ONE WILL DO THE JOB, BUT IF YOU HAVE OTHERS YOU WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO USE ALL THOSE THAT APPLY.

NIGEL JOSEPH: WELL, ALL RIGHT. ONE IS GOOD. THAT'S A GOOD ONE BECAUSE IT DIRECTS IT TO MLK THERE FOR THE COMMUNITY PLAN. ON THE SMALLER SCALE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION OF CONSISTENCY FINDING BY COMMISSIONER CONA CITING GOAL 3 OF THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN. IS THERE A SECOND OUT THERE ANYWHERE? COMMISSIONER LOUK? I'LL SECOND AGAIN. NIGEL JOSEPH: WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT. OH, DID YOU SECOND ALREADY? SORRY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION OF CONSISTENCY FOUNDING BY COMMISSIONER CONA, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LOUK CITING GOAL 3 OF THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN. I'M JUST GOING TO SEND IT RIGHT OVER TO THE CLERK FOR A ROLL CALL ON THIS ONE. BOWDEN. YES. CARDENAS. YES. CONA. YES.

KEURIG. YES. LINKOUS. NO. LOUK. YES. SIEBEN. JOSEPH. NIGEL JOSEPH: YES. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. COMMISSIONER LINKOUS VOTED NO. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE INFORMATION AND THE TIME. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS 2E, HC/CPA 25-33, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT COLLEGE AVENUE AND 18th STREET SOUTHEAST. AND THE PRESENTER IS WILLOW MICHIE.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS WILLOW MICHIE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. I'M HERE TO PRESENT HC/CPA 25-33 LOCATED AT COLLEGE AVENUE AND 18th STREET SOUTHEAST. THIS IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED MAP AMENDMENT THAT IS SMALL IN SCALE AND APPROXIMATELY 19.53 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE 6 TO RESIDENTIAL 12. HERE IS THE GENERAL LOCATION MAP. THE SITE IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. HERE IS AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE OUTLINED IN PINK. IT IS LOCATED NORTH OF EAST COLLEGE AVENUE, WEST OF 21st STREET SOUTHEAST AND EAST OF SHELL POINT ROAD. WITHIN THE VICINITY ARE SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE WEST, NORTH AND EAST AND MOBILE HOME PARK USES TO THE WEST. EAST OF THE SITE, THERE IS VACANT LAND OWNED BY TEENAGE AND FURTHER EAST OF THAT A PARCEL WITH HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES THAT OPERATES AS AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP. ACROSS EAST COLLEGE AVENUE, THERE IS VACANT LAND, FEDERAL LAND, LIGHT COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL PARCELS. HERE WE HAVE SITE PHOTOS LOOKING AT THE SITE FROM 18th STREET SOUTHEAST AND EAST COLLEGE AVENUE INTERSECTION. THE SITE IS ON THE RIGHT. AND THIS PHOTO WE ARE LOOKING DOWN 18th STREET SOUTHEAST AND THE SITE IS ON THE LEFT. THIS IS LOOKING AT THE LAW OFFICE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SITE ON 18th STREET SOUTHEAST. THIS IS LOOKING DOWN 3rd AVENUE SOUTHEAST, SITE IS ON THE RIGHT. AND THIS PHOTO IS LOOKING ON TO THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO THE SITE. AND THE SITE IS TO THE RIGHT. THE SITE IS IN THE SMU-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THIS CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE USES, RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK USES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MULTIPURPOSE AND CLUSTERED RESIDENTIAL AND/OR MIXED USE.

OFFICE USES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LOLOCATIONAL CRITERIA. SURROUNDING LAND USE SMU-6 ON ALL SIDES WITH RESIDENTIAL 6 TO THE NORTHWEST AND RESIDENTIAL 4 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 11th AVENUE SOUTHEAST. THERE IS PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC LOCATED NORTH OF THE SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST SHELL POINT ROAD. WHILE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PARTICULAR MAP, THERE IS RESIDENTIAL 12 LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST OF THE SITE LONG EAST COLLEGE AVENUE AND COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 12 LOCATED FURTHER EAST NEAR THE I-75 CORRIDOR. THIS SLIDE, THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE SITE TO RESIDENTIAL 12 WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF USES SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THIS SLIDE OUTLINES THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE REQUESTED LAND USE CHANGE. CURRENTLY UNDER SMU-6, THE SITE CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR UP TO 117 DWELLING UNITS AND 425,363 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL. THE CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL 12 WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF 234 DWELLING UNITS AND 425,363 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BY ALLOWING HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. THIS PROPOSAL HA BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COMMENTING AGENCIES WHICH YOU CAN FIND IN YOUR PACKET UNDER THE AGENCY REVIEW SECTION. THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS, HOWEVER, THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FIRE-RESCUE DEPARTMENT ECONOMIEY COMMENTED THIS AMENDMENT MAY HAVE A FAS AN IMPACT ON RESPONSE TIMES. THE COMMUNITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTED THAT BASED ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED F.L.U. ON ALL IMPACTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS EXCEPT FOR A FEW SEGMENTS THAT

ARE LOCATED EAST OF THE SITE ALONG STATE ROAD 674. WHILE FORMATTING OR RECOMMENDATIONS, PC STAFF REVIEWS ALL RELATED POLICIES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REQUEST. THOUGH THE REQUEST IS RELATED TO SEVERAL GENERAL POLICIES, STAFF FOUND NINE MAIN AREAS OF CONSISTENCY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOW POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. POLICY 1.1 AND 1.1.5 RELATE TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. POLICY 2.2 AND 2.2.1 ESTABLISH PERMITTED LAND USES. THE PROPOSED USES FOR THE SITE ALIGN WITH THE RES POLICY AND CONSISTENT WITH THESE POLICIES. THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY USES ENCOURAGE GROWTH AND PREDICTABLE PATTERNS THROUGHOUT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM SMU-6 TO RES-12 WOULD ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY COMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY DEVELOPMENT AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE SURROUNDING LAND USE CONTEXT. THE PROPOSAL IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE 3.1 AND ITS ASSOCIATED POLICIES RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY. THE PROPOSED RES-12 DESIGNATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND EVOLVING CHARACTER FROM COLLEGE AVENUE AREA TO A MORE INTEGRATED MIX OF RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. OBJECTIVE 4.4 AND POLICY 4.4.1 EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF ENHANCING AND PRESERVING THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES. THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE RES-12 CATEGORY ARE COMPLEMENTARY WITH AND GENERALLY SIMILAR TO THE USES THAT EXIST CURRENTLY SURROUNDING THE SITE. IT WILL PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITIONS OF USE ENSURING THAT THE VERY MANY WILL BE COHESIVE AND SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG THE CORRIDOR. OBJECTIVE 6.3 ENCOURAGES

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

NIGEL JOSEPH: DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? [INDISTINCT CONVERSATION]

ALEX SCHALER, 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE HERE WITH A PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST. I'LL SKIP SOME DETAILS OUT OF RESPECT FOR EVERYONE'S TIME. I DID WANT TO NOTE -- THE AERIAL IS A LITTLE ZOOMED IN BUT THE SITE IS ONLY A MILE AND A HALF FROM I-75. VERY CLOSE TO AN AMENDMENT YOU ALL SAW EARLIER THIS EVENING. JUST UNDER 20 ACRES. AGAIN, THERE'S A WIDE RANGE OF USES THERE. THERE'S SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S COMMERCIAL. AND THEN SOME MOBILE HOME PARKS AS WELL. THIS TITLE BAR INCORRECTLY REFERENCES RES-9 BUT THIS REQUEST IS TO RES-12. THE TABLE IS CORRECT. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY IN ALL TRANSPARENCY WE STARTED OUT WITH CMU-12 AS A REQUEST FOR THE SITE. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, I THINK THERE WAS MAYBE A CORP ABOUT AN INCREASE IN F.A.R. WITH THE CMU-12 SO WE ENDED UP SWITCHING TO RES-12 SO THE F.A.R. STAYS AT .5 WHICH IS WHAT'S ALLOWED TODAY. IN TERMS OF PERMITTED USES ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CATEGORIES FOR THE MOST PART AS ALLOWED TODAY. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE DENSITY. WE HAD A HOST OF JUSTIFICATION POINTS IN OUR PROJECT NARRATIVE BUT I HAVE ONLY HIGHLIGHTED A COUPLE THIS EVENING FOR YOU ALL THAT WE FEEL ARE FASCINATE. THE FIRST -- AND THIS IS MENTIONED IN STAFF'S REPORT AS WELL, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND FOOTPRINT ON THIS SITE THE NEXT POINT IS IN REGARDS TO HOUSING, AND THIS WAS TOUCHED ON A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, IN ONE OF THE PRESENTATIONS BEFORE. BUT COLLEGE AVENUE HAS SEEN AN EXPLOSION OF GROWTH IN RECENT YEARS, SO THERE'S BEEN SOE NEW EMPLOYMENT CENTERS THAT HAVE POPPED UP THERE AND COME ONLINE, AS A RESULT OF THAT, PEOPLE NEED

A PLACE TO LIVE THAT WORK THERE. THE MOFFITT FACILITY WAS ALREADY MENTIONED EARLIER THIS EVENING. THAT'S A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT AMBULATORY CANCER CENTER, AND THERE'S ALSO SOME LARGE SCALE DISTRIBUTION, LOGISTICS, FULFILLMENT CENTERS IN THE AREA. THERE'S AN AMAZON FULFILLMENT CENTER, TWO MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE. THIS AREA IS IMPLYING A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THIS IS A GREAT AERIAL TO SHOW. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A PICTURE THERE'S A DECENT FOOTPRINT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM A QUICK GLANCE, I THINK THIS AREA IS MISSING KIND OF THAT PIECE IN THE MIDDLE. NOT EVERYONE IS IN THAT SAME DEMOGRAPHIC IN PURCHASING A HOME, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES IN THE AREA, SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE APARTMENTS AND RENTAL HOUSING THERE AS WELL. I KNOW THAT STAFF WENT THROUGH A GROWING CONSISTENCY REPORT. THESE WERE PULLED FROM THE STAFF REPORTS AND I DID WANT TO CONCLUDE WITH AS WILLOW MENTIONED, STAFF FOUND THIS CONSISTENT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS, THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? EVERYONE SEEMS PRETTY SATISFIED. ALL RIGHT. GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE? CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE, AND OPEN IT UP TO MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I FIND 25-33 CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SECOND. NIGEL JOSEPH: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE TAKE OUR VOTE? WILL EVERYONE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? AYE.

NIGEL JOSEPH: OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS AN EASY ONE. NEXT UP WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 2-F. HC/CPA25-34. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT. 8400 WEST WATERS AVENUE.

WILLOW MICHIE, I'M HERE TO PRESENT HC/CPA25-34 LOCATED AT 8400 WEST WATERS AVENUE. THIS IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED MAP AMENDMENT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM RESIDENTIAL 9 TO RESIDENTIAL 16. HERE'S THE GENERAL LOCATION MAP, THE SITE IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN. HERE'S AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE, OUTLINED IN PINK. IT'S LOCATED NORTH OF WEST WATERS AVENUE, AND EAST OF SHELDON ROAD. THE SURROUNDING AREA IS PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE UPPER TAMPA BAY WATERSHED LIES TO THE WEST-NORTHWEST WITH ADDITIONAL MOBILE HOME PARK USES ON THE WEST SIDE. LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE. AS WELL AS TO THE WEST OF SHELDON ROAD AND WEST WATERS AVENUE. THIS IS LOOKING AT THE ENTRANCE FROM WEST WATERS AVENUE. THIS PHOTO IS LOOKING ON TO THE SITE FURTHER DOWN FROM THE ENTRANCE. STILL IN WEST WATERS AVENUE. AND THIS IS LOOKING AT THE SECOND ENTRANCE FROM THE SITE LOOKING DOWN. THIS IS A PHOTO LOOKING AT THE TAMPA FAMILY HEALTH CENTER THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET TO THE LEFT OF THE SITE. AND HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT RETAIL ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SITE. APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET FROM THE SITE. THE SITE IS IN THE RES-9 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THIS ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD. SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES INCLUDE RES 9 WITH RES 12 FURTHER TO THE WEST. TO THE EAST, BEYOND THE RES 9 ARE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20. RESIDENTIAL 6 SURROUNDS THE SITE

TO THE NORTH, NORTHEAST AND WEST. RESIDENTIAL 4 AND RESIDENTIAL 2 ARE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE SITE. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE SITE TO RESIDENTIAL 16, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF USES SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE USES, MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THIS SLIDE OUTLINES THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE REQUESTED LAND USE CHANGE. CURRENTLY UNDER RES-9, THE SITE CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR 777 DWELLING UNITS. THE CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL 16 WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF 670 DWELLING UNITS AND 913 SQUARE FEET OF RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INCREASED IN POTENTIAL BY ALLOWING HIGH DENSITY. YOU CAN FIND THE AGENCY REVIEW SECTION IN YOUR PACKET. THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, RESPONDED THAT THIS WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON RESPONSE TIMES. THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT MENTIONED THERE WILL NOT BE ACCESSIBILITY ON ROADWAYS. THERE WILL BE HUNDREDS MORE RESIDENTS WITH STORM SURGE. WHICH WILL PLACE FRTHER STRAIN ON SHELTER CAPACITY. WHILE FORMULATING OUR RECOMMENDATION, PC STAFF REVIEWS ALL RECOMMENDED POLICIES, THE REQUEST IS RELATED TO SEVERAL GENERAL POLICIES, STAFF FOUND 8 MAIN AREAS OF CONSISTENCY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1 CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIVES AND POLICIES. OBJECTIVE 1.1 AND POLICY 1.1.3 RELATE TO THE URBAN SERVICE

AREA, AND ENCOURAGE HIGH, MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY WITHIN THE USA TO BE LOCATED ALONG DESIGNATED CENTERS AND CONNECTIONS, WITH THE SITE IS PARTIALLY WITHIN. OBJECTIVE 2.2 AND POLICY 2.2.1 SET ESTABLISHED LAND USES. THE LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THESE POLICIES. OBJECTIVE 2.4 AND 2.5, ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED POLICIES, OUTLINE THE CENTER AND CONNECTION SECTION, THE PROPOSAL MEETS THESE BY ENCOURAGING HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THESE AREAS AND PROVIDING DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES. THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FLU OBJECTIVE 3.1 AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES RELATED TO CATABILITY. THE LAND USE CATEGORY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT LAND USE PATTERN. OBJECTIVE HAD.3.5 AND 4.3.12 RELATE TO THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, MOBILE HOME PARKS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE CHHA. ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE WERE USUALLY LOCATED IN THE CHHA HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CPA REQUEST. OBJECTIVE 4.4 EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF ENHANCING AND OBSERVING THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES. THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE RES16 CATEGORY WOULD APPROPRIATELY INTEGRATE WITH THE ADJACENT LAND USES. LASTLY, OBJECTIVES 1.1 AND 1.2 AND THE ASSOCIATED POLICIES IN THE HOUSING SECTION SUPPORT A RANGE OF HOUSING OPTIONS TO AFFORDABLY MEET THE NEEDS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS. SPECIFICALLY, MOBILE HOMES SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS A VIABLE MEANS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. GOAL THREE FOCUSES ON STRENGTHENING CODE ENFORCEMENT

EFFORTS. A HIGH LEVEL OF CODE ENFORCEMENT MAKING THIS REQUEST UP TO CURRENT STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THIS GOAL. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION?

COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING, JAKE KRAMER. I'M GOING TO START THE APPLICATION, BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE THAT ARE HERE FOR THIS APPLICATION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY CAN REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY. ITS AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION, I'VE NEVER SEEN A FACT PATTERN QUITE LIKE THIS. THIS PROPERTY WILL HOPEFULLY GIVE US THE SHORT VERSION OF THE HISTORY IN A MINUTE. THIS PROPERTY HAS OVER THE YEARS BEEN PERMITTED IN DIFFERENT WAYS. CURRENTLY ITS PERMITTED AS AN A.L.F. THE CONCERN OR THE PROBLEM AROSE WHEN THE A.L.F. ON THE PROPERTY CLOSED, WITH A.L.F.'S WE COUNT THE PERSONS ON THE PROPERTY, NOW WE HAVE UNITS. WHEN THE A.L.F. CLOSED, NOW THE PROPERTY IS BEING MEASURED BY UNITS UNDER THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. OUR ONLY GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THE PROPERTY IS BROUGHT INTO THE MODERN STANDARDS OF THE COMP PLAN IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE HAVE FILED A PD IN PROCESS, WE JUST RECENTLY GOTTEN OUR DRC, OUR INITIAL ROUND OF COMMENTS BACK FROM STAFF. WE'RE WORKING THAT THROUGH WITH THEM. AND BIG PICTURE AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR RES16, WE FEEL LIKE EVEN IF YOU TOOK ALL THE KEEPING THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE NOW, KEEPING THEM IN PLACE, WE STILL THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S OC20 AND R20, A STONE'S THROW AWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY. SO WITH THAT, I'LL LET DAVID GIVE YOU THE SHORT VERSION OF THE TORTURED HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY, AND THE PLANNING CONTEXT. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, DAVID SMITH. DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING FOR STEARNS WEAVER MILLER. JAKE EMPHASIZED SHORT VERSION, I'LL TRY TO MAKE IT SHORT. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1970. 1975 WAS A MOBILE HOME PARK. 1984, REPLACED WITH LARGER UNITS AND STRUCTURES TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY. THE STRUCTURE WAS SUPPORTED TO BE CONVERTED TO AN A.L.F., 1987 SINGLE MOBILE HOMES WERE CONVERTED TO QUAD AND TRIPLEX UNITS. AND HAD THE R3MH DESIGNATION. 1990s, MANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONFORMANCE, IT WAS UPDATED, THIS SITE GOT A ZONING CONFORMANCE DESIGNATION, ALLOWING IT TO HAVE 1901 PLACED PERSONS OR A MIX OF USES INCLUDING MOBILE HOMES UNDER THE RMH STANDARDS, THAT'S WHERE THE ISSUE STARTED TO COME UP. 2006, AN A.L.F. BUILDING, SPECIAL PURPOSE BUILT, STICK BUILT, 56 BEDS WAS ADDED TO THE PROPERTY. 2013 WAS REZONED AGAIN. COUNTY PROPERTY BECAME AVAILABLE, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, THERE WAS NO OTHER REASONABLE PURCHASER FOR IT, IT WAS ADDED TO THE SITE. AT THAT TIME THEY'RE RECOGNIZING THE A.L.F. USE, THEY ALSO RECOGNIZE THE GRANDFATHERING OF KITCHENS AND INDIVIDUAL UNITS. THAT'S THE KEY ISSUE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU CAN HAVE FIVE PLACED PERSONS UNDER THE DWELLING UNIT, UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE 80s. YOU WERE A DWELLING UNIT IF YOU

WERE A KITCHEN. IN THE A.L.F.'S THEY STARTED ALLOWING KITCHENS. SO THEY STARTED GRANDFATHERING A.L.F. UNITS THAT HAD A BEDROOM, A BATHROOM AND A KICHEN. THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION WE HAVE TODAY. 2020, THE A.L.F. CLOSES. REINTRODUCTION IS NOT EXPECTED. WE FILE THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT TO REZONE AND DO A PLAN AMENDMENT TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. HERE'S THE AERIAL HISTORY, CAN YOU BASICALLY SEE OVER TIME WHAT I DESCRIBED, PROBABLY FROM 1987 ON. NOT A LOT CHANGED ON THE SITE, OTHER THAN THE STICK BUILT A.L.F. BUILDING BEING PUT IN PLACE. HERE'S THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP PRESENTED BY STAFF ALREADY. IT'S R-9, LOOKING TO GO TO R-16, THERE'S AN EXISTING P.D. THAT I DISCUSSED. AND REALLY THE WHOLE ISSUE COMES DOWN TO UNDER TODAY'S STANDARDS, WITH THE INDIVIDUAL KITCHENS AND INDIVIDUAL UNITS, WE HAVE 669 DWELLING UNITS ON SITE. UNDER THE DPRE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TODAY WITHOUT THE 56789 L.F., WE WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED THE 300 PLUS THAT STAFF O MENTIONED. THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS ONLY FOR THE PORTION OF THE SITE OUTSIDE THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, THERE'S ABOUT THREE MORE ACRES OF RES 9 IN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT. WE'RE TRYING TO PUT A PLANNED CATEGORY ON IT, THAT ALLOWS THE 669 EXISTING DWELLING UNITS TO BE RECOGNIZED, ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO REMAIN THERE, UNDER COMPLIANT DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT RISK OF HAVING TO BE MOVED, BASED UPON CODE ENFORCEMENT

ACTIONS THAT WILL BE PLACED. THIS IS REALLY THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THIS SITUATION. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RIGHT BEFORE WE DECIDED, ONLY A FEW, STAFF HAS COME UP WITH MANY POLICIES, WE'RE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, WE HAVE CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER. THERE'S HART ROUTE IN FRONT OF US, THERE'S A BUS STOP ALREADY EXISTING WITH SHELTER. A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE REMOVED WITH THE POLICY. CENTERS AND CONNECTIONS, THIS IS ALREADY A CORRIDOR DESIGNATED WHERE HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES ARE PROPOSED. I THINK THAT CAN EMPHASIZE MANY MORE TIMES, IS THAT NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGING ON THIS SITE. IT'S A DEVELOPED MOBILE HOME PARK THAT HAS MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS IN A MODULAR HOME SETTING, AND INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOME SPACES. THE ENTIRE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO RECOGNIZE WHAT IT IS. THE ZONING IS TRYING TO RECOGNIZE WHAT IS THERE, AND THE CONFIGURATION IT'S IN TO ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO REMAIN. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO JAKE FOR THE COMMITTEE MEETING WE HELD.

THANK YOU, JAKE KRAMER. I'M PUTTING IN THE RECORD, A SUMMARY OF OUR COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE THAT OCCURRED LAST WEEK, WE FINISHED IT TODAY, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO UPLOAD IT. I WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, WE DID GET A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE UNDERSTANDABLY SCARED WHEN THEY GOT THIS LETTER, THAT THESE THINGS WERE GOING ON. WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING, MULTIPLE SPANISH LANGUAGE TRANSLATORS THERE, WE ALSO HAD OUR WHOLE TEAM THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, HAD REALLY GOOD TURNOUT, REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK. WE GOT FEED BOOK ON IMPROVEMENTS THE OWNER CAN MAKE TO THE PROPERTY, BY AND LANGUAGE, THE PEOPLE, ONCE THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE DOING THIS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES. WE GOT VERY POSITIVE FEEDBACK. SO WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE. STAFF AGAIN IS SUPPORTING THIS, IN PROBABLY THE MOST ROBUST STAFF REPORT I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. STAFF WORKED REALLY HARD ON THIS ONE, IT'S A LONG REPORT. WITH THAT, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. WE HAD TWO INDIVIDUALS ONLY SIGN UP IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. I WILL SEE IF THEY ARE ON THE LINE. THEY SIGNED UP VIRTUALLY, I'M LOOKING FOR A PAMELA CONRAD OR MARK CONRAD. YES, GOOD EVENING. NIGEL JOSEPH: PLEASE GO AHEAD, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

I RESIDE IN THE RIVER OAKS ESTATE, IT IS LOCATED EAST, WEST, IT'S NOT THE SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE ROCKY CREEK VILLAGE. THERE'S TWO ROADS THAT LEAD INTO THERE OPINION ONE OF THEM WOULD BE USED FOR TRUCKS, AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD STAY CLOSED, BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE STREETS. WE'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1960. ADDING THAT MUCH TRAFFIC TO OUR AREA IS GOING TO BE A LOT. WE BARELY GET OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOW. AS IT IS, WE CAN'T GO LEFT, WE HAVE TO MAKE A RIGHT, GO TO THE LIGHT, TRY NOT TO GET KILLED. THE FEAR IS THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC YOU'RE GOING TO ADD. CAN THE OWNER SELL THIS PROPERTY AND BUILD APARTMENT COMPLEXES? WOULD THAT NOT BE SOMETHING THEY CAN DO AT A LATER TIME? I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM STAYING THERE, THAT'S THEIR HOME, THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME, IT'S HOW IS IT GOING TO AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR ABILITY TO GET IN AND OUT.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, MY HUSBAND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT HIS CONCERN WAS FOR THE RESOURCES FOR THE FIRLD AND ALL OF THE OTHER RESOURCES THAT WE NEED. NIGEL JOSEPH: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT IT? THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL WE HAD SIGN UP IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ONE. I'LL TURN IT BACK OFFICER TO YOU, MR. KRAMER.

THANK YOU, DAVID SMITH. A COUPLE THINGS, GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL THEME. 669 UNITS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFTER, ESSENTIALLY, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS WERE FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, ARE EXPECTED TO BE THE SAME PATTERNS, ALSO, WHEN THE AGENCY'S REVIEWED THIS, THEY REVIEWED IT AS A NEW UNIT. THEY SAY THERE'S NO CAPACITY ON THE ROAD, THESE CARS ARE ALREADY ON THE ROAD. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT I REACHED OUT TO THEM IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN 22 CALLS TO THIS IN FIVE YEARS. THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAD 17, OF WHICH 8 WERE REFERRED TO THE FIRE RESCUE, THEY'RE DOUBLE COUNTED. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, THE CONCERNS ARE RELATIVE TO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS, REALLY NOTHING IS PROPOSED TO CHANGE WITH THIS PROPOSAL FROM WHAT THEY SEE TODAY. THE NUMBERS ON THE MAP, THE LETTER DESIGNATION, THE COLORS THAT SHOW UP ON THE LAND USE PLAN, THAT'S ALL THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE, THE ACCESS POINT THAT STAFF POINTED OUT IS A SECOND ACCESS, THERE'S ONLY A -- WE'RE NOT DOING THE ZONING, BUT THAT ROAD ONLY LEADS TO THE EMERGENCY FIRE AND SERVICE ACCESS. THAT IS NOT THE RESIDENT ACCESS. THE ONLY ACCESS WE HAVE IT ON WALTERS AVENUE, AND THERE WILL NOT BE ACCESS. THERE WILL NOT BE ADDITIONAL ACCESS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS REALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC WHO AREN'T LAND USE NERDS LIKE US, WHO DO THIS EVERY DAY. THE REASON WE FILED THE PD WAS SO THAT EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC CAN LOOK AT THE SAME DOCUMENT WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOUR STAFF AND COUNTY STAFF LOOKS AT, THEY CAN SAY ON THE PLAN EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE KEEPING AND WE'RE ALL IN WRITTEN CONDITIONS. WE COMMITTED TO YOUR STAFF AND COUNTY STAFF, THAT WE WILL NOT TAKE THIS APPLICATION TO A HEARING, UNLESS IT'S TOGETHER WITH A PD. OUR TEAM IS HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA WAS REMOVED FROM THE REQUEST, IT WAS STATED. WHAT DID YOU DO TO REMOVE THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD FROM THE REQUEST?

IT'S A SEMANTICS ISSUE. THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA IS ABOUT 2.4 ACRES. SO OUR REQUEST FOR A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS FOR RES 16 ONLY AND A PORTION OF THE SITE OUTSIDE THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. THERE'S A PORTION STILL IN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, IT'S CAPPED AT THE DENSITY WE CAN HAVE NOW. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS CONCERNED. NIGEL JOSEPH: ANY THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS?

I'M NOT SEEING A LOT OF EXCITEMENT HERE. I WILL GO ON AHEAD, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE, AND OPEN IT UP TO MOTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA, HAVING -- I LIVE PROBABLY A COUPLE MILES AWAY FROM IT. I APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S WORK IN THIS, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD SOLUTION TO A VERY COMPLEX CHALLENGE. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE HC/CPA25-34 AND FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SECOND.

NIGEL JOSEPH: QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, STATEMENT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE TAKE OUR VOTE? WOULD ALL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. NIGEL JOSEPH: OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS, 2G, HC/CPA25-35, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT, 6210 COUNTY ROAD 579 URBAN SERVICE AREA EXPANSION. AND THE PRESENTER IS ALEXIS MYERS.

ALEXIS MYERS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, I'M HERE TO PRESENT HC/CPA25-35 AT 6210 COUNTY ROAD 549 URBAN SERVICE AREA EXPANSION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, THIS AMENDMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH HC/CPA25-36, WHICH IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM R-4 TO SMU-6 THIS AMENDMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITHIN THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN. HIGHER'S THE AERIAL OF THE SITE, THE SITE 1 OUTLINED IN PINK, AND THE BLUE LINE INDICATES THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. THE SITE HAS WETLANDS AND IS IN EVACUATION ZONE E AND FEMA FLOOD ZONE X. THERE ARE RV USES AND AGRICULTURE TO THE WEST. THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HEIGHTS LANDFILL IS DIRECTLY EAST ACROSS COUNTY ROAD 579. LASTLY THERE ARE COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, JUST WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. HERE'S SOME PHOTOS, THIS IS LOOKING ON TO THE SUBJECT SITE FROM COUNTY ROAD 579. THIS IS LOOKING ON TO THE PROPERTY FROM COUNTY ROAD 579. THIS IS LOOKING WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE FROM COUNTY ROAD 579. AND THIS IS LOOKING EAST. THIS IS DIRECTLY EAST, WHICH IS THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HEIGHTS LANDFILL. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BRING 34 ACRES INTO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. AT A MINIMUM, CONNECTION TO WATER AND SEWER. THE FOLLOWING POLICIES WERE CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, IN EVALUATION

OF THE AMENDMENT. PC STAFF REVIEWS OUR POLICIES REGARDING THE PROPOSED REQUEST. THOUGH THE REQUEST IS RELATED TO SEVERAL GENERAL POLICIES, STAFF FOUND SIX MAIN AREAS OF CONSISTENCY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PLAN REQUIRES THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA DEMONSTRATE THAT CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET, BEFORE AN EXPANSION INTO THE USA CAN OCCUR. THE SUBJECT SITE IS MAINLY ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE LAZY DAYS RV CENTER, IS IDENTIFIED AS 62934.0000. A PORTION OF WHICH LIES IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH 1.3.2. AS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING 2050 PROJECTIONS, THE CURRENT DENSITY ANALYSIS IS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO ACCOMMODATE HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, FURTHER SUPPORTING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE REQUESTED CHANGES. OBJECTIVE 3.1 DIRECTS THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND RECOGNIZES THE EXISTING COMMUNITY THAT IS COMPATIBLE TO THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AS FURTHER DEFINED IN POLICY 3.1.3. AS NOTED, THE SUBJECT SITE IS DIRECTLY CONTIGUOUS TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, SURROUNDED BY A COMBINATION OF MIXED USES, COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL, QUASI PUBLIC. SUBURBAN MIXED USE 6, AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12 ARE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH ACROSS SLIGH AVENUE.

PROPOSED EXPANSION WOULD LOGICALLY EXTEND. THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING POLICIES, ENCOURAGING GROWTH THAT IS SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT WHILE PROTECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES. LASTLY, TH PROPOSED URBAN SERVICE AREA EXPANSION ALIGNS WITH THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN AND GOALS, AND ENHANCING THONOTOSASSA'S UNIQUE CHARACTER, A SENSE OF PLACE, A SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TYPES, LIVING ARRANGEMENTS. COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT USES CONSISTENT WITH TE SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION FOR HC-CPA25-35.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, JAKE KRAMER AGAIN. WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I'M GOING TO GIVE FOR BOTH THE APPLICATIONS, I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH MY PRESENTATION NOW I THINK YOU NEED THAT TO HAVE THE FULL IDEA. NIGEL JOSEPH: IF YOU CAN KEEP IT WITHIN 15 MINUTES.

THIS IS A LOGICAL EXPANSION OF THE CURRENT USA. WE'RE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA THAT YOUR TEAM IS LOOKING AT TODAY. THIS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE USA FROM DAY ONE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LOCATION MAP, YOU CAN SEE -- YOU HAVE HAD SEVERAL APPLICATIONS, PROBABLY OVER THE LAST YEAR, DEALING WITH THIS 579 CORRIDOR. I KNOW YOU STRUGGLED WITH SOME OF THOSE APPLICATIONS, I HOPE YOU DON'T STRUGGLE WITH THIS ONE. WE'RE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE COUNTY LANDFILL, WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS COMMERCIALIZING AND INDUSTRIALIZING CORRIDOR. I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW WE EXCLUDED A PRETTY SIZABLE PORTION OF THE PARCEL. THIS IS GOING TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE, WETLANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS. THE BUFFER TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS TO THE WEST AS WELL. WITH THAT, YOU CAN SEE HERE, TE CURRENT VERSUS THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE USA WAS ADOPTED IN 1993. THIS PD CAME ALONG VERY SHORTLY AFTER. THIS PD CAME ALONG, PART OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE USA BOUNDARY, SO YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT PART OF THE PROPERTY IN THE

USA, PART OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT WE HAVE MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS -- YOU CAN SEE THE SHAPE OF THIS -- THE PD, AND THIS REQUIRES CONNECTION TO WATER AND WASTEWATER. THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROPRIATE FOR PROVIDING UTILITIES, AND IT'S A MYSTERY WHY IT WASN'T INCLUDED FROM DAY ONE. THIS PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED, IT IS CONNECTED TO UTILITIES TODAY. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE. IT'S WITHIN THAT URBAN EXPANSION BOUNDARY YOU ALL ARE TAKING A LOOK AT NOW. IT'S WITHIN THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH IMPORTANTLY RECOGNIZES 579 SOUTH OF PRUITT, AS THIS COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, AS THIS INDUSTRIALIZING CORRIDOR AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW. AND I DIDN'T KNOW THIS, BUT DOING OUR RESEARCH, WE FOUND THAT BACK IN 1995, AGAIN, THINKING ABOUT WHEN THE USA CAME INTO EXISTENCE, THIS BODY RECOGNIZED THIS -- BACK THEN, SEEMED TO BE AN EVOLVING CORRIDOR. HERE'S WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE INTENSITY OF THIS AREA, THAT MIGHT NOT BE APPARENT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PHOTO. YOU HAVE THE VERY LARGE LAZY DAYS PD ALREADY, WE HAVE THE COUNTY'S WASTE FACILITY. AND THEN UP TO THE SOURCE, WE HAVE FLORIDA BIOSOLIDS, AND MAKE

CO SOIL'S RECYCLING, WHICH IS A PRETTY INTENSE COMPOSTING OPERATION. EVERYONE RECOGNIZES EVERYONE SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO USE COUNTY UTILITIES. WE PREPARED THAT, I WANT TO JUST GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT, SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, AND GET TO THE BIG PICTURES WE'RE REQUESTING SMU-6. WE'RE REQUESTING SMU6, WE HAVE CMU12 ON THE CURRENT PROPERTY. YOU HAVE CMU12 COVERING A PORTION OF THE LAZY DAYS NOW. THERE'S SMU6 ALREADY THERE AGAIN. ALREADY WITHIN THE CURRENT PD. WE THINK SMU6 IS A BETTER TRANSITION TO GO FROM CMU12 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO R-4. FROM A COMPATIBILITY STANDPOINT, WE WERE LOOKING AT, IS THIS APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU CONSIDER ALL THE INTENSITY IN THIS AREA. AND JUST AGAIN BE, TO BEAT THIS DEAD HORSE, IT'S AN AREA IN TRANSITION, IT HAS BEEN FOR A NUMBER OF DECADES, AND YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THE APPLICATIONS COME TO YOU VERY RECENTLY, THAT ULTIMATELY HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WE THINK THEY'VE SET SOME POLICY DIRECTION AGREEING WITH THIS INDUSTRIALIZING CORRIDOR. JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE PHOTOGRAPHS TO SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE.

THIS IS AMAZON AND CAST CREEK. THIS IS ON A TRUCK ROUTE, OF COURSE. WE'LL KEEP THIS SHORT, AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR SMALL EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. WE HAVE FILED A PD ON THIS PROPERTY, SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET, WHEN WE GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SO THAT HAS BEEN FILED AND WE'RE WORKING WITH COUNTY STAFF ON THAT. THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU. NOOIJSZ WE DID NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONERS FOR COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS. COMMISSIONER LOUK?

NIGEL JOSEPH: NO, MA'AM, IT'S FOR THE BOARD NOW, NOT FOR THE AUDIENCE. OKAY, THIS TO -- NIGEL JOSEPH: NO, MA'AM, IT'S JUST FOR THE FIRST ONE. THANK YOU, URBAN SERVICE AREA. I THINK IT'S BECOME LIKE THE WET FLOOR SIGN YOU SEE WHEN YOU COME INTO A STORE, EVERYONE SEES IT, EVERYONE TENDS TO IGNORE IT. THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I'M GOING TO MAKE ABOUT THE URBAN SERVICE AREA REQUEST. NOT HELPFUL. BUT --

NIGEL JOSEPH: COULDN'T RESIST, IT'S A NEW YEAR AND EVERYTHING. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE? I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE WE MOVE HC/CPA25-35 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND IN ORDER IT TO THE GOVERNING BODY FOR APPROVAL. SECOND.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE TAKE OUR VOTE? WE'LL ALL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. NIGEL JOSEPH: OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT UP, WE HAVE 2H. HC/CPA25-36. THE PRESENTER IS AGAIN ALEXIS MYERS.

GOOD EVENING. HERE TO PRESENT HC/CPA25-36 LOCATED AT 6210 COUNTY ROAD 579. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 34 ACRES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM R-4 TO SUBURBAN 6. THIS IS THE GENERAL LOCATION MAP. THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH 25-35 TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, IT'S IN THE RURAL AREA AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN. HERE IS THE AERIAL OF THE SITE, THE SITE IS -- AND THE BLUE LINE INDICATES THE EXISTING URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY. HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS, THIS IS LOOKING TO THE SUBJECT SITE, THIS IS LOOKING ON TO THE PROPERTY FROM COUNTY ROAD 579. THIS IS LOOKING WEST OF CON COUNTY ROAD 579 AND THIS IS LOOKING EAST. THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HEIGHTS IS DIRECTLY EAST -- ACROSS COUNTY ROAD 579. CURRENTLY THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL 4, THE R-4 CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR 0.4 GROSS ACRES. THIS ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MULTIUSE PURPOSES. OTHER CATEGORIES INCLUDE SMU-6 AND CMU-12 TO THE SOUTH. PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC TO THE SOUTH EVEN R-1 TO THE EAST. THE SUBURBAN MIXED USE 6 CATEGORY ALLOWS 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THIS DESIGNATION ALLOWS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE USES, RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK USES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MULTIPURPOSE AND CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL AND/OR MIXED USE.

OFFICE USES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. NEXT ARE THE IMPACTS, AS FAR AS EXISTING CONDITIONS, CURRENTLY UNDER RES-4, THE SITE COULD CONSIDER 136 DWELLING UNITS. UNDER THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE IS SMU6. THE SITE WOULD CONSIDER 204 DWELLING UNITS, MAXIMUM INTENSITY OF 740,000 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL USES. DURING THE ZONING PROCESS, COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA MAY AFFECT THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN THE INCREASE OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BY ALLOWING HIGHER RESIDENTIAL AND GREATER COMMERCIAL INTENSITY. WHILE FORMULATING OUR RECOMMENDATION, PC STAFF REVIEWS OUR POLICIES REGARDING THIS PROPOSED REQUEST. THE STAFF FOUND SIX MAIN AREAS OF CONSISTENCY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SUBJECT SITE MEETS THE OBJECTIVE OF 3 HADN'T 1, 4.4 AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS DIRECTLY CONTIGUOUS TO THE ESTABLISHED URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND SUR ROUNDED BY A COMBINATION OF MIXED USE, PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC. THE POLICY MEETS 3.1.2 AND 4.7.4 OF THE SMU-6 DESIGNATION ON THE SUBJECT SITE. AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, WOULD PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION IN INTENSITY AND DENSITY, WHILE REMAINING COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH FUTURE LAND USE SECTION 4.2,

WHICH STRESSES THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN MIXED USE CATEGORIES SHOULD BE INTERCONNECTED TO ENSURE COHESIVE GROWTH. AS NOTED, THE SMU DESIGNATION IS DIRECTLY SOUTH TO THE SUBJECT SITE ACROSS SLY AVENUE, IN COMBINATION WITH ADJACENT COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH 1.1 AND OBJECTIVE 1.3 OF THE ONE WATER SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS THEY FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT IN AN AREA SERVED BY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, WHILE ENSURING THAT SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ARE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED POLICIES AND REGULATORY STANDARDS. THE PROPOSAL ALIGNS WITH THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN. GOALS OF PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THONOTOSASSA'S UNIQUE CHARACTER. SUPPORTING A DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES, COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. WITH THIS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES WITH THE UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. MR. KRAMER? THANK YOU, JAKE KRAMER. I'LL JUST REST ON THE PREVIOUS REPORT. I'M NOT USED TO HAVING SO MANY CONSISTCY FINDINGS -- CONSISTENCY FINDINGS IN ONE NIGHT. NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. WE HAD TWO PEOPLE SIGN UP. CYNTHIA GODWOULD WILSON.

I LIVE AT 11413 BUSTER BEAN DRIVE. I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE DEVELOPER AND POLITIC AN WITH THE THEIR PROPOSALS. I HEARD PLANNING INFORMATION ABOUT THE INDUSTRIAL USE OF LAZY DAY'S RV RESORT. THEY WERE SPEAKING OF THE WEST BOUNDARY, WHERE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS AT, WHERE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BRING INDUSTRIAL USE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS FRONT DOOR. I DID NOT HEAR ONE WORD WHERE THEY DID NOT WANT TO BRING THAT INTENSE IMPROVEMENT TO THE COMBUSTOR BEAN DRIVE AREA. THAT'S WHERE I LIVE. MY VISUAL IS LAZY DAYS RV RESORT. EXCUSE ME, I'M NERVOUS. WE HAVE -- WE LIVE IN A MOBILE HOME, OUR TRAILER SITS HIGH, SO I AM ALREADY ABLE TO SEE OVER THE EXISTING FENCE INTO THE PARK, SO I CAN SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON. THERE'S NOISE AND -- ANYWAY, MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT BUSTER BEAN DRIVE WAS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR VISUAL OR FOR THE INDUSTRIAL USE COMING UP TO THEIR FRONT DOOR. MY SECOND CONCERN IS, IS THAT ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO COUNTY ROAD 579 IS GOING TO BE A VERY BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A VERY HARD TIME TURNING LEFT TRYING TO GO NORTHBOUND. AND IT'S NOT SO BAD GOING SOUTHBOUND, BECAUSE IT'S AN EASY RIGHT HAND TURN. BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING STORE ACROSS THE STREET FROM BUSTER BEAN DRIVE. THE NEW ADDITION TO AMAZON, CASH CREEK AND ALL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE MENTIONED IS AN INCREDIBLE IMPACT TO

VEHICLES ALREADY. WE ARE JUST A SMALL GROUP OF RESIDENTIALS WHO STILL LIVE THERE. WE'VE LIVED THERE OUR ENTIRE LIVES. I FEEL I'VE ALREADY PAID MY DUES, WE'VE PAID OUR TAXES SINCE 19672 WHEN WE FIRST MOVED ON TO THE PROPERTY AND WE'RE STILL PAYING OUR TAXES TODAY. WITH RESPECT, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO TAKE A VERY GOOD LOOK AT THE -- THAT THE PROPOSAL FOR LAZY DAYS IS GOOD, I LIKE THAT, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMU-U'S AND A POSSIBLE WAREHOUSE OR MULTIUSE WAREHOUSES, THAT DRAWS ME INTO PLENTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, EVEN MORE NOISE. SO PLEASE CONSIDER WHEN YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PLAN. YOU CONSIDER THOSE OF US WHO ARE LEFT. WHO WE FEEL ARE BEING COMMERCIALLY IMPACTED OR SQUEEZED OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY WHEN WE HAVE LIVED THERE FOR DECADES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU, MA'AM. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE OUTBURST, WHEN THE GENTLEMAN SAID PLAN 35 AND 36, I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO MISS MY TURN TO SPEAK. THAT'S WHY I SPOKE OUT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NIGEL JOSEPH: NEXT UP WE HAVE BARB ALLEN.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS BARB ALLEN. JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF WHAT CYNTHIA SAID, MOST OF US HAVE LIVED IN THIS AREA OUR WHOLE LIVES. LAZY DAYS HAS BEEN A PRETTY DECENT NEIGHBOR FOR US, OUR BIGGEST CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS ARE WE REZONING THIS PROPERTY SIMPLY FOR MORE TRAVEL TRAILERS AND RV INTERESTS, OR ARE WE LOOKING AT REZONING WITH THE POTENTIAL OF SELLING THAT PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT SHE MENTIONS. AS YOU KNOW, MANGO ROAD IS CURRENTLY JUST A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY, WE DO BATTLE MANY, MANY SEMIS OFF OF I-4, AT FLYING J AND TA AMERICA. OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR WHEN YOU VOTE FOR THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.

MR. KRAMER?

JAKE KRMER AGAIN, I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE COMMENTS. BUSTER BEAN IS THE ROADWAY ADJACENT TO OUR NORTH. WE HAVE TALKED TO THE COUNTY. AGAIN, WE JUST FILED OUR PD, WE KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ACCESS TO THAT ROAD. I WANTED TO LET EVERYONE KNOW, WE WILL BE HAVING A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR THIS PROJECT. I LIE TO GET THE FIRST ROUND OF COUNTY COMMENTS BACK ON MY PD, SO I DON'T SHOW UP AT A 40, 50 COUNTY COMMENTS AND IT IS THAT MANY SOMETIMES. AND HAVE TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE CHANGES AND THE CITIZENS COME BACK AND SAY, THIS ISN'T WHAT YOU SHOWED ME. SO WE ARE EXPECTING -- WE'RE GETTING THOSE COMMENTS NOW, WE'RE EXPECTING, WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING IN THE NEXT 60 DAYS, I WROTE THESE FOLKS NAMES DOWN, WE'LL MAKE SURE WE GET NOTICE OF THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.

THANK YOU, SIR. OVER TO OUR BOARD MEMBERS NOW FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? I'M NOT SEEING ANY EXCITEMENT FROM ANYONE HERE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE, OPEN UP TO COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ONE. COMMISSIONER LINKOUS? I MAKE A MOTION TO FIND HC/CPA25-36 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SECOND.

NIGEL JOSEPH: ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE TAKE OUR VOTE? NOT SEEING ANY, WOULD ALL SIGNIFY THEIR AGREEMENT BY SAYING AYE? AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM FOR THE NIGHT, 2I, HC/CPA25-38, 11017 EAST 92 HIGHWAY. AND THE PRESENTER IS LILYANN LINEHAN.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, LILY ANN LINEHAN, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, HERE TO PRESENT HC/CPA25-38. THIS IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED MAP AMENDMENT SMALL IN SCALE, APPROXIMATELY 4.63 ACRES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM R-9 TO SMU-6. THIS IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SEFFNER/MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN. IT'S LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST HIGHWAY 92, EAST OF WILLIAMS ROAD AND EAST OF WEST MOBLEY VILLAGE DRIVE. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS A MOBILE HOME PARK, THERE ARE LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH, EAST ENWEST OF THE SITE, WITH SOME HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST OF THE SITE. SINGLE FAMILY USES ARE A PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL USES TO THE NORTH, AND ONE INSTITUTIONAL USE TO THE EAST OF THE SITE. THIS IS LOOKING AT THE PUB H SUBJECT SITE FROM U.S. HIGHWAY 92. THIS IS ALSO LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE SUBJECT SITE FROM U.S. HIGHWAY 92. THIS IS LOOKING EAST ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY THE 92 FROM THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS LOOKING DIRECTLY NORTH ACROSS U.S. HIGHWAY 92 FROM THE SUBJECT SITE. AND THIS IS LOOKING TO THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. BEFORE I MOVE ON, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS TWO PARCELS WITH THE SPLIT FUTURE LAND USE, THIS AMENDMENT ONLY FOCUSES ON A PORTION OF THESE PARCELS. THE RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY ALLOWS 9 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THIS ALLOWS FOR THE DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE USES AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. OTHER FUTURE LAND USE

CATEGORIES, INCLUDE SUBURBAN MIXED USE 6 TO THE NORTH, RESIDENTIAL 9 AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12 TO THE EAST AND WEST. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY TO SMU6, A MAXIMUM FLOOR RATIO OF .5. THIS ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD USES, MIXED USE. CURRENTLY UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL 9 FUTURE LAND USE, THE SITE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR A MAXIMUM OF 34 DWELLING UNITS OR 960 SQUARE FEET OF PROPOSED USES. 26 DWELLING UNITS OR 94,960 NONRESIDENTIAL USES. DURING THE ZONING PROCESS, COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA MAY ELECT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT INCREASE THE COMMERCIAL INTENSITY, HOWEVER, IT WILL ALLOW THE INDUSTRIAL USES TO ENCOURAGE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REVIEWS ALL RELATED POLICIES, REGARDING THE PROPOSED REQUEST. THE REQUEST IS RELATED TO SEVERAL GENERAL POLICIES, STAFF FOUND FOUR MAIN POLICIES. CONSIST EBB THE WITH 3.1.1, 3.1.2. THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO SMU-6 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY DIRECTION, BASED ON THE DEVELOPING PATTERN OF THE AREA. WHICH INCLUDES THE COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND

SOUTH OF THE SITE. COMMERCIAL IS ALLOWABLE TO THE NORTH ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. ADDITIONAL USES MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES, SUCH AS COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12 AND URBAN MIXED USE 20. FUTURE LAND USE OBJECTIVES, PROVIDE DIVERSE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT PROMOTE APPROPRIATE JOBS AND HOUSING BALANCE, WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE NEAR THEIR WORKPLACE, AND THERE ARE ENOUGH JOBS TO SUPPORT THE LOCATION. GIVEN THE DESIGNATED CORRIDOR, THE AMENDMENT MEETS THE INTENT OF OBJECTIVE 7.1. THE PROPOSAL IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH GOALS 2 AND 3 OF THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN. SOME OF THE STRATEGIES INCLUDE DISCOURAGING COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON U.S. 92 AND MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD. AND PROHIBITING FLEX PROVISIONS WITHIN AN INTO THE SEFFNER/MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN EVERY. GOAL 3 ENCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT TO BE DIRECTED TO U.S. 992 AND MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD CORRIDORS. THE SMU-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE ONLY AMENDING TWO OF THE PARCELS AND WILL BE LEAVING THE FUTURE LAND USE ALONG OLD HILLSBOROUGH CORRIDOR. THE SEFFNER/MANGO PLAN PROHIBITS THEY HAVE SPLIT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY

FINALLY, THE PARCELS ARE SITUATED ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 92 CORRIDOR, WHERE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED TO BE DIRECTED TO, THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT WOULD EXPAND MIXED USE 6 FUTURE LAND USE INTO THE EXISTING SITE, AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW FOR MORE OPPORTUNITY AND UTILIZATION OF THE SITE ALONG ONE OF THE SPECIFIED CORRIDORS IN THE SEFFNER/MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL AREA SHALL BE DESIGNATED WITH INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES WITHIN THE SURFACE WATER PROTECTION AREAS. EVEN THOUGH THE SUBURBAN MIXED USE 6 ALLOWS FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, IT IS NOT AN INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OCTAVES AND POLICIES OF THE UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU, DOES THE APPLICANT HVE A PRESENTATION? IT'S BEEN A BUSY NIGHT FOR YOU, MR. PRESSMAN.

GOOD EVENING, TODD PRESSMAN, NO. 451 IN ST. PETERSBURG, SOUTH. THIS IS HC/CPA25-38. A LITTLE CLOSER, YOU CAN SEE WHERE JUST OFF HIGHWAY 92 YOU CAN SEE THE CMU6 AND CMU12. CURRENT SITE IS AN OLDER AND MOVING ALONG TO OTHER USES, MOBIL HOME PARK, LOOKING CLOSER TO FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES, AS STAFF INDICATED TO YOU. SMU6. AND CMU12 AT ANOTHER SITE. LOOKING AT A 500 FOOT EXTENSION, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT INDUSTRIAL USES ARE COMMITTED SMU6 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND IS INDICATED A SEFFNER COMMUNITY GOAL. ENCOURAGE REVITALIZATION OF OLDER COMMERCIAL AREAS. ABUTTING WEST IS AN INTENSIVE USE. ANOTHER VIEW WEST, AND ABUTTING EAST APPEARS TO BE A PRETTY INTENSIVE SITE, I DID NOTE A BUDGET RENTAL CAR, AND IT LOOKED LIKE OTHER BUDGET RENTAL VEHICLES, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BACK, THERE'S STORAGE USE VEHICLES ABUTTING EAST. YOU CAN SEE THAT SAME ACTIVITY, TO THE EAST AND WEST IS EVIDENT

TO SEE. WE HAVE BOTH INTENSIVE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES AND USES IN THE MEDIA AREA AND ABUTTING. STATE ROUTE 92 IS ALSO A COMMERCIAL USE, PLANNING COMMISSION NOTES THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH POLICY DIRECTION, BASED UPON DEVELOPMENT IN THE PATTERN AREA, WHICH IS LIKE COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF THE SITE WITH SOME HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST. THE ROADWAY, THE SITES LOCATED ON IS PART OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TRUCK ROUTE PLAN, ALSO STATE PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL ROADWAY, VERY INTENSIVE, IT CARRIES APPROXIMATELY 15,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. WITH THAT, WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION AND IT'S APPARENT NO ONE IS HERE IN OPPOSITION.

NIGEL JOSEPH: THANK YOU. MR. PRESSMAN STATED, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO OUR BOARD MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, DISCUSSION ON THIS. COMMISSIONER KUGLER? YES, I WAS INTERESTED TO SEE HOW MISS LINEHAN WAS GOING TO HANDLE THE ONE WATER. THANK YOU, THAT HELPED EXPLAIN IT. IT WOULD BE -- EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE INDUSTRIAL, IT'S GOING MIXED USE. THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S SAFEGUARDING.

GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, EVERYONE LOOKING LIKE THEY WANT TO GO HOME. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, AND OPEN IT UP TO COMMISSIONERS. I FIND HC/25-38 CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SECOND. NIGEL JOSEPH: ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS, BEFORE WE TAKE OUR VOTE? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

NIGEL JOSEPH: OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE INFORMATION. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT M. PRESSMAN, AND AT 8:01 P.M. THIS THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED, GOOD NIGHT, EVERYONE.