Planning commission continues Tampa future‑land‑use overhaul after debate over coastal high‑hazard rules and bonus system

The Hillsborough County Planning Commission on April 7 reviewed TACPA 24‑04, the City of Tampa future land use section update that is part of the Live, Grow, Thrive 2045 comprehensive plan rewrite. After more than two hours of staff presentation, public comment and commissioner discussion, the commission declined to find the draft consistent with the comprehensive plan and instead voted to continue the item for further revisions and review; a motion to continue the public hearing to May 12, 2025 passed 7–0.

Planning commission staff described TACPA 24‑04 as a comprehensive reorganization of Tampa’s future land use policies, reducing goals, introducing a place‑type map and a bonus structure intended to direct growth to regional activity centers and transit‑ready corridors, and creating a new category for context‑sensitive neighborhoods. Melissa Dickens, planning commission staff, said the future land use section is the largest part of the update and that the update aims to streamline policies, incorporate outreach feedback, and provide incentives for growth in the “right places.” "This presentation is probably going to be a little bit longer than a normal plan amendment presentation," Dickens said, describing the multi‑year, iterative process and outreach that produced the draft.

Jennifer Malone, planning commission staff, walked commissioners through key policy changes: a three‑tier place‑type approach (regional activity centers; transit‑ready corridors; context‑sensitive neighborhoods), an updated bonus structure including affordable‑housing and green‑development bonuses, changes to mixed‑use rules (proposed floor‑area ratio usage tied to a ground‑floor nonresidential minimum), and stricter controls on plan amendments in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). Malone said the draft would prohibit plan amendments in the CHHA that increase density and would generally bar density bonuses there unless narrowly allowed in coastal development areas (CDAs) or by narrowly defined exceptions.

The presentation and packet explained the staff approach: extensive outreach (roughly 30 meetings and engagement with about 700 individuals), consultant review by Pritchett Steinbeck Group/TP Ventures, and coordination with Tampa staff and stakeholders. The draft also proposes an industrial preservation map to identify industrial lands for protection and to clarify where mixed‑use transition is appropriate.

Public commenters expressed a range of views. Several speakers from the CHHA urged stronger limits; a commenter identified as Trashika Kovaleski warned against creating loopholes that would enable density increases inside evacuation zones. Stephanie Pointer and Van (HP) Smith, CHHA residents, urged a clearer "firewall" to disallow new density that would place vulnerable residents in evacuation and flood risk areas. Others, including Michael Marino of the Westshore Alliance, urged flexibility in the Westshore regional activity center, noting modern construction standards and existing airport/flight‑path constraints and arguing that portions of Westshore should be eligible for CDA status and associated bonuses to support redevelopment and resiliency investments.

Commissioners asked detailed policy and implementation questions. Topics included how the CHHA boundary is set (staff said the boundary is set through a state modeling process administered by Florida Department of Emergency Management and transmitted to the Department of Commerce), how the 60% ground‑floor nonresidential threshold for mixed‑use FAR was chosen, how bonuses would stack, and whether the CRA (community redevelopment area) boundary methodology for CDAs would exclude areas such as Westshore and the Macy’s site on Gandy Boulevard.

After public comment and commissioner discussion, Commissioner Kress moved to find the update consistent; the motion failed on a 2–5 roll call (Kress and Commissioner Soria voting yes; five commissioners voting no). Commissioners cited unresolved issues on the CHHA exceptions, mixed‑use thresholds, TRC (transit‑ready corridor) bonus extent in South Tampa, and the need for clearer definitions and implementation criteria. Commissioners then moved and seconded a continuance to May 12, 2025 to allow staff to respond to the substantive concerns raised; the motion to continue passed 7–0 by roll call.

Clarifying details in the record: staff said the draft reduces the number of goals in the future land use section (staff cited a reduction from about 20 to seven goals), retains specific bonuses such as Seminole Heights and CBD periphery, proposes a new commercial‑restricted category with no density entitlements for some CHHA parcels, and ties CDA consideration to CRAs in order to link infrastructure funding capacity to increased density. Staff identified upcoming procedural dates: a City Council transmittal hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2025; the planning commission set May 12, 2025 as the next opportunity to revisit the draft.

The commission’s continuance gives staff direction to return with revisions addressing the CHHA exceptions and bonus mechanics, the mixed‑use FAR/ground‑floor threshold, how TRC bonuses operate inside the CHHA, and the treatment of Westshore/Macy’s/Gandy areas. Staff indicated willingness to incorporate clearer pedestrian‑pathway language and to reconsider some thresholds prior to the City Council transmittal date.

The planning commission's continuance does not adopt the draft plan text; it requests additional work by staff and a return hearing to consider revisions.