Help & information    View the list of Transcripts



Tampa City Council
Thursday, August 24, 2006
5:00 p.m. session


DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this transcript was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

Tampa City Council
17:08:35 [Sounding gavel]
17:08:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
17:08:38 On behalf of Mr. Kevin White, I would like to
17:08:41 introduce our pastor who is going to do the
17:08:43 invocation.
17:08:44 He is Reverend James Harnish.

17:08:54 Would you please stand and remain standing for the
17:08:56 pledge of allegiance.
17:08:59 >> Hear the words of the Lord, carried out into
17:09:07 Babylon, build houses, live in them, plant gardens,
17:09:11 eat their produce.
17:09:14 Beget sons and daughters that you may increase.
17:09:18 Seek the welfare of the city to which I have carried
17:09:21 you, and pray to the Lord for it, for in its welfare
17:09:26 you will find your welfare.
17:09:29 Almighty God, give to these your servants wisdom to
17:09:34 seek the welfare of the city, compassion to meet the
17:09:39 needs of those who suffer, and courage to do what is
17:09:43 good.
17:09:44 I ask in the name of the one who comes to give life,
17:09:48 and life abundant, amen.
17:09:52 (Pledge of Allegiance).
17:10:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
17:10:08 >> JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
17:10:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:10:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
17:10:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
17:10:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

17:10:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:10:18 I yield to Rose Ferlita.
17:10:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: I had a couple things to mention.
17:10:22 First of all, at Planning Commission appointments I
17:10:26 think somebody suggested they wait till this evening
17:10:29 when I get back but evidently that didn't occur, and
17:10:31 that's fine.
17:10:32 I understand we had a lot of very good candidates.
17:10:34 I'm sorry I didn't get an opportunity to weigh in on
17:10:37 it but as circumstances were, and I intend to read
17:10:39 this memo into the record so we understand why I was
17:10:42 not here and did not play a role in that.
17:10:44 Sorry I couldn't do that.
17:10:48 I had gotten several cards and comment and calls,
17:10:50 et cetera, and I appreciate the sentiments from
17:10:53 friends and family in the community.
17:10:55 There was an obituary notice not too very long ago
17:10:59 that people believe that I recently lost a sister, and
17:11:03 I appreciate the sentiments, but in fact I don't have
17:11:05 a sister, and I want to thank you publicly because a
17:11:07 lot of people thought I did lose my sister and I did
17:11:10 not.

17:11:10 Lastly, and as importantly, based on my record here
17:11:16 and based on my attendance here, I don't take lightly
17:11:18 that I should be in attendance every single time
17:11:20 unless there are extreme circumstances, and this
17:11:25 morning I left a memo for the chairman and I don't
17:11:27 believe it was read in total, and I want to give some
17:11:31 accountability as to where I was so there's no
17:11:35 misunderstanding as to why I walked out.
17:11:37 So, Sandy, to read into the record I would like to do
17:11:39 that.
17:11:39 Addressed to chairman Gwen miller from Rose Ferlita.
17:11:43 Please read into the record immediately, my pharmacist
17:11:45 Bruce Howard just notified Della Curry, this morning
17:11:53 about 9 15 suffered the loss of his mother, and has
17:11:55 been in an accident involving his mother's car.
17:11:58 In order to comply with pharmacy regulations I must
17:12:00 leave to open my store, or make every effort to find
17:12:03 another pharmacist so that I can return tonight on
17:12:06 time as soon as possible.
17:12:06 In the event I am not successful, I will return in
17:12:08 attendance for this evening's meeting as close to 6:00
17:12:11 as possible.

17:12:13 Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. The
17:12:15 reason I am bringing that up is because I think it's
17:12:18 important that we state why we are gone, and obviously
17:12:21 because he called after we were in session, I was not
17:12:26 able to get another pharmacist until now.
17:12:28 Again I apologize for my absence.
17:12:30 I would have been more than happy to be here to speak
17:12:34 my piece as well, and cast my vote.
17:12:37 I'm sorry that was an extenuating circumstance.
17:12:39 Madam Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy in allowing
17:12:42 me to read that into the record.
17:12:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
17:12:44 I would have read it this morning but I let them know
17:12:49 you were leaving and would be back.
17:12:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine, but I didn't want any
17:12:53 misunderstanding based on who was missing and why.
17:12:54 I'm glad I got that out of the way.
17:12:56 A and here we go with a full agenda.
17:12:59 Thank you.
17:12:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I didn't mean any discourtesy
17:13:03 going on with the vote but I figured there were six of
17:13:06 us, if there were a tie --

17:13:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, no, that's fine.
17:13:11 I understand that.
17:13:12 That was lingering for a long time.
17:13:14 Whether or whether or not my vote would have made a
17:13:16 difference, I think we had great, great candidates,
17:13:18 and I certainly understand that.
17:13:23 No problem at all.
17:13:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to open our public
17:13:28 hearings, item number 1.
17:13:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We had a matter that I requested be
17:13:36 continued until tonight.
17:13:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We will wait on number 1.
17:13:44 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:13:46 You had requested this overlay with the City of Tampa,
17:13:52 item number 35 from this morning.
17:14:05 This is showing you the location.
17:14:07 Here is the location.
17:14:14 This is the location of the billboard being relocated,
17:14:16 on the property that is being taken by Florida's
17:14:18 department of transportation.
17:14:20 This is the location of the cigar factory.
17:14:24 And this is the location that had been permitted to be

17:14:30 moved there.
17:14:33 Very quickly, as a matter of right, relocated to the
17:14:40 site pursuant to settlement agreement with the
17:14:42 billboard companies, typically national.
17:14:44 When that issue came up, and after discussions with
17:14:47 staff, including Wilson Stair and Del Acosta, it was a
17:14:54 designated cigar factory.
17:14:57 After a lot of discussion, this site was chosen as an
17:15:01 appropriate site.
17:15:01 It has a CI zoning district on it.
17:15:04 And I understand that his client also went ahead and
17:15:11 had conversations with the community with adjoining
17:15:14 property owners, and they did not have a problem with
17:15:17 the billboard being used for this site given it was a
17:15:21 wall.
17:15:22 I'm available for additional questions.
17:15:23 I don't know if that answers your questions.
17:15:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had an opportunity to speak with
17:15:27 Ms. Coyle and Mr. Stair, and I am much happier with
17:15:32 this proposed location.
17:15:37 While I am not thrilled about there being a high
17:15:40 billboard in any case, I'm glad the historic structure

17:15:43 was taken into consideration, and that it wasn't
17:15:44 placed adjacent to the.
17:15:47 So I'll support the proposal.
17:15:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Cole, how many feet are they away
17:15:55 from each other?
17:15:56 I know there's one right on the street near I guess
17:16:02 the book depository.
17:16:03 Do they have to have a certain amount of feet or
17:16:08 something that they have to be away?
17:16:12 >>JULIA COLE: It does have requirements as to how far
17:16:14 the billboards must be from each other, and I do know
17:16:22 that FDOT does have a requirement for separation
17:16:24 between billboards.
17:16:26 And this would comply with that.
17:16:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It seems we are having a proliferation
17:16:31 of billboards in the West Tampa area.
17:16:33 I can name you three right off the bat.
17:16:36 And I'm not happy with this.
17:16:39 I'm really not.
17:16:40 I know this is a requirement or whatever.
17:16:42 But FDOT has to be a little bit more considerate of
17:16:46 the historic district there.

17:16:48 So I wish that somebody would pass that along because
17:16:51 they just cannot put any more signs up there. It's
17:16:54 just ridiculous.
17:16:55 And I'm glad that you finally decided to put the
17:16:58 billboard in another place other than near the cigar
17:17:01 factory.
17:17:01 But it's not proper.
17:17:05 We have got too many billboards going up in the
17:17:07 historic district.
17:17:10 >> I agree.
17:17:10 >>JULIA COLE: I believe the department will have a
17:17:16 conversation with FDOT as to how to better deal with
17:17:19 these issues.
17:17:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like somebody to come back and
17:17:23 give us some direction, and also something, tell us
17:17:29 something about this, because this is just happening
17:17:31 too often in the West Tampa area.
17:17:36 It will be billboard haven over there.
17:17:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After we vote on this I'll make a
17:17:42 motion to that effect, to direct legal
17:17:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:18:01 All in favor.

17:18:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
17:18:03 No.
17:18:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask the legal
17:18:08 department to have transportation come and share their
17:18:11 vision about the billboards lining the interstates,
17:18:16 and also additional research about how other
17:18:19 communities have dealt with this, because the
17:18:23 interstate does go through so many historic areas, we
17:18:25 don't want to see unsightly and inappropriate
17:18:29 billboards absolutely destroying the character of our
17:18:32 historic area.
17:18:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just one other question.
17:18:39 I think since these are ultimately ending up here at
17:18:42 council, it just seems like perhaps -- and Linda -- it
17:18:53 seems when these applications come in early, okay,
17:18:59 that somebody whoever is approving these or receiving
17:19:02 these should coordinate with Ms. Saul-Sena, so right
17:19:05 away she can be plugged into the decision.
17:19:09 Because I have a feeling we are just starting to get
17:19:12 these, and with the interstate being developed we are
17:19:14 going to get more.
17:19:18 And now it's sort of the last minute and we don't have

17:19:20 a lot of choices.
17:19:21 If Ms. Saul-Sena gets plugged in early she can guide
17:19:26 them to locations.
17:19:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would be happy to do that.
17:19:29 9 motion and second.
17:19:30 (Motion carried).
17:19:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I just want to weigh in on one more
17:19:33 thing, because it's really something.
17:19:35 I don't know why we even have to approve these things.
17:19:39 Because it's policy.
17:19:41 You know what I'm saying?
17:19:43 I don't know why it has to come to City Council for
17:19:45 them -- it's just like, yes, go right ahead and do it.
17:19:49 You know, we are giving them the okay to put them
17:19:52 wherever they want, where they are telling us where
17:19:55 they want to put them.
17:19:56 So I'm just weighing in because I'm really upset about
17:20:00 this.
17:20:02 It just doesn't seem right that we have to weigh in
17:20:05 and to approve something that we don't like.
17:20:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's an organization called keep
17:20:12 Florida beautiful that has professional staff who will

17:20:17 help inform us of how other communities address this.
17:20:21 And I think we need professional help.
17:20:27 >>JULIA COLE: Maybe it would be allowable to allow us
17:20:32 the opportunity to speak with them.
17:20:34 Councilman Alvarez, if you want me now, or we can talk
17:20:38 about it later.
17:20:39 But I think you're right.
17:20:40 I think you are going to see more of these.
17:20:42 And it's no fun for me to come up here and tell you
17:20:45 that you don't really have an option, or you can pay
17:20:47 for the sign.
17:20:48 And specifically why we have to do it and why I have
17:20:51 to bring it up to you is it must be done pursuant to a
17:20:54 relocation agreement, pursuant to the statute.
17:20:57 So that's the reason I bring it forward.
17:20:59 But I think that we can meet with FDOT, we can
17:21:03 continue with these discussions and maybe have further
17:21:09 information given to you.
17:21:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think the billboard lobby should be
17:21:13 a little bit more considerate of these historic
17:21:16 districts.
17:21:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 1.

17:21:20 >> So moved.
17:21:21 >> Second.
17:21:21 (Motion carried).
17:21:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, just a remainder.
17:21:28 These plan amendments are not quasi-judicial, they are
17:21:32 legislative.
17:21:33 And as such, council, you do not, as a rule of
17:21:37 procedure, have time limits set for this.
17:21:40 And I'm wondering whether you wish to set forth time
17:21:44 limits.
17:21:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Five minutes.
17:21:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The public normally has three
17:21:56 minutes.
17:21:57 And a quasi-judicial setting you usually allow
17:22:00 petitioners 30 minutes.
17:22:01 But Ginn again when I confirmed this with the clerk
17:22:04 with regard to previous plan amendments there was no
17:22:12 time limit.
17:22:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I appreciate you bringing that up,
17:22:15 Mr. Shelby, I move that we limit the presentations to
17:22:18 a total of 30 minutes, usually 20 minutes for the
17:22:21 presentation, ten minutes for rebuttal.

17:22:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We aren't even going to need close
17:22:34 to that.
17:22:35 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
17:22:36 (Motion carried).
17:22:37 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
17:22:43 You have 18 amendments this evening.
17:22:46 Several of them you have heard before.
17:22:48 They are from the August batch of 2005.
17:22:55 With your indulgence, Madam Chair, we would ask you to
17:22:58 hear items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 through 17 first, because
17:23:05 we call them noncontroversial, there will be very
17:23:08 little discussion.
17:23:09 And then follow with 18, 2, 4, and open 3, 5, 6, 7 and
17:23:15 8 because they are all on Rattlesnake Point.
17:23:19 And we believe that would help council have a very
17:23:23 smooth agenda based on our experience of the Planning
17:23:26 Commission.
17:23:29 Just for the record, item number 1, the Peter O.
17:23:33 Knight master plan has been withdrawn by the aviation
17:23:37 authority and will not be heard this evening.
17:23:40 Thank you, Madam Chair.
17:23:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open 9, 10, 11 and 12.

17:23:46 >> So moved.
17:23:46 >> Second.
17:23:47 (Motion carried).
17:23:47 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
17:24:00 The proposed plan amendment before you is plan
17:24:05 amendment 05-25 which is a text amendment to the
17:24:08 future land use element for the plan amendment of
17:24:11 August 1st, 2005. This was basically in
17:24:13 accordance with the state legislature's action.
17:24:16 There were a series of new requirements in chapter 163
17:24:20 that state the local governments must update or amend
17:24:23 the comprehensive plan to include criteria to address
17:24:26 compatibility, other adjacent lands ton military
17:24:30 installations.
17:24:33 What you have done in your initial transmittal and
17:24:36 subsequently we have received the response
17:24:38 African-American the Department of Community Affairs
17:24:40 where they have no recommendations, objections to the
17:24:43 proposed changes to the future land use element.
17:24:45 The changes required basically you have in front of
17:24:49 you two new policies, policy A-3.8 and A-3.9.
17:24:55 Of course, the first one just maintaining an open

17:25:01 communication channel between all those, specifically
17:25:06 the ex-officio member now sitting on the Planning
17:25:08 Commission which happens to be your MacDill
17:25:11 liaison, Tony Rodriguez, as required by state statute.
17:25:15 So if that has been fulfilled the Planning Commission
17:25:21 ex-officio member. The second policy require the
17:25:23 committee complete a joint land use study.
17:25:26 I'm sure you are all familiar with the joint land use
17:25:30 study, coming very shortly per your request
17:25:33 transmitted to Planning Commission.
17:25:35 We will be hearing it before the Planning Commission
17:25:37 on 9/11, the date that we will be hearing it in front
17:25:40 of the Planning Commission.
17:25:42 Ironically a very solemn day in our nation's history.
17:25:46 We will be hearing that subsequently, bringing you the
17:25:48 joint land use recommendations to this council
17:25:50 September 21st for your consideration.
17:25:52 But basically, these two policies are the first step
17:25:56 in a long journey to ultimately achieving
17:25:59 sustainability between the lands of MacDill Air
17:26:02 Force Base, and to ensure safety, health and welfare
17:26:09 for citizens in the South Tampa area.

17:26:11 Planning Commission staff, as I said, is bringing it
17:26:16 to you, the department of planning affairs has no
17:26:20 objections. That concludes my comments.
17:26:26 >>CHAIRMAN: Would anyone in the public like to speak
17:26:27 on 9, 10, 11, 12?
17:26:34 >> That was just 9.
17:26:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close 9.
17:26:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, just for the record it's
17:26:41 clear if you would ask anybody that wants to speak
17:26:43 just on item number 9.
17:26:44 >>CHAIRMAN: Item number 9.
17:26:46 Anyone to speak on item 9.
17:26:48 >> Move to close.
17:26:48 >> Second.
17:26:49 (Motion carried).
17:26:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance Tampa comprehensive plan
17:26:59 future land yes, sir element which establishing
17:27:02 policies relative to rezoning special use petition by
17:27:05 appropriate military and aviation personnel and the
17:27:07 completion of a study of the land adjacent to or
17:27:10 closely proximate to MacDill Air Force Base
17:27:16 providing for severability, providing an effective

17:27:17 date.
17:27:18 >>CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second.
17:27:19 (Motion carried).
17:27:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 10.
17:27:31 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
17:27:35 Agenda item 10 is a public hearing on plan amendments
17:27:38 05-33, which is the amendments to the capital
17:27:42 improvements element, which started in November of
17:27:45 2005, and it is the capital improvement schedule for
17:27:50 fiscal year 06 through fiscal year 11.
17:27:54 This particular amendment did receive objection from
17:27:59 the state regarding the cable.
17:28:05 City staff worked with the Department of Community
17:28:06 Affairs to prepare a response, and to revise the
17:28:09 schedule to meet their requirements, and that is
17:28:14 submitted in your packet for your consideration.
17:28:19 Department of Community Affairs did indicate to staff
17:28:20 that with the revisions that it will be found to be in
17:28:23 compliance.
17:28:24 That completes my presentation.
17:28:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Question from council members?
17:28:30 Anyone in the public want top speak on item 10?

17:28:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
17:28:34 >> Second.
17:28:34 (Motion carried).
17:28:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita?
17:28:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: An ordinance amending the Tampa
17:28:43 comprehensive plan capital improvements element by
17:28:45 updating the schedule of projects for fiscal year 2006
17:28:49 through fiscal year 2011 providing for repeal of all
17:28:52 ordinances in conflict providing for severability
17:28:55 providing an effective date.
17:28:56 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
17:28:57 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:28:59 (Motion carried).
17:29:00 Number 11.
17:29:02 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
17:29:04 This next plan amendment is plan amendment 05-19.
17:29:09 This is an amendment to the future land use map to
17:29:14 change approximately 44 acres of light industrial to
17:29:17 community mixed use 35.
17:29:24 The site is located in the vicinity of independence
17:29:27 parkway, memorial, and George road.
17:29:33 The Department of Community Affairs had no objection

17:29:37 to this amendment.
17:29:39 And that concludes my presentation.
17:29:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Question from council members.
17:29:43 Ms. Saul-Sena.
17:29:46 >> This used to be part of the city golf course, and
17:29:48 we made a deal awhile back with Johnson-Johnson.
17:29:53 Wasn't there some kind of commitment as part of that
17:29:56 original deal that this is supposed to -- I don't
17:30:01 know, the economic development project, and the -- by
17:30:07 the original agreement?
17:30:10 >>> When this originally came in, and that was in the
17:30:12 early 80s, annexed into the city, and the
17:30:19 arrangement was, a golf course, they improved 18
17:30:25 holes, and then the nine holes on this site were
17:30:28 developed for the project.
17:30:29 That is a development of regional impact.
17:30:33 They have only dealt a portion of that project.
17:30:38 The amendment they have requested is to allow for
17:30:40 consideration of residential development.
17:30:43 They will have to come in and do an amendment to their
17:30:46 development of regional impact and they will have to
17:30:48 come back to you for a rezoning for this particular

17:30:53 project.
17:30:58 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
17:31:00 on item number 11?
17:31:01 >> Move to close.
17:31:02 >> Second.
17:31:02 (Motion carried).
17:31:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa
17:31:11 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future
17:31:14 land use map, for the property located in the general
17:31:16 vicinity of memorial highway, George road, and
17:31:19 independence parkway from light industrial to
17:31:21 community mixed use 35, providing for repeal of all
17:31:24 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
17:31:26 providing an effective date.
17:31:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
17:31:28 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:31:30 Opposed, Nay.
17:31:30 (Motion carried).
17:31:32 Item 12.
17:31:36 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
17:31:37 Before you have Tampa comprehensive plan amendment
17:31:40 05-22 an area south of Adamo Drive east of 22nd

17:31:44 street.
17:31:50 The site formerly known as Tampa international center
17:31:54 consisted of just under 30 acres, between 22nd
17:31:58 street and 26th street, land use designation of
17:32:02 light industrial. The proposed request is to
17:32:04 community mixed use 35.
17:32:07 Florida Department of Community Affairs had no
17:32:10 objections to the proposed request.
17:32:11 This amendment would further validate the
17:32:13 redevelopment trend of Adamo drive shifting to mixed
17:32:16 use from industrial use and strengthens future
17:32:19 recognition of this thoroughfare as a potential scenic
17:32:22 corridor and a gateway into the urban core of Tampa.
17:32:26 It's also surrounded by the port of Tampa, the central
17:32:29 business district, Ybor City, and the Channel District
17:32:31 areas.
17:32:32 The existing land use pattern is indicative of an area
17:32:38 for redevelopment.
17:32:38 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
17:32:42 consistent.
17:32:42 As I stated before, the Florida Department of
17:32:45 Community Affairs has no objections to the proposed

17:32:48 request.
17:32:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
17:32:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because this is across the street
17:32:53 from Ybor City, which is our national landmark
17:32:56 district, I was curious if there would be any concern
17:33:00 expressed by the planning staff at this time about
17:33:02 this proposal in terms of the character of what could
17:33:05 develop there.
17:33:06 Would there be any opportunity for design review,
17:33:12 having a relationship to the national landmark
17:33:15 district to the north of there?
17:33:16 Would there be any exceptions built into this?
17:33:19 >>> Not as far as any protections in the land use
17:33:21 itself since it's more of a general type process.
17:33:24 When it comes to the rezoning process, I think council
17:33:26 will have an opportunity, as well as city staff, to
17:33:28 negotiate a little bit more with the applicants
17:33:31 regarding the character and the interface of this
17:33:34 particular project with the historic district to the
17:33:36 north.
17:33:36 >> Do you think that this proposed change of 35 is
17:33:44 appropriate?

17:33:47 >>TONY GARCIA: As far as the request is concerned, we
17:33:49 have seen -- I'll show you on this future land use
17:33:52 map -- there are two projects to the north that have
17:33:54 already come in for CME 35 and were created by council
17:33:58 on the north side so it seems that CMU 35 as far as
17:34:01 the mixed use categories, probably the proceed veiling
17:34:05 land use category requested by most of the properties
17:34:07 in this particular area.
17:34:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
17:34:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
17:34:14 wants ton speak on item 12?
17:34:17 >> Move to close.
17:34:25 >> Good evening, council.
17:34:26 I'm Geraldine Williams Smith, attorney at law, 2504
17:34:31 east twelfth Avenue.
17:34:32 And that is in the Ybor City district.
17:34:34 I am here to indicate that I appeared before the
17:34:39 planning counseling, and I offered a friendly
17:34:43 amendment to the proposal that has been made.
17:34:45 The reason I offered that amendment is that initially
17:34:50 the corridor was to extend from 34th street to
17:34:55 Channelside, and then it had been changed to have the

17:35:00 eastern boundary begin at 22nd street.
17:35:03 And my proposal is for the eastern boundary to --
17:35:15 >> You are hear for the corridor?
17:35:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Wrong one.
17:35:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody else here to speak?
17:35:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's a staff question.
17:35:25 Were the Ybor City civic associations contact board of
17:35:27 director this plan amendment?
17:35:29 >>TONY GARCIA: Yes, they were.
17:35:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close.
17:35:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So moved.
17:35:33 >> Second.
17:35:33 (Motion carried).
17:35:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to read that?
17:35:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, because I am going vote against
17:35:39 it.
17:35:43 >>CHAIRMAN: Okay.
17:35:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move an ordinance amending the
17:35:47 Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use map, in the
17:35:50 general vicinity of the southeast corner of Adamo
17:35:53 Drive and 22nd street causeway from heavy
17:35:56 industrial to community mixed use 35, providing for

17:35:59 severability, providing an effective date.
17:36:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I definitely believe that this
17:36:09 should no longer be industrial.
17:36:10 However, I think that the proposed 35 category is --
17:36:21 and Mr. Garcia, the vote was not a unanimous vote and
17:36:25 we haven't seen how that develops yet, and I don't
17:36:27 think you should necessarily take one particular land
17:36:30 use change as an indication of a ground swell of RMU
17:36:36 35 -- or CMU 35.
17:36:38 So I hope that you will examine each request
17:36:43 individually.
17:36:44 And I encourage my colleagues to not support this at
17:36:48 this point until we have had the opportunity for the
17:36:51 planning study that's supposed to be done for Adamo.
17:36:55 I believe it's a privately funded study.
17:36:57 And I think that this is precipitous.
17:37:00 So I think this is a large piece of land, it could
17:37:03 redevelop very intensely, and we need to see what kind
17:37:06 of protection or concern or consideration the overlay
17:37:10 district for Adamo proposes.
17:37:13 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
17:37:14 >> is this the first two of readings?

17:37:22 >>CHAIRMAN: Yes.
17:37:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second reading is when?
17:37:29 >>THE CLERK: September 11th at 9:30.
17:37:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A chance to revisit it.
17:37:37 Get some further information.
17:37:38 Thank you.
17:37:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
17:37:40 >>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena, no.
17:37:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
17:37:49 >> So moved.
17:37:49 >> Second.
17:37:50 (Motion carried).
17:37:50 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
17:37:59 These next agenda items are city-initiated plan
17:38:02 amendments.
17:38:03 These are for properties that are owned by the City of
17:38:06 Tampa.
17:38:08 And they are to designate land that were acquired with
17:38:15 Florida communities trust funds, and are being
17:38:17 proposed to be designated with either recreation, open
17:38:21 space, or public-semi-public designations.
17:38:25 The first amendment, which is plan amendment 05-26, is

17:38:34 for cypress point park.
17:38:47 It's located in the general Westshore area.
17:38:49 And the amendment is to go from municipal airport,
17:38:55 plan classification, to recreation open space, on
17:39:02 approximately 40 acres of land.
17:39:04 The Department of Community Affairs stated no
17:39:07 objections to this amendment.
17:39:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
17:39:10 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
17:39:13 item 13?
17:39:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
17:39:18 >> Second.
17:39:18 (Motion carried)
17:39:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is great.
17:39:28 Move an ordinance amending Tampa comprehensive plan
17:39:30 future land use element, future land use map, for the
17:39:33 property located in the general vicinity of West
17:39:35 Cypress street, south of Tampa International Airport,
17:39:39 from municipal airport compatibility to recreation
17:39:41 open space, providing for a pole of all ordinances in
17:39:44 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
17:39:46 effective date.

17:39:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:39:52 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:39:54 (Motion carried).
17:39:55 Number 14.
17:39:56 >> It's already open.
17:40:00 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
17:40:01 This particular amendment, 05-27, is located in the
17:40:07 downtown area.
17:40:09 It is -- I am not going to pronounce this properly --
17:40:15 the Cotanchobee, Fort Brooke park in downtown, and the
17:40:27 amendment located in this area here is to designated
17:40:30 from central business district to public-semi-public.
17:40:39 Total acreage is approximately six acres of land.
17:40:44 The Department of Community Affairs had no objections.
17:40:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
17:40:50 wants to speak on item 14?
17:40:52 We have a motion and second to close.
17:40:53 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:40:55 Opposed, Nay.
17:40:56 Ms. Ferlita, will you read that?
17:40:58 >> Move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive
17:41:06 plan, future land use element, future land use map,

17:41:09 for property located at St. Pete Times Forum, along
17:41:14 Garrison Channel, central business district, major
17:41:18 public/semi-public, providing for repeal of all
17:41:21 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
17:41:23 providing an effective date.
17:41:24 (Motion Carried).
17:41:24 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The next amendment is plan amendment
17:41:32 05-28.
17:41:35 It is also located in the downtown area at
17:41:38 approximately two acres of land.
17:41:41 It is known as the ribbon park and the amendment goes
17:41:51 from central business district to public/semi-public.
17:41:59 The Department of Community Affairs has no objections
17:42:01 to this amendment.
17:42:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
17:42:04 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
17:42:06 item 15?
17:42:07 >> Move to close.
17:42:08 >> Second.
17:42:08 (Motion carried).
17:42:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa
17:42:17 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future

17:42:20 land use map, for the property located in the general
17:42:22 vicinity of Ashley drive, between Whiting Street and
17:42:25 Washington street, in the northeast corner of Ashley
17:42:30 and Channelside Drive from central business district
17:42:32 to major public/semi-public providing for repeal of
17:42:36 all ordinances in conflict, providing for
17:42:37 severability, providing an effective date.
17:42:38 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
17:42:40 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:42:41 Opposed, Nay.
17:42:42 (Motion carried).
17:42:44 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The next amendment is plan amendment
17:42:46 05-29.
17:42:47 It is located in the Sulphur Springs area.
17:42:49 And it's known as river tower park.
17:42:54 The request is to amend the plan from an urban mixed
17:42:57 use 60 category to recreation open space.
17:43:05 On approximately 13 acres of land.
17:43:14 That's on the Hillsborough River.
17:43:15 The Department of Community Affairs had no objections
17:43:17 to this amendment.
17:43:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Questions from council members?

17:43:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Former mayor Dick Greco was here
17:43:25 this evening and he was responsible, his
17:43:27 administration was responsible for going after the
17:43:29 Florida Community Grand Trust dollars to purchase the
17:43:33 last three parks we have seen, and we should really
17:43:35 remember that he successfully got the funding to buy
17:43:40 all these, and now we are protecting them with this
17:43:43 land use change. And the Florida orchestra is going
17:43:45 to play a free public concert in this park in October.
17:43:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public want to
17:43:50 speak on item 16?
17:43:51 >> Move to close.
17:43:52 >> Second.
17:43:52 (Motion carried)
17:44:03 >> Move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive
17:44:06 plan, fought land use element, future land use map for
17:44:09 property located in the south west corner of Florida
17:44:11 Avenue and bird street along the Hillsborough River
17:44:14 from urban mixed use 60 to recreation/open space,
17:44:18 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
17:44:20 providing for severability, providing an effective
17:44:21 date.

17:44:21 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
17:44:24 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:44:25 Opposed, Nay.
17:44:27 (Motion Carried).
17:44:27 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The last of these park amendments is
17:44:34 plan amendment 05-30.
17:44:35 It is located in the Tampa -- the New Tampa area,
17:44:38 Tampa Palms area.
17:44:42 It is amendment on approximately 122 acres of land.
17:44:46 The amendment is to go from suburban mixed use 6 and
17:44:50 public/semi-public.
17:44:54 To recreation and open space.
17:44:56 The Department of Community Affairs had in a
17:44:59 objections to this amendment.
17:45:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
17:45:02 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
17:45:04 item 17?
17:45:05 >> Move to close.
17:45:05 >> Second.
17:45:06 (Motion carried)
17:45:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move an ordinance amending the
17:45:18 Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element,

17:45:21 future land use map for the property located in the
17:45:22 general vicinity of interstate 75 and south of Bruce
17:45:25 B. Downs Boulevard from suburban mixed use 60 and
17:45:29 major public/semi-public to recreational open space,
17:45:32 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
17:45:35 providing for severability, providing an effective
17:45:36 date.
17:45:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:45:41 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:45:42 (Motion carried).
17:45:44 We need to open 18.
17:45:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
17:45:47 >> Second.
17:45:47 (Motion carried).
17:45:48 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Did you open number 18?
17:45:57 Thank you.
17:46:01 >> Move to open 19.
17:46:06 >> Second.
17:46:06 (Motion carried)
17:46:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Who is going to present the brownfield?
17:46:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is a quasi-judicial hearing.
17:46:19 If there are witnesses I would ask they be sworn.

17:46:22 >>GWEN MILLER: The brownfield?
17:46:27 >> Good evening.
17:46:31 Since this is a routine first public hearing on a
17:46:34 brownfield application, staff didn't intend to make
17:46:39 any statements this evening unless council had any
17:46:41 inquiries.
17:46:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have any objections to the
17:46:45 brownfield designation?
17:46:49 69 is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
17:46:51 on item 19?
17:46:52 >> Move to close.
17:46:53 >> Second.
17:46:53 (Motion carried)
17:47:02 >> Move to send to legal.
17:47:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
17:47:15 We go back to 18.
17:47:17 >> Move to open 18.
17:47:18 >> Second.
17:47:19 (Motion carried).
17:47:19 >> Madam Chair, this is a small scale amendment, and
17:47:23 as I said, we need five votes to be approved.
17:47:32 Michelle Ogilvie, Planning Commission staff, plan

17:47:36 amendment.
17:47:36 This is the march cycle of amendments.
17:47:40 This is the only one in the cycle that will be adopted
17:47:45 this evening.
17:47:45 Plan amendment 06-01 is in the vicinity of tenth
17:47:49 Avenue and 47th street, and 48th street.
17:48:02 The request is to change the land use from residential
17:48:05 20 to heavy commercial 24.
17:48:09 The area is in the eastern part of the city.
17:48:13 It's the eastern boundary on our map, as you can see
17:48:16 I-4 to the north, 50th street to the east, and I
17:48:25 have an aerial depicting the context of the site.
17:48:30 On the overhead as you can see, this map and aerial
17:48:33 was taken in 2004.
17:48:36 So what I will have to show you is another map showing
17:48:39 changes that have taken place in the neighborhood in
17:48:42 this time.
17:48:43 To the east, right here, is Oak Park school in process
17:48:52 of being demolished and will be rebuilt on the new
17:48:54 Columbus drive alignment with I-4 and 47th street.
17:49:04 Oak Park is having classes right now and we do have
17:49:06 information from the school board that there are 400

17:49:09 students attending that school.
17:49:10 The reason I have to say that, Madam Chair, that the
17:49:12 Planning Commission, there was some discourse or
17:49:16 whether or not Oak Park school does exist.
17:49:18 I wanted to clear the record in that regard.
17:49:21 As I said before, the request is to change it to heavy
17:49:24 commercial 24.
17:49:26 You can see from the aerial a very solid residential
17:49:29 neighborhood, from 49th Street West to about
17:49:37 45th street and then the character does change
17:49:39 because the land uses are different, in different
17:49:42 parts of the neighborhood.
17:49:47 The land use context is public/semi-public to the
17:49:51 east, residential 20, heavy commercial, light
17:49:55 industrial, and heavy industrial south of Broadway.
17:50:02 As the City Council is aware, and you have adopted in
17:50:07 the comprehensive plan, speaks to the preservation of
17:50:11 residential areas, and your comprehensive plans from
17:50:15 the future land use element states that commercial
17:50:17 uses adjacent to residential uses should be considered
17:50:20 only such expansion maintain the residential character
17:50:25 of and mitigate the effects of the expansion,

17:50:28 nonresidential traffic, into adjacent neighborhoods.
17:50:32 The heavy commercial planned category does not do
17:50:34 that.
17:50:36 We sent you a staff report that does articulate the
17:50:42 many policies in which this request does not seem to
17:50:46 support the policies in the comprehensive plan for a
17:50:49 neighborhood protection as well as heavy commercial,
17:50:54 very bluntly states that it is not a planned category
17:50:57 that works well with residential uses.
17:51:00 I'd like to show you some of the pictures of the
17:51:03 neighborhood, just so you can get a feel for the
17:51:05 character of the area.
17:51:08 These are homes in the neighborhood.
17:51:10 You can tell from the pictures that we have a
17:51:13 neighborhood that's very well maintained.
17:51:19 They are older, having been built in the 1920s.
17:51:27 This is the site that you are being asked to consider
17:51:31 for heavy commercial 24, if I can get it to work.
17:51:37 And this is also the -- this is on the site.
17:51:43 The change to heavy commercial 24.
17:51:45 The Planning Commission held its public hearing on the
17:51:48 14th of August of a deliberated -- at the

17:51:58 conclusion the Planning Commission is sending a
17:52:00 recommendation of inconsistency for this petition.
17:52:03 And we bring that to you as well.
17:52:05 And I am available for any questions you may have.
17:52:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
17:52:37 >>> I'm an attorney in town but I'm not here really as
17:52:39 a lawyer, I'm here as a friend of the pierces.
17:52:44 We went through this exercise about ten days ago at
17:52:46 the Planning Commission.
17:52:49 And I know that when you come to City Council, you all
17:52:52 give great weight to the Planning Commission's
17:52:57 recommendations.
17:52:58 But I'm going to point out to you that the staff still
17:53:08 didn't get it right.
17:53:09 This is what appears in the Tampa Tribune after that
17:53:13 commission hearing, and -- I don't know how to say
17:53:23 this -- commissioner sort of chastised Ms. Ogilsvy
17:53:29 because she didn't actually go to the site and check
17:53:31 out what she was representing.
17:53:32 The biggest thing she didn't check out was -- and
17:53:34 she's saying it again tonight -- Oak Park school is
17:53:39 down, they tore it down, it's a D.O.T. office.

17:53:42 It is not in existence.
17:53:44 Oak Park school is in existence, not on 50th
17:53:49 street and 10th Avenue, or thereabouts, they have
17:53:53 set it up in some portable somewhere else.
17:53:55 It's in session.
17:53:56 But not at this site where it's represented in blue.
17:54:06 Can you see that okay what I'm talking about?
17:54:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does the D.O.T. own that site now?
17:54:12 >>> Yes.
17:54:12 We have a picture.
17:54:20 We have these pamphlets and you all followed through.
17:54:37 Do you need one more?
17:54:38 I have got an agenda that they made up with me, and
17:54:41 I'll take you through it.
17:54:47 This property here, if I could have that again, is
17:54:56 showing to the south of the subject property, this
17:54:58 piece right here, is owned, that was actually zoned
17:55:03 commercial, although the Planning Commission has this
17:55:06 now that shows that it is residential brown.
17:55:13 It's instead a gray, and I think you should have
17:55:20 something from the appraiser's office that says that
17:55:23 that is TECO's property, and that it's commercial

17:55:27 property.
17:55:27 Is that correct?
17:55:32 >> The very back.
17:55:34 >> If could you take the microphone, please.
17:55:35 >>>
17:55:36 >> Salena Patterson.
17:55:42 I'm sorry, Salena pierce Patterson.
17:55:46 In the very back of the package I have from the
17:55:49 appraiser's office that showed TECO's property on it.
17:55:53 >> Does it show a commercial?
17:55:55 >>> Yes.
17:55:56 >> So that's not accurately represented at the
17:55:59 Planning Commission.
17:56:00 And this was said at the Planning Commission meeting
17:56:03 that this is -- residences all are in the area.
17:56:07 It's not that way.
17:56:09 What it is, if I can have this aerial back, this is
17:56:14 all commercial or industrial.
17:56:20 This is now D.O.T.
17:56:38 Come over here.
17:56:39 Your name is what?
17:56:40 >> Sheridan pierce.

17:56:46 >>: What are you telling the council?
17:56:47 >> This right here is what -- you have pictures in
17:56:51 your pamphlets there that tore down the department of
17:56:59 transportation.
17:57:00 They show it on the blue.
17:57:02 As you can see, all those do not exist anymore.
17:57:06 The city bought this area out, which is now worth
17:57:12 273,000.
17:57:21 Belongs to the department of transportation.
17:57:22 And they call it plat 45 which is the same as what
17:57:25 TECO called a class 45.
17:57:29 >> This is TECO, correct?
17:57:30 >>> Correct.
17:57:31 >> Whose property is this?
17:57:32 Look at this.
17:57:33 >>> That's my property.
17:57:34 >> And what's this?
17:57:37 >>> My property.
17:57:38 >> And you're right butt up against TECO, correct?
17:57:40 >>> Absolutely.
17:57:41 >> So you got a commercial piece of property, correct?
17:57:44 >>> Correct.

17:57:44 >> What's this right here?
17:57:46 That's not residential either, is it?
17:57:48 >>> That's commercial property that belongs to TECO.
17:57:57 And here's department of transportation.
17:57:59 These three properties.
17:58:03 >> He's got maps of all that.
17:58:05 And last year, I have a video of April 24th of
17:58:11 2005, where Ms. Ferlita and all of these guys, I have
17:58:16 it on video, accepted the proposal to make it CI
17:58:22 zoning right across the street from it which is 4801
17:58:25 tenth Avenue.
17:58:26 >> Is that directly across the street?
17:58:31 So let me ask you this.
17:58:32 To the south of you in the commercial and industrial,
17:58:35 to the north of you is at the interstate, City of
17:58:38 Tampa property, or D.O.T. property?
17:58:42 >>> Correct.
17:58:43 >> Did you go through and make pictures of how many
17:58:48 pieces of property were for sale in that area?
17:58:54 >>> I didn't make a copy for everybody but I do have a
17:58:56 copy.
17:58:58 >>: Well, tell you what.

17:59:00 You can do that.
17:59:01 Before we do this, I want to make one other comment.
17:59:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison has a question.
17:59:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Just trying to figure out where you
17:59:14 all are going with this.
17:59:16 You have clearly put on the record there's some
17:59:19 dispute about the evidence as to whether or not it is
17:59:21 residential area.
17:59:24 >> There's residences there.
17:59:25 The pictures that the Planning Commission just showed
17:59:27 you of those nice white houses, most of those are for
17:59:31 sale.
17:59:31 And they are located, the pictures that they showed
17:59:36 you today, are located here, across the street, in the
17:59:44 commercial area.
17:59:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there opposition to this?
17:59:53 >> We are trying to get you to ignore the Planning
17:59:55 Commission's recommendation.
18:00:00 And change the, you know, the zoning.
18:00:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
18:00:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
18:00:07 It seems to me that there's a big difference between

18:00:11 residential and industrial, when you're saying the
18:00:15 property in the neighborhood is commercial, which is a
18:00:19 less intense category.
18:00:23 Would you feel comfortable with the less intense
18:00:25 category?
18:00:26 >> You mean the change to commercial like the piece
18:00:30 next door?
18:00:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
18:00:32 >> That would be all right with you, wouldn't it?
18:00:34 Sure, it would.
18:00:35 And, you know, I think that eliminates the spot zoning
18:00:38 that's now north of 10th street.
18:00:42 This is info.
18:00:43 Were you asking me a question?
18:00:45 I'm sorry.
18:00:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ding way didn't hear from anybody,
18:00:57 and I know this is a comp plan amendment, but a family
18:01:01 that has a business, a specific business that you want
18:01:03 to put there?
18:01:04 Or is this just sort of speculative in terms of --
18:01:10 >> Let me tell what you they really want to put there.
18:01:12 I don't know why he applied for heavy industrial

18:01:14 because when he said that I said, gee, that sounds
18:01:16 like a battery disposition plant or something.
18:01:20 But I think what he wants to do is actually park boats
18:01:28 or boat trailers there.
18:01:29 That's way think he wants to use it for.
18:01:31 And this is -- we figured it out that there's about 35
18:01:35 pieces of property.
18:01:36 Some have been burned down.
18:01:38 One of them has the roof cut off of it because the
18:01:42 interstate went right over it.
18:01:43 And if any car comes over the guardrail it's going
18:01:46 right through this guy's house.
18:01:48 It's a mishmash of houses.
18:01:52 And incidentally, I don't know if this is in the
18:01:54 folder, but they did a survey of every piece of
18:01:56 property in the area.
18:01:58 And what is amazing is, every piece of property's
18:02:03 value went down substantially, except TECO's.
18:02:08 And it went up substantially.
18:02:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Ogilvie, from what you're
18:02:14 hearing, is it possible, as my cohorts said, is it
18:02:18 possible that instead of that heavy industrial that

18:02:21 the Planning Commission staff objected to that we can
18:02:31 continue it along as a lighter industrial use or
18:02:33 something along those lines?
18:02:34 >>: We would be a men to believe that.
18:02:37 >> Let's hear what Ms. Ogilvie has to say.
18:02:42 >> Planning Commission staff.
18:02:44 Let me clarify.
18:02:45 Heavy commercial 24 is the request, not industrial,
18:02:49 but heavy commercial.
18:02:51 The only planned category that allows for commercial
18:02:53 activity lower than that would be community mixed use
18:02:57 35.
18:02:58 And I do believe -- I'm not a lawyer -- that council
18:03:01 has the ability to consider other planned categories
18:03:06 of less intensity.
18:03:08 Without oh --
18:03:10 >> Without renotice.
18:03:11 >> I believe.
18:03:12 >> Would RMU 35 accommodate what you just described.
18:03:21 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: I believe Mrs. Moreda is around
18:03:23 here and she can answer that question for you.
18:03:26 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.

18:03:32 To have the open storage you are talking about, you
18:03:34 are talking about at least a CI intensity, and that
18:03:37 requires either the HC 24, actively a transitional,
18:03:43 since the area apparently transitioning out of the
18:03:45 residential might be more appropriate.
18:03:48 But other than that, would you need to have at least
18:03:51 the HC 24 or zoning change.
18:03:54 >> Remind me what's the transitional?
18:03:57 >> Areas that are transitioning out of residential to
18:04:00 commercial, or light industrial.
18:04:02 Which it sounds from what they were describing is what
18:04:05 they feel the area is evolving to more commercial
18:04:10 designation.
18:04:11 >> Is that a category, transition?
18:04:13 >> Transition. then they would have to rezone.
18:04:20 This is just a first step to getting into the ability
18:04:24 to rezone.
18:04:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The question is, can they get to
18:04:29 where they want to be with anything but the heavy
18:04:32 commercial?
18:04:32 >> Or transitional use.
18:04:34 Those are the two options.

18:04:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: You're saying it's for an area that
18:04:45 appears to be transitioning but in the scheme of
18:04:48 thing, a site for a residential neighborhood, a local
18:04:51 street with residential use designation to introduce a
18:04:55 commercial designation in this place, but not maintain
18:04:57 a residential character of the area, nor the streets.
18:05:00 My question is, on the flip side of this, whether or
18:05:05 not parcels are being sold, they are being sold at
18:05:08 this point as a residential parcel.
18:05:10 So how does that take care of protecting the --
18:05:15 >>GLORIA MOREDA: It doesn't.
18:05:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think --
18:05:19 >>> Not only the Planning Commission but city staff
18:05:21 had concerns with this plan amendment.
18:05:23 And there is a number of residential -- you can fill
18:05:27 in the area that will be directly impacted by the
18:05:30 roadway on 10th Avenue, I believe it is, very
18:05:34 small street.
18:05:35 Heavy industrial.
18:05:38 Could cause for considerable truck traffic, good size
18:05:43 piece of property, and you question whether or not
18:05:47 transportation impacts will have on that use on these

18:05:49 small roads.
18:05:50 So there are issues with this.
18:05:53 If council proceeds, then the rezoning to just a
18:05:57 straight CI, I think it's going to be very difficult.
18:06:01 Rose Ross you have answered my concern.
18:06:02 Thank you, Ms. Moreda.
18:06:06 >> Can I respond to that, please.
18:06:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
18:06:09 Council's call.
18:06:11 When I was in the back watching this, I was watching
18:06:14 and now that I see, I wonder -- well, it appears much
18:06:21 more hopeful.
18:06:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Gloria, I'm sorry, tell us a little
18:06:27 more about the transitional category.
18:06:30 I'm not really up to speed on that.
18:06:33 And after you do, I'm curious if the Planning
18:06:37 Commission could chime in.
18:06:41 What are the possible uses in a transitional?
18:06:43 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Transitional use areas are areas that
18:06:46 he evolving through an industrial or commercial area.
18:06:50 And it allows anywhere from residential, multifamily,
18:06:57 to light industrial even, if possible.

18:07:01 But it's because it's transitioning to that more
18:07:04 commercial or light industrial area.
18:07:07 The only reason why I suggested that at council, it's
18:07:10 sounding like you were inclined to support this plan
18:07:13 amendment, is that I think given the fact that this is
18:07:18 creating-he-because it is projecting into that
18:07:21 residential area, even though there are son
18:07:24 institutional TECO properties and things like that,
18:07:28 that are there, a planned development, you know, at
18:07:31 minimum I think it's going to be required to protect
18:07:33 the residential and the transportation issues that are
18:07:37 going to be needed.
18:07:38 And I think when you have a transitional land use
18:07:42 classification, since there is that residential
18:07:49 component, I think it makes staff's ability to demand
18:07:54 that PD will be there, whereas if you give them the
18:07:57 heavy commercial land use classification, I think the
18:08:00 burden is going to be very difficult for us to say
18:08:02 that that CI is not appropriate.
18:08:05 >> Tampa transitional has related policies that would
18:08:08 head in the direction just mentioned?
18:08:14 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Uh-huh.

18:08:17 Questions by council members?
18:08:21 >> If I could have that map up just to give a broader
18:08:23 view.
18:08:25 Ray Chiaramonte, Executive Director of the Planning
18:08:29 Commission.
18:08:30 Basically, in my opinion as a planner, if you approve
18:08:33 of this, you have decided that this neighborhood is
18:08:34 not going to survive in a residential category.
18:08:38 I mean, it's fairly compact.
18:08:39 We talked about the TECO property.
18:08:41 But the TECO property is empty.
18:08:43 I'm not sure what they are going to do there.
18:08:44 The D.O.T. property is probably some kind of retention
18:08:47 facility or something, not really a detriment.
18:08:50 It almost protects it and buffers it to the west.
18:08:53 From the industrial.
18:08:54 Now, we fully do want to look at this neighborhood in
18:08:57 more detail in the plan update but our concern is this
18:09:00 one amendment, in my opinion, would just tip it, where
18:09:04 the neighborhood would have a difficult time
18:09:06 surviving.
18:09:07 There is enough nicer small homes in there, it is

18:09:10 possible this neighborhood could survive.
18:09:12 I also want to point out and try to clarify the school
18:09:14 issue.
18:09:15 They are rebuilding a school in the area.
18:09:17 It won't be exactly in this neighborhood.
18:09:19 It will be close enough to serve this neighborhood.
18:09:21 And there are kids going into going in portables and
18:09:26 other locations.
18:09:27 The school board has not written off this area yet or
18:09:30 said that there's not going to be children there in
18:09:31 the future.
18:09:32 So we feel that the whole neighborhood should be
18:09:34 looked at comprehensively in the plan update to
18:09:37 decide, should we try to save it -- why we took -- I
18:09:48 feel like that would be a premature step in the wrong
18:09:52 direction.
18:10:04 >> One of the people that came to the Planning
18:10:05 Commission meeting, Cheryl, her objection, don't just
18:10:12 rezone this one property.
18:10:17 I think -- I don't think it's fair to rezone part and
18:10:21 not all.
18:10:22 They she thinks everything should be rezoned this way.

18:10:29 This area is not viable.
18:10:32 It's pinched in between commercial industrial.
18:10:37 It's pinched in with the interstate.
18:10:39 It's got the D.O.T. property to the west.
18:10:43 It's got the dot property to the east.
18:10:45 And you have got like 30 properties of which most of
18:10:49 them are for sale, and here's the crown grid, for two
18:10:55 years, for that area.
18:10:58 I mean, that's not a neighborhood you're going to
18:11:01 save.
18:11:02 Frankly, with the property values going down, you
18:11:05 would be doing them a favor making everything
18:11:07 commercial, so their property values can go up, then
18:11:11 get some money for their homes, they can move out of
18:11:13 this kind of situation, and buy something better
18:11:18 somewhere else.
18:11:19 You're not saving that neighborhood.
18:11:21 Sooner or later, somebody is going to come back here
18:11:23 and say, you know, this isn't it.
18:11:27 We just happen to be the first.
18:11:32 But what the Planning Commission is telling you isn't
18:11:34 correct.

18:11:35 They are not even going to build that school close.
18:11:37 I'm not even sure they aren't going to have to bus
18:11:40 those kids.
18:11:40 How are they going to get them across 50th street?
18:11:43 That's where it's going to be built, somewhere east of
18:11:45 there.
18:11:45 Not around -- not around anywhere around that
18:11:50 neighborhood.
18:11:52 You all are familiar with that 50th street exit.
18:11:56 You can't possibly say that neighborhood is going to
18:11:58 be viable in the future.
18:12:00 Thank you.
18:12:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:12:03 wants to speak on item 18?
18:12:06 Come on.
18:12:07 >> My name is Tracie pierce.
18:12:17 I'm part owner of this property we are trying to get
18:12:19 to you propose, to pass this thing, what you did
18:12:21 across the street from me a year ago.
18:12:23 You unanimously passed this.
18:12:26 You said it was in a commercial area.
18:12:27 I live directly across now from the waste management

18:12:30 department.
18:12:30 So they should the -- shut the 40th Street exit down.
18:12:35 They shut 40th Street exit down.
18:12:38 You can't get on and off 40th Street off the
18:12:40 interstate no more.
18:12:51 This is 40th Street.
18:12:52 So this has now become an access road, Fifth Avenue.
18:12:57 They come down here, and anybody who lives in this
18:12:59 area that has to get on the Internet state, has to go
18:13:02 all the way back to 27th or come over here.
18:13:04 And they use this street.
18:13:09 Even the waste management department, the D.O.T., this
18:13:13 place here, I have traffic backed all the way past my
18:13:16 house by the afternoon, sitting in traffic.
18:13:19 This is definitely not someplace I want to continue to
18:13:22 live.
18:13:27 That's a training facility.
18:13:29 So they are using the trucks to back up with the
18:13:31 beepers, and then they have to honk the horn.
18:13:36 Somebody outside my house, you know.
18:13:38 Walking out the door.
18:13:40 That's all I have to say on that.

18:13:41 Thank you.
18:13:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
18:13:45 >> Harriet Gillette, I live at 2302 north 47th Street,
18:13:51 at the corner of 12th and 47th street.
18:13:53 I have a real big concern with the area that we are in
18:13:55 because we ended up having roads coming in to the
18:14:00 residential, I don't know if you are aware of it or
18:14:02 not.
18:14:02 But 10th street, when you come off of it, you come
18:14:07 onto 47th.
18:14:10 If something blockades 47th we have no way out.
18:14:13 None.
18:14:13 We're there.
18:14:16 Hurricane, whatever.
18:14:17 These our only way in and out.
18:14:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How do you feel about this
18:14:21 proposal?
18:14:24 >>> I'm for the proposal because it's going to turn
18:14:26 commercial.
18:14:28 I live out there.
18:14:29 The house next to me burnt down.
18:14:32 It's still standing.

18:14:33 It's not being taken care of.
18:14:34 The house on the other side of me at 12th, it's
18:14:38 vacated.
18:14:39 There hasn't been anybody living in there in over a
18:14:41 year.
18:14:44 It's just a matter of time. The people have their
18:14:46 houses up for sale.
18:14:47 Some of them are asking over $200,000 for it.
18:14:51 That's not residential.
18:14:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can somebody show us on a map where
18:15:00 you live?
18:15:01 >>> Where I live?
18:15:02 Sure can.
18:15:07 >> Are you guys related?
18:15:08 >>> I live right across.
18:15:21 >> Where is the subject --
18:15:24 >>> It's over here.
18:15:28 >>> The second parcel is right here.
18:15:32 That's where I live.
18:15:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, ma'am.
18:15:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
18:15:36 >>> I'm Harry pierce, 4708 Redmon court.

18:15:41 My father owned this land for years and turned it over
18:15:44 to me and my brother and sister.
18:15:46 My great aunt and uncle owned this land all through
18:15:50 there.
18:15:50 My great grandmother owned the land where my brother
18:15:53 is.
18:15:54 We have seen it go to what it is today.
18:16:00 From a neighborhood.
18:16:01 And everybody that's here for it is land owners.
18:16:04 Everybody here against it, believe, is renters.
18:16:10 There's in a land owners here against it.
18:16:12 I don't know, I'm telling you I've seen it go from
18:16:17 worst down.
18:16:17 I went to that school.
18:16:19 It is not a neighborhood.
18:16:24 Went to commercial right across the road.
18:16:29 You can drive through there.
18:16:31 Tampa one council planning guy said, asked, have you
18:16:34 all gone down through there?
18:16:36 They said, no.
18:16:37 He said, I was there today.
18:16:38 He said it's not a viable neighborhood and it will not

18:16:41 ever be a viable neighborhood.
18:16:43 He said he wouldn't live there.
18:16:46 That's where it stands.
18:16:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:16:48 Next.
18:16:55 >> Ferlina Patterson, I live in 4165 Old Colony Road
18:16:58 in Mulberry. This property has been in our family for
18:17:01 over 80 years, as my brother said.
18:17:05 Three generations.
18:17:06 Went to Oak Park elementary.
18:17:11 Stories, I've heard a history about it.
18:17:12 And it was a beautiful neighborhood.
18:17:16 If you heard my daddy talk about it, he will say I
18:17:18 wish it was today like it was when I was a little boy
18:17:22 but it's not.
18:17:22 It's not -- the one reason, from what I understood why
18:17:27 they took the school down in the first place, because
18:17:29 it was unsafe for children.
18:17:31 Well, if it's unsafe for children to go to the school
18:17:33 right down the street, I would think that it would be
18:17:36 unsafe neighborhood.
18:17:41 The traffic that goes back and forth in front of the

18:17:43 property goes 40, 55 miles an hour.
18:17:46 One light after another.
18:17:48 You can even hardly pull out of your drive it's so
18:17:51 bad.
18:17:51 The noise issue with waste management is unbelievable.
18:17:56 If you had to sleep there, you need ear plugs.
18:17:59 It's not -- you can tell by the property values, it
18:18:03 has depreciated tremendously.
18:18:10 I think that's a huge issue.
18:18:11 And these people -- if you look at these houses,
18:18:14 these -- to see their properties diminish, taking it
18:18:23 out of their pockets.
18:18:24 If they have an opportunity for to the go commercial,
18:18:27 and live in a nice neighborhood.
18:18:32 I just don't see how they can do that to these poor
18:18:34 people.
18:18:37 Thank you.
18:18:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
18:18:46 >> Dorothy Sherman.
18:18:48 My sister owns property in this neighborhood.
18:18:50 I grew up in the neighborhood.
18:18:51 And I think what they said probably pretty much sums

18:18:54 it up.
18:18:54 They said the traffic is backed all the way up on that
18:18:58 street.
18:18:59 How are they going to put a business there, and their
18:19:02 business traffic is also going to cause another
18:19:04 problem on that street?
18:19:06 Only one car can go down that street at a time.
18:19:08 It will be impossible to take a commercial vehicle up
18:19:11 and down that street, because this is the -- the roads
18:19:14 are not wide enough.
18:19:15 This community was built back in the '20s.
18:19:18 And the streets were, you know, planned for back then.
18:19:21 I mean, it's not wide enough for what they want to do
18:19:24 it for.
18:19:25 I'm the one that said, this F they are going to rezone
18:19:27 it, they need to do the whole neighborhood.
18:19:29 And my name is Dorothy moon, not Cheryl kins low.
18:19:34 Cheryl owns her property in this neighborhood and so
18:19:36 does Ms. Gillette.
18:19:38 There are a lot of people that own property there.
18:19:40 They rent property that they have.
18:19:42 So I'm not sure where they are coming from.

18:19:44 The people that own property in this neighborhood, I
18:19:46 mean, they can't afford to live on old colony road in
18:19:50 Mulberry which is a really nice neighborhood.
18:19:52 I mean, those are really nice homes.
18:19:54 Those people, those are nice homes to them and what
18:19:57 they can afford.
18:19:58 And it's unfair to kick them out of their
18:20:01 neighborhood. The interstate has already came through
18:20:03 and took half the neighborhood out.
18:20:06 And cut half of it out already.
18:20:08 So now they are going to put more commercial in the
18:20:10 area.
18:20:11 And what's going to happen to the people that lived
18:20:13 there?
18:20:14 Some of those people have lived in those neighborhoods
18:20:16 50-plus years.
18:20:18 And those people live next door to Cheryl.
18:20:22 Families live there.
18:20:23 Parents, grandparents.
18:20:24 So I don't think that you should just rezone two acres
18:20:28 because they want to make a profit on their property.
18:20:31 I think you should do all of it or you shouldn't do

18:20:35 any of it and the house that's on the other side of
18:20:38 10th Avenue that's located right here, there are
18:20:41 still people living in those homes.
18:20:43 There's one house for sale across the street from his
18:20:45 property.
18:20:46 And there's maybe another four houses for sale in that
18:20:49 neighborhood that I counted.
18:20:51 If their is there houses burnt down?
18:20:54 Yes, there is.
18:20:55 But, you know, not all neighborhoods are going to be
18:21:00 as nice and picturesque.
18:21:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You do not support this petition?
18:21:10 >>> I don't support rezoning two acres in that
18:21:13 neighborhood.
18:21:13 No, I do not.
18:21:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Other questions by council members?
18:21:22 Need to close.
18:21:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
18:21:24 >> Second.
18:21:25 Actually, I would like to ask the petitioner to come
18:21:28 back up.
18:21:36 >>> You picked the worst one because I'm the least

18:21:38 knowledgeable.
18:21:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I'll tell you what.
18:21:40 I would support a transitional use.
18:21:43 Because it sounds to me exactly like this is the type
18:21:47 of area that should have a transitional use.
18:21:49 Because you have got a mixture.
18:21:52 And it will allow residential.
18:21:53 And it will allow some commercial.
18:21:57 But that's not what's in front of us right now
18:21:59 tonight.
18:21:59 And so I guess it's up to you to try to figure out --
18:22:05 I think you can drop it down to a transitional, which
18:22:08 sounds to be me like would let your client do what
18:22:10 they want to do.
18:22:12 They have got to come through a rezoning.
18:22:14 It's a whole different ball of wax when they come to a
18:22:17 rezoning.
18:22:18 And so a lot of these, I think, issues will be
18:22:20 resolved at that stage.
18:22:22 But transitional, even though my good friend ray
18:22:27 didn't like that idea, it sounds to me like that might
18:22:29 be more appropriate for this area.

18:22:33 >> Mr. Harrison, I know you're a lawyer, and I want to
18:22:36 apologize.
18:22:37 If we were here for a car wreck or something, I'd be
18:22:40 on my toes and at my desk.
18:22:42 But when you talk about transitional, I wouldn't have
18:22:45 a clue as to what that encompasses.
18:22:48 Like I said, I just came for my friends.
18:22:50 And so if they can do their parking with transitional,
18:22:56 I'm sure they would agree to that, and like to amend
18:23:00 whatever they need to amend to accomplish that.
18:23:05 And I don't know what the procedure is to do that.
18:23:08 Of course, you all deal with this every day.
18:23:11 So I'm at a disadvantage.
18:23:13 But they want to accomplish something.
18:23:14 And I think that this neighborhood isn't going to be
18:23:21 saved.
18:23:21 They are just the first people here saying, please
18:23:24 rezone my property so I can do something, and live
18:23:28 there and -- rather than live there and goat robbed
18:23:32 and burglarized constantly and let me try to do
18:23:35 something else with it.
18:23:36 You know, they are -- let me mention one thing.

18:23:39 They have a problem with code enforcement because they
18:23:41 have a chain link fence up to protect themselves.
18:23:44 But if they didn't have the chain link fence up, you
18:23:47 would probably see their house toted down the
18:23:51 interstate somehow.
18:23:53 They are just in a bad catch-22.
18:23:55 So they want to make a different use of their
18:24:00 property.
18:24:00 And I think when the property owners see what happens,
18:24:04 and I don't think they realize their property values
18:24:07 went down, and maybe they were glad because their
18:24:10 taxes were less.
18:24:11 But when they see that somebody is making them an
18:24:13 offer based on their property value, they are not
18:24:15 going to like it.
18:24:17 Anyway, I'm sorry.
18:24:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's okay.
18:24:20 Gloria, could you please come up back?
18:24:23 You said transitional would allow them to do the
18:24:26 parking.
18:24:26 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Yes.
18:24:28 Well, it will allow them to apply for rezoning.

18:24:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So would this.
18:24:33 I mean, they still have to cross that second hurdle.
18:24:37 >>> They have to re- Do the zoning, yes.
18:24:40 >> What would the process be if right now we will
18:24:42 amend this to the transitional?
18:24:45 >>> That's a question for Planning Commission.
18:24:51 >>> I'm sorry, what was your question, please?
18:24:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Procedural if they want ton change
18:24:55 this request to a transitional use as opposed to
18:24:58 whatever it is now they are asking for, if they just
18:25:01 make that request on the record right here?
18:25:03 Or do they have to send it back to you?
18:25:05 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: I think it would have to go back.
18:25:06 I want to be very clear in what transitional use is.
18:25:10 It has been a planned category that we have used,
18:25:16 because it's introducing from light industrial to
18:25:19 single family.
18:25:20 It is a planned category that is used largely to
18:25:24 transition out of, as Gloria said, from residential to
18:25:29 industrial or commercial use.
18:25:31 But what you're doing in the reverse is, and if you do
18:25:35 decide to do transitional use, 24, is you are

18:25:39 introducing industrial into this very small, compact,
18:25:43 residential area.
18:25:44 The industrial is much more intense than CI.
18:25:52 And it's my understanding that the law in plan
18:25:56 amendments you go down, but you don't go up.
18:25:58 And I would think that you would want to then send it
18:26:01 back for reconsideration, to see what would happen on
18:26:09 this site.
18:26:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Ogilvie, maybe a question for
18:26:15 Mr. Chiaramonte.
18:26:19 What is the time frame that we will be looking at this
18:26:21 in part of our overall comprehensive plan?
18:26:23 >>> The comprehensive plan update begins in October of
18:26:25 this year.
18:26:27 We will bring it to a final-oh well, to public hearing
18:26:32 in March -- in April of 2008.
18:26:37 It will then be adopted by September 24th, 2008,
18:26:43 is my date.
18:26:49 Because that is a statutory requirement.
18:26:57 And that was the timetable.
18:27:01 And certainly we can look at this area, because the
18:27:03 livable city is the same, and what we do, we -- what

18:27:08 we change is part of that discussion.
18:27:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that I think
18:27:15 that what you said to us tonight is that doing this is
18:27:24 a more thoughtful approach for the little piece of it.
18:27:29 And I appreciate it.
18:27:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm inclined to agree with the
18:27:38 Planning Commission.
18:27:41 We are not really getting the people in that area a
18:27:45 chance to weigh in on this.
18:27:48 I only see a couple of people in there that have
18:27:52 weighed in, and I see where D.O.T. owns six properties
18:27:59 in there.
18:28:00 And the pierces own four.
18:28:05 And I have a problem with that, with that one little
18:28:08 street that's in there.
18:28:12 I just don't think that at this point this area is
18:28:16 transitional.
18:28:17 I think it will be transitional if we allow just one
18:28:25 plan amendment to go through.
18:28:26 And I'm just not going to -- I'll support the Planning
18:28:29 Commission on this.
18:28:30 I think it's consistent.

18:28:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you place the overhead map
18:28:38 that's on the -- there you go.
18:28:40 I agree with Mr. Harrison.
18:28:42 We're not making this transitional.
18:28:45 Look at the map.
18:28:46 Okay?
18:28:48 The entire red area is surrounding what's left of this
18:28:52 neighborhood.
18:28:53 It's sad.
18:28:54 It's unfortunate.
18:28:55 But on the north of it you have got the interstate
18:28:58 which is now, you know, encroaching down, because
18:29:01 D.O.T. is widening the interstate.
18:29:03 On the south, you have got the red, which is already a
18:29:06 heavy commercial.
18:29:07 Coming up from the south, coming in from the east,
18:29:10 coming in from the west.
18:29:11 And somebody flashed up on the overhead the for-sale
18:29:16 signs that are on all these houses.
18:29:19 They look like lovely little 1920s houses.
18:29:22 But they are getting squeezed out.
18:29:25 And it's unfortunate.

18:29:27 And I think that the testimony we have heard from the
18:29:29 families that's been there for 70 or 80 years is
18:29:32 compelling.
18:29:32 They know that area better than any of us sitting
18:29:35 here.
18:29:35 I haven't had a chance to drive out there.
18:29:37 And I will assure you if we transmit something tonight
18:29:40 over the next three or four months before it comes
18:29:42 back from Tallahassee, I'll go out there and look at
18:29:44 it.
18:29:45 And if I think they are pulling the wool over our eyes
18:29:48 I'll change my vote.
18:29:49 But right now I'm very comfortable with that
18:29:51 transitional because I think that's what's really
18:29:54 described this area.
18:29:55 And the other thing is, it's a very passive use.
18:30:02 They are talking about, you know, people parking RVs
18:30:05 and paying them 100 bucks a month or whatever you get
18:30:08 from that, or a boat or whatever it is.
18:30:10 That's not an intensive, day to day, heavy truck
18:30:16 traffic use.
18:30:17 And I recognize we are not at that stage yet.

18:30:20 But when they come in for the rezoning, and all of a
18:30:22 sudden they say, we want to put in a tar factory,
18:30:26 okay, we'll say, huh-uh, that's not what we heard six
18:30:30 months ago.
18:30:31 So I think most of us will still be here.
18:30:33 Many of us will still be here.
18:30:35 And we'll be on our toes about this.
18:30:39 But I'm in favor of transitional use.
18:30:43 And from a procedural perspective -- and I know, John,
18:30:54 you are relatively new to our organization -- but
18:30:58 procedurally it sounds to me like since this is a
18:31:00 lesser use than what's advertised, by motion we could
18:31:05 just tonight transmit this as a transitional use,
18:31:08 instead of the HC-24.
18:31:14 >>> That you are actually considering for adopting.
18:31:16 >> Adopting, not transmitting?
18:31:20 >>> Right.
18:31:20 >> So two weeks later we have the second and final
18:31:22 reading for adoption.
18:31:23 Okay.
18:31:24 But in that same light, can we make the motion without
18:31:27 sending it back to the Planning Commission, can we

18:31:30 make the motion --
18:31:32 >>> What's the position of the property owner on the
18:31:34 change?
18:31:38 It is the less intensive use?
18:31:42 Disagreement with the Planning Commission.
18:31:49 I think the problem with that particular land category
18:31:51 is that's more intensive.
18:31:53 Now, you know, we have to get clarification with DCA
18:31:56 but it's my understanding on a small scale amendment
18:31:59 you go to a less intensive.
18:32:01 Well, if it's more intensive than we have to
18:32:04 readvertise it as more intensive but I thought Gloria
18:32:07 indicated --
18:32:09 >> Just another alternative, to be continued to the
18:32:11 next cycle.
18:32:12 And then make a recommendation on the whole
18:32:14 neighborhood or something, you know, better, more
18:32:17 comprehensive, that the neighborhood actually knows.
18:32:20 Because remember this is only advertised within 250
18:32:22 feet of the property.
18:32:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If it's a small-scale amendment and
18:32:27 it's not going to Tallahassee, then why does it matter

18:32:30 what cycle it's in?
18:32:32 I mean, does it matter at all?
18:32:34 >>> No, that's the question, you can't change it
18:32:36 because it was proposed and advertised for heavy
18:32:38 commercial 24.
18:32:39 So if you are changing anything else you have to
18:32:41 readvertise it.
18:32:42 Anything else equally or more intensive.
18:32:50 >> Intensity -- ray says one thing.
18:32:54 Gloria seems to indicate another.
18:32:58 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Gloria is confessing she doesn't
18:33:00 know.
18:33:01 It's our belief that because the difference between CU
18:33:04 and heavy commercial is light industrial is allowed in
18:33:07 that planned category.
18:33:09 Transitional use.
18:33:10 We are opening up to light industrial uses.
18:33:13 Heavy commercial is the most intense use, is intensive
18:33:19 commercial CU district.
18:33:20 So what you are doing is again, if you are considering
18:33:23 transitional use 24, transitional 24 allows you to
18:33:28 have industrial uses.

18:33:32 In that plan category.
18:33:34 Instead of just commercial, EI, on Florida Avenue,
18:33:40 Nebraska, those kinds, now industrial.
18:33:47 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
18:33:48 I just wanted to explain my confusion as to why I
18:33:51 would not really know whether it's more intensive or
18:33:54 not.
18:33:56 The IG district, if you look at IG versus CI zoning
18:34:01 district, there is one difference.
18:34:04 The IG allows for open storage as the principal use of
18:34:10 the property.
18:34:11 Light industrial uses are allowed in CI, okay?
18:34:14 The light industrial IG, same in that regard.
18:34:18 If you look at CI, it allows for greater F.A.R., and
18:34:22 it allows for residential development as well.
18:34:27 So when someone says it is in a more intensive zoning
18:34:31 district, IG versus CI, I think CI being much more
18:34:36 intensive of a zoning district.
18:34:38 It allows for bigger development, and light
18:34:41 industrial -- or light manufacturing uses.
18:34:45 So when you're talking about a land use
18:34:47 classification, I defer to the Planning Commission.

18:34:52 In terms of the range of zoning districts that are
18:34:54 allowed, you have a much broader range in the
18:34:58 transitional than you do in the heavy commercial.
18:35:07 >> Does that answer your question?
18:35:09 I believe it would have to be readvertised.
18:35:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, we don't really know the
18:35:11 answer top that.
18:35:13 And we have to answer that before we do anything.
18:35:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Back to the comments that Ms. Alvarez
18:35:21 made versus the comments that Mr. Dingfelder made.
18:35:23 I still believe that whether, whether or not, if it's
18:35:26 going down, it's not going down, in terms of a
18:35:29 residential fabric, we are still dealing with a
18:35:32 residential use designation, and I know while the
18:35:36 petitioner continues to comment to us that we approved
18:35:40 the one across the street, I don't remember what the
18:35:43 circumstances were, I don't remember anything about
18:35:45 that.
18:35:45 All I know is that I am trying to evaluate what we
18:35:47 have got before us.
18:35:48 And I still think that whether or not they think it's
18:35:53 not as much of a neighborhood component, it is

18:35:56 residential, and I think we are not taking into
18:35:58 consideration -- I'm sorry, I don't remember your
18:36:00 name -- four rows back, she still lives there, that is
18:36:04 her home, that is her residential area, that is what
18:36:07 she considers to be residential.
18:36:08 It is residential.
18:36:09 And whether you are shaking your head no, sir, or not,
18:36:13 you don't need to answer.
18:36:14 You can shake your head if you want to, and that's
18:36:16 fine.
18:36:17 But at this point, I'm saying that based on the
18:36:19 recommendations of the Planning Commission, based on
18:36:21 the fact that there are people, there's that don't
18:36:23 have signs up for sale, and that do live in what we
18:36:26 call residential homes, I still think it's unfair to
18:36:30 consider what you asked us to do.
18:36:32 So regardless of the majority of this council, I will
18:36:34 not support it.
18:36:35 And I just wanted that on record.
18:36:37 Thank you.
18:36:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I was going to -- see,
18:36:43 procedural if we just needed to continue this for a

18:36:45 weak to answer the question, if it changes the
18:36:48 transitional, it will have to be readvertised and go
18:36:51 back to the Planning Commission.
18:36:52 But I don't know if there's five votes here to do
18:36:55 anything with this.
18:36:56 So maybe we ought to take an up or down vote and see
18:37:01 what happens.
18:37:01 >>: Move to close the public hearing.
18:37:05 >> Second.
18:37:05 (Motion carried).
18:37:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on the Planning Commission's
18:37:11 recommendation, I am going to move for denial with the
18:37:13 understanding that as part of the comprehensive plan
18:37:16 process, we'll take a look at this area and make
18:37:20 recommendations in the future.
18:37:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
18:37:28 >> It is inconsistent with the surrounding residential
18:37:30 land uses.
18:37:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
18:37:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, point of order, I think that
18:37:37 takes priority.
18:37:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to confirm with Mr.

18:37:41 Shelby how many votes does it take for denial?
18:37:43 Are you saying it takes five to approve.
18:37:46 It's a little strange question, how many does it take
18:37:49 to deny?
18:37:49 Why don't we get a clarification on that?
18:37:51 Mr. Harrison, I'm sorry to interrupt.
18:37:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: State law says it takes five to
18:37:57 adopt.
18:38:01 My belief would be -- well, I would say, yes, four to
18:38:05 deny.
18:38:05 Because under the rules of the charter and council's
18:38:08 rules, that would be the official action because it
18:38:10 would not be an adoption of the small scale plan
18:38:13 amendment so it would be five to prove approve and
18:38:15 motion to deny would be a simple majority.
18:38:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm not going to support the motion.
18:38:20 I think that the evidence is clear that this is an
18:38:22 area that is changing, whether you call it CI, or IG,
18:38:26 or transitional, that's really doesn't matter.
18:38:30 The fact of the matter is, these folks want to be able
18:38:33 to do something with that property that, like Mr.
18:38:37 Dingfelder said, is not intense, would allow them to

18:38:40 be able to utilize it, and when we get to the rezoning
18:38:45 section of this, then they'll have to address the
18:38:48 traffic issues.
18:38:50 All of those items will have to be addressed at that
18:38:53 point.
18:38:53 But I think that the reality is that this area is
18:38:57 changing, and we need to help the folks out who are
18:39:01 there who want to be able to recognize that reality.
18:39:04 And I think that's all we are doing here tonight.
18:39:06 This is the first step in a long process.
18:39:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Call for the vote.
18:39:11 All in favor of denial, Aye.
18:39:15 Proposed, Nay.
18:39:24 Denied.
18:39:25 Okay.
18:39:25 We need to open 2 and 4.
18:39:27 >> So moved.
18:39:28 >> Second.
18:39:28 (Motion carried).
18:39:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, did you have a question?
18:39:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want an official tally on
18:39:38 that?

18:39:42 The numbers you are opening now?
18:39:44 >>GWEN MILLER: 2 and 4.
18:39:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 2 and 4.
18:39:48 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
18:39:51 You will be happy to know that the remaining items are
18:39:55 all part of a transmittal hearing.
18:39:59 Items 2 through 8 are for purposes of considering
18:40:02 transmittal, not adoption.
18:40:05 If approved for transmittal these amendments will be
18:40:08 sent as a group to the appropriate agencies for the
18:40:10 required state and regional consistency review.
18:40:13 We anticipate that these amendments will be back
18:40:16 before Tampa City Council for consideration of the
18:40:18 Department of Community Affairs objections,
18:40:19 recommendations, and comments report, and
18:40:21 consideration of adoption of these amendments, in
18:40:24 November or December of this year.
18:40:27 State statute does provide the opportunity for
18:40:29 interested citizens to receive courtesy information
18:40:31 statements regarding the Department of Community
18:40:32 Affairs notice of intent.
18:40:35 And that notice of intent is the final action of the

18:40:37 department after the amendments completely through
18:40:41 this process.
18:40:42 Any citizen wishing to receive this information
18:40:44 statement from the department should provide their
18:40:47 names and addresses outside the chambers vestibule.
18:40:53 Number 2, plan amendment 06-03.
18:40:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
18:40:57 I just want to clarify, just so council is aware, all
18:41:08 these have to be transmitted on the same date?
18:41:12 >>> All adopted on the same date and need to be
18:41:14 transmitted as a group.
18:41:16 Plan amendment 06-03, agenda item number 2.
18:41:26 Educational facility and school capacity.
18:41:28 Schools have been and continue to be an important
18:41:30 component of community development. The location of
18:41:32 schools including applicants surrounding land use
18:41:35 patterns should be an integral part of the land use
18:41:38 and zoning process, to ensure that these public
18:41:39 facilities are planned for and incorporated into the
18:41:42 fabric of our existing and emerging neighborhoods and
18:41:45 communities.
18:41:46 The proposed text amendments would add a policy

18:41:50 creating a relationship between the adequacy of school
18:41:52 facilities and the needs development.
18:41:56 The basis for this amendment is to provide elected
18:41:59 officials the ability to discuss school capacity as
18:42:02 part of developments approval processes.
18:42:06 And the proposed amendment is a new policy.
18:42:15 Policy A-11-12, the future land use element, that
18:42:19 would be identified as managed the time of new
18:42:21 development to coordinate with adequate school
18:42:23 capacity as determined by the school board of
18:42:25 Hillsborough County.
18:42:26 This is an identical policy with added into the future
18:42:31 of comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough
18:42:34 County, and this policy is also being considered for
18:42:37 incorporation into future land use elements of the
18:42:40 other municipal jurisdictions.
18:42:42 The Planning Commission heard this amendment on August
18:42:45 14th, and found it consistent with the
18:42:48 comprehensive plan, and passed it unanimously.
18:42:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The word manages, it doesn't sound
18:42:55 like it's mandated.
18:42:57 It sounds like it has to provisions have to be made.

18:43:01 >> The intent of this is to provide the elected
18:43:03 official it is ability to discuss it through the
18:43:06 course of any development review.
18:43:07 This is not intended at this time to be quantitative
18:43:09 in any fashion.
18:43:11 That will be coming about as a result of the work that
18:43:14 is being done on the proposed school element.
18:43:17 That will be coming to you, I believe, probably within
18:43:20 the next year.
18:43:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That answered my question.
18:43:27 >>RANDY GOERS: Community planning division.
18:43:34 We don't support the plan amendment at this time.
18:43:37 As you read the plan amendment, it's exactly what the
18:43:40 wording in the requirements of concurrency is, the
18:43:43 element we have been working on with the four
18:43:45 jurisdictions, Planning Commission, school board for
18:43:47 the last ten months.
18:43:48 That element which we are going to be bringing before
18:43:52 you as a workshop in October already has provisions in
18:43:55 it about looking at rezoning, looking at plan
18:43:58 amendments, the definition of concurrency, how we
18:44:01 manage concurrency and so forth. This is a policy

18:44:04 that has been part of the Hillsborough County
18:44:06 comprehensive plan and is going to be replaced by
18:44:09 school concurrency element.
18:44:10 So our feel is that even though it sounds like -- --
18:44:21 are going to want to know what is the definition of
18:44:23 capacity.
18:44:24 How does that equate into your approval of denial of
18:44:32 rezoning?
18:44:36 All of those requirements are set forth by stated law.
18:44:38 And that's part of the element.
18:44:40 So we think it's not helpful at this point in time.
18:44:42 We think the policy is better put in the element.
18:44:47 Through that, would either be withdrawn or denied or
18:44:49 another option that you make the recommendation, you
18:44:52 just -- forward it to the executive staff, Executive
18:44:56 Committee for the school concurrency project.
18:45:00 I'm the city's representative on that committee.
18:45:01 And make sure we incorporate it in the element.
18:45:05 I can tell you the policy in the objectives that they
18:45:07 are talking about rezoning, and the implementing
18:45:10 ordinance to do that.
18:45:11 So that is our preference.

18:45:13 And it's a simple preference.
18:45:15 We just don't want to get ahead, and the procedure
18:45:19 that wave to come back and recreate a procedure on.
18:45:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It does sort of seem like a
18:45:28 mamby-pamby policy that you, know, relates back to
18:45:31 what I thought concurrency was all about 15 years ago.
18:45:35 Is that pretty much what you're saying, without the
18:45:38 namby-pamby?
18:45:43 I don't think you said that.
18:45:45 Randy, how about if we just continued this for the
18:45:47 next round, and then it's just not relevant anymore,
18:45:51 then we could sort of just I will kill it then.
18:45:55 But at least if we continue it for the next round, you
18:45:58 know, it has a little bit of life, and than sort of
18:46:02 thing.
18:46:02 Is that an option?
18:46:03 Snoopy think it's a good option because you will see
18:46:05 the workshop that we have on the 19th, we'll talk
18:46:09 about how this is all going to work, how rezonings,
18:46:11 how plan amendments how concurrency will work, either
18:46:17 satisfy your questions, or if not bring policy back in
18:46:20 the next round.

18:46:22 >> Randy, do you all have any feelings on that notion?
18:46:29 >>> The whole purpose of the amendment -- as and we
18:46:33 did in Hillsborough County -- was the inability of
18:46:35 elected officials to even discuss school capacity as
18:46:38 an issue to you make a decision on development, and to
18:46:41 use that information along with all the other
18:46:43 information.
18:46:43 So we copied Orange County, which before concurrency
18:46:47 came into effect they had a policy which set up in
18:46:49 court, that was the policy to manage growth.
18:46:52 It doesn't tell you exactly how you have to do it but
18:46:54 you can discuss the issue, and work with it.
18:46:57 Now, it appears that all of these great things are
18:47:00 going to happen, but having been around as long as I
18:47:03 have sometimes, great things don't happen, and we have
18:47:07 had it in the county plan.
18:47:09 We propose it in the other jurisdictions plan.
18:47:11 So you all can discuss school capacity and use it to
18:47:15 make decisions.
18:47:18 Not requiring you to have a certain procedure, just to
18:47:21 be able to discuss it.
18:47:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Chiaramonte, did you know that Mr.

18:47:31 Goers was planning to have a workshop with us in
18:47:33 October?
18:47:34 >>> Yeah, I'm on similar committees that Randy is on
18:47:37 and working through that whole thing, also, yeah.
18:47:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You don't think continuing this would
18:47:43 be a good policy until we heard what it would be?
18:47:45 >>> I mean, I don't think necessarily -- I think the
18:47:48 sooner you can talk about that stuff the better.
18:47:51 But, I mean, I feel degenerative dent -- confident
18:47:56 that eventually these things, with the attention
18:47:58 placed on it, it started before we had the amount of
18:48:01 attention on it that we have now.
18:48:03 But I don't know where it's all going to end up.
18:48:05 I'm hoping that it ends up but again I think it's
18:48:10 important -- I don't see how it causes any harm for
18:48:14 you all to be able to use that information to make
18:48:16 decisions, and to say it in the comprehensive plan.
18:48:25 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
18:48:26 One of the things I would like to make sure we are
18:48:28 clear on, however, because it's advice I have given
18:48:31 you in the past.
18:48:31 We are a little concerned about doing too much at the

18:48:34 council level without implementing LDRs, land
18:48:38 development regulations.
18:48:39 So policies at the comp plan level have some efficacy
18:48:43 but I wouldn't want to tray to quantify that.
18:48:46 I just didn't want you to have a misperception because
18:48:49 that's not what I have advised you in the past.
18:48:51 We really prefer to have LDRs so we have the clarity
18:48:54 and consistency in its implementation.
18:48:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Smith, I have a question.
18:49:00 In each of our rezoning applications, we get a report
18:49:03 from the school board on the adequacies of schools in
18:49:05 the area, and particularly when we have residential
18:49:10 proposals, we'll have a significant increase in school
18:49:13 population.
18:49:14 We have used that in the past as part of our
18:49:16 consideration for rezoning in terms of, you know,
18:49:21 through our local infrastructure, doesn't allow us --
18:49:27 we weren't supposed to consider that information in
18:49:28 the past?
18:49:30 >>DAVID SMITH: You really don't want me to answer that
18:49:32 question right now.
18:49:33 [ Laughter ]

18:49:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Does the school board weigh in on this
18:49:44 as it was being talked about in the Planning
18:49:46 Commission?
18:49:47 Did they come out and say that they agreed with this?
18:49:51 Or disagreed?
18:49:53 >>> They weren't at the Planning Commission.
18:49:55 Initially they did not have a problem.
18:49:56 They supported the policy.
18:49:57 Until the impact fee ordinance went into effect.
18:50:00 Because part of what was happening in Hillsborough
18:50:04 County, the challenge that you would have when, in
18:50:07 fact, is what do you do when there is no capacity in
18:50:11 school.
18:50:13 And what options do you have as a council?
18:50:16 Do you deny a permit?
18:50:18 Do you ask the developer to provide some sort of
18:50:20 mitigation?
18:50:22 There are in a policies and procedures in place.
18:50:24 The county commission directed the school board to
18:50:26 come up with some type of procedure.
18:50:28 Their procedure was a mitigation fee.
18:50:29 And what the problem was, they could actually get more

18:50:32 money out of the impact fee.
18:50:33 And they could also -- mitigation fee only affects
18:50:38 those who rezoned. Impact fee affects everyone who
18:50:39 builds.
18:50:41 Everyone is contributing.
18:50:42 They have changed their policy or their procedure on
18:50:46 this policy.
18:50:47 And they are just issuing letters, legal letters.
18:50:52 And they say it's going to be taken care of out of the
18:50:55 impact fee.
18:50:56 So we want ton avoid the same situation, where the
18:51:01 information comes up, and you need to know what the
18:51:05 situation of the school board did.
18:51:08 Having the basis of that information, what do you do
18:51:10 with it?
18:51:11 Without any kind of procedure or policy, and the
18:51:13 definition of what capacity is, knowing those
18:51:19 definitions are coming puts you in a position of
18:51:21 having information but no Avenue to implement it until
18:51:25 there's an LDR ordinance or procedure.
18:51:27 School board has told us that they really don't want
18:51:31 to move forward on continuing asking for mitigation if

18:51:34 he because that's no longer their policy.
18:51:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:51:38 wants to speak on item number 2?
18:51:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Goers, I have a question.
18:51:55 Where are we at in the policies there, of course the
18:51:58 application, and then before we came up with the
18:52:08 proposed changes we are looking at?
18:52:10 >>> Where are we in the process?
18:52:12 >> Yes.
18:52:12 >>> The element has been drafted, it's been completed,
18:52:15 and we received some final comments back.
18:52:17 But when the -- from the Department of Community
18:52:19 Affairs there. Was a summit in Gainesville this last
18:52:22 week, I wasn't able to attend, to find out the
18:52:25 feedback from all the pilot projects.
18:52:26 We are moving forward and finalizing the element,
18:52:29 bring it to you in October for workshop, and once it
18:52:32 has reached the consensus of all four jurisdictions to
18:52:36 bring it forward for adoption, the only thing that is
18:52:40 slowing it up is the timing of getting all four
18:52:44 jurisdictions up to speed, understanding what it's
18:52:46 about, and moving forward on it.

18:52:48 So Hillsborough County initially was going to start
18:52:53 their adoption process in September, with the four
18:52:56 local jurisdictions following afterwards.
18:52:59 There has been some ruling out of the governor's
18:53:01 office which is causing -- my understanding is causing
18:53:04 us to take a look at the elements.
18:53:06 I haven't heard all the implications but we have to
18:53:09 take a look to see that concurrency is not going to be
18:53:12 implemented based on a ruling that came out of the
18:53:14 governor's office that was slightly different than
18:53:16 what the legislation set forth. That may put us back
18:53:21 a month or two.
18:53:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: I guess the main thing I am trying to
18:53:25 ask is, are we trying to ask for continuance to see
18:53:31 the proposed legislation is going to come?
18:53:36 >>RANDY GOERS: I think, if I understand Mr.
18:53:38 Dingfelder's motion, to continue this plan amendment
18:53:41 into the next cycle, it gives time to present the
18:53:48 element to you.
18:53:49 And our feeling is that the element is going to
18:53:52 address this issue, the whole rezoning, the plan
18:53:54 amendment, the capacity, how it's all going to work

18:53:57 out.
18:53:58 And then you have the ability to decide whether or not
18:54:02 you feel the element is sufficient or not.
18:54:04 You can make some changes, other policies that you
18:54:06 feel should be in the element.
18:54:07 And we can move the integrated -- into implementing
18:54:13 something prematurely without any procedures being
18:54:15 contemplated.
18:54:16 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand that.
18:54:18 I guess basically what I want to know is, is everyone
18:54:24 on the same page with the delay?
18:54:27 I guess we haven't heard from the petitioner yet.
18:54:30 >>RANDY GOERS: Well, Planning Commission.
18:54:33 We're not on the same page as the Planning Commission
18:54:35 as you can tell.
18:54:36 They would like to go forward.
18:54:37 They would like to proceed.
18:54:40 -- put the procedure in place earlier.
18:54:42 We would like to make sure we have the element in all
18:54:44 of the procedures in place at the same time.
18:54:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: Well, that's what I'm saying.
18:54:49 The Planning Commission is ready to go forward as is.

18:54:53 And that's what's happening here, we look at our staff
18:54:59 and we look to our staff, the Planning Commission
18:55:02 staff, LDR staff and everyone else and we la to them
18:55:05 for that particular guidance.
18:55:06 And I think, in abundance of caution, we need to play
18:55:12 by the rules we have now, rather than keep putting
18:55:14 something off for what may be proposed in the future.
18:55:24 Help me out.
18:55:24 >>RANDY GOERS: My best recommendation is there's an
18:55:27 element coming to you which is going to address all
18:55:29 the issues of school planning, and how to approve, or
18:55:34 when we deny permits or development, how we are going
18:55:37 to fund schools, where we are going to plan for
18:55:39 schools, the whole school planning element is there
18:55:43 just around the corner.
18:55:47 >> If it's three and a half years, it's not around the
18:55:50 corner.
18:55:50 >>> If you remember I was asking for a September
18:55:51 workshop in our schedule.
18:55:54 So scheduling is probably the only thing that's
18:55:55 keeping us in a delay.
18:55:56 It's not that the element is not ready to go.

18:55:59 Scheduling.
18:55:59 >> I understand it's scheduling of the four local
18:56:02 jurisdictions.
18:56:03 And I am not trying to make light of this at all.
18:56:05 But it's not just this issue, but we deal with issues
18:56:09 all the time where it's delay after delay, and we
18:56:12 think it's September, we think it's October, then it
18:56:14 gets to the next year and the next year.
18:56:18 And, you know, it should be simple, one, two, three,
18:56:24 but because of continued delays, and bureaucracy of
18:56:27 government, everybody wants to weigh in.
18:56:29 I think we need to deal with what is in place today
18:56:35 and move forward with what's in place today.
18:56:37 And worry about the future -- I mean we have to plan
18:56:42 our future growth.
18:56:45 By the same token, we have a plan.
18:56:47 And I don't think it's fair to hold up the entire
18:56:50 process based on something that's been delayed in the
18:56:53 past, and possibly has a great potential of being
18:56:56 delayed again in the future possibly till later this
18:57:00 year, possibly beginning of next year.
18:57:03 >>> That part I would disagree about the great

18:57:04 potential.
18:57:05 If you put me on the spot, but let's move forward on
18:57:09 the school concern concurrency as fast as possible as
18:57:13 opposed to one policy and implement parts of it.
18:57:16 That would be my recommendation.
18:57:17 Let's facilitate that process and get that moving.
18:57:25 >>KEVIN WHITE: Planning Commission, where are you all
18:57:27 at?
18:57:28 The Planning Commission.
18:57:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: They want it passed.
18:57:31 >> All we are trying to do is have all our
18:57:34 jurisdiction in consistent policy to allow the elected
18:57:36 officials to look at school capacity as one of the
18:57:39 many issues they look at when they are making
18:57:43 developments.
18:57:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: From what I understand all you are
18:57:53 trying to do is introduce something that will allow
18:57:55 the facilitation of that conversation.
18:57:58 >> To talk about it and be told that you can't
18:58:01 consider that at all, that should be one of the many
18:58:03 considerations.
18:58:05 To make a development decision.

18:58:13 .
18:58:13 >> Move to close the public hearing.
18:58:14 >> Second.
18:58:15 (Motion carried).
18:58:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
18:58:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Smith?
18:58:26 >> I believe I will yield to Mr. Smith.
18:58:29 We are on the same page.
18:58:30 >>DAVID SMITH: There's going to be additional
18:58:33 discussion regarding transmittal base as part of the
18:58:36 other plan amendments ware considering.
18:58:38 But what I would request you do is then consider
18:58:41 deferring this until after you hear the discussion
18:58:44 regarding the other plan, and as part of that
18:58:46 discussion, includes a suggestion that you consider
18:58:50 postponing the transmittal for two weeks.
18:58:54 So if you want to send this plan amendment, we will be
18:58:58 requesting, and if you are so inclined to consider
18:59:04 setting in the two weeks, come.
18:59:07 Set it for transmittal in two weeks, not for now.
18:59:09 And I will explain that in the next.
18:59:12 So if you defer this until after you heard the other

18:59:14 ones, still obviously your choice.
18:59:16 But I can provide you some information that's going to
18:59:18 be relevant.
18:59:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You keep saying discussion.
18:59:28 What is the discussion, October 19th?
18:59:31 >> No, ma'am.
18:59:31 It's going to be at about 7:05 tonight.
18:59:35 The very next plan amendment.
18:59:41 I would lake you to --
18:59:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to table this.
18:59:46 Move to open the public hearing.
18:59:48 >> Second.
18:59:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
18:59:49 (Motion carried)
18:59:55 We don't vote on this until we hear number 4.
19:00:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's reopened.
19:00:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we are going to hear 4 before we
19:00:06 make our decision.
19:00:17 >> We hadn't voted to close either.
19:00:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
19:00:19 Voted no, not to close.
19:00:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

19:00:30 (Motion Carried)
19:00:31 Now we go to number 4.
19:00:35 >> We were working on agenda item 4, is that correct?
19:00:37 Agenda item 4?
19:00:38 Okay.
19:00:39 That is plan amendment 06-06, which is the Adamo drive
19:00:43 redevelopment corridor plan amendment.
19:00:47 This is a privately initiated amendment to designate a
19:00:54 portion of Adamo drive, a redevelopment corridor.
19:00:58 This is a text amendment to the future land use
19:01:00 element.
19:01:09 >> I don't think this one is going to have you -- I
19:01:11 thought we were going to go to the plan amendment that
19:01:13 dealt with Rattlesnake Point.
19:01:16 This one does deal with Rattlesnake Point?
19:01:21 >> No.
19:01:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This is the Adamo.
19:01:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Does number 4 relate to number 2?
19:01:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.
19:01:43 >> Independent.
19:01:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Let me see if I can explain, council.
19:01:49 I would like to ask Ms. Petrucha, as you know, when

19:01:55 you sent DCA everything during a planned cycle has to
19:01:58 be transmitted at the same time.
19:02:01 Obviously, there is a concern with the items with
19:02:03 regard to Rattlesnake Point, which you will get into.
19:02:07 Once you determine with Rattlesnake Point will
19:02:12 determine at what point everything has to be sent
19:02:14 together.
19:02:14 So my suggestion is once a determination is made, what
19:02:18 you choose to do with Rattlesnake Point, that will
19:02:20 give you direction how to formulate the motions on the
19:02:26 other items.
19:02:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
19:02:29 Now I got it.
19:02:33 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Do you want to mention we are
19:02:34 expecting this to be the second cycle for this year,
19:02:36 which means we need to send them off to DCA and we
19:02:40 will need to get them back in time for the public
19:02:42 hearing in November and December.
19:02:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When is the deadline for this cycle
19:02:49 for transmittal?
19:02:51 >>> It usually takes approximately 60 days for them to
19:02:53 respond, and there's transmittal time.

19:02:56 So we were expecting action to be made tonight to
19:03:00 transmit by next week, the beginning of next week,
19:03:04 with getting the amendment back by the end of
19:03:09 September for a public hearing -- excuse me, end of
19:03:14 October for public hearing in November.
19:03:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If there is for whatever reason a
19:03:19 continuance for any of these items to be transmitted,
19:03:22 how long a continuance can be granted before it would
19:03:25 fall out of this cycle?
19:03:28 Do you understand my question?
19:03:30 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Okay, if you are looking like two
19:03:33 weeks for a continuance, probably end up having to get
19:03:37 a date in December for a final public hearing for
19:03:40 adoption hearings on these amendments.
19:03:42 We could probably still do it.
19:03:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: That might fall into vacation mode for
19:03:51 December so we may end up in a quandary as well.
19:03:55 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: must take completion of the
19:03:57 amendments and the adoption must be completed by the
19:03:59 end of this year to be counted as part of this cycle.
19:04:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: Council calendar doesn't coincide with
19:04:06 county calendar.

19:04:12 >>> We'll go with that.
19:04:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Are we ready for number 4?
19:04:19 >>> The way I am going to make this presentation is I
19:04:20 am putting all these plan amendments together into one
19:04:23 which will make it easier because the issues are
19:04:26 pretty much identical.
19:04:27 One of the plan amendments --
19:04:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we could for the purposes, madam
19:04:32 clerk, are we going to open all the Rattlesnake Point?
19:04:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Not now.
19:04:39 We are on 4.
19:04:40 We are still on 4.
19:04:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you staying on 4?
19:04:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
19:04:46 We are still on 4.
19:04:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That was not my understanding.
19:04:49 I wanted to be clear.
19:04:51 I'm sorry for this confusion.
19:04:55 >> If you hear 4, we are going to make the same
19:04:58 recommendation at the end of 4 as we made at the end
19:05:00 of the school request, and that is that you table will
19:05:02 until you hear the Rattlesnake Point amendment.

19:05:04 You can hear 4 if you want to and then table it.
19:05:07 And then hear all the Rattlesnake Point amendments.
19:05:10 But I think the Rattlesnake Point amendments will be
19:05:12 those that relate to the issue.
19:05:16 >>CHAIRMAN: Let's do 4.
19:05:18 Let's do number 4.
19:05:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have will have to wait for the
19:05:28 conclusion of 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.
19:05:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's hear 4.
19:05:32 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Plan amendment A-which would
19:05:38 designate a portion of Adamo drive as a redevelopment
19:05:41 corridor.
19:05:42 Okay.
19:05:42 The petitioner, this particular amendment provided an
19:05:48 overall study of the condition of Adamo drive between
19:05:54 Channelside on the west all the way to 34th street
19:05:59 on the east.
19:06:00 Down to the Crosstown expressway and across to second
19:06:04 Avenue on the north.
19:06:07 The aspect of this redevelopment corridor that we are
19:06:11 taking into consideration were a number of issues.
19:06:16 The location of Adamo drive to historic neighborhoods

19:06:20 including Ybor, Ybor City, the port of Tampa, and the
19:06:25 central business district, Palmetto Beach, the access
19:06:30 at Ybor City is a historic district, a national
19:06:33 register district, a national landmark district, a
19:06:36 local district.
19:06:38 We took into consideration the location of Adamo drive
19:06:41 and the city's Greenways and trail master plan which
19:06:45 there is a component of connection along the north
19:06:50 side of Adamo drive.
19:06:52 And we also is a took into consideration that Adamo
19:06:56 drive plays an important role in the Florida strategic
19:06:59 intermodal system in connecting the port of Tampa with
19:07:03 the central business district.
19:07:09 The purpose of this particular amendment is to
19:07:17 ultimately create a sense of place for Adamo drive,
19:07:21 and to set the planning work for the characteristics
19:07:24 of this corridor.
19:07:28 The characteristics would include mobility aspect,
19:07:33 roadway aspects, aspects of a neighborhood edge, Ybor
19:07:36 City, and Palmetto Beach, the port of Tampa, as well
19:07:39 as the ability of this portion of Adamo drive to serve
19:07:43 as agate gateway as well as to Ybor City.

19:07:48 The amendment would the -- to the future land use
19:07:51 element deals with policy B-7.2, would state that
19:07:59 redevelopment corridor should be stated by the Tampa
19:08:02 City Council and the corridor serve a transportation
19:08:05 corridor suitable for commercial redevelopment.
19:08:08 Currently the only redevelopment corridor that you
19:08:10 have designated in the City of Tampa is Kennedy
19:08:13 Boulevard, which is along the north and south side
19:08:16 between Dale Mabry highway and the Hillsborough River.
19:08:20 The proposed amendment to add Adamo drive, and those
19:08:27 properties along the north and south sides of Adamo
19:08:30 drive, bounded by Channelside on the west, second
19:08:33 Avenue on the north, 26th street on the east, and
19:08:38 the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway Crosstown expressway on
19:08:41 the south.
19:08:42 The proposal also includes additional text and
19:08:46 policies that would state that the Adamo drive
19:08:49 redevelopment corridor would have multi-functional
19:08:52 rolls and that it would be an entry Cal part of the
19:08:55 Florida strategic modal system, serve as a pathway and
19:08:59 greenways of the trails master plan, the Adamo drive
19:09:04 would have to respect the southern edge to the Ybor

19:09:06 City historic district residential neighborhood, that
19:09:10 it would serve as a Gateway to Channelside, port of
19:09:14 Tampa, Ybor City, that any development reviews along
19:09:21 the corridor would have to take into consideration and
19:09:24 respect the functional utility of Adamo drive, that
19:09:27 developers should coordinate and implement pedestrian
19:09:29 and bicycle linkages to the greenways and trail
19:09:33 system, that development proposal should incorporate
19:09:36 pedestrian access and open design from structures to
19:09:40 Adamo drive, be consistent with than the scale of the
19:09:47 neighborhood, shall be compatible with the historic
19:09:50 character of Ybor City and that the proposals for
19:09:52 property shall be site controlled.
19:09:55 The Planning Commission did review the text amendment
19:09:58 on August 14th, and found it consistent with the
19:10:01 comprehensive plan.
19:10:04 The petitioner I'm sure will go into a little more
19:10:07 detail regarding the characteristics, the report that
19:10:10 they have prepared was substantial, and is a basis of
19:10:21 this amendment.
19:10:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm a little confused on something.
19:10:26 Earlier this evening, we had number 12, which is

19:10:32 without the extensive conversation.
19:10:34 Why did we take that separately rather than as part of
19:10:37 this overall --
19:10:40 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The particular item, agenda item, was
19:10:42 a separate fought land use plan map amendment that had
19:10:46 been submitted as part of the August 2005 cycle.
19:10:53 That was a map amendment to change from heavy
19:10:55 industrial to community mixed use 35.
19:10:58 This is not a future land use plan map amendment.
19:11:01 This is a text amendment to the comprehensive plan,
19:11:04 which is basically going to set up the characteristics
19:11:07 for Adamo drive to serve as a redevelopment corridor.
19:11:11 Any changes to the map would have to be a separate
19:11:15 amendment.
19:11:15 This is kind of setting up the characteristics.
19:11:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems like that's the horse and
19:11:22 this is the cart.
19:11:22 So if we were to adopt this, would that other map
19:11:26 amendment be subject?
19:11:29 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Yes.
19:11:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Gotcha.
19:11:35 Thanks.

19:11:38 >>> Ethel Hammer, address 3001 north Rocky Point
19:11:43 drive, suite 300, Tampa 33607.
19:11:46 I am here this evening with Amy Anderson of my staff,
19:11:51 Joe Williams of Kimmins corporation, with the
19:11:53 spokesperson with the Adamo corridor, and John
19:11:56 Grandoff could not be here so he sends his apologies.
19:12:00 He is the attorney.
19:12:04 I'm here this evening representing the Adamo corridor
19:12:06 civic association.
19:12:07 It is a compilation on assemblage of 40 different
19:12:11 properties and 26 property owners.
19:12:14 As you know, the Adamo corridor in this location is
19:12:19 many different neighborhoods.
19:12:21 We are at this location the south face of Ybor City.
19:12:25 On the south side of this location is the Crosstown
19:12:30 expressway.
19:12:30 We are proximate to Palmetto Beach.
19:12:34 We are proximate to the port, to Channelside and to
19:12:39 the downtown.
19:12:39 We think this is a very important decision in
19:12:42 encouraging some form of redevelopment in this
19:12:46 particular area.

19:12:48 When we scanned this out many months ago, we started
19:12:53 our venture here with the Planning Commission.
19:12:56 We decided that the best course of action would be to
19:12:58 collaborate with the Planning Commission in defining
19:13:01 the length of the corridor that they felt was
19:13:03 appropriate for us to study.
19:13:07 At that time, we agreed upon Adamo starting at
19:13:13 Channelside a and going down to 36th.
19:13:21 We met with every agency that we could think of.
19:13:27 We met with D.O.T.
19:13:29 We met with the expressway authority.
19:13:32 We met with the port authority, all of the agencies
19:13:34 that we thought would have any input whatsoever.
19:13:36 As a result of the input from the different agencies,
19:13:39 most particularly the port and the D.O.T., they asked
19:13:42 us to pull it in a little bit.
19:13:44 They wanted to preserve some of the existing
19:13:47 industrial uses at the east end of what we had
19:13:50 defined.
19:13:50 So we pulled it back to 22nd street.
19:13:54 At the Planning Commission public hearing, the
19:13:57 Planning Commission extended it a little further to

19:13:59 the east of 26th.
19:14:01 They wanted to have some of those additional
19:14:02 properties pulled in.
19:14:06 I think that there are many reasons for approving this
19:14:10 application, not the least of which is, as I mentioned
19:14:14 earlier, we are the south face of Ybor City.
19:14:17 Industrial uses, as we have here now, are no longer
19:14:21 appropriate in this location along Adamo.
19:14:27 If you look at the future land use map of the
19:14:29 comprehensive plan, we have a very thin strip of light
19:14:33 industrial planned category that is sandwiched in
19:14:36 between mixed use to the north, different types of
19:14:41 mixed use category, and the Crosstown expressway.
19:14:47 This type of use does not seem to be appropriate any
19:14:50 longer at that location.
19:14:52 It may have been appropriate when the railroad was in
19:14:54 place.
19:14:56 But those rail tracks have been taken up now and that
19:14:59 is now Destined to become a bike trail and pedestrian
19:15:04 corridor.
19:15:09 But only two that I'm aware of that are on the list.
19:15:12 Those are actually already being rehabbed, and

19:15:17 converted into one building as being changed into
19:15:20 townhouses, the other is being changed into office.
19:15:26 The work building and the Tampa box company.
19:15:31 Those are already undergoing renovation.
19:15:37 The industrial fa sat -- facade on that portion of
19:15:41 Adamo is in a long area tractive.
19:15:44 What weighed like to see is something that is more
19:15:46 consistent and compatible with some of the new and
19:15:48 exciting projects that are happening in Ybor City,
19:15:50 something that would be more compatible with that
19:15:53 theme.
19:15:54 As we know, there are many, many changes that are
19:15:57 happening in this area, not only in Ybor but in
19:15:59 Channelside and in the downtown.
19:16:00 We would like to see some of those redevelopment mixed
19:16:03 use projects occurring along Adamo.
19:16:10 There are a lot of transportation improvements that
19:16:12 are occurring in this area that we believe will be
19:16:15 also conducive to the redevelopment of this corridor.
19:16:22 The Meridian, Boulevard, the elevated expressway, and
19:16:29 last but not least which protects this -- affects this
19:16:32 immediate area is the Crosstown connector.

19:16:34 This will have a big effect on Adamo.
19:16:37 We believe it will take a lot of trucks off Adamo, I
19:16:39 did vert them from this area which makes this area
19:16:42 less likely for industrial and more appropriate for
19:16:44 residential mixed use.
19:16:50 We believe that this provides major opportunities for
19:16:53 the city which can provide a new gateway into Ybor
19:16:59 City, an attractive gateway.
19:17:01 We believe that mixed use projects can be encouraged
19:17:04 in this area if we can have incentive for
19:17:07 redevelopment.
19:17:10 We took the public outreach portion of this project
19:17:14 very seriously.
19:17:16 I have to say that I have sent out more invitations,
19:17:21 more surveys, more requests for public input on this
19:17:26 project than any other I have ever worked on.
19:17:29 We sent 3200 invitations to neighborhood meetings.
19:17:35 We held a series of two of them in Ybor City.
19:17:38 We had great turnout.
19:17:39 We had great support for this project.
19:17:42 After the neighborhood meeting, we sent surveys to all
19:17:45 of the people that we had originally sent the notices

19:17:49 for the public meetings.
19:17:53 Out of 3200, we found surveys that we sent, we had
19:17:57 approximately 350 respondents.
19:17:59 So over 10% which is a gad response.
19:18:04 On every question we asked, we had over 90% response
19:18:08 in the affirmative, in the positive, supporting
19:18:13 redevelopment of the Adamo corridor, supporting mixed
19:18:15 use projects, supporting commercial, neighborhood
19:18:20 commercial uses, coming into this area.
19:18:23 So we put together some pie charts.
19:18:30 The turquoise of course is the port.
19:18:32 You can see the overwhelming majority of people that
19:18:34 were very interested in what we were doing.
19:18:36 Some of whom are still following through e-mails and
19:18:41 letters asking for updates.
19:18:43 So in conclusion, I summarized my major points here.
19:18:48 We believe that industrial uses are no longer
19:18:50 appropriate on this section of the Adamo corridor.
19:18:53 We believe that the corridor is undergoing many
19:18:57 changes here and in the surrounding area, that this
19:19:00 area would be benefitting by changing along with those
19:19:04 areas.

19:19:05 We believe that there are opportunities for positive
19:19:07 benefits to the city, and most importantly, we have
19:19:11 very strong support for this.
19:19:13 So we would ask for your support as well.
19:19:15 Thank you.
19:19:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Great report.
19:19:22 It looks really good.
19:19:23 I saw something on page 26 that kind of piqued my
19:19:28 interest, where you had the new development.
19:19:48 25, I'm sorry.
19:19:49 25.
19:19:53 >> Would you repeat that?
19:19:56 >> Page 25.
19:19:59 Amendments for new development.
19:20:00 And you said outside the historic core.
19:20:06 Does that mean second Avenue to Adamo?
19:20:11 And on the northern side or on the south side?
19:20:15 >>> This is actually a quote from the existing Ybor
19:20:16 City development plan.
19:20:19 So --
19:20:25 >> Did you look at the height limitations?
19:20:28 >>> Well, we haven't really -- this is not for a

19:20:31 specific development proposal.
19:20:32 This is going to be a long process of which this is
19:20:37 the very first baby step. The next step is going to
19:20:40 come in this process is your staff is going to be
19:20:43 doing a study of the Adamo corridor to come up with
19:20:48 design standards.
19:20:49 And we have been talking with Michael Chen and Vince
19:20:52 Pardo about this.
19:20:53 They are going to be the one that is actually come
19:20:55 back to you and say, here's the controls that we
19:20:57 believe should be implemented on development in this
19:21:00 area, whether it's height, whether it's combinations
19:21:04 of uses to implement the mixed use idea, F.A.R.s,
19:21:10 whatever the issue is, like you had done on
19:21:14 Channelside.
19:21:15 I presume it will be a similar study that will have
19:21:19 specific standards for development.
19:21:21 After that, anybody that wants to do a project in this
19:21:25 corridor will have to ask for a plan amendment.
19:21:28 Because right now, this will not change the fact that
19:21:31 all of these projects, properties, I mean, most of
19:21:35 them still have industrial plan categories on them.

19:21:39 So we have to come back with a plan amendment.
19:21:42 And then we are going to have to come back as the plan
19:21:44 category says for the text amendment, which comes back
19:21:47 with a PD rezoning.
19:21:48 So we are just at the very beginning asking council to
19:21:53 make the policy decisions that redevelopment would be
19:21:57 a good thing in this location.
19:21:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
19:22:01 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Saul-Sena, then Mr. Dingfelder.
19:22:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to compliment you, Ms.
19:22:06 Hammer. This is an excellent plan.
19:22:08 You say the right things in here about recognizing the
19:22:15 preciousness of Ybor City national landmark district,
19:22:18 the fact that it was placed on a watch list several
19:22:21 years ago, it was removed because of the vigilance of
19:22:24 the DLC.
19:22:31 What safeguards do they have built in to make sure
19:22:34 that the landmark status is protected?
19:22:38 >>> Well, of course, we are still subject to the
19:22:40 Barrio review.
19:22:41 >>: My concern is, and philosophically, I agreed, of
19:22:47 course, those uses are in a longer Jermaine, but we

19:22:51 emphasize.
19:22:53 I don't want to do anything that's going to
19:22:56 potentially undermine the landmark status of Ybor
19:23:01 City.
19:23:02 >>> Nor do we.
19:23:02 And actually, I will tell you that was one of the
19:23:05 first directives that was given to me by my client.
19:23:07 Under in a circumstances are we trying to do anything
19:23:10 here that's going to be incompatible or inconsistent
19:23:13 with the historic district.
19:23:15 So as far as the safeguards, this is the redevelopment
19:23:20 corridor.
19:23:21 I know Ms. Petrucha put on the record that they are
19:23:25 very aware, and, you know, will be preserving the
19:23:29 character.
19:23:30 But again this is just an overlay saying it can be
19:23:33 redeveloped.
19:23:35 I think all those safeguards will come in line as we
19:23:38 move to any other portion and the city staff, that's
19:23:43 the whole reason that they are doing that corridor
19:23:48 study with the design standard, to make sure nothing
19:23:51 comes in that will be inconsistent with the historic

19:23:55 district.
19:23:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
19:23:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I can point everybody to page 48
19:24:04 in your hymn book -- no, I mean in your redevelopment
19:24:12 study book hear, it appears to me -- and I want staff
19:24:16 to correct me if I am wrong -- it appears to me that
19:24:19 what we had in red on page 48 are the only actual
19:24:25 changes.
19:24:28 >>> That's correct.
19:24:29 What is on page 48 was an original petitioner's
19:24:36 proposed text amendment.
19:24:39 To the Adamo corridor.
19:24:41 This is not what was approved by the Planning
19:24:43 Commission.
19:24:45 >> So where is that?
19:24:46 >>> If you look at the resolution of the Planning
19:24:49 Commission, that was what rose presented to you with
19:24:53 all those pages of essentially conditions, or
19:24:56 standards that have to be adhered to.
19:25:09 If you can go to the Planning Commission's resolution,
19:25:13 on pages 6, 7, and 8, it's the actual proposed text
19:25:19 amendment whereby it is not changing anything.

19:25:23 It's not identified any of that industrial, the
19:25:27 proposed text amendment, only to policy in 7-2.
19:25:34 You have the resolution?
19:25:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I'm just trying to get there.
19:25:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Would that be number 12?
19:25:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing, in 7-2, you are
19:25:59 just adding --
19:26:01 >>> It identifies the boundary, identifies the
19:26:03 boundary, Adamo drive, Channelside Drive, 26th
19:26:10 street on the east, and the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway
19:26:12 Crosstown on the south.
19:26:14 And then there's a whole series, so it identifies the
19:26:23 multi-functional roles of the corridor, the purpose of
19:26:28 the corridor, it is defining the potential --
19:26:40 mobility, roadways, gateways, and several other points
19:26:46 that are made regarding the historic district, the
19:26:48 character, the function of Adamo drive.
19:26:51 So all of those points were put in there to make sure
19:26:53 that anything that came in would have to address every
19:26:56 one of those issues.
19:26:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
19:27:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?

19:27:02 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
19:27:04 item number 4?
19:27:12 >>> Good evening.
19:27:13 Second time.
19:27:14 I'm Geraldine Williams Smith, attorney at law, and
19:27:20 72504 east 12th Avenue, and that's in Ybor City,
19:27:24 33605.
19:27:26 The reference that is made as a change that appears in
19:27:30 the change in the presentation that you have to
19:27:34 26th street being the eastern boundary is because
19:27:38 we came to remind, or to inform, those representing
19:27:45 that Ybor really begins on the east at 26th street
19:27:51 rather than 22nd street.
19:27:53 And when we observed that there is a redevelopment
19:27:57 train moving down Adamo drive toward the west, we
19:28:03 don't mind graciously serving as the caboose.
19:28:11 We did make a presentation to the Planning Commission.
19:28:13 And it was adopted by the Planning Commission.
19:28:16 There was no opposition by the staff, or the
19:28:20 petitioner.
19:28:21 And it was adopted unanimously.
19:28:24 And we are asking you to please support us in this

19:28:27 effort.
19:28:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: A good catch.
19:28:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
19:28:34 >> Move to close.
19:28:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to table.
19:28:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to -- second table.
19:28:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's open 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.
19:28:45 Need a motion to open 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.
19:28:50 >>> Could I ask for clarification?
19:28:51 It was tabled.
19:28:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have to wait to find out what
19:28:55 happens with Rattlesnake Point.
19:29:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think out of consideration for
19:29:01 the fact this is going to go on for awhile,
19:29:10 >>> So the idea is it will be continued to another
19:29:14 date, and then we would need to be here on that date.
19:29:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Maybe, maybe not.
19:29:21 We don't know that yet.
19:29:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's open 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
19:29:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
19:29:28 >> Second.
19:29:28 (Motion carried).

19:29:32 >> Ray Chiaramonte, Planning Commission staff.
19:29:40 Relating to Tyson Avenue, there is one text amendment
19:29:43 and four land use amendments, 06-04, 05, 06, 07, 08,
19:29:52 09.
19:29:53 Just to describe a little bit again, it's text
19:29:58 amendment changes, privately initiated.
19:30:00 The areas of the land use amendments put together
19:30:03 equal about 57 acres out of 100 acres that exist on
19:30:08 west Tyson Avenue or Rattlesnake Point, however you
19:30:11 want to refer to it.
19:30:12 The request originally was policies to the community
19:30:16 mixed use 35 planned category to implement the Gandy
19:30:21 gateway redevelopment, a portion of the comprehensive
19:30:23 plan that talks about the idea of this area
19:30:27 transitioning to other uses other than industrial.
19:30:29 And it's kind of a narrative part of the comprehensive
19:30:32 plan.
19:30:34 This would change the land use on the parcels that I
19:30:36 mentioned from heavy industrial to urban mixed use 35.
19:30:43 Your overhead or your screen will show you the base
19:30:46 you can location of the properties that are asked for,
19:30:49 and the rest is not included in this amendment.

19:30:57 Four of the plan amendments were submitted and
19:30:59 approved within the last year.
19:31:00 These are other amendments now that were submitted in
19:31:02 the area that changed other parts of the South
19:31:06 Westshore area to mixed use categories.
19:31:10 These were in the immediate proximity to the sites
19:31:13 along Westshore and they approved the change from
19:31:15 industrial to mixed use.
19:31:16 The initial request by the applicant was to create a
19:31:20 new plan category called community mixed use
19:31:23 industrial.
19:31:25 And that was -- the request was amended to allow the
19:31:28 discussion with Planning Commission staff to not
19:31:30 create a new category with community mixed use
19:31:33 industrial but to add policies to the existing
19:31:36 community mixed use 35 category that would
19:31:39 specifically implement the redevelopment of the Gandy
19:31:42 gateway as referenced in the comprehensive plan.
19:31:44 So what it would do in the community mixed use 35, it
19:31:47 would add policy that is only apply to this area, even
19:31:50 though it's part of that overall land use category.
19:31:55 The purpose of the text amendment proposed policy that

19:31:57 is would cover all of Tyson Avenue would be to
19:32:01 implement the redevelopment of the Gandy gateway, to
19:32:04 promote the redevelopment of the Gandy gateway, to
19:32:07 apply Gandy gateway implementation policies and the
19:32:10 Gandy Westshore area transportation improvements.
19:32:15 The text amendment would, industrial uses would be
19:32:18 legally conforming until the property is zoned to
19:32:21 include residential.
19:32:22 Light industrial would conform during redevelopment.
19:32:25 Development of residential proximate to the light
19:32:30 industrial uses shall be in accordance with the
19:32:32 conditions approved by the City of Tampa at the time
19:32:34 of zoning approval.
19:32:35 No approval to residential until demonstrated that
19:32:39 uses which manufacture and didn't hazardous chemicals
19:32:43 will be relocated prior to the issuance of residential
19:32:47 certificate of occupancy.
19:32:48 And I'm referring to the policy as the Planning
19:32:51 Commission approved them.
19:32:53 New development to address and mitigation
19:32:55 transportation impact, land development regulations,
19:32:57 Gandy, gateway, adopted City of Tampa concurrency

19:33:01 management system, obviously we are proud of this
19:33:02 area.
19:33:04 The Gandy area transportation study which I don't
19:33:07 believe you have seen yet has identified roadway
19:33:09 improvement, other mobility solutions.
19:33:12 To the greatest extent practical the city shall
19:33:15 utilize funding to arrive from the impact fees and
19:33:17 proportionate fair share option adopted pursuant to
19:33:21 new legislation as well as other funding sources, to
19:33:23 construct and implement improvements in the area.
19:33:27 Top go to the individual plan amendment, the first
19:33:31 one, 06-05, again this is heavy industrial, community
19:33:34 mixed use 35.
19:33:36 You see that at the northern and northwest point of
19:33:40 rattlesnake.
19:33:41 The next one would be plan amendment 06-07, this would
19:33:45 be heavy industrial, to community mixed use 35, the
19:33:48 same.
19:33:49 This is on the south side.
19:33:53 06-08, heavy industrial, community mixed use 35.
19:33:58 06-09, again this is two separate parcels, heavy
19:34:02 industrial to community mixed use 35.

19:34:05 The next shows all the parcels put together.
19:34:09 What the plan would look like if it was adopted and
19:34:11 changed to mixed use.
19:34:14 And you see the mixed use along Westshore and then the
19:34:17 remaining industrial in the center.
19:34:20 The Planning Commission recommendation is to find the
19:34:22 proposed text amendment and future land use plan
19:34:25 amendments consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
19:34:26 plan.
19:34:28 I believe that Randy Goers of the city has some
19:34:31 comments to add from the city staff's perspective to
19:34:35 this and we'll be here to answer any questions you
19:34:38 have.
19:34:39 >>RANDY GOERS: Community planning division.
19:34:58 We'll try to take you through a little history and
19:35:00 some of the key issues in the growth plan amendment in
19:35:02 especially the city's position and recommendation on
19:35:05 the plan amendments.
19:35:07 It's been a very long history.
19:35:09 A lot of work between the property owners.
19:35:11 Planning Commission staff and the city staff.
19:35:13 What I would like to start with is the city's position

19:35:16 and recommendation.
19:35:18 I think there's going to be a lot of questions and
19:35:20 maybe some confusion as to exactly what it is you are
19:35:22 going to be asked to approve.
19:35:27 If therein hasn't been some confusion already tonight
19:35:30 on it.
19:35:31 I want to give you the report of the staff.
19:35:46 The report outlines four options.
19:35:51 It's been the city's all along since the beginning of
19:35:53 the discussion about the transition of Rattlesnake
19:35:57 Point that there be a transition plan that will take a
19:36:00 look at the entire point, an area wide transition,
19:36:03 that would take a look at the intensities, all the
19:36:06 issues, and recommend a comprehensive transition
19:36:10 strategy for the entire area, fit into the surrounding
19:36:14 area and also be accommodated by the planning
19:36:17 structure and proposed infrastructure. The city
19:36:21 maintained take care of in the plan update, and we are
19:36:25 prepared to work with the petitioners through that
19:36:27 process in the plan update.
19:36:29 And the Planning Commission staff developed some
19:36:33 initial recommendations and forwarded those to the

19:36:37 city at the end of June, some policies that we
19:36:41 initially reviewed, or the proposed plan as submitted
19:36:45 by the petitioners.
19:36:46 We have several concerns at that time relating back to
19:36:49 the Planning Commission, the issues of industrial and
19:36:53 residential, residing so close together,
19:36:57 transportation issues, parks and recreation issues, a
19:37:00 number of transmission issues submitted on July
19:37:02 6th.
19:37:03 We continued to meet with the Planning Commission
19:37:05 staff, and the petitioners waited for the Planning
19:37:08 Commission to finish their reports.
19:37:13 Their final recommendations.
19:37:15 Planning Commission staff met with us about a week
19:37:17 before their public hearing, and indicated that they
19:37:19 were going to recommend to continue of the plan
19:37:23 amendments, that there was a number of issues they
19:37:25 couldn't resolve.
19:37:26 They were going to recommend to their board a
19:37:28 continuation through this cycle.
19:37:30 The report identifies the issues that were going to
19:37:34 need to be looked at in this coming cycle.

19:37:36 We supported that continuation.
19:37:39 That is the second recommendation, continued to
19:37:42 support staff's recommendation.
19:37:44 To continue these plan amendments through the next
19:37:46 cycle.
19:37:47 The Planning Commission staff presented their
19:37:49 arguments with the Planning Commission.
19:37:51 The Planning Commission did not agree with the
19:37:53 Planning Commission staff and voted 5 to 4 in favor of
19:37:56 the plan amendments that you presented with tonight.
19:38:01 Both plan amendments have come before you.
19:38:03 We review the plan amendments and we feel at the very
19:38:06 least not to approve the Planning Commission plan
19:38:11 amendments.
19:38:12 The staff report we submitted had several issues
19:38:15 raised after that, they reference the Gandy gateway
19:38:21 study which is a study that has not been released, and
19:38:26 the comprehensive policy to a report that has not
19:38:30 been -- not part of the comprehensive plan is
19:38:34 typically been found inconsistent by DCA and not
19:38:37 consistent with any of the procedures.
19:38:40 So we thought the policy, the way they were written

19:38:43 should not be approved, and said we continue to work
19:38:46 with the petitioners to develop alternative text
19:38:51 amendments, which we felt addressed some of the
19:38:53 issues.
19:38:55 We don't think they addressed all of the issues.
19:38:57 I'll go over some of those.
19:38:59 But we wanted to make sure at the very least the
19:39:01 alternative section was the text amendment would be
19:39:05 considered this evening.
19:39:07 The last recommendation is that alternatively City
19:39:11 Council may wish to reschedule the public hearing.
19:39:14 We recognized throughout this process there's been a
19:39:17 number of questions that have come up, questions from
19:39:19 the city staff, questions from the petitioners, we
19:39:22 still see outstanding issues, everyone though the
19:39:24 policies that we presented we think are pretty good.
19:39:27 We still see some outstanding issues in the policies
19:39:29 that we developed.
19:39:30 I think throughout the evening you may hear a number
19:39:34 of issues, and we just want to let you know if you are
19:39:38 not clear on anything, don't feel comfortable, the
19:39:40 option of continuing the public hearing to a later

19:39:44 date.
19:39:44 Yes, you won't make this last cycle.
19:39:46 This is the last cycle for this year.
19:39:49 However, there's next year's cycle.
19:39:51 And there's the issue of continuing into the next
19:39:55 cycle.
19:39:56 It makes things a little difficult from a scheduling
19:39:58 cycle concerning a very significant public policy
19:40:01 decision.
19:40:02 So I want to let you know that you have a variety of
19:40:04 options tonight based on what you are going to hear.
19:40:08 Let me also summarize that this is an amendment to the
19:40:14 comprehensive plan, not a development agreement.
19:40:16 Typically what happens, in many privately initiated
19:40:21 plan amendments, it's the view that there's a
19:40:23 developer seeking something, looking for assurances,
19:40:26 looking for guarantees.
19:40:27 Those are the type of things that happen at the
19:40:30 development of the site plan approval.
19:40:31 The plan amendment process is the city articulation of
19:40:36 the vision and how we are going to regulate land and
19:40:39 development in public facilities in the future.

19:40:41 So this is more about the consistency with the comp
19:40:44 plan, consistency that the city has than it is about
19:40:48 what the property owner's vision is for his own
19:40:51 property.
19:40:51 That's important for his perspective but comp plan and
19:40:54 plan amendment is important from the city's
19:40:55 perspective and what the city has to look out for in
19:40:58 terms of looking out for the public health, safety,
19:41:01 and also be fiscally responsible and being able to
19:41:04 manage growth.
19:41:07 Let me give you a little bit of history.
19:41:09 I kind of went through most of the history.
19:41:11 But it's been a process that for some property owners
19:41:14 has probably gone back as far as two years.
19:41:17 When they first came to recommend a plan amendment.
19:41:20 And told along the way from Planning Commission staff
19:41:23 and city staff that the area -- the area was looked at
19:41:27 as an area-wide parcel, not just one parcel.
19:41:33 Another one changing to CMU.
19:41:35 And piecemeal parcels all along.
19:41:37 So it was finally encouraged in the beginning to
19:41:40 develop a consensus, and work out some agreement of

19:41:43 where the direction was going to go.
19:41:51 I want to commend the property owners.
19:41:52 They reached consensus for half the peninsula and
19:41:55 that's pretty hard to do in any private initiated plan
19:41:58 amendment to try to work out your own interests, and
19:42:01 at the same time support other peoples.
19:42:03 They worked very hard in doing that.
19:42:05 They will tell you, I think, and they told us a number
19:42:08 of times they feel they are being treated differently
19:42:10 because they have been asked to provide a variety of
19:42:12 information, they have been asked to have a few
19:42:16 delays.
19:42:18 There has been a request for more time and more
19:42:21 information.
19:42:23 To be put simply, they are being treated differently
19:42:25 because what they are asking for is significantly
19:42:28 different than what any other property owners asked
19:42:30 for.
19:42:37 >> Let me run through some of the things they are
19:42:39 asking for.
19:42:51 Is this on?
19:42:52 Here are the plan amendments.

19:42:54 As we go along, these are now heavy industrial uses,
19:42:58 mixture of heavy industrial, light industrial, and so
19:43:01 forth.
19:43:02 Throws a chemical storage distribution plant here.
19:43:07 This is the propane storage area.
19:43:10 The federal government operates the reserves here in
19:43:14 this area.
19:43:14 It's a mixture of marine and commercial in this area.
19:43:17 The original proposal, and the proposal which is still
19:43:21 being set forth, is to have a co-location of
19:43:24 industrial and residential, not only in addition but
19:43:29 in the same parcels.
19:43:32 Our comprehensive plan right now does not allow that.
19:43:35 That would be inconsistent with our comp plan.
19:43:37 You remember a couple of years ago the City of Tampa
19:43:39 was named in a suit because of incompatibility of land
19:43:43 uses of industrial and residential, separated by a
19:43:47 road, 22nd street causeway.
19:43:49 Here we are talking about establishing a policy that
19:43:51 allows co-location of industrial and residential on
19:43:54 the same parcel.
19:43:55 Next to a chemical storage tank.

19:43:58 So complicated issues require a very specific
19:44:03 decision.
19:44:03 So we are forced to look at this process differently
19:44:09 than we have in the past.
19:44:14 A co-location, co-location policy, is possible.
19:44:18 Other cities have done it.
19:44:20 But they have done it after a very long series of
19:44:23 deliberations setting out exactly what the area is
19:44:26 going to be, how it's going to evolve, what are the
19:44:28 key issues in transitioning land uses, what public
19:44:32 infrastructure is needed and really a timing of how
19:44:35 you phase out the industry uses, and then bring in the
19:44:39 residential uses.
19:44:44 What we have been working with, the petitioners, is
19:44:48 trying to craft a framework in the comp plan to try to
19:44:50 address those issues.
19:44:52 I can tell you that based on our policy that we
19:44:55 produced, and the proposal at the industrial
19:44:59 residential component was not consistent, we added
19:45:03 some policy which suggested -- added some policy that
19:45:06 is would try to bring it in.
19:45:07 The alternative, I gave you policies A-6 -- A-1

19:45:13 through A-6, A-4 talked about establishing a
19:45:17 redevelopment area, waterfront area, limiting the
19:45:19 rezonings and the building permits, until the heavy
19:45:22 industrial uses are gone.
19:45:24 We thought that would establish a framework for us
19:45:27 under the process to proceed.
19:45:30 One of the key components of our recommendation has
19:45:34 been a transition plan.
19:45:36 If you heard earlier tonight about the transition plan
19:45:38 for the Adamo corridor, you saw the amount of work and
19:45:41 thought that went into it and the progression of how
19:45:44 that plan should proceed.
19:45:46 First setting a framework, regulations and the
19:45:50 guidelines, and then with the plan amendments to
19:45:52 implement that.
19:45:53 That was the type of transition plan that we advocated
19:45:56 of being able to establish a framework, come back with
19:46:00 whatever kind of guidelines, regulations, or
19:46:04 requirements are met, and then proceed with the
19:46:06 redevelopment of the area.
19:46:09 I think there's a difference in opinion of what the
19:46:11 transition plans and the petition, and I think they

19:46:15 are going to have to discuss their view of the
19:46:16 transition plan.
19:46:19 We understand their view that they have got the
19:46:22 policies in the plan that we recommended are
19:46:24 sufficient to guide the redevelopment.
19:46:26 We think the area needs to be looked at in told, this
19:46:29 is only half of the Rattlesnake Point area.
19:46:32 The city is going to be responsible for transitioning
19:46:34 the other half.
19:46:35 And making sure that the peninsula develops in a
19:46:40 manner that's positive for the entire community.
19:46:45 We have some policies for marine uses, as a minor
19:46:48 issue because they were not consistent in that area,
19:46:51 so we did add a policy to bring to that.
19:46:54 Another test of consistency, way was going through,
19:46:57 the tests for consistency with the comprehensive plan
19:47:00 are two-fold.
19:47:01 Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan in state
19:47:03 law from a land use perspective?
19:47:06 We think the co-location of uses, some policy that is
19:47:10 we think are helpful but I am not sure we are going --
19:47:13 they are going to be meeting the test of the state law

19:47:16 on whether or not it's consistent.
19:47:17 And I'm not sure there's enough background information
19:47:20 in our report.
19:47:21 Although I think they are pretty good.
19:47:22 The public facilities is the second part.
19:47:25 Does the city have adequate public facilities to serve
19:47:28 the impact of the development as proposed?
19:47:32 We have adequate solid waste and stormwater
19:47:35 facilities.
19:47:36 Adequate water and sewer capacity.
19:47:41 We have the codes in place that the developers would
19:47:44 be required to put those in.
19:47:47 From a concurrency standpoint we have adequate parks
19:47:49 and recreation.
19:47:50 However, the facilities in the area are constrained.
19:47:53 We don't have any planned improvements for park and
19:47:56 recreation in the area that would accommodate that.
19:47:58 And there is no real mechanism yet to put those in
19:48:03 place without accepting the city's improvement
19:48:10 program.
19:48:10 Shelters, we needed to recommend a policy to deal with
19:48:13 the new state law, bill 1359 which requires

19:48:19 development and coastal hey hazard areas to mitigate
19:48:21 for shelters.
19:48:24 Evacuation times, the report indicates that evacuation
19:48:28 times have been addressed, although the methodology
19:48:31 used to us indicates there's been 2001 separate
19:48:34 methodologies.
19:48:35 One report shows that there's a thousand trips.
19:48:37 Another shows a thousand trips for another part.
19:48:40 And shows there's no significant impact.
19:48:47 There would be a significant impact with that.
19:48:49 So there's probably some clarification on hurricane
19:48:52 evacuation times.
19:48:52 The DCA, the area NTCA, one of the biggest concerns,
19:48:58 meeting some of the transportation requirement is the
19:49:00 TCA intervention and what -- regarding the TVA
19:49:08 exemptions.
19:49:08 The TCA allows roadways to operate to be congested, to
19:49:14 fail.
19:49:14 It is still the city's responsibility to decide on how
19:49:17 much growth it's going to allow on the roads in terms
19:49:22 of intensity and the impact.
19:49:24 The proposal -- and you will hear here tonight, it's

19:49:28 more of a plan amendment, a paperwork item, is when
19:49:33 you estimate trip impact, you take the maximum
19:49:36 buildout of your current planned category and compare
19:49:40 to the your maximum buildout of your proposed
19:49:42 category, the heavy industrial category, maximum
19:49:45 buildout, equals the heavy industrial category or the
19:49:48 impact of the CMU 35.
19:49:51 But right now the heavy industrial is not operating at
19:49:53 a maximum buildout.
19:49:56 So we know there's going to be a trip impact.
19:49:59 We know all along Westshore and Gandy in that area,
19:50:02 everything that is turned from heavy industrial to
19:50:06 CMU, if it was equal there wouldn't be a
19:50:08 transportation problem down there.
19:50:09 Everything would have already been equalled out.
19:50:12 So we know there's going to be a trip impact.
19:50:14 We don't know how much.
19:50:14 We don't know what the actual trips that are coming
19:50:18 out today and how that would compare with what's being
19:50:20 planned out there, and how many trips that would
19:50:23 impact, Westshore Boulevard.
19:50:25 We do know Westshore Boulevard is constrained.

19:50:27 There are no improvements that are planned for
19:50:32 construction.
19:50:32 There is a study which is completed and hasn't been
19:50:34 released.
19:50:35 We don't know what the list of projects are going to
19:50:38 come out, what the projects are going to be and which
19:50:42 ones the city is going to take on and fund to
19:50:44 alleviate the traffic congestion.
19:50:46 So when the -- from a traffic standpoint of public
19:50:49 facilities, we can say it is major outstanding I shall
19:50:54 in our report that can't be addressed at this point in
19:50:56 time.
19:51:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask you a question?
19:51:13 I know on September 26th, they'll have a report
19:51:17 from the transportation consultant top do the study,
19:51:21 and I participated in that study so I have a little
19:51:23 prey view on what they are going to say.
19:51:25 But they are going to present that to us, okay?
19:51:31 I don't know that anything else is scheduled for that
19:51:33 day in terms of us reacting to it or responding to it.
19:51:39 The administration anticipate -- what does the
19:51:42 administration anticipate happening that could come

19:51:45 out of that study?
19:51:47 Just for argument sake, you know, that study is going
19:51:50 to say, here are some of the options, A, B, C, D, E,
19:51:54 F, in terms of how the city could respond to the new
19:51:57 development.
19:51:58 It's already been approved and is being proposed here
19:52:01 tonight, and other new development as well south of
19:52:04 Gandy.
19:52:05 A, B, C, D, E and F, what does the administration
19:52:09 think might happen at that point, or after that?
19:52:21 >>> I'm not sure I can take a guess at that.
19:52:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's hear from Jean.
19:52:28 >>> Jean Dorsett, transportation division.
19:52:29 I can't specifically answer your question, because I
19:52:32 don't have an answer to the -- haven't asked the
19:52:36 question to the administration.
19:52:37 But the presentation we are planning to make on the
19:52:41 26th, not only will discuss the recommendations
19:52:44 out of this Gandy study, it will also hit on the other
19:52:50 issues that we have before us which are the review of
19:52:53 the transportation concurrency exception area, the
19:52:56 TPPA, that is part of the comp plan update, and also

19:53:00 another ordinance which will be required to adopt by
19:53:02 the end of the year for proportionate fair share.
19:53:07 So the intent of the workshop is to present the Gandy
19:53:11 study, in context to these other transportation tools
19:53:15 which we are being asked to reexamine, and part of our
19:53:19 restructuring of those tools will depend on your
19:53:22 vision, the administration's vision and the comp plan
19:53:25 results, of what the desiring for that area in terms
19:53:30 of density and future land use.
19:53:33 So I think the presentation on the 26th will
19:53:37 prepare everyone for the discussions that have to take
19:53:41 place on how we see that area evolving and our city
19:53:46 evolving in terms of density and congestion related to
19:53:49 transportation.
19:53:51 So I don't expect an immediate, quick action at that
19:53:54 point that sort of puts everything in place
19:53:57 immediately.
19:54:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: N.E.A.T. did I but I just wanted to
19:54:03 confirm it.
19:54:04 >>KEVIN WHITE: That's exactly way was talking about
19:54:07 earlier.
19:54:08 We don't expect to see any immediate impacts on

19:54:10 anything.
19:54:11 And one of the things that you were talking about, I
19:54:14 wanted to chime in on Mr. Goers, was your trip impact.
19:54:20 I have been here three and a half years and we keep
19:54:22 talking about impact on traffic and the traffic
19:54:25 analysis.
19:54:27 It never ceases to amaze me you are attempting to
19:54:29 describe the theory to calculate trip impact.
19:54:34 And we have expert after expert after expert that
19:54:38 comes up here, and everybody has their own theory of
19:54:42 trip generation.
19:54:44 And it varies from city staff to petitioners.
19:54:48 And I think that the bottom line is, all over town,
19:54:55 all over the country, we have more trips and causing
19:54:58 more cars to be on the road.
19:55:00 But how a development comes in and says that -- I'm
19:55:05 going back a little ways here, nothing to do with this
19:55:08 one but just a calculation of the trip generations, we
19:55:11 were looking at a hotel here, in the Hyde Park area on
19:55:16 South Howard, and I believe Swann, there's a 200-room
19:55:21 hotel, that nothing was on now, 200-room motel, staff,
19:55:30 patrons, service vehicles, garbage, taxis, the whole

19:55:34 nine yards, and the person that was doing the traffic
19:55:38 calculation said that the trips were going to go down
19:55:42 a thousand trips a day for the area.
19:55:48 And the trip impact is -- I won't say it's not
19:55:52 necessarily significant, because south Gandy has a
19:55:55 tremendous problem.
19:55:57 But so does the entire city.
19:55:59 We are becoming more congested.
19:56:02 I'm just saying, I don't think that one thing is going
19:56:05 to hinge on whether we should move forward or not.
19:56:11 And believe me, I understand, I share some of your
19:56:17 same concerns.
19:56:18 But I just don't see.
19:56:24 You say even there's a possibility it won't go forward
19:56:26 or we won't come up with anything else, and I know we
19:56:29 won't.
19:56:30 But I just don't see how the variations and the
19:56:37 disproportionate sways of the numbers can come up.
19:56:44 You have your definition and somebody else will have
19:56:46 theirs.
19:56:46 And you are going to say it will go up a thousand
19:56:49 trips a day, somebody else will say -- it's a very

19:56:53 confusing thing.
19:56:54 And I'm not an engineer.
19:56:56 I don't know about my other colleagues.
19:57:03 So we just keep going in circles about the same things
19:57:07 over and over again, and nothing is happening and
19:57:11 nothing can come to finite resolution.
19:57:17 >>> It is a complicated calculation.
19:57:19 And it is subject to interpretation by individuals.
19:57:23 But where you come in to play on that is the ability
19:57:27 to determine what the maximum number of trips could
19:57:28 be.
19:57:30 It doesn't have to be 35 --
19:57:35 >>KEVIN WHITE: But with that calculation, everyone if
19:57:36 it's 35 trips, the way you are going to come up with
19:57:40 35 trips and the way somebody else is going to come up
19:57:42 with 35 trips is still going to bear on it.
19:57:47 That's why I think we need to take this on a
19:57:49 case-by-case basis and move forward on that basis, and
19:57:53 move forward westbound what we have our current rules
19:57:59 as they are now.
19:58:00 And like I said the traffic impact analysis and
19:58:02 everything else, I strongly take all of those into

19:58:05 consideration, especially more so in certain areas
19:58:07 than others.
19:58:09 Yeah, we hear it all the time.
19:58:14 It is gridlock and we want to do whatever we can.
19:58:17 And when we are planning more growth and more density,
19:58:20 we need to be looking at that.
19:58:22 But I think on a staff level, not you, everybody's
19:58:28 staff, we need to come to some kind of consensus how
19:58:32 we are calculating and coming up with some arbitrary
19:58:36 figure that we can at least, somewhere in this
19:58:39 ballpark, be on the same page.
19:58:44 >>> That is one of the areas we said we didn't have
19:58:45 the information in terms of what's there now, versus
19:58:48 what could be there in the future.
19:58:50 So not knowing that information, not knowing exactly
19:58:53 what the trip impact is going to be, what I believe
19:58:56 is, I believe it's going to go up, it's not going to
19:58:58 go down.
19:58:59 Going up on a road that is constrained demands a
19:59:04 solution, or a discussion about how to handle that.
19:59:07 I think we have to be clear that it's going -- traffic
19:59:09 is going to get worse, and have immediate situations

19:59:15 on that point.
19:59:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Randy, were you getting close to
19:59:19 wrapping up?
19:59:20 >>RANDY GOERS: Yes.
19:59:21 What we went through, the process with the
19:59:25 administration to work as close as we could with the
19:59:28 developers and the petitioners.
19:59:29 We trade to be as cooperative and tried to seek what
19:59:35 they were looking for in this process and try to
19:59:37 develop a compromise solution.
19:59:40 Again, we still feel that the best solution is to look
19:59:45 at the point from an comprehensive framework, not
19:59:48 looking at half today and coming in piecemeal with
19:59:50 other plan amendments in the future, where we have to
19:59:53 be incremental changes.
19:59:55 So we feel like something should be looked at in the
19:59:58 plan update or at the very least maybe a continuation
20:00:01 that was recommended by the Planning Commission.
20:00:05 If our policies are going to be approved tonight, the
20:00:10 ones we put in, but if you want to look at those,
20:00:14 because you can see they are not the clearest policies
20:00:16 in the world.

20:00:16 Even as of yesterday we were still in discussions as
20:00:19 to what did we many by heavy industrial, what did they
20:00:22 mean by heavy industrial, what did we many by light
20:00:25 industrial?
20:00:25 So you told us that there was still some work and
20:00:30 clarification to work through.
20:00:31 And we still think those policies could be clarified
20:00:35 and worked through a little better.
20:00:37 And then transportation issues are issues that could
20:00:42 be resolved and then the whole issue of residential is
20:00:46 something we haven't done, we don't allow anywhere
20:00:49 else in the city and we have to be very judicious
20:00:52 about that area.
20:00:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Not being able to figure out,
20:01:00 because Mr. Chiaramonte presentation didn't mention
20:01:05 anything about 06-04 which is create this new
20:01:08 community mixed use 35 industrial.
20:01:19 I have heads shaking and I have heads nodding.
20:01:23 >> We just didn't make it a separate category.
20:01:25 We made it a part of CMU 35.
20:01:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So then do we really need to have
20:01:41 item number 3 on the agenda?

20:01:46 >>> Item number 3?
20:01:48 >> That's the text amendment to CMU 35.
20:01:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Community mixed use 35 industrial.
20:01:55 >>> That's state wag the petitioner originally asked
20:01:57 for.
20:02:00 What they originally asked for and what the Planning
20:02:02 Commission did with that, and the resolution you have
20:02:07 is what the Planning Commission recommended to find
20:02:11 consistent with the plan which I believe petitioner
20:02:13 has agreed with.
20:02:16 They started out wanting a separate category.
20:02:18 We worked with them and they went to the idea,
20:02:20 agreeing to the idea of putting policies in CMU 35.
20:02:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So they did not agree to create a
20:02:26 new CMU 35-I.
20:02:29 >>> In a.
20:02:30 Their final thing they were okay with everything it
20:02:32 part of CMU.
20:02:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Goers, suppose we asked, we go
20:02:43 ahead and say send it over to DCA, and DCA looks at
20:02:48 all of this and comes back with the same type of
20:02:50 objections that city staff has come up with.

20:02:53 What happens then?
20:02:54 Does it come back to the city?
20:02:56 >>> Comes back to the city and the city has three
20:02:58 options to -- within 60 days, to adopt the plan
20:03:03 amendment, as submitted, basically, say to DCA we
20:03:08 don't agree with you, we are going to move forward, or
20:03:10 adopt them with changes that the city wants to -- will
20:03:15 respond to.
20:03:16 Or to withdraw the plan amendment.
20:03:17 Typically DCA either will object because they are not
20:03:22 consistent with the comp plan, or with chapter 163, or
20:03:26 we didn't have a sufficient data analysis to justify
20:03:29 the comp plan changes.
20:03:31 >> So do you think that the alternative text
20:03:33 amendments that you're planning on putting in -- I
20:03:36 guess it's number 3 -- would satisfy DCA?
20:03:41 >> In my opinion, no.
20:03:42 I think we satisfied, we came close to satisfying the
20:03:44 number of issues, I still believe would object to the
20:03:49 plan.
20:03:49 >> And what about if they find the Planning
20:03:54 Commissions consistent, would they find objections to

20:04:00 theirs?
20:04:00 >>: I believe so.
20:04:05 I believe DCA would.
20:04:08 >> Would find objections?
20:04:11 So the best thing really to do then, since there's so
20:04:14 many objections, I mean, I can see, we are talking
20:04:17 about the Gandy study, and we haven't even looked at
20:04:22 it until September 26th.
20:04:27 We have that one.
20:04:29 I have a problem with that, propane plant still
20:04:35 operating and that we are planning to do a text
20:04:38 amendment on that.
20:04:41 And plans ton relocate that.
20:04:47 So there's a lot of -- not objections, but things we
20:04:52 are not sure or clear of.
20:04:54 So where do we go from here?
20:04:57 I would like to hear from somebody on what to do.
20:04:59 I mean, I'm not an engineer.
20:05:06 But, Mr. Smith, maybe you can help me on this?
20:05:09 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
20:05:15 What I would like to do is, you obviously heard
20:05:19 Randy's recommendation and he is your professional

20:05:21 planning staff, and keep that in mind.
20:05:24 I'm just the attorney and I'll limit myself to those
20:05:26 issues.
20:05:26 Unfortunately in this area, they are frequently
20:05:29 interrelated.
20:05:30 You need to hear from the applicant.
20:05:31 And you also need to hear from the supporters and need
20:05:34 to hear from any objectors before you make any
20:05:37 conclusions.
20:05:38 But I do want to make sure you know what my legal
20:05:41 advice to you is, because it's important for you to
20:05:43 know, and I think it's fair for the applicant and
20:05:47 those who wish to speak to know what that is in
20:05:49 advance so they can advance those issues as well.
20:05:51 And if we can have the focus on the Elmo for a minute,
20:05:54 I would like to kind of back up and provide a little
20:05:56 abstract understanding of what we are trying to
20:05:58 accomplish.
20:06:03 There you go.
20:06:04 The important thing to remember, if you look at the
20:06:07 structures, the heavy industrial uses, the chlorine
20:06:10 plant and the propane plant, you will notice they are

20:06:14 at a critical juncture on the peninsula.
20:06:16 If you are going to put up to 2,000 residents west
20:06:18 thereof you want to make sure we address the issues
20:06:20 attendant to that chlorine plant and that propane
20:06:23 plant.
20:06:25 Part of what we have been working on with the
20:06:27 applicant is a set of criteria in essence moves back a
20:06:31 level of abstraction and tries to create alternate
20:06:37 text policy that is will make it mandatory to address
20:06:39 these concerns as a condition precedent to
20:06:43 development. The intent of that is to address the
20:06:45 health, safety and welfare issues.
20:06:48 But by putting them in the text amendment itself.
20:06:51 I'm not addressing the consistency issues.
20:06:53 Randy has addressed those.
20:06:55 What I'm addressing is these alternative text
20:06:57 amendments.
20:06:58 And my concern is, for a variety of reasons I really
20:07:02 have not had the to get sufficiently comfortable with
20:07:05 these text amendments.
20:07:06 I'm not saying they don't accomplish the purposes.
20:07:09 But I do not want to stand here before you today and

20:07:13 tell you they do.
20:07:14 And more importantly, I want to make sure that we can
20:07:16 enforce these.
20:07:17 And this requires a little more careful consideration
20:07:20 and time than I have had.
20:07:22 That's why one of the alternatives before you tonight
20:07:25 is to consider delaying or continuing this for two
20:07:29 weeks.
20:07:30 That would give our department an opportunity to go
20:07:33 over these conditions in more detail, to make sure
20:07:37 that the concept that is trying to be accomplished
20:07:40 here, that is the protection of the potential future
20:07:43 residents and users of this area, are implemented in
20:07:47 these text provisions so that we are not as a city
20:07:50 creating a hazard waiting to happen.
20:07:53 And it's very important that we not do that.
20:07:56 And it is a concept that the applicants agree with.
20:08:00 What I'm hearing in terms of the plan is everybody is
20:08:03 attempting to accomplish the same thing, at least with
20:08:06 respect to protecting the new residents and users in
20:08:10 accommodating impacts that this development will have.
20:08:13 I'm just not in a position to tell you tonight, as

20:08:16 your attorney, that I'm comfortable that we have
20:08:19 accomplished that, and that we have accomplished that
20:08:21 in an enforceable manner.
20:08:23 There are issues such as subsequent property owners,
20:08:26 after rezonings occur, how do we make sure they are
20:08:29 bound.
20:08:29 Variety of issues, that need a little more care and
20:08:32 consideration than we have at least gotten to date for
20:08:35 me.
20:08:35 And I think if we are in fact all on the same page and
20:08:39 are trying to accomplish the same thing, I'm confident
20:08:41 that weep could get that done, and could make it
20:08:43 legally enforceable, and could at least accomplish
20:08:46 this aspect of the problem.
20:08:51 And those are primarily just to close, is the issue of
20:08:55 the safety issue, and as I think Randy indicated one
20:08:58 of the primary other impact concerns is
20:09:00 transportation.
20:09:01 So I wanted to make sure that you were clear where I
20:09:05 am on this issue.
20:09:06 Because it's a very important issue.
20:09:08 And I think you need to hear from, as I say, the

20:09:11 applicant, the supporters and the opponent because
20:09:13 they also specifically address some of these
20:09:16 provisions.
20:09:17 And they are far more conversant with these provisions
20:09:20 than am I.
20:09:21 But again I just didn't want you to believe we had
20:09:24 vetted this yet because we haven't.
20:09:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
20:09:28 In your time serving as the city attorney, can you
20:09:31 think of a comparable proposed text change or land use
20:09:38 change before us?
20:09:41 Because I can't.
20:09:45 >>DAVID SMITH: But one involved a plan amendment.
20:09:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What you are saying to us is you
20:09:53 need at least two weeks, but you are not precluding
20:09:56 Mr. Goers' comment of what his highest recommendation
20:09:59 would be, is to consider this as part of our overall
20:10:03 comprehensive land use plan.
20:10:07 >>DAVID SMITH: That is not a legal recommendation,
20:10:08 that is a planning recommendation. That is Mr. Gore's
20:10:11 recommendation.
20:10:12 All I am indicating to you is if you want to proceed

20:10:13 with a conceptual solution to the problems as has been
20:10:16 the evident to date, I believe we need two weeks to be
20:10:20 able to accomplish that.
20:10:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
20:10:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, it's sort of a chicken
20:10:28 and egg proposition, isn't it?
20:10:30 I mean, the bad use is out there won't go away without
20:10:33 some creative redevelopment that I think we are going
20:10:37 to hear about.
20:10:38 Yet, we don't want to allow those uses to stay there
20:10:44 and fight with each other, which is what we are
20:10:47 creating by allowing this new plan category.
20:10:53 So are you suggesting that there is some legal
20:10:56 jeopardy to the city by creating this new plan
20:11:02 category?
20:11:03 >>DAVID SMITH: No, sir, that's not what I'm
20:11:05 suggesting.
20:11:05 What I'm suggesting instead is that if the applicants
20:11:09 are going to be successful in accomplishing that, I
20:11:12 want to make sure that we have legally enforceable
20:11:15 solutions.
20:11:18 You know, I'm not suggesting that it's a liability

20:11:21 issue so much as I am -- and I didn't want to make the
20:11:25 applicant's argument.
20:11:26 He can mismake his own argument.
20:11:28 He's saying this is an opportunity to get rid of some
20:11:30 of these uses which is not necessarily a bad thing.
20:11:33 And I don't want to go there.
20:11:34 But if that's the case, and if this board is in favor
20:11:37 of moving in that direction for whatever reason that
20:11:40 they evaluate, in your legislative discretion, I'm
20:11:43 simply indicating, I want to make sure we get in the a
20:11:45 legally enforceable manner so that the future
20:11:48 residents and users ever protected, our future
20:11:52 citizens.
20:11:54 It's not a tort liability issue or anything of that
20:11:57 nature.
20:11:57 I think it's clear we do -- I don't think we want to
20:12:00 put 2,000 residents there without phasing out a
20:12:04 chlorine plant and they are saying that's fine, we
20:12:07 have a plan top dop that.
20:12:09 But we need to make sure that plan is carefully
20:12:12 articulated and that the time, when they can rezone,
20:12:15 when they can develop, is enforceable.

20:12:17 Because as you know, once you have a comprehensive
20:12:20 plan, ready to rezone, if you establish a prima facie
20:12:27 case, once you have the ability to rebuild, so we are
20:12:30 going to try to change those normal presumptions in
20:12:32 these conditions.
20:12:33 And that's not an easy thing to accomplish.
20:12:36 I want to make sure we accomplish that in a way that
20:12:39 isn't legally suspect.
20:12:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:12:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Petitioners.
20:12:54 Attorneys and developers employment act.
20:12:57 >>> It just might be, Mr. Dingfelder, fellow attorney.
20:13:01 For the record, Lon Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street,
20:13:06 and the attorney for some of the applicants.
20:13:11 As a matter of fact, we have combined approximately 57
20:13:15 acres, as we have been urged to do so for the last two
20:13:19 years by the Planning Commission staff with whom we
20:13:21 appreciate the opportunity to work, and we hear staff,
20:13:25 whom we appreciate the opportunity to work, and we
20:13:27 have worked extremely well and come up with what we
20:13:31 believe to be two pages of very specific enforceable
20:13:34 policies upon this two-week review if you find that

20:13:39 necessary taint.
20:13:39 We are willing to accede to a two week review with
20:13:43 some reasonable understandings with respect to the
20:13:46 fact that five questions have been asked of us
20:13:49 tonight.
20:13:49 Ware together.
20:13:51 Applicants whose names include these four
20:13:57 applications, viper ventures include Dan Curtis behind
20:14:01 me, his son bill Curtis, and his son Bob Curtis, who
20:14:04 is the president of the combination that includes the
20:14:09 attorney and Tracie Harris, all of them that are here
20:14:13 tonight along with my colleague, sue Murphy as a
20:14:16 planner, and other applicants will be represented here
20:14:18 tonight, in the case of other applicants, and viper
20:14:26 ventures is 31 ache terse northwest most of the 57
20:14:30 acres on the end of Tyson Rattlesnake Point.
20:14:34 After that 31 acres has been introduced there are two
20:14:36 acres represented, which is representative represented
20:14:40 from the south side of Tyson and Mr. David Mechanik of
20:14:46 whom you will hear and two others represented by Mr.
20:14:49 David Smith and Mr. Randy Smith.
20:14:51 So a third David Smith involved in this.

20:14:53 We have two David Smiths and you have one David Smith
20:14:56 so we would like to win tonight.
20:14:58 One. Owners is David Smith.
20:15:00 And my colleague is David Smith.
20:15:01 And you have a David Smith.
20:15:03 2 to 1.
20:15:05 Represented also by Mr. David Mechanik.
20:15:10 And then we have 26 acres on either side of those two
20:15:14 acre tracts than Mr. Mechanik represents, David and
20:15:19 Randy Smith, and that surrounding 26 acres is a family
20:15:24 represented tonight by Mr. Brad Lazarra in the back
20:15:29 row but patient, smiling, I see, and his attorney, Mr.
20:15:32 Keith Bricklemyer.
20:15:34 Other than that, we don't have anybody here tonight
20:15:36 and we don't have any high speed, running up
20:15:41 accordingly.
20:15:42 So as we continue our ca-ching, ca-ching presentation,
20:15:46 let me say that five issues have been raised, the
20:15:48 first one is industrial transition.
20:15:50 Every area has its moments.
20:15:52 On January 271st, 1821, a fourth finding troop,
20:15:57 and the first Seminole Indian war led by colonel

20:16:00 brick, camped in these palmettos in this spot about a
20:16:04 quarter mile south of here the night of January 21,
20:16:07 1821, when than fourth locating party found a place
20:16:11 for downtown Tampa.
20:16:12 It's tame to come.
20:16:13 In 1892, it was Hugh McFarland, an attorney who
20:16:18 prepped in Boston and New Orleans, who bought 200
20:16:21 acres called alligator swamp at the beginning of West
20:16:23 Tampa in 1892 when his moment came and he paid JH drew
20:16:28 money to build several hundred affordable housing
20:16:31 being imported in 1892 in and West Tampa's moment
20:16:34 came.
20:16:35 In 1886 it was Ybor City and it wasn't just by
20:16:38 Martinez Ybor we hear about all the time.
20:16:40 Was Ignacio HYA who made it hatch when Ybor City's
20:16:45 moment finally came.
20:16:46 Has Rattlesnake Point's moment finally come?
20:16:49 In 1991, in this room, you adopted the gateway
20:16:53 redevelopment plan for Gandy area including this
20:16:56 piece, and you said on page 98 of your comp plan in
20:17:00 1991 when this area's moment came, or should have
20:17:03 come, or should have begun to come, to please

20:17:05 transition the industrial away, and take it as
20:17:10 residential office, retail, recreation, and waterfront
20:17:13 access.
20:17:14 We are here tonight with exactly that, as they have
20:17:17 been sought since 1991 for this area's moment has
20:17:21 come, in 1991, and is coming August 24th, 2006.
20:17:25 That's number one.
20:17:28 There are policies that we worked out for the last
20:17:30 four, five, six weeks with the staff with the Planning
20:17:32 Commission and your staff, two or three-hour meeting,
20:17:35 eight different times, yes, two pages of very severe
20:17:37 limitations of what we can ever do with residential
20:17:40 until those heavy industrial uses are gone.
20:17:43 And we believe that over these two weeks Mr. Smith
20:17:45 will be able to confirm that we have given more than
20:17:48 any area by far.
20:17:49 We have compared Ybor, Adamo, Channelside, and half a
20:17:53 dozen others that are a third restrictive of as this.
20:17:56 We believe these policies in two weeks will be
20:18:00 enforceable and more severe and know threat of safety
20:18:03 to residents, chlorine or any other use out there.
20:18:06 The chlorine folks are here to speak to those kinds of

20:18:09 issues.
20:18:10 And the three or four neighborhood associations we
20:18:12 have met with several, we have sent letters, that that
20:18:16 work together to find solutions to transportation like
20:18:18 the Tyson railroad corridor, extending Tyson from
20:18:22 Westshore to Manhattan or Lois, willing to work on
20:18:25 either, the second need that you have here tonight.
20:18:29 The third need you have tonight and over the next two
20:18:32 weeks to be careful about is of course hurricane
20:18:34 evacuation.
20:18:35 So we did a $4600 study for post shoe Buckley and
20:18:40 Jernigan, submitted to Chris Zambita, combined
20:18:46 emergency management unit, saying, this comprehensive
20:18:49 study shows that this particular project meets the
20:18:52 hurricane shelter needs, and studied hurricane
20:18:55 evacuation consequences, and has no objection from the
20:18:58 emergency management people with respect to hurricane
20:19:01 evacuation.
20:19:01 But we have a policy just in case that Mr. Smith and
20:19:04 others will see more of as they look more closely at
20:19:07 these policies.
20:19:08 We have negotiated your staffer the last six weeks.

20:19:10 Development within the Rattlesnake Point waterfront
20:19:13 area shall be required to mitigate its impact on
20:19:16 hurricane shelter space.
20:19:17 So we have specific revisions on these and the
20:19:20 industrial issues.
20:19:21 Traffic.
20:19:22 Traffic now, if we built out the office and the
20:19:26 industrial, we are already approved for, will allow
20:19:28 7500 peak p.m. trips.
20:19:34 We will explain any questions you have.
20:19:36 We would love to answer them.
20:19:38 As of right now 7500 p.m. peak hour trips are approved
20:19:42 with our current offers and industrial approval,
20:19:44 zoning.
20:19:45 We are going to take that down five times to 1500.
20:19:50 p.m. peak hour trips with the condominium era whose
20:19:53 time has finally come.
20:19:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: following up on Mr. White's comment
20:19:59 earlier, has anybody put a tape across this road and
20:20:02 counted the actual trips today?
20:20:06 >>> Yes, sir.
20:20:07 We have both.

20:20:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the actual -- why don't you
20:20:13 wait?
20:20:14 I would like to hear it but go ahead and finish.
20:20:16 >>> Certainly.
20:20:17 We have Steven Reece and O'Connor following that up.
20:20:24 We had three different policies which have been worked
20:20:26 out through staff, that we believe in this two weeks
20:20:29 that you will be able to verify are adequate.
20:20:31 We are waiving the right to the transportation
20:20:33 concurrency exception areas.
20:20:34 Brought up tonight is a big issue.
20:20:38 There's a transportation concurrency, are these going
20:20:40 to scurry away?
20:20:43 No.
20:20:43 This combination is not going to scurry away.
20:20:45 I wish they could.
20:20:46 They should.
20:20:47 But, no, they are here together as a team and
20:20:49 therefore because they are here as a team to fulfill
20:20:51 your 1991 vision and since this area's time has
20:20:55 finally come they have a specific provision in these
20:20:58 policies waiving the transportation concern sy

20:21:01 exception area, and what the state law will require in
20:21:03 December of 2006 which is proportionate fair share.
20:21:06 That's the big old hit we have all been afraid of for
20:21:08 the last ten years.
20:21:09 It's more than impact fee and it's working with your
20:21:12 staff for three hours yesterday morning including
20:21:13 transportation, and thank you, in that third or fifth
20:21:18 meeting you had with your staff, we worked out
20:21:20 language that says we will pay more than impact fees,
20:21:24 we will pay the full proportionate fair share and may
20:21:27 or may not get impact fee credits based on your policy
20:21:30 at this time.
20:21:31 That may or may not get a huge concession, waiving
20:21:35 transportation concerns in the exception areas before
20:21:37 they get away is a huge concession.
20:21:39 But a concession we think is necessary to make this
20:21:41 area be the way it was in 1921, the way Ybor City did
20:21:50 in 1886.
20:21:52 Mr. Bob Curry who is going to come speak to you, who
20:21:56 has worked very hard for two years, has tried to get a
20:21:58 consensus of these various, as I call them, spinning
20:22:05 plates on sticks.

20:22:06 When you grab one with right hand, one with the left
20:22:09 hand, and the pray the other three plates keep
20:22:12 spinning, and you don't take money for industrial
20:22:15 users to go back to one of the other points made by
20:22:18 your staff.
20:22:18 Rather than taking money from industrial uses the last
20:22:21 two years, they have been working than you begged for
20:22:24 since 1991 in your comp plan has finally come to a
20:22:28 point where they can get a critical mass and follow
20:22:30 the relocation of those industries we have all been
20:22:33 trying to do for the last is a years.
20:22:39 >> You were saying that the propane and people are
20:22:45 hear.
20:22:45 >> The 12 acres that was not identified in the graphic
20:22:50 when you come back to the Elmo, if you like, let me
20:22:52 take you, if I may, to the very right hand, the
20:22:55 northeast corner of this entire slide, the propane
20:22:59 tanks you see, 11 point 93 acres, are called target, 2
20:23:05 million units there, with expansion capacity to two
20:23:09 and a half million that they haven't used yet, they
20:23:12 filed on August 1st a plan amendment to the exact
20:23:14 same commercial mixed use 35 category, which subpoena

20:23:20 excluding the department of defense which is that
20:23:22 scalloped piece which is immediately to their west.
20:23:25 You have virtually the entire of Rattlesnake Point
20:23:28 before you tonight or coming before you over the
20:23:30 course of that target failing for the same CMU 35 for
20:23:34 that propane site.
20:23:36 Across the street, it doesn't need a plan amendment.
20:23:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the southwest corner.
20:23:47 >>> Southwest of course is the green, which is the
20:23:50 Lazarra application is pending.
20:23:52 You mean the southeast?
20:23:54 I speak to the southeast?
20:23:55 Let me speak to the southeast, please.
20:23:58 About a year ago they started to apply for plan
20:24:00 amendment a little early and come back to the
20:24:04 neighbors.
20:24:04 Well, all the neighbors have come back.
20:24:07 They many while sold their property, they are selling
20:24:10 those tubes of air to folks with boats, those tubes of
20:24:15 air, those boats, and they are going to be doing that
20:24:17 without plan amendment, a perfect complimentary use to
20:24:22 ours.

20:24:22 You can sell someone a condominium -- those tubes of
20:24:26 air which are documented, those slips, and you
20:24:29 basically had a totally compatible use with what we
20:24:32 are after.
20:24:32 We believe, therefore, with chlorine here to speak
20:24:35 tonight, and the department of deference represented
20:24:37 their, we can't control very much because they have
20:24:40 F-16s and we don't but we would like to continue the
20:24:43 good relationship with where they just train folks on
20:24:45 certain kinds of weather craft.
20:24:47 Their official job, do almost nothing there, but they
20:24:50 do train some folks on some kind of a salt boats which
20:24:54 you see there from time to time.
20:24:55 And that I believe is all -- in fact I know that to be
20:24:59 100% of the Rattlesnake Point accounted for, and
20:25:05 therefore, if together we final have an opportunity to
20:25:08 bring these folks together, and take.
20:25:12 These spinning plates and before they spin back out of
20:25:15 control and extend the two years of not taking
20:25:17 industrial money and expanding industrial era, we
20:25:20 transition away, we had to hear from Mr. Curtis.
20:25:24 >> Mr. Weaver, I still haven't gotten to ask my

20:25:27 question.
20:25:29 You were talking about the propane people and everyone
20:25:31 else.
20:25:32 >>> Yes, sir.
20:25:33 >> The commercial mixed use 35.
20:25:36 >> We know they are all supportive of this effort,
20:25:38 correct?
20:25:39 >>> The same category, mixed use.
20:25:42 >> And I was going to ask you, for my estimation.
20:25:45 Do you know anyone these opposed to this right now?
20:25:49 >>> I don't.
20:25:49 >> I didn't think so either.
20:26:04 >> My name is Bob Curtis.
20:26:06 I am a principal and representative of viper ventures,
20:26:12 on behalf of all the other land owners and petitioners
20:26:15 involved in this.
20:26:17 My address is 333 West Kennedy Boulevard, suite 206 in
20:26:22 Tampa.
20:26:24 I must confess, I don't know where to begin after Ron.
20:26:31 I'm a little disheveled here, because I have surprised
20:26:36 by some of Randy's presentation, and unfortunately I
20:26:39 sat next to Ron, and he stole I think a lot of things

20:26:43 off my notes so I apologize if some of this is
20:26:46 repetitive.
20:26:49 But I would like to tell you a little bit, to go over
20:26:52 the history from the land owner's perspective and from
20:26:55 the neighborhood perspective, the Rattlesnake Point.
20:26:59 Again, as has been stated tonight, about three years
20:27:03 ago, a group of folks got together and came to the
20:27:07 city and came to the mayor to discuss redevelopment of
20:27:10 this area.
20:27:13 And a redevelopment that we felt was very consistent
20:27:15 with what has been referred to tonight as the Gandy
20:27:18 gateway redevelopment area.
20:27:21 Mr. Goers referred earlier to the fact that it's the
20:27:24 responsibility of you all to set -- for the area and
20:27:32 may or may not be in concert with the land owners and
20:27:35 the folks in the area and I believe very strongly that
20:27:37 the vision that we have established and hopefully you
20:27:40 will hear tonight, it's very much in concert with the
20:27:43 vision that was put in the comprehensive plan back in
20:27:47 1991.
20:27:49 So with that being said, we were encouraged, we were
20:27:52 strongly encouraged, and much to perhaps our chagrin

20:27:59 at the time, we were encouraged to gather land owners
20:28:03 and come in as one and come in together with a common
20:28:06 vision, common goal tonight.
20:28:10 And I would like to say -- and to try to reiterate
20:28:13 Ron's point and maybe clarify it a little bit -- we
20:28:16 believe that with the folks that are here tonight, as
20:28:19 petitioners with, folks here hole testify later, who
20:28:23 are neighbors immediately on the point, and as well as
20:28:27 folks who have come in in the next cycle for a plan
20:28:30 amendment, that aside from the department of defense,
20:28:34 which unfortunately we could not get to come to the
20:28:36 table, as well as TJ marina who does not require this
20:28:42 land use change and fits into both categories, that we
20:28:44 do represent everybody on Rattlesnake Point.
20:28:46 And it's not the 50% that has been represented to you
20:28:51 this evening.
20:28:54 It's taken a lot of work.
20:28:55 It's taken a lot of time to get everybody together.
20:28:57 It's been a lot of meetings.
20:28:58 But we are here together.
20:29:00 I would also like to tell you that our immediate
20:29:02 neighbors are supportive of what we are doing.

20:29:05 And some of those immediate neighbors you know of
20:29:07 because you have approved projects for them recently.
20:29:09 And for obvious reasons for them.
20:29:11 They would like to see the whole of the point
20:29:13 redeveloped.
20:29:14 I would also like to say that we were encouraged, more
20:29:18 than encouraged, to spend time with the neighborhood
20:29:23 groups, because the neighborhood groups have been very
20:29:27 vocal and very active, they care very much about their
20:29:31 neighborhood and the things that are going on.
20:29:33 And I can report tonight that we have spent a
20:29:35 tremendous amount of time with several neighborhood
20:29:38 groups, and more than one meeting, and that we had
20:29:41 very productive, very positive meetings with both of
20:29:46 those neighborhood groups, and anyone else who cared
20:29:49 to speak with us about what we would like to do.
20:29:52 Again, you will hear later tonight, we have been able
20:29:55 to sit down with these folks, and I believe in
20:29:59 wonderful fashion, and identify our common goals, our
20:30:03 common desires and hopes for the neighborhood, and
20:30:07 talked about very proactive and very practical ways to
20:30:12 meet those goals, and to serve those needs for the

20:30:17 neighborhood.
20:30:18 And I think again, I don't want to understate that.
20:30:21 I think it's very important that we are all here
20:30:24 together. This is not -- at least on any level we
20:30:27 have been at, this is not a highly contentious idea we
20:30:33 are going through.
20:30:34 So that being said, we are here again to accomplish
20:30:38 the goal of the gateway Gandy development plan.
20:30:44 We are hear to transition from industrial to
20:30:46 residential and to mixed use.
20:30:50 Ware here to do the very thing that you folks have
20:30:53 done, even with few projects that are very close to
20:30:56 us, and that I think the city and the neighborhood and
20:31:00 a lot of folks are very proud of.
20:31:05 And so I would like to talk a little bit about -- and
20:31:07 you are going to hear from me and you are going to
20:31:09 hear from some other folks a lot of work that has gone
20:31:12 into the industrial transition aspect of this.
20:31:18 We are not unaware of some of the uses that occur in
20:31:22 our neighborhood, and the incompatibility of those
20:31:26 uses with residential.
20:31:27 We are businessmen.

20:31:29 We understand that it's going to be difficult to sell
20:31:32 a condominium with some of those uses there, which is
20:31:34 why we have been very forthright, and I think very
20:31:38 fair in dealing with both the Planning Commission as
20:31:40 well as the city in drafting policy that would not
20:31:44 allow to us do that because that's not important for
20:31:46 us, that's not our vision, that's not our goal.
20:31:50 It never has been and never will be our goal to put
20:31:52 residential product, residences, next to hazardous
20:31:58 chemical.
20:32:02 And that's important.
20:32:03 Let me speak a little bit to traffic.
20:32:08 As has already been stated staff report does confirm
20:32:11 that from a plan use -- from a plan use perspective,
20:32:18 what we are asking for at maximum density is less of a
20:32:23 traffic impact than what we have today.
20:32:27 And I'm going to speak specifically to Mr. Gore's
20:32:32 comment about, yes, we are underutilized but I am
20:32:34 going get to that in a little bit.
20:32:36 Number two, it's been one of our goals, and this is an
20:32:39 important goal for us and important goal for the
20:32:41 neighborhood because we have interacted with the folks

20:32:44 there, to remove from the streets of that neighborhood
20:32:46 and to remove from South Westshore the heavy trucks,
20:32:53 hazardous chemicals, materials, from driving along
20:32:56 streets and residential areas.
20:32:58 And that's an important aspect to our plan.
20:33:00 Also, we believe, and have spent a lot of time again
20:33:05 with the neighborhood, and with our neighbors, and
20:33:07 with the folks down there, we believe that with our
20:33:11 collective mass, and with our cooperation, we have
20:33:17 specific transportation and plans that will make the
20:33:26 area better.
20:33:26 It's not going to go from an F to an "A."
20:33:29 But we believe at the end of the day if we are allowed
20:33:31 to proceed with from a traffic standpoint this area
20:33:33 will be better, at the end of the day, than it is
20:33:36 today, and when I say that, again we have had those
20:33:41 conversations, not just amongst the property owners
20:33:43 but with the neighborhoods and the folks and with the
20:33:45 neighbors and lots of different people, it's
20:33:48 interesting that Mr. Goers is relying and speaking so
20:33:55 much to the September 26th, the report that's
20:33:58 going to come out, and made the statement that we

20:34:00 don't know what it's going to say and how much it's
20:34:02 going to cost.
20:34:02 Interestingly, we know what it's going to say because
20:34:04 we have been involved in it and we have done
20:34:06 engineering, we have done costing, we know what a lot
20:34:08 of it is going to cost.
20:34:10 So we have done a tremendous amount of work on
20:34:12 transportation and a tremendous amount of work on
20:34:14 traffic, and believe we have very specific solutions
20:34:17 that have been agreed to, not just by us, but by the
20:34:20 neighbors, by your constituents.
20:34:27 I would like to move now to an important aspect nor us
20:34:30 which is we -- aspect for us.
20:34:33 It's a tremendous opportunity, and it's a window of
20:34:35 opportunity.
20:34:37 It doesn't necessarily stay open forever.
20:34:40 You've heard some of the history that has gone on.
20:34:50 It has not been easy to get all of the property owners
20:34:52 together.
20:34:53 Property owners and businessmen have different
20:34:55 priorities, different ideas, different conflicts,
20:34:57 different needs for what they are doing.

20:34:59 We have been able to bring all of those together in a
20:35:03 common consensus for a common goal.
20:35:05 We have had again positive meetings with
20:35:07 neighborhoods, and have a lot of folks on the same
20:35:10 page.
20:35:12 But what has happened is that over the past two and a
20:35:16 half or three years, businesses in the area have
20:35:19 deferred maintenance, have deferred expansions.
20:35:22 We specifically -- and I know some of the other land
20:35:25 owners as well, have turned away industrial users.
20:35:28 Mr. Goers is correct.
20:35:30 We are not at maximum capacity.
20:35:35 We are not at maximum capacity because we look forward
20:35:38 to today and we look forward to tomorrow because we
20:35:40 knew that if we went for maximum capacity this would
20:35:43 never happen.
20:35:45 And so it's critical for us as businessmen, it's
20:35:49 critical for our banks who lend us money and expect to
20:35:52 get paid, that we proceed, and that we continue doing
20:35:55 what we're doing, which is either redeveloping the
20:35:59 property, or recognizing it as industrial.
20:36:04 So please understand that there are a number of folks

20:36:07 in this audience and a number of land owners and a
20:36:10 number of businessmen who have held off doing a number
20:36:13 of things which would make redevelopment much more
20:36:17 difficult in reality.
20:36:20 I can tell you specifically, we have turned down
20:36:23 long-term heavy industrial users who wanted to come to
20:36:26 our site, which would have allowed us to pay our bank
20:36:29 debt and made money.
20:36:30 But that's not our vision here.
20:36:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Time is up.
20:36:35 That's it.
20:36:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have some other people speaking?
20:36:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, you agreed to 20 minutes.
20:36:51 The 20 minutes has gone off for petitioner.
20:36:55 So whatever you decide to do.
20:36:56 I just ask it be clear so the clerk can keep track.
20:37:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like in a more than five
20:37:03 minutes for Mr. Mechanik.
20:37:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: per owner.
20:37:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Five minutes each.
20:37:14 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 south Boulevard.
20:37:18 I'm actually representing two owners but I'll only

20:37:20 take five minutes or so.
20:37:27 I do represent Mobar marine as well as dutch foods who
20:37:32 are represented here this evening by David Smith and
20:37:36 Randy Smith and my David Smith would also be hope to
20:37:42 give you a legal opinion although he's not a lawyer.
20:37:44 But just a few comments really in response to what Mr.
20:37:48 Goers has indicated, and on behalf of my clients, we
20:37:52 are more than happy to work with Mr. Smith over the
20:37:55 next couple of weeks.
20:37:56 We believe we have addressed the concerns through the
20:37:59 policies that we have worked on with the staff.
20:38:03 They need to be tweaked and fine tuned.
20:38:05 We are more than happy to do that.
20:38:07 And would like the opportunity to do that.
20:38:11 I don't think you have heard anyone say that they
20:38:13 disagree with the vision or the idea of moving
20:38:17 industrial uses out of this area in place of
20:38:21 residential and mixed use development.
20:38:25 The discussion and the debate is all about how we get
20:38:28 there from here.
20:38:31 Randy mentioned a couple times about the significance
20:38:34 of this amendment, and I feel to some extent we have

20:38:37 been penalized because we all got together, and we
20:38:40 have almost 60 acres under four different
20:38:43 applications.
20:38:44 But we all joined together.
20:38:45 So that makes for a very big significant application.
20:38:50 But I don't think we should be penalized because of
20:38:52 the fact that we all got together and came up with 60
20:38:55 acres.
20:38:57 We ought to be able to use that to our advantage, not
20:39:01 to our disadvantage.
20:39:03 Well, Mr. Goers also indicated that he acknowledges
20:39:06 that he's treating us differently.
20:39:08 He's asking for more information and treating us more
20:39:12 strictly because our application is different than
20:39:16 others in the city.
20:39:18 I would just like to respectfully submit that the New
20:39:21 Port project immediately adjacent to the east was
20:39:24 transformed from an industrial use to UMU 60 which is
20:39:30 actually almost twice the density that we are asking
20:39:33 for in this site.
20:39:34 And some of the New Port property is just as close to
20:39:37 these chlorine tanks as the property that is part of

20:39:42 this amendment.
20:39:43 So we do believe we have been treated differently.
20:39:47 And we are not necessarily objecting to that, but we
20:39:49 would like to go through this process and get it done
20:39:52 with.
20:39:54 Also, there are circumstances in Channelside where you
20:39:56 have RMU late to light -- heavy industrial designated
20:40:03 property.
20:40:03 These properties were not subject to the policies that
20:40:05 we are proposing to be submitting to as part of this
20:40:09 plan amendment.
20:40:13 I would just like to briefly go through just very
20:40:18 simple fashion, some of the policies, and what they
20:40:21 do.
20:40:21 The issue about transition, the compatibility and the
20:40:26 how we deal with the residential next to the chlorine
20:40:29 facility.
20:40:31 One of the policies that is part of the -- any
20:40:34 rezoning that's required, we have to enter into the
20:40:37 development agreement with the city.
20:40:39 That agreement has to address the timing, that is the
20:40:42 phasing out of industrial uses, it has to address the

20:40:46 impacts of the development, it has to address the
20:40:48 transition, and there must be a specific strategy to
20:40:52 locate the heavy industrial uses.
20:40:54 That's just the rezoning stage.
20:40:57 At the building permit stage, there are no building
20:41:01 permits unless the heavy industrial uses specifically
20:41:08 speaks to the chlorine plant, the belts and suspenders
20:41:13 here.
20:41:13 We said at the zoning stage we have to address all
20:41:15 these issues.
20:41:16 Then at the building stage, we can't get a permit
20:41:18 until the operations have ceased.
20:41:22 Not only that, these policies say that we -- the city
20:41:26 must amend the development regulations.
20:41:29 And those regulations must address the timing of the
20:41:32 transition, and mitigation of impacts of our
20:41:35 development.
20:41:36 Finally, these policies also say that there must be a
20:41:40 transition plan, which addresses the vision, the
20:41:43 strategy, appropriate land use mix, densities, parks
20:41:48 and open space, and water orientation, and
20:41:51 accessibility to that water.

20:41:54 So we believe that there are numerous policies which
20:41:56 address these, the concerns that are addressed
20:42:00 tonight.
20:42:01 We also have a number of policies on transportation,
20:42:05 and we believe they also more than adequately address
20:42:08 the issues that were raised.
20:42:10 And just as a father-in-law point.
20:42:13 I have practiced in this field for over 25 years, and
20:42:16 we have never studied a plan amendment as much as we
20:42:22 have studied in this case and we believe while it is
20:42:25 certainly appropriate to ask Mr. over the next couple
20:42:29 of weeks we believe we have done far more than we are
20:42:31 normally required to in a plan amendment.
20:42:33 Thank you very much.
20:42:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:42:36 Mr. Bricklemyer?
20:42:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Are you asking for a two week
20:42:42 continuance?
20:42:43 >>> We are certainly willing if that's the pleasure of
20:42:45 this council, we would love to go forward.
20:42:47 But we understand Mr. Smith's concerns, and we are
20:42:50 more than happy to sit down with him and try and iron

20:42:53 out any details.
20:42:54 Because he indicated to us today that he had not had
20:42:57 an opportunity to review those policies, and certainly
20:43:01 we can understand the reason for wanting to do that.
20:43:04 Thank you.
20:43:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Mechanik, if we allow this to go
20:43:12 to the DCA, are you willing to take your chances that
20:43:15 it doesn't come back as objections?
20:43:18 Because it will come back with objections.
20:43:20 And then what?
20:43:24 >>> Mrs. Alvarez, I don't necessarily agree with that
20:43:26 interpretation.
20:43:27 There's certainly the possibility as with any plan
20:43:29 amendment, and DCA, sometimes surprises us with
20:43:33 various objections.
20:43:34 But there's also a whole procedure that you can go
20:43:37 through.
20:43:37 You can sit down with them and discuss their concerns,
20:43:40 apply information, answer questions, and most of those
20:43:43 circumstances result in a resolution of that without
20:43:48 any further dispute.
20:43:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do the questions go to you or to the

20:43:54 city?
20:43:55 >>> Well, technically they go to the city but they
20:43:57 would allow the applicants to participate.
20:43:59 So we all can share information and get the desired
20:44:03 result, hopefully.
20:44:08 >> Okay.
20:44:11 >>> My name is Keith Bricklemyer and I represent
20:44:14 Mazera leasing, the owner of the southwest corner of
20:44:19 the peninsula, 16 acres on the corner.
20:44:23 With respect to the question that you just asked, Ms.
20:44:26 Alvarez, about the objections and comments, I have
20:44:29 been involved in three plan amendments for WCI on the
20:44:34 Westshore Yacht Club project.
20:44:35 Every one of those has had objections from DCA, and we
20:44:38 have satisfied those objections by providing them
20:44:41 answers to the questions that they raised.
20:44:43 I don't expect that we will not have any objections on
20:44:46 these amendments, but I do expect that with the data
20:44:50 and analysis we have submitted with this application
20:44:52 we will be able to add squatly answer their questions,
20:44:56 when we have their objections.
20:44:58 I echo the comments of Mr. Weaver and Mr. Mechanik

20:45:03 that they have been made, and just want to make a
20:45:05 couple of points.
20:45:07 This situation has been described as some sort of
20:45:11 unique situation.
20:45:14 And as David said, it is not unique.
20:45:16 There are instances of heavy industrial, land use
20:45:19 classifications, next to residential and mixed use
20:45:22 land use classifications throughout the city.
20:45:25 You have two land use categories that knowledge within
20:45:29 the boundaries of those categories that there are a
20:45:32 mixture of industrial and residential uses.
20:45:34 There are no policies remotely resembling what we are
20:45:37 being asked to impose on the owners of these
20:45:40 properties.
20:45:41 It's worked fine under existing circumstances, and we
20:45:44 are being asked to go way beyond the call in terms of
20:45:47 limiting what these folks can do with their land.
20:45:52 The concept of co-location was never suggested by the
20:45:55 applicants.
20:45:56 And it's not envisioned by the applicant.
20:45:58 Co-location is a term that the city staff came up with
20:46:01 when they wrote the report.

20:46:05 Went through the entire process with the Planning
20:46:06 Commission. That subject never came up.
20:46:09 No one envisions using their property to establish
20:46:13 both residential and industrial uses.
20:46:15 The issue before you may seem complex, but it's really
20:46:20 simple.
20:46:21 What is the best land use designation on these
20:46:23 properties?
20:46:24 Heavy industrial?
20:46:26 Next to New Port?
20:46:27 Next to the Westshore Yacht Club?
20:46:29 Next to the residential neighborhoods to the east?
20:46:31 Or is the best category CMU 35?
20:46:35 We think it's CMU 35, consistent with the CMU to the
20:46:41 north, CMU to the south, and we are willing to work on
20:46:44 the policies that we have worked very hard on today.
20:46:48 Over the next two weeks with the city attorney staff
20:46:50 to try to fine tune those to ensure that they
20:46:53 accomplish the city's objectives without unduly
20:46:56 limiting the ability to use this property.
20:46:59 So again, we are ready to go forward tonight.
20:47:02 We are willing to wait the two weeks to try to reach a

20:47:06 compromise on the policies.
20:47:08 Thank you.
20:47:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:47:11 Is there anyone in the public that wants ton speak?
20:47:13 Do you want top speak first?
20:47:16 >>RANDY GOERS: Community planning division.
20:47:18 Just wanted to follow up on a few items only because
20:47:21 my name was mentioned so many times.
20:47:28 Tampa petitioners for the work they have provided in
20:47:31 the process.
20:47:31 The parts that are consistent to the part that they
20:47:33 have talked about, comp plan mention add mixed use
20:47:36 waterfront area for that area.
20:47:42 The other part is that we know the city wants it to
20:47:45 become a mixed use waterfront area.
20:47:47 We just wanted to transition it the best possible way
20:47:50 to protect the residents, now the residents of the
20:47:52 future and so forth.
20:47:54 You are hearing some questions from the legal
20:47:56 department as to exactly how that's going to work, and
20:47:59 make sure that it does unfold in the manner that we
20:48:03 have talked about in the last couple of weeks.

20:48:06 The part that we produced is in the policy that we
20:48:10 produce, we designed to make the policies more
20:48:13 consistent with the comp plan.
20:48:14 I work very heavily involved, I can take ownership for
20:48:18 quite a few of the policy itself and I can say they
20:48:20 are very good.
20:48:21 But my experience tells me there are still some
20:48:24 questions that are going to come back to us and we are
20:48:26 going to have to answer and change.
20:48:27 A lot of the property owners are open to those
20:48:29 changes.
20:48:30 Because what we are working with here are compromises
20:48:32 on the city's behalf and compromises on the property
20:48:36 owners' behalf. They want industrial uses to continue
20:48:38 operation.
20:48:39 And they are looking for the city to expedite the plan
20:48:43 amendment.
20:48:44 And there's the question of timing of the transition.
20:48:48 We want to work with them.
20:48:49 And we are allowing that industrial area to transition
20:48:51 to the policies no other area in the city has a plan
20:48:55 amendment like this.

20:48:56 If it did, we wouldn't have the policy that we are
20:48:59 recommending today just for this area.
20:49:01 So take that into consideration.
20:49:04 It is what it is.
20:49:05 It is an area that is trying to transition.
20:49:09 A number of private property owners have come
20:49:11 together.
20:49:12 We think they have done a great job at this point.
20:49:14 We worked very hard with them and we have some
20:49:16 policies that we think are pretty good.
20:49:17 And I think in the report that we produced, where we
20:49:23 characterize deficiencies in the current proposal, and
20:49:27 made recommendations based on addressing those.
20:49:29 The same way you would in addressing the report.
20:49:32 I think there's still some unanswered questions we are
20:49:35 going to have to resolve either in the next 60 days
20:49:39 with the ORC report coming back, or afterwards.
20:49:45 There was a question in my mind as we came into the
20:49:47 meeting, when Mr. Mechanik talked about the transition
20:49:49 plan, what we envision the transition plan is that it
20:49:53 would be a plan that would take a look at the entire
20:49:55 area and answer those questions about the vision, the

20:49:57 parks and recreation, the development regulations and
20:50:00 so forth.
20:50:02 I think we heard some discrepancy that each individual
20:50:05 property owner felt that the policy that they were
20:50:09 recommending would be the framework for their
20:50:11 transition plan, that there wouldn't be an overall
20:50:14 strategy for how we provide the transportation to
20:50:17 parks and so forth.
20:50:18 So why we are here tonight is if the property owners
20:50:21 are saying there is an overall strategy for the entire
20:50:24 area and not individual strategies, I think we are on
20:50:26 the right track.
20:50:27 So with that, I think the questions have to do with
20:50:31 the legal concerns.
20:50:31 And then the other part has to do with what DCA says
20:50:35 in their response.
20:50:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
20:50:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Weaver, I asked about the trips
20:50:41 per day.
20:50:43 If somebody could give like a really, really simple
20:50:48 report, not the exhaustive total traffic situation.
20:50:53 But how many trips per day is going across Tyson right

20:50:57 now?
20:50:57 >>> URS corporation, 7650 west Courtney Campbell
20:51:06 causeway.
20:51:08 Today, we think that there are about between 3 and 400
20:51:14 peak hour trips in that area.
20:51:17 But that's based on the fact that the industrial use
20:51:21 is going down.
20:51:23 So really the comparison of the CMU 35 should be war
20:51:39 they are doing now and it could be the potential plan
20:51:41 and zoning.
20:51:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's really important, and
20:51:47 Kevin brought this up numerous times.
20:51:49 3 to 400 peak hour trips right now, potentially we are
20:51:55 talking about more than 2,000 additional units.
20:51:58 >> 11 to 1500 peak hour trips in the future.
20:52:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's a straightforward
20:52:05 answer.
20:52:05 Yes, we all nobody there's a theoretical number out
20:52:08 there, it's probably five fold what the existing
20:52:11 number is.
20:52:12 But
20:52:24 Under the existing.

20:52:34 >> Hundreds of trips in order to achieve a
20:52:37 condominium --
20:52:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: are you testifying?
20:52:42 Did you put a tape across there years ago?
20:52:46 >>> As a matter of fact, yes.
20:52:47 >> And what were the trips then?
20:52:49 >>> We had 33% fluctuation.
20:52:51 And according to your 1991 plan, you said it was 30%
20:52:54 underutilized.
20:52:56 So we have had a significant decrease in the number of
20:52:59 trips in certain years, and twice as much in some of
20:53:01 those same years that we looked at the last 15 years.
20:53:05 And we don't want to be argumentative.
20:53:07 We appreciate what you are saying, yes, it is down
20:53:09 because we are trying to decentralize it.
20:53:11 That's a very good point, Mr. Dingfelder.
20:53:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a couple questions.
20:53:15 But the fact of the matter is, if nothing happens,
20:53:19 these owners will maximize their industrial uses.
20:53:23 >>> Absolutely.
20:53:23 >> Because they are in the business to make money, as
20:53:25 they should be.

20:53:26 And so we are going to see trip generation, I think,
20:53:30 go up no matter what happens here.
20:53:31 The question is, do we want it to be propane fields
20:53:35 and chlorine?
20:53:36 Or do we want to the be condominiums?
20:53:38 We haven't heard from probably the most important
20:53:41 person in this room tonight and he's standing up
20:53:43 against that wall.
20:53:43 We are going to get to him in a second.
20:53:46 But Ron, let me ask you this.
20:53:48 There is a two pages worth of alternative text
20:53:51 amendments and I'm sure you have seen these.
20:53:54 >>> Yes, sir.
20:53:55 >> And are you all saying than you agreed with
20:53:58 everything that's here, and you're ready to go
20:54:00 tonight?
20:54:01 >>> Every word.
20:54:02 Every word.
20:54:09 Every word you were sent at 3:17 this afternoon by
20:54:11 your staff is your staff's conditions.
20:54:13 >> I don't know what we were sent.
20:54:15 But what has a bit of concern for me is that we were

20:54:19 sent this, and David Smith, our David Smith -- all
20:54:34 right, here we go.
20:54:40 >>> Your David Smith.
20:54:44 We wanted to do that well, too.
20:54:48 >> So my question is, if you all agree to every word
20:54:50 in here, and this is one of the alternatives that's
20:54:53 been proposed by our professionals, why are we not
20:54:57 ready to go on it?
20:55:00 >>> We are ready to go tonight.
20:55:01 We are ready to go tonight.
20:55:03 Thank you.
20:55:03 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But my question about that, Mrs.
20:55:05 Saul-Sena, is if Mr. David Smith helped prepare it why
20:55:10 are we not ready to go?
20:55:12 >>> He need add good lawyer and he deserves a good
20:55:14 lawyer.
20:55:15 All three David Smiths.
20:55:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Weaver, why don't we let Mr. Smith
20:55:24 talk for himself?
20:55:25 >>DAVID SMITH: Not surprisingly we have a confusion of
20:55:28 David Smith.
20:55:29 The David Smith that helped prepare it was David Smith

20:55:32 the planner. I did not have any participation
20:55:34 preparing that and part of the prom was these changes
20:55:37 were occurring literally up to the last minute.
20:55:44 You haven't even had an opportunity to analyze them
20:55:46 carefully yourselves.
20:55:47 But I did not participate in the preparation.
20:55:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, the date on the memo is August
20:55:53 23rd, and it has several signatures on it as
20:55:56 having reviewed it and signed off on it.
20:55:58 >>DAVID SMITH: I think lots of people have looked at
20:56:03 them.
20:56:04 I am just not among them.
20:56:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The way it was brought to my
20:56:07 attention is I had a number that asked me about this
20:56:11 particular item.
20:56:11 And even though I was cc'ed on it I had not received
20:56:15 it yet as of late this afternoon.
20:56:17 I was unprepared, because I was not brought up to
20:56:21 speed on that and I was not prepared to formulate a
20:56:23 position, or have the opportunity to converse with Mr.
20:56:27 Smith until very late in the day to raise issues that
20:56:29 I had, that have not been answered to my satisfaction.

20:56:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
20:56:33 Ms. Ferlita.
20:56:33 >>ROSE FERLITA: Do council member said where did you
20:56:38 get that?
20:56:38 And just got it.
20:56:39 Hasn't gotten it.
20:56:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
20:56:51 >> Good evening, Madam Chair, my name is Al Steenson
20:56:54 and I'm here tonight to represent the Gandy civic
20:56:57 association.
20:56:58 I don't know whether our letter to the Planning
20:57:01 Commission was part of the backup.
20:57:06 If it isn't, I have copies for each and every one of
20:57:08 you.
20:57:08 And one for the record.
20:57:23 I'm going to try to be as brief as possible.
20:57:26 I don't want to plow over ground that's already been
20:57:29 plowed.
20:57:29 Our association supports these amendments in principle
20:57:35 because we feel as has been explained already this
20:57:37 evening, this is an additional catalyst that will
20:57:44 enhance the goal of the Gandy development, Gandy

20:57:53 gateway development.
20:57:54 However, if you look down further, there are some
20:57:56 stipulations that the association has asked for, and
20:58:00 if we get those and a good plan has come up, then we
20:58:04 will support this.
20:58:05 If we don't, if it doesn't occur, then we'll withdraw
20:58:09 our support.
20:58:11 We have heard a lot about the chlorine plant, and the
20:58:21 propane plant.
20:58:22 I thought maybe I would like to see what we have been
20:58:25 talking about all night long.
20:58:26 Does that show up?
20:58:28 Okay.
20:58:29 There's the propane tank, folks.
20:58:32 I don't know what the daily inventory is but I suspect
20:58:35 it's from two and a half to three million gallons of
20:58:38 propane a day.
20:58:39 And there is the notorious chlorine plant.
20:58:45 Just a little remainder, on May 25th, a barge
20:58:50 loaded with propane hit the Gandy bridge.
20:58:52 And we basically averted a disaster.
20:59:02 Chief Dennis Jones told me that if it had caught on

20:59:05 fire, they would have not been able to put it out.
20:59:09 It would have had to burn itself out, okay.
20:59:12 And in the meantime, it would have taken both bridges,
20:59:15 which represents 33% of the evacuation route in
20:59:21 Pinellas County.
20:59:21 My point is, this needs to disappear.
20:59:26 And this is the way to do it.
20:59:27 And this is one of the reasons that the association is
20:59:30 supporting it.
20:59:32 And hopefully that you will go along with it.
20:59:35 I realize there's transportation problems down here.
20:59:37 But the vision for Rattlesnake Point, you all
20:59:41 established starting in the first quarter of 2004.
20:59:47 You look west on Tyson.
20:59:49 You see on your right New Port Tampa Bay and on your
20:59:52 left the Westshore Yacht Club.
20:59:55 So I submit to you that this vision has already been
20:59:59 established and it's already in its transition, as Mr.
21:00:04 Goers said.
21:00:10 The
21:00:12 Provided we get access to the waterfront the civic
21:00:16 association supports it and comparable safety aspects,

21:00:19 fire, police, emergency.
21:00:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Steenson.
21:00:24 Am I allowed to ask a transportation question of
21:00:27 staff?
21:00:31 City staff: Mr. Steenson gave us a sheet that talks
21:00:35 about transportation mitigation, specifically the
21:00:38 widening of Manhattan from Tyson to Gandy to four lane
21:00:41 the extension of west Tyson from Westshore to
21:00:44 Manhattan.
21:02:43 ---
21:00:38 On the Westshore and Gandy deficits in transportation.
21:00:41 What we'd have to do to address them.
21:00:46 What is the total dollar figure that we would need to
21:00:50 address the concern laid out by Mr. Steenson, and what
21:00:53 is the dollar figure that the developer is proposing,
21:00:58 what is the gap and do we have -- are we able to close
21:01:01 the gap?
21:01:03 >> Well, what we have at this point in time, is we
21:01:05 have an order of magnitude cost estimate for a package
21:01:12 of surface transportation improvements that would get
21:01:15 us to meeting the demand of the approved development
21:01:19 so far.

21:01:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not including the things identified
21:01:23 here, the widening of Manhattan --
21:01:26 >> Well, if Mr. Steenson improvements he's suggesting
21:01:31 are the widening of Manhattan --
21:01:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: From Tyson to Gandy four lanes and
21:01:38 the extension of West Tyson from Westshore to
21:01:41 Manhattan.
21:01:43 You've been talking with these folks about this,
21:01:46 haven't you?
21:01:47 >> Oh, yes, Mr. Steenson was on our steering
21:01:49 committee, as was Mr. Gun.
21:01:51 Mr. LAZARRA attended one of our meetings.
21:01:55 We haven't -- we don't have a report together yet that
21:01:59 we have produced and made public, but the information
21:02:02 is certainly public information.
21:02:03 So a number of people are aware of some parts of the
21:02:07 information.
21:02:09 What I can tell you is that these improvements are
21:02:15 part of a slightly larger package of improvements
21:02:19 we've identified with our Gandy study that would
21:02:23 address meeting the needs of what has been approved so
21:02:27 far, which are surface improvements.

21:02:31 We don't have a specific plan from the developer at
21:02:35 this point as far as what his plans are for the point.
21:02:39 So therefore, we are not in a position to calculate
21:02:41 what his mitigation would be.
21:02:43 All that we wanted to put in the policies was that we
21:02:48 reserve the right, if that's the right terminology, to
21:02:52 apply a fair share mitigation payment to the developer
21:02:58 given the fact that we are in a concurrency exception
21:03:01 area, that we would get some mitigation from the
21:03:03 developer to mitigate his impacts from his
21:03:07 development.
21:03:07 So I don't have a dollar figure for what that would
21:03:09 be.
21:03:10 I don't have a project that would mitigate those
21:03:14 impacts, but I can tell that you what Mr. Steenson is
21:03:17 suggesting, we've -- we already have on our list of
21:03:20 things we need to do out there already.
21:03:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But you haven't priced out and you
21:03:25 don't know what the commitment would be from the --
21:03:28 >> No.
21:03:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would you put that on the overhead?
21:03:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: May I just ask a question about that?

21:03:39 Do you want to add to that, Mr. Mechanik?
21:03:42 Because I thought that you did.
21:03:44 And Jean, I don't mean to interrupt you, but just one
21:03:48 question because I'm confused about that.
21:03:50 I thought in our conversation --
21:03:52 >> David Mechanik for the record.
21:03:53 I guess a couple of points.
21:03:55 I mean, a plan amendment, we don't get into the actual
21:03:58 assessment calculation nor do we identify the road
21:04:02 improvement.
21:04:03 It was part of the point I was making earlier is that
21:04:06 the fact that all these analyses have been done is
21:04:10 really more than you typically have when you review a
21:04:13 plan amendment.
21:04:14 Other plan amendments that were approved this evening,
21:04:16 you don't have the benefit of an areawide traffic
21:04:21 study the way you have here.
21:04:22 This just happens to be happening because of other
21:04:27 projects recently approved in this particular area.
21:04:30 But that shouldn't be used as a penalty for this
21:04:33 project.
21:04:33 The fact that you are ahead of the curve in studying

21:04:36 this is a good thing, but it shouldn't penalize a plan
21:04:41 amendment application.
21:04:42 We'll have to address these as part of our zoning
21:04:44 application.
21:04:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: I wanted that clarification.
21:04:49 That's why I'm singling you out as opposed to hearing
21:04:49 from Mr. Weaver and Mr. Bricklemyer.
21:04:57 (Talking over each other).
21:05:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had the floor.
21:05:09 Would you go back to the overhead?
21:05:12 Pull back a little bit so we can have this project in
21:05:14 a bigger context.
21:05:21 Council, I just wanted to point to one thing, we've
21:05:25 been looking at this peninsula as just sort of the
21:05:30 peninsula itself.
21:05:31 We have to look at it in the bigger context of the
21:05:33 neighborhood.
21:05:34 As you come off of the peninsula on rattlesnake point,
21:05:39 you're on Tyson.
21:05:41 And Jean, if you want to follow along, maybe point as
21:05:44 we go.
21:05:46 >> I don't know if I should orient this a little

21:05:48 differently for you.
21:05:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can turn it West if you want.
21:05:59 So as you come out of Tyson right now, you're
21:06:04 basically -- your only choice, okay, is to go left --
21:06:07 everybody goes North up toward Kennedy.
21:06:10 Your basic choice is to go West on Westshore or to cut
21:06:14 through -- I've crosshatched the neighborhood, if the
21:06:18 Westshore traffic starts backing up, that entire
21:06:20 crosshatched neighborhood, which represents 700 homes
21:06:23 that I sent postcards to this week to tell them about
21:06:25 this hearing, okay, that crosshatched area is six
21:06:31 different streets running East-West and four streets
21:06:33 running North-South that you're going to cut through
21:06:35 to make your way either to Manhattan or to Gandy.
21:06:41 And I'm not -- I'm not against this project
21:06:44 necessarily.
21:06:44 But I just think we have to look at it in the bigger
21:06:47 context of the homes in those dozens or so streets
21:06:52 that folks would be zigzagging through to get their
21:06:56 way out of not just their project, but frankly out of
21:06:59 WCI project when it's done and to a certain extent
21:07:02 possibly out of new port but less new port, new port

21:07:07 has an escape valve directly out Gandy up bridge
21:07:12 street.
21:07:12 Anyway, I wanted to point this out.
21:07:14 Now, one of the key factors to all of this is the
21:07:18 Tyson bypass.
21:07:23 One of the key pieces to this is the Tyson bypass.
21:07:27 The Tyson bypass is a theoretical road that Jean is
21:07:31 pointing to right now that theoretically would connect
21:07:36 Westshore at Tyson Avenue across to Manhattan.
21:07:39 And that -- we own some land there.
21:07:42 CSX has some land there.
21:07:45 There's a great possibility to put a two or possibly a
21:07:48 four-lane road through there.
21:07:52 In my opinion, it's critical that that road has to be
21:07:55 built in order to justify this plan amendment.
21:07:59 Because if we approve this plan amendment and that
21:08:01 Tyson bypass doesn't get built, then all of a sudden,
21:08:05 these folks coming out of this project only had two
21:08:08 choices.
21:08:09 One to go up Westshore, which is already failing.
21:08:12 And the intersection of Westshore and Gandy is super
21:08:15 failing.

21:08:16 Or, two, they have to zigzag through that neighborhood
21:08:19 which is not acceptable.
21:08:20 So what I -- when I talked to young Mr. Curtis the
21:08:24 other day and Ron weaver and a couple of other guys
21:08:28 when we were talking about this project was, "A," what
21:08:31 are your plans about building that Tyson bypass.
21:08:34 And "B," what if you can't build that Tyson bypass.
21:08:37 And the "B" part I think is actually perhaps even more
21:08:40 critical.
21:08:41 Because if you can't build that Tyson bypass, then I
21:08:45 feel extremely uncomfortable, you know, approving
21:08:51 2,000 potential units out on this peninsula.
21:08:54 And I'm sorry that WCI and the new port that we should
21:08:57 have had these discussions when we did WCI and new
21:09:00 port also, especially WCI, but we didn't.
21:09:03 We are where we are today.
21:09:09 >> Bob Curtis again, for the record.
21:09:11 I agree with you.
21:09:12 That is the critical piece and as I referred to
21:09:15 earlier, that is the first piece of traffic
21:09:17 improvement that has to happen.
21:09:18 And the reality is, the only way that that bypass ever

21:09:22 gets built is if we did this plan amendment change,
21:09:26 because the only way it ever gets built is if the
21:09:29 users get off of CSX who own 55 feet of the 75 feet
21:09:33 right-of-way.
21:09:34 The city only owns 20 feet of it.
21:09:36 The only way that land is ever acquired by the city to
21:09:39 do this bypass is if the motivation is there to move
21:09:42 the users off of the rail.
21:09:44 And the reality is, the bypass, we're not putting the
21:09:48 bypass in just to service our property.
21:09:50 The bypass is needed yesterday.
21:09:52 And Mr. Steenson can testify to that.
21:09:55 Everybody in the neighborhood that you speak to want
21:09:57 that bypass today.
21:10:00 The sooner that we do what we're talking about doing
21:10:02 tonight, the sooner that will happen.
21:10:04 And that's the reality.
21:10:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But then the next question bob, is
21:10:11 the one I asked you yesterday.
21:10:13 For argument sake, what happens if CSX won't give you
21:10:16 that land, won't sell you that land.
21:10:18 I think I'm asking bob this.

21:10:20 >> It's a legal answer --
21:10:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know.
21:10:22 I'll hear his answer first.
21:10:26 Then you have a comp plan amendment that's already
21:10:29 theoretically approved because it looks like Council
21:10:32 might be leaning toward approval, but then you've got
21:10:35 this horrific transportation problem that physically
21:10:39 might not be able to be solved.
21:10:41 >> That's right.
21:10:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's something that over the
21:10:43 next two weeks, I would like you and Mr. Smith and our
21:10:46 staff to wrestle with and wrestle with and wrestle
21:10:49 with and perhaps come up with some language that, you
21:10:54 know, what you're going to do under that contingency.
21:10:58 >> Well, again, I completely agree with you, and that
21:11:01 is definitely the worst-case scenario.
21:11:03 But it's not that much worst-case than if we do
21:11:10 nothing.
21:11:11 That if the Council decides this should be industrial
21:11:13 forever and that we go on and max out our industrial,
21:11:16 we're going to have the same amount of trips, except
21:11:19 it will be big trucks, toxic materials taking the same

21:11:22 rights and same lefts on Tyson.
21:11:25 No, your question is a valid question.
21:11:27 And the bottom line is, until we all get on the same
21:11:30 page and we are all working for the same thing which
21:11:32 means it's not just me who are working to get the
21:11:35 users off of the rail, but it's the City of Tampa and
21:11:37 it's the city staff and it's the Mayor and its you
21:11:39 guys.
21:11:40 Until we are all focusing towards the same goals, then
21:11:43 it's less likely that we'll be able to accomplish this
21:11:46 primary first piece.
21:11:47 So what we're asking tonight is, come alongside of us.
21:11:51 Let's get all of this done together because we all
21:11:54 want the same thing.
21:11:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.
21:11:56 Thank you.
21:11:56 Let me just finish up with one thing.
21:11:58 I know Council, it's getting late.
21:12:01 Council, when I sent out those 700 postcards,
21:12:05 unfortunately, it doesn't look like anybody showed up
21:12:06 in response, which is fine.
21:12:12 Al, you were already coming.

21:12:14 Just wait one second.
21:12:16 But what I did want to share with you, in case you
21:12:19 didn't read it yourselves and I've given you copies
21:12:22 and I've given the clerk copies and I've given the
21:12:25 attorneys copies.
21:12:25 We did get letters and phone calls from about a dozen
21:12:28 folks.
21:12:29 And virtually unanimously they are all extremely
21:12:32 concerned about the traffic.
21:12:34 Most of them live in this little 700 house area.
21:12:40 Some of them live elsewhere.
21:12:43 One on Ballast point and another in sunset point.
21:12:46 And they know that 4,000 additional cars and 2,000
21:12:50 additional units will impact the entire South Tampa
21:12:53 peninsula.
21:12:53 So let's not just mosey along and thing that just
21:12:57 because nobody is here that people don't care and they
21:13:00 are not watching.
21:13:00 Because they are.
21:13:02 And that's not to say that there aren't some
21:13:04 solutions.
21:13:05 I think there are some solutions.

21:13:06 I think that we've got to wrestle with these issues
21:13:09 over the next two weeks and really come up with some
21:13:12 language that we all feel extremely comfortable covers
21:13:15 the citizens.
21:13:19 Frankly, I don't care about, you know, this massive
21:13:22 group that's in front of us today very much, because
21:13:24 what I really care about is the 50,000 folks who live
21:13:28 on the South Tampa peninsula.
21:13:29 And what is the impact on them?
21:13:32 And that's what this language has to do and protect.
21:13:36 And especially the South of Gandy folks.
21:13:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: This is a question back for
21:13:41 Mr. Curtis.
21:13:43 And we all agree that this -- it's a leap of faith
21:13:49 that we're all being asked to take here that we cannot
21:13:53 improve this situation until we all get on the same
21:13:56 page and say, let's all try to improve the situation.
21:13:59 But what I think what councilman Dingfelder is
21:14:02 suggesting, that between now and the next two weeks,
21:14:06 we will be able to definitively say that we're going
21:14:09 to be able to build this West Tyson bypass, there's no
21:14:12 way for us to do that.

21:14:13 But here's the stopgap that we've got.
21:14:16 It's called "rezoning."
21:14:17 And if you all come in for a rezoning and you haven't
21:14:23 solved this problem, Al Steenson is going to point to
21:14:26 this letter and say, remember that letter, guys?
21:14:28 No way.
21:14:29 One of our big concerns -- in fact, probably the
21:14:32 primary concern, where we gave you our support never
21:14:36 happened.
21:14:37 It's a condition precedent.
21:14:39 It never happened.
21:14:40 So no rezoning.
21:14:42 That's why I tend to agree with Mr. Bricklemyer when
21:14:46 he earlier said, it's a theoretical decision for us at
21:14:50 this point.
21:14:51 Is it better to have condos or is it better to have
21:14:53 propane and chlorine?
21:14:56 And we work out the details once we get through this
21:15:00 initial phase.
21:15:00 >> And there are plenty of opportunities to do that.
21:15:03 And let me reiterate what Mr. Dingfelder said.
21:15:07 And, you know, I agree with them completely, and I

21:15:10 think that we care about the 50,000 people that live
21:15:12 down there, too.
21:15:13 And I believe Mr. Steenson will testify in that in our
21:15:17 meetings with him and other folks we've been in
21:15:18 meetings with, with board of directors of homeowners
21:15:22 groups, that we have not been in one meeting where we
21:15:24 have not pulled out a map and we have not identified
21:15:27 that particular corridor.
21:15:29 And we have not said that it is our intention and it
21:15:32 is our goal to resolve the issue with this and to open
21:15:37 this corridor up because it's better for everybody.
21:15:40 And everybody agrees with this.
21:15:41 And that's why -- and I understand that we have 12
21:15:44 e-mails from folks.
21:15:45 You're always going to have folks who will be against
21:15:47 it.
21:15:47 But I believe that if you ask the people who lived in
21:15:52 that neighborhood, if they were given the opportunity
21:15:54 to have the best chance to have that East-West relief
21:15:57 given them from a traffic standpoint, they would say
21:16:01 absolutely.
21:16:01 Let's do whatever we need to do.

21:16:03 And that's what we're proposing tonight.
21:16:05 We need everybody's help.
21:16:07 We all need to be on the same page.
21:16:09 I don't understand where the conflict is if we have
21:16:12 all the same goals.
21:16:14 I understand all the questions are not answered and
21:16:15 they never get all answered at the plan amendment
21:16:18 stage.
21:16:19 But we have opportunities as we go forward.
21:16:21 And if we are all going in the same direction, we'll
21:16:23 resolve the problems.
21:16:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only other thing we talked
21:16:26 about the other day was the waterfront access.
21:16:29 Another thing that has been mentioned to me from these
21:16:32 folks in the neighborhoods that new port, frankly, has
21:16:34 done a good job of, is providing public access to the
21:16:38 waterfront.
21:16:39 And Ron, you mentioned that you might have an
21:16:42 additional policy that would strengthen the policies
21:16:45 that are in front of us in term of additional
21:16:48 waterfront access.
21:16:49 The bottom line, folks, is we've got a large piece of

21:16:53 land here.
21:16:53 And just like new port created the ability for the
21:16:56 public to access some of that waterfront, not
21:17:00 necessarily all of it, but some of it.
21:17:03 Mr. Curtis indicated the other day that his project is
21:17:06 going to allow for public waterfront access.
21:17:08 I don't think what Mr. LAZARRA's plans are or the only
21:17:13 developers.
21:17:14 >> Well, I can only speak for us.
21:17:16 Different land owners are different places as far as
21:17:18 the planning.
21:17:19 We're probably farther along from a detail standpoint
21:17:21 than anybody else.
21:17:22 But public access to the waterfront is a critical and
21:17:25 very large part of our plan and always has been and in
21:17:28 every discussion we've had with every neighbor, with
21:17:32 every neighborhood group and you guys has been a part
21:17:36 of.
21:17:36 Nothing we would shy away from.
21:17:38 We do have language that I know we've discussed, that
21:17:40 we're happy to enter into the policies.
21:17:42 Without reservation.

21:17:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean we can discuss language
21:17:45 tonight or if we have a two-week delay, then we can
21:17:48 put it off for two weeks and let staff wrestle with
21:17:51 it.
21:17:52 If we're going to do it tonight, I want to discuss it.
21:17:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think that's what you have been
21:17:55 doing here for quite a while, Mr. Dingfelder.
21:17:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not unique in discussing
21:18:01 things, okay?
21:18:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let me say a couple things to you and
21:18:04 in response to what Mr. Dingfelder said about moseying
21:18:08 along.
21:18:08 I think for absolute reasons, I've been moseying along
21:18:12 tonight.
21:18:12 You know, you have done a lot of work.
21:18:15 Interacted with staff.
21:18:16 Staff has interacted with you.
21:18:18 You have different attorneys representing different
21:18:20 property owners.
21:18:21 And those are all the things you're supposed to do.
21:18:25 But at the end of the day, sir, when we leave, I want
21:18:28 to make sure you have a good project.

21:18:30 I'm impressed with the detail and the focus and the
21:18:33 vision that you have.
21:18:33 The fact that Mr. Steenson has weighed in on it.
21:18:37 The fact that there's been a lot of interaction, a lot
21:18:39 of dialogue.
21:18:40 But whether it's your fault or it's staff fault, I'll
21:18:43 go back to what my attorney said earlier that he saw a
21:18:47 document that I had from staff recommendations that I
21:18:51 got this afternoon when I had to hurry back to the
21:18:53 store because I had an emergency at that end.
21:18:57 I have to feel real, real good that I'm supporting you
21:19:00 but at the same time that I am not discounting the
21:19:02 needs of those people, discounting all the issues
21:19:05 these people have.
21:19:06 I mean, I think we've got more than six or ten or
21:19:08 twelve letters.
21:19:09 So whether they are founded or unfounded, I have to
21:19:12 feel real, real comfortable that I did my due
21:19:14 diligence at the end.
21:19:15 You are ready to go with it, because you've done
21:19:17 everything you need to do.
21:19:18 I have not, and I will not, and I won't go forward

21:19:21 until I'm absolutely sure that the other people that
21:19:24 are involved, the other side of this equation that for
21:19:27 some reason are not here tonight.
21:19:29 That's fine.
21:19:29 I don't need a crowd to make me decide that this is
21:19:32 good or this is bad.
21:19:33 What I need is for me to look at everything.
21:19:35 And I need more time just like Mr. Smith needs, to
21:19:38 make sure that I'm okay with it.
21:19:40 So leap of faith or no leap of faith or whatever.
21:19:42 If we were going to go forward tonight, I would have
21:19:45 to tell you that I would not support it because I
21:19:47 don't feel I've done enough work and I have not had
21:19:51 enough information to digest.
21:19:53 It's a matter of that.
21:19:54 Not a matter of going with the developer or going
21:19:56 against the developer or anything else.
21:19:58 So I think in the long run that probably
21:20:01 Mr. Dingfelder and I are thinking along the same ways,
21:20:04 but we're expressing it to you in different
21:20:08 mannerisms.
21:20:08 I just need that time to continue looking at this.

21:20:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Sir, you've been waiting patiently.
21:20:15 Come on up and speak.
21:20:18 >> Don gun, 601 Bayshore Boulevard, Tampa.
21:20:22 My colleague, Ed and I have appeared before this
21:20:25 Council on a number of occasions during the past year
21:20:27 in conjunction with project new port Tampa Bay.
21:20:30 We've had hundreds of hours of discussion with various
21:20:36 staff folks from here, the city, and a number of
21:20:39 occasions during that time, we've been asked a
21:20:41 question of, well, what's going to happen out to the
21:20:44 West on rattlesnake point.
21:20:46 And our responses were that we anticipated over the
21:20:48 next so many years that there would be transition,
21:20:52 there would be a redevelopment of that property in
21:20:57 probably a residential mixed use basis.
21:21:00 The reality is that that time frame has come a lot
21:21:03 sooner than we had anticipated.
21:21:05 And I very much appreciate councilman Dingfelder,
21:21:09 receiving your postcard and the invitation to come
21:21:11 here tonight.
21:21:12 Whether it is tonight that the Council makes a
21:21:14 decision or two weeks from tonight, I want to stand

21:21:18 here and endorse what you all have heard this evening.
21:21:22 Because I think as attorney weaver stated at the
21:21:25 outset, you are at a unique point in time and an
21:21:29 opportunity for the city to recognize a city part of
21:21:33 the South Tampa area, the South of Gandy area, a group
21:21:37 of people who have come together in a very unique way
21:21:40 to present an opportunity, an opportunity to continue
21:21:44 some change in a very, we think, a positive direction.
21:21:48 It really has nothing to do with new port Tampa Bay,
21:21:50 but with a part of the city in which we have made a
21:21:53 significant investment and in which we will be
21:21:56 involved in developing over the next several years.
21:21:59 And a lot of the issues that have come about in our
21:22:02 meetings with associations, as I mentioned earlier,
21:22:07 being involved in some of the task force in regard to
21:22:11 transportation.
21:22:11 And transportation is not the only infrastructure
21:22:13 issue that's important in the South Gandy Bay Area.
21:22:18 I think what we've heard tonight and obviously there's
21:22:20 a lot of planning.
21:22:21 There's a lot of additional thought between staff and
21:22:24 the folks here tonight that are looking to redevelop

21:22:27 their property.
21:22:28 But one of the best ways to ensure that what needs to
21:22:32 be addressed going forward will be addressed and will
21:22:35 be handled in a proper way as to the type of
21:22:39 development that's being proposed on rattlesnake
21:22:42 point.
21:22:42 There are issues.
21:22:44 There have been issues as we began our development,
21:22:47 the same as these gentlemen have done sitting down
21:22:50 with the neighbors, sitting down with the city.
21:22:53 Identifying those issues and working together to help
21:22:55 bring about appropriate and timely solutions to them.
21:22:58 Again, I think there is a unique opportunity.
21:23:01 I strongly encourage the Council to recognize that.
21:23:05 And again, whether it's tonight or two weeks from
21:23:07 tonight, to endorse and support the proposals and
21:23:11 petitions that are before you.
21:23:12 Thank you.
21:23:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
21:23:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you have a question?
21:23:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I got recognized.
21:23:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could I ask a question?

21:23:24 On the new port project obviously has transportation
21:23:26 impact.
21:23:27 I just wanted you to confirm for anybody who is
21:23:30 watching that I have heard through the grapevine
21:23:33 that -- I've heard through the grapevine that one of
21:23:39 the things that you all are looking to do is to
21:23:41 mitigate, is to four lane Westshore from the Tyson
21:23:45 area generally down to Gandy.
21:23:48 Is that in discussion right now?
21:23:52 >> We have had discussions with transportation, and
21:23:54 that's something in the process of working out.
21:23:56 It hasn't been finalized as yet.
21:23:58 But we support and endorse that.
21:23:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's very likely that that might
21:24:01 happen.
21:24:01 I'm not trying to pin you down legally.
21:24:03 I'm just saying that that's one of the things very
21:24:06 possible might happen as related to new port, right?
21:24:09 >> Yes, it is.
21:24:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Mechanik, you are 100% right --
21:24:20 correct.
21:24:21 We are not treating this the way we've treated

21:24:25 previous requests because Council is getting pickier,
21:24:28 because we are learning from our previous, perhaps,
21:24:32 approvals that perhaps we didn't ask as many questions
21:24:34 about and we didn't think through as carefully.
21:24:37 What I've heard tonight that we all agree upon is that
21:24:42 this area is passé for industrial uses.
21:24:47 Frankly, we all know that this is going to happen for
21:24:49 several reasons, including the fact that once you get
21:24:51 the expensive residential uses to the North, they
21:24:54 aren't going to be comfortable living with the
21:24:56 industrial uses that are so proximate and the
21:24:59 environmental protection rules are getting pickier.
21:25:02 So the industrial uses are going to go.
21:25:04 The question I really have is, will the transportation
21:25:08 system be adequate?
21:25:09 And is the proposed land use change the appropriate
21:25:12 one?
21:25:15 City Council has not yet had an opportunity to see the
21:25:19 results of a study that we requested.
21:25:20 I believe that is scheduled for September 17th --
21:25:24 26th.
21:25:25 In my opinion, the transportation issues before us are

21:25:29 paramount in this decision making, and it would be
21:25:33 irresponsible of us to move ahead on this until we've
21:25:36 had that.
21:25:36 So either we need to make this discussion after that,
21:25:39 or slide that presentation up, but the widening of
21:25:43 Westshore, the widening of Manhattan, and the
21:25:47 potential reworking of Tyson are all really germane to
21:25:53 this thinking.
21:25:54 Somebody analogized this to Tampa Heights.
21:25:57 This is not equal to Tampa Heights.
21:25:58 Tampa Heights has a transportation grid.
21:26:00 This is one way in, one way out on Tyson.
21:26:03 Tampa Heights got rid of their toxic uses.
21:26:05 And Tampa Heights had one developer and this has a
21:26:07 number.
21:26:08 Tampa Heights relatively speaking was simpler.
21:26:11 This is relatively complicated.
21:26:13 I'm in support in principle, but I just think we need
21:26:16 more transportation answers and specifically what
21:26:20 these things are going to cost, how much you all are
21:26:23 willing to kick in and is this doable before we move
21:26:25 ahead with this?

21:26:27 And I really feel like I either need to hear that from
21:26:30 city transportation staff or to have some sense of
21:26:33 what the timing might be.
21:26:35 I don't want Council to prematurely approve this and
21:26:38 then not be able to meet the infrastructure needs of
21:26:40 the people in this part of our community.
21:26:44 It just wouldn't be responsible of us.
21:26:50 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of Council?
21:26:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we should continue for two
21:26:54 weeks.
21:26:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't think two weeks.
21:26:56 I think we need to hear the --
21:26:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then we can have the transportation
21:27:01 presentation --
21:27:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Everyone other than Mr. Smith agrees
21:27:10 to the text amendments that are here.
21:27:14 Out of deference to the City Attorney, we should grant
21:27:17 him the two weeks that he needs to make sure he's
21:27:21 comfortable with it.
21:27:24 I'm comfortable, and I'm prepared to go on the record
21:27:27 subject to his approval, but I think this is doable.
21:27:35 We have Mr. Steenson sign off and we have the next

21:27:40 step that we go to.
21:27:42 But out of an abundance of caution and respect for our
21:27:46 City Attorney, I would move that we continue this for
21:27:48 two weeks, make it the very first hearing on the night
21:27:53 meeting, whatever we have in two weeks.
21:27:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
21:27:56 Question on the motion?
21:27:57 Ms. Saul-Sena.
21:28:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So we're talking about doing it in a
21:28:03 day meeting?
21:28:04 That's fine.
21:28:04 Put it in as unfinished business in the day meeting in
21:28:08 two weeks.
21:28:10 >> If it's continued, it should be for a time certain.
21:28:15 If you want to set it for 9:30 or whatever time you
21:28:20 wish.
21:28:20 >>THE CLERK: Well, September 7th, you have the
21:28:23 second public hearing on the other plan amendment that
21:28:25 you approved tonight for second reading of adoption.
21:28:29 You also have a continued land rezoning at 10:30, a
21:28:33 continued closure at 10:30.
21:28:35 A closure at 10:00.

21:28:37 The brownfield designation at 10:00.
21:28:39 The ordinances -- landmark designation -- [INAUDIBLE]
21:28:44 You have appeal hearing on VRB at 10:00.
21:28:47 You also have 10:30 the Expressway Authority to come
21:28:50 in and talk about the beltway.
21:28:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, it's got to be in two weeks,
21:28:56 otherwise they miss the opportunity.
21:28:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we make it an afternoon
21:29:01 meeting?
21:29:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I would go ahead and schedule
21:29:03 it for 10:00.
21:29:04 I think David Smith will be able to come in and say, I
21:29:07 read it, I'm comfortable, or I want to make a few
21:29:11 changes.
21:29:11 I think that we will have this thing fairly well
21:29:14 decided by the time it comes back in two weeks.
21:29:17 So I move to set it for 10:00 that day.
21:29:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
21:29:21 --
21:29:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait, wait, wait.
21:29:26 I have a question for transportation staff.
21:29:30 Thank you.

21:29:34 Will you be a able to give us -- so that would be the
21:29:37 14th that it would be coming back.
21:29:39 >> The 7th.
21:29:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The 7th?
21:29:42 Okay.
21:29:43 Would you be able to give us any kind of meaningful
21:29:47 feedback on where -- okay.
21:29:52 I would like to set a meeting, then, on the Wednesday
21:29:54 prior to this Thursday to hear how much you know about
21:29:58 what the proposed improvements that we need -- what
21:30:01 the tindale Oliver study says.
21:30:05 What the proposed improvements that they are
21:30:07 recommending would cost.
21:30:08 What the likelihood is of our being able to fund those
21:30:10 improvements.
21:30:11 And I would like to set that for September 6th, the
21:30:15 day prior to this at 9:00.
21:30:18 >> Okay.
21:30:18 We can provide that information on that date.
21:30:20 >> Where?
21:30:21 >> In the Mascotte Room.
21:30:22 >> Is this going to be -- an alternative date for the

21:30:27 workshop or is this just sort of a prebriefing.
21:30:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a prebriefing that's very
21:30:33 specifically looking at -- a special discussion
21:30:36 meeting.
21:30:37 It's like an executive summary, tutorial so that we'll
21:30:41 feel a little more grounded before we walk into this
21:30:43 thing on Thursday.
21:30:44 >> Okay.
21:30:45 With the Council.
21:30:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 9:00, September 6th, in the
21:30:48 Mascotte Room.
21:30:59 >> 5th is election day.
21:31:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're right.
21:31:02 The 6th.
21:31:09 What if we do it in the afternoon?
21:31:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Saul-Sena, before we get a time,
21:31:17 since that's three weeks instead of two weeks --
21:31:19 >> No, it's two weeks.
21:31:20 >>KEVIN WHITE: I was just making sure --
21:31:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, it has to be two weeks to
21:31:28 get into the cycle?
21:31:29 Was that the final determination?

21:31:31 >> Yes, ma'am.
21:31:31 We did the calculation, and we couldn't go beyond two
21:31:34 weeks.
21:31:35 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
21:31:35 We have a motion and second.
21:31:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I want to ask Council members
21:31:38 what time in the afternoon?
21:31:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: My motion right now is only to
21:31:43 continue this --
21:31:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
21:31:46 It continues for two weeks.
21:31:47 All in favor --
21:31:49 >> I'm sorry.
21:31:49 I just want to make sure that the record is clear that
21:31:51 you're talking about one, two, three, four, five
21:31:54 different amendments, 06-04, 06-05, 06-07, 06-08 and
21:32:00 06-09.
21:32:02 Is that correct?
21:32:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Go by the numbers.
21:32:07 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 --
21:32:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to know if that's in the same
21:32:14 motion.

21:32:14 >> We're going to continue all of them until then.
21:32:17 >>THE CLERK: You're continuing items 2, 3, 4, 5
21:32:21 through 8.
21:32:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yep, yep.
21:32:24 Everything.
21:32:25 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion, aye.
21:32:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to hear on other
21:32:32 Council members on the day before.
21:32:33 I'm so sorry it's the day after election day.
21:32:43 1:00 in the afternoon on Wednesday, September 6th.
21:32:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How about 1:30.
21:32:51 It's rotary.
21:32:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
21:32:53 1:30 on Wednesday September 6th to hear from
21:32:56 transportation specifically about the Westshore Gandy
21:33:00 transportation study as related to -- [INAUDIBLE] --
21:33:04 special discussion.
21:33:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: Would it be possible -- I don't know if
21:33:09 it's proper or not -- if Mr. Smith is there, if there
21:33:12 are any last-minute glitches that legal may be able to
21:33:15 bring us up to date on, on that.
21:33:18 >> That's true.

21:33:18 Maybe we can have an idea on the 6th how we're
21:33:21 looking for that next morning.
21:33:23 Have a preview --
21:33:27 >> I hope we'll be done before then so that seems
21:33:30 reasonable to me.
21:33:31 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
21:33:35 Is there anything else to come before the Council?
21:33:38 We have a motion and second.
21:33:39 All in favor, aye.
21:33:41 We stand adjourned.
21:33:44 (The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.)