TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 1, 2007
5:30 P.M. MEETING
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
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
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
05:41:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
05:41:02 It gives me great pleasure to introduce Tommy
05:41:08 Castellano, the West Tampa Chamber of Commerce
05:41:12 He's also president of the Castellano Air-conditioning
05:41:18 and Heating.
05:41:19 He's a national award recipient for the 2006
05:41:22 Residential Contractors of America.
05:41:24 He's president of the Air-conditioners Contractors of
05:41:27 America Florida chapter.
05:41:28 He's been married for 38 years.
05:41:30 He has two children and three grandchildren, and he's
05:41:33 my nephew.
05:41:34 Please stand for the invocation and remain standing
05:41:37 for the pledge.
05:41:39 >> Madam Chair, City Council, Tampa citizens, let's
05:41:44 Dear heavenly father, be present with us this evening
05:41:48 as we pray for our country and for all those who guide
05:41:51 and govern, help them in every situation to know and
05:41:55 to do things that are right and with soundness of
05:41:59 judgment and making vital decisions.
05:42:03 We give thanks for the democracy alive in our country
05:42:07 and for the freedom to worship you.
05:42:09 Guard our brave men and women in military service who
05:42:12 make this possible.
05:42:15 Give us all compassion for those who will confront our
05:42:20 military as enemies and let all who enter City Hall
05:42:24 see a welcome face, hear a kind word and find comfort
05:42:28 in this community.
05:42:30 And all this is done and said here today be it in the
05:42:34 service to truth and justice, if it be your will,
05:42:39 [pledge of Allegiance]
05:42:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
05:42:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
05:42:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
05:43:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
05:43:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
05:43:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
05:43:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
05:43:09 Item number one is continued public hearing.
05:43:17 Ms. Cathy Coyle.
05:43:18 >> Good evening, David Smith, City Attorney.
05:43:21 As I explained earlier today, this morning, the
05:43:23 problem that we have is that an error has been made.
05:43:27 And we are not in order for this evening for official
05:43:30 action to be taken.
05:43:32 As indicated then, the error has a variety of causes.
05:43:38 There's not much to be gained by spending a lot of
05:43:40 time on that.
05:43:41 But what we need to do is focus on how to proceed from
05:43:47 In order to allow the public who has come, some from
05:43:50 far away, in order to be heard, we will proceed with
05:43:53 the workshop this evening.
05:43:54 So this Council will have an opportunity to get input
05:43:58 from the many people who wish to share their views
05:44:00 with you.
05:44:01 And those who are here to do that will have that
05:44:04 And as you remember from this morning, essentially
05:44:07 what we're going to do, is we need to set this for the
05:44:10 official time period and renotice it, because the
05:44:13 notice was defective.
05:44:14 I can explain the notice issue again, if you would
05:44:17 like, but unless you consider that unnecessary, I
05:44:21 think we'll proceed and start with your proceedings so
05:44:23 you can get the input you need to have.
05:44:25 So what we're going to do, we need you to take up the
05:44:28 resolution that's been prepared pursuant to your
05:44:31 instructions this morning which is to set the formal
05:44:34 hearing for April 19th.
05:44:35 That will be the hearing, obviously, in front of a new
05:44:39 Council at that time, so we will proceed on that.
05:44:41 And if Cathy Coyle will present the information with
05:44:44 respect to the substantive issues, and then you can
05:44:46 open it up for the input that you'll receive from the
05:44:49 public on all sides of this issue.
05:44:52 Thank you very much.
05:44:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm just going to refer you to the
05:44:57 City Council's rules of procedure.
05:45:01 Rule 3-D-4 with workshops.
05:45:04 It states that the public may be heard on the matter
05:45:06 which is the subject of the workshop if upon motion
05:45:08 and vote of Council the chair opens the floor for
05:45:11 public comment during the workshop.
05:45:13 No official action on the matter which is the subject
05:45:16 of the workshop shall be taken during or after a
05:45:18 workshop unless the public is afforded the opportunity
05:45:21 to comment prior to action.
05:45:23 However, directions to staff resulting from the
05:45:27 workshop do not require public comment.
05:45:29 So Council, you have before you pursuant to your
05:45:32 motion earlier today, this resolution setting the
05:45:36 public hearing.
05:45:37 Council, you can under rule 8 suspend that particular
05:45:43 rule for the purposes of passing this resolution by
05:45:45 unanimous vote of Council, if that is Council's
05:45:50 Or you can allow for public comment prior to the
05:45:53 workshop just on the ministerial resolution of setting
05:45:59 the public hearing.
05:46:00 Again, Council, you can also term in terms of your
05:46:03 workshop, setting the parameters of how long you want
05:46:06 the workshop to last and how long you want each
05:46:10 individual speaker to be afforded comment.
05:46:13 Again, Council, you by default state that speakers are
05:46:18 usually limited to three minutes unless otherwise set
05:46:21 by Council.
05:46:22 You can set whatever time parameters you wish in this
05:46:25 If you wish to take public comment on setting the
05:46:28 public hearing, you may do so by motion or you can
05:46:32 waive that requirement, pass the resolution and then
05:46:36 just open up the workshop for public comment.
05:46:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I make a motion that since we can't
05:46:43 go forward with a full-scale hearing, that we limit
05:46:46 the workshop to an hour, and that we allow as much
05:46:50 public testimony as we can within that hour.
05:46:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
05:46:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
05:46:57 All in favor, aye.
05:46:58 [Motion Carried]
05:46:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number of minutes per speaker.
05:47:02 Do you wish to set the limit other than three minutes?
05:47:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Can I see a show of hands of how many
05:47:09 people would like to speak tonight?
05:47:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Three minutes looks good.
05:47:16 Will we follow our usual procedure that if somebody
05:47:22 wants to give their time to someone else, the other
05:47:25 person gets an additional minute for --
05:47:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's usually done according to your
05:47:29 rules for public hearings.
05:47:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I would like to make that
05:47:31 What that does, if there's somebody that has a longer
05:47:34 presentation up to ten minutes, that individuals can
05:47:39 give them their time and then they get an additional
05:47:42 minute per person.
05:47:43 That I think would be a good rule, so I move that.
05:47:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a speaker waiver form outside
05:47:47 that would require them to fill that out with the
05:47:50 names of the people who are waiving their time, and
05:47:53 those people have to be present in the room before
05:47:55 they speak.
05:47:58 I would receive the form, announce if they are present
05:48:00 and then set the time accordingly.
05:48:02 That's normally what you do.
05:48:03 Then again that's not normally done during workshops.
05:48:05 If you wish to do that, that would require a motion.
05:48:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move.
05:48:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does Council wish to make a motion to
05:48:18 waive the rules so you can pass the resolution without
05:48:22 taking public comment and then open the workshop.
05:48:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
05:48:26 All in favor, aye.
05:48:27 Opposed, nay.
05:48:29 [Motion Carried]
05:48:33 >> This is setting the workshop for April 19th at
05:48:36 6 p.m.
05:48:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move the resolution.
05:48:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
05:48:43 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to move the
05:48:45 All in favor of the motion, aye.
05:48:48 [Motion Carried]
05:49:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: So we're going to allow each speaker
05:49:09 to speak three minutes.
05:49:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Yeah, they can speak three, but they
05:49:14 can't have a speaker waiver form.
05:49:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, clarification on the motion.
05:49:20 Hour for totality of the workshop including staff
05:49:23 comments or hour for public comment?
05:49:26 I don't know how long the staff prepares to go and how
05:49:28 long that would take.
05:49:30 So if we could have that clarification.
05:49:32 >> I will be as brief as possible.
05:49:36 And then with questions you may have.
05:49:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison made the motion.
05:49:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I would say an hour total.
05:49:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Hour total.
05:49:43 Thank you.
05:49:48 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
05:49:50 What I have given you is a copy titled "July 2006
05:49:54 Joint Land Use Study Original Recommendations" just to
05:49:57 give you a point of reference from where we started.
05:49:59 And there is a memo also that I gave you with the city
05:50:03 seal on the top that's dated today.
05:50:12 If you go through the memo starting -- the one that
05:50:16 was drafted today with today's date, the attached text
05:50:22 amendment represent the modified version of what
05:50:27 originally was brought to you in the joint land use
05:50:30 study recommendation in July 2006 that was transmitted
05:50:33 to the Planning Commission for recommendation hearing
05:50:36 in September 2006.
05:50:41 It was brought before a public information workshop in
05:50:42 October of 2006 at Ballast point elementary, which a
05:50:46 couple of you have attended.
05:50:48 And then there was a scheduled public hearing in
05:50:50 November 2006, which we requested a continuance to
05:50:54 January to work on the language further with the area
05:50:57 residents and stakeholders.
05:51:00 Between September and December, I did meet with many
05:51:03 people, individual property owners, neighborhood
05:51:06 activists, Civic Association representatives and so
05:51:09 on, to discuss the language, to explain it further to
05:51:12 them, to explain the policies and what they meant and
05:51:16 to hear from them of how it may or may not affect
05:51:19 their property and to try to figure out some revisions
05:51:22 to the language so that it covered as many people as
05:51:25 it could with certain allowances.
05:51:29 In January, you had requested to reschedule for
05:51:32 tonight and here we are today, the final revisions to
05:51:36 these -- this language went out late January.
05:51:40 I do have the language, as I said, attached.
05:51:43 It's page four and five of the memo.
05:51:45 And it's color.
05:51:46 There are red and blue markings on it.
05:51:48 This is the language that I'm bringing forward today.
05:51:51 You will receive language from one of the residents
05:51:55 who represents Ballast point homeowners alliance.
05:51:58 He has a couple of additional changes that he's
05:52:01 looking for, and that's what I'm hoping to get
05:52:04 direction from Council tonight on exactly what
05:52:05 language you would like to move forward.
05:52:09 What these policies do is address MacDill Air Force
05:52:11 Base and the area surrounding it within our
05:52:15 comprehensive plan.
05:52:15 The area is already culled out along with Tampa
05:52:20 International Airport in the future land use element.
05:52:23 Florida Senate bill 1604 which amended the state
05:52:26 statute chapter 16331776 A went into effect in 2004.
05:52:32 It required local jurisdictions to consider
05:52:34 compatibility of land adjacent to military
05:52:39 You can read that language directly out of the policy.
05:52:42 Further require that the future land use element of
05:52:44 the comprehensive plan shall include criteria to be
05:52:46 used to achieve such compatibility.
05:52:49 What I noted on page 4 in blue is the language that I
05:52:53 worked on with a few different people, external people
05:52:58 based on public comments.
05:52:59 The policies below are intended to manage land use,
05:53:02 ensure future development compatibility surrounding
05:53:04 the base, support the viability of the military
05:53:07 operations and protect lands within the MacDill Air
05:53:09 Force Base's flight paths as shown in figure one, the
05:53:13 MAFB flight path map, which I have on the elmo.
05:53:19 Now, what this describes to you is the actual flight
05:53:22 path that comes off of the runway.
05:53:24 There are three zones to that.
05:53:26 We're not actually labeling.
05:53:28 We're doing a very generic map which shows the flight
05:53:32 We've broken it down to where you can actually see the
05:53:35 platted lots and streets so you get a clear indication
05:53:39 what properties it affects.
05:53:42 Objective A-3-1 notes that the city shall support and
05:53:47 strengthen the role of MacDill Air Force Base by
05:53:49 requiring that adjacent development be compatible with
05:53:53 airport-related activities.
05:53:54 This language that is not underlined, I want to stress
05:53:58 that this language is existing today in the
05:54:00 comprehensive plan.
05:54:01 Anything that's underlined is new.
05:54:03 The colorized language is modified language.
05:54:08 In the objective itself, there's only one word that
05:54:11 changed, and that was only modified to make it read a
05:54:14 little bit clearer.
05:54:16 Policy A-3-1, this is the very first policy where we
05:54:20 get into the meat of the entire joint land use study
05:54:24 recommendations and policies that you need to decide.
05:54:28 If you go back to page 3, I wrote out some points for
05:54:31 City Council to consider.
05:54:33 Based on the findings of the joint land use study,
05:54:37 previous vision statement of the Ballast Point
05:54:37 neighborhood plan October 2006 public workshop and
05:54:40 general public comments that we received to date,
05:54:44 there were four questions that we essentially need
05:54:46 direction on from City Council to make these policy
05:54:49 Should the future residential density be reduced from
05:54:52 10 units to six in the area.
05:54:54 I gave you some points to consider.
05:54:57 Currently in the comprehensive plan, no matter the
05:54:59 land use category, if you lie within the flight path
05:55:02 of MacDill Air Force Base, you are capped at 10 units
05:55:05 per acre for residential development.
05:55:07 What the study showed was that 6 units per acre is
05:55:11 actually a more compatible density in the area based
05:55:15 on the current development pattern of the area.
05:55:18 Single-family residential currently is developed at
05:55:20 5.8, approximately, per acre.
05:55:22 The Ballast point neighborhood plan, which was adopted
05:55:25 a few years ago, does state the desire to create a
05:55:28 pastoral and peaceful residential area.
05:55:32 I also met with Jorge, who is here tonight.
05:55:34 We met with a couple of members of his association,
05:55:37 and they did express a desire to further improve their
05:55:40 residential area as a single-family area.
05:55:43 The second question that you will need to consider,
05:55:46 should the nonresidential development be reduced to .5
05:55:49 F.A.R., floor area ratio.
05:55:51 Just to clarify for anyone in the audience that does
05:55:53 not understand what floor area ratio is, it's the
05:55:57 ratio of building area to land area.
05:55:59 However much land area you get, it's a simple
05:56:03 percentage calculation.
05:56:04 It's a simple percentage calculation.
05:56:06 If you have a .5 floor area ratio, that means you get
05:56:10 50% of your land area in building.
05:56:12 So if you have 10,000 square feet of land, you get a
05:56:15 5,000-square-foot building.
05:56:17 What we did through the study was look at the land use
05:56:20 categories in the area, and we found that there is a
05:56:22 range currently in those categories that would allow
05:56:24 nonresidential development or the consideration of it.
05:56:28 And that range between .5 and 1.5 floor area ratio.
05:56:33 The existing nonresidential uses that are currently
05:56:36 developed in the area average out to around a .25
05:56:39 floor area ratio, which is less than what we're
05:56:43 We did receive comments from an area property owner
05:56:48 along the Dale Mabry corridor and Interbay corridor
05:56:51 that has industrial and commercial intensive lands,
05:56:54 which is allowed up to a 1.5 floor area ratio.
05:56:58 He stated concerns regarding that limit of .5.
05:57:02 So what we did was scale that recommendation back on
05:57:10 page four to limit the .5 floor area ratio for those
05:57:13 parcels that lay adjacent to MacDill Avenue.
05:57:16 When I removed the .5 originally from all residential
05:57:20 or all nonresidential lands in the area, I received
05:57:24 comments immediately back from the residential side
05:57:25 that they wanted the cap.
05:57:27 So the compromise that I'm proposing tonight is to
05:57:29 limit it on MacDill Air Force Base, which is the main
05:57:32 corridor through the residential area.
05:57:34 That would leave the Dale Mabry side out of it where
05:57:36 the larger parcels lie.
05:57:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about Interbay?
05:57:43 Are there opportunities for Interbay?
05:57:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I can tell you, the comments that I
05:57:48 did receive in the interim, what we proposed at the
05:57:51 October public workshop was a new plan for new land
05:57:54 use categories.
05:57:55 And the thought was to turn Interbay into a mixed use
05:57:58 corridor, because it is a collector and arterial road
05:58:01 in certain sections.
05:58:03 And that was not received very well.
05:58:05 There are a lot of residents on Interbay, and only at
05:58:09 certain intersections are there commercial properties
05:58:13 and commercial land uses.
05:58:14 So I didn't want to address Interbay in its totality
05:58:19 based on the comments that I received back.
05:58:20 I can certainly look at that and limit certain
05:58:24 intersections, if you like.
05:58:26 MacDill seemed the most reasonable because those
05:58:28 are very small parcels.
05:58:29 They are not very deep.
05:58:30 You're not going to get a very large development on
05:58:33 those parcels anyway.
05:58:35 And .5 is reasonable.
05:58:36 It's essentially doubling what is existing today.
05:58:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When people come up and speak if
05:58:44 you have comments about Interbay Boulevard, let us
05:58:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If you look at page 5, policy
05:58:55 A-3-11, you note that the underlined language is in
05:58:59 black type.
05:59:00 This has not changed.
05:59:01 This is actually one of the requirements of the state
05:59:03 statute that we include a designated representative
05:59:06 from the military installation on our planning board.
05:59:12 We have already placed, currently Tony Rodriguez from
05:59:14 MacDill Air Force Base.
05:59:16 He sits as a nonvoting ex officio member.
05:59:21 He simply is part of the proceeding but cannot vote on
05:59:23 any action.
05:59:25 That policy has remained.
05:59:27 No one to date has issued any comments to me related
05:59:29 to that.
05:59:31 Policy A 3-1-2, you will hear comments about this
05:59:36 It is to prohibit future noise sensitive development
05:59:38 such as residences, schools, hospitals, et cetera,
05:59:42 which do not provide the required noise attenuation
05:59:45 This policy as you can see is not underlined and not
05:59:48 colorized in any way because it's an existing policy.
05:59:51 We do have recommendations from some of the area
05:59:53 residents to change this policy, which we can
05:59:56 certainly discuss.
05:59:57 I would like to hear those comments and hear the
05:59:59 discussion with City Council.
06:00:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Have we ever implemented that
06:00:04 policy with code language that talks about noise
06:00:07 attenuation in residential?
06:00:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It doesn't -- it's not directly
06:00:12 implemented in the zoning code.
06:00:13 It would be implemented through the building code,
06:00:15 although I can't say specifically that it is.
06:00:18 I don't know that it ever has been.
06:00:23 Policy A- 3-1-3, you'll note in red it was modified
06:00:28 by staff for clear read.
06:00:30 The only words I changed were "in existence."
06:00:34 What this policy does -- and you'll note back on page
06:00:37 3 in the memo, this relates to number three on the
06:00:42 memo on page three.
06:00:45 They may not meet the six units per acre be allowed to
06:00:49 develop in the area.
06:00:50 It's a very simple question to consider.
06:00:53 The spot analysis that was done during the joint land
06:00:55 use study demonstrated that many of the plotted lots
06:00:58 in the area maintained only a 50-foot width.
06:01:01 However, they had a significant depth on them that
06:01:04 rendered approximately 6600 square feet per lot.
06:01:08 If every single lot were to redevelop in the area, if
06:01:11 every house came down and they rebuilt a house, the
06:01:15 average approximately would be about 6.6 to seven
06:01:18 units per acre, which is not too far off the mark from
06:01:21 the policy that's being put into place today.
06:01:25 Furthermore, many individual property owners as well
06:01:28 as Neighborhood Associations and activists have
06:01:30 advised that lots of records should be allowed to
06:01:34 Many of them spoke to this.
06:01:35 Many have two or three lots with maybe one house on
06:01:38 them, and they don't want that particular ability to
06:01:41 be stripped from them at the six units per acre.
06:01:44 They are looking that if they have a lot of record by
06:01:46 plat or deed, that they can develop that based on the
06:01:49 zoning regulations that exist today.
06:01:52 And finally, should nonconforming uses in the area be
06:01:56 rendered conforming?
06:01:58 When the ten units per acre policy was put into place
06:02:01 15 years ago, it did render some of the uses in the
06:02:06 area nonconforming.
06:02:07 There are condominium buildings.
06:02:08 There are town house developments that were built
06:02:11 prior to that policy that exceed ten units per acre.
06:02:14 Many of these are individually owned, homeownership
06:02:19 And if for some reason they were to come down through
06:02:22 any sort of natural phenomenon, fire, any kind of act
06:02:27 of God or anything else, technically in the policy
06:02:30 today they would not be allowed to rebuild -- the way
06:02:33 they currently exist.
06:02:34 So what we've done is put in a policy that says any
06:02:38 use and intensity of land that was constructed prior
06:02:40 to the effective date of this provision may be -- is
06:02:44 conforming and may be rebuilt at its current
06:02:49 development intensity.
06:02:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Legally constructed.
06:02:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We have a lot of things that are
06:02:59 illegally constructed.
06:03:01 I hate to say it that way.
06:03:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Without permit.
06:03:04 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, we deal with them every day.
06:03:06 There is a way to track that, if it was legally
06:03:10 That was just to cover ourselves that we weren't
06:03:13 necessarily permitting something to stay that we
06:03:15 normally wouldn't, because it wasn't legally
06:03:19 And the last policy was something that we actually
06:03:21 worked on with Mr. Diaco and the Mayor and myself in a
06:03:25 phone conference that we had, was that the city really
06:03:28 should look forward in its planning efforts and
06:03:32 establish a committee that includes various members of
06:03:35 the public, MacDill Air Force Base, area stakeholders,
06:03:40 Neighborhood Association representatives, city staff
06:03:43 and so on, to meet on a regular basis to discuss
06:03:47 MacDill's plans, their operations, any issues on
06:03:52 our side of the fence, any area plans that we have,
06:03:55 any city planning efforts that we have.
06:03:58 Meet on a regular basis to discuss those items so that
06:04:01 we can hash these things out and if need be, bring
06:04:05 them forward to you as well.
06:04:07 And that was -- that was a stated policy that the
06:04:10 administration was behind.
06:04:15 That's pretty much where we are today.
06:04:18 Mr. Wells will speak I believe on the recommendations
06:04:21 that he did send through for you as well.
06:04:23 I believe you received them via e-mail.
06:04:26 There are not very many changes from what I presented
06:04:29 to you, and I'm certainly open to discussion on any of
06:04:32 these items.
06:04:33 If you need any further background, I'll be happy to
06:04:36 explain exactly where we are in the process, why, how
06:04:38 we got here.
06:04:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from Council members?
06:04:44 Mr. Dean wells, would you please come up?
06:05:07 >> Thank you Chairman Miller.
06:05:09 My name is Gene Wells.
06:05:11 Founder of the Ballast Point Homeowners Alliance.org.
06:05:15 We are a group of several hundred Ballast Point,
06:05:16 Interbay, and Sun Bay South homeowners, like-minded
06:05:19 and promote the preservation of property rights and
06:05:22 sound government policy.
06:05:23 While we are disappointed, Council, we can't continue
06:05:26 to the final language tonight, we appreciate very much
06:05:28 for you waiving your language and allowing us to
06:05:32 We don't profess to speak for everyone in the
06:05:35 However, the final language we develop today, if you
06:05:38 look on the last page, you'll see 134 homeowners have
06:05:43 signed supporting the Ballast Point homeowners
06:05:45 Alliance language.
06:05:47 We ask you to take that into consideration.
06:05:49 If any of those signers today, this language may
06:05:52 reflect what they want to tell you tonight.
06:05:54 Real briefly, if I may, I'll just go through the
06:05:57 changes that we have been working with Cathy Coyle and
06:06:00 the administration.
06:06:01 I would like to say for the record, I do appreciate
06:06:03 the administration and particularly Ms. Coyle's
06:06:06 assistance since January.
06:06:08 September, you gave them correction to work --
06:06:10 direction to work with the homeowners.
06:06:12 We've been through a lot of renditions for this in her
06:06:14 language and the homeowners language is very, very
06:06:17 And as far as the far issue, we homeowners have always
06:06:21 advocated that that was something that we recommended
06:06:25 the city work directly with those density impacting
06:06:28 F.A.R. does not apply to homeowners.
06:06:31 However, consistent with the Ballast Point
06:06:33 neighborhood plan, which I did help write and was
06:06:36 president of the Ballast Point Neighborhood
06:06:37 Association when it passed, we wanted low density
06:06:42 residential, single-family development for the future
06:06:45 of our neighborhood.
06:06:47 So Ms. Coyle's language and our language is consistent
06:06:50 with that.
06:06:51 The first thing where I have on definition MacDill
06:06:55 flight path, when we first started this Council
06:06:58 several months ago, when the JLUS started a year and a
06:07:02 half ago, it was in and around MacDill, those
06:07:06 I'm not going to mention those zones.
06:07:08 What we have tried to craft -- so we put the flight
06:07:13 paths in.
06:07:14 The open language of the policies is really home-owner
06:07:17 friendly language.
06:07:18 It talks about ensuring compatibility.
06:07:21 Ms. Coyle's compatibility word is our word.
06:07:24 It's how you say it that's important to us.
06:07:27 If I may say, they had us at six units an acre back in
06:07:30 It was the other items we had issues with, Council.
06:07:33 We did add the F.A.R. back in our language.
06:07:36 Again, we believe those property owners really should
06:07:39 have a way on that, but consistent with Interbay,
06:07:42 MacDill, Bayshore Boulevard, those are really
06:07:45 where the low density we are looking for in those
06:07:48 neighborhoods, I believe, I believe that the Dale
06:07:51 Mabry situation and if that property owner knew
06:07:53 tonight that he would have that, we probably could go
06:07:56 to finish.
06:07:56 But I believe Dale Mabry, you would have to talk to
06:07:59 Mr. Ugarte regarding that.
06:08:02 He is the president of Interbay.
06:08:04 The noise policy is a real sticking point.
06:08:06 What it is, we have tried to remove the noise.
06:08:10 Many homeowners have articulated very fine that the
06:08:14 study which these noise contours are based upon are
06:08:17 nine years old.
06:08:18 We do understand there is noise with the base.
06:08:20 What we have tried to do as homeowners is open up the
06:08:23 noise language, evaluate noise sensitive development
06:08:28 for compatibility.
06:08:29 On one hand, the city, the base, the government can
06:08:32 say, well, is this new rezoning going to be compatible
06:08:35 because of noise?
06:08:36 But on the other hand as well, homeowners can say, is
06:08:39 this noise going to be compatible with us?
06:08:42 We made a very rudimentary map.
06:08:44 Council, we ask you tonight to direct staff to bring
06:08:49 this language for 629.
06:08:53 We thank you very much for your time.
06:08:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I appreciate the colors.
06:09:01 It's easy to track.
06:09:03 But what are the -- what are the sticking points that
06:09:05 are left?
06:09:06 And is there some way that that can be put in very
06:09:11 easy to read, sort of bullet point format so we can
06:09:16 all try to digest that between now and April?
06:09:18 >> Well, if I may, for homeowners and homeowners
06:09:23 alliance and everyone who signed our page, we have
06:09:26 very few issues, because we have worked for six months
06:09:28 with the city on this.
06:09:29 The flight path was there to say where it was going,
06:09:33 because before we were in and around.
06:09:35 The policy language in our opinion that we have
06:09:37 suggested is very homeowner friendly.
06:09:40 And, in fact, some of it comes direct from the
06:09:43 statute, 1604 about ensuring people work together for
06:09:49 We love the military.
06:09:51 We support MacDill Air Force Base.
06:09:52 However, on the military side of the equation, they
06:09:55 are beating back encroachment, they have to.
06:09:57 But on the civilian side, we are seeking compatible
06:10:01 development, so that's an area.
06:10:03 I believe Ms. Coyle and I with some time can come
06:10:08 together on that.
06:10:09 The major issue is the noise issue.
06:10:11 There was noise added the last time when we went to
06:10:14 ten units.
06:10:16 Frankly, we believe part of this process has been
06:10:18 what's there, let's leave.
06:10:19 We're just trying to improve.
06:10:20 That's kind of perhaps been the thought.
06:10:21 That's really the issue.
06:10:22 I strongly recommend you look at this.
06:10:25 Evaluate noise position we're taking with our
06:10:27 suggested language.
06:10:28 Put that language in.
06:10:29 And then you provide a balance.
06:10:31 Homeowners have balance to evaluate compatibility and
06:10:34 the government has the ability to balance noise for
06:10:39 Those are really the issues.
06:10:41 Flight path, we just did.
06:10:43 Her map is fine, except you have to take out the other
06:10:46 We're talking flight paths here.
06:10:47 We're not talking zones.
06:10:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you discussed that with Ms. Coyle
06:10:52 about the noise balance?
06:10:54 >> We have.
06:10:55 Ms. Coyle has been working very hard.
06:10:58 I appreciate her responding.
06:11:00 She can't respond to every request I've had because
06:11:03 she's a very busy person.
06:11:04 I floated this draft language to her late last night
06:11:07 seeing if she would get a look.
06:11:09 Again, she's very busy.
06:11:10 I believe with the time that we've been permitted
06:11:13 here, from my perspective and Ballast homeowners
06:11:17 alliance perspective, I believe when we return
06:11:19 April 19th, we'll have language that homeowners can
06:11:22 support and the signature page attached to this
06:11:24 language will be attached to Ms. Coyle's language.
06:11:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Very good.
06:11:29 That sounds great.
06:11:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Wells, so I'm understanding,
06:11:33 it's what you call it that's the sticking point that
06:11:37 calling it flight paths is acceptable to you rather
06:11:41 than the zones.
06:11:42 It's not a question of how they are drawn.
06:11:44 It's a question of what they are called.
06:11:46 >> What I mentioned the zone remark was the map she
06:11:49 put up.
06:11:49 She had those zones we don't want on there.
06:11:51 And my map, if you notice, it's just two red boxes
06:11:54 that go out 17,000 feet.
06:11:57 It's -- how you say it is precisely where we are
06:12:01 today, though.
06:12:01 We are principally agreeing to everything.
06:12:04 Just like the Jerry Maguire movie, you had us at six
06:12:07 units per acre.
06:12:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The other thing I want to make sure
06:12:11 I understand, the noise, could you expand just a
06:12:16 little bit about the noise issue?
06:12:20 >> Well, the noise paragraph that Ms. Coyle talked
06:12:22 about and that is in her language, is an existing
06:12:26 policy that was passed sometime in late '90s, early
06:12:29 2000 when they first did the AQs.
06:12:32 So it's been retained through this process.
06:12:35 Our efforts have been to remove this day/night noise
06:12:40 We were trying to remove the contours because we felt
06:12:43 they hadn't been established in 2007.
06:12:46 So what has happened, they have taken out the DNL
06:12:49 If you look at our paragraph, it really reads vague.
06:12:52 It doesn't take us anywhere.
06:12:54 We believe our suggested language, you know, the Tampa
06:12:58 comprehensive plan is like the pirates code.
06:13:01 They are guidelines.
06:13:03 And so we believe this evaluation procedure leaves
06:13:06 those guidelines for you to follow, because you know
06:13:08 what we have, Council?
06:13:10 We have rezonings still coming to you and that's what
06:13:13 we wanted.
06:13:14 Council decides our land use, and we have that and the
06:13:18 city has given us that.
06:13:19 So we believe evaluate the noise you can weigh the
06:13:23 compatibility and make the decision for us as you do
06:13:25 on every rezoning.
06:13:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
06:13:31 Any other questions, Mr. Wells?
06:13:32 Thank you, Mr. Wells.
06:13:33 Now we go to the audience.
06:13:35 Anyone in the audience want to speak, you may speak
06:13:38 >> Hello.
06:13:38 Steven Diaco, 6409 Bayshore Boulevard.
06:13:43 I'll speak for a few moments and then introduce you to
06:13:46 Harry Kelso, who is our attorney.
06:13:50 Though we are disappointed we can't vote today, we
06:13:54 understand the technicality.
06:13:54 We appreciate you allowing us the time to speak with
06:13:55 This started for us in August of '06 when we got our
06:13:58 first notice.
06:13:59 My family went to the Planning Commission meeting, and
06:14:01 it was September 11th, and it was a rough day for
06:14:06 It was pretty much rubber stamped as it was submitted,
06:14:10 and it truly scared us to death as homeowners and land
06:14:13 owners in the area.
06:14:15 I am so proud of this administration, these Council
06:14:19 members, our Mayor, Cathy Coyle, and all the people
06:14:23 that have worked to bring us to where we are today.
06:14:27 I am proud to live in this community.
06:14:29 My house went on sale September 11th.
06:14:32 And we are pulling it off the market.
06:14:36 We hope to be here for generations and it's based on
06:14:39 the actions of this Council and this administration.
06:14:41 I'm so proud to be a part of this community.
06:14:43 I want to share with you some of the people I have met
06:14:46 When I spoke with one of the most powerful land use
06:14:48 attorneys in town, he said you're in front of the
06:14:50 train, get out of the way.
06:14:51 So we went on a national search.
06:14:53 That's how we found Harry Kelso.
06:14:56 And I want to volunteer him to this Council and this
06:14:59 city for future issues that will present themselves to
06:15:02 In this process, I've spent many hours and many
06:15:06 meetings with Cathy Coyle, and I want to publicly say
06:15:09 what an asset she is to our city.
06:15:12 Pam Iorio, I have spoken with and have met with and
06:15:14 have communicated through correspondence through this
06:15:17 process and applaud her.
06:15:18 And Cynthia Miller for what they have done and I have
06:15:22 met with on several occasions.
06:15:24 Kathy Castor and Tony Rodriguez, Robert Hughes, the
06:15:28 senior civilian deputy base civil engineer.
06:15:30 I share these names you with, because I spent a lot of
06:15:33 time educating myself through this process and I want
06:15:36 you to know who the players are.
06:15:38 He's the head civilian on base, and he shared with me
06:15:41 some very important insight that helped us through
06:15:43 this process.
06:15:44 Everything that I brought to this city, they've been
06:15:46 able to implement in these changes.
06:15:48 Cynthia Miller, as I said, has met with me on various
06:15:52 Gwen Miller, thank you for your time and your
06:15:55 attention to this.
06:15:56 But this is even beyond our city.
06:15:58 I spent time with Mel Martinez and his staff, Shawn
06:16:01 Harrison, thank you for spending time with me.
06:16:04 John Dingfelder, thank you for spending the time with
06:16:07 I appreciate all the insight that they shared with me.
06:16:11 And then I even spoke with Louis Miller, who is the
06:16:14 Executive Director of Tampa International Airport, who
06:16:17 shared with me about flight paths and things that are
06:16:19 beyond this, but things like there's a North-South
06:16:22 runway, and MacDill is on a peninsula.
06:16:25 And, by the way, I see a couple of representatives of
06:16:28 our military, and I want them to know how proud we are
06:16:31 of MacDill.
06:16:32 How we support our troops.
06:16:33 Those are my children every veterans day and Memorial
06:16:37 Day out there waving with signs of support.
06:16:40 We love them and we respect what they do.
06:16:42 And we want to continue to have this base here.
06:16:44 But with this base on a peninsula, we could take off
06:16:48 predominantly from the South and land in a southern
06:16:53 Not curtailing northern takeoffs, but only when
06:16:56 prevailing winds demand it.
06:16:58 From Louis Miller, I learned it is five knots.
06:17:01 So I ask that the Council and the city and I'm asking
06:17:04 the base to take off in a southern direction and land
06:17:07 in a southern direction unless it puts the military
06:17:10 personnel in harm's way.
06:17:12 It won't happen unless we ask.
06:17:14 At this time, and I know my time is up and Mary
06:17:16 Alvarez and Kevin and Linda Saul-Sena, thank you.
06:17:20 Colonel Tim Smith, vice commander of MacDill I
06:17:23 also had an opportunity to speak with.
06:17:25 But I want to turn this over to Harry Kelso who we
06:17:29 spent literally thousands of dollars retaining.
06:17:32 He's flown in from D.C. to present ideas about this
06:17:36 working committee.
06:17:36 Even people in our community passed the hat around.
06:17:40 The bulk has been done by our family, but I'll turn it
06:17:43 over to Harry who is an attorney and environmental
06:17:46 consultant who specializes in military base closures
06:17:49 and redevelopment.
06:17:49 And I'll allow him to speak a few minutes with you.
06:17:53 Thank you for indulging me.
06:18:06 >> There was no second to allow extra time on a
06:18:08 speaker waiver form, is that correct.
06:18:11 So it's a three-minute time limit, sir.
06:18:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to make a motion -- how
06:18:16 many minutes do you need, sir?
06:18:19 >> Seven or eight.
06:18:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll make a motion for eight
06:18:21 minutes in light of the fact that they flew him in
06:18:24 from Washington, D.C.
06:18:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
06:18:26 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
06:18:27 [Motion Carried]
06:18:30 >> Madam Chair, members of the City Council, I
06:18:32 appreciate the opportunity to come and visit with you.
06:18:34 The title of my remarks, which you have in a brief
06:18:38 one-pager, it's called "going beyond the JLUS."
06:18:43 And the reason I do that is because joint land use
06:18:47 study which this city entered into was a very good
06:18:51 first step.
06:18:52 But I'm here to talk about today and first of all to
06:18:55 commend you for listening to the different homeowners
06:18:59 association whose have concerns about where the JLUS
06:19:02 was going and some of the ramifications.
06:19:05 When Mr. Diaco contacted me, he really wanted me to
06:19:08 consider what kind of measures could the city be
06:19:11 thinking about in going beyond the issues of joint
06:19:13 land use study?
06:19:16 So before I go into some specifics, let me step back
06:19:19 and give you a little perspective about the military
06:19:22 base community.
06:19:24 The army, the Navy and marine corps.
06:19:27 Just as a quick background, the United States has been
06:19:31 opening and closing military bases since the dawn of
06:19:34 the republic.
06:19:35 They've been taking them, selling them off just as
06:19:38 they do any other property.
06:19:40 As a matter of fact, one of the most interesting
06:19:42 things about being in Tampa is one of the very first
06:19:44 military bases that was established in the United
06:19:46 States in 1830 was right here in Tampa, Fort Brooke
06:19:50 and ultimately, it was sold off by 1883.
06:19:54 But if you fast-forward to military bases in the
06:19:57 20th century, you have essentially what is now what
06:20:00 I often refer to as the largest industrial corporation
06:20:03 in the world.
06:20:04 It's a large corporation that essentially net plan
06:20:09 value dwarfs that of General Motors.
06:20:11 And one of the things that should be taken from that
06:20:13 is the defense department and the military services
06:20:16 are having to manage their properties, their real
06:20:18 estate, just like any large corporation.
06:20:21 They do so on the basis of everything from economics
06:20:23 to war fighting and to infrastructure.
06:20:27 So what does that mean for Tampa and MacDill Air Force
06:20:32 One thing that has become very clear is that things
06:20:35 have changed economically over time in the last 15 to
06:20:39 20 years.
06:20:40 One of the things we know is that in 1991, the
06:20:44 department of defense recommended that MacDill Air
06:20:45 Force Base be closed.
06:20:48 And they even pointed out in their recommendations
06:20:50 that if, even though it wasn't part of their economic
06:20:54 calculations, the Air Force could enjoy a rather large
06:20:57 return on its investment if they ultimately closed
06:21:01 In 1991, they chose not to do that.
06:21:04 Now here we are in 2005, and ultimately MacDill
06:21:07 has gone to mission road.
06:21:09 They are going to be adding over the next few years, a
06:21:12 considerable number of people to the operations at
06:21:14 MacDill, both military and civilian.
06:21:16 But there's a lot more to being a host military city
06:21:21 than simply land use changes and zoning changes as
06:21:25 were discussed in the JLUS.
06:21:28 I think it's important that when you're thinking and
06:21:30 considering what you want to do beyond the joint land
06:21:34 use study, you need to be thinking as if, instead of
06:21:37 it being a military person or a military department
06:21:41 bringing 10 to 20 thousand new people, pretend as if
06:21:45 this was really Microsoft calling the Mayor and they
06:21:48 were saying, well, we're going to move 20,000 people
06:21:51 to Tampa.
06:21:51 Necessarily, you would be starting to think of things
06:21:55 that are major importance, like schools and streets
06:21:58 and infrastructure, and energy and issues of that
06:22:05 With regard to the military, it's become very clear,
06:22:07 one of the other issues that has to be considered, and
06:22:10 that the city should be considering is affordable
06:22:13 housing because many of the homes in the Interbay
06:22:16 peninsula are at the expense level that probably
06:22:21 wouldn't be rentable by many people in the military.
06:22:24 So it's important on one hand to be starting to think
06:22:27 beyond the joint land use study, to be considering the
06:22:30 kinds of issues that you'll be facing in the next
06:22:33 three or four years as the Air Force and other tenant
06:22:36 organizations show up in Tampa.
06:22:39 But that's not enough to think about that only in
06:22:42 terms of -- simultaneously, you need to be thinking
06:22:45 further down the road, because ultimately, many of the
06:22:49 people in Washington who are dealing with the ultimate
06:22:53 land holdings of the department of defense believe
06:22:57 that the defense department and military services are
06:22:59 still overbuilt.
06:23:00 So it's not going to be a big surprise if sometime
06:23:04 after the 2011 base closure route ultimately stops and
06:23:09 ultimately concludes, don't be surprised that in the
06:23:12 following few years there's going to be another round
06:23:14 of discussions and drivers to conduct another round of
06:23:18 base closures.
06:23:19 Once again, you're starting to think long term about
06:23:23 what kind of issues the city will be having to face.
06:23:27 You have to think in terms of two tracks.
06:23:29 One is, what is it you want to be doing today about
06:23:32 the schools and what do you want to do today about the
06:23:35 infrastructure and the streets as you bring in 10 to
06:23:39 20 thousand more people to MacDill?
06:23:42 And at the same time, you need to be thinking
06:23:44 long-term, not just five years, but where does the
06:23:46 city want to be in five to ten to fifteen years,
06:23:49 particularly in the case if, once again, there's
06:23:53 another -- and ultimately the military has to examine
06:23:58 what kind of issues they need to deal with in order to
06:24:01 maintain an active military.
06:24:03 The best vehicle by which to do that is something that
06:24:05 has been included in the amendments to the FLU and
06:24:10 that is the stakeholders committee.
06:24:12 That's probably one of the most critical parts that I
06:24:15 read in this effort, because it means that the city is
06:24:18 going to throw its weight behind a very broad,
06:24:22 broad-based stakeholder's committee that will be able
06:24:25 to have ongoing discussions between homeowners
06:24:28 associations and the city and the military on an
06:24:31 ongoing basis.
06:24:32 By virtue of doing that, they will minimize the
06:24:35 chances that unnecessary friction between the military
06:24:39 and the homeowners and the city will go forward.
06:24:42 Simultaneously, one of the benefits to having that
06:24:45 stakeholder's committee is ultimately the military and
06:24:49 the homeowners associations, the citizens and the city
06:24:52 are going to ultimately find out that many of their
06:24:56 concerns are very similar among themselves.
06:24:59 The military has many of the same concerns the local
06:25:03 community does.
06:25:04 Everything from he encroachment to schools, roads,
06:25:07 transportation, et cetera.
06:25:09 Ultimately, what's the benefit?
06:25:10 What's the net effect?
06:25:11 That is that the cooperation goes both ways.
06:25:14 If the city moves in concert with MacDill to
06:25:17 become a more seamlessly and vertically and
06:25:22 horizontally integrated community, one of the benefits
06:25:25 is going to be that you'll have far more receptive
06:25:28 officials at MacDill who will be more interested
06:25:30 in working with homeowner associations in dealing with
06:25:33 the kinds of issues they are dealing with.
06:25:35 One of the suggestions I made to Mr. Diaco is that
06:25:37 considering the concerns about the aircraft flight
06:25:41 patterns, one of the things that MacDill could do
06:25:43 is to enact or to conduct a study of mitigating
06:25:50 measures that military pilots could utilize as they
06:25:53 fly over homeowners associations.
06:25:56 This isn't anything new.
06:25:58 There are other mitigating studies that have been
06:26:00 conducted in other cities, one of which was in
06:26:03 Pensacola, around the naval air station.
06:26:07 I don't believe such a study has been done recently by
06:26:10 the military.
06:26:11 Candidly, the kind of issues they'll face when they
06:26:14 look at that, really emphasizes the safety of not only
06:26:17 the homeowners but also the safety of the air
06:26:19 personnel as well.
06:26:21 Finally, let me just underscore the importance of you
06:26:25 thinking again two tracks.
06:26:26 You have to think beyond joint land use study.
06:26:29 You have to think beyond just the land use
06:26:31 restrictions and the height restrictions, et cetera.
06:26:34 You need to be starting to think not only about
06:26:36 mission growth and what you want to be doing in the
06:26:39 next three or four years, but simultaneously you need
06:26:41 to be starting to think where does the city really
06:26:43 want to be five years from now and ten years from now
06:26:46 and 15 years from now.
06:26:48 On that basis, I would endorse the stakeholders
06:26:51 Thank you.
06:26:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
06:26:52 Anyone else like to speak?
06:26:58 >> Hello.
06:26:59 My name is Dennis.
06:27:00 I kind of want to present a different facet of this
06:27:04 particular study.
06:27:07 I was born and raised in Tampa in the Ballast Point
06:27:11 Interbay area.
06:27:12 My dad's family has owned property there for some 60
06:27:18 years, a parcel located 5819 South MacDill.
06:27:22 Growing up there, of course, my dad was born and
06:27:26 raised in that same area.
06:27:29 He was friends with Durcy Ekman the former Chairman of
06:27:35 the board for First National Bank.
06:27:37 Jack Eckerd used to come and watch me play baseball
06:27:40 when he had just one store.
06:27:42 He sponsored my team.
06:27:44 A large amount of history involved with my family and
06:27:50 my seven brothers and sisters in the Interbay area.
06:27:54 We're not -- I'm not here as a land flipper or a house
06:27:59 I'm here as a longtime, and I'm talking longtime
06:28:04 resident and represent my dad's trust.
06:28:08 Joseph F. P. Lavity trust in my presentation.
06:28:15 We have this property located at 5819 South
06:28:17 MacDill has an acre more or less.
06:28:21 It's somewhere between, around 75% of an acre.
06:28:27 The current flight path or noise path or whatever
06:28:32 you're going to call it, I think it's a bad decision
06:28:35 to call it a noise path, because then you open
06:28:37 yourself up to parameters that you may not be willing
06:28:42 to investigate.
06:28:43 It may take a long time to, sitting here in front of
06:28:48 hearing experts and medical experts to say what's
06:28:53 Mr. Wells represents an organization that I've never
06:28:57 heard of.
06:29:02 We've never received a piece of correspondence from
06:29:04 Mr. Wells.
06:29:04 I don't know who these hundred people are, but I
06:29:07 guarantee you, out of the hundred and whatever he has
06:29:11 on that list, we have lived in that area longer than
06:29:15 most people have even heard of Tampa.
06:29:18 So, you know, it's an issue that I'm concerned about
06:29:21 that now this flight path traverses our property, cuts
06:29:25 it almost in half.
06:29:28 And now that we, as longtime homesteaders in that area
06:29:34 with a large amount of history, are going to be
06:29:38 penalized because of a lot of rhetoric that I've heard
06:29:44 today that doesn't represent my interest or my
06:29:48 family's interest.
06:29:52 I would ask and especially John, that you consider the
06:29:59 consequences of this on our part.
06:30:02 I know it's minor because there won't be that many
06:30:04 people that fall into this category and there won't be
06:30:06 that many parcels of land as large as ours involved in
06:30:09 this, and it is adjacent to MacDill Avenue.
06:30:12 And I certainly appreciate Catherine Coyle's
06:30:15 It sounds like she's very professional and done a
06:30:18 wonderful job, but I would -- if you looked at her
06:30:23 proposed policy A 3.1.4, I would like a wording change
06:30:38 there where we could be grandfathered in.
06:30:44 I don't care if it's February 23rd, 1987 or
06:30:47 February 23rd, 1947.
06:30:50 You know, we owned that property that long.
06:30:53 But I don't believe the consequences should -- we
06:30:56 should suffer the same consequences of people that
06:30:59 have been involved in flipping land and property.
06:31:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up, sir.
06:31:02 Ms. Saul-Sena has a question for you.
06:31:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just need you to clarify, what is
06:31:08 your property used for and what is it zoned?
06:31:11 >> There are six lots.
06:31:12 There are three lots adjacent to MacDill that are
06:31:15 zoned commercial.
06:31:16 The three lots in the back are zoned residential.
06:31:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is it used for?
06:31:23 >> Right now, we just -- well, just, we had to put my
06:31:27 dad in a nursing home, and he lived in that residence
06:31:31 up until the point where we had to do that.
06:31:34 It is currently vacant.
06:31:36 The house is vacant.
06:31:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's one house and six lots you
06:31:41 are speaking of.
06:31:42 >> Well, there are other structures on the property,
06:31:44 but, yeah, that's correct.
06:31:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the best thing probably to
06:31:51 do, because I think we're all sympathetic to hear your
06:31:57 issue and your plight which is a little unusual
06:31:59 compared to most folks down there, but I think the
06:32:01 best thing to do is meet with Kathy over the next 30
06:32:04 days until we come back.
06:32:08 April 19th.
06:32:10 So you guys can get square how this is specifically
06:32:12 going to affect your parcel.
06:32:14 >> Okay.
06:32:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And then come back to us on the
06:32:16 19th and let us know if you all have been able to
06:32:20 address it, work it out.
06:32:21 If you haven't, then we'll see where we are.
06:32:24 >> Okay.
06:32:24 I appreciate that.
06:32:25 Thank you very much.
06:32:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
06:32:37 >> Good evening.
06:32:39 I actually have an issue similar to the gentleman
06:32:41 before me, at least I think I do.
06:32:44 My name is Ramon Prendez.
06:32:47 I live at 16429 Offenhower Road in Odessa.
06:32:52 I own a duplex and two triplexes at 6603 South
06:32:56 MacDill and Varn Avenue.
06:32:58 My land fronts MacDill at the intersection of
06:33:02 My wife and I have owned this property for over nine
06:33:07 Before this plan amendment came to exist, it was our
06:33:09 most valuable asset.
06:33:11 And I think it's safe to say that's no longer the
06:33:15 I have always been proud that I have helped fill the
06:33:18 need for some affordable housing in the area.
06:33:22 Over the last several years, I've been contacted by
06:33:25 several developers interested in buying my property.
06:33:28 And I'm sure they contacted my neighbors also.
06:33:31 And developed town homes and multifamily, and I
06:33:36 resisted that greed and continued the current use of
06:33:40 my land.
06:33:41 And I knew that one day when that property had to be
06:33:44 redeveloped, the buildings reached an age where they
06:33:47 could no longer stand, that I or my children would be
06:33:49 rewarded for having waited.
06:33:54 I want to comment that I've met with Cathy Coyle
06:33:56 twice, and she has been as helpful as possible under
06:33:59 the circumstances and done her best to convince me
06:34:02 that the effect of this amendment is not meant to be
06:34:05 But I must tell you that the financial impact is
06:34:09 It's obvious that most of the issues offensive to
06:34:11 property owners and damaging property values have been
06:34:14 deleted from this amendment, the one that kills me is
06:34:16 still here.
06:34:19 The value of my land is directly tied to the density
06:34:22 that I would be allowed to build on it.
06:34:24 If you reduce my density, you reduce the value of my
06:34:28 There is a place for higher density, and in my
06:34:30 opinion, it fronts MacDill.
06:34:33 No one would want to live in a single-family home, and
06:34:37 I know there are people who live in a single-family
06:34:39 home on MacDill.
06:34:40 The comments I heard as we were waiting to come into
06:34:43 the room were, you get used to the noise.
06:34:45 But if I build single-family homes on MacDill,
06:34:48 some day, because I have no intentions, I have no
06:34:51 intentions of developing this property, but I'm trying
06:34:54 not to take my options off the table, the higher
06:35:00 density belongs on the corridor.
06:35:02 It's the proper way to transition between the road
06:35:04 noise on MacDill and the single-family homes
06:35:07 behind me.
06:35:09 To lay a blanket over the entire area and treat it all
06:35:12 the same is wrong in my opinion.
06:35:15 Not just to me personally but to the planning and
06:35:17 development process.
06:35:18 Instead of the reward that I referred to earlier, my
06:35:20 lack of greed in the last couple of years has led me
06:35:23 to suffer a major, major reduction in the current and
06:35:26 future value of my property.
06:35:30 All of the issues that the joint land use study were
06:35:32 designed to address have been modestly stripped away.
06:35:36 Now the amendment has been left as a tool to
06:35:39 accommodate the agenda of reducing density.
06:35:41 And I realize I've actually got people who disagree
06:35:45 with me on both sides.
06:35:46 I have homeowners behind me who want six per acre.
06:35:49 Got eight units and I front MacDill.
06:35:56 And I really believe that the only way to get people
06:35:59 value for their money and to ask them to live on
06:36:01 MacDill is if you give them more for your money.
06:36:04 >> What is your acreage, sir?
06:36:06 >> I'm actually only .4-acre.
06:36:08 Little more than .4.
06:36:10 Our property was built back when the zoning was 20
06:36:16 units per acre.
06:36:17 It's been reduced to 10.
06:36:19 Now we're looking at going down to 6.
06:36:22 And that's where the pain comes in.
06:36:24 And I really do believe that the corridor deserves to
06:36:28 be treated differently.
06:36:30 And I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
06:36:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
06:36:33 Anyone else like to speak?
06:36:42 >> Good evening.
06:36:42 My name is Phillip Freedman.
06:36:44 6818 South Englewood.
06:36:46 I'm also the treasurer of the Interbay Neighborhood
06:36:49 I wrote to this Council approximately three or four
06:36:52 months ago regarding this issue on behalf of the
06:36:55 And at that time, we objected to moving forward with
06:36:59 this plan.
06:37:02 As an organization, our position has not changed.
06:37:04 We strongly commend what City Council and the staff,
06:37:07 Ms. Coyle in particular has done in working with
06:37:09 neighborhoods, working with individuals.
06:37:12 And that's a great thing.
06:37:13 However, we don't think that this is appropriate, and
06:37:16 we still wish that you would vote no on the
06:37:18 transmittal and table this issue indefinitely.
06:37:22 The JLUS study itself was flawed from the start.
06:37:25 It did not involve the community.
06:37:26 It did not involve the full and informed input of the
06:37:30 property owners in that area.
06:37:33 And now there's been a number of efforts to backtrack
06:37:36 to try to inform people but as evidenced by the
06:37:38 speakers before me tonight, there are still a number
06:37:41 of people who are not aware of all these issues and
06:37:43 the impacts it might have on their property
06:37:48 Although we're pleased with the changes in the
06:37:51 language over the past few months, those changes are
06:37:54 good, but they have not come far enough and I frankly
06:37:57 don't know if there are any changes that would be
06:37:59 palatable to the neighborhoods down there.
06:38:02 This City Council has the ability to make
06:38:05 comprehensive land use changes on their own without
06:38:08 the input of the JLUS study, and that's why we elected
06:38:12 these people here in City Council.
06:38:13 Why we'll do that in the future and why we have city
06:38:16 We don't need the JLUS study or folks from the
06:38:20 military telling us how to run our city.
06:38:22 We strongly support the military.
06:38:25 We think MacDill a great economic driver in the
06:38:28 Most of my neighbors are Air Force folks.
06:38:30 And I don't want to see them go.
06:38:32 But at the same time, these are two separate things,
06:38:34 and the City Council should take care of the city, the
06:38:37 property owner and their residents.
06:38:39 The JLUS study in Tampa is a different issue than the
06:38:42 studies that have gone around across the country.
06:38:45 They are not large swathes of developable property at
06:38:47 the end of the airstrip at MacDill Air Force Base.
06:38:50 This area has been developed for quite some time.
06:38:53 My home has been there nearly 20 years.
06:38:55 There are homes down there who have been there 50 or
06:38:58 60 years as you heard from previous speakers.
06:39:01 It's not appropriate for this area.
06:39:03 We wish the Council to vote no when it comes time to
06:39:06 do that, not transmit that to the DCA and direct city
06:39:09 staff to table this issue indefinitely.
06:39:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Freedman, let's say for
06:39:15 argument sake that we would like to do something,
06:39:18 because, you know, there are a lot of folks we've
06:39:20 heard from who, you know, who feel a little
06:39:24 differently than you do, that they would like to see
06:39:26 us do some of this, some sort of compromise fashion.
06:39:31 I think the city has compromised quite a bit.
06:39:33 Is there any portion of this that specifically offends
06:39:40 you or that you would specifically like to see taken
06:39:43 I mean, obviously you would like to see the whole
06:39:46 thing taken out, but short of that position,
06:39:48 anything --
06:39:50 >> Let me draw a distinction.
06:39:52 I'm a property owner down there.
06:39:54 As an individual, I don't have that many problems with
06:39:56 the language as it is drafted now.
06:39:57 I do live closest to the air force base.
06:40:01 There are no homes between my house and the air force
06:40:04 base itself.
06:40:05 The last air show when the pilots landed, I could tell
06:40:09 whether or not they shaved that morning.
06:40:11 Noise, things like that, are an issue for me
06:40:13 individually and personally, but I chose to purchase
06:40:16 that house and I've not been down here 40 years.
06:40:19 I purchased that home two-and-a-half years ago and I
06:40:21 have no intention of going anywhere.
06:40:23 I knew the Air Force was there.
06:40:24 I knew the noise was there, and that doesn't bother
06:40:27 However, I also represent the Neighborhood Association
06:40:29 which has a larger scope, and at this time, we feel
06:40:32 that given the flaws in the JLUS study and how it has
06:40:35 been approached to date and how this appears to be
06:40:39 something Council wants to do as a result of pressure
06:40:42 from the military or from other forces, that it should
06:40:46 be tabled at this time.
06:40:48 If the city wants to make a comprehensive land use
06:40:50 plan, they should do with full and informed consent of
06:40:53 the property owners in that area and do so without the
06:40:57 underpinnings of JLUS.
06:41:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
06:41:01 I just wanted to clarify, you don't need to answer me,
06:41:05 but the city staff met with a committee that consisted
06:41:09 of representatives of the different civic
06:41:12 organizations that represent the different
06:41:13 neighborhoods at the beginning of this.
06:41:15 And there was a process of many months of meeting with
06:41:18 both them and people from the military.
06:41:23 So we really didn't create this in a vacuum.
06:41:26 There were neighborhood representatives at the
06:41:29 >> I understand that.
06:41:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This isn't a dialogue.
06:41:32 I just wanted to share that.
06:41:34 >> Thank you.
06:41:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
06:41:38 >> My name is Joseph Diaco.
06:41:40 2802 shore breeze drive.
06:41:42 It's Bayshore point.
06:41:43 I'm the president of Bayshore point homeowners
06:41:47 Within our community, we have 12 residential homes and
06:41:50 150 town homes.
06:41:51 And in follow-up to Mr. Freedman's comments about the
06:41:55 study and whether or not it's flawed, I would just
06:41:57 highlight everybody to page 2.3 of the study, which
06:42:00 talks about who the questionnaires were given to.
06:42:04 It was only given to 55 respondents, and I think it's
06:42:07 important to note who those respondents were and
06:42:10 whether or not they are truly representative of the
06:42:12 31 of those respondents lived in mobile homes.
06:42:16 5% lived in -- excuse me, five or ten percent lived in
06:42:20 manufactured or modular homes.
06:42:22 One of the questionnaires, only one was filled out by
06:42:26 a resident who lived in a town home.
06:42:28 This study is not representative of the concerns of my
06:42:31 neighborhood where I have 150 town home residents who
06:42:34 live within my one community.
06:42:35 If you take into consideration the multitude of other
06:42:39 families who live in town homes or who live in
06:42:42 communities where these JLUS recommendations would be
06:42:46 affected, we were not at these meetings.
06:42:49 We were not contributing to the recommendations of the
06:42:53 JLUS study and, quite frankly, we believe a
06:42:55 questionnaire which has 55 respondents is flawed and
06:42:59 statistically insignificant.
06:43:01 So we appreciate where City Council is going with
06:43:04 this; however, the JLUS study is flawed from the
06:43:07 get-go in that it doesn't represent the land use and
06:43:12 the land owners whose property would be adversely
06:43:15 My second comment is merely on the noise.
06:43:18 It's my understanding there's supposed to be a
06:43:20 65-decibel noise limitation.
06:43:22 I live on Bayshore Boulevard, and I have been
06:43:25 registering 107 decibels in my backyard when they're
06:43:30 taking off and landing.
06:43:31 They are doing this as late as 10, 11 p.m.
06:43:35 I know everyone has families.
06:43:36 I have a pregnant wife.
06:43:37 Needless to say, it wakes up my pregnant wife all the
06:43:41 So we would just ask the Council to please take into
06:43:45 consideration this future task force and whether or
06:43:48 not the concerns of the local community will truly be
06:43:51 taken into consideration and having a flight path
06:43:54 which takes off predominantly to the South and lands
06:43:57 predominantly from the South would absolutely cure
06:44:00 many of the concerns.
06:44:01 We recognize that during the air shows and during
06:44:04 various military exercises, some of these noise levels
06:44:07 we may have to deal with some modifications for short
06:44:11 periods of time.
06:44:12 But it is more often than not that these flights are
06:44:15 outside the bounds of what is acceptable levels of
06:44:19 107 versus 65.
06:44:21 It's not even close.
06:44:23 I have videotape of that with the decibel meter which
06:44:25 I intend to bring to the next hearing to show the
06:44:28 Council members.
06:44:28 And hopefully you'll all take that into consideration
06:44:33 when recommending future flight patterns and the use
06:44:36 of a task force.
06:44:37 Thank you for your time.
06:44:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so you're aware, this is
06:44:41 scheduled as a workshop.
06:44:43 It was opened as a workshop.
06:44:45 You lost your quorum.
06:44:47 I also bring to your attention that it's 6:44.
06:44:50 You're about five minutes away from one hour.
06:44:55 So if Council wishes, I can do one of two things.
06:44:58 You can either wait to regroup as a quorum or close
06:45:01 the workshop and continue as a special discussion
06:45:04 In either case, you are five minutes away from your
06:45:06 one-hour time limit.
06:45:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to continue for five more
06:45:10 minutes for special discussion.
06:45:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Pardon?
06:45:17 In effect, what's happened now -- there we go.
06:45:20 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a quorum now.
06:45:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Five more minutes.
06:45:25 >>GWEN MILLER: You may speak now, sir.
06:45:27 >> Good evening, my name is Jorge Garcia, president of
06:45:30 the Interbay Neighborhood Association.
06:45:31 I feel like this is like a soap opera.
06:45:34 Tune in tomorrow, see where this ends up.
06:45:36 I do support gene wells' organization, Bayshore -- I'm
06:45:42 sorry, Ballast Point homeowners alliance.
06:45:45 I know it's last minute and it's getting continued to
06:45:49 April 19th, but I think it's just gone on long
06:45:52 I mean, got a lot of frustrated individuals here.
06:45:55 We had a good workshop at Ballast Point elementary
06:45:59 school where some of you attended.
06:46:01 We had over 275 individuals show up.
06:46:06 I respect the people up here that oppose, but we all
06:46:10 pretty much agree density is the issue.
06:46:12 Six units per acre.
06:46:14 Overall, we do agree.
06:46:17 And I think that the people that disagree should work
06:46:20 with Cathy Coyle, the gentleman over on MacDill
06:46:24 and the other gentleman, both gentlemen on
06:46:27 But for the most part, I'm here as an individual.
06:46:30 I lived in that area 15 years.
06:46:32 I sold my house to Phil Freedman and I built the house
06:46:35 directly behind his house.
06:46:37 So I'm the second to last house before MacDill Air
06:46:40 Force Base.
06:46:41 So they come directly over my house.
06:46:44 And they'll wake me up at 4:00 in the morning, but I
06:46:47 sleep right through it.
06:46:48 I've dealt with it for 15 years and I'll deal with it
06:46:51 for another 15.
06:46:52 From this point, we probably won't move.
06:46:54 Had I known this was coming down the pike, I probably
06:46:57 would have moved and not purchased a home directly
06:47:00 behind the one I just sold.
06:47:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But why, Jorge?
06:47:04 If we're not changing the zoning of the house that you
06:47:07 just built, that house can stay there forever, you
06:47:11 know, why would it impact you negatively?
06:47:15 >> The concern I have is this doesn't really end here.
06:47:18 It's going somewhere else.
06:47:20 It's going out of your hands and coming back here.
06:47:22 I'm scared that when it comes back here, we'll be in
06:47:24 front of you again and again.
06:47:26 This has been an ongoing saga.
06:47:29 I think that when we complained about the notice,
06:47:31 Kathy did a good job and got out another 6500 pieces
06:47:37 in the mail to everyone in the affected area.
06:47:39 So this is not new to come forward tonight and say,
06:47:42 hey, we don't know you guys, we don't know Ballast
06:47:44 Point homeowners alliance.
06:47:46 Everybody has worked hard.
06:47:48 Interbay worked hard.
06:47:50 We put up signs, notices.
06:47:51 We send out a mailer to every single homeowner in the
06:47:57 Interbay Neighborhood Association, a newsletter, once
06:47:58 a month with updates with the date of our meetings.
06:48:01 So people that come forward and say they don't know
06:48:03 what's going on have plenty of opportunity to find out
06:48:07 what's going on.
06:48:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
06:48:13 >> Good evening.
06:48:13 Debra Tagliarini.
06:48:16 Homeowner at 6009 South Russell Street.
06:48:19 I'm a business owner at 5702 Interbay Boulevard,
06:48:22 Tagliarini architectural group.
06:48:25 I'm also a real estate broker.
06:48:28 I'm also a land investor in that area of a
06:48:30 single-family residential lot and also in building a
06:48:34 spec home on another single-family residential lot.
06:48:36 Been living in the area 21 years now.
06:48:39 Born and raised in Tampa.
06:48:41 Fortunate to have lived in many different
06:48:43 neighborhoods from Wellswood to Temple Terrace to lake
06:48:45 Magdalene and down here.
06:48:47 First time I came down here to see where my new home
06:48:50 was going to be, why would I live South of Kennedy?
06:48:54 And those jets went over, it scared me to death.
06:48:57 But I learned to put my hand over my heart and say God
06:49:01 bless America, thank you, you are there.
06:49:04 As a homeowner, investor, a business owner, I can't
06:49:07 tell you how much I appreciate the different groups
06:49:10 that have come together to try to find the
06:49:13 compatibility between what came out of your attempt
06:49:18 with a small representation of the people from that
06:49:23 area before a large representation understood what was
06:49:26 going on.
06:49:27 And thank you, gene, for -- wells -- for everything he
06:49:32 has done to bring forth this information.
06:49:34 I, however, agree -- I don't think anything should
06:49:39 have been done.
06:49:40 If we didn't need to go through this.
06:49:45 I dealt with the noise.
06:49:46 I deliberately purchased there.
06:49:48 I think it has hurt my values.
06:49:50 This information that has been spread now for this
06:49:53 length of time has made it nervous for people to come
06:49:57 purchase down there, because they do not know what is
06:50:00 going to happen.
06:50:01 I personally am going to be affected financially by
06:50:05 what is going to happen.
06:50:07 And I can't get, unless you can give me in writing
06:50:10 what I'm going to be able to do with my own office
06:50:13 building that we purchased in '89, sold in '92 as a
06:50:17 home, bought back again in 1999 in order to protect
06:50:21 the integrity of what was going on in that
06:50:24 neighborhood, with the understanding that some day,
06:50:26 that home that we turned into an office that was half
06:50:32 CN down the middle and half RS-50, that if we chose
06:50:37 to, we would be able to turn the three lots that that
06:50:39 office sits on into three RS-50 lots.
06:50:43 Downgrade it from a CN zoning on two of those lots to
06:50:47 RS-50 lots, if we go by your density statements, we
06:50:50 will not be allowed to do that.
06:50:52 We would be under that six per acre allotment.
06:50:55 We have been told that we would be allowed to do so,
06:50:58 but there's nothing in these words that will tell us
06:51:00 that we'll be able to take those, tear down what we
06:51:03 now presently have a PD zoning on, a home turned into
06:51:07 an office, and go back some day, tear down that
06:51:10 building, and make three residential homes on three
06:51:14 platted lots, two which are CN and one is the RS-50
06:51:19 There's nothing in these words that can tell me that
06:51:21 I'll be allowed to do that, because they will be less
06:51:26 than the six density that we're talking about.
06:51:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: More than the six?
06:51:35 >> Yes, I would be more than, if you took it at a per
06:51:40 There's nothing that Cathy, as wonderful as she keeps
06:51:44 saying it will not be affected unless they are allowed
06:51:47 to put something in writing that our future use would
06:51:49 be available to us, I have no confidence that now my
06:51:53 investment is going to be able to be used.
06:51:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Tagliarini, the policy she read
06:52:01 to us -- and I'm sure you have it.
06:52:03 I'm not giving a legal opinion.
06:52:05 A-3.1.3, it says any lot of record within the MAFB
06:52:13 flight path in existence as of the effective date of
06:52:16 this provision shall be considered conforming.
06:52:19 Is that the provision that would be applicable that
06:52:23 Ms. Tagliarini said you were referring to?
06:52:26 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, sir.
06:52:27 Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
06:52:28 The point of that provision, is that if you have a
06:52:30 platted lot or a deeded lot of record at the time you
06:52:33 adopt this provision, it's a conforming lot and can be
06:52:36 So she has three plotted lots, and they each could be
06:52:39 developed individually.
06:52:41 >> If it's a CN, it will be allowed to be --
06:52:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: This is something that could be an
06:52:54 outside discussion to explain.
06:52:55 But that's what the policy was meant to do.
06:52:57 I don't have her exact survey in front of.
06:53:01 I also could not put something in -- I would write a
06:53:05 letter saying yes you can do this if it's not an
06:53:08 actual law at this point.
06:53:09 >> And that's what I believe would be other people's
06:53:12 concerns, too.
06:53:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Over the next month, maybe you can
06:53:15 get that clarification and maybe talk to a lawyer to
06:53:18 see how they feel about it.
06:53:20 We would like to hear back from you if you're not
06:53:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: An hour has gone by.
06:53:27 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure?
06:53:28 We have one more speaker.
06:53:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's it.
06:53:33 >> One quick moment.
06:53:34 My name is bob Harris.
06:53:36 We own five acres at 6204 Interbay.
06:53:41 And before the JLUS study, I had sat on a Planning
06:53:46 Commission study group for about 12 weeks looking --
06:53:52 it became part of the 2025 comprehensive plan, looking
06:53:55 at the importance of neighborhoods to the City of
06:53:58 Tampa and the cohesiveness of comprehensive planning.
06:54:02 And out of that, we chose because we sit on five
06:54:07 acres, we have two or three neighbors where in
06:54:11 aggregate, about 15 acres, and we've owned the land
06:54:15 for many, many years, about 25 years.
06:54:18 We looked at what a great opportunity to do something
06:54:22 really nice for the City of Tampa.
06:54:25 We're adjacent to a city park.
06:54:28 We have 50 acres behind us, environmentally protected
06:54:32 So we set out on a planning process looking at
06:54:36 something not typically urban, a traditional
06:54:39 neighborhood development that would have a commercial
06:54:43 component, a multifamily component, a single-family
06:54:45 component and the idea of meandering paths and trails
06:54:50 where you can walk to the grocery store, complementary
06:54:55 professional offices, et cetera, et cetera.
06:54:58 Went forward with that and the Planning Commission and
06:55:00 many people on the city staff and the Mayor and senior
06:55:03 staff were really excited about the concept.
06:55:07 Then the abatement was put in place, all rezoning was
06:55:11 And now rather than do creative urban planning like
06:55:15 that, we're now into a reduction, residential overlay
06:55:20 from 10 to 6 with no plans other than more residential
06:55:27 And Cathy and I have spent a number of times talking
06:55:30 about planning that needs to be a proper balance
06:55:33 between residential homes, the supporting
06:55:37 infrastructure that goes with it in a logic that makes
06:55:41 it a decent place to live.
06:55:44 Well, basically, our plans have gone awry, if you
06:55:48 And if anything, like everybody else, build a few more
06:55:53 single-family homes in the future should we choose to,
06:55:55 which will just be more almost residential infill, if
06:56:00 you will.
06:56:01 The only thing that I saw this as prior to the JLUS
06:56:05 was an opportunity, if you own the land, look at it
06:56:09 from kind of a legacy perspective.
06:56:13 In other words, maximum density build it or you can
06:56:17 plan it in a way that's creative.
06:56:21 Prior to the JLUS, we met with the base commander, the
06:56:24 Mayor of the city, the head of the Planning
06:56:26 Commission, the senior staff of the Mayor, and we had
06:56:31 almost total consensus on what a great idea.
06:56:34 Along the lines of, if you look at Hyde Park, do you
06:56:37 remember when the park was redone there, little civic
06:56:43 center was built, Hyde Park after that blossomed
06:56:47 because of integrated planning.
06:56:49 And yet as a result of JLUS we kind of got single
06:56:56 focused off trying to get something through and urban
06:56:59 planning once again will fall by the wayside in coming
06:57:01 up with some expedient thing to do.
06:57:04 And I realize there's so much time and effort that's
06:57:07 gone into this, you probably can't stop, but it really
06:57:10 would be great in the future to use one of these team
06:57:13 type things to really figure out how to do it and do
06:57:16 it well.
06:57:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What type of density or intensity
06:57:21 were you and your planners or your architects talking
06:57:25 about prior to the JLUS?
06:57:28 >> We own the ranch with the school and the horses on
06:57:33 it, and our intention was because we serve special
06:57:36 needs children who use horseback riding and so forth,
06:57:39 why not do something that would build almost like a
06:57:44 rural environment in an urban area.
06:57:47 And if we kept the school on a reduced footprint,
06:57:50 probably have a small amount of multifamily, primarily
06:57:54 residential and the commercial component on the front,
06:58:00 complement what is already a little neighborhood
06:58:02 market there.
06:58:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did it average out to X number of
06:58:07 units per acre?
06:58:09 >> Well, the problem is not units per acre.
06:58:11 It's that we've been prohibited from doing anything
06:58:14 other than its current zoning for a year and a half.
06:58:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I understand that.
06:58:19 We're trying to work through that.
06:58:21 But I'm just wondering, under the six units per acre
06:58:24 or the .5 F.A.R., would your plan still work?
06:58:30 In a PD concept.
06:58:31 >> It probably would in a PD concept.
06:58:34 But if we have to use the zoning that's proposed which
06:58:37 is kind of a residential zoning, then you can't really
06:58:39 do a PD.
06:58:41 And so my idea is, there are times when a PD really is
06:58:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you again need to meet with
06:58:49 Ms. Coyle over the next month.
06:58:50 I think a PD will continue to be allowed.
06:58:53 We've had the abatement and we acknowledge that, but I
06:58:56 think in the future you can use the PD, it will just
06:58:59 be constrained probably by the six units per acre and
06:59:02 .5 F.A.R.
06:59:04 But maybe that would work with you.
06:59:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena has a question.
06:59:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I was going --
06:59:10 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If you recall, Council, the last
06:59:14 extension you granted you exempted out rezonings for
06:59:17 six units per acre or less so that this is something
06:59:19 that we can speak about with Mr. Harris.
06:59:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So he could actually get started
06:59:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, we could -- we did meet on it
06:59:28 and look at the acreage that he could potentially have
06:59:31 under control.
06:59:31 It is a lot of acreage, so there is some opportunity
06:59:34 there to do something on that property.
06:59:36 I can meet with him on that.
06:59:37 I did want to read for the record, I did receive just
06:59:40 two quick e-mails.
06:59:41 One from Sally Flynn, she's new president of the
06:59:45 Ballast Point Neighborhood Association.
06:59:47 She e-mailed me at 4:58.
06:59:49 She wrote, Cathy I polled the Ballast Point
06:59:51 Neighborhood board and the majority supports limiting
06:59:54 the F.A.R. to point five and the nonresidential uses.
06:59:57 If this is an issue with some commercial uses farther
07:00:00 west, possible solution would be to leave their F.A.R.
07:00:03 as is and limit in our neighborhoods.
07:00:04 Which was kind of my compromised proposal of limiting
07:00:07 it on MacDill.
07:00:08 The second one was forwarded to me from Jerry Miller.
07:00:12 He was the past president of Ballast Point.
07:00:15 Council members, we live in Ballast Point where our
07:00:16 neighborhood association took a stand in support of
07:00:19 JLUS. We recognize the importance of MacDill Air
07:00:21 Force Base to this neighborhood and also recognize the
07:00:24 importance that seeing that only appropriate
07:00:26 development is allowed in the vicinity.
07:00:27 JLUS provides for protection for the base and provides
07:00:30 for low density rational development in Ballast Point.
07:00:33 It's a win-win.
07:00:34 We've read the sky is falling e-mail campaigns and
07:00:37 want to report that everything is fine in Ballast
07:00:40 Property values are not plummeting as a result of the
07:00:43 JLUS -- I'm just reading this for the record.
07:00:47 This is not my stand, obviously.
07:00:49 I'm just reading it for the record.
07:00:50 He couldn't be here.
07:00:52 And we're not aware of families packing up their bags.
07:00:58 Zealotry often wins over a more reasoned approach.
07:01:07 That is evidently what is happening here.
07:01:10 We're disappointed to see the city water down the
07:01:12 recommendations but understand the political reality.
07:01:16 We're hopeful that the city will develop the courage
07:01:19 to adequately protect MacDill Air Force Base and in
07:01:21 the process provide good development controls in our
07:01:23 It is truly win-win.
07:01:24 Thank you, Jerry and Jan Miller.
07:01:24 They couldn't be here.
07:01:25 Neither could Sally Flynn.
07:01:27 So I just wanted to read that for you.
07:01:30 Do you want me to respond to any of the people that
07:01:32 have spoken at all or do you want me to talk about the
07:01:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I guess what we all want to hear, we
07:01:40 got this with nice multicolor, how close are you to
07:01:45 >> Mine was multicolored, too.
07:01:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: This is incredibly complicated for
07:01:52 those of us who aren't planners or, you know, in the
07:01:57 And to try to take all of this in, it's pretty tough.
07:02:02 Are you close?
07:02:04 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Extremely close, yes.
07:02:06 >>GWEN MILLER: On the 19th, you will be there.
07:02:08 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I just want to outline, what I'm
07:02:10 actually looking for from council is direction to
07:02:14 bring back language to you on the 19th that we can
07:02:17 all come to consensus on.
07:02:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the 0.5 F.A.R. is
07:02:23 But I agree that we should limit it to a certain
07:02:27 streets and appropriate for you to come back with
07:02:31 staff recommendation as to which streets those should
07:02:35 MacDill Interbay, Bayshore, perhaps as three
07:02:40 I also wonder, I also wonder about the -- you know,
07:02:45 when we did the Palma Ceia plan amendment and the
07:02:49 associated rezoning, we had an opt out, you know.
07:02:54 We had an opt out opportunity.
07:02:56 And I'm just wondering, you know, if that might be
07:03:01 something that we might consider.
07:03:05 >> I personally as a planner would never recommend an
07:03:08 opt out provision for any land use decision.
07:03:10 I don't think it's wise.
07:03:11 That's my professional opinion to you.
07:03:13 Policy decisions are never easy to make, especially
07:03:16 land use decisions.
07:03:17 And when you make one, whether you're increasing
07:03:19 density or lowering density, someone is going to be
07:03:22 affected because someone doesn't want it more and
07:03:24 someone doesn't want less.
07:03:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, the part that worries me the
07:03:29 most is the gentleman who described his eight units
07:03:32 that exist today and the fact that at some point down
07:03:35 the road, he had a realistic expectation of rebuilding
07:03:40 at least that density or perhaps even greater, you
07:03:44 know, up to 10 units an acre.
07:03:46 And now that opportunity is lost.
07:03:49 Let me talk with him, work --
07:03:52 >> I've met with him twice.
07:03:54 He's a wonderful man.
07:03:55 He has eight units today that are nonconforming.
07:03:59 The 10 units per acre policy that's in place today
07:04:01 only renders four units on his property.
07:04:04 So if it burns down or falls down for any reason, he
07:04:07 can only build back four.
07:04:09 He understands that.
07:04:09 I've explained that to him.
07:04:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So they weren't legally constructed
07:04:13 and fall into your A-3.1.4?
07:04:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's the policy that covers him
07:04:19 to build back his eight that he has today, yes.
07:04:21 If he were to tear it down and redevelop it for
07:04:24 something else, some other configuration or some other
07:04:27 use, then he would follow the new policy.
07:04:31 If for some reason his eight units are destroyed, he
07:04:34 can build back the eight units he has.
07:04:36 That policy covers him.
07:04:38 If you look at the density and the lot of record
07:04:41 provision, he has three platted lots.
07:04:43 The six units per acre by his calculation on his lot
07:04:47 area renders four units under the new policy.
07:04:50 He has three plotted lots, so the policy lots of
07:04:54 record are conforming, he can build three.
07:04:56 Theoretically, if everything was cleared off his
07:04:59 property, he would be losing one unit from four to
07:05:02 He can always build back the eight he has in the
07:05:06 configuration that he has.
07:05:08 We tried to put in policies to allow people some
07:05:11 flexibility in what they had today versus what they
07:05:13 could do in the future if some catastrophic thing
07:05:18 happened, a fire, whatever.
07:05:20 So we tried to build in as many scenarios for
07:05:24 different situations.
07:05:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: First of all, you should feel good
07:05:28 with all the generous compliments you received from
07:05:30 virtually everyone.
07:05:33 Does City Council as part of the JLUS have the ability
07:05:37 to address the sound of the planes flying overhead?
07:05:40 Is that something over which we have jurisdiction?
07:05:42 >>CATHERINE COYLE: My answer would be no.
07:05:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I didn't think so.
07:05:46 I just wanted to check.
07:05:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So, Cathy, what further direction do
07:05:52 you need from us now?
07:05:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I just want to state for the record
07:05:56 as far as what was sent by Mr. Wells.
07:05:58 The MacDill flight path description.
07:06:01 I'm going to go back and read through that, because I
07:06:04 did receive that -- I looked at it this morning.
07:06:07 What I showed you was the map on the elmo.
07:06:11 The only reason these lines are still in here is
07:06:13 because the way it's actually digitally drawn in our
07:06:18 We do plan to take them out and the flight path will
07:06:20 be drawn as one flight path.
07:06:22 So that should put his mind to rest for that.
07:06:25 I want to go through his description.
07:06:28 I need to add up the numbers of what each area is, and
07:06:30 I'm sure we can come to a compromise on that
07:06:33 It should be in there, a description of the flight
07:06:35 And we will be placing in as figure one this map
07:06:38 itself so people can see it in the comp plan.
07:06:42 The noise language that he has on page 2, policy
07:06:47 A-3.1.2, in mine, as I noted to you, it's not
07:06:53 underlined or colorized at all because it's an
07:06:57 existing policy.
07:06:58 As I stated before, it's not really implemented
07:07:00 anywhere in any of our codes that I can find.
07:07:03 I don't mind altering the language at all.
07:07:07 So that's fine with me.
07:07:08 Whatever you guys want to do is fine with me.
07:07:11 Evaluate for compatibility.
07:07:12 And at a later date if you want to implement some kind
07:07:15 of building code or something else, you can certainly
07:07:18 look at that.
07:07:19 But I don't mind changing the language at this point.
07:07:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Wells, how do you feel about that?
07:07:24 >> He's good with it.
07:07:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's certainly within your
07:07:31 discretion as well.
07:07:32 >>GWEN MILLER: When you come back, everything --
07:07:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, in all of this debate,
07:07:41 we haven't heard from actually the folks at
07:07:45 Now, we want to make sure that this is going to serve
07:07:47 their purposes as well.
07:07:49 And they have sat and dutifully listened and taken
07:07:53 notes, but I think we need to hear from our military
07:07:56 when we bring this back on April the 19th.
07:07:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I believe they will be here.
07:08:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Great, because the goal of everyone
07:08:02 here is to protect that base, but protect the
07:08:05 neighborhoods around that base.
07:08:06 And we've coexisted for, what, well over 50 years, and
07:08:11 we're going to keep coexisting.
07:08:15 >>GWEN MILLER: You've been meeting with the base
07:08:19 Were they satisfied with the language you've been
07:08:22 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thus far, yes.
07:08:24 >>GWEN MILLER: They don't have any complaints?
07:08:26 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Not that they have voiced to me,
07:08:28 They want to be as cooperative as possible.
07:08:30 For the record, though, I would like to introduce as I
07:08:32 noted earlier, Tony Rodriguez is the base community
07:08:36 planner today.
07:08:36 He is leaving the base.
07:08:41 I don't know if I should announce this, but he's
07:08:44 coming to work for the city.
07:08:45 Jose Barringer will be taking his place.
07:08:49 For anyone in the audience, hopefully he'll sit on the
07:08:51 committee that will be formed and everything.
07:08:53 We do still want to be involved and anyone in the
07:08:55 audience can contact him.
07:09:03 >> [microphone not on] it doesn't mention City
07:09:13 And it should be the district four representative City
07:09:16 Council, regardless of whether or not it's me or
07:09:19 anybody else.
07:09:21 >> That was on purpose.
07:09:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And it also doesn't mention how
07:09:24 often this committee should meet.
07:09:26 I would say at a minimum it should meet semi annually
07:09:29 or quarterly.
07:09:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I certainly don't mind committing
07:09:37 to a time frame.
07:09:38 The only thing is, just being in the comp plan, you
07:09:41 never want to fall out of compliance with the comp
07:09:43 plan if for some reason a meeting is missed.
07:09:46 So just think about that when we come back.
07:09:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
07:09:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm good.
07:09:58 I believe I'm satisfied.
07:10:00 >> Move to receive and file.
07:10:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
07:10:02 All in favor, aye.
07:10:04 Anything else to come before the Council?
07:10:06 We stand adjourned.
07:10:09 (The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.)