Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Thursday, April 10, 2008
5:01 p.m.

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 file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

17:10:39 [Sounding gavel]
17:10:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The Tampa City Council meeting will
17:10:42 now come to order.
17:10:48 Roll call.
17:10:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:10:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:10:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.

17:11:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
17:11:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Councilman Charlie Miranda will not be
17:11:06 here this evening.
17:11:07 As we stated this morning his wife is ill and he will
17:11:11 stay with her.
17:11:12 We keep them in our prayers.
17:11:14 We have a memorandum from councilwoman Mary Mulhern,
17:11:18 this evening's meeting I regret that I am than able to
17:11:20 attend tonight's council meeting due to a family
17:11:23 commitment.
17:11:23 This memo will be entered into the record.
17:11:25 So we want to do that.
17:11:32 What we would like to do first before we move to the
17:11:35 agenda, let's take up the resolution.
17:11:39 Mr. Shelby.
17:11:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Based on council's direction and the
17:11:48 direction I received and based on the information off
17:11:50 the TBARTA web site, I did prepare a resolution.
17:11:53 It says -- actually, I do notice an error as we speak
17:11:57 in the numbering of the section.
17:11:58 I am going to correct that on the original.
17:12:00 And submit that.

17:12:02 But basically, council, this is declaring City Council
17:12:06 support for creation of the sustainable recurrent
17:12:09 funding source for TBRTA, that the City Council
17:12:12 supports the effort to reach a compromise which would
17:12:13 allow the use of rental car surcharge as a funding
17:12:16 source while satisfying FDOT concerns which was the
17:12:19 gist of the motion that was made, that Mr. Smith had
17:12:22 provided, that TBRTA made, and the Tampa Bay regional
17:12:28 transportation authority be included in the Senate
17:12:29 bill to secure funding.
17:12:30 I believe that was part of the council's conversation.
17:12:33 And if this meets with council's approval and with the
17:12:35 maker of the motion, then I will submit a substitute
17:12:39 that has that correction for section 4, and if I could
17:12:42 take that back I'll give you the original.
17:12:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to thank Mr. Shelby.
17:12:50 His resolution is much more elegant than the original
17:12:53 TBARTA, and contains everything we want it to do so I
17:12:59 move this resolution.
17:13:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Shelby is always efficient.
17:13:05 9.
17:13:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by councilwoman Saul-Sena,

17:13:08 seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
17:13:09 Let it be known by saying Aye.
17:13:11 Opposed same sign.
17:13:12 So moved and ordered.
17:13:13 >>> Just to inform you that I did prepare a copy for
17:13:18 Darrell Smith, and that it would be voted on this
17:13:22 evening.
17:13:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Good.
17:13:24 And let's also take up item number 8.
17:13:33 Public hearing item 8.
17:13:35 >> So moved.
17:13:36 >> Second.
17:13:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Moved by Councilwoman Miller, Seconded
17:13:39 by councilwoman Saul-Sena.
17:13:42 So moved and ordered.
17:13:43 Okay.
17:13:44 Item number 4.
17:13:51 That is a request for a continuance.
17:13:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I ask a question?
17:13:55 I'm sorry.
17:13:55 Whether it's appropriate, rather than have this
17:13:57 continued, could this just be withdrawn from this

17:14:01 agenda and placed on the August cycle?
17:14:03 I believe that would be the correct procedure rather
17:14:05 than open a public hearing.
17:14:07 I believe -- so we really don't have a date to
17:14:12 continue it to.
17:14:13 I believe it will be reset to the August cycle.
17:14:17 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:14:18 I believe it would be appropriate to go ahead and set
17:14:20 this as a withdrawal and apply.
17:14:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do I hear a motion?
17:14:26 Item 4.
17:14:28 Actually 4 and 7, right?
17:14:32 Both or individually?
17:14:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Individually, please.
17:14:35 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
17:14:44 >> Move for withdrawal.
17:14:46 >> Or do you wish them individually?
17:14:48 >> The record should be clear as long as the record is
17:14:52 clear, that it pertains to both items 4, PA 07.
17:14:57 >> Then the motion would include item number 4, which
17:15:00 is file PA-07-24, item number 7, which is file
17:15:05 PA-07-21.

17:15:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Move with withdraw item number 7.
17:15:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
17:15:13 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
17:15:18 Opposed same sign.
17:15:19 So moved and ordered.
17:15:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
17:15:27 I think there was a misunderstanding.
17:15:29 When you said to withdraw were you --
17:15:32 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:15:34 I thought you were referring to item number 7 because
17:15:36 there is no place to continue that to.
17:15:37 Item number 4 is requesting the next cycle in August
17:15:42 and it may have been my misunderstanding, in speaking
17:15:45 with the Planning Commission, if it's withdrawn, then
17:15:47 the petitioner will have to repay a fee.
17:15:50 If it continued they won't.
17:15:53 They'll repay advertising and not repay the actual
17:15:57 fee.
17:15:57 So I apologize.
17:15:58 I misunderstood which item we were talking about.
17:16:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item number 4 needs to continue.
17:16:04 >>GWEN MILLER: I withdraw my motion for item number 4.

17:16:10 I withdraw my motion.
17:16:12 >> I withdraw my second.
17:16:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
17:16:16 Let it be known by Aye.
17:16:18 Okay.
17:16:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion to the August 2008 cycle.
17:16:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
17:16:24 >>GWEN MILLER: So item number 4, right?
17:16:27 PA-07-24 is continued to the August cycle.
17:16:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That would be the motion.
17:16:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That is the motion made by Mrs.
17:16:35 Miller, seconded by councilwoman Saul-Sena.
17:16:38 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
17:16:40 So moved and ordered.
17:16:42 So for the record we made a motion for item 7.
17:16:45 Okay?
17:16:47 Do that.
17:16:47 And then we continued item number 4 so the record will
17:16:50 be clear.
17:16:51 Okay.
17:16:52 Item number 1.
17:16:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Open the public hearing.

17:16:56 >> Second.
17:16:56 (Motion carried).
17:16:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved and ordered.
17:17:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A reminder to council please that
17:17:04 what you are hearing tonight are comp plan amendments.
17:17:06 To refresh your recollection, these are not
17:17:10 quasi-judicial hearings.
17:17:11 These are legislative matters.
17:17:13 Therefore, the standard of your burden is different.
17:17:18 If you have any questions about that as the hearing
17:17:20 progresses, I would be happy to address those.
17:17:22 Just so you know, these are not the same burden that
17:17:26 would be met for a quasi-judicial hearing.
17:17:41 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
17:17:42 What you will be hearing in the first part of this
17:17:45 evening, these will be split into two areas.
17:17:49 Wall be hearing first of all will be three small scale
17:17:51 plan amendments which will only require adoption by
17:17:54 this body, and therefore is not going to have to be
17:17:57 transmitted to the state.
17:17:58 So that will consist -- do we need a super majority
17:18:02 vote?

17:18:04 Five votes, four adoption this evening, on any one of
17:18:07 the next three items that you will be hearing on next
17:18:10 evening's agenda.
17:18:10 When we conclude with the three plan amendment you
17:18:13 will then reopen your public hearing for transmittal
17:18:17 hearings for amendments in excess of ten acres.
17:18:22 Within the new process that's just been completed by
17:18:24 the state for DCA, which is basically a pilot program
17:18:27 for the City of Tampa.
17:18:29 Where the process will be a little different, where
17:18:33 DCA is not the reviewing agency, that will few now to
17:18:37 the municipality of tap.
17:18:39 So DCA will now being another reviewing agency, since
17:18:44 our reports to, and all those reports will now be
17:18:46 focused on being sent over here to the City of Tampa
17:18:52 which facilitate in expediting the plan amendment
17:18:56 process for regular scale and large scale plan
17:18:58 amendments.
17:18:59 That being said, I will now continue with -- or start
17:19:03 my presentation on the first plan amendment for this
17:19:06 evening, which is a small scale plan amendment.
17:19:08 This is Tampa comprehensive plan amendment 07-07.

17:19:13 This particular site is located in the vicinity of
17:19:16 50th street and 10th Avenue.
17:19:18 To give you some background, this plan amendment
17:19:22 request was privately initiated.
17:19:24 The request is to go from public, semi-public and
17:19:26 residential 20 to heavy commercial 24.
17:19:30 The site is approximately 7.3 acres in size and is in
17:19:34 proximity to interstate 4.
17:19:37 I would show you a couple maps to give you the concept
17:19:43 of the site.
17:19:44 Here the site is located just south of the interstate.
17:19:47 Just to the west of 50th street.
17:19:51 But it's located on the eastern-most section of the
17:19:53 City of Tampa, that we would call City of Tampa
17:19:59 proper.
17:19:59 When you think of New Tampa, this is next to the
17:20:05 unincorporated Hillsborough County boundaries.
17:20:08 I am now showing you the aerial to give you a little
17:20:10 more perspective of the area.
17:20:13 This is an interesting area, as you can see from the
17:20:17 parcelization.
17:20:19 There are some residential pockets in this area.

17:20:21 It is an area that is very unique and currently exists
17:20:25 with light industrial, heavy industrial, commercial
17:20:28 intensive, commercial use, as well as residential
17:20:31 uses.
17:20:31 There is no -- there is a small segment of a
17:20:37 neighborhood association that is recorded with the
17:20:39 City of Tampa that's basically the Beasley park
17:20:45 neighborhood association which encompasses this over
17:20:48 here and most of the neighborhood association
17:20:49 boundaries will fall to the north, or will exist to
17:20:52 the north.
17:20:53 That's the interstate over here.
17:20:55 There is still, though, an existence of some small
17:20:58 pockets of residential use down over here.
17:21:01 I will get a little more into detail with this as I
17:21:03 continue my presentation this evening.
17:21:07 Here is Broadway.
17:21:08 And east of Broadway.
17:21:10 East of 50th street.
17:21:12 Area does tend to become a little more industrialized.
17:21:16 But that particular area is not really going to be
17:21:19 examined in detail.

17:21:21 We are going to skip on this area west of 50th
17:21:23 street.
17:21:24 You can see that, farther south on 50th street and
17:21:29 down Broadway that you have an intensification of uses
17:21:32 and intensity, more heavy industrial uses to the
17:21:34 south, more warehouse, and more trekking types of
17:21:38 uses.
17:21:40 This first picture that I am going to show you is an
17:21:47 aerial that has a perspective of the site is actually
17:21:52 off the aerial right here who are actually looking to
17:21:55 the east.
17:21:56 So this is basically 50th street here.
17:21:58 We are looking toward the east.
17:22:00 This is a new part of the road that was built several
17:22:03 years ago as an extension of the new Columbus exit off
17:22:08 the interstate.
17:22:09 Site in question over here --
17:22:12 >> Where?
17:22:13 >> Where my pen is.
17:22:14 Right here.
17:22:16 >> Where is the interstate?
17:22:20 >>TONY GARCIA: I am going to show you a different

17:22:22 perspective.
17:22:24 That is an eastern perspective.
17:22:26 I know you are anxious to see the northern
17:22:28 perspective.
17:22:30 I will show you that in a second. This is an old
17:22:31 strip center that's been around and as Lou over here
17:22:34 there are some industrial uses and commercial uses
17:22:36 along this particular piece of 50th street.
17:22:39 And again another small commercial use over here.
17:22:42 And there are some, as you can see, some mobile home
17:22:46 parks, and there are some residential uses here by the
17:22:51 parcelization, residential field.
17:22:59 Here is the actual subject site in question.
17:23:02 Again 7.3 acres.
17:23:03 Let me back drop a little for you.
17:23:05 The site is actually owned by the Florida Department
17:23:07 of Transportation, was purchased by the Department of
17:23:09 Transportation from the Hillsborough County school
17:23:11 board several years ago, eight to ten years ago, I
17:23:16 believe.
17:23:16 And has been used as an operation station during the
17:23:20 expansion of the interstate.

17:23:25 With that project coming to an end shortly, the
17:23:31 Department of Transportation now has taken steps to
17:23:34 come in and change the land use designation, at least
17:23:37 make the request to this body to go from public
17:23:39 semi-public to heavy commercial 24 for the site.
17:23:43 Presently in a public semi-public there's only certain
17:23:46 uses you can have under that particular designation:
17:23:50 Schools, hospitals, Hillsborough County community is a
17:23:55 good example of that. Anyway, here is 50th street
17:23:58 and here's the new extension.
17:23:59 Again, here's some commercial uses, commercial uses to
17:24:03 the south, some vacant land to the east -- I mean to
17:24:06 the west, and then you will also see some evidence of
17:24:09 some residential uses farther to the west.
17:24:16 Another aerial perspective basically to the south.
17:24:19 Here's Broadway Avenue where you can see a higher
17:24:21 concentration of the industrial uses.
17:24:23 And you can also see that there are still -- you can
17:24:26 get a clearer depiction of some of the retail uses
17:24:30 that are in the area over here.
17:24:31 These are two fast food establishments directly to the
17:24:34 south.

17:24:38 I don't know if that's a Wendy's for sure.
17:24:42 >>GWEN MILLER: That's a Wendy's.
17:24:44 >>TONY GARCIA: This is the site in question.
17:24:47 Some of the structures that were on the site have been
17:24:49 demolished.
17:24:49 There are still some structures on-site that are fully
17:24:53 operational.
17:24:56 Again here's vacant land to the west of the site.
17:25:01 And again here's evidence of some residential
17:25:03 parcelization here.
17:25:05 There's a church in the area.
17:25:06 There's some more residential uses over here.
17:25:08 Then of course do you have some evidence of some
17:25:10 commercial uses here along Broadway.
17:25:13 As it goes up along the street.
17:25:19 Just lag straight to the west is just a little more of
17:25:24 the different type of perspective, the interstate,
17:25:27 expansion, 50th street once again.
17:25:31 I'm going to go into the future land use map where you
17:25:36 can actually see I think kind of clearly what's going
17:25:40 on around the interstate, exchange.
17:25:42 When you look at the comp plan and you zoom out, and

17:25:45 you are talking about the repositioning, and where
17:25:50 growth is going to go in the future, which I think
17:25:53 some of the things that we have already been talking
17:25:54 about in a couple of workshops in the last month or
17:25:57 so, trying to direct growth for jobs, and for
17:26:03 residences in the appropriate areas.
17:26:04 As you can see over here, we do have the interstate,
17:26:07 50th street once again. This land use category is
17:26:09 residential 20.
17:26:11 Residential 20.
17:26:13 Community mixed use 35.
17:26:14 Residential 10.
17:26:17 Heavy commercial 24.
17:26:19 This is a transition, 24 category here.
17:26:23 As I said as you go further south on 50th across
17:26:27 Broadway, then you go into the light industrial and
17:26:29 finally heavy industrial farther to the south.
17:26:31 As you get closer to the railroad.
17:26:34 You still have -- and what's interesting again about
17:26:37 this area, you do have heavy commercial, land use
17:26:41 designation, but you will have residential uses
17:26:43 because the residential uses that have been there for

17:26:46 30, 40, 50 years, that have just basically coexisted
17:26:51 with all the uses that have probably developed in
17:26:56 existing zoning categories.
17:26:57 So that being said, the request was to go from this
17:27:04 particular land use designation to the similar red
17:27:08 which is AC 24, all the uses are along 50th street
17:27:13 here. This is CMU 35 also.
17:27:16 CMU 35 does not allow commercial intensive use for
17:27:17 heavy commercial.
17:27:22 24 does allow commercial intensive, general
17:27:22 commercial, neighborhood commercial uses.
17:27:25 That's pretty much what you are seeing.
17:27:26 And what we are seeing within the comp plan needs to
17:27:29 be directed towards major interchanges, towards major
17:27:32 arterials, is to have that type of intensity of use.
17:27:35 So this particular site happens to be right at the
17:27:38 intersection of a major arterial off of the
17:27:44 interstate.
17:27:44 So that being said, one can understand the request and
17:27:49 the request being made.
17:27:51 Considerations for making a decision, as I said
17:27:53 before, the public-semi-public are only to be used by

17:27:57 nonprofit Constitutional entities.
17:28:03 If it's 24 makes a broad opportunity for potential
17:28:07 buyers and the private use of this land.
17:28:10 Currently with the public semi-public you have no
17:28:15 density regulation.
17:28:17 You would have a cap by putting heavy commercial 24,
17:28:20 the 1.5 F.A.R.
17:28:24 The changes would be consistent with the adjacent land
17:28:27 uses shown on the future land use map on 50th
17:28:31 street, which is where most of the commercial usage,
17:28:34 general commerce commercial uses are situated and
17:28:38 located and should be, in relationship to the
17:28:41 comprehensive plan overall, this is consistent with
17:28:44 policy B-5.2 which encourages development on
17:28:48 interstate interchange,
17:28:54 Policy B-6.4, as evidenced by the aerial.
17:28:58 And B-5.4, where you talk about the requiring the
17:29:01 buffering of commercial uses from adjacent residential
17:29:04 uses.
17:29:05 As I have shown you before on the aerial there are
17:29:07 still evidences here on the site to the west of
17:29:10 residential uses.

17:29:13 Up based on these findings of fact the Planning
17:29:18 Commission found this request by staff of consistency
17:29:23 for plan amendment 07-07.
17:29:25 Planning Commission found staff request consistent
17:29:28 with the comprehensive plan, and their vote was
17:29:31 unanimous and staff's rental with staff's
17:29:34 recommendation on consistency.
17:29:35 Thank you.
17:29:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
17:29:37 Any questions by council?
17:29:40 Public hearing.
17:29:40 Anyone that wishes to address this council on this
17:29:43 item may come forward, state your name for the record.
17:29:46 You have three minutes.
17:29:50 Anyone else?
17:29:50 >>> Tracy peers.
17:29:55 I live at 4706 east tenth Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
17:29:59 I'd like to hand these out to you guys.
17:30:03 Okay.
17:30:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you have a copy for the clerk?
17:30:15 >>> Four copies.
17:30:20 The first thing I would like to bring to your

17:30:36 attention is I'm opposed to this plan.
17:30:40 If you look at the very front page, there was an
17:30:43 article here, and I highlighted it, Mrs. Saul-Sena
17:30:50 recommended for the Planning Commission to do.
17:30:52 I think the Planning Commission two years ago took a
17:30:58 vote, which is the same amendment on tenth Avenue
17:31:01 which is 150 feet away from the same property to the
17:31:05 west and they found it inconsistent with the
17:31:07 comprehensive plan.
17:31:08 Why we have two different points of the planners
17:31:11 within two years of the same people that work in the
17:31:13 same department, the only reason I could see is to
17:31:19 just keep making the public, you know, come back for a
17:31:23 comprehensive plan change.
17:31:24 But if you go to the third page and you notice where I
17:31:27 squared it in, there's some dots on the back, a
17:31:31 retention pond.
17:31:32 And the two squared in areas is all that's left of Oak
17:31:35 Park.
17:31:35 When take this right to the blue area, that's going to
17:31:40 take one third of Oak Park away, okay?
17:31:44 That is how much you are going to take out of there.

17:31:46 So I don't know, one could how one could be right and
17:31:54 one wrong.
17:31:58 I gave John Grandoff some money to go down and have a
17:32:02 meeting with the Planning Commission and bring this to
17:32:05 their attention sand say you ought to bring it up
17:32:08 before the entire rest of that neighborhood to be
17:32:10 voted on and change the whole comprehensive plan, not
17:32:13 just pick and choose as this commission asked them not
17:32:16 to do.
17:32:18 That's all I have to say on that.
17:32:20 I'll let my brother and sister speak.
17:32:22 Thank you.
17:32:27 >> Pierce Tylerson, and I live at 4165 old colony road
17:32:32 in Mulberry, Florida.
17:32:34 And I guess my main question would be that right
17:32:38 across the street, the Department of Transportation
17:32:41 also owns a piece of property that butts right up to
17:32:45 our property.
17:32:46 Yet they didn't ask for heavy commercial zoning on
17:32:49 that.
17:32:49 And we can understand by not asking for that, they
17:32:54 don't have to notify any residents within 250 feet of

17:32:59 what they are asking for, which is why they eliminated
17:33:02 that property.
17:33:03 Now, I'm just guessing, but it appears.
17:33:12 Also because we were told in our plan amendment that
17:33:14 it was conducive to residential two years ago, we
17:33:19 worked our plan for our property and what we are going
17:33:22 to do based on what this commission stated was right
17:33:24 for the property.
17:33:27 And for the area.
17:33:29 Now we feel like we are on a teeter-totter, that you
17:33:34 are 150 feet away maybe you are going to put a hotel
17:33:37 or big business park next.
17:33:38 So what do we do?
17:33:41 I don't have a voice because they eliminated that
17:33:44 other piece of property to ask for the hearing, so
17:33:48 nobody had to be notified.
17:33:50 And we just ask that you take both comprehensive plans
17:33:55 and review both of them before you make a decision on
17:33:57 this.
17:33:58 And that's all I have to say.
17:34:00 Thank you.
17:34:04 >>> Harry pierce.

17:34:06 I live at 4842 Edna court, Dover, Florida.
17:34:12 I own the property with my brother and sister.
17:34:16 We brought this before you all last August and it was
17:34:18 rejected, strongly rejected, because the neighborhood
17:34:24 was a viable neighborhood, and now we are going back
17:34:27 to this.
17:34:29 This property is, do you all remember, we had an
17:34:32 attorney here, don't really handle this.
17:34:36 This property, actually where the old Oak Park school
17:34:39 was.
17:34:39 The county that the school was still there, we brought
17:34:43 in pictures and everything.
17:34:44 It was not there.
17:34:45 And so they said at that time, in order to do this
17:34:51 that the whole area should be looked over before they
17:34:53 do this, because you all conceded that this is a
17:34:58 viable neighborhood.
17:35:00 Well, now it's going back to difference like my sister
17:35:04 said, we are trying to do plans to do something and
17:35:07 everything surrounding this, and we are wish washy
17:35:12 here.
17:35:12 So now our plans change again.

17:35:14 And you all had done -- said this is a neighborhood.
17:35:19 And there is neighborhoods on 50th street there,
17:35:25 but I don't understand know, I understand something
17:35:28 needs to be looked at like the Planning Commission
17:35:30 said and don't take and piecemeal this, just like they
17:35:33 told us they want to do, and this is in a
17:35:36 comprehensive plan to look over the whole entire area.
17:35:39 And I appreciated that's what you all do is looked
17:35:41 over the whole area.
17:35:42 Do not piecemeal this, because that puts us, the
17:35:46 residents and everybody there, in a difficult state
17:35:49 for what to do.
17:35:50 And this is what's happening.
17:35:52 It's being piecemealed.
17:35:54 We have asked and we was told as a neighborhood, and
17:35:58 we went in another direction to do other things.
17:36:00 And now we are the ones stuck in the bucket.
17:36:04 And I would appreciate it if you all looked at that
17:36:07 very much.
17:36:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public want to
17:36:11 address council?
17:36:14 At this time, councilwoman Saul-Sena, then councilman

17:36:17 Dingfelder.
17:36:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, the gentleman who was just
17:36:20 speaking.
17:36:21 I'm looking at an aerial of this area.
17:36:23 And it appears to me that to the west of 49th
17:36:28 street are residences, and to the south -- actually on
17:36:32 both sides 10,000 new residences.
17:36:36 Is that true?
17:36:37 >>> That is true.
17:36:39 If you look directly to the west of 49th street,
17:36:42 there's two -- I circled an area in the blue.
17:36:46 That's still public semi-public.
17:36:48 It will be left that.
17:36:49 And right next to it is the property that belongs to
17:36:52 TECO.
17:36:52 And then we back up to the public semi-public and
17:36:55 adjacent to TECO on tenth Avenue.
17:36:57 Are you following me now?
17:37:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
17:37:01 >>> So when they changed this, you know, the
17:37:04 Department of Transportation can just move right on
17:37:06 over, and then later down the road come back and ask

17:37:10 for another comprehensive change.
17:37:11 You know what I mean?
17:37:13 This is ridiculous.
17:37:15 It changed the whole dadgum thing or don't do none of
17:37:20 it, now?
17:37:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
17:37:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who is doing this plan?
17:37:35 Garcia.
17:37:35 Okay.
17:37:35 You put a map up there.
17:37:37 I just got real confused.
17:37:43 I stepped out for a minute and I got more confused
17:37:58 because I missed a little bit.
17:37:59 Tell me who owns what where.
17:38:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Might I suggest he put up the
17:38:07 actual map?
17:38:08 >>> This is the land use map.
17:38:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's start with this one since you
17:38:12 are comfortable with it.
17:38:13 >>> This is the D.O.T. piece.
17:38:17 As far as where this gentleman's piece is, I don't
17:38:19 know on this map where his piece is.

17:38:21 He would have to point it out to me on a map.
17:38:23 He says it's 150 feet away so it could this be parcel.
17:38:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is this parcel?
17:38:29 >>> One, two, three.
17:38:32 Three parcels.
17:38:34 He went for plan amendment to GOP from 20 to heavy
17:38:38 commercial 24.
17:38:41 Found it consistent.
17:38:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And we turned it down?
17:38:45 >>> That's correct?
17:38:46 Why?
17:38:47 I sort of remember, but I don't remember the details.
17:38:54 Do you recall?
17:38:55 >>> Well, this was not my particular amendment but
17:38:58 what I do know about the amendment, this particular
17:39:00 piece, it had the commercial 24 interior to the site
17:39:03 itself, and is basically wedged in between vacant land
17:39:07 and residential.
17:39:08 >> Is that some storage, some automobile storage?
17:39:12 >>> Let me show you.
17:39:18 >>> So you remember that?
17:39:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do remember that.

17:39:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
17:39:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
17:39:24 And I didn't mean to blurt out.
17:39:25 But Mr. Dingfelder, the challenge here is the
17:39:30 difference between the map that's in front of us,
17:39:33 which Terry is looking at, which is very tidy, and if
17:39:39 you all look at the aerial, what you see are homes,
17:39:45 and not these blocks of commercial uses.
17:39:48 There are homes all along tenth Avenue and 49th
17:39:51 street, and everyone there on the part, that part of
17:39:56 the land is being requested for the rezoning.
17:39:58 And the reason, I think made the motion against the
17:40:03 request of these individuals for outdoor storage was
17:40:06 that the commercial use and it was in the middle of
17:40:09 residential uses.
17:40:10 So I think, you know, the question is, and they have
17:40:16 raised it legitimate, ask this supposed to be a
17:40:19 residential area or heavy commercial area?
17:40:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could follow up, Mr. Chairman,
17:40:28 one more.
17:40:28 And this petitioner is the D.O.T.?
17:40:31 >>TONY GARCIA: Yes, sir.

17:40:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then why is it the D.O.T., what is
17:40:35 it they want to do?
17:40:37 They just want to change the plan and then sell it or
17:40:39 what?
17:40:40 >>TONY GARCIA: That's correct.
17:40:41 They have no use.
17:40:42 It was only purposed temporarily -- D.O.T. normally
17:40:46 only purchase as much as they need for an operation.
17:40:49 In this particular instance this was owned by the
17:40:51 school board.
17:40:53 And the school board development was just giving them
17:40:56 a piece of it.
17:40:58 Still had a remnant of the school there and did not
17:41:02 know the intentions of the school board.
17:41:04 It has since been relocated to the north side of the
17:41:07 interstate, the school that was here, Oak Park
17:41:10 elementary is now located northwest of this site.
17:41:12 But as far as this particular site is concerned, FDOT
17:41:18 had to enter into negotiation was the Hillsborough
17:41:20 County school board, and I believe had to pay a
17:41:24 considerable sum of money for this particular parcel,
17:41:27 the interstate, and now trying to basically recoup

17:41:31 whatever they paid for the parcel.
17:41:35 >> Is D.O.T. here?
17:41:36 >>> We have a representative from the FDOT here this
17:41:39 evening.
17:41:40 >> They are just speculators, huh?
17:41:44 >>> If you have questions for them.
17:41:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And at the top of the aerial, the
17:41:53 item that's up there right now --
17:41:55 >>> This is the western perspective.
17:41:56 >> At the top, though, is that the 7th Avenue you
17:41:59 were talking about, Linda?
17:42:01 >>> Yeah.
17:42:02 With the residences.
17:42:03 >>: What's the --
17:42:05 >>> This is 50th street.
17:42:07 >> No, the next one up.
17:42:10 Yeah, that one there.
17:42:11 >>> I think this is 40th.
17:42:13 >> So those are the residences up there that we were
17:42:15 talking about?
17:42:16 >>> 49.
17:42:18 That's 49th.

17:42:19 >> No.
17:42:20 This is 47th here. This is 49th.
17:42:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are there residences directly
17:42:27 across the street on tenth?
17:42:29 Or are those just commercial?
17:42:31 >>> There are some commercial uses over here.
17:42:33 There was a type of residential on --
17:42:38 >> What level?
17:42:38 >>> Land use category is on the site in question as I
17:42:40 told you previously, R-20 and public semi-public.
17:42:44 The interesting thing is, you do have heavy commercial
17:42:47 to the south of 10th over here.
17:42:51 To the south of tenth is heavy commercial.
17:42:54 >> Is there single-family residential directly across
17:42:56 the street from tenth?
17:42:58 >>> Yes, there is evidence of single-family residences
17:43:01 uses south of tenth, yes.
17:43:04 >> Are those people here?
17:43:05 >>> No.
17:43:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
17:43:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems to me that the Department
17:43:14 of Transportation is trying to do something, they

17:43:17 don't know exactly what, they are looking for a buyer,
17:43:21 and it's our responsibility to look out for the people
17:43:27 who are living in this area.
17:43:28 And my question to you, Tony, is would there be a way
17:43:34 to have the property that's facing 50th street --
17:43:40 this is five acres, I believe?
17:43:42 >> 7 --
17:43:44 >>> So this is a big piece of property and it seems it
17:43:46 might be appropriate to have more heavier commercial
17:43:49 uses fronting on 50th street, and more
17:43:53 residentially oriented uses on the western side of the
17:43:56 property, which is the 49th street side which
17:44:03 would interface better with the existing homes on
17:44:06 49th and on the south side of tenth.
17:44:09 And it seems to me that what is before us might be
17:44:12 kind of premature.
17:44:14 I believe that the land use that's being requested
17:44:19 would allow something like, you know, very heavy truck
17:44:23 sales, or things that folks wouldn't want to be living
17:44:26 across the street from, and that it isn't necessary,
17:44:29 there's no pressing need to rezone this entire parcel
17:44:32 for such an intense use.

17:44:33 Might there be a way to come up with something that's
17:44:36 lesser --
17:44:38 >>> You use add word there which is rezoning.
17:44:40 We are doing a land use.
17:44:42 >> I'm sorry, a land use.
17:44:43 >>> Remember, heavy commercial 24 there, you can deal
17:44:46 with residential potential.
17:44:48 Whoever buys this, you can put commercial, interface
17:44:52 commercial on 50th and put commercial on 49th
17:44:57 street.
17:44:57 >> But if we approved this, they can put something
17:44:59 very heavy on tenth on the entire parcel and make the
17:45:03 neighbors miserable.
17:45:04 And I think that it's just speculative.
17:45:07 And since the neighbors are real, that our
17:45:10 responsibility is to protect the neighbors.
17:45:12 So what I am asking you is, could you recommend a
17:45:15 lesser intensity?
17:45:16 >>> CMU 35 would be the next category down.
17:45:19 It would be a mixed use category, would not allow CIU
17:45:24 uses.
17:45:24 >>TERRY CULLEN: Planning Commission staff.

17:45:28 We recommended HC 24 so we can't recommend it but you
17:45:31 can.
17:45:33 Just a point to note, is if you split the land use
17:45:38 designation, then if residential still becomes
17:45:42 residential you are still interfacing heavy
17:45:46 commercial.
17:45:47 Another point you probably don't know but with the
17:45:49 plan update we are going to be chaining heavy
17:45:51 commercial 24 to community commercial 35 to provide an
17:45:56 incentive to start changing some of these areas over
17:45:58 to more residential.
17:46:01 That's a point on a plan that is yet to be brought
17:46:04 before you.
17:46:09 >>GWEN MILLER: If D.O.T. sells those, whoever they
17:46:12 sell it to, wouldn't they have to come before council
17:46:14 to get approved for what they are going to put there?
17:46:17 >>> For rezoning, yes, ma'am.
17:46:19 >> But we don't know what they are going to put there?
17:46:22 >>> Yes, ma'am.
17:46:23 Follow this up or down or make the request --
17:46:27 >> So the neighborhood --
17:46:29 >>> if you want a residential component to the west to

17:46:33 transition to the residential that exists, that's
17:46:35 entirely within your right to do so.
17:46:38 Power to do so.
17:46:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner is here.
17:46:43 FDOT.
17:46:45 Do you want to add anything to the record, say
17:46:47 anything, not that you are required to?
17:46:51 >>> Elaine ledge, consultant for the Department of
17:46:54 Transportation.
17:46:54 I just worked on the interstate documents that
17:46:59 impacted the school since early '90s.
17:47:03 I am just here to see if there's any questions
17:47:05 specific to its current use or what the intent is for
17:47:07 the property.
17:47:10 Just here in case there are questions.
17:47:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions?
17:47:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is for staff, if you
17:47:20 could just real briefly and simply and directly
17:47:24 explain the differences in terms of intensity of land
17:47:26 uses that are allowed under what they requested in CMU
17:47:32 24 so the council understands the choice.
17:47:35 >>> CMU 35.

17:47:39 Well, CC 35, that's going to be the new one.
17:47:41 >> Can we talk about that yet?
17:47:43 >>> No, not really.
17:47:44 >> Well, then let's not. (Laughter)
17:47:45 >>> Basically AC 24 is going to become that but we
17:47:50 won't go there. We are just talking about AC 24 and
17:47:52 we will talk about CMU 35.
17:47:54 The significant difference between those two
17:47:56 categories is heavy commercial 24 allows CI uses. CI
17:48:00 uses are car lots, outdoor storage, junk yards, yes,
17:48:07 crematory, CI and CG.
17:48:11 But you can't do any light industrial uses in there,
17:48:11 heavy commercial is of course reserved.
17:48:17 CMU 35 allows only up to CG.
17:48:20 They both allow residential.
17:48:22 One allows a higher density of residential than the
17:48:26 other one does.
17:48:27 >> Question for legal.
17:48:31 Can we ask the petitioner if they would consider CMU
17:48:36 35?
17:48:40 >>JULIA COLE: You can sell see if they want to amend
17:48:42 their application.

17:48:43 I would then need to bring awe new ordinance.
17:48:46 So we would have to continue first reading.
17:48:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to do, see if
17:48:53 petitioner -- I think you understand the concerns of
17:48:56 council and the light to do something and protect the
17:48:59 neighborhood.
17:49:00 Would you consider amending your request for CMU 35?
17:49:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I speak to the potential
17:49:07 motion?
17:49:09 As long as she's there?
17:49:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A motion to request --
17:49:14 Is there a second to the motion?
17:49:17 >> I would like to second it for discussion purposes.
17:49:21 I would like to speak to it in a second.
17:49:23 Way thought I heard from some of the folks who were
17:49:25 property owners who were trying to have some heavier
17:49:29 density on their property a year or two ago, couple
17:49:32 years ago, but I don't think they were necessarily
17:49:35 living there, and they just said we need to do more of
17:49:39 a comprehensive replanning of this whole area.
17:49:43 That's what I heard from at least two of them, maybe
17:49:46 three.

17:49:49 What I would like us to consider -- and I would
17:49:52 apologize in advance to all the folks who are here on
17:49:55 this issue.
17:49:56 I would like to consider a continuance to give us the
17:49:58 opportunity perhaps just individually when we have a
17:50:03 chance over the next couple of weeks to just drive
17:50:05 over there and see for ourselves.
17:50:07 Because I am not getting a real clear picture whereof
17:50:10 this is headed.
17:50:12 As I look at the aerial photos, I see a three or block
17:50:17 enclave surrounded by some heavy duty commercial, and
17:50:24 I don't know if it really is viable as a residential
17:50:28 area anymore.
17:50:29 I just don't know.
17:50:30 I don't see a lot of -- I don't see a lot of rooftops
17:50:34 there.
17:50:36 But I can't say that definitively without really
17:50:39 driving over there and looking at it, which like I
17:50:42 said, I apologize.
17:50:44 But before we move one way or the other, and since
17:50:48 this is sort of a speculative thing which means
17:50:51 there's not a lot of urgency to it, if we could have a

17:50:54 couple weeks toe look at it and maybe be ooh little
17:50:59 more informed on a personal basis as opposed to
17:51:02 looking at aerial maps.
17:51:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a great idea.
17:51:05 >>JULIA COLE: I have been able to discuss this issue
17:51:08 with the representative from FDOT.
17:51:09 She would like the opportunity to go back and also
17:51:11 discuss with her department whether or not the CMU 35
17:51:14 would be appropriate, and thinks that maybe a 30-day
17:51:17 continuance would be appropriate to give her the
17:51:19 opportunity to do that as well as any additional
17:51:21 investigation.
17:51:23 So I think that's probably the recommendation is to
17:51:26 continue.
17:51:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: An appropriate date for a
17:51:33 continuance.
17:51:33 >>JULIA COLE: We probably want to do it 5:01 on a
17:51:37 night meeting.
17:51:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When is the next date?
17:51:40 Is there a rezoning in about 30 days?
17:51:43 >>JULIA COLE: It would be somewhere around May
17:51:45 8th.

17:51:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be to continue this
17:51:50 to May 8th at 6:00 or 5:00?
17:51:53 5:00.
17:51:55 >> 5:01.
17:51:56 >> You have to do it after 5:00.
17:51:58 So if you don't to do it at 6:00 or 5:30?
17:52:02 >> Why don't we say 5:45.
17:52:04 >> Second.
17:52:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by councilwoman Saul-Sena,
17:52:08 seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
17:52:11 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
17:52:14 Opposes?
17:52:14 So moved.
17:52:16 Those who don't know it may want to drive out.
17:52:24 Item 2.
17:52:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to open.
17:52:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
17:52:34 (Motion carried)
17:52:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item number 2.
17:52:41 >>> Council, I would ask that you open item 2 and item
17:52:47 3 together.
17:52:48 These two are in close proximity.

17:52:50 We'll speak to both of them in one presentation and
17:52:53 then ask for separate votes on them.
17:52:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the motion.
17:52:59 So moved.
17:53:00 Okay.
17:53:00 Item 2 and 3 are open.
17:53:03 >>> Thank you.
17:53:04 Rose Petrucha, Planning Commission staff.
17:53:06 These next two amendments are amendment 07-16 and
17:53:10 07-17.
17:53:11 They are located -- they are located in the vicinity
17:53:20 of McKinley drive, Bougainvillea and Fowler Avenue.
17:53:24 The two amendments, 07-16, is a half mile from the
17:53:34 University of South Florida, and 07-17 is a third of a
17:53:40 mile south of USF.
17:53:45 The amendments are located on the east side of
17:53:47 McKinley drive.
17:53:50 And 716, there is approximately 9.9 acres.
17:53:55 And 717, approximately 6.4 acres.
17:53:59 The request for these particular amendments is to go
17:54:03 from heavy commercial to community mixed use 35.
17:54:07 As you can see from this particular aerial, this was

17:54:10 the site of Henderson air field over 50 years ago.
17:54:14 50 years ago this was on the outer city limit at the
17:54:18 City of Tampa.
17:54:19 It was viewed at that point in time that this would be
17:54:21 an appropriate area for industrial park.
17:54:26 And as you can see, today, this particular area has
17:54:32 been impacted by the development of the University of
17:54:34 South Florida, Busch Gardens, which was part of that
17:54:37 original industrial park, and residential areas that
17:54:40 have been developed to the east and to the west.
17:54:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I love that aerial because you can
17:54:47 see the Chris-cross of the runway.
17:54:52 >>> Okay.
17:54:54 Again, this is the current conditions.
17:54:58 This is an existing land use data map that we have.
17:55:05 The blue to the -- generally to the east of public
17:55:08 uses.
17:55:13 There is land area to the north of one of these
17:55:15 amendments.
17:55:16 The current Florida Department of Transportation
17:55:18 offices, as well as Hillsborough County also owns some
17:55:25 land area.

17:55:26 There are really only two heavy industrial uses left
17:55:29 in this particular area.
17:55:32 There's a brewery off of 30th street.
17:55:35 And the remaining portion of this original industrial
17:55:44 park, there are some light industrial uses which are
17:55:46 primarily distribution warehouse, as well as vacant
17:55:49 land.
17:55:52 In terms of the complex of the Tampa comprehensive
17:55:57 plan, the urban form is developed around activity
17:56:03 centers.
17:56:04 The University of South Florida is one of the major
17:56:07 regional attracters in this particular area.
17:56:10 The University of South Florida was established in
17:56:12 1956.
17:56:14 It opened in 1960 with a little under 2,000 students.
17:56:24 Today the campus has a student body for the Tampa
17:56:28 campus of over 38,000 students.
17:56:31 It has over 240 buildings.
17:56:33 It is the ninth largest public university in the
17:56:36 nation.
17:56:38 This university is one of only three Florida public
17:56:41 universities which is classified by the Carnegie

17:56:45 foundation in the top tier of research universities.
17:56:48 The university is one of the nation's top centers for
17:56:50 research and new treatment for Alzheimer's,
17:56:53 Parkinson's and Hutchinson diseases.
17:56:56 More than $300 million in research grants was awarded
17:57:01 to the university in 2006.
17:57:03 The estimated university has an economic impact of
17:57:07 over 3.2 billion dollars.
17:57:12 Another regional attracter in the area is Busch
17:57:15 Gardens which opened in 1959 as a brewery and offered
17:57:21 tourists tours of its operations as well as gardens
17:57:22 and exotic birds.
17:57:23 Today the park is a tourist attraction.
17:57:27 The brewery has been removed.
17:57:29 Busch Gardens, in 2007 it ranked eleventh nationwide
17:57:34 in attendance for amusement parks and 19th
17:57:38 worldwide in theme park attendance, in a report
17:57:41 released by the economic association entertainment
17:57:47 association.
17:57:47 Busch Gardens had 4.4 million visitors recorded in a
17:57:51 year.
17:57:56 And then the museum of science and industry.

17:57:59 The third regional attracter in the immediate
17:58:02 vicinity.
17:58:03 And this also had over a 50 year history of
17:58:07 development.
17:58:07 It began in 1962 on the banks of the Hillsborough
17:58:12 River as a youth museum.
17:58:14 It has grown over time.
17:58:18 In the 60s and 70s it was considered to be an
17:58:21 important component of our community.
17:58:23 And the experience and funding was found in
17:58:30 relationship with the University of South Florida in
17:58:32 relationship to technology was gathered and the this
17:58:39 new museum of science and industry opened in 1982,
17:58:43 designed as a visionary high tech facility.
17:58:45 Today the museum has tripled in size.
17:58:48 It has a campus of over 74 acres, and approximately
17:58:53 three quarters of a million visitors have seen this
17:58:57 particular science center in 2005.
17:59:01 Now that you have got the context of our regional
17:59:03 attracters in the area I am going to show you an
17:59:06 aerial which will show you the context of these sites,
17:59:11 McKinley drive and Bougainvillea.

17:59:14 Of 2005 and 2006, there was approximately a 20-acre
17:59:17 site on the west side of McKinley north of
17:59:20 Bougainvillea that was amended from heavy commercial
17:59:23 to community mixed use 35.
17:59:25 The amendments that are petitions for tonight's
17:59:29 hearing directly to the east as well as the northeast
17:59:34 of this particular amendment area.
17:59:36 And the 20-acre site on the west side of McKinley has
17:59:43 been developed with multifamily development known as
17:59:47 The Lodge at Lakecrest.
17:59:56 The city did some major improvement and is now a
17:59:59 transit corridor that connects many of the activity
18:00:02 centers within our comprehensive plan, and this one is
18:00:04 really a very nice example of integration of the
18:00:08 sidewalk, bicycle paths, as well as bus shelters, and
18:00:15 that is a very important component in our
18:00:17 comprehensive plan for a living, working environment.
18:00:23 Based on the findings of fact, the considerations that
18:00:28 we have regarding these particular areas, even though
18:00:36 this area was designated heavy industrial, versus
18:00:39 there is very limited heavy industrial uses in this
18:00:41 particular area, the area has developed with medical

18:00:44 uses, technology, research, residential in-fill.
18:00:47 There is a very close relationship in proximity to the
18:00:51 University of South Florida, Busch Gardens, as well as
18:00:54 museum of science and industry.
18:00:57 The amendment to community mixed use 35 on these sides
18:01:02 are in keeping with the goals, objectives and policies
18:01:04 of our comprehensive plan which recognizes the urban
18:01:07 form and activity centers, and the development and
18:01:09 redevelopment and integration of adjacent uses.
18:01:12 The community mixed use 35 plan classification in
18:01:16 itself would provide opportunities for a live, work
18:01:20 environment in proximity to transit.
18:01:22 Planning Commission did hear of these two amendments
18:01:25 on March 31st, and found it consistent with the
18:01:28 goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive
18:01:32 plan.
18:01:33 That concludes my presentation.
18:01:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Is the petitioner here?
18:01:42 >>> Judy James, 325 South Boulevard.
18:01:51 And I just want to bring up a few more points.
18:01:53 It was covered very well, the presentation you just
18:01:57 heard.

18:01:57 There is a bout route linking this site to the
18:02:00 downtown, takes about 35 minutes to get from downtown
18:02:03 up to here.
18:02:05 Has two stops, near McKinley Drive, bus service on
18:02:11 campus.
18:02:11 USF students are actually given free bus passes to use
18:02:15 Hartline.
18:02:19 It's part of the UF master plan that they need another
18:02:23 2500 unit in the next ten years.
18:02:25 I have a letter to hand out, have been able to provide
18:02:28 for about a thousand on-site but they have been able
18:02:31 to find new sites that would be integrated to USF so
18:02:38 they are looking for partnership with other
18:02:39 developers.
18:02:40 My plan has worked with USF, providing for residents
18:02:44 to live within the apartments, providing the limit --
18:02:48 limited parking so students would be encouraged to use
18:02:51 the buses and provided there would be no freshman
18:02:54 thing in the apartment so these are some of the
18:02:56 agreements with USF.
18:02:58 It is the new complex to the west in the area, and
18:03:01 this is an activity center that their transit emphasis

18:03:06 corridor.
18:03:07 I will be happy to answer if you have any questions.
18:03:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone speak to on item 2 and
18:03:14 3?
18:03:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close those.
18:03:16 >> Second.
18:03:17 (Motion carried).
18:03:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We need 5.
18:03:31 He's going to get Reverend Scott.
18:03:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance amending the
18:03:50 future land use element, future land use map for the
18:03:55 property located in the general vicinity from heavy
18:04:02 industrial is .5 to community mixed use 35, providing
18:04:06 an effective date.
18:04:10 >>GWEN MILLER: It's been moved and seconded.
18:04:12 All in favor let it be known by saying Aye.
18:04:15 Moved and ordered.
18:04:16 >>THE CLERK: Unanimous.
18:04:21 >> An ordinance of the Tampa comprehensive, future
18:04:26 land use map for the property located in the general
18:04:28 vicinity of McKinley drive between east Fowler Avenue
18:04:32 and east Bougainvillea Avenue from heavy industrial

18:04:35 1.5 to community mixed use 35, providing for repeal of
18:04:39 all ordinances in conflict, providing for
18:04:42 severability, providing an effective date.
18:04:43 >> Second.
18:04:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Moved by councilwoman Miller, seconded
18:04:49 by councilman Dingfelder.
18:04:53 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda
18:04:56 and Mulhern being absent.
18:04:57 Adoption on May 1st at 9:30 a.m.
18:05:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We had a request from petitioner PA
18:05:09 07-08 that that be heard before PA-02-2.
18:05:17 >>CHAIRMAN: Before we do that let me take an
18:05:19 opportunity to recognize Judge Chris W. Austinburg --
18:05:25 is that right? -- who is visiting with the boy scouts
18:05:27 from traps throughout Hillsborough County including
18:05:30 troops 1, 4, 5, 16, 22, 47, 56, 104, 142, 148 and 246.
18:05:37 This visit will assist them in obtaining their
18:05:42 citizenship in the community merit badge.
18:05:44 Why don't you all stand up?
18:05:47 So the cameras can see you.
18:05:52 Thank you all for being here tonight.
18:05:53 Thank you, your Honor, for bringing them down.

18:05:55 Best of luck on getting your merit badge.
18:06:00 We will now open items in reverse, 6 and 5.
18:06:07 >> So moved.
18:06:08 >> Do I hear a second?
18:06:10 >> Second.
18:06:10 >> Moved and seconded.
18:06:14 So moved and ordered.
18:06:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question for the petitioner.
18:06:16 Are these to be taken up at the same time?
18:06:18 Or do you want to have them heard separately?
18:06:26 >>MARK BENTLEY: 201 North Franklin Street, Tampa
18:06:29 33602.
18:06:31 We can hear them separate.
18:06:32 The first can be pretty comprehensive and that will
18:06:34 cover all the issues in a second.
18:06:36 That's why I requested the reverse order.
18:06:38 The second one will go pretty quickly.
18:06:41 >> I would much rather open them both at the same time
18:06:43 but we'll take the first one, item number 6, and can
18:06:47 we do that legally?
18:06:48 Is there anything that will prohibit us legally from
18:06:51 doing that?

18:06:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe petitioner has no objection
18:06:53 to. That is that correct, Mr. Bentley?
18:06:57 >> No.
18:06:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Sorry.
18:07:00 We moved to open.
18:07:00 >>GWEN MILLER: They are open already.
18:07:05 Go ahead, Tony.
18:07:07 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:07:10 As Mr. Shelby, not sworn in, Mr. Shelby.
18:07:19 >> Still be honest about it.
18:07:21 >>TONY GARCIA: Definitely.
18:07:22 All the time.
18:07:23 So we will be taking them in reverse order.
18:07:26 I'm going to point out the similarities.
18:07:28 But there are some differences that we will see as we
18:07:32 look at these two plan amendments.
18:07:34 What I will tell you at the very beginning of this
18:07:40 whole thing is the land use requests are both the
18:07:42 same.
18:07:43 They want to go from light industrial to community
18:07:45 mixed use 35 for both plan amendments, and also both
18:07:50 plan amendments are located in the South Tampa area,

18:07:53 south of Gandy, in proximity to MacDill Air Force
18:07:57 Base.
18:07:57 That's about the only degree of similarity I am going
18:08:03 to -- in order to avoid any kind of confusion for
18:08:06 council.
18:08:07 You want to keep them as close as I can but at the
18:08:09 same time keep them as separate as we can on the
18:08:11 issues.
18:08:13 So this is Tampa comprehensive plan amendment 07-08
18:08:15 located at 6604 South Dale Mabry Highway.
18:08:19 The request is a privately initiated request, as I
18:08:24 stated previously is from light industrial to
18:08:26 community mix mixed use 35, approximately 25.5 acres,
18:08:31 the entire site is located within the MacDill Air
18:08:33 Force Base accident potential zone 1.
18:08:36 There is evidence of environmentally sensitive land on
18:08:38 the site as depicted by a letter I received from
18:08:42 Environmental Protection Commission about their
18:08:44 concern based on the aerials that they have submitted
18:08:47 with respect to those areas regarding potential
18:08:49 wetlands on-site or environmentally sensitive land on
18:08:52 the site.

18:08:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tony, if I could, Madam Chair.
18:09:00 That's an unusual comment.
18:09:03 That there's environmentally sensitive land.
18:09:05 That's usually something -- a lot of things where you
18:09:09 change the plan designation, change the rezoning, have
18:09:14 environmentally sensitive land but don't necessarily
18:09:16 worry about it, we just accept it and figure the
18:09:18 regulations will pick that up and address it as they
18:09:22 move forward in any type of development.
18:09:23 >>TONY GARCIA: If they move forward.
18:09:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
18:09:29 So I'm confused in terms of why it would be mentioned
18:09:32 here.
18:09:33 That's an unusual comment.
18:09:35 >>TONY GARCIA: Environmentally sensitive areas in
18:09:39 overlay that we use in a comprehensive plan and we are
18:09:41 able to go ahead and use that to designate lands. In
18:09:45 this instance you have a significant amount, that
18:09:48 could develop, address what the potential development
18:09:54 would be on both of these sites, so it does factor in
18:09:57 on what could ultimately happen on these two land --
18:10:01 >> Are you going to show these?

18:10:03 >> Yes.
18:10:04 They are going to be depicted.
18:10:05 We have an overlay we do use for Swiftmud which does
18:10:09 depict which lands and entirely sensitive area.
18:10:12 Those are shown on the overlay and depicted on the
18:10:15 land use maps which we will show you this evening.
18:10:20 >>TERRY CULLEN: I could add a few comments.
18:10:22 The environmentally sensitive area is a planned
18:10:24 category.
18:10:25 And in times gone by, before we had the technology we
18:10:29 do today to be able to do computerized mapping, we
18:10:34 onto only know that wetlands we knew greater than 5
18:10:39 acres in size but now with more detailed information
18:10:41 that we have gotten over the recent years from the
18:10:43 Southwest Florida Water Management District, we use
18:10:46 that as the basis to determine if there may be the
18:10:51 presence of wetlands on the site.
18:10:53 And then we put that as a planned designation on
18:10:55 there.
18:10:56 What happens in later -- the development review
18:10:59 process as it continues, is they have to get the PPC
18:11:05 to come out and determine the exact wetland line.

18:11:09 So it has been our practice to do that now for some
18:11:11 years at the plan amendment level.
18:11:12 And we have done it.
18:11:15 Where you have seen it most notably is in plan
18:11:17 amendment in the New Tampa area.
18:11:22 It's quite a significant role when we did the K-bar
18:11:26 ranch, subsequent land use change, a significant
18:11:28 amount of wetlands that were actually identified and
18:11:30 had to be delineated.
18:11:33 >> It might have been before my time.
18:11:35 >> That's okay.
18:11:36 Just a little bit of history there.
18:11:39 If I may continue.
18:11:40 >> Please do.
18:11:44 >>> The general location of the two plan amendments as
18:11:46 I stated previously is pretty much going to be the
18:11:48 terminus of south Dale Mabry.
18:11:49 Plan amendment 07-08 and 07-oh 02.
18:11:54 I am concentrating right now on 07-08.
18:11:57 07-08 is located in the south Gandy area, south of
18:12:01 Gandy Boulevard, in the South Tampa area, in proximity
18:12:05 to MacDill Air Force Base.

18:12:06 You can see this is the north boundary Boulevard road,
18:12:09 which is basically the northern boundary for
18:12:11 MacDill Air Force Base.
18:12:13 Here is south Dale Mabry.
18:12:16 And you can see the significant amount of residential
18:12:19 parcelization as well as commercial uses on this part
18:12:23 of Dale Mabry.
18:12:25 Of course, commercial uses aren't going to be as
18:12:28 actively depicted on here because of the scale of the
18:12:30 map.
18:12:30 But when you look at from the a greater perspective
18:12:34 and you see the relationship of this particular area,
18:12:35 especially as it's related to the MacDill Air Force
18:12:39 Base area, I think it's something that one has to take
18:12:42 into consideration.
18:12:42 Just to let you know right now, this is the other site
18:12:46 in question, even though I will put up a map for you
18:12:49 later.
18:12:49 This is the other site in question.
18:12:51 So this is inner bay Boulevard.
18:12:54 And south of Interbay.
18:12:58 Tampa other piece is on the other side of Dale Mabry,

18:13:02 fronts about a thousand feet in Dale Mabry, consists
18:13:04 of this warehouse over here and all this land down
18:13:07 over here which is undeveloped.
18:13:09 And some of this land as I said before is subject to
18:13:11 question by UPC as outlined in their letter to us.
18:13:16 You do have, in this area, what's interesting as far
18:13:18 as development in the South Tampa areas, development
18:13:24 of light industrial uses, or I should say the
18:13:27 nondevelopment of uses as I stated at the beginning of
18:13:30 this presentation, the request is to go from light
18:13:33 industrial to community mixed use 35, and, Ms.
18:13:37 Saul-Sena, as we already talked about the previous
18:13:39 small scale amendment, we are talking about uses in
18:13:42 light industrial and uses in heavy commercial, and
18:13:45 what can you do in those kind of uses? When we talk
18:13:48 about CMU 35 which is what this report does, CMU 35
18:13:52 which is one of the major land use categories on Dale
18:13:54 Mabry, and also HC 24 on Dale Mabry, when I show you
18:13:58 the future land use map which allowed commercial uses,
18:14:01 the light industrial allows all those heavy commercial
18:14:04 uses in addition to industrial use.
18:14:07 So one of the consequences of going ahead and

18:14:15 improving this amendment to go forward is you would
18:14:17 eliminate any potential light industrial use.
18:14:19 You also eliminate any commercial uses because one
18:14:25 thing we must also take into consideration is the
18:14:28 location and the compatibility of exactly what is
18:14:33 going to go on in the general area down here in South
18:14:35 Tampa, as well as the comprehensive plan, and talking
18:14:40 also about the awareness of the compatibility of uses
18:14:43 to MacDill Air Force Base and the operations of
18:14:45 MacDill Air Force Base.
18:14:47 As we know, they have been a good neighbor to the City
18:14:49 of Tampa for the past sixty years and contribute
18:14:52 greatly to the economic development and economic base
18:14:54 of the greater region.
18:14:57 That being said, we also have to take into
18:14:59 consideration the commercial uses in the property
18:15:02 along Dale Mabry, and in addition to that the
18:15:04 residential property owners that live adjacent to this
18:15:07 site, as well along Interbay Boulevard.
18:15:10 As you can see you do have a considerable residential
18:15:13 presence.
18:15:13 As a matter of fact, there has been two residential

18:15:16 developments in the South Tampa area, as we all know,
18:15:19 particularly on the west side of Westshore whip is
18:15:20 much farther to the west, but further to the south,
18:15:23 you have had oaf the past decade approximately 30
18:15:26 acres of light industrial use that has gone through
18:15:30 the plan amendment process to residential uses so
18:15:33 there's a definite trend to land use in the South
18:15:36 Tampa area to residential.
18:15:41 Mr. Dingfelder?
18:15:47 >> Continue your presentation.
18:15:49 >>> Thank you, sir.
18:15:51 This is the general location as I stated before.
18:15:54 I trade to give you a general overview of what the
18:15:57 greater area is like.
18:15:59 Let me show you some more aerials, or give you a
18:16:02 little closer perspective.
18:16:04 Again this is the subject site outlined in red.
18:16:07 Here is Dale Mabry.
18:16:08 Interbay Boulevard.
18:16:09 Here is the gate to MacDill here.
18:16:13 The park is located southeast of the site.
18:16:16 Here is residential use here.

18:16:18 Residential to the north.
18:16:19 And of course the undeveloped lands here.
18:16:23 And you have the Florida operation over here. This is
18:16:28 the eastern perspective.
18:16:30 This is looking to the north.
18:16:32 Again pretty much, you can clearly see over here.
18:16:37 There's a few apartment uses over here.
18:16:39 Multifamily uses.
18:16:41 Some light commercial purposes.
18:16:44 Again there's that Mickey Ds.
18:16:50 You saw another one in the last presentation that I D.
18:16:55 So you have got residential to the north over here and
18:16:57 residential also to the east.
18:17:00 Gadsden park to the southeast of the site.
18:17:05 This is looking to the south going to the gate at
18:17:08 MacDill Air Force Base.
18:17:09 Again Interbay over here.
18:17:11 Apartment complexes here.
18:17:14 Light trucking uses which I believe is partially under
18:17:18 sail and might be using in some other type of use.
18:17:21 So again that's another thing to take into
18:17:23 consideration with this be site.

18:17:24 Most of the uses in this area might have that light
18:17:26 industrial land use classification.
18:17:28 The existing uses do not really reflect that you have
18:17:32 industrial uses.
18:17:33 Most of the uses are really either residential or they
18:17:35 are general commercial uses for neighborhood serving
18:17:40 uses.
18:17:41 And this is the final perspective.
18:17:43 This is looking to the west again, the undeveloped
18:17:49 site in question, Florida rock, residential units,
18:17:53 residential to this side, residential here, the
18:17:57 commercial effects, in the future land use category.
18:18:04 Talks about the light industrial planning
18:18:06 classifications.
18:18:07 You have light industrial done over here but not
18:18:11 reflected over the aerials.
18:18:12 You only have, really, the Florida rock operation is
18:18:16 only about the few industrial uses, only down or -- so
18:18:24 as far as the light industrial uses in the area this
18:18:27 is probably the last one of any particular site in the
18:18:30 park east before Manhattan between man at an and Dale
18:18:34 Mabry.

18:18:35 Again evidenced by the parcelization is residential
18:18:38 10.
18:18:39 You have community mixed use 25.
18:18:44 This is heavy commercial 24.
18:18:46 Residential 20.
18:18:47 Residential 25.
18:18:48 Again residential 10 here.
18:18:51 The request would make all of this think that with the
18:18:59 overlay, Mr. Dingfelder, as I said before, this gren
18:19:02 piece now signifies this would be designated as
18:19:08 environmentally sensitive area.
18:19:10 As stated earlier, we use this as a tool.
18:19:13 Because one of the thing we try to do is be good
18:19:16 dollars stewards of the environment and whatever plans
18:19:21 to try to conserve whatever we can, that the
18:19:27 regulatory agency does depict as being savable and
18:19:29 should be consider economically -- what we are looking
18:19:38 at is really about 17 acres that are developable
18:19:42 potentially for the proposed request that's being made
18:19:46 to you this evening.
18:19:47 Again, this is staff's request to make a change not
18:19:51 just from light industrial to community mixed use 35,

18:19:54 but it's staff's request, and this is a request that
18:19:57 was made of the Planning Commission or rental was to
18:20:00 go from light industrial.
18:20:04 That is a request being made to you this evening.
18:20:06 That is the request that was made to the Planning
18:20:08 Commission when we had our public hearing.
18:20:12 Some consideration: Commercial and light industrial
18:20:18 are already allowed on-site.
18:20:20 The change would allow consideration of residential
18:20:23 development.
18:20:24 That being said, we know, we addressed the issue that
18:20:28 this is near MacDill Air Force Base and the entire
18:20:32 site has in potential zone one.
18:20:36 In all the accidental zones -- I'll get it out
18:20:41 right -- and all the time that it's existed here, we
18:20:44 have had a policy for at least the last decade in the
18:20:47 comprehensive plan to catch residential development
18:20:51 regardless what the density is, the density potential
18:20:55 of any land use category, this is something that's
18:20:57 been enforced at least for the last decade and is
18:21:00 something that has been addressed openly for any
18:21:03 residential redevelopment project that has come to

18:21:06 this body for any parcel that's come in for
18:21:10 residential redevelopment within those two areas.
18:21:13 This would maintain the existing F.A.R. of 1.5. We
18:21:15 think that's an important point.
18:21:17 The CMU 35 floor ratio of 1.5.
18:21:21 The light industrial existed, light industrial
18:21:23 category also has an F.A.R. of 1.5.
18:21:26 So there's no change. They still have that floor area
18:21:27 ratio potential regardless.
18:21:31 There are public facilities readily available.
18:21:33 And the change if made would prohibit industrial and
18:21:37 commercial intensive uses.
18:21:40 As I earlier stated new residential development would
18:21:42 be capped at ten units per acre for the comprehensive
18:21:45 plan.
18:21:45 We are addressing the protection of environmentally
18:21:48 sensitive areas so the concerns by EPC.
18:21:53 And of course we are looking at the relationship as it
18:21:57 relates to the MacDill Air Force Base operations.
18:22:01 You do have a policy that permitting use that is would
18:22:05 restrict MacDill Air Force Base operation.
18:22:09 The information was based on information we have here

18:22:11 with only a land use change and at least 50% of the --
18:22:17 35% of the site, currently being identified as
18:22:20 environmentally sensitive area.
18:22:22 The development potential of this site is still up to
18:22:25 question and also will be subject to future
18:22:29 restrictions that could be potentially be imposed by
18:22:33 this body that when see from other outside entities
18:22:36 such as MacDill Air Force Base which would be
18:22:38 there right in the rezoning process.
18:22:41 As it relates total land use element .
18:22:49 , new residential development, A .1.3, which prohibits
18:22:57 safe and efficient airport within the airport zone.
18:23:02 Also C-2.5, the protection of environmentally
18:23:05 sensitive areas.
18:23:07 Based on these findings of fact, proximity of this
18:23:09 site, immediately adjacent to or actually right on
18:23:16 Dale Mabry Highway, close to a commercial node and
18:23:22 from a north and ear side, Planning Commission staff
18:23:26 found if request to be consistent with the
18:23:28 comprehensive plan.
18:23:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
18:23:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tony, in your report, you have got

18:23:35 policy A-3.1.
18:23:38 On page 2.
18:23:40 It says after the effect of this provision all new
18:23:43 residential development within MacDill Air Force
18:23:44 Base flight path known as the APS shall be limited to
18:23:50 10 dwelling units per acre.
18:23:52 This request is for CMU 35.
18:23:56 35 dwelling, maximum allowable.
18:24:01 Where would it say that if when grant the CMU 35?
18:24:08 >>> Regardless of the land use density whether it
18:24:11 residential 20, CMU 35, residential 35, all
18:24:14 residential development is capped at ten dwelling unit
18:24:17 to the acre.
18:24:26 >> In answer to your question I think is relating to
18:24:29 legally the mechanism.
18:24:30 Because you have this comprehensive plan designation
18:24:32 that has a 35 units to the acre potential
18:24:36 allowability, an overlay, and would occur either at
18:24:41 the PD zoning level or the Euclidean zoning that comes
18:24:44 in after this.
18:24:45 It would be at the building permit level and it would
18:24:47 be limited and that is the way it has been imposed

18:24:50 throughout the last ten years.
18:24:53 >> For argument sake, if they were to be granted CMU
18:24:57 35, in our comp plan update in the next six months to
18:25:03 a you're, we modified policy A-3.1, and it didn't
18:25:07 exist anymore, then they would be allowed 35 units to
18:25:11 the acre because that policy wouldn't be there to
18:25:13 control it.
18:25:18 >>JULIA COLE: If ultimately that policy is removed
18:25:21 from the comprehensive plan whether or not, then you
18:25:24 would have that as an existing legislative act on this
18:25:26 policy?
18:25:27 I think arguably the hard question to answer thinking
18:25:31 through any kind of the Lyons status, I think that's a
18:25:35 larger question.
18:25:37 >> It concerns me a little bit.
18:25:39 Because I think in many cases when we approve a
18:25:42 designation on a future land use map, people rely on
18:25:46 that designation.
18:25:48 We all might know that there are other policies out
18:25:50 there that might have some interplay with it or
18:25:53 whatever.
18:25:54 But a map is a very important tool that people rely

18:26:00 on, especially in law.
18:26:04 And it just concerns me a little bit as we move
18:26:06 forward through this hearing tonight that we know
18:26:09 exactly what we are doing, and how we are doing it.
18:26:13 >>TONY GARCIA: Can I
18:26:15 >>TERRY CULLEN: Planning Commission staff.
18:26:18 Can I add a few?
18:26:20 For starters if there was action to remove that from
18:26:22 the plan it would come from you.
18:26:24 And that will be part of the whole discourse and
18:26:28 dialogue about the plan, and what the effects would
18:26:30 be.
18:26:30 So you would be very well aware of what you were doing
18:26:33 as part of that plan amendment process.
18:26:35 The text, narrative of the plan works in concert with
18:26:39 the map.
18:26:40 They are not reviewed in isolation or mutually
18:26:45 exclusive.
18:26:46 There are many examples whereof the mapping provides
18:26:48 for guidance.
18:26:49 I'll give you one example.
18:26:51 In residential 20, neighborhood-serving commercial and

18:26:56 residential office uses are permitted.
18:26:59 That there's policy language in the plan that
18:27:02 locationally restricts them.
18:27:04 You need to understand the locational restrictions of
18:27:07 the text of the plan to go along with the map itself.
18:27:09 It's not possible to separate the two.
18:27:13 And it's explained in the plan that the map is one of
18:27:16 the tools that is used to implement the plan.
18:27:19 It is not the be-all end-all which is what we are
18:27:24 trying to show in the plan updates.
18:27:26 I understand your concern that we really have to make
18:27:29 the two work together.
18:27:30 It's not just the mapping in isolation.
18:27:32 >> It's a huge concern.
18:27:33 >>> I understand.
18:27:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because when somebody from across
18:27:38 the country and they pull up a map and the map says
18:27:41 CMU 35 and they go to see what the definition of that
18:27:45 is and it's 35 units per acre and then they might not
18:27:48 even know that MacDill Air Force Base is a half
18:27:50 block away, it just creates a lot of concern to me
18:27:54 when in reality we are sitting here today saying but

18:27:58 we all really know that it's 10 units to the acre.
18:28:02 I said enough on this issue. I just wanted to point
18:28:03 it out.
18:28:04 >>> The potential accident zones which would be
18:28:06 renamed in the update are labeled on the future land
18:28:08 use map, too.
18:28:09 And there's also, I believe, there's references to the
18:28:12 future land use element.
18:28:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Question for legal.
18:28:22 If there are eight acres that can't build on that are
18:28:26 environmentally sensitive, do the ten units per acre
18:28:29 of those 80 units that can't be built because it's
18:28:32 environmentally sensitive, can those be placed on the
18:28:35 other acres?
18:28:37 >>JULIA COLE: I might have to ask Mr. Garcia to answer
18:28:40 that because there are provisions in the comprehensive
18:28:42 plan which deal with how you cluster development out
18:28:45 of ESA, and then I believe there's a percentage
18:28:48 density that you can transfer into the other portion
18:28:50 of it.
18:28:51 But just to go back to Mr. Dingfelder's point, I dop
18:28:55 want to remind council and anybody who is listening

18:28:59 when you come in for any kind of order, permit, and
18:29:04 the comprehensive plan update, you are obligated to be
18:29:06 consistent with the comprehensive plan as a whole.
18:29:09 And if there are policies that also implement
18:29:13 different situations, you have to be consistent with
18:29:15 all of that.
18:29:15 I think I see what Mr. Dingfelder's concern is that
18:29:19 everybody is aware that these are other considerations
18:29:22 out there.
18:29:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: While here --
18:29:32 >>TONY GARCIA: If I may follow up in relationship to
18:29:37 Mrs. Saul-Sena's question.
18:29:39 There is a provision in the comprehensive plan if you
18:29:41 have a parcel of land where more than 25% of the
18:29:44 entire parcel is deemed environmentally sensitive or
18:29:48 wet, you do have a density credit.
18:29:51 Basically that would be like 1.25 of the uplands,
18:29:56 whatever you decide, for example, let's say you
18:29:59 have -- let's say you have 20 acres and ten is wet.
18:30:03 Ten is dry.
18:30:04 That's 50%.
18:30:05 So multiply 1.25 times the ten.

18:30:08 That means you have 12.5 acres.
18:30:10 So you multiply the upland, so basically 2.5 more
18:30:17 acres on that by doing the math.
18:30:19 So 10 acres.
18:30:21 Multiply their density by 12.5 acres.
18:30:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How does that relate to the number
18:30:27 of units they are allowed to build?
18:30:29 >>> Basically this imaginary 2.5 acres. That gives
18:30:33 them 2.5 acres more density potential.
18:30:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
18:30:37 Thank you.
18:30:37 >>> That last thing, you got that one.
18:30:42 Sometimes it's a little tricky.
18:30:45 Also, as far as the ESA is concerned, remember the
18:30:50 appropriate regulatory agency will go on-site during
18:30:55 the progress and will conduct -- they will go ahead
18:31:01 on-site and do a survey and delineate it to get an
18:31:05 exact amount of the environmentally sensitive acres,
18:31:08 because they could be more.
18:31:10 It could be less.
18:31:12 Where it finally comes out to be, the balance, if it's
18:31:15 ten acres, then it's 1.5 acres more that goes to them.

18:31:18 If it's eight acres or seven acres, then it just
18:31:23 shifts.
18:31:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No other questions.
18:31:35 >>MARK BENTLEY: 201 North Franklin Street, Tampa
18:31:59 33602. Our petition is Florida tank line, they own
18:32:04 the 25 acres south Dale Mabry.
18:32:06 I won't belabor it.
18:32:07 Tony did a very good job going over some of the
18:32:09 background information.
18:32:10 I have got a series of documents.
18:32:13 And what I am going to do is just talk about them
18:32:15 during my presentation.
18:32:16 I am not going to belabor it and show you each one.
18:32:19 But I got all the documentation.
18:32:22 During the course of the presentation if you have any
18:32:24 questions about the source or anything like that I can
18:32:25 pull that document out for you.
18:32:27 So just to go through this.
18:32:30 Then when I hit these points, this testimony is pretty
18:32:32 much going to relate to the other one.
18:32:39 But I need to talk about the other one.
18:32:41 There's a couple of nuances.

18:32:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We just want you to make your
18:32:47 presentation.
18:32:49 >>> Yes, sir.
18:32:51 >>> As Tony indicated, the change here would involve
18:32:58 CMU 35.
18:32:59 We are kind of between a rock and hard place because
18:33:01 the only land use, office, neighborhood stale retail
18:33:07 and residential, is CMU 35.
18:33:09 We have in a intention or aspirations of developing
18:33:11 the property at 35 units per acre.
18:33:14 I just want to get that out first of all.
18:33:17 So as Tony indicated, another important aspect of this
18:33:21 proposal is to T floor area ratio under the existing
18:33:26 designation that would allow 1.5 which would equate to
18:33:29 the size of property which is essentially 1.6 million
18:33:34 square feet of industrial, heavy commercial, retail,
18:33:39 and/or office development.
18:33:40 Okay.
18:33:41 In theory.
18:33:42 Assuming you meet all the codes, and probably have to
18:33:44 go vertical to do this.
18:33:46 But this property is about the size of Britton Plaza.

18:33:52 It would allow the same F.A.R.
18:33:54 Okay.
18:33:54 So the difference basically is this will allow
18:33:58 consideration for a residential component in the
18:34:00 property.
18:34:01 You are going to hear Jim Stefan give a brief planning
18:34:05 presentation.
18:34:05 Tony alluded to when you look to the north property
18:34:09 and east of the subject property it all built out
18:34:10 residential so from a compatibility standpoint to
18:34:13 deintensify this property makes a lot of sense.
18:34:16 Transition probably from commercial office to maybe to
18:34:19 town homes or what have you on the eastern border.
18:34:22 So essentially that's what cut-through traffic is all
18:34:25 about.
18:34:25 And here again that policy in the comp plan, you know,
18:34:29 things are always subject to change.
18:34:31 The ten-cap.
18:34:32 We are going into this knowing that there's a deny-cap
18:34:35 and we want to live with the ten-cap and probably it's
18:34:37 not problematic.
18:34:40 On March 31st the Planning Commission unanimously

18:34:43 recommended to City Council approve the subject plan
18:34:46 amendment.
18:34:47 Both your staffs on support, growth management and
18:34:50 obviously Tony and the Planning Commission staff, they
18:34:53 have all been compatible, et.
18:34:59 So the 1.5 isn't going to change.
18:35:01 CMU would prohibit intense development which would
18:35:09 be -- also if you look to the north and east, council
18:35:12 members, the designation on the comp plan is R-10.
18:35:17 So they are capped at 10.
18:35:19 So this policy would limit us to 10 as well.
18:35:25 Also, I would like to bring to your attention, there's
18:35:27 a lot of discussion about the flight paths in APB 1
18:35:31 and 2.
18:35:32 We know there's clear zone which is not on any city
18:35:35 map.
18:35:35 Okay.
18:35:35 Then you have got an APZ 1, 5,000 feet out of clear
18:35:40 zone, then APZ the which.
18:35:44 Our property is currently located entirely within the
18:35:46 APZ 1.
18:35:59 94% of the properties in APZ 1 are residential

18:36:03 properties.
18:36:03 In APZ 1, we are only seeking ten units per ache we
18:36:07 are the cap.
18:36:08 There are 160 parcels that have an average density of
18:36:11 27 units per acre in APZ 1.
18:36:14 There are 158 parcels that have an average density of
18:36:18 15.5.
18:36:21 Here again speaking of 10.
18:36:22 Whatever we do is clearly compatible.
18:36:24 And remarkably 94% of the properties in the overall
18:36:27 flight path, clear zone 1 and 2, are residential
18:36:31 properties.
18:36:31 Okay.
18:36:33 So residential is not out of the ordinary with respect
18:36:35 to this location.
18:36:39 I would also like to point out that department of
18:36:42 defense, air installation compatible is prepared in
18:36:46 1998 by MacDill based on department of defense
18:36:50 standards, make it clear that one density is not safer
18:36:54 than another.
18:36:54 And also MacDill, quote, the rest of the people on
18:36:59 the ground being skilled injured by aircraft is

18:37:01 minute.
18:37:02 I would like to talk a little about MacDill's
18:37:05 master plan which they published in 2007.
18:37:08 And when think our proposal is very consistent with
18:37:10 the plan.
18:37:11 A couple goals in the MacDill plan are as follows.
18:37:14 To reduce travel time between facilities and housing
18:37:17 by strengthening the relationship between land uses.
18:37:20 Also another goal in the MacDill plan is to reduce
18:37:25 the travel time between facilities and housing by
18:37:27 strengthening the relationship between land uses.
18:37:30 So certainly residential in this location would
18:37:32 fulfill, facilitate those MacDill goals.
18:37:37 In anticipation of the Air Force voicing some
18:37:40 objections, I just want top deal with two issues.
18:37:44 And these have been raised consistently, through not
18:37:47 just this process but through the JLUS process.
18:37:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman?
18:37:55 I didn't see it today in my packet but I just wanted
18:37:58 to make sure you have seen it, Mr. Bentley.
18:38:01 There is a letter of objection from the base,
18:38:05 specifically.

18:38:05 And it looks like it was relatively recent.
18:38:08 So I just want to make sure as a matter of due process
18:38:12 that you have seen it, because I have seen it.
18:38:13 >>MARK BENTLEY: Okay.
18:38:15 Ford record I haven't seen it but I suspect it's very
18:38:18 similar to the one they read in front of the Planning
18:38:20 Commission, concerns about safety and noise and that
18:38:23 type of thing.
18:38:23 >> Let's make sure that you get a copy soon.
18:38:26 >>> Maybe on rebuttal if necessary I can deal with
18:38:28 that.
18:38:29 Let's deal with noise.
18:38:30 Let's get the facts on the table.
18:38:31 There's a lot of discussion about where the noise
18:38:33 contours are, how the effect to development and also
18:38:37 safety.
18:38:39 Safety on the ground.
18:38:42 City Council should note that there's a fundamental
18:38:46 premise here that having property in the flight path,
18:38:49 it was never the intention of either city or
18:38:51 MacDill Air Force Base that developments could not
18:38:53 occur near the base.

18:38:55 Okay.
18:38:57 And on noise issues, I think council needs to
18:39:00 recognize that the city doesn't have any actual noise
18:39:02 data in any code or regulation that deals with a
18:39:05 recipient.
18:39:07 Your noise ordinance deals with propagation of noise
18:39:10 and how you control that but not how to receive in
18:39:14 terms of mitigation, construction type needs to
18:39:17 mitigate sound.
18:39:18 There is something in chapter 27 that talks about if
18:39:22 you are in the APZ 1, you had to mitigate 25 decibels.
18:39:26 When you look at that ordinance it was enacted in
18:39:28 1980.
18:39:29 In the first study by MacDill was 1976.
18:39:32 That's when they were flying F-16s and the noise
18:39:35 contours are just right outside the base.
18:39:39 And I can show you these maps.
18:39:40 They went past Gandy Boulevard.
18:39:42 Okay?
18:39:42 And then from a practical standpoint and realistically
18:39:46 the city never enforced that.
18:39:48 But going down from reducing 25 DBA in APZ 1.

18:39:53 But you will see in a second here, and I have the
18:39:56 data, construction techniques this evening, the
18:39:58 building code in chapter 5 reduces the DBA internally
18:40:01 about 20 to 25 decibels.
18:40:03 Okay.
18:40:04 So I want to point that out that the city doesn't
18:40:06 really have any regulations dealing with a recipient
18:40:10 in construction techniques and things like that to
18:40:12 mitigate sound.
18:40:15 So what does the city do here?
18:40:17 They look to the MacDill Air Force Base to advise
18:40:19 them on noise levels.
18:40:21 Unfortunately, MacDill Air Force Base noise study
18:40:25 was conducted in one week in May 1997 and published in
18:40:29 1998 and is based on an average busy day of base
18:40:32 operations.
18:40:33 And I think at that point in time it was -- that
18:40:38 includes takeoff and landing.
18:40:39 Maybe computer modeling, they kind of look like kind
18:40:42 of a worst-case scenario.
18:40:44 So that data is not only about 12 years old, and
18:40:50 MacDill must come up with another study for

18:40:53 reasons I'll talk about in a second, even MacDill
18:40:59 concedes their data is not reliable based on certain
18:41:02 variables.
18:41:02 First of all, it's 12 years old.
18:41:07 The contours are based on flight patterns, altitude,
18:41:12 power settings, hours of operation, weather,
18:41:15 temperature, location of power run up by these planes,
18:41:18 on and on.
18:41:19 Okay.
18:41:20 So there's a lot of things very dynamic that changes
18:41:23 over time.
18:41:23 Their operation in 1997 is probably not the same as it
18:41:26 is now but we haven't seen the study.
18:41:38 What they say in their study is they have taken
18:41:40 studies to mitigate from the base and this is what
18:41:42 they adhere to.
18:41:43 I think this is very important.
18:41:45 It says they prohibit power runup on these planes for
18:41:49 non-essential mission from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., also
18:41:54 prohibit takeoff except for essential missions.
18:42:00 What than means is there's nothing going on at
18:42:02 nighttime unless there's an essential mission. This

18:42:06 is right out of their study.
18:42:07 So what we have here is a portion of this property in
18:42:23 the 7 DB area.
18:42:26 This is 7 DBA.
18:42:47 What that means is if you look at the data it's based
18:42:53 on, published by the EPA, it says that residential is
18:42:59 compatible in the 65 to 70 and they suggest certain
18:43:02 construction mitt mitigation techniques.
18:43:04 Okay?
18:43:05 And then if you are under the 65, you really don't
18:43:08 need to do anything.
18:43:10 The point here is I don't want to get too technical,
18:43:12 that the noise mitigation, we would agree to at the
18:43:16 development stage to the extent we need to mitigates
18:43:18 for any development on the property, sound
18:43:20 attenuation.
18:43:21 There's going to be new data published by MacDill
18:43:24 at that point in time, a little more accurate, and we
18:43:26 would work with staff on that.
18:43:28 Okay.
18:43:28 So we don't think it's an issue.
18:43:30 Here again 94% of the properties in the flight path

18:43:33 are residential.
18:43:34 I think it's been proven historically that residential
18:43:36 is compatible with MacDill Air Force Base.
18:43:39 Okay?
18:43:39 Some people obviously complain about it.
18:43:41 And that's life, okay?
18:43:43 But we know going in what we are dealing with.
18:43:49 As I mentioned before the city's code right now says
18:43:51 if you adhere to their code to mitigate you will
18:43:54 reduce by 25 DB.
18:43:57 Looking at what I just showed you if we are in the 65
18:43:59 DB and you reduce by 25 we are down to 40, and the HUD
18:44:03 standard is 50 inside your house.
18:44:06 So it works.
18:44:09 I want to talk a little bit about safety.
18:44:12 I touched on this a little bit already.
18:44:14 The latest statistic in those 1998 says there are
18:44:19 35,924 air operations per year.
18:44:22 Operation is a takeoff and a landing.
18:44:25 And obviously this is a concern to anybody living in
18:44:27 the flight path.
18:44:27 But let's kind of look at the facts here.

18:44:29 The chance of being struck by lightning are far more
18:44:32 significant than being hit by a plane.
18:44:36 Likewise you have a greater chance of death in an auto
18:44:41 accident.
18:44:41 With these new advances in technology and training,
18:44:45 everyone MacDill Air Force Base itself remarkably,
18:44:48 they are doing construction in the clear zone, and
18:44:51 they had to approach the department of deference to
18:44:53 get waivers to build in the enclosure zone.
18:44:54 So it's kind of interesting to note that MacDill
18:44:57 is building in the clear zone on the base and getting
18:45:00 waivers in the government, but with something off base
18:45:03 they register their concerns about it.
18:45:05 As a matter of fact, in 2007, master plan public lush
18:45:09 by MacDill said, and I quote, there are several
18:45:11 base facility located in the clear zone that create
18:45:14 air space obstructions and require waivers for
18:45:16 continued use, including the visitor center and the
18:45:19 main gate traffic checkout, et cetera, et cetera.
18:45:24 Also, our research indicate that the last crash
18:45:27 related to any MacDill associated activity was in
18:45:30 1988 by a novice rookie pilot, and this guy

18:45:34 apparently, instead, his plane stalled over the Gulf
18:45:38 of Mexico, and he basically ejected and the plane
18:45:42 crashed in the Gulf.
18:45:44 Tampa Tribune said a MacDill spokesperson was
18:45:48 quoted saying, the student was still learning the
18:45:51 airplane.
18:45:51 Okay?
18:45:52 Prior to that, the air base was established in 1941,
18:45:57 during the war.
18:45:57 1942, there was a series of accidents.
18:46:00 All of them were on the base, in the water, and there
18:46:05 was one eleven miles north of Tampa, one 20 miles
18:46:09 north of Tampa.
18:46:10 There's never been one in the clear zone.
18:46:12 Okay?
18:46:13 And we are talking about 64 years of the base being
18:46:17 there.
18:46:17 So in terms of safety, statistically, it pretty
18:46:21 remote, anything happening.
18:46:23 Okay?
18:46:24 So historically, I think we have demonstrated here
18:46:26 just the fact that safety is not an issue if you

18:46:30 develop in that area and I know that's one of the
18:46:33 issued raised by MacDill, assuming the same substance,
18:46:38 councilman Dingfelder.
18:46:39 The jurisdictional area, here again the jury is out on
18:46:42 that.
18:46:42 We actually submitted a report to the Planning
18:46:44 Commission, from our environmental scientist.
18:46:47 I won't belabor that but we are okay with the ESA
18:46:50 overlay.
18:46:50 Way your comp plan works, if we ultimately select a
18:46:53 delineation to the Planning Commission and it's
18:46:55 determined that that property is not really ESA
18:46:59 property or environmentally sensitive, that the map
18:47:01 would be changed to the designation that we are
18:47:05 seeking.
18:47:06 So it would go from ESA to CMU 35, or just
18:47:10 administratively.
18:47:11 We won't come back to a hearing or anything like that.
18:47:15 And also in terms of the quality, you look at some of
18:47:18 those aerials, and there's a D.O.T. ditch that
18:47:21 traverses the south part of the property and also you
18:47:23 could see there that the quality of the wetlands is

18:47:26 pretty minimal.
18:47:27 It been severely degraded as a result of excavation,
18:47:31 dredging and other disturbances.
18:47:32 The ATV vehicles, kids are out there all the time.
18:47:35 So it's not in very good shape.
18:47:37 But it is what it is.
18:47:38 And when we two to the next stage of the process when
18:47:40 we do the wetland delineation we are really determined
18:47:43 to what extent it is jurisdictional.
18:47:45 I just for a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman, if I
18:47:48 could put Mr. Stutzman, if he goes through a couple of
18:47:52 planning points and then I'll wrap it up.
18:47:54 And I'll go with the other one which will just take
18:47:57 about three minutes.
18:48:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have 30 seconds now.
18:48:09 I'll allow you about a minute and a half.
18:48:11 >>> Jim Stutzman, address 3314 Henderson Boulevard,
18:48:16 suite 108, Tampa.
18:48:19 And I'll just briefly describe my analysis for this
18:48:22 plan amendment request.
18:48:23 Got a few graphics I want to use.
18:48:28 This is the subject site.

18:48:42 A little over 25 acres at the Dale Mabry corridor.
18:48:45 These are the residential developments.
18:48:47 This is a townhouse project that doesn't show up in
18:48:49 the area -- the aerial but it does exist.
18:48:57 This is one of the last large parcels of vacant land,
18:49:00 or land appropriate for redevelopment in the flight
18:49:02 path of MacDill.
18:49:04 And this is where the ditch is located for the D.O.T.
18:49:09 project.
18:49:10 It drains to a retention area somewhere in the
18:49:12 southeast.
18:49:13 And the construction of that ditch did cause a lot of
18:49:17 degradation.
18:49:18 Originally the wetland may have been this entire area.
18:49:21 But as mark said our scientist did go out and look and
18:49:26 in his opinion it's substantially less than. That
18:49:28 again that's something that could be worked out at the
18:49:30 development level.
18:49:32 The noise contour issue, again, these more or less a
18:49:36 moving target depending on the type of aircraft and
18:49:39 volume of flight, the direction, the technology of
18:49:41 those aircraft.

18:49:42 So that could change in the next couple years when the
18:49:47 latest study is released.
18:49:56 (Bell sounds)
18:49:58 This is Tony's version of the future land use element.
18:50:01 Just a couple points.
18:50:04 Essentially, you can see that the Dale Mabry corridor
18:50:06 is developed, designated a higher intensity, the CMU
18:50:11 35, and that transitions out.
18:50:13 We feel with the CMU category we could create a
18:50:16 development that has that type of transition, and have
18:50:20 more commercial uses along the commercial corridor and
18:50:24 transition into office, office park, and then have
18:50:29 residential uses that provide their transitional use
18:50:32 to the single-family and townhouse development to the
18:50:35 north and east.
18:50:37 And the intensity would be consistent with the
18:50:40 development trends in the area, and obviously the
18:50:44 develop worry work with the Air Force Base to ensure
18:50:46 there were no impediments to the operations of the
18:50:51 base.
18:50:57 I did take a quick review of the staff reports.
18:51:02 And the staff reports from the community planning

18:51:05 division, initially they did review it as a request
18:51:07 for CMU that would have 35 units per acre.
18:51:10 But they did state in their report that they felt that
18:51:13 residential densities of ten units per acre would be
18:51:16 appropriate with the future development patterns in
18:51:18 the area.
18:51:20 And as Tony said, the Planning Commission staff felt
18:51:23 it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and
18:51:27 develop trends in the area.
18:51:29 And the Planning Commission itself did unanimously
18:51:31 approve our request.
18:51:32 I would be happy to answer any questions.
18:51:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Stutzman,
18:51:41 Mr. Bentley.
18:51:44 No, no, I just said thank you to Mr. Bentley also.
18:51:47 Jim, in this category also allows with the proper re
18:51:54 zoning, hotel, motel, restaurant uses as well.
18:51:56 >>> Yes, that's correct.
18:51:59 And I believe the light industrial category would
18:52:01 also.
18:52:02 >> Okay.
18:52:07 If we are talking about ten units to the acre for

18:52:09 residential, how about for hotel and motel uses?
18:52:14 Is there a way to equate that?
18:52:16 Is there a limitation that would go hand in hand with
18:52:19 that?
18:52:19 Because if you are concerned about an airplane, a jet
18:52:23 airplane crashing into a low density neighborhood, you
18:52:26 know, ten units or less per acre, that's one thing.
18:52:30 But if it plows into a motel or hotel that has 300
18:52:35 people on a half an acre, that's a bigger problem.
18:52:39 >>> I believe there's a formula used for that.
18:52:42 If I remember correctly you can either use a formula
18:52:44 for density or an F.A.R. calculation for that type of
18:52:47 use.
18:52:47 But we can have the staff respond directly.
18:52:49 Again, that's something, that kind of use would be
18:52:52 approved in a future rezoning.
18:52:55 I would imagine this is going to have to be a PD when
18:52:58 it's rezoned.
18:52:59 So this is the kind of issues that can be scrutinized
18:53:01 during that review.
18:53:04 >> John, we could do that right now without going
18:53:07 through this exercise.

18:53:08 Do you understand that?
18:53:08 Your hotel or motel based on the F.A.R., 500 people.
18:53:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you ask for it.
18:53:15 >>> Well, we are already zoned for it.
18:53:17 >> You have got the zoning as well?
18:53:21 Okay.
18:53:22 >>> We have commercial intensive zoning and also IG
18:53:25 industrial general which is light industrial.
18:53:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
18:53:28 Thank you.
18:53:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you are already zoned for that.
18:53:33 Interesting.
18:53:34 Okay.
18:53:34 All right.
18:53:38 Any other questions?
18:53:39 This is a public hearing.
18:53:41 Anyone that wishes to address council may come
18:53:43 forward, state your name and address for the record.
18:53:50 >>> William Francis representing MacDill Air Force
18:53:55 Base, and wing commander colonel Thomas.
18:54:01 The base opposes the rezoning of this property and
18:54:05 provided the letter that the councilman mentioned

18:54:07 early why theory highlights those concerns.
18:54:09 Our specific concern is to the adverse impact it would
18:54:13 have on mission operations.
18:54:16 This rezoning would result in more citizens of Tampa
18:54:20 living and working in known hazardous areas,
18:54:24 particularly those with noise and aircraft accidents.
18:54:26 I want to just thank you for your time and opportunity
18:54:28 to participate in this process.
18:54:32 That's all I have to say.
18:54:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
18:54:38 Go ahead.
18:54:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Colonel, you heard Mr. Bentley
18:54:41 speak to some of your rules and regs, and he's put a
18:54:46 lot of work into it.
18:54:48 You are very familiar with it.
18:54:50 That's your business.
18:54:50 Any rebuttal or commentary as related to the things he
18:54:55 said?
18:54:55 >>> Well, there is science, and studies are
18:55:02 scientifically focused.
18:55:04 On the arts side, the focus is on what kind of risk
18:55:09 would be involved, would risk increase relative to

18:55:13 noise, and those aircraft accidents where we do allow
18:55:17 these rezoning amendments to pass?
18:55:19 And the answer to that is yes.
18:55:21 And so under the arts side, that's where MacDill
18:55:25 is presenting this and its main concern is simply by
18:55:29 allowing more people into these areas, there are going
18:55:33 to be more noise issues than there is in increased
18:55:36 potential for injuries or death.
18:55:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just follow up.
18:55:44 Again welcome and thanks for being here tonight.
18:55:46 At the same time, it's probably already zoned for
18:55:48 hotel-motel, and so in essence you have the same
18:55:53 scenario.
18:55:53 In fact you may have more people.
18:55:57 >>> Well, sir, that was something, if that is in fact
18:56:01 the case we would have to relook, because you are
18:56:04 exactly right.
18:56:05 Because that would make perfect sense.
18:56:06 We want the least amount of people in these areas that
18:56:09 we can have.
18:56:10 And so that would be the position that we would
18:56:13 support.

18:56:13 Keep those people to a minimum in those areas.
18:56:17 And that's what we are advocating here tonight.
18:56:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:56:21 Thank you.
18:56:22 Anyone else from the public?
18:56:24 Okay.
18:56:27 Mr. Bentley, do you have anything else you want to
18:56:29 add?
18:56:31 >> I don't want to wear out my welcome but just a
18:56:33 couple points.
18:56:36 In any event, this is an adversary.
18:56:40 I have the most respect for the Air Force and the good
18:56:44 deeds they do and I was in the military.
18:56:48 It's kind of interesting the colonel indicates the
18:56:51 disregard of scientific facts which they spent
18:56:53 thousands of dollars and years of study --
18:56:57 One minute, sir.
18:57:03 I think we have gifts or something for the boy scouts
18:57:05 before you leave.
18:57:06 Thank you.
18:57:07 Thanks for being here tonight.
18:57:09 You all have a good evening.

18:57:10 Thank you.
18:57:11 Continue, Mr. Bentley.
18:57:12 Sorry.
18:57:15 >>MARK BENTLEY: What I was saying here, it's kind of
18:57:17 interesting that the colonel indicated kind of look at
18:57:21 the art instead of the science where they publish
18:57:24 these reports and say months of study and technology,
18:57:29 okay, and they publish the fact that we are supposed
18:57:31 to rely on, and then says, let's kind of disregard the
18:57:35 facts.
18:57:35 I told you the facts about the noise and the safety.
18:57:37 I could go on and on about that stuff.
18:57:39 There's in need to.
18:57:41 So you didn't hear a lot of facts from the Air Force.
18:57:44 They are just really concerned about people in their
18:57:46 flight path, okay, for different reasons.
18:57:48 Without much specificity.
18:57:50 Here again, I think it's important.
18:57:52 You hit the nail on the head, Mr. Chairman, is that
18:57:54 under the existing scenario we have this pyramid
18:57:56 zoning scheme in the City of Tampa where in the
18:57:58 industrial zoning classification you can do CG, CI,

18:58:02 et cetera.
18:58:03 They allow hotels and motels.
18:58:04 It's based on floor area ratio, not the number of
18:58:08 units. We could do 1.6 million square feet on this
18:58:11 property.
18:58:12 And we could build a bunch of hotels, okay?
18:58:16 And when don't intend to do that.
18:58:18 I'm just saying, I don't need to do to be here.
18:58:21 My client doesn't need to go through the exercise to
18:58:24 do that.
18:58:24 We are talking about residential density maybe at 10
18:58:27 units per acre.
18:58:28 And you are going to put the pedal to the metal.
18:58:33 And the Air Force has the opportunity to weigh in.
18:58:37 And I have been working thon for about a year since I
18:58:39 filed these.
18:58:41 I have had several requests to meet with MacDill and
18:58:44 been rejected, said they didn't want to meet actually,
18:58:47 to deal with the city.
18:58:48 So you get to one of these hearings and they don't
18:58:51 even give you the courtesy of giving you a letter,
18:58:53 which I have now, and then also we requested the most

18:58:57 recent noise study, and the A-2 study we requested
18:59:03 that.
18:59:04 So we made a freedom of information request and they
18:59:06 said we are not going to give it to you and one of the
18:59:09 reasons, quote-unquote, it might confuse the public.
18:59:12 Okay?
18:59:12 So you can ask your staff, too.
18:59:15 It's my understanding they solicited comments on the
18:59:18 plan amendments from the MacDill Air Force Base
18:59:20 and never got any.
18:59:21 They got a letter or phone call the day before the
18:59:24 hearing.
18:59:25 So it's kind of a two way street.
18:59:27 We are trying to work with the base and there's a lot
18:59:29 of comments in the comp plan that says we need to
18:59:33 respect each other but it's kind of been a one-way
18:59:36 street.
18:59:37 I'm just telling you up front here that we made the
18:59:40 effort and didn't get any response.
18:59:41 So the bottom line to all this is, the only change,
18:59:47 okay, which require a rezoning, to allow residential
18:59:51 component at the property, 94% of the properties in

18:59:54 the APZ 1 are already residential.
18:59:57 The zoning, I told you there's 160 parcels in the APZ
19:00:02 1 that have a density of 27 in close proximity, Dale
19:00:06 Mabry Highway. This is from a planning standpoint.
19:00:09 It makes a lot of sense.
19:00:11 Okay.
19:00:11 We could do 1.6 million square feet of office, retail
19:00:14 or industrial as we speak, right now.
19:00:17 Or hotel, series of motels.
19:00:19 So we would appreciate your consideration.
19:00:22 And this is a transmittal hearing, and just to
19:00:24 transmit this up to the department of community
19:00:27 affairs.
19:00:28 I appreciate your time.
19:00:29 Thank you.
19:00:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
19:00:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for the gentleman
19:00:38 from MacDill, if you wouldn't mind coming up.
19:00:47 This is challenging because I was going to ask you to
19:00:50 look into the future.
19:00:51 Do you think that the current type of aircraft and
19:00:54 frequency and intensity of air traffic that you have

19:00:58 at MacDill is going to decrease in the future?
19:01:00 Do you think it's going to increase?
19:01:02 Are you able to project those?
19:01:05 >>> I'm not able to speculate about that, legally,
19:01:11 through my Air Force legal office.
19:01:13 Base is open to all types of aircraft who use that
19:01:16 inventory.
19:01:18 Every day of the week, every day of the year.
19:01:20 And they differ in the amounts of noise they produce.
19:01:25 >> two other quick questions.
19:01:26 One is I know in the past you all asked the city to
19:01:29 encourage housing near the base, so the people
19:01:32 wouldn't have to use all that imported fuel to get all
19:01:37 the way to Brandon.
19:01:38 So this is an opportunity to have housing closer.
19:01:41 People could ride bicycles.
19:01:43 I know that's a radical concept.
19:01:45 So can you comment on that, that you want people to be
19:01:51 closer, so they don't have to commute so far, so that
19:01:55 they are available to work more easily?
19:01:58 >> Yes, ma'am.
19:01:58 I think I could safely say we would like people to be

19:02:01 closer.
19:02:02 Just these areas as have been defined tonight, now,
19:02:06 Air Force regulation says, try to limit the amount of
19:02:10 construction -- not construction, but inhabitants in
19:02:14 these hazardous areas to the max extent possible.
19:02:21 >> Can you address the issue that our petitioner said
19:02:24 about you all are building housing in these hazardous
19:02:28 areas?
19:02:28 >>> Not housing, no, ma'am.
19:02:31 Housing is far to the south, well outside of these
19:02:34 areas.
19:02:35 No housing at all.
19:02:38 Essential facilities do exist in these areas, just
19:02:40 based upon the geographic set-up of the base and the
19:02:43 way the runways are built, things like the gate, the
19:02:46 visitors reception center, went where they are because
19:02:50 we had our hands tied.
19:02:51 >> And, to your knowledge, is this as close to -- I
19:02:56 mean, this appears to be pretty close to your
19:02:59 boundaries.
19:03:00 Is this the newest petition for housing close to your
19:03:03 boundaries?

19:03:05 >>> As far as I know, it is.
19:03:07 As far as I know.
19:03:08 It is.
19:03:09 >> Thank you very much.
19:03:10 >>> You're welcome.
19:03:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Saul-Sena, earlier I raised the
19:03:16 issue because it's already zoned for hotel and motel.
19:03:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was listening.
19:03:21 I heard.
19:03:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
19:03:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Bentley, I don't know, we had
19:03:32 so many lawyers in the Rattlesnake Point comp plan
19:03:38 amendment.
19:03:38 I don't know if you were one of them.
19:03:40 >>> No, I wasn't.
19:03:41 >> You missed that one.
19:03:42 Well, you probably heard about it.
19:03:44 When we did rattlesnake, we did something unusual
19:03:46 which is we actually put a condition.
19:03:48 And I'm glad Randy is here.
19:03:50 We actually put a condition on the comp plan amendment
19:03:55 itself.

19:03:56 In that case there were some different issues.
19:03:59 But they were related to public safety and hazard and
19:04:02 compatibility and transitional and that sort of thing.
19:04:06 You started out your presentation by saying that you
19:04:10 were aware of the limitation ten years break or you
19:04:14 were comfortable with it, your client was comfortable
19:04:16 with it, et cetera.
19:04:18 I would like to see us have two conditions on this
19:04:23 comp plan amendment.
19:04:24 Okay?
19:04:25 And the first would be the ten units per acre. That
19:04:28 way there is no question.
19:04:30 It's on the amendment itself, any future buyer is well
19:04:35 aware and put on notice of it.
19:04:37 And the second condition relates to noise attenuation,
19:04:43 that I heard what you said, and I'm sure it's true,
19:04:45 that we don't have any zoning provisions or
19:04:48 regulations that tell people how to build to those
19:04:53 standards, but those issues are mentioned in the
19:04:55 comprehensive plan in terms of noise attenuation.
19:05:00 So I would like -- I would request that you would work
19:05:07 with Planning Commission staff and our city staff on

19:05:12 two simple conditions that would address both of those
19:05:14 issues.
19:05:15 In other words, if in some future date somebody
19:05:18 actually built those ten single-family units per acre
19:05:23 but they would know they would need to attenuate the
19:05:26 noise, the construction, to meet some certain
19:05:29 standards.
19:05:29 I don't know what those standards are.
19:05:32 But I would let you work that out with staff.
19:05:34 And then the other one of course is from the safety
19:05:37 perspective.
19:05:37 Well, both safety and noisy think honor it is base's
19:05:42 request.
19:05:43 But if we put those conditions on, at least it's
19:05:46 something.
19:05:51 So, anyway.
19:05:52 >>> Just one second, if I might.
19:05:53 >> Sure.
19:05:58 >>> Just consulted with the client.
19:06:00 And what we agree to is your suggestion that CMU 35
19:06:04 with the tap of ten with the understanding that if you
19:06:07 change this policy, okay, if you eliminate it, we are

19:06:11 capped at ten.
19:06:12 But if you change it to six or something, we are not
19:06:14 subject to the six.
19:06:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's reasonable, sure.
19:06:19 >> So we agree to conditional number one CMU 35 with a
19:06:22 cap of ten units per acre on the subject property.
19:06:26 Number two, we coordinate any development of the
19:06:28 property with the appropriate staff, and to the extent
19:06:32 any noise mitigation is required for development of
19:06:34 that property based on what a reasonable standard is,
19:06:36 whether it's HUD, or whatever, because you are right,
19:06:39 we are kind of shooting in the dark.
19:06:41 We don't know what we are dealing with.
19:06:42 We would agree to that.
19:06:44 Okay?
19:06:44 >>> And I'm confident, there are construction
19:06:47 techniques out there that address noise attenuation,
19:06:50 and window placement, and who knows what?
19:06:52 But --
19:06:55 >>> Not a problem.
19:06:56 Thank you.
19:06:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close the public hearing.

19:06:59 >>JULIA COLE: If I could say one additional thing.
19:07:02 This is a transitional -- transmissional public
19:07:06 hearing.
19:07:07 So if you could transmit with those conditions to be
19:07:11 placed as part of the ordinance which would adopt our
19:07:14 land use amendments.
19:07:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:07:17 I was rereading the letter from the Air Force and one
19:07:21 of the things they said they are concerned about is
19:07:22 the portion of the property that lies within the clear
19:07:24 zone.
19:07:25 And my question is, roughly, what percentage of the
19:07:29 property is that?
19:07:30 >>> That's plan amendment 02.
19:07:34 That's the next one, councilman Saul-Sena.
19:07:36 It's not this property.
19:07:38 >> None of those are in the clear zone.
19:07:41 >>> This is all APZ-1.
19:07:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So this entire piece of property is
19:07:47 in the place that the Air Force doesn't want?
19:07:51 >>> Well, understand this.
19:07:53 There's a clear zone which is 3,000 feet off the end

19:07:56 of the runway and that relate to the other petition, a
19:07:59 small portion.
19:08:00 >> But this is completely within --
19:08:03 >>> APZ 1.
19:08:05 But 90% of the properties are single-family homes and
19:08:09 multifamily.
19:08:09 Okay?
19:08:11 I mean, it covers a very broad area.
19:08:16 It's 15,000 feet.
19:08:18 Three miles from the base, I guess, when you calculate
19:08:21 it roughly.
19:08:23 So we are kind of the last piece of the puzzle.
19:08:27 We are 25 acres and everything else developed around
19:08:30 it.
19:08:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close the public hearing.
19:08:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
19:08:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded to close the public
19:08:37 hearing.
19:08:37 (Motion carried).
19:08:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion would be then to transmit.
19:08:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That would be fine.
19:08:46 I would move to -- and with all due respect to the

19:08:51 MacDill Air Force Base, it's one of the reasons
19:08:53 that I am comfortable with this motion -- and I want
19:08:56 the colonel to be abundantly clear on this -- has to
19:08:58 do with the fact that the existing zoning they have
19:09:02 according to staff and everybody, would allow some
19:09:06 very intensive use in the hotel-motel use.
19:09:10 I'm not sure about restaurant but hotel-motel.
19:09:13 Probably restaurant, too. So in light of that, I
19:09:17 think that would have to be a big consideration. With
19:09:19 that I move that we transmit, and that the petitioner
19:09:22 work with staff to develop appropriate conditions
19:09:26 related to noise attenuation and limitation at ten
19:09:31 dwelling units per acre.
19:09:37 >>> Second.
19:09:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm finding this a very challenging
19:09:43 decision, because I have great respect for the
19:09:47 MacDill Air Force Base and their concerns, and I
19:09:50 don't wanted to put people in danger.
19:09:52 On the other hand, all the -- we have development of
19:09:56 this level.
19:09:57 I feel better with Mr. Dingfelder's amendments.
19:10:03 And I can just say that when this comes back for a

19:10:06 rezoning, that I will be looking very, very carefully
19:10:11 at the protection of the wetlands, the number of
19:10:14 units, and the construction technology.
19:10:18 Those would be the sorts of things I will be very
19:10:20 closely scrutinizing.
19:10:22 Thank you.
19:10:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder, council, after this
19:10:25 does come back from DCA, it will have to come back to
19:10:28 council for adoption public hearing.
19:10:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion on the floor. Motion dies.
19:10:37 Councilman Dingfelder. Seconded by Councilman
19:10:37 Caetano. All in favor Let it be known by Aye.
19:10:40 Opposed same sign.
19:10:41 So moved and ordered.
19:10:42 Okay.
19:10:49 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:10:51 Your final plan amendment for the evening, which is
19:10:54 the reverse.
19:10:56 This is plan amendment number 5.
19:11:01 Item number 5.
19:11:03 This is Tampa comprehensive plan amendment 07-02 in
19:11:07 the vicinity of Interbay Boulevard west of Dale Mabry

19:11:10 Highway.
19:11:11 Again this will be much easier, very similar with the
19:11:15 general area from the plan amendment, this will go a
19:11:19 lot smoother.
19:11:20 This is also initiated also going from light
19:11:22 industrial to community mixed use 35.
19:11:25 The site is 26.7 acres approximately.
19:11:29 Within the clear zone of MacDill Air Force Base.
19:11:32 I am trying to show you, it looks good on an aerial
19:11:37 how that imaginary line extends out.
19:11:39 There is evidence of environmentally sensitive land on
19:11:41 the site.
19:11:43 Here is the site in question.
19:11:44 As you can see from the aerial, there are quite a few
19:11:47 water bodies existing on the site, and a lot of
19:11:49 vegetation on the site.
19:11:51 You will notice that when I show tumor detailed maps.
19:11:55 But again, this is MacDill Air Force Base.
19:12:00 All the other uses in the South Tampa area, the
19:12:03 compatibility, again, of the land use categories, and
19:12:07 how the compatibility and how they are interrelate
19:12:12 with the other uses in the general area is very, very

19:12:15 important.
19:12:16 The general location once again, this was on the west
19:12:19 side of Dale Mabry in comparison to the other plan
19:12:21 amendment which was on the east side of Dale Mabry.
19:12:24 Here's the first of four aerials that I will show you.
19:12:27 Here is Interbay Boulevard.
19:12:29 We are looking directly to the west toward Manhattan.
19:12:33 This is basically the northern boundary from
19:12:37 MacDill Air Force Base.
19:12:40 In the general area you do have a trucking business
19:12:51 over here.
19:12:52 There is a sign on this parcel of land right now
19:12:55 advertising for town home development on this vacant
19:12:58 parcel here.
19:12:59 This parcel consists of an apartment complex.
19:13:03 There's some plan over here also earmarked for town
19:13:08 home development.
19:13:09 These are all going to developed by right.
19:13:12 Whatever the existing zoning is which I think is RM-16
19:13:17 for some of these parcels.
19:13:20 Again, here is the flight path here.
19:13:23 If you were to extend this line out, and again this is

19:13:29 an approximation on my heart pause we do not have this
19:13:32 clear zone area illustrated on our land use map.
19:13:35 For general purposes, and I think Mr. Bentley has --
19:13:41 that staff can show you where the clear zone is
19:13:43 located, I think, with Mr. Stutzman.
19:13:49 It should go along this line, bisect the property and
19:13:52 basically cut out this southeastern portion of the
19:13:54 site in question.
19:13:56 Again, as you can see, the site is heavily vegetated.
19:14:02 There are significant water bodies on the site.
19:14:08 Interbay Boulevard once again.
19:14:10 Here is another apartment complex.
19:14:12 This mobile home park does not exist anymore.
19:14:14 It has since been redeveloped for town homes.
19:14:18 But apparently going up.
19:14:20 It's in the mid phase.
19:14:26 If you drive by and see it, I drove by one day when I
19:14:30 was in the South Tampa area, and there are quite a
19:14:33 variety of different colors, and, anyway, this is a
19:14:37 town home development.
19:14:37 You can see multifamily directly to the north.
19:14:40 This is borne out by the future land use map

19:14:42 classification that I will show you shortly.
19:14:45 Again this is the eastern perspective.
19:14:47 Once again, the site, the apartment complex,
19:14:56 multifamily again, the site that will be developed for
19:14:58 multifamily also.
19:14:59 This site is going to be developed for multifamily.
19:15:04 So here is the site again.
19:15:07 The only piece that really we have seen that still has
19:15:10 some light industrial use on it is this rear piece
19:15:13 over here, and but the existing uses really are not
19:15:20 depictive of light industrial uses per se.
19:15:22 This is a residential category. This is actually a
19:15:25 plan amendment change adopted by this body in 2004 to
19:15:27 go to residential 10.
19:15:29 So this is a town home development here. This is
19:15:32 transitional use 24.
19:15:34 This is residential 20, res residential 35.
19:15:38 Residential 35, residential 50, residential 20.
19:15:40 So you have a very high density potential for all
19:15:45 these properties over here.
19:15:46 Most of these properties have developed, you can see
19:15:50 they have developed strictly for residential.

19:15:53 Even though these land use categories to a -- do allow
19:15:56 for the potential for some type of office use, it
19:15:59 seems the trend again as I stated earlier in my prior
19:16:02 presentation the trend is really to residential use
19:16:04 and that's basically what you are seeing in this
19:16:06 particular area east of Manhattan.
19:16:08 Here's manhattan.
19:16:10 That's basically what you are seeing, a lot of town
19:16:12 home development in this particular area.
19:16:21 Going back to EPC, and the letter that we received
19:16:22 from EPC, as you can see on the map here, on the
19:16:25 proposed map of what this land use category would go
19:16:27 to.
19:16:28 You will see that of every small piece of this
19:16:31 property, approximately 2.5 acres is really only shown
19:16:36 as developable, 2.5 acres approximately, because you
19:16:39 do have about 12 acres, as depicted as water, and 13
19:16:43 acres is depicted as ESA, and again this will also be
19:16:48 subject to the proper reviewing agency that will go
19:16:51 on-site and delineate the site, exam the water bodies
19:16:55 for the validity, examine the site, because it has
19:16:58 been in this condition for approximately 40 years, I

19:17:00 believe, was a quarry.
19:17:03 I think, Mr. Bentley, you do have someone that can
19:17:06 give souse history on that.
19:17:08 So as far as developed into an ecosystem will be the
19:17:16 site of the regulatory agency that will go on-site,
19:17:19 and the delineation for this parcel of land.
19:17:31 Considerations.
19:17:32 Commercial and industrial uses allowed on the site.
19:17:35 The change allows for residential redevelopment.
19:17:38 That's a significant difference to get a CMU 35.
19:17:41 Maintains the existing floor area ratio.
19:17:43 You have 1.5 now.
19:17:45 You have a 1.5 in CMU 35.
19:17:48 The change would prohibit industrial and commercial
19:17:50 intensive uses.
19:17:53 The facilities are available.
19:17:55 They are also talking about the protection of
19:17:57 environmentally sensitive areas.
19:17:59 Once again the future development is predicated on the
19:18:02 impact of MacDill Air Force Base to ensure
19:18:04 compatibility with the base plan and operations.
19:18:07 There are a variety of policy that is relate to the

19:18:09 proposed request, restricting removal of natural
19:18:12 vegetation to maintain the natural drainage problems
19:18:15 in the City of Tampa's report that was given to you
19:18:18 all, when you had departmental comments, the
19:18:21 stormwater department, about South Tampa flooding.
19:18:26 So if this does get to you, the applicator whoever
19:18:33 will be obligated to retain whatever stormwater impact
19:18:36 there is to this area, as we do have this particular
19:18:40 general area is prone to some flooding.
19:18:44 Since they already have some significant water bodies,
19:18:47 it probably will be beneficial just from a possible
19:18:53 sense to try to maintain some of those, to ensure that
19:18:57 you not have any kind of stormwater run-off from this
19:19:00 particular site, impact to the general area.
19:19:03 Policy C-2.5, protection of environmentally sensitive
19:19:06 areas, E-4.3, maximizing use of available public
19:19:09 facilities, D-3.5, residential redevelopment in you
19:19:14 underutilized areas where adequate infrastructure
19:19:17 exists, and B-2.1, B-5.3 which talks about location
19:19:22 and development of nonresidential uses in, this case
19:19:24 office or neighborhood commercial uses, a long
19:19:32 Interbay, which really, as I said, potential with the

19:19:37 land use categories that already exist there,
19:19:39 residential 20, residential 35 that already exist
19:19:42 there is, we are already right now consideration of,
19:19:46 you know, nonresidential uses but you are not seeing
19:19:48 that.
19:19:48 That's not the trend.
19:19:49 Everything is just going strictly residential.
19:19:52 All the commercial is really being pushed over to Dale
19:19:55 Mabry.
19:19:55 That's where everybody is focusing on as far as
19:19:58 nonresidential development.
19:20:00 So based on those findings of fact, Planning
19:20:02 Commission staff recommends to the Planning Commission
19:20:06 that PA 07-02 from light industrial to community mixed
19:20:13 use 35.
19:20:13 Staff's recommendation was a substitute recommendation
19:20:15 based again on the EPC findings or concerns, and also
19:20:19 based on setting the SWFWMD layer arm, basically water
19:20:27 areas.
19:20:27 So our basic recommendation to them, change the land
19:20:32 use from light industrial to community mixed use 35
19:20:34 and environmentally sensitive area.

19:20:36 These what we found consistent with the comprehensive
19:20:38 plan.
19:20:39 This also was -- the recommendation was found
19:20:43 consistent and was voted on unanimously by the
19:20:46 Planning Commission.
19:20:47 Thank you.
19:20:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Garcia, do you think that this
19:20:54 rezoning request, which puts a large majority of the
19:20:57 property into the environmentally sensitive area
19:21:00 category, actually better protects than the current
19:21:04 zoning does?
19:21:06 >>> Based on right now it's light industrial.
19:21:09 >> Right.
19:21:10 Entire parcel?
19:21:11 Or just the parcel that would be rezoned?
19:21:14 >>> So it's IG now.
19:21:16 So they could do commercial uses on the site right
19:21:19 now.
19:21:19 The only difference is a residential potential.
19:21:23 The ESA is only 2.5 acres under that category using
19:21:27 that category.
19:21:28 Okay.

19:21:28 That can actually be developed.
19:21:30 Again that's predicated upon the regulatory agency
19:21:33 come on-site and delineating the site.
19:21:35 You have already had Mary Bryson has already been on
19:21:40 the site so she's already made, I think, an initial
19:21:43 assessment as to what the status is, you know, as far
19:21:46 as the trees and parks.
19:21:48 And if you are asking me what the development
19:21:49 potential would be for the existing versus what it
19:21:52 could be, the difference is negligible and the only
19:21:55 thing that they are really asking for is going to be a
19:21:58 residential potential.
19:21:58 But again, I have to state that the entire development
19:22:02 potential of the site is still subject to whatever is
19:22:06 going to be determined by the regulatory agency.
19:22:08 Because it could be more than 2.5 acres.
19:22:10 It could be 4 acres.
19:22:12 But the idea there is, do you want a commercial use on
19:22:16 Interbay there?
19:22:16 Or would you want to have a mixed use project
19:22:19 basically?
19:22:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One other quick question.

19:22:22 I have tremendous confidence in our city staff,
19:22:26 particularly our tree people, also our drainage
19:22:30 people. If they think the area should be protected
19:22:33 is, let's say, ten acres, and the EPC thinks it's five
19:22:38 acres, whose evaluation is the final one that's
19:22:44 reflected in saying what areas are environmentally
19:22:47 protected?
19:22:49 >>> I don't know if --
19:22:57 >> It's really two different issues.
19:22:59 One is the jurisdictional issue, and with EPC, then
19:23:05 you get into the stormwater issues, and the drainage
19:23:07 issues, and naturally looking at it from another
19:23:11 perspective.
19:23:12 >> Grand tree issues.
19:23:13 >>> And grand tree issues.
19:23:15 They are different regulatory authorities.
19:23:16 But whatever EPC's regulatory authorities is over this
19:23:20 is the regulatory authority, the same with the city's,
19:23:23 and they really don't overlap in that way.
19:23:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:23:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
19:23:30 Do you want to add anything?

19:23:32 >>MARK BENTLEY: Yes, sir, just a couple minutes.
19:23:34 Tony did a very good job of going over some of the
19:23:36 background information.
19:23:39 It's almost a mirror image of Florida law, that was 25
19:23:43 acres and change and this is a little over 26.
19:23:46 Same zoning.
19:23:46 Same land use.
19:23:47 Theoretically, assuming you can meet all the
19:23:50 performance standards in your codes you could do 1.7
19:23:53 million square feet of heavy commercial, light
19:23:56 commercial, office, and/or basically that's it.
19:24:01 So what this is all about is along the introduction of
19:24:04 a residential component.
19:24:05 I am going to suggest something in a couple minutes
19:24:07 that I think is a win-win-win for the city, my client
19:24:10 and the Air Force Base in terms of preservation, maybe
19:24:15 southern portion of that property to facilitate the
19:24:18 city's -- I don't know if you call it the upper Tampa
19:24:20 Bay trail or whatever.
19:24:22 Okay.
19:24:23 That whole lineal park that the city is proposing.
19:24:26 But just a couple points is that the flight path

19:24:38 issue, here again we can debate this all day long.
19:24:41 But there's a debate as to what degree if at all the
19:24:44 property is in what they call the clear zone.
19:24:46 The clear zone, the closest zone, Mrs. Saul-Sena, to
19:24:49 the end of the runway, and in this case, MacDill's R's
19:24:55 suggestion that it's a 3,000 square fountain box at
19:24:57 the end.
19:24:58 Okay?
19:24:58 We are suggesting otherwise.
19:25:01 It's kind of irrelevant.
19:25:03 When we get to the end of the day here and the
19:25:05 discussion.
19:25:06 The Planning Commission, all staff are on board on
19:25:09 this.
19:25:10 The proximity to the base.
19:25:12 I just want you all to know right now that based on
19:25:15 your land use plan and regulation, there is no such
19:25:18 thing as a clear zone.
19:25:19 Only MacDill has what they call a clear zone.
19:25:22 You have nothing in your comp plan or anything.
19:25:24 Let me just show you here.
19:25:25 Here is an aerial of the subject property.

19:25:29 This is figure 11 in your transportation element as we
19:25:33 speak.
19:25:34 You can see the clear zone is the conical shape, not a
19:25:37 clear box.
19:25:38 With this configuration, it doesn't touch the client's
19:25:40 property.
19:25:41 So that's the law as we speak.
19:25:42 However, 1998, MacDill promulgated -- and created
19:25:50 this that I will show you in a second.
19:25:52 Here is MacDill's original clear zone in this
19:25:56 1976, and you can see here again it's pretty small.
19:26:00 Okay?
19:26:03 Then what happened in '98, they pronounced that the
19:26:07 clear zone would now change to 3,000 feet square zone
19:26:14 as I mentioned.
19:26:15 You see this little portion I pointed to?
19:26:18 Okay.
19:26:18 To the extent that the subject property would be
19:26:21 characterized by the Air Force as the clear zone, for
19:26:25 what it's worth, the department of deference
19:26:27 regulations and MacDill is AQ and base plan says
19:26:31 if they identify clear zone on private property,

19:26:34 department of defense policy, that they shall buy the
19:26:38 property.
19:26:39 Obviously they don't own it.
19:26:40 They never approached the client.
19:26:41 But what I am going to suggest here, and kind of cut
19:26:44 to the chase, is that here again, the jurisdictional
19:26:49 issue, the jury is still out on that.
19:26:51 We made application to SWFWMD for delineation, about
19:26:54 two weeks ago.
19:26:55 I gave a copy to staff.
19:26:57 So when that comes back we are going to know to what
19:26:59 degree.
19:26:59 We did an environmentally report on it.
19:27:02 Roughly 15 acres is upland.
19:27:04 About 11 was jurisdictional -- excuse me, water
19:27:07 bodies.
19:27:07 So we'll find out pretty soon to what degree there is
19:27:11 any jurisdictional.
19:27:16 Safety and noise, I don't need to get into that.
19:27:19 We talked about that last go around.
19:27:20 What I am going to suggest here is that the city had
19:27:24 approached us, because they need part of the property

19:27:27 for this preservation area, or this lineal park.
19:27:31 And so what we are going to suggest here is not
19:27:34 withstanding that maybe four acres, okay, maybe in
19:27:41 MacDill's clear zone, not you all's clear zone --
19:27:45 we can debate that all day long.
19:27:47 But what we would do is grant a perpetual easement to
19:27:51 the city to facilitate whatever the city needs in
19:27:53 terms of its lineal park, okay.
19:27:56 We wouldn't do any vertical development in that area.
19:27:59 To the extent we do anything, in the Southern Area, we
19:28:03 coordinate with the city, maybe use it for drainage.
19:28:05 Whatever works out.
19:28:09 We could convey this professional easement, not
19:28:12 withstanding the CMU 35, and some of the land uses, if
19:28:17 you look at Tony's report around there, R 50 and
19:28:20 things like that, very intense development.
19:28:23 So we would cap our development at 15 units per acre.
19:28:26 Kind of like we did last time with the last amendment.
19:28:29 It would be CMU 35 with a 15 cap.
19:28:32 Give the city an easement.
19:28:33 Here again the same issue on the noise to the extent
19:28:35 there's any mitigation required, we would work with

19:28:38 staff to sort that out.
19:28:40 And anything that was necessary in terms of
19:28:41 construction techniques, we would implement that at
19:28:44 the time of development.
19:28:45 So those would be the three conditions.
19:28:48 If you have any questions, let me know.
19:28:52 I discussed this with real estate and Ms. Miller, and
19:28:55 I'll let Julia speak on behalf of the city.
19:28:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions, council persons?
19:29:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close the public hearing.
19:29:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Not until we hear from the public.
19:29:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just waiting to hear from the
19:29:17 public.
19:29:17 But if Julia wants.
19:29:20 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:29:22 I just wanted to indicate that Mr. Bentley did
19:29:26 approach city staff earlier this week about this
19:29:28 potential opportunity, some of the issues that were
19:29:32 raised in the public hearing process.
19:29:34 If that is something City Council wants to move
19:29:35 forward with, similar to the last one, I would
19:29:40 recommend you go ahead and vote to transmit this with

19:29:42 the condition being dealt with as part of the
19:29:44 ordinance process relating to the perpetual easement,
19:29:50 the area which has been characterize by who, I don't
19:29:54 think that's important, as the clear zone to allow for
19:29:58 some of these other issues to be dealt with.
19:30:00 And I believe that Mr. Bentley indicated that he was
19:30:02 willing to cap the remainder of the property at 15
19:30:05 units to the acre and we would have to deal with that.
19:30:08 So in the adoption hearing process.
19:30:12 Thank you.
19:30:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public hearing.
19:30:14 Anyone from the public want to address council, come
19:30:16 forward and state your full name and address for the
19:30:18 record.
19:30:21 >>> Colonel William Francis representing MacDill
19:30:24 Air Force Base and colonel commander Robert Thomas.
19:30:28 I want to thank you for the considerations that are
19:30:29 under consideration right now.
19:30:31 We oppose this also based upon the discussion that we
19:30:34 presented previously.
19:30:35 But again I want to really thank you for the
19:30:38 considerations that are on the floor right now.

19:30:43 And thanks for your time.
19:30:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
19:30:51 Councilman has a question.
19:30:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
19:30:54 I can ask you or your staff.
19:30:56 It doesn't matter to me.
19:30:59 What the zoning is on this property.
19:31:00 I see what the land use category.
19:31:02 >>> IG under your nomenclature allows CI uses which
19:31:07 allows CG uses.
19:31:09 So hotel, motel, restaurant, John, you name it up to
19:31:13 1.7 million square feet.
19:31:17 >> And the other property we saw on Dale Mabry was
19:31:19 also --
19:31:21 >>> It was identical.
19:31:22 Excuse me, a portion of the other property had CI
19:31:26 which would allow the hotel and motel as well.
19:31:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was a little confused when you
19:31:37 said about the self-imposed limitation of 15 units to
19:31:40 the acre.
19:31:40 This entire piece is in addition to being in the clear
19:31:45 zone is also in the AP 3?

19:31:47 >>
19:31:48 When I was trying to make the point --
19:31:50 >> Didn't see the AP 3 but I thought some of it was in
19:31:53 the clear zone.
19:31:54 >>> John, let me square this away.
19:31:57 It's a pretty important point.
19:31:58 What I was suggesting City Council, the clear zone as
19:32:01 you have it in your land use element or transportation
19:32:03 element right now is cone-shaped.
19:32:06 The 1998 AQ, they identify the clear zone as this
19:32:11 little piece right here.
19:32:13 So like I said, we don't necessarily agree.
19:32:20 But just to move on here, the balance of the property
19:32:23 is out.
19:32:24 So with all due respect to MacDill, we are not
19:32:27 even in the flight path about 80% of the property.
19:32:29 >> So the northern is not even APB.
19:32:35 >>> Exactly.
19:32:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
19:32:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The last question related to the 15
19:32:42 dwelling units per acre, would that be -- are you
19:32:44 saying that would be calculated over the entire 27

19:32:48 acres?
19:32:49 Or is that 15?
19:32:50 >>> It's just like Tony said, 20 or 25%, do you the
19:32:55 math, the upland, 1.25.
19:32:58 So we don't get credit for any environmental -- not
19:33:00 all the environmental property.
19:33:01 Maybe Tony is better to answer that than me.
19:33:04 But you get the gist of it.
19:33:05 >> But your intent is just the 15 of the developer
19:33:08 property?
19:33:08 >>> Well, to the extent whatever you can transfer from
19:33:11 the environmental, which is not very much.
19:33:14 You see what I'm saying?
19:33:15 The way they do it, I think it's 25% of your property
19:33:20 is jurisdictional.
19:33:22 Then you only get 1.25 times the nonjurisdictional
19:33:25 area.
19:33:28 So we get a little credit for the low lands but
19:33:32 wouldn't get complete credit.
19:33:34 Say 15 acres -- units per acre, John.
19:33:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
19:33:40 Move to close?

19:33:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
19:33:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do I hear a second?
19:33:45 >> Second.
19:33:46 >> Move to close.
19:33:48 Come on, you guys.
19:33:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded to close.
19:33:52 So moved and ordered.
19:33:53 Do we have --
19:33:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To transmit with those conditions.
19:34:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
19:34:03 With those conditions.
19:34:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion is to move set out by
19:34:13 legal counsel.
19:34:14 Moved and seconded.
19:34:15 (Motion carried).
19:34:17 So moved and ordered.
19:34:19 Okay.
19:34:20 >>> Thank you very much for all the time you have
19:34:22 given me.
19:34:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, colonel Francis.
19:34:26 >> Move to receive and file.
19:34:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Hold it.

19:34:29 I have a note here from Cathy Coyle asking us tonight,
19:34:33 because of an oversight, that we also schedule a wet
19:34:36 zoning for WZ 08-82 at 3314 Spruce Street for May
19:34:44 15th at 10 a.m. in the morning.
19:34:47 >> So moved.
19:34:47 >> Second.
19:34:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
19:34:51 All in favor let it be known by saying Aye.
19:34:53 So moved and ordered.
19:34:55 Receive and file.
19:34:55 >> Motion.
19:34:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file.
19:35:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let it be known by saying Aye.
19:35:03 Okay.
19:35:03 Is there any other matter to come before the council
19:35:08 tonight?
19:35:09 >> Thanks Tony for a great job.
19:35:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, council.
19:35:13 We now stand adjourned.
19:35:14 Thank you.

The preceding 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 file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.