Tampa City Council
Thursday, June 26, 2008
6:00 p.m. session
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.
18:07:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
18:07:45 Roll call.
18:07:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
18:07:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
18:07:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
18:07:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
18:07:54 >>GWEN MILLER: I am going to turn it over to Cindy
18:07:58 >>CINDY MILLER: Good evening, council.
18:08:00 I'm Cindy Miller, director of Growth Management
18:08:03 Development Services.
18:08:04 And what I would like to do is give a very brief
18:08:06 introduction of what will be helpful to both council
18:08:10 as well as the public and stakeholders to see what we
18:08:16 have been able to accomplish the last if you days and
18:08:18 what we see as our opportunity to go forward.
18:08:27 After I conclude, a summary of the work that our staff
18:08:34 and city staff have done since your last workshop and
18:08:38 I think you will find they have done an extensive
18:08:40 amount of work that leads to a very good product and I
18:08:44 think addresses a majority of these concerns.
18:08:46 After that, Julia Cole will come forward with some
18:08:51 legal matters because we believe that there is a lot
18:08:52 of information she needs to present.
18:08:55 And then after Julia, Terry Cullen will do the
18:08:58 presentation of the comp plan that is necessary for
18:09:00 the transmittal hearing today.
18:09:07 I am going to use some vernacular that my staff said
18:09:12 the other day because I said I am not an attorney or
18:09:14 planner so I am allowed to use these kinds of words.
18:09:17 I know there have been some issues that have come up
18:09:19 as to whether we should use the word "shall" or other
18:09:22 types of terminology so I think that is something that
18:09:24 staff will present much better than I am but that's
18:09:29 one area that needs to be addressed.
18:09:31 There is was discussion about how much tweaking we can
18:09:34 do between now and the adoption hearing.
18:09:36 Now, the proper way, I have been told to say that, is
18:09:39 what can we amend or modify or direct in a different
18:09:44 way from the transmittal hearing until the adoption
18:09:48 really in January of 2009.
18:09:50 So tweaking, they'll use better words than that but I
18:09:56 think that is what council wanted to hear is what
18:09:58 modifications or changes or other means of
18:10:01 You will also have some time lines that will address
18:10:07 what we need to be aware of in the transmittal to DCA,
18:10:11 and our response of staffer to them before your
18:10:14 adoption hearing.
18:10:15 One thing I do want to commend the Planning Commission
18:10:18 staff on, over the last six months I believe there's
18:10:21 been about four workshops, perhaps two special
18:10:25 discussion meetings, and numerous other meetings with
18:10:26 stakeholders, neighborhoods, business alliances and
18:10:32 And I must commend them for the personal attention who
18:10:40 had a meeting.
18:10:41 Also they have made themselves available for
18:10:43 individual meetings with City Council.
18:10:44 Way want to ensure the public and the stakeholders and
18:10:48 any other interested parties, interested in the
18:10:50 comprehensive plan, is that city staff and Planning
18:10:53 Commission staff have the commitment to go forward
18:10:56 with ongoing discussion.
18:10:58 With the transmittal hearing today, and whatever
18:11:01 council determines from the standpoint of transmittal,
18:11:04 if you transmit today, we promise that we will make
18:11:06 ourselves available over the coming weeks and months
18:11:09 so that we are able to address the issues.
18:11:11 And that I am also going to sort of mention that
18:11:13 although the comprehensive plan is a very critical
18:11:17 document for our future, we also have to keep in mind
18:11:21 that land development regulation and code in order to
18:11:26 implement, whether those are existing land development
18:11:28 regulations and codes or whether those are future
18:11:31 regulation and codes that must be adopted.
18:11:34 And again for that to occur, for land development
18:11:37 regulations and codes, that is information that must
18:11:41 be addressed in public hearings, must be approved by
18:11:44 City Council, and so, therefore, again there will be
18:11:48 often going dialogue.
18:11:49 So it doesn't just stop here.
18:11:50 It really starts here.
18:11:54 So I think that is going to be again a sort of
18:11:56 different outline using my own vernacular of some of
18:12:00 the information staff is going to present, and I think
18:12:02 it will help clarify as Randy and Julia come forward
18:12:05 and then Terry doing the presentation.
18:12:07 So I would like to have Randy Goers come up now and
18:12:09 talk through the process we have used the last if you
18:12:12 days for staff to review comments received thus far.
18:12:25 >>RANDY GOERS: Land Development Coordination.
18:12:27 I think we transmitted some information to you last
18:12:30 evening that may have come to you this morning in a
18:12:32 hard copy.
18:12:34 Following the workshop, or at the workshop you heard a
18:12:37 number of comments and concerns expressed by different
18:12:40 entities and individuals.
18:12:42 Those comments and concerns were compiled by the city,
18:12:45 the Planning Commission staff.
18:12:47 We received comments from downtown partnership,
18:12:51 Spencer Cass of landmark Realty, Westshore alliance,
18:12:55 Tampa downtown partnership, Michael Peterson,
18:12:57 MacDill Air Force Base and Ron Weaver from Stearns
18:12:59 Weaver Miller.
18:13:06 We took approximately 150 comments that we got --
18:13:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can you make copies available to
18:13:15 the people in the audience?
18:13:16 >>> There are actually copies up here.
18:13:18 >> I think we should make that available.
18:13:20 Maybe somebody can pass that out so they can follow
18:13:22 along because they are the people who are critically
18:13:24 interested in this.
18:13:29 Thank you.
18:13:29 Sorry to interrupt.
18:13:30 >>> There were approximately 150 comments.
18:13:33 We broke them down.
18:13:34 Some were just remarks, their opinion of the comp
18:13:38 Others were suggested changes.
18:13:39 We did break it down into about 150 comments.
18:13:43 As we went through that, and we talked about whether
18:13:49 or not change the address or concern or whether or not
18:13:53 it should stay the same, or make some other
18:13:57 Out of the 150 comments, based on what we did, we took
18:14:07 comments to remove the policies from the plan, we
18:14:10 thought they had a solid enough plan we removed the
18:14:12 policy from the plan or needed additional study, we
18:14:14 weren't ready to move forward with them.
18:14:16 There were 48 that we modified in response to the
18:14:20 We think that we modified the response to address
18:14:23 those concerns.
18:14:24 So we felt that we took care of those.
18:14:28 There were 32 policies that staff felt we understood
18:14:31 their concerns, and felt still felt they should go
18:14:34 forward the way they were presented.
18:14:36 There were 39 policies asking for clarification or
18:14:40 comments, asking for clarification, and we thought we
18:14:43 provided the clarification to address their questions.
18:14:46 There were eight comments that we agreed with but
18:14:49 didn't ask us to do anything.
18:14:50 They were just making a statement and we agreed with
18:14:53 that statement.
18:14:53 And there were approximately 12 comments that were
18:14:55 just more editorial in nature commenting on the plan
18:14:57 or the process as such.
18:15:01 When we looked at all the comment, a few major themes
18:15:04 came out that summarizes all the comments.
18:15:07 I don't want to go through all 150 comments tonight
18:15:12 but really one of the things that came out was the
18:15:14 strong concerns on the minimum density and minimum
18:15:16 F.A.R.s, and the staff is recommending that we
18:15:19 remove those from the comprehensive plan in all the
18:15:22 plan categories, and that we defer to another time for
18:15:27 additional study.
18:15:27 So we are asking tonight the plan to move forward
18:15:30 without the minimum densities, the minimum F.A.R.s
18:15:33 in the plan categories.
18:15:34 There were also a number of concerns that when you
18:15:36 looked at them really related to the area between
18:15:39 commercial areas and residential areas.
18:15:44 Planners call a transition area between the two major
18:15:47 uses and really how the plan was would address these,
18:15:50 either for the betterment or detriment of either one
18:15:53 of the uses.
18:15:56 We thought that during the creation of the land
18:15:58 development regulations that a lot of those specific
18:16:02 questions could be addressed at that time.
18:16:04 Many of the questions had ton do was it appropriate to
18:16:07 apply the particular guide lane or standards city-wide
18:16:10 or just in a certain area?
18:16:12 And we feel that when we look at the land development
18:16:15 regulations we can address both questions at both
18:16:18 times, an overlay district, the form based code
18:16:22 program, looking at corridors.
18:16:26 We think we can address those issues during
18:16:28 development regulations.
18:16:33 Another question that came up, there was a lot of
18:16:35 questions about the information on the urban design
18:16:40 It was asked of me whether or not the providing
18:16:46 streets with trees or pedestrian environment or the
18:16:48 amenities in the street.
18:16:50 There were a lot of questions about what were the
18:16:53 specific standards.
18:16:54 There were a lot of policies in the plan that relate
18:16:56 to urban design, guidelines, review, standards, so
18:16:59 forth, or just the character of the area.
18:17:03 Many were descriptive of the area, not necessarily
18:17:05 talking about a requirement of development of the
18:17:09 There were comments from the stakeholders that really
18:17:12 focused in on those.
18:17:14 Again, we believe that we can sort of focus in on what
18:17:18 the design guidelines are and how they are going to be
18:17:22 implemented through the development of the regulations
18:17:26 Interpretations of the policies as we move forward.
18:17:29 Not all the policies again are going to be requiring.
18:17:31 Some of them will be encouraging, some are going to
18:17:34 apply to a certain corridor, others are going to apply
18:17:37 to other types of development.
18:17:38 I think we have to go through the process of
18:17:40 evaluating those policies to begin putting together
18:17:43 the structure of the design program around it.
18:17:47 And then finally, the question about modifying the
18:17:52 plan, and what can we do and how it works.
18:17:57 Let me show you a schedule or time line.
18:18:01 The 26th is our transmittal hearing.
18:18:24 Once the comprehensive plan is transmitted it's about
18:18:26 a two week process for DCA to begin looking at it.
18:18:29 There's the time to get it to them, to get to the
18:18:32 them, and then they have to conduct what's called
18:18:35 adequacy review, to make sure that everything needed
18:18:38 to conduct the review is in the package.
18:18:40 It usually takes about two weeks for them to get to
18:18:43 that point.
18:18:44 After that statutory has 60 days to review the
18:18:49 comprehensive plan, and issue their report which is
18:18:52 objections, recommendations, and comments.
18:19:00 It typically takes 60 days because of the schedule
18:19:02 they're on reviewing other items.
18:19:03 Local governments then have up to 120 days to respond
18:19:08 to the ORC report.
18:19:11 And then from that you have to schedule an adoption
18:19:13 hearing, and then transmit the comprehensive plan back
18:19:20 to DCA.
18:19:21 We have a statutory deadline that was set from the
18:19:24 date that we adopted our evaluation appraisal report
18:19:28 of February 9, 2009.
18:19:30 So that is our target date to comply with the
18:19:33 requirement of updating the comprehensive plan.
18:19:36 So when you start looking at the things that we can't
18:19:38 control, we can't control the 60 days of DCA and the
18:19:45 time it takes to get the packages to DCA through the
18:19:52 mailing system.
18:19:55 We tend to control a little of adoption hearing but
18:19:57 even January of next year is going to be tied up with
18:19:59 the adoption hearing.
18:20:00 The only thing we have flexibility with is the 120
18:20:04 days to respond to the comments from DCA.
18:20:06 And if you can really look at this schedule, 120 days,
18:20:09 we are already less than 120 days on that schedule.
18:20:13 Because DCA, the ORC reports, probably not going to
18:20:18 get back until about the mid December time frame so
18:20:23 gives us really mid September to the first part of
18:20:28 We also have the holiday near the end of that time
18:20:31 frame which just reduces communication and staff
18:20:33 availability at that time.
18:20:35 So we are suggesting that with the schedule, this is a
18:20:40 fairly constrained schedule at this point in time, not
18:20:42 undoable because it depends on the comments that we
18:20:46 receive from the state.
18:20:49 In regard to the comments from the state and what we
18:20:52 can and cannot change in the comp plan, technically,
18:20:56 it's based on the DCA makes an objection, you respond
18:20:59 to the objection, and all the other things that are
18:21:01 related to that objection.
18:21:06 I think you heard there are limitations on what we can
18:21:09 introduce or not introduce during the next six months.
18:21:12 We have been responding to ORC reports, and DCA
18:21:17 objections for over 20 years now, since the growth
18:21:20 management act went into effect.
18:21:22 The rules have been the same since 1985.
18:21:25 We have had ORC reports.
18:21:27 They are routine.
18:21:28 I think the Planning Commission staff and city staff
18:21:30 is fairly comfortable in knowing how to respond to an
18:21:34 ORC report and what things we can introduce and what
18:21:38 things we cannot introduce.
18:21:40 Technically you cannot introduce a brand new policy
18:21:43 initiative that hasn't been introduced in the plan
18:21:46 And it not necessarily a new policy.
18:21:48 It's basically a whole different frame of reference.
18:21:51 If you didn't have a TCA and then you will all of a
18:21:55 sudden you decided to put a TCA in place that would be
18:21:59 a completely new policy initiative.
18:22:00 Making changes to policies we do that all the time,
18:22:04 responding to ORC reports.
18:22:05 And the difficult part is until we see what the
18:22:08 objections are, until we see what the suggested
18:22:10 changes that are we want to make it's difficult for to
18:22:12 us say, yes, you can make this, you can make that.
18:22:15 If way do get to a point where there are a number of
18:22:18 policies that you feel you want to make in the
18:22:21 comprehensive plan, the staff feels it might put the
18:22:26 responsibility of the ORC report at risk, you can have
18:22:28 those policies introduced in the first plan amendment
18:22:31 cycle, which would be in March of 2009.
18:22:34 So there is a way to address all of those issues
18:22:37 moving forward, if there's continuing concerns moving
18:22:40 At this point, what we have been hearing, what we have
18:22:42 been seeing, is mostly additional clarification, minor
18:22:47 changes to the policy, how they are going to be
18:22:50 interpreted, things that we know that are worked out
18:22:55 over the next few months and continuing discussion
18:22:57 with individuals.
18:22:58 I think our response over the last few days is dealing
18:23:02 with the minor issues to be worked out fairly quickly.
18:23:06 So I think that we can continue to move forward with
18:23:09 transmitting and not jeopardizing the time line we
18:23:14 have and still continue to work with any of the
18:23:19 questions that any stakeholders V.one other thing
18:23:21 before I move onto the next person is that there's two
18:23:25 other pieces of information in your package, or three
18:23:28 pieces of information in your package in addition to
18:23:30 the memo that was sent.
18:23:33 You have a table that's shown the comments that were
18:23:36 provided by the stakeholders and the city staff
18:23:42 City staff also prepared and saw addendum number 2 to
18:23:45 the comprehensive plan.
18:23:47 City staff reviewed the transmittal plan that the
18:23:53 Planning Commission approved on May 12th and
18:23:55 finally a number of things that needed to be cleaned
18:23:56 up from our end and also some other external parties
18:24:00 as to certain things were missing.
18:24:02 So that other attachment is the city staff's
18:24:06 recommendations over the last few weeks of looking at
18:24:08 the plan and recommending some additional language or
18:24:12 clarification language.
18:24:15 Finally there's another two-page addendum.
18:24:17 It's additional changes.
18:24:19 Those were changes that we worked on today, with other
18:24:24 stakeholders, that called or let us know our responses
18:24:28 that we put in the report didn't seem to hit the mark
18:24:31 and they clarified their concern and we further
18:24:33 addressed those concerns in the information.
18:24:39 With that, that ends my summary of where we are at.
18:24:43 Staff believes we have addressed the major concerns
18:24:45 that were expressed last week, and we think there is a
18:24:48 process in place that can move the comprehensive plan
18:24:51 through adoption and address any -- it that should
18:24:57 come up today or in a subsequent meeting.
18:25:00 Thank you.
18:25:01 >> Before we go to our presentation, we need to open
18:25:04 the public hearing.
18:25:06 >> So moved.
18:25:08 >> Second.
18:25:08 (Motion carried).
18:25:09 >>MARY MULHERN: That time line is really interesting,
18:25:16 because I saw four months in there for when it comes
18:25:23 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:25:25 I would need Randy to address what it means, but let
18:25:32 me let one of them.
18:25:33 >>MARY MULHERN: I think we need to talk about the time
18:25:36 line before we get into anything else.
18:25:54 >> It on the Elmo.
18:25:55 >> There it is.
18:25:59 Yeah, September, October, November, December, local
18:26:04 government response.
18:26:09 I can't imagine why you would need four months to do
18:26:11 that but ask us to transmit it now.
18:26:19 We are transmitting it now.
18:26:21 And who is that --
18:26:26 >>> The city staff prepares it for your transmittal
18:26:29 back for your adoption.
18:26:31 >> So it seems to me that it doesn't really make
18:26:34 sense, that we have this crunch.
18:26:37 We have got like 100 pages of comments on a 500-page
18:26:43 Probably not a hundred.
18:26:45 Maybe more like 50.
18:26:46 500-page document that we only got the final -- I
18:26:50 don't know when we got the most final thing, last week
18:26:53 at best.
18:26:55 So my feeling is I am certainly not going to vote to
18:27:02 transmit this even with comments tonight.
18:27:06 But I also don't see why we need the 120 days.
18:27:13 Why would we send a document that we are not -- we
18:27:16 don't even know well enough yet, if we know it not
18:27:23 And then come back -- I mean, the less complete this
18:27:28 document is, and the less satisfied we are with it,
18:27:31 the more likely it is to come back with problems.
18:27:34 So let's fix the problems before we send it up this.
18:27:39 >>> I can provide two perspectives on that.
18:27:43 The issues that have been raised so far by and large
18:27:47 are primarily local issues, issues that affect the
18:27:51 City of Tampa and your decision to move forward and
18:27:53 how you want to see the community grow, not the state
18:27:57 The state is going to review it from the standpoint of
18:28:02 does the plan meet the requirements of the growth
18:28:05 management act?
18:28:06 And they will not necessarily ignore our local
18:28:10 concerns, but they have their critical state
18:28:14 requirements that they are going to review the plan
18:28:16 for us.
18:28:17 So even though we may feel there's some things we want
18:28:21 to work out locally, the review is primarily to make
18:28:23 sure that we have met the requirement for state law.
18:28:27 From that perspective, if I could continue with that,
18:28:29 in my experience of responding or going through -- the
18:28:36 first plan that we did, this is the third major
18:28:38 update, we really want as much time as possible to
18:28:42 respond to the ORC report.
18:28:45 Each the plan amendment, we get 60 days to respond to
18:28:48 it, just the one single M.A.P. amendment.
18:28:54 So when the time comes, my experience has been we do
18:28:57 really want as much time as possible to respond to the
18:29:00 ORC report because if we don't do that sufficiently
18:29:03 then our plan then has a compliance issue.
18:29:06 It's no longer -- it doesn't mean our standards, it no
18:29:10 longer meets the state standards.
18:29:12 So I would say that we do want as much time as
18:29:15 possible to respond.
18:29:16 >> Then I can imagine you should be able to imagine
18:29:19 how we feel with having an hour, our dinner hour to
18:29:25 look at some of these recommendations and be asked to
18:29:29 transmit it.
18:29:31 I mean, don't you know these state regulations?
18:29:35 Isn't that part of -- I mean, are there state
18:29:39 regulations that you don't -- known about whale we are
18:29:45 writing the comp plan?
18:29:46 >>> I think we know the state regulations.
18:29:48 Is the state knows the state regulations but is the T
18:29:51 state is the one that's going to determine whether we
18:29:54 met them.
18:29:54 >> It to me is -- I think that we need a month at
18:30:08 And I would hope that my colleagues would agree.
18:30:10 >>CINDY MILLER:
18:30:15 >>CINDY MILLER: When we are talking about the 120
18:30:18 days, even though it is where it is staff preparing
18:30:21 responses, please keep in mind that we would also use
18:30:23 that time as an opportunity to have council workshop
18:30:27 at meetings with the stakeholders during that time, so
18:30:30 by the time we get to the adoption hearing, you are
18:30:33 able to have that information.
18:30:35 So it would be very similar to what we have been doing
18:30:37 the past five months, trying to be able to have the
18:30:40 discussion and brief individuals, groups, and City
18:30:46 Council, as well as other general members of the
18:30:48 So the 120 days is not really staff just sitting at
18:30:51 their desk and drafting responses.
18:30:53 It's also a very interactive time period.
18:30:55 >> But that's not very reassuring considering six
18:30:59 years and we get all this comment in the last week
18:31:02 before we are supposed to adopt it.
18:31:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Julia Cole.
18:31:09 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:31:11 I know there was a request for July 31st and she
18:31:18 received a response from David Smith on that issue,
18:31:20 but just by way of explanation, and just to understand
18:31:22 that how you play with the time in between, we have a
18:31:26 deadline of February 9th to have this adopted.
18:31:29 Which is a Monday.
18:31:30 So you have to back it up.
18:31:32 And it requires two adoption public hearings.
18:31:34 And so I mention this in our workshop.
18:31:41 There's two consequences.
18:31:43 The first consequence of not adopting by that date is
18:31:45 a minor issue.
18:31:48 If you are not allowed to do these plan amendments.
18:31:50 I don't think that bothers any of us.
18:31:52 But I have to be concerned about the second part of
18:31:55 this, and need to make you all aware of it, if the
18:31:58 case becomes an issue not just today but later on down
18:32:01 the line, which is there is an opportunity under the
18:32:03 Florida statute for DCA to require the administration
18:32:08 commission which is a state agency to have sanctions
18:32:11 against the local government for failing to adopt in a
18:32:14 timely time period, taking away money, taking away
18:32:19 grant opportunities, and it also means cost and fees
18:32:23 associated with going up there and actually dealing
18:32:24 with it.
18:32:25 And if I can just tell you, you know, that's
18:32:29 something, what's the real risk?
18:32:32 Well, actually Randy Goers and I called the state, and
18:32:35 Randy was actually able to talk to one of their
18:32:38 planners, actually somebody higher up than that, and
18:32:40 apparently DCA, this is what they are telling us, they
18:32:45 become quite frustrated with the fact that local
18:32:48 governments are not complying with their time frame,
18:32:50 and they have indicated that after January 1st,
18:32:53 any plans that were supposed to be adopted after
18:32:56 January 1st that are not, that they intend to
18:32:59 utilize the higher sanctions provisions that they are
18:33:03 allowed under the Florida statute, which doesn't give
18:33:06 me a lot of reassurance.
18:33:08 Is it a bluff?
18:33:09 Is this just something they are telling us to hurry
18:33:12 I can't tell you that.
18:33:13 What I can tell you is that there are consequences for
18:33:15 failing to adopt by February 9th and I wouldn't be
18:33:18 doing my job as your attorney without letting you know
18:33:21 And I do understand the frustration.
18:33:22 I understand where you are.
18:33:23 But that unfortunately legally is where we are.
18:33:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am looking at the adoption
18:33:29 schedule that's on our monitor.
18:33:35 It seems to me that this is very generous in the 120
18:33:40 days for the local government response to the ORC
18:33:44 And it seems to me that if we get this to DCA 30 days
18:33:52 later than they had anticipated it, there are two
18:33:57 weeks built in there where it just not making its way
18:34:00 to Tallahassee.
18:34:00 It seems we could get it there overnight.
18:34:03 Two weeks --
18:34:06 >>> Two weeks to review it.
18:34:07 It's not that we get it up there.
18:34:08 Then they get two weeks to review it so the
18:34:11 determination whether or not it's like a submission
18:34:12 >> I'm so confident that it is adequate to meet the
18:34:18 So then they have 60 days.
18:34:19 So we would be basically -- we would have 90 days
18:34:24 rather than 120 days to give a report back.
18:34:27 And the reason that I requested the additional time is
18:34:29 because, frankly, being human beings we all pay
18:34:33 attention to deadlines.
18:34:34 And there's nothing like a deadline to focus your
18:34:37 energies in terms of getting something done.
18:34:42 You and Cindy and the planning staff have worked
18:34:44 feverishly in the last four days to get the responses
18:34:49 developed to the questions that came up last Thursday
18:34:53 and you have done an extraordinary job.
18:34:55 What I am saying is if we were to have 30 additional
18:34:59 days after tonight, we would have a chance for two, in
18:35:05 my proposal, two additional workshops, special
18:35:09 discussion meetings, and then on the last day of July
18:35:14 come to closure with this.
18:35:16 I think we would have a product that there is more
18:35:21 unanimity, more collective support.
18:35:24 And even if nothing changes between now and then, it
18:35:27 will give everyone the time to absorb the information
18:35:31 that you developed in the last five days, because I
18:35:35 can only speak for myself.
18:35:36 You all gave us this report last night.
18:35:39 I have been in council all day.
18:35:40 I haven't had a chance to review it.
18:35:42 And I feel like I need to better understand what's
18:35:45 going on before I move to transmit it.
18:35:53 >>CINDY MILLER: Whatever council decides to do
18:35:57 certainly is your call.
18:35:58 So I am not going to argue that point with you.
18:36:00 What I would request, however, is that we use tonight
18:36:03 as an opportunity to make sure that we as staff, both
18:36:07 city staff and Planning Commission staff, have clear
18:36:10 direction for what you want within the plan, because
18:36:15 that way we can get all the input from the public, we
18:36:18 can have some general direction as to the major points
18:36:22 that Randy addressed, hear from the public as to what
18:36:25 any additional items they want to bring up so that we
18:36:28 can address them, so that we can appropriately respond
18:36:31 in writing before any future hearing.
18:36:36 If that's going to be what council determines to
18:36:40 From that standpoint, then, I think council needs to
18:36:42 decide whether you want to take the matter up tonight
18:36:45 for transmittal, or whether you want to postpone.
18:36:51 If you do want to postpone official transmittal, but
18:36:54 still have this as a public hearing, keep the public
18:36:57 hearing open, keep the information coming, so that we
18:36:59 know which direction council wants us to go.
18:37:02 That way, we can prepare written documentation, get it
18:37:05 to council, well in advance of the next meeting that's
18:37:08 scheduled for this purpose.
18:37:14 >>MARY MULHERN: I would move that we of course have
18:37:16 the public hearing that is scheduled for tonight.
18:37:19 I think it's not reasonable to expect to give you all
18:37:21 the direction you need when we haven't had a chance to
18:37:26 read any of the -- and I got these memos from staff
18:37:35 just about half an hour ago.
18:37:37 So I think, yeah, I agree, we should have the public
18:37:41 I don't think there's any way we can transmit this
18:37:45 But I don't think we are going to necessarily have
18:37:51 clear direction for you as we are just hearing and
18:37:56 reading, not even having a chance to read this all
18:38:00 So maybe when we come back from vacation in two weeks,
18:38:05 we might have -- I mean, you know, it's going to take
18:38:08 that long to go through it, I think.
18:38:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
18:38:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If there are any points of consensus
18:38:18 that can be reached tonight, certainly council can
18:38:20 give direction to staff on those points.
18:38:22 >> (off microphone)
18:38:30 >>GWEN MILLER: We can have separate ballots.
18:38:42 >>CINDY MILLER: What my suggestion would be if council
18:38:44 is going to have this meeting for public input, keep
18:38:48 the public hearing open, my recommendation is that Mr.
18:38:51 Cullen do his presentation at the next -- I guess it
18:38:54 would be the continuation of this public hearing.
18:39:00 I guess it would be the continuation of this public
18:39:02 hearing to another date, have Mr. Cullen do his
18:39:07 presentation so we have enough time tonight to have
18:39:09 the public speak.
18:39:13 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:39:14 Just to reiterate.
18:39:15 I think go ahead, hold the public comments today.
18:39:19 Let's see where we are.
18:39:21 There may be things we can build on at the end of this
18:39:23 for consensus and move forward from there.
18:39:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:39:27 We are going to go to the public.
18:39:28 Anyone in the public that would like to speak may come
18:39:31 up and speak.
18:39:34 Three minutes per person.
18:39:37 >>> Madam Chairman, members of the council, I'm Ron
18:39:40 Weaver, 401 east Jackson street.
18:39:42 I'm very grateful for the Herculean effort of your
18:39:45 staff, the Planning Commission.
18:39:46 They have worked and put together an amazing
18:39:50 combination of these six or eight hundred pages and
18:39:53 the new 23 pages at 6:00 are still being absorbed.
18:39:58 We desperately need vested rights for the process so
18:40:02 folks who spent hundreds of millions of dollars under
18:40:05 the old rules will be able to determine whether or not
18:40:07 they can or cannot proceed under the old rules, and
18:40:12 engineers, hundreds of thousands, at least tens of
18:40:15 thousands each under the old rules, and just like the
18:40:18 county already has, and we discussed this some with
18:40:20 the city attorney, has a model which she has with her
18:40:23 which is the vested rights determination process.
18:40:27 100, 200 people who can't make the deadline until
18:40:33 night as this particular code before us, that you have
18:40:36 to have an application for permit and then have to
18:40:39 proceed with six months to build it.
18:40:42 Now that would be very hard for at least hundreds of
18:40:45 folks out there who are trying now, in the middle, of
18:40:48 complying with these old rules.
18:40:49 So we respectfully request we be given some
18:40:51 consideration with respect to those rights.
18:40:53 Secondly, concurrency versus mitigation.
18:40:56 With respect to the question of 30 days that we please
18:41:00 be able to come up with a set of guidelines with
18:41:02 things like adverse impacts so that concurrency
18:41:06 exception area that we are in now south of Fowler into
18:41:08 an unknown as to what mitigation would mean as a
18:41:11 replacement of concurrency, because concurrency can
18:41:14 take development away from where you want development
18:41:16 to occur.
18:41:16 Concurrency is where capacity is.
18:41:18 And capacity is a way for redevelopment areas and away
18:41:21 from urban in-fill areas, you would be discouraging
18:41:24 development if you allow this alternative to
18:41:26 concurrency and it definitely has impact to prevent
18:41:30 you from concentrating development and urban in-fill
18:41:34 areas which need to be defined.
18:41:36 So we respectfully request that during these 30 days,
18:41:39 we come up with guidelines defining adverse impacts,
18:41:43 what we really do want to encourage and then creating
18:41:45 some transportation rules that you not turn mitigation
18:41:48 into something that is as dangerous as concurrency in
18:41:52 the transportation concurrency.
18:41:54 And then finally, we would respectfully request if you
18:41:57 would, please, avoid unintended consequence was
18:42:01 respect to some of the provisions with respect to
18:42:04 where development is and is not encouraged, that we
18:42:06 would take a hard look at some of those kinds of
18:42:09 decisions, and we appreciate the 30 days very much.
18:42:12 Thank you.
18:42:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Weaver.
18:42:18 A quick question.
18:42:19 I have been reading these policies and transportation
18:42:23 policies, et cetera, et cetera.
18:42:32 And I agree with you they are a little bit on the
18:42:34 vague side.
18:42:34 But, you know, I have been around comp plan language
18:42:37 now for a little while, also, and a lot of times the
18:42:40 language is vague.
18:42:42 And this speaks to the fact that this is the direction
18:42:45 we want to go, and then we'll adopt the LDRs to go
18:42:48 with it, tighten it up and create the type of
18:42:53 definitions and refinement that you are speaking of.
18:42:57 So, you know, I'm not really sure that -- I don't
18:43:03 I would like your comment.
18:43:04 Then later on I would like to hear staff's response on
18:43:07 that issue.
18:43:09 I'm not sure what we can accomplish in a month's time.
18:43:12 Are you going to be writing sort of pseudo LDRs that
18:43:15 you want to put in the comp plan in the next 30 days?
18:43:18 >>> No, sir, I think there's a much better way.
18:43:21 I think we need seven or eight or six or nine guiding
18:43:24 principles that we outline to DCA will know what we
18:43:27 are talking about because anyone who asks, what is
18:43:30 this new substitute for concurrency?
18:43:33 Is it better?
18:43:34 Is it worse?
18:43:35 >> When is the first time you saw this language, Ron?
18:43:38 >>> I believe a week and a half ago.
18:43:40 And I brought even last Thursday as a concern that
18:43:44 candidly that substitution for concurrency,
18:43:47 mitigation, and adverse impacts, that might be a
18:43:51 threat to workers and visitors, the language is still
18:43:54 in there in section 46, that language may be worse
18:43:57 than concurrency than better and may discourage
18:43:59 in-fill unintentionally.
18:44:01 >> I want to see how long from staff how long it's
18:44:03 been available, and you have only seen it for a week
18:44:06 and a half, I want to hear from staff how long it's
18:44:07 been available.
18:44:09 >>> Well, that's my version of 607 and it changed 35
18:44:13 in the same section.
18:44:14 So it been in evolution for the last three months, I
18:44:18 But each draft gives us a sense of whether --
18:44:22 >> You have been watching earlier drafts, just this
18:44:26 latest draft.
18:44:27 >>> And they just workshopped last Thursday.
18:44:31 Since the first draft we have been concerned about
18:44:33 what will be the transportation rules of the road
18:44:35 south of Fowler and the transportation concurrency
18:44:37 exception area, what kind of transportation mitigation
18:44:41 is south of Fowler and will it or will it not
18:44:43 discourage urban in-fill, redevelopment and
18:44:46 development transit corridors.
18:44:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
18:44:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council normally has accustom
18:44:56 relative to public hearings of only allowing citizens
18:44:58 to speak once.
18:44:59 But this being the case of being transmittal public
18:45:02 hearing, and not having the full presentations, I just
18:45:04 want to be clear whether it's council's intention to
18:45:07 have people have opportunities subsequent to this if
18:45:10 they wish to address other issues that come up, that
18:45:12 they do have that opportunity to speak more than once.
18:45:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You many speak again tonight or
18:45:18 speak at future -- Madam Chairman, this is so
18:45:20 important that I believe that each time there's a
18:45:24 special discussion meeting or an official public
18:45:26 hearing, I think if the public is engaged and
18:45:29 interested that we should hear from them.
18:45:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: As long as that's by unanimous
18:45:33 consent of council.
18:45:34 I just wanted that to be clear so people who choose --
18:45:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move we allow the public to
18:45:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
18:45:45 (Motion carried).
18:45:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I just ask, to move quickly, I was
18:45:51 wondering, Mr. Weaver on the 23rd sent a memo, and
18:45:57 I don't know, as people come up, if you have already
18:46:00 given us your comments in this form, it will probably
18:46:03 be helpful just to tell us if there are changes, or
18:46:07 additions or something to what you have already asked
18:46:09 in here.
18:46:10 >>> Yes, ma'am.
18:46:14 We made 15 comments and about half of them were
18:46:16 answered beautifully and quickly, and I sent an e-mail
18:46:19 last night thoughtfully, and the other half candid
18:46:23 lyrics are we really going to encourage the things?
18:46:28 >> You mentioned three areas, right?
18:46:29 The vested rights of transportation concurrency,
18:46:33 and -- those are the three that you are still
18:46:37 concerned about.
18:46:38 >>> No increased intensity.
18:46:43 High hazard area.
18:46:44 I know two years ago we had state recommendations
18:46:47 about no building in the coastal high hazard area, and
18:46:51 I understand reacting to the hurricane and now people
18:46:55 looking at schools, hospitals, and other facilities.
18:46:58 We would just like no increase in density in the
18:47:03 coastal high hazard area.
18:47:07 Thank you.
18:47:09 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:47:18 Mr. Weaver raised three issues.
18:47:21 Two of them really have legal ramifications.
18:47:24 I can address this right now.
18:47:25 I can wait and address it at the end whatever you
18:47:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Address them now.
18:47:29 >>JULIA COLE: The language that he is addressing is
18:47:33 actually listing language in your comprehensive plan
18:47:37 I would agree with Mr. Weaver that we should, in the
18:47:41 city, since we are really this comprehensive plan is
18:47:44 pretty extensive, should have a process in our land
18:47:47 development regulations to deal with vested rights.
18:47:49 The language that's currently in there would also get
18:47:52 us there, but, you know, we can probably look at that.
18:47:55 Hillsborough County has a hearing officer that I
18:47:58 actually worked with extensively over the years.
18:48:00 So I think that's something we can accomplish and I
18:48:02 would really recommend that we do put in an actual
18:48:04 process in our Land Development Code to deal with
18:48:08 As relates to the policy and the TCEA, I don't think
18:48:12 that is a 30 day conversation.
18:48:14 That's not a tweak.
18:48:15 That was language -- maybe some of its been moved
18:48:19 around but the concept of how we are justifying the
18:48:22 TCEA is something that has been worked on with our
18:48:26 consultant an extensive length of time, and I just
18:48:33 don't want anybody to think that something we can do
18:48:34 in 30 days, that has been something we discussed with
18:48:37 council extensively, I remember we started that
18:48:40 conversation, we had conversations about Gandy study.
18:48:45 We can talk and maybe there's some language tweaks but
18:48:48 if it get to the point of us undoing or somehow
18:48:51 changing the concept, I don't think we are going to be
18:48:53 able to do that in 30 days and I just want to make
18:48:56 that clear for the record.
18:48:57 I know we also had an issue with you the coastal high
18:49:00 hazard area.
18:49:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:49:06 >>> Gerald white, 8419 north 46th street, Tampa.
18:49:12 First I want to thank the Planning Commission, the
18:49:14 staff of the City of Tampa, and of course this council
18:49:17 for the work that has been done so far on this plan.
18:49:23 I tuned in.
18:49:24 The first time I really have gotten involved as a
18:49:27 citizen, and looked at this plan, read it page to
18:49:30 page, looked at the amendment, looked at the public
18:49:33 comments on the Planning Commission web site, watched
18:49:35 the workshop, listened to City Council comments, and
18:49:40 truly this is the Bible of the City of Tampa for
18:49:42 growth and prosperity and opportunity for all.
18:49:46 And I just wanted to say thanks to everyone, all the
18:49:49 work that's been done so far.
18:49:50 But I want to especially commend Councilwoman
18:49:54 Saul-Sena for asking for an extension of time. This
18:49:56 is a lot.
18:49:57 And I feel the documents that were passed out today
18:49:59 that I haven't had an opportunity to look at as a
18:50:02 citizen and I know council has not and thank you for
18:50:04 But I want to ask you as you go and study the policies
18:50:07 in this document to look at the school systems in our
18:50:12 community and make sure that the school board is
18:50:17 working with the City of Tampa when they build new
18:50:22 Rodriguez Campbell elementary school built in my
18:50:26 neighborhood and we had one meeting at the beginning
18:50:28 before construction started.
18:50:30 The school board has not met, has not come to the
18:50:32 neighborhood, nor anything, and the school is just
18:50:35 about complete.
18:50:39 Our relationship and -- have total cooperation in
18:50:42 looking at that.
18:50:44 I'm concerned about the light rail and rail policies.
18:50:51 Editorial comments in the Tampa tribune and news
18:50:54 articles that's been mentioned already, where light
18:50:58 rail is slated to go.
18:51:00 I would hope that light rail would go over, under,
18:51:04 through or around the inner city.
18:51:07 The African-American inner city needs light rail as
18:51:11 And we want to be involved in the process every step
18:51:13 of the way, if we are going to be a player and paying
18:51:16 for light rail one day.
18:51:18 So look at those policies and make sure that every new
18:51:22 policy that's created, every board drafted that
18:51:27 citizens are involved every step of the way before
18:51:29 something formal is -- and we are notified.
18:51:32 That's the key part, notified.
18:51:35 And I'm also concerned about art.
18:51:37 If you look at all the promotions in the City of
18:51:39 Tampa, the downtown Tampa and all the brochures and
18:51:45 things like that, I would like to see something
18:51:48 that -- we have Dr. Martin Luther King.
18:51:53 It would be nice to have a nice statue of Martin
18:51:57 Luther King and promote the African-American community
18:52:02 in public relations.
18:52:03 My daughter loved art and I promised her I was going
18:52:06 to push the subject of art.
18:52:09 African-Americans love art too and we would love
18:52:11 something to showcase the nation can see related to
18:52:14 art history and promote the inner city related to art.
18:52:17 But it's a pretty good document so far and I thank
18:52:22 council for asking for an addition of time and
18:52:24 minority access.
18:52:30 You mentioned making the areas smaller.
18:52:32 And I know that they have delays but it's important as
18:52:39 well that public housing be involved in the
18:52:42 development of the comp plan.
18:52:44 Thank you so much for the work that you have done and
18:52:46 keep it up.
18:52:48 >>Steve Labour, west Bay to Bay
18:53:01 Once again I want to echo some of the speakers, thank
18:53:04 the council and the opportunity for us to delay this
18:53:08 for 30 days.
18:53:09 As you know, THAN has been incredibly -- has a process
18:53:17 and we appreciate staff, all the hours they have taken
18:53:19 with us throughout this process.
18:53:22 I also appreciate the fact that staff did try to
18:53:25 provide us with answers to all the recommendations
18:53:28 that we handed out last week.
18:53:33 This is the amount of material we received in less
18:53:35 than 24 hours.
18:53:36 Reading through some of it, we actually are very
18:53:38 appreciative that they are recommending changes as we
18:53:42 have had seen.
18:53:43 Quite frankly --
18:53:50 I'm here tonight to tell that you we, T.H.A.N., is
18:53:53 dedicated to make sure this process isn't slowed down,
18:53:57 that it is speeded up.
18:53:58 We will do all due diligence in reviewing these
18:54:00 recommendations and make a commitment that we will
18:54:02 have our answers back to you, staff, no later than
18:54:06 next week with the help of this 30 day process.
18:54:09 However, this is a delicate thing.
18:54:14 As Mr. Weaver raised in initial issues, we are going
18:54:18 to want to review what Mr. Weaver is now presenting.
18:54:21 So that's new to us, so we might need just a few extra
18:54:26 days to be able to deal with some of those issues.
18:54:28 But we are committed to make sure that we ultimately
18:54:30 stay on track, ultimately adopt this plan, on time, so
18:54:35 no one has to worry about any sanctions, or any
18:54:38 threat, or anything like that.
18:54:40 We are committed to work with staff and you all to
18:54:43 make that happen.
18:54:44 And we really, truly do appreciate the 30-day
18:54:47 Thank you.
18:54:57 >>> I'm Walter Johnson, a resident of Sunset Park,
18:55:00 South Tampa.
18:55:01 And I'm president of T.H.A.N.
18:55:03 First speaking as a resident of Sunset Park, I would
18:55:06 like to comment on the constrained street issue within
18:55:10 the comp plan.
18:55:13 Westshore Boulevard is listed as a con strained
18:55:17 street, from Kennedy to Bay to Bay.
18:55:22 Frankly, we would like to see it a constrained street
18:55:26 all the way down to Gandy.
18:55:27 But it would be unrealistic if the constrained street
18:55:32 could run from Euclid to Westshore.
18:55:34 It would make more sense.
18:55:38 Haven't had any of that Street West shore Boulevard
18:55:41 widened up to any point.
18:55:42 Doesn't make a lot of sense because all you are going
18:55:44 to do is create a really major bottleneck anywhere
18:55:49 north of where they go back to two lanes so I would
18:55:54 strongly recommend that that plan be amended and
18:55:57 Westshore Boulevard be a constrained street further
18:56:02 south than Bay to Bay Boulevard.
18:56:04 Now speaking on behalf of T.H.A.N., we obviously as
18:56:10 Steve said, we thank you for continuing this review of
18:56:13 the comp plan for 30 days, and I certainly commend
18:56:17 staff for the review and comments they have put
18:56:20 In a very short period.
18:56:23 However, we just received it yesterday, and we have
18:56:28 some concerns of something we think we can work
18:56:34 It's listed here on the cover sheet that there were
18:56:37 150 comments were recorded and breaks it down.
18:56:40 T.H.A.N. had 55 recommendations that we submitted.
18:56:45 In reviewing this, it shows that there were eleven
18:56:50 policies that were removed based on comments.
18:56:53 One of those was from a T.H.A.N. recommendation.
18:56:59 There were 48 policies modified based on comments.
18:57:02 Of those, 17 were from T.H.A.N.
18:57:06 And a couple of those, we had questions on even when
18:57:09 they are modified, we need to look at that and see
18:57:12 what the modification S.in some cases it's modified
18:57:17 and adding the word "where appropriate."
18:57:20 We had a question who determines what's appropriate?
18:57:23 So we had questions of that nature.
18:57:26 Policies retained as originally submitted, there were
18:57:28 32 total from all sources.
18:57:32 20 of those were from T.H.A.N. recommendations.
18:57:36 Those are the ones that have most concern to us
18:57:40 because we need to find out what was behind that from
18:57:42 the standpoint of why they were retained, not that we
18:57:49 expect everything to be that we recommend, but at the
18:57:52 same time if it's not retained, then we need to know
18:57:55 why, because the presidents of our associations will
18:57:59 have oh to go back to their members, et cetera, and
18:58:02 explain the comp plan to their membership, and I think
18:58:06 they need to know that type of information, in other
18:58:09 words, if it was retained as originally submitted,
18:58:14 then why?
18:58:15 And what's the reason and logic behind it?
18:58:18 That's what we need to know.
18:58:19 But again I commend staff, and I thank you for the
18:58:24 delay on this.
18:58:25 I think it's needed because we need to work through
18:58:27 some of those issues.
18:58:28 Thank you.
18:58:36 >>> Al Davis, I'm one of the stakeholders of this
18:58:44 futuristic livable city.
18:58:50 First, I want to really commend the planning committee
18:58:54 staff, and the city staff for putting together this
18:58:59 500-page document.
18:59:02 I thought I saw something where they said they have
18:59:04 been working on this thing for the last five years.
18:59:07 That's about 100 pages per year.
18:59:12 And I just got it.
18:59:16 Now it may take me a little longer, you know.
18:59:21 If you don't know jewelry, know your jeweler.
18:59:33 So I believe based on my observation of the rumors
18:59:39 that I hear, we got a fantastic team.
18:59:49 Your staff in putting this document together.
18:59:55 Now Madam Chairwoman, I want to get a little insight.
18:59:59 I and being sensitive to that, I got a notice last
19:00:02 year about that.
19:00:08 I was going to get an economic stimulus package from
19:00:11 the federal government.
19:00:14 And I began to meditate on that. Stimulus. Lo and
19:00:19 behold, it's my own money.
19:00:37 And I would be curious to know how much is it costing,
19:00:43 what does it cost for the staff time, for the
19:00:51 production of this document, for the DCA, for it to
19:00:54 come back to Tampa again, you know, and to implement
19:00:58 some of the policies therein.
19:01:01 Has anybody put a cost figure on that?
19:01:03 >>GWEN MILLER: No, we haven't.
19:01:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's kind of like sauce annal.
19:01:10 You don't want to it being made, you know.
19:01:13 You don't want to ask the question.
19:01:15 >>> It would might be helpful, you know, just to give
19:01:19 us a feel, because down the road for the next two,
19:01:24 three years, five years, a lot has occurred.
19:01:31 But since this economic process has an impact on us,
19:01:37 then I'm just hopeful that this livable city, that we
19:01:49 can afford it.
19:01:50 Thank you.
19:01:59 >>RON ROTELLA: Westshore alliance.
19:02:00 I am going to lighten things up a little.
19:02:03 I might pay attention to the shalls.
19:02:05 I would like you to revise policy 45.2.3 that says the
19:02:09 city shall continue support including car pools, van
19:02:14 pools, bus pools, park and ride lanes as well as
19:02:18 through the subsidy of transit passes for city
19:02:21 I would like to add Westshore Alliance employees as
19:02:26 well. If you are going to subsidize for
19:02:28 transportation of city employees, how about Westshore
19:02:31 So I submit that as an adoption for you to consider.
19:02:37 We support the 30-day extension, although staff has
19:02:44 made an incredible effort, and I have worked with
19:02:48 Randy for a lot of years, nothing but respect for him.
19:02:51 Same thing with Michelle and Terry.
19:02:53 We all got here.
19:02:54 It's not important how we got here.
19:02:56 We all feel we need more time to really hash out some
19:02:59 of these issues.
19:03:00 I am not comfortable with the "shalls" and the
19:03:03 "requires" in here and some of the explanations,
19:03:07 because they may not get worked out.
19:03:10 So if we have 30 days to deal with some of those
19:03:13 issues, I appreciate it.
19:03:14 And I'll give you an example.
19:03:15 We objected -- not objected.
19:03:18 We brought a concern about a policy, about the city
19:03:22 shall require -- achieving corporate form and
19:03:27 What I would change to basically say, in historic
19:03:30 overlay, and form based districts, from Westshore has
19:03:33 a commercial overlay district.
19:03:35 So if you have an overlay district, then here's what
19:03:37 the modification is.
19:03:39 The city shall require design review that focuses on
19:03:43 achieving appropriate form and function for all new
19:03:47 and redevelopment projects to insure creativity,
19:03:51 innovation, and design quality.
19:03:54 Now that's a mouthful.
19:03:55 But that sounds like to me that's going to further
19:03:59 complicate the site plan review process.
19:04:02 So I don't have the time, the in three minutes, to
19:04:06 respond to all the policy provisions that were
19:04:09 I do compliment the staff for attempting to respond to
19:04:13 But we would support the 30-day extension.
19:04:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you given those responses to Mr.
19:04:23 >>RON ROTELLA: Yes.
19:04:24 He has our written concerns.
19:04:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
19:04:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.
19:04:33 >>CHAIRMAN: Turn your mike on.
19:04:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Design review is something that
19:04:36 we -- it's a tool that we use to come up with
19:04:42 proposals that are more responsive to their context.
19:04:47 I have always thought that the Rand development
19:04:49 regulations were the place for the specific direction,
19:04:53 and it's sort of a macro micro kind of thing and the
19:04:58 comp plan as we are looking at this big picture, and
19:05:01 while I am hearing Mr. Rotella's concerns, and frankly
19:05:04 Westshore has been a leader in developing design
19:05:08 guidelines, it's my take on it that you don't have to
19:05:13 be overly concerned with what the comp plan says it's
19:05:18 saying, we need compatibility, we need design review
19:05:21 but the nuts and bolts of that will be in our local
19:05:25 regulations, not here in this more global comp plan.
19:05:31 >>CINDY MILLER: Director growth management development
19:05:33 Council, I believe if you look at number 3 in my cover
19:05:36 memo where we talk about urban design requirements, we
19:05:40 are saying the same thing.
19:05:43 It should be addressed through regulation, through
19:05:45 code, land development regulation.
19:05:46 So therefore you are correct.
19:05:47 And that's one of the reasons why we need to take a
19:05:50 look at the language.
19:05:51 So we do concur that that is something just as in an
19:05:55 overlay there is a chapter 27 section that includes
19:05:58 the overlay requirements.
19:06:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
19:06:06 >>> Good evening.
19:06:07 Joseph Narkiewicz, Tampa Bay Builders Association.
19:06:15 2918 West Kennedy Boulevard.
19:06:16 I also would like to compliment the staff for their
19:06:18 hard work.
19:06:19 We have met with the staff, made comments, addressed
19:06:23 pretty much all of our comments, and we feel clearly
19:06:26 comfortable with where we are at.
19:06:28 However, at the same time, having just received our
19:06:32 proposals from last night, I have not personally had a
19:06:34 chance to even look at them.
19:06:36 I'm like you, been in meetings all day.
19:06:38 That said, planning is especially challenging, in
19:06:45 trying to adopt a new plan to address those things and
19:06:48 move forward is especially challenging.
19:06:51 The staff has been thinking outside the box, trying to
19:06:53 apply new concepts, new urban designs, that will
19:06:59 hopefully make our city better and easier in which to
19:07:04 build and work.
19:07:06 At the same time those concepts seek lots of other
19:07:10 challenges as well in the sense that the details are
19:07:14 wherein lie some of the problems.
19:07:15 I noticed in the plan that there are standards in the
19:07:18 plan that I would think may be better left to the
19:07:22 development regulations, but nonetheless they are
19:07:24 there, and we just need to be cognizant of that when
19:07:27 we consider adopting a plan, that those are items that
19:07:30 we are going to have to live with, and that's going to
19:07:32 set the direction for how the regulations are written
19:07:35 and interpreted.
19:07:36 That caution offered, I too feel that we do need the
19:07:41 additional time in order to finish digesting the
19:07:44 material, and I would like to thank you for your wise
19:07:49 and considered deliberation in seeking the additional
19:07:52 30 days.
19:07:53 Just so you know, DCA will not cause the Hillsborough
19:07:55 River to dry up during that period of time.
19:07:57 Thank you very much for your consideration.
19:08:05 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill street.
19:08:11 I have been working with the Planning Commission ever
19:08:12 since they had their round table discussions with the
19:08:15 citizens, so I have been involved, I guess, they are
19:08:18 saying for two years.
19:08:19 It seems longer than that.
19:08:21 But I read the first draft very carefully.
19:08:28 Read the second draft.
19:08:29 Did the same thing.
19:08:30 Third draft came out.
19:08:31 Fourth draft.
19:08:32 Now I understand this is the fifth.
19:08:34 But they'll be incorporating the new changes.
19:08:37 But we haven't seen the fifth draft.
19:08:40 Once again, everybody has done a lot of work.
19:08:44 But this does need some tweaking, and in some cases
19:08:48 more than tweaking.
19:08:49 So I'm glad that council has indeed decided to put it
19:08:52 off to 30 days.
19:08:54 I don't see how this evening you are going to even
19:08:57 discuss what is being proposed to you that really
19:09:01 needs changing.
19:09:02 And I know a quick review of the comments that were
19:09:06 made to some of our comments, I don't understand the
19:09:10 I guess I read it very quickly because I too, as you
19:09:14 know, I was here earlier today.
19:09:17 So I didn't have a chance to read it all.
19:09:19 But one of the issues -- so how you are going to do
19:09:24 anything tonight to give them direction, I don't know,
19:09:28 because I think it's going to take you and us reading
19:09:31 it, these last-minute things and responding.
19:09:37 So it's going to take more than just tonight.
19:09:40 However, here are issues of Beach Park that Mr.
19:09:44 Johnson addressed to Sunset Park.
19:09:47 It's the issue of Westshore Boulevard.
19:09:50 That is a constrained road.
19:09:51 Any of you who know Westshore Boulevard knows that
19:09:57 there's in a way to widen Westshore Boulevard.
19:10:00 And how, in the last plan, it was ever changed to be
19:10:06 constrained only to Bay to Bay, I do not know, because
19:10:10 in the appeals plan, which you are supposed to be
19:10:13 working with other jurisdictions, it's been in the MPO
19:10:17 plan to go all the way to Gandy Boulevard for years.
19:10:22 As Mr. Johnson said, I guess we could agree to go as
19:10:25 far as Euclid.
19:10:26 I still don't know how you would widen it.
19:10:29 But the parks from Bay to Bay to Euclid is still that
19:10:32 curving road with the beautiful oak trees and
19:10:35 So for this plan to say that the constrained road
19:10:40 would only go to Bay to Bay, I ask you, council, to
19:10:43 please, transportation evidently is being adamant
19:10:48 about that, and I do know that there was a meeting
19:10:53 held, and a certain City Council person heard very
19:10:56 clearly from these people who lived there that we do
19:11:01 not want Westshore widened, period.
19:11:04 Because all it means is traffic trying to go faster
19:11:07 and faster on a road that should not be widened.
19:11:11 But, anyway, I look forward to how you are going to
19:11:15 continue to do this, how you are going to make
19:11:19 recommendations, and hopefully we'll all come together
19:11:23 at some point, some of the other things that were
19:11:26 brought up this evening, I think if there's some
19:11:29 agreement to do, we may have some problems in
19:11:32 But thank you for listening.
19:11:33 And we'll look forward to the future.
19:11:36 >>> Spencer Cass, vice-president of operations
19:11:49 landmark realty.
19:11:50 I'll go -- a couple of very fast things.
19:11:53 First of all, I know that everyone is sort of in
19:11:55 agreement that we are going to get rid of minimum
19:12:07 Next is, I believe there's an agreement with staff on
19:12:09 this also, on policy 47-35, 21-35 that talks
19:12:14 approximate shared access.
19:12:16 I think everyone is in agreement to strike all of that
19:12:20 That and the staff's recommendation, one of them is
19:12:23 repeated twice, and I do want to thank the Planning
19:12:29 Commission and everyone who works for the city
19:12:32 especially over the last few days.
19:12:33 This has been, I know, a very trying process for
19:12:37 And everyone has tried to do the best they can.
19:12:39 30 day continuance is great by me.
19:12:43 A couple other things.
19:12:44 I can tell you that, you know,t comment 24, which the
19:12:51 city should develop application for the state for
19:12:54 highways, and residential streets, I think that's
19:12:57 something that works in favor of everybody.
19:12:58 I think developers and residents will be in favor of
19:13:04 The administration, possibly the mayor to have to pick
19:13:06 up a phone and call the state and say, look, this is
19:13:09 really what's in the best interest of everybody.
19:13:11 But I think that's a policy that looks on on a case by
19:13:20 case policy.
19:13:21 If a land owner and neighborhood are in agreement on
19:13:23 something, that basically it's our constituency, and
19:13:27 the city is trying to help out.
19:13:33 I did want to point out under my comment under 93, I
19:13:39 just want to be careful about creating a job overlay
19:13:42 for the entire City of Tampa.
19:13:44 You know, as we discussed last week, it's $35 that you
19:13:49 to try to comply with East Tampa overlay.
19:13:52 We didn't do any economic analysis, and of course
19:13:59 possibly build more affordable homes.
19:14:00 Because that 35 that you is now gone.
19:14:03 It's just a concern to me that we don't always sit
19:14:05 down and look at the economics for some of these
19:14:09 One of the recommendations I had made was that we
19:14:12 should do an economic analysis.
19:14:13 I Steve staff's response was it exceeds the
19:14:16 obligations of Florida law.
19:14:18 Well, we doing better than what we are required to Don
19:14:23 I don't think is a problem.
19:14:24 We should always be striving to do the best if
19:14:26 possible especially for our constituents, especially
19:14:29 in this time we are all concerned about money.
19:14:31 I think there's really no harm in adopting some sort
19:14:33 of policy.
19:14:38 Other quick things.
19:14:39 The comment page 79, 1842, residential properties are
19:14:44 maintained, the minimum city -- I believe that was all
19:14:48 residential and city properties are maintained to
19:14:52 minimum city standards.
19:14:53 Because I'm sure we want the city to maintain their
19:14:56 properties as well as everybody else.
19:14:58 109, that's just a misnumber.
19:15:00 It should be 21.
19:15:03 This is important actually.
19:15:05 38-27-3, page 281.
19:15:08 It says towards reducing the energy requirements of
19:15:11 new buildings, the land development review process
19:15:13 will incorporate trees and shrubs are oriented.
19:15:17 I believe it's supposed to be towards reducing the
19:15:19 energy requirements of city buildings, not just
19:15:26 Thank you.
19:15:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:15:27 >> Sean Donnelly, 3708 West Euclid Avenue.
19:15:40 I'm here this evening to speak on the annexation
19:15:44 property that's located at the corner of Morris Bridge
19:15:46 Road and the county line.
19:15:51 I prepared a bullet point analysis that summarizes
19:15:53 what I have spoken to each and every one of you about
19:15:56 as a recommendation Mrs. Saul-Sena, just top refresh
19:15:58 everyone's memory.
19:16:01 I'll be brief.
19:16:14 Because I have spoken to each of you on this before.
19:16:16 And many of you are familiar with it.
19:16:19 Probably City Council, when this was first adopted
19:16:22 back in January of last year and you were permitted
19:16:24 access from the county to the city.
19:16:26 I want to first start by thanking you all for taking
19:16:29 the time to meet with me on this because it is a
19:16:32 legislative matter and I knew we would be limited in
19:16:34 the time we had here.
19:16:35 I do thank you for taking time out of your busy
19:16:38 Let me start by reiterating what I said to you all at
19:16:41 that meeting.
19:16:43 We have no disagreement with city staff as to their
19:16:46 concerns that are set forth in this.
19:16:48 We don't even have any objection to the RD-5
19:16:53 designation that they are proposing.
19:16:54 What we have, the only point of divergence that we
19:16:57 have is how that RD-5 is applied, the vehicle.
19:17:02 They are recommending the creation of a land use
19:17:04 called rural estate 5, one house per five acres.
19:17:08 We are stating that the same control that they are
19:17:11 seeking, same protection that they are seeking, with
19:17:14 that land use can be just as equally accomplished by
19:17:18 making RE-5 a zoning designation rather than a land
19:17:22 use designation.
19:17:23 We still have to meet concurrency.
19:17:25 We still have to meet EPC standards.
19:17:27 We have to do everything that would be required under
19:17:29 land use, under a zoning, when we come before you with
19:17:32 a site plan and any type of future change in this
19:17:36 The disadvantage to having it as a land use category
19:17:38 rather than a zoning category is we can take up to
19:17:43 three and a half years going through this process
19:17:45 getting a comprehensive plan amendment through the
19:17:47 process is a very prolonged process.
19:17:51 And if there is a good project that is fully supported
19:17:55 by the community, by city staff, and by City Council,
19:17:59 it could die for just the time it would take to go
19:18:02 through that comprehensive plan amendment stage.
19:18:04 It would be much more effective to be able to bring a
19:18:07 good plan to you with a site plan with all those
19:18:10 protections in place for rezoning.
19:18:13 Again like I say, it's a minor difference but it makes
19:18:16 a significant difference in what the future of this
19:18:18 area holds.
19:18:24 K-Bar Ranch directly across the street did the exact
19:18:27 same thing a few years earlier, they came from the
19:18:29 county into the city.
19:18:30 They were initially zoned agricultural, and they had a
19:18:33 land use of agriculture within the county.
19:18:37 Same with the property that's being annexed now, come
19:18:40 with the ag land use and zoning, coming in.
19:18:42 We are asking for the same land use which is the SMU-3
19:18:46 which is the broad umbrella with a very restrictive
19:18:52 zoning underneath.
19:18:53 City staff is absolutely right, when can't develop
19:18:56 that area until we know what's going in there.
19:18:58 RE-5 is an appropriate zoning category.
19:19:00 However, comprehensive plan looks for consistency.
19:19:04 What's more consistent than to have both sides of the
19:19:06 road with the same future land use?
19:19:09 (Bell sounds).
19:19:09 In conclusion I would like to make two quick
19:19:12 One, Mr. Dingfelder hit it on the head when I talked
19:19:15 to him when he said if we wanted this property to be
19:19:17 agriculture it would have been a lot easier for to us
19:19:19 just deny your petition for annexation a year ago
19:19:22 instead of making you jump through these hoops and go
19:19:25 through this.
19:19:26 Second point, I think I outlined the reasons, that I
19:19:30 think you should make this SMU 3.
19:19:32 I am going to tell you one reason that you can create
19:19:35 an RE-5 land use designation and that's because there
19:19:38 is no existing zoning that would fit underneath it.
19:19:42 The most restricted zoning out there is an R-3.
19:19:45 You are creating a land use category this small with
19:19:48 only existing zoning this big.
19:19:51 It doesn't fly.
19:19:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You had three minute.
19:20:01 I don't want to give an opportunity that somebody else
19:20:03 didn't have.
19:20:05 >>> I appreciate it.
19:20:06 I will be around for questions if there's anything
19:20:10 Thank you.
19:20:12 >>> Lena Young Green, and I am here as a member of the
19:20:19 Tampa Heights neighborhood plan implementation team.
19:20:27 You have heard before, I repeated the issues that you
19:20:32 were concerned about many times but before that I do
19:20:34 want to say thank you to the staff, to the Planning
19:20:36 Commission there, and all who have been involved in
19:20:40 getting this to where it is, all the way back, I was
19:20:43 able to be a part, others in our community were able
19:20:47 to be a part of the study group that worked on the
19:20:51 very conceptual park, comprehensive plan, and we
19:20:55 believe that a lot of what we put forward at that time
19:20:59 are now included in the document that you have.
19:21:04 I have also wanted to mention, remind you that ten
19:21:08 years ago, we came before City Council and the mayor
19:21:12 then, and we were allowed to have money for a
19:21:17 neighborhood plan.
19:21:18 After four years and in 2003 City Council tried to lay
19:21:22 out their plan.
19:21:24 I have a letter here that is dated March 2004 when we
19:21:31 came before City Council again and sent letters, some
19:21:33 of you who were here, remember that we asked because
19:21:37 we knew that the comprehensive plan was going to be
19:21:40 addressed, that our plan be included in the
19:21:44 comprehensive plan.
19:21:47 One of the reasons for that was that since the plan
19:21:49 was adopted, we have had no means, no method, no
19:21:54 process for neighborhoods like ours, and others who
19:21:58 have for the neighborhood plan to identify where and
19:22:03 how those plans get adopted.
19:22:05 And so we asked then that our plans be included in the
19:22:10 comp plan.
19:22:11 We met with staff.
19:22:15 Planning Commission staff.
19:22:18 And some of the answers were that we didn't want to be
19:22:21 so rigid that there is no -- to have the flexibility
19:22:27 in our plan.
19:22:28 However, of those, we do have some sections that
19:22:32 address neighborhood and addressed the urban center,
19:22:35 which is the part of our plan.
19:22:40 There are still not enough teeth, we believe, to have
19:22:44 in our community to house anyone who is interested
19:22:47 coming in, into the community to follow that plan that
19:22:52 the neighborhood had, spent all that time coming up
19:22:57 with what it wants.
19:22:58 And I'm not sure how we get there now.
19:23:02 We would love to have the guiding principles in our
19:23:08 Tampa Heights plan included in the comp plan.
19:23:13 It was prepared vaguely enough, that it wasn't so
19:23:17 rigid that others who came in wouldn't be able to do
19:23:20 changes, and change, as we think we were deliberative
19:23:31 in making those ten guiding principles soft enough
19:23:34 that had it been included in the plan, that then it
19:23:38 would still allow the neighborhood to have a direction
19:23:44 of what do we do after spending all this time
19:23:48 preparing a plan, and then not having it implemented
19:23:51 or any way of getting it implemented?
19:23:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
19:23:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Your neighborhood is one of two or
19:23:58 three in the city that have gone through the extremely
19:24:00 labor intensive process of developing a neighborhood
19:24:03 I remember this so clearly.
19:24:05 You came to us and said, please include this.
19:24:08 And I see this as being the kind of direction that
19:24:12 tonight we can provide staff.
19:24:14 So I would like to make a motion that the Tampa
19:24:17 Heights neighborhood plan guiding principles be
19:24:20 included in the comp plan.
19:24:22 You all put in thousands and thousands of hours of
19:24:26 And the good news is that you can really use it as
19:24:30 part of the comp plan to guide future growth, which is
19:24:32 the whole point of this arduous exercise.
19:24:36 So that's my motion.
19:24:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
19:24:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion?
19:24:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
19:24:41 Discussion, please.
19:24:42 Ms. Cole.
19:24:43 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:24:46 I would suppose that would you ask the legal
19:24:49 department to look at that usual you because there is
19:24:52 some issues with that, and so give me an opportunity
19:24:54 to review.
19:24:57 I, as the legal person reviewing this, made a
19:25:01 recommendation that they place in the plan for the
19:25:05 purposes of forming future planning efforts, and there
19:25:08 is a legal reason, but I would like the opportunity to
19:25:12 review that and review that with staff and come back
19:25:14 with a recommendation.
19:25:16 >> So my motion would be to direct to you take a look
19:25:18 at including in the plan.
19:25:24 Julia, I have to say that this is before your time
19:25:27 But when the Tampa Heights group went through this
19:25:29 huge efforts, there was resistance by the city to
19:25:33 adopting anything that would make the city responsible
19:25:35 for actually doing something.
19:25:37 And I thought that that was unfounded.
19:25:41 And I think that the whole point of doing planning is
19:25:44 to give to the citizens than an opportunity to help
19:25:48 direct their future and help us be partners with them
19:25:52 and helping them accomplish their vision.
19:25:55 I hope when you look at this, you look at it with an
19:25:58 eye to the glass being half full.
19:26:01 Thank you.
19:26:01 >>> Sure.
19:26:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I remember when you brought this
19:26:06 issue up, and we were over at the convention center.
19:26:10 And it's hard to believe, I think it's been four years
19:26:14 now since that moment, and we still hadn't done it.
19:26:21 Although, Linda, you backed down way too easily.
19:26:27 I mean that with all due respect and caring.
19:26:33 You know, as much as I care for and respect Julia's
19:26:37 opinion, unless our motion is stronger, and we are not
19:26:41 going to be together for the next 30 days or
19:26:43 something, and then they come back 30 days from now --
19:26:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion would be you include
19:26:54 this in the comp plan.
19:26:55 >>> I need to put in the record right now what my
19:26:58 analysis, or I think it might be more appropriate to
19:27:00 have an opportunity to get some more background
19:27:03 information and get that conversation.
19:27:07 It is up to you but I had asked for that time.
19:27:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then my motion would be that we --
19:27:15 the original motion that we to the ten guiding
19:27:17 principles of the Tampa Heights plan as part of the
19:27:20 comp plan and then if staff wants to write a
19:27:23 commentary on that, they are certainly free to but
19:27:25 that was my original motion.
19:27:27 And it's so long overdue.
19:27:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I would add to it is
19:27:33 we have several neighborhoods who are in the same
19:27:36 >>: David island.
19:27:40 >> Port Tampa.
19:27:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the motion shouldn't be
19:27:47 just addressed to Tampa Heights, any of them that have
19:27:51 legitimately gone through the process including Davis
19:27:54 Was there one other, Michelle?
19:27:56 Was there one other?
19:27:59 >>CINDY MILLER: Growth management.
19:28:03 Ballast Point.
19:28:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ballast Point.
19:28:06 Thank you.
19:28:07 I knew there was.
19:28:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to reword my motion to
19:28:10 include all three, Davis Island, Ballast Point, Tampa
19:28:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's not a function of putting the
19:28:17 entire document in.
19:28:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
19:28:19 Guiding principles.
19:28:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:28:21 (Motion carried)
19:28:23 Next speaker.
19:28:29 >>> Carroll Josephs Marshall, secretary of Tampa
19:28:35 Heights, implementation team.
19:28:41 I want to thank you all very much.
19:28:42 Very, very much.
19:28:43 As you know, Tampa Heights neighborhood has the first
19:28:48 time ratified by the City of Tampa.
19:28:52 We might not have done all that within that time as
19:28:55 far as implementation, but we have been working.
19:28:59 We have met with Linda.
19:29:03 We try to do something to the roadways.
19:29:07 And we are moving.
19:29:08 I want to thank you so much.
19:29:09 I have so much to say.
19:29:10 But after your motion, I am not even going to take any
19:29:15 I just want to say thank you and thank the Planning
19:29:17 Commission, thank the city staff and everybody that
19:29:21 helped us and helped to put us on the map.
19:29:24 Thank you.
19:29:32 >>> Good evening, council.
19:29:33 Ellen Dorst, 4004 Bay Villa Avenue.
19:29:37 While I haven't been as involved in the process of the
19:29:40 comp plan as I would like to be, I have been following
19:29:42 pretty much what's been going on.
19:29:44 Mr. Donnelly made a point, and for specific
19:29:48 application, that I would like to reference that and
19:29:52 say it's very good that we have this additional 30
19:29:54 days, because the devil is in fact in the details.
19:29:57 And when you are rushed -- the details.
19:30:03 And in support of what Mr. Donnelly was talking about,
19:30:07 we are going to be doing something terribly
19:30:08 counterproductive to the development of potential
19:30:12 transportation concurrency, and the northwest
19:30:16 Hillsborough County area if we impose an RE-5 land use
19:30:23 in that area.
19:30:23 And that as I say, the devil is in the details.
19:30:26 This is just one instance of some of the mechanism
19:30:31 that happens in any kind of rush to adopt this.
19:30:35 So I am glad.
19:30:36 And I thank you all very much.
19:30:37 And I thank everyone and the Planning Commission and
19:30:40 city staff, and everyone and all the neighborhoods who
19:30:43 have worked so hard on this.
19:30:44 But most of all, I want to thank you for that 30-day
19:30:47 delay because I would hate to see a than important
19:30:50 detail like that, that can create a destructive snafu
19:30:54 in future years to the development of that.
19:30:59 Thank you very much, council.
19:31:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do have a question.
19:31:02 Julia, whoever else is hiding over there.
19:31:08 Is there any other legal counsel over there?
19:31:12 >>GWEN MILLER: I think she'll come back.
19:31:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.
19:31:15 We'll hear from Al then.
19:31:17 >>> Al Steenson, 4100 west Leila Avenue in Tampa.
19:31:24 I want to clear for the record, I am speaking as a
19:31:27 private citizen and not representing the Gandy Sun Bay
19:31:29 South Association.
19:31:35 We are involved in a new plan.
19:31:36 And this is probably one of the best things that we
19:31:40 can do, because the present plan hasn't really worked
19:31:44 very well for us.
19:31:47 We have had developments that have been approved right
19:31:49 here in this chambers that have been completed, some
19:31:54 of them haven't come out of the ground yet, and what
19:31:57 troubles me is when these finally do, what are they
19:32:01 going to do to our aging infrastructure?
19:32:06 Just look just in my area.
19:32:10 There's an article today in Monday's paper, they could
19:32:18 very well go bankrupt.
19:32:20 They are one of the developers of Westshore, the
19:32:22 developers of Westshore Yacht Club.
19:32:23 But that's not -- New Port Tampa Bay is a 50-acre
19:32:30 waste land.
19:32:31 Georgetown is empty.
19:32:32 What happens when the economy picks up and these come
19:32:36 to fruition?
19:32:37 What's it going to do to our aging infrastructure?
19:32:40 The new plan, I hope, will address this.
19:32:43 One of the things, one of our most valuable assets is
19:32:50 We can live with crowded roads.
19:32:52 We can live with crowded schools.
19:32:54 We cannot live without water.
19:32:56 The last figure I saw, $44,000 a day.
19:33:02 Now that may have eased up.
19:33:04 And this plan is 500 pages P.I haven't read it all and
19:33:10 I doubt seriously if you all had the opportunity to
19:33:12 read it.
19:33:12 It's a big document.
19:33:14 And I hope that when the next round, when this comes
19:33:16 back, it will address the things that the current plan
19:33:20 apparently has not done, because our infrastructure
19:33:25 the crumbling.
19:33:28 Margaret talked about constrained Westshore.
19:33:31 I have a road down that was constrained, it called
19:33:34 Gandy Boulevard.
19:33:34 And are spending $22 million on it and it's still
19:33:37 going to be somewhat constrained.
19:33:39 Hopefully we can get a solution to that.
19:33:42 So I look forward to this new plan.
19:33:44 But I encourage you to take this 30 days and really
19:33:48 study it and absorb it.
19:33:51 And if we are going to make this work, if we are going
19:33:53 to make this a livable city, we have got to work in a
19:33:55 partnership with not just the people here in the city
19:33:59 but the county, the state, the feds, and our neighbors
19:34:03 and the adjoining counties, because let's face it, we
19:34:05 all know, Tampa is the hub.
19:34:09 We are the economic engine of west central Florida.
19:34:13 Thank you very much.
19:34:15 >>> Kathleen Baird.
19:34:27 I live at 16801 Morris Bridge Road, the east side of
19:34:31 Morris Bridge Road.
19:34:35 Sean talked to you about some points earlier and I am
19:34:35 just going to point out a few more.
19:34:37 I'm asking you to not approve the RE-5 zoning from the
19:34:41 Planning Commission.
19:34:43 I owned this property for 14 years, it has been in the
19:34:46 county, the county is not willing to work with us on
19:34:48 any type of improvements out there.
19:34:51 Basically, we are allowed one home per ten acres and a
19:34:55 guest home so if you give us the RE-5 we are back to
19:34:58 two homes per ten acres which is what the majority of
19:35:00 land owners are out there. I own more but the
19:35:03 majority own the ten acres.
19:35:05 I started with Shawn and in the beginning different
19:35:11 city departments were meeting with us out it the New
19:35:13 Tampa library pointing all the benefits for the city
19:35:16 that would be coming to them and all our benefits, and
19:35:19 now it seems like three and a half years later if we
19:35:21 get the RE-5 heading we are no better than we were in
19:35:26 the counties.
19:35:26 Right across the street is the SMU-3 heading. That is
19:35:29 what we are requesting.
19:35:33 301, Robert Thomas is developing a property out in the
19:35:35 county, he finally got the county to work with him,
19:35:38 right at the Pasco County line, they are going to be
19:35:40 widening Morris Bridge Road and I heard they are going
19:35:43 to be putting in town homes.
19:35:44 Basically you are going to leave out this little pot
19:35:48 right here with all the development going around us
19:35:50 and I don't think that's fair.
19:35:51 I think that's discrimination.
19:35:53 To my knowledge everything north of Fowler has some
19:35:56 type of heading that's not an RE-5 which is being
19:36:00 Basically, we have wasted all our time and our money
19:36:03 that we put into this for the past three and a half
19:36:05 years if we get this RE-3 heading.
19:36:08 So again, I am asking you not to approve the RE-5 but
19:36:13 give us the SMU-3, or I'm pretty much like I was with
19:36:17 the county, two homes for ten acres.
19:36:19 Thank you.
19:36:23 >>> I am not a member of the public.
19:36:27 Cindy Miller.
19:36:28 There was a piece of correspondence that came to my
19:36:30 office and to City Council earlier today from the
19:36:34 national association of industrial office properties.
19:36:37 I just want to make sure that I didn't see a
19:36:40 representative to come up and speak.
19:36:42 I just want to make sure their letter is submitted
19:36:44 into the record.
19:36:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Julia Cole, come up.
19:36:50 Mr. Dingfelder has a question.
19:36:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Julia, my question relates to Mr.
19:36:55 Donnelly's comment earlier.
19:36:57 I don't know if you were in the room when he said it.
19:37:01 About having an SMU -- excuse me, having the RE-5
19:37:05 category but not a corresponding zoning category to go
19:37:09 with it so the minute we adopted it, he would have an
19:37:13 immediate --
19:37:15 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:37:18 We would then be required to do is adopt a new zoning
19:37:24 classification to be consistent with and then rezone
19:37:29 the property, and then would you be adopting that on
19:37:31 the property.
19:37:32 When an annexation occurs for whatever period of time,
19:37:35 that you have adopted appropriate regulation, you
19:37:38 still contain your comprehensive plan and county
19:37:42 So we would have that period of time to come into
19:37:44 compliance with that.
19:37:46 What it would require is for us to do that or else it
19:37:50 would be out of compliance.
19:37:51 So it's something we could deal with if you decided to
19:37:55 go ahead and put that land use classification on it.
19:37:57 We could then deal with all the zoning regulations.
19:38:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then a question to the planners.
19:38:05 The SMU-3 category, does that accommodate Euclidean,
19:38:11 or does that -- is that only a PD category?
19:38:20 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
19:38:21 I just wanted to explain to answer your question that
19:38:26 through the annexation petition, there was no proposed
19:38:30 development indicated by any of the property owners or
19:38:33 Mr. Donnelly.
19:38:34 This is a very sizable annexation.
19:38:37 It was over 300 acres.
19:38:39 The SMU provides for a very intensive range of
19:38:43 development that can go there.
19:38:45 It allows for .25 F.A.R.
19:38:48 So do the math.
19:38:50 I think that Mr. Goers gave you a printout of the
19:38:53 intensity that is possible.
19:38:57 For a ten acre site you are talking about 30 units per
19:38:59 acre, and approximately 50,000 square feet.
19:39:03 The roads are very constrained here.
19:39:05 There have been no developers agreements presented
19:39:07 through the annexation.
19:39:11 For this size of annexation at that time, I indicated
19:39:14 that we would craft land use classification that was
19:39:18 going to be similar intensity.
19:39:21 It indicated, from my recollection, Mr. Donnelly had
19:39:25 indicated two units per ten acres is what the typical
19:39:31 people were wanting out there.
19:39:34 There was no plan for development again.
19:39:37 In terms of the SMU-3, it would probably end up having
19:39:42 to be a PD if they are wanting any size there.
19:39:45 Right now, the RS-150 is probably too intense for
19:39:52 We are going to probably end up creating a new land
19:39:55 use -- I mean a zoning classification under the SMU 3.
19:39:58 We would have done that as well under the R-3 side as
19:40:07 When don't really have a land use classification at
19:40:10 this point, that is a Euclidean district, that will
19:40:12 serve the needs.
19:40:15 >> Under either category?
19:40:18 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Under either one.
19:40:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean, my thinking is, as I am
19:40:26 reading all of this stuff and talking to staff and
19:40:29 everything yesterday, and talking to Mr. Donnelly,
19:40:35 clearly, you know, the area needs some protection.
19:40:38 It's got some environmental attributes much it
19:40:41 obviously needs some protection, that sort of thing.
19:40:43 I think we probably have some protection in our
19:40:45 existing code.
19:40:47 But just seems to me that it would be ripe for a PD,
19:40:52 you know, for some type of PD.
19:40:54 So I'm just trying to be creative as possible, if we
19:40:57 gave them some type of SMU, three, now, if we gave
19:41:03 them an SMU 3 but then limit it perhaps -- I guess
19:41:08 it's hard to just say you can have the SMU 3, but I
19:41:12 would like to limit it only to a PD so they can't come
19:41:14 in and just do a Euclidean, you know, three units to
19:41:18 the acre.
19:41:19 >>GLORIA MOREDA: You are going to have to rezone them
19:41:21 to something.
19:41:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But we can only rezone it to
19:41:27 something that they ask for.
19:41:29 I mean, we can't --
19:41:31 >>GLORIA MOREDA: No, we will be required to create a
19:41:34 zoning designation that is consistent with the SMU-3,
19:41:39 that will be a Euclidean district.
19:41:42 The city is not prepared to draft a planned
19:41:48 development district for this property.
19:41:50 It's over 300 acres.
19:41:52 >> Right.
19:41:53 And you have ten owners or something, too.
19:41:55 >>GLORIA MOREDA: We would have to craft a Euclidean
19:41:59 district that's going to accommodate that area.
19:42:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, how about the example that
19:42:03 they did over in the county, that seems to be perhaps
19:42:10 a good model and they have already done the work for
19:42:14 You know, using that -- what do they call that, the
19:42:18 environmental category?
19:42:20 You know what I'm talking about?
19:42:21 >>> Yes.
19:42:24 >> I have to tell you the two pieces property -- ray
19:42:31 Chiaramonte, MPO.
19:42:33 Two pieces of property are very different.
19:42:35 They came in with a unified plan.
19:42:37 >> But they have a unified ownership.
19:42:42 I don't know how different they are.
19:42:44 >>> Particular category basically only fits that piece
19:42:47 of property.
19:42:48 The way it was worded, it only can fit that piece of
19:42:51 >> I know that.
19:42:52 What I said, Ray, if we can start with that, we have
19:42:55 from now until next February or something, you can
19:42:58 start with that as the model.
19:43:01 If we gave it the SMU-3 but then we worked over the
19:43:04 next eight months, to develop a special category, and
19:43:09 used the Thomas thing as a model, perhaps.
19:43:13 Because I studied that thing and it had environmental
19:43:16 attributes, and, you know, sensitivities, and all.
19:43:19 >>> I guess with ten people --
19:43:25 >> You know, a long time ago, oven told me that
19:43:29 putting a bunch of septic tanks in an environmentally
19:43:32 sensitive area is not the greatest thing to do.
19:43:35 >>> In they are one unit per five acres that's not
19:43:38 really a bad thing to do.
19:43:40 I can tell you if you want to go into environment, the
19:43:43 impact of the amount of houses you are talking about
19:43:45 on 300 acres would be far more detrimental to the
19:43:48 environment than one septic tank per five acres.
19:43:51 You are talking about the stormwater run-off --
19:43:55 >> But across the street --
19:43:57 >>> Again you are talking about unified developed.
19:43:59 If you are going to do something, you should have them
19:44:01 simultaneously come in with a plan.
19:44:03 You know, I'm just representing the Planning
19:44:05 Commission's viewpoint now.
19:44:07 Problem I have, and I have to say it was Tampa to
19:44:09 Plant City, annexation seems to be automatic five fold
19:44:16 increase in density.
19:44:17 That's why people ask to be annexed because that
19:44:20 development would never be approved in the counties in
19:44:21 the form they proposed it so they ask you to annex
19:44:24 them for an automatic increase because you have in a
19:44:26 plan category.
19:44:27 >> Why do we accept it?
19:44:30 >>> Well, I can't tell you that.
19:44:35 >> I don't think we are being very flexible, trying to
19:44:39 figure out --
19:44:41 >>> Well, they are already getting an increase.
19:44:42 They are one to ten in the county's plan.
19:44:44 A large portion of that property is one unit per ten
19:44:47 acres so we are already getting twice the density that
19:44:49 they had before so it's not like they are not getting
19:44:51 a benefit to annexation.
19:44:53 But it's just a very complicated piece.
19:44:58 >> It's effectively the same as what you are talking
19:45:01 >>> Well, two units, and one unit are the same thing.
19:45:07 This is a very complicated piece of property.
19:45:09 I would just recommend you be careful as to how and
19:45:12 what you decide to do with it and how you make that
19:45:14 happen, that it needs to be more of a simultaneous
19:45:21 >>GLORIA MOREDA: And I want to reiterate, I did
19:45:24 caution during that annexation process that we were
19:45:27 concerned that they were coming with no plan, none,
19:45:32 and that the basis of our no objection was really that
19:45:36 we would give them something comparable to their
19:45:39 current intensity, and we feel that the RE-5
19:45:41 represents them.
19:45:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, do we have to
19:45:49 address that question as part of this comp plan?
19:45:52 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Yes, we have to designate that
19:45:55 property, and land use classification, you know, and
19:45:58 the direction council takes, you know, it would be
19:46:01 beneficial to give us that direction.
19:46:03 It is your decision whether the CMU-3 is appropriate,
19:46:09 the R-3 might be something that is a little less but
19:46:16 it's not a mixed use plan classification.
19:46:19 The existing land use classifications are your
19:46:23 Staff's recommendation is CR-3.
19:46:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.
19:46:28 >>MARY MULHERN: My question, this was annexed a year
19:46:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, before you were here.
19:46:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
19:46:38 So three of you -- you need to tell us why you did it.
19:46:46 I'm serious.
19:46:47 Because we are hearing from staff and the Planning
19:46:49 Commission that we shouldn't have been annexed.
19:46:53 So maybe you can really rack your brains and remind us
19:46:57 what the idea was there.
19:46:59 >> And maybe la at the transcript.
19:47:01 That's one of the things.
19:47:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Miller, do you have anything else?
19:47:06 >>CINDY MILLER: Just for clarification.
19:47:08 We have provided to you in a memo dated June 23rd
19:47:12 the PowerPoint that was used for the annexation
19:47:15 presentation, as well as the copy of the transcripts.
19:47:18 So that has already been submitted to your offices.
19:47:20 >>GWEN MILLER: So we need a motion to continue to --
19:47:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait, I have a couple of things.
19:47:27 Mr. Dingfelder, you brought up an issue today, about
19:47:33 I thought that was really important.
19:47:34 The issue that he brought up was the east-west road
19:47:37 has been assumed for a long time to be part of the
19:47:39 And we found out recently --
19:47:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the bridge.
19:47:43 >> And the bridge.
19:47:44 And we are not going to be able to afford it and a lot
19:47:47 of the development that was promised on that facility
19:47:49 being there.
19:47:50 So, therefore, if it's not going to be there, do we
19:47:52 need to rethink some of the development patterns that
19:47:57 we assumed for a long time?
19:48:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to hear a response
19:48:09 from staff, get transportation people here.
19:48:13 You know, that's a concern to me.
19:48:15 We are here during long-range comp plan, I read in the
19:48:18 paper that the bridge is out and the road is out, and
19:48:22 that sort of thing.
19:48:24 I've also heard that we have approved thousands of
19:48:27 homes out there that have concurrency based on the
19:48:32 existence of the bridge, the bridge and perhaps the
19:48:36 So how does all that jive together?
19:48:38 >>> Jean Doris, transportation division.
19:48:44 You are correct, most if not all of the development in
19:48:46 the New Tampa area is in a concurrency area.
19:48:49 Most of those developments were approved, the
19:48:53 development order that reflected the bridge and/or the
19:48:57 east-west road within the development orders.
19:48:59 And there has been a lot of press coverage lately
19:49:02 about the bridge and east-west road, and I guess our
19:49:05 comment on that is those projects are not dead.
19:49:09 Those projects are just facing different hurdles, some
19:49:11 financial, some administrative, some challenges as far
19:49:16 as how we are going to put together a package, and
19:49:25 just different challenges that they are having.
19:49:26 It doesn't mean those projects are off the long-range
19:49:33 Even though it may seem there's turmoil in terms of
19:49:36 getting them started, those are still approved
19:49:38 projects, and still long-range plan.
19:49:41 And I am certain at some point in time those projects
19:49:44 will be built.
19:49:44 >> So you are going to issue CO's based upon those
19:49:48 hopes and dreams?
19:49:50 >>> Well, I guess I would have to refer to legal in
19:49:53 terms of what the time line is as far as rights go but
19:49:58 unless the MPO plan changes, there really isn't
19:50:02 anything in jeopardy because those projects are still
19:50:04 planned to go forward.
19:50:06 So unless the MPO long-range plan changes and
19:50:10 something comes off the map, then we have something to
19:50:12 be concerned about.
19:50:13 But for now those projects are still officially on the
19:50:16 books and it's a matter of working through the
19:50:20 logistics of finances, and lead agencies before they
19:50:24 get going.
19:50:24 >> I don't live up there, okay?
19:50:27 But Joseph does.
19:50:28 And all of those thousands of neighbors do.
19:50:30 And they probably don't appreciate the fact that we
19:50:32 issue certificate of occupancy, the COs I referred to
19:50:37 a minute ago, and we issue those COs, if the two big
19:50:42 projects aren't funded and may never be funded.
19:50:46 So I think as a community we have got to go one way or
19:50:49 the other on this, you know, because that's the
19:50:51 definition of concurrency.
19:50:53 And I think at some point the state is going to get
19:50:56 wise on this and say you're not being real about what
19:51:01 concurrency means.
19:51:02 Only place we have real concurrency is north of
19:51:05 Fletcher, in that little jog area up there, in New
19:51:09 But I just found it really interesting that, you
19:51:12 know --
19:51:16 >>> Legal department.
19:51:18 COs and -- each one of these annexation agreements,
19:51:22 the DRIs, has a whole separate set of circumstances
19:51:28 on whether there's a proportionate fair share, time
19:51:32 frames associated with that, so it's really hard to
19:51:35 say, yes, we are just going to give COs. It really
19:51:39 is dependent on each individual agreement that we are
19:51:43 Some of the agreements, they can go to one or two
19:51:47 Again you can't really give a blanket answer on that
19:51:50 at this point.
19:51:54 Jean has whatever the staff position in terms of
19:51:56 options related to these individual agreements on a
19:51:59 case-by-case basis and we have to look at that
19:52:01 individually at the time it came up.
19:52:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Ms. Saul-Sena.
19:52:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:52:08 In asking for the additional 30 days I also ask for
19:52:12 two discussion meetings.
19:52:13 In looking at my calendar and looking at the
19:52:16 availability of this room, I think that we could at
19:52:20 least very definitely have one July 24th, we have
19:52:23 a regular City Council meeting, it's a Thursday.
19:52:27 It's a workshop meeting in the day, in the morning.
19:52:29 And what I would like to propose to give us a chance
19:52:33 to sort of make sure everything is on track is to have
19:52:37 a special discussion meeting here in council chambers
19:52:40 at 1:30 in the afternoon, which would allow the staff
19:52:42 to present back responses, and council members then on
19:52:50 vacation reading the 500-page document and I see that
19:52:53 as sort of a Kum ba yah, we are ready to move ahead to
19:52:57 the continuation of this public hearing on the
19:53:01 So my motion is that we have a special discussion
19:53:04 meeting on Thursday, July 24th at 1:30 here in
19:53:10 council chambers.
19:53:11 Of course, the public would be there, if you all want
19:53:13 to come, the staff would be there and council members.
19:53:17 >> Second.
19:53:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:53:19 (Motion carried).
19:53:23 >>CINDY MILLER: May I?
19:53:28 I have some dates prayer to that to perhaps outline a
19:53:30 format for how we can provide council information,
19:53:33 both Planning Commission staff and my staff, really
19:53:36 city staff from throughout the department.
19:53:40 We have had a number of items, questions and issues
19:53:42 raised this evening, as well as we have submitted
19:53:45 responses back to a variety of members of the public.
19:53:49 What we would request of those that received our
19:53:51 written responses in the past 24 hours, if they could
19:53:54 have any comments back to us by July 7th, that's
19:53:57 Monday, July 7th, we are not going to try to
19:53:59 get -- I haven't made any commitments for my staff
19:54:06 before the Fourth of July because I think everybody
19:54:07 needs a rest.
19:54:08 We will then take the transcript and comments from
19:54:10 tonight's meeting and incorporate that with any
19:54:13 further comments we may get, and we will have a
19:54:16 written report of what we did for today to council the
19:54:21 week of the 14th.
19:54:22 It will probably be here like the day you come for
19:54:25 your meeting on the 17th.
19:54:26 But that way, you will have something well in advance
19:54:29 of your discussion meeting, so that you have some
19:54:32 input for staff.
19:54:35 So I don't necessarily need a motion for that.
19:54:37 But those are the dates.
19:54:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:54:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I tried to response to the motion
19:54:54 that was passed by councilman Saul-Sena.
19:54:58 >>> You're scheduling a public discussion meeting for
19:55:04 1:30 in the afternoon.
19:55:05 There's a lot of people here that would like to attend
19:55:07 that meeting that won't be able to make it at, is 30.
19:55:10 Is there any way council can schedule that meeting in
19:55:12 the evening?
19:55:13 So people can show up?
19:55:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a good point.
19:55:16 I believe we are free on July 24th in the evening.
19:55:21 Let me look at my calendar real quick.
19:55:34 We are free that evening.
19:55:35 I would like to amend my motion to have this meeting
19:55:37 at 6:00 rather than 1:30.
19:55:40 A special discussion meeting of the comp plan.
19:55:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would council consider making this a
19:55:49 workshop so you could decide to take action if you
19:55:51 wanted to at that time?
19:55:53 It assumes there's a quorum.
19:55:59 I assume you are asking for a special Z meeting and
19:56:01 the concerns you might not have a quorum.
19:56:03 >> That is my concern and if we had a special
19:56:05 discussion meeting could we make at workshop?
19:56:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
19:56:08 For notice purposes I think it would be best to insure
19:56:12 council have a quorum for the purposes of having a
19:56:16 workshop so that council, should you come back with
19:56:19 information and wish to have -- take action, in
19:56:23 preparation for the transmittal public hearing, you
19:56:24 can choose to do that.
19:56:26 >>: How would you suggest we do that?
19:56:31 Mach sure we have a quorum?
19:56:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion would be if council
19:56:35 votes -- if it's council's desire to have a workshop,
19:56:38 that individual council members would make it
19:56:46 important to be here on the night of the 24th and
19:56:52 again mind you, you have a night meeting on the
19:56:54 17th, you have a night meeting, quite a long day
19:56:57 on the 31st, and by adding a night meeting on the
19:57:00 24th you actually have three night meetings in a
19:57:03 So I just want to bring that to your attention.
19:57:05 But my concern, council, is if you are going to set it
19:57:08 for an evening meeting, it would behoove council to
19:57:18 make it a workshop, if it's council's intention to
19:57:21 televise that meeting, that that be known at the time
19:57:24 of the making of the motion so that the cable office
19:57:26 would be able to make arrangements for that as well.
19:57:28 And again, that would be my recommendation.
19:57:31 If council wishes.
19:57:32 However you want to set is council's, you know,
19:57:44 My hope professionally speaking, and I guess I would
19:57:46 speak -- that the import of this decision-making
19:57:49 process would warrant attendance by many council
19:57:52 members as humanly could make that night.
19:58:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To clarify my motion, I think
19:58:06 that's an excellent suggestion, Mr. Shelby, on the
19:58:08 evening of the 24th at 6:00 to discuss the comp
19:58:11 That was a good suggestion.
19:58:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And it's council's attention --
19:58:18 >>GWEN MILLER: I can't submit.
19:58:20 I don't have my calendar whether I'm free or not but
19:58:23 he so I am not going to commit to this on the
19:58:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, we have a convoluted
19:58:32 conversation before about can a workshop, if we lose
19:58:37 our quorum, or if we don't achieve our quorum, morph
19:58:41 into a special discussion meeting?
19:58:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
19:58:44 As a matter of fact, Ms. Cole just reminded me of that
19:58:46 now and that's an excellent suggestion as part of the
19:58:48 notice that if there is not a sufficient number of
19:58:53 council members present that it continues as a special
19:58:57 discussion meeting.
19:58:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be my motion.
19:59:07 >>MARY MULHERN: I second that.
19:59:08 (Motion carried)
19:59:20 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:59:24 I wanted to make sure that you were voting to send --
19:59:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Come up.
19:59:43 >>> I wanted to give you some comfort in this whole
19:59:46 I just went through this with the county.
19:59:48 I will tell you that you probably aren't going to
19:59:50 resolve every issue.
19:59:53 In the county, we worked, the time that the plan was
19:59:55 up at the DCA we still worked and changed things.
19:59:58 Unless you are changing something that's actually a
20:00:00 state requirement, I mean, they don't require
20:00:02 design -- they don't require a lot of the issues that
20:00:05 the neighborhoods are private sector has brought up.
20:00:08 So I think you are safe in continuing some of the
20:00:10 discussions, if you don't resolve every issue.
20:00:13 Then we have to deal with the objections,
20:00:15 recommendations and comments I will tell you in the
20:00:18 county's plan.
20:00:18 There was 14 pages of them.
20:00:20 We went up to DCA, met with them and resolved most of
20:00:24 There was still a couple that we had to recommend to
20:00:26 the board to change.
20:00:27 So there is movement here up until the time you
20:00:29 actually adopt that plan.
20:00:31 So you are always going to have some T that's not
20:00:34 crossed or I not dotted and don't feel like you are
20:00:37 going to drop dead if you don't solve every one of
20:00:39 these issues.
20:00:40 Now, it is only a transmittal.
20:00:42 And there is time, and you get feedback from DCA.
20:00:46 It's still a moving process.
20:00:49 I just wanted to tray to give you a little comfort
20:00:52 that it's not the end of the world.
20:00:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion to continue to July
20:01:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Move to continue to July 31st, of
20:01:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
20:01:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so that council is clear in
20:01:08 terms of scheduling so the agenda is clear, on the
20:01:11 31st, you have a 9 a.m. regular council meeting.
20:01:16 You have two appeal hearings scheduled for 1:30 in the
20:01:18 You presently also had V a CRA meeting scheduled for
20:01:21 1:30 in the afternoon.
20:01:23 In the evening meeting beginning at 6 p.m., you
20:01:25 presently have six land rezonings and one closure
20:01:28 public hearing scheduled.
20:01:30 That is your 6:00 schedule.
20:01:33 Does council wish to contemplate having this at the
20:01:36 end after the land rezonings?
20:01:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
20:01:43 Madam Chairman, if I may.
20:01:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question would be whether council
20:01:46 would consider perhaps taking this at 5:00 or perhaps
20:01:53 I know the chair of the CRA is present, the chair of
20:01:57 the City Council is not present.
20:01:59 With regard to that CRA meeting at 1:30, that appears
20:02:03 to be problematic with the two a pole hearings that I
20:02:07 understand are not going to go forward and will be
20:02:09 Maybe that could be rescheduled.
20:02:11 I just want to be clear if it's council's motion at
20:02:14 6:00, when does contemplate hearing the transmittal,
20:02:18 making the motion for the transmittal?
20:02:20 Before or after the land rezonings?
20:02:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would suggest before.
20:02:29 The rezonings.
20:02:33 >>GWEN MILLER: They are prepared to be here at 6 for
20:02:36 the zonings.
20:02:41 >>MARY MULHERN: It doesn't sound like we should do it
20:02:43 on that date.
20:02:49 I don't know how we are going to do all of that.
20:02:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe we should have this
20:02:56 transmittal the night that I suggest that we have our
20:02:59 Kum ba yah meeting on the 24th.
20:03:03 That gives us almost 30 days from today.
20:03:11 I think it makes a lot better sense.
20:03:13 Would that be okay with the rest of the council
20:03:17 Gives us almost 30 days.
20:03:18 It gives us like 28 days, maybe 29.
20:03:20 And it would mean that we wouldn't be so crushed,
20:03:23 because it would be the only discrete item on our
20:03:27 But perhaps the motion should be that I withdraw my
20:03:31 special meeting and then we'll just continue this
20:03:33 public hearing to the 24th at 6 p.m.
20:03:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
20:03:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion to withdraw the
20:03:41 (Motion carried).
20:03:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue tonight's
20:03:46 transmittal public hearing to the 24th at 6 p.m.
20:03:49 That makes a lot more sense.
20:03:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
20:03:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:03:53 (Motion carried)
20:03:57 Mr. Shelby, do you have an ordinance to read?
20:04:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, Ms. Kert had prepared for City
20:04:03 Council, and the clerk has a copy of the original, the
20:04:06 ordinance relating to the wet zoning, 1515 east
20:04:12 7th Avenue, Tampa, Florida, with the conditions
20:04:15 that council had requested.
20:04:17 You have a copy of the original.
20:04:18 I believe that's prepared from council's motion.
20:04:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Read it.
20:04:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, ma'am.
20:04:34 Second reading?
20:04:35 First reading.
20:04:35 An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
20:04:37 containing alcohol by more than 1% but not more than
20:04:40 14% weight and Wayne regardless of alcoholic content
20:04:43 beer and wine 2(COP) for consumption on premises and
20:04:45 in sealed containers for consumption off premises at
20:04:49 certain lot plot tract of land at 1515 East 7th Avenue
20:04:52 located more particularly described in section 2
20:04:55 therefore wavering certain restrictions as to distance
20:04:58 based upon certain findings imposing certain
20:05:00 conditions providing for repeal of all ordinances in
20:05:02 conflict providing an effective date.
20:05:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
20:05:04 (Motion carried).
20:05:06 >>THE CLERK:
20:05:13 >> Second reading would be July 17th.
20:05:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
20:05:18 absent at vote, Scott being absent.
20:05:20 Second reading and adoption will be on July 17th
20:05:23 at 9:30 a.m.
20:05:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to receive and file.
20:05:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file.
20:05:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
20:05:30 (Motion carried).
20:05:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to adjourn.
20:05:37 >> Hear hear.
20:05:40 (the City Council meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.)
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.