Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council Meeting
July 24, 2008, 6:05 p.m.


18:07:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to order.

18:07:33 We'll have roll call.

18:07:35 [ROLL CALL].

18:07:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Just reading through the record, we have two

18:07:46 memos, one from Councilman Charlie Miranda, who sent a memo

18:07:50 this morning, as well as Councilwoman Mary Mulhern that they

18:07:55 would not be here. Councilman Miranda is out of town, and

18:08:00 Councilwoman Mary Mulhern is ill, and so I believe the clerk

18:08:03 has a copy of these records. But I want to make sure that's

18:08:07 again in the record for this evening. Okay? Welcome,

18:08:09 everybody, again this evening. We will now have a

18:08:13 presentation.

18:08:18 >> Before we begin just to let the public know if you wish

18:08:21 to receive a courtesy information statement from the

18:08:23 department of community affairs there's a request form

18:08:26 that's located outside of chambers tonight. We ask that

18:08:28 you -- if you wish to do so, please fill it out, providing

18:08:31 your name and address before you leave the public hearing,

18:08:34 and there's a notice regarding further information on the

18:08:36 door. Thank you.

18:08:41 >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of city council, I'm

18:08:45 Cindy Miller. This is the continuation of the transmittal

18:08:49 hearing for the Tampa comprehensive plan. It's a

18:08:51 continuation from the hearing of June 26th. I'd like to

18:08:55 just go through a little bit of housekeeping, and then turn

18:08:57 it over to Terry Cullen from the planning commission, but I

18:09:04 would like to mention that what we would be submitting for

18:09:07 the record tonight are four additional items that have not

18:09:09 yet been received. One is a transmittal of the consolidated

18:09:14 staff recommendations, and Randy goers from my staff will

18:09:19 distribute that now. We also have a July 18th, 2008 memo

18:09:24 with attachments that identified the concerns raised by our

18:09:30 various stake holders and staff response to those concerns.

18:09:34 Those were distributed to the various stakeholders who had

18:09:38 provided written responses, as well as to city council

18:09:41 earlier.

18:09:43 I would also like to have submitted for the record the

18:09:46 transportation concurrency exception area PowerPoint that

18:09:50 was presented earlier today at a workshop, and what is also

18:09:54 included in that PowerPoint is also some subsequent

18:09:58 information as to some of the policies as to rail. We did

18:10:00 not include that in the workshop this morning, but we think

18:10:03 it's very pertinent points for council and for the record.

18:10:06 I'd also like to point out one item that is a -- is within

18:10:10 the documentation, and is also sort of supplemental

18:10:13 information from this morning. To my right, the second map,

18:10:18 and we'll bring it up closer for you to see, is the

18:10:20 transportation concurrency exception area map that you saw

18:10:23 earlier. But we have now included in that the conceptual

18:10:28 rail areas. So that therefore, it is something that we now

18:10:32 have the primary transrecorders that were identified, and we

18:10:38 have also put the conceptual lines for rail.

18:10:40 Before I turn it over to Terry, when I took this job

18:10:47 about -- it's almost four years ago now, the mayor had told

18:10:49 me, Cindy, the comprehensive plan is the most important

18:10:53 project that you and your staff can be working on for the

18:10:56 future of Tampa. And I would say particularly the last few

18:11:00 months, but definitely the last couple of years as well,

18:11:03 this has been probably one of the more positive,

18:11:09 forward-looking experiences I've had. And today I think has

18:11:12 been just a fabulous day from the standpoint of our workshop

18:11:15 this morning. We were able to talk about affordable

18:11:18 housing, transportation, as well as rail projects. And if

18:11:24 there is a project that I think the administration, the

18:11:27 mayor, the rest of the staff can work with city council on

18:11:30 over the next few years, it is to be able to start

18:11:34 accomplishing the comprehensive plan. And when it comes to

18:11:39 council's jurisdiction for the comprehensive plan, I do

18:11:42 thank all of you for the courtesies you've extended to me

18:11:45 and my staff and to the other departments of the city, and I

18:11:48 especially want to thank the planning commission, who has

18:11:50 been our partners in working with this. Terry Cullen,

18:11:55 Michelle OGILVIE, and Richard, although he sort of moved on

18:11:59 to other things, and all the rest of the planning commission

18:12:01 staff. So I do thank them, and I really also appreciate the

18:12:05 stakeholders, the members of the public and businesses that

18:12:08 have worked with us so extensively as we've worked over the

18:12:11 last few weeks. So my thanks to you, council, and as well

18:12:14 to the public.

18:12:15 And with that I will turn it over to Terry.

18:12:17 >> Okay. Thank you.

18:12:22 >>GWEN MILLER: I received a letter from an attorney and I'd

18:12:25 like to read it.

18:12:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, I just got word that

18:12:33 he is en route here. Okay. Terry?

18:12:38 >> All right. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Terry

18:12:40 Cullen. I'm with the planning commission staff. This is an

18:12:43 exciting moment for us. This is a project that has been

18:12:45 five years in the making, and tonight you're going to get a

18:12:48 little bit of a different kind of presentation because in a

18:12:52 moment I'm going to ask the television crews to crank up a

18:12:55 PowerPoint presentation that, while I'm describing the

18:13:00 plan-up date, you're going to see a series of images of our

18:13:03 city. Now, I'd like -- there won't be any words attached to

18:13:06 those images, and we'll just continue through the whole

18:13:09 presentation like that, and it will be on a loop.

18:13:12 The title of our comprehensive plan update is called

18:13:15 building our legacy, a liveable city. I'm going to ask if

18:13:18 the television guys can fire up the PowerPoint.

18:13:22 One of the things I do want to mention is that the new plan

18:13:25 is actually smaller than the existing plan. But a lot of

18:13:29 people think the new plan is much bigger. The reason they

18:13:32 feel it's much bigger is because you have to use the entire

18:13:36 plan. The existing plan pretty much, it's only the future

18:13:42 land use element that's used on a regular basis, and the

18:13:44 rest of it is never really considered. Sad, but true.

18:13:48 But this plan is probably the most integrative plan that I

18:13:52 have ever seen or been able to help develop in the 22 years

18:13:56 I have been working with the planning commission. So we're

18:13:59 very excited about this.

18:14:01 The liveable city. That's the whole idea behind what we're

18:14:04 trying to do with this plan update. This is a global

18:14:07 movement. And when I say global, I truly mean global. This

18:14:10 is happening in the United States and it's happening all

18:14:13 around the world, in Europe and in ASIA. That now that

18:14:17 we're a global community, cities are beginning to realize

18:14:21 that if they're going to attract quality investment and

18:14:23 people, they have to have a quality city. No longer can

18:14:28 they just look at and bring in certain types of aspects to

18:14:33 the city. They know that the best people, the intellectual

18:14:36 capital, is going to go to those cities that offer the best

18:14:39 amenities, and that offer the highest quality of life

18:14:42 possible for the citizenry, and that's the lofty goal that

18:14:46 we have with the comprehensive plan update, is to create a

18:14:50 liveable city. And we've got such good bones to build a

18:14:53 liveable city with.

18:14:56 So what exactly is a liveable city? Well, in my words, it's

18:15:00 a highly appealing, beautiful and dynamic city that attracts

18:15:04 people and investment.

18:15:06 Now, there are certain universal qualities that make up a

18:15:10 liveable city. Seven, actually. One is there's a sense of

18:15:14 place to the city.

18:15:16 Now, you think of some of the greatest cities in the world,

18:15:19 and you're thinking of them probably because they have some

18:15:21 sort of sense of place to them that defines the city as a

18:15:25 major city. They're attractive cities. Every liveable city

18:15:30 across the world, whether it be London, Vancouver, portland,

18:15:35 Paris, Rome, you name it, they're attractive cities. They

18:15:39 have a lot of different types of mobility options.

18:15:42 You can get around that city and those kinds of cities in so

18:15:45 many different ways.

18:15:47 They have -- their activities support and foster economic

18:15:53 opportunity. They feel safe. They have a mixture of uses,

18:15:57 they have great open space and they have good, strong, urban

18:16:01 design in place, and those are the universal qualities.

18:16:04 And when I say we went around the world in our research, we

18:16:07 went as far as new Zealand. We went over into Asia, we were

18:16:14 in Europe and North America when we were looking at the best

18:16:17 cities around the world, and what is it that they have and

18:16:20 what is it that they advocate, and these are the universal

18:16:24 qualities that come out of it. Now, we've done extensive

18:16:26 citizen participation to go into -- okay, I don't want to

18:16:29 just blindly transfer concepts from one city to Tampa

18:16:33 because I don't think that works.

18:16:34 I think every city is as unique as every individual's

18:16:38 fingerprint. So I needed to know what is it about Tampa

18:16:41 that is so special. So we did a very extensive citizen

18:16:44 participation process. We did some innovative processes

18:16:50 called study circles. There's a couple of people here

18:16:54 tonight that actually sat on those study circles, and we

18:16:57 really dove in to to try to understand what makes Tampa so

18:16:59 unique.

18:17:02 What's really fascinating about this is I also did the same

18:17:05 process at the same time in Temple Terrace and Plant City,

18:17:07 and all three of these cities have very distinctive

18:17:11 differences between them that make them so unique.

18:17:15 So what is Tampa's vision of what a liveable city should be?

18:17:21 Well, first of all, it's our diverse neighborhoods. If you

18:17:24 stop and think about our neighborhoods and how we've evolved

18:17:27 over time, the cultural diversity that's represented over

18:17:31 the ages in our neighborhoods, it's this wonderful mix that

18:17:35 has a -- of different types of people, and development that

18:17:38 has been laid on top of each other like different layers

18:17:43 overtime to create what someone on my team coined

18:17:46 "Unexpected discovery" and it is -- it's fascinating. I

18:17:50 love to show off this city, and when I have friends --

18:17:53 friends that actually live here that still don't really know

18:17:55 the city, they're amazed when I take them down a road and I

18:17:58 show them, look at this little cemetery at the side of the

18:18:00 road, or I'll bet you didn't know that this is a very

18:18:03 culturally diverse area.

18:18:04 So I would take them around and show them the little secrets

18:18:07 of Tampa, the things that I call unexpected discovery.

18:18:10 You can't get that in a greenfield, pre-planned subdivision,

18:18:18 platted kind of layout that you see in most of our outlying

18:18:22 areas. This is the city and there is no city quite like it.

18:18:26 So diverse neighborhoods. We have a very strong and vibrant

18:18:29 downtown that we are building upon. And we're seeing that

18:18:32 movement finally come in to place. And when the market

18:18:35 picks back up again we're going to see more people than ever

18:18:38 before living downtown, which is going to bring this whole

18:18:41 set of new vibrancy to our central area.

18:18:45 We also have to recognize partnership, and that's part of

18:18:49 our vision, too. Not just our community partners in the

18:18:52 city itself, but our role in the region. We are one of the

18:18:56 powerhouses in the region. We are one of the places where

18:19:00 people want to be. We want to make sure that in the future,

18:19:05 that continues. We don't ever want people to say, I don't

18:19:09 want to be there. We want them to come to Tampa. We want

18:19:12 them to bring their money, their dollars, their investment,

18:19:15 and we've got the jobs, we've got the economic

18:19:18 opportunities. We've got an urban experience that is unlike

18:19:22 no other in the State of Florida.

18:19:24 We also have to recognize as part of our vision our

18:19:28 interconnected foundations of growth, and that's our

18:19:33 infrastructure and of course the big one that's being

18:19:35 discussed now is the rail transit as part of mobility. And

18:19:38 we'll talk a little bit about that later. It's very

18:19:40 important to understand it's not a question of if we're

18:19:42 going to get it. It's when. All systems are go, and moving

18:19:47 in that direction. And we're all very excited about those

18:19:50 possibilities.

18:19:51 We have to build on our assets. When people tell me, well,

18:19:55 what have you got to do in Tampa, and I said, oh, wow, I can

18:19:59 go across an entire board from Ybor City to Busch Gardens.

18:20:03 One of my favorites is Bulici Boulevard. I mean, it's one

18:20:08 of my favorites to go and eat and try out all the different

18:20:10 restaurants and the cultural attractions, the Bayshore. Our

18:20:14 neighborhoods, the areas, the water views, the river, Lowry

18:20:19 Park, Sulfur Springs. It's just truly amazing what we have

18:20:22 in this city.

18:20:23 We need to build on those assets. That's a simple business

18:20:26 principle. You look at what you're strong in, you build

18:20:29 upon it because that's how you build well, that's how you

18:20:32 make something even better.

18:20:35 Growing economic prosperity. I've always said from the

18:20:38 get-go that Tampa has this raw energy underneath it. It

18:20:42 doesn't necessarily have the smooth sophistication of other

18:20:47 communities, but what it is is this raw energy of all these

18:20:50 different cultures and immigrant groups that have come here

18:20:53 to realize the American dream, and they're still coming.

18:20:57 Our latest immigrant groups and our larger ones are the

18:21:00 Mexicans, for example, and with that they're bringing their

18:21:03 culture, their restaurants, their money, their people, and

18:21:06 they add to that wonderful blend that's Tampa.

18:21:08 And so that makes us a very -- that lends itself to our

18:21:13 prosperity.

18:21:15 And then we've also, part of the vision, our planning

18:21:19 districts. These districts that we've set up. There's five

18:21:22 of them, that are largely grouped around the time periods

18:21:25 that a lot of those areas were built, going from North to

18:21:28 South, there's the new Tampa district. There's the

18:21:32 university district, there's the central Tampa district, the

18:21:36 Westshore district, and the South Tampa district. So we're

18:21:40 finally being able to group things appropriately, and it's

18:21:42 not that one is going to be treated any differently than the

18:21:46 other, it's just that it reflects all the diversity that we

18:21:49 have in the city itself.

18:21:51 And then there's, on top of those seven different pieces of

18:21:55 the vision, there's a vision map that's at the end of

18:21:57 chapter two in the draft of the plan that you all have. And

18:22:01 that reflects a lot of different things that I just

18:22:03 mentioned on that map.

18:22:06 That, along with the vision statements, is now the new

18:22:09 center piece for the plan.

18:22:11 So when I pick up the plan, when anyone picks up the plan,

18:22:14 the first place they will go to will not be the future land

18:22:19 use map. It will be the vision map, and the vision.

18:22:23 Understand what our big picture is first before you go any

18:22:27 further, because the future land use map is only one of many

18:22:31 tools that are going to help us to achieve this vision. But

18:22:35 before you go, pass-go, you need to understand what the big

18:22:38 picture is. And that's what we're going to be telling

18:22:41 everybody from here on out.

18:22:43 Understand what that is and it will be a lot better for you.

18:22:46 You'll understand how you need to perhaps approach certain

18:22:50 development review or if you're trying to write a grant, or

18:22:53 you're trying to do some kind of activity at the

18:22:55 neighborhood level, if you understand the big picture, then

18:22:59 we'll all be heading in the same direction together, which

18:23:01 is what we really need and what the current plan so sorely

18:23:05 lacks.

18:23:05 Okay. So now that I've described our vision, how do we get

18:23:09 there? Okay. There are -- what -- the first thing is is

18:23:13 that we have identified that there's five pieces of the

18:23:16 physical form to this city, which we call the city forum.

18:23:21 There's the business centers and economic engines, we've

18:23:25 grouped those as one.

18:23:26 There is the urban villages, the mixed use corridor

18:23:31 villages, the transit stations and the residential

18:23:34 neighborhoods.

18:23:35 Now, now that we understand that there's five pieces of the

18:23:38 physical form to Tampa, what do we do with that? Well, this

18:23:42 is the beginning of where we apply the growth management

18:23:45 strategy.

18:23:46 In the next 20 years, we're expecting another 92,000 people

18:23:49 to come here and live in the city of Tampa, and another

18:23:54 132,000 people to come here and work. Where are those

18:23:57 people going to go when there's not very many opportunities

18:24:01 to annex more land. For the first time in Tampa's history,

18:24:05 most of our future will be driven by redevelopment versus

18:24:08 new green fill development. So it's very important that if

18:24:12 we want the city to be all that we want it to be, we have to

18:24:16 put the growth into areas where it is appropriate. And

18:24:21 those areas where it's appropriate, in varying degrees, are

18:24:25 our business centers, such as downtown Westshore and USF.

18:24:28 Economic growth and economic engines, such as the port. The

18:24:35 mixed use corridor villages, which are a lot of our transit

18:24:39 emphasis arterial roads, and a lot of those really do need

18:24:42 some help, and we can see that there could be a beautiful

18:24:46 type of development pattern down those that create very

18:24:49 walkable linear type of neighborhoods that fit very well

18:24:53 with the residential neighborhoods that abut them and that

18:24:57 are compatible, and may even be considered as part of that

18:25:01 adjoining residential neighborhood.

18:25:03 Urban villages, but only to the extent that they're

18:25:06 secondary planning processes, they've -- they set the tone

18:25:10 and sort of inform how the future will change in those

18:25:15 areas. For example, Channelside, they're looking at a lot

18:25:18 of intense development, but Davis islands, they're not. So

18:25:21 it's -- those are the very unique, individual -- individual

18:25:25 types of planning that has gone on for each one of those

18:25:28 urban villages.

18:25:29 And finally the transit stations which are not here yet, but

18:25:32 those are going to be types of neighborhoods.

18:25:35 Now, in transit stations that are right in or adjacent to

18:25:39 residential neighborhoods, they're likely to be very

18:25:42 low-scale type development. But for transit stations that

18:25:44 are downtown, for example, we expect that to be a very high

18:25:50 intensity, mixed-use high energy kind of neighborhood

18:25:54 itself.

18:25:54 So the growth management strategy, which, by the way, the

18:25:57 present plan does not have a growth management strategy.

18:26:00 The growth management strategy is so carefully woven through

18:26:04 this plan. I want to just quickly tell you where you're

18:26:07 going to find it. You're going to find it in the future

18:26:11 land use element. You're going to find it in the mobility.

18:26:14 And also in the transportation concurrency exception area

18:26:18 provisions of the mobility, the capital improvements, our

18:26:23 urban design components, our community planning components

18:26:26 and plan administration.

18:26:27 So for the first time, we actually have a growth management

18:26:30 strategy, and it's going to help us move towards a form for

18:26:35 this liveable city that we all see in the future, and I

18:26:38 think we've come the closest ever to creating a win/win

18:26:41 situation for all the different people that need to use or

18:26:44 live or work in the City of Tampa. No small undertaking

18:26:49 thanks to -- thanks to everybody that has really

18:26:52 participated in that.

18:26:54 I just wanted -- and also with the future land use element,

18:26:57 the plan categories. For the first time, we're actually

18:27:01 describing what a plan category should look like. What a

18:27:04 concept.

18:27:05 So what does community mixed-use look like? What do we

18:27:09 expect in terms of development? Instead of just 35 dwelling

18:27:12 units per acre, 1.5 floor area ratio. That's Greek. And

18:27:17 now we're beginning to describe in layman's terms, it can

18:27:21 include this. It can look like this. This is a vision of

18:27:25 success. It's a really cool thing. If you go through the

18:27:27 plan, you'll see these little letter boxes that talk about

18:27:30 vision of success.

18:27:31 So what does it mean when we get to the end? What will it

18:27:34 look like?

18:27:36 As a side bar to that, you're probably wondering why I

18:27:40 haven't mentioned the future land use map. One is because

18:27:43 earlier I told you is no longer taking on the position of

18:27:47 prominence that it has in the existing plan, but two, we've

18:27:50 made very, very few changes to that map.

18:27:54 Most of what you're seeing is really policy initiative.

18:27:57 Because the future isn't looking at a map and looking at

18:28:00 colors and saying, well, that color doesn't look good to

18:28:04 that color. I would never decorate my house to look like

18:28:06 that, so I'm not going to put red next to this, for example.

18:28:10 It's not the way we're doing it anymore. That is just

18:28:12 simply a tool.

18:28:13 The future is going to be on integrative dialogue, consensus

18:28:21 building, and it's going to be built more along like that

18:28:24 and now you're going to have the tools and the plan and the

18:28:26 policy initiatives to be able to really have a wholistic

18:28:30 conversation about what some of this stuff means, where you

18:28:32 never could before because the plan doesn't offer you that

18:28:35 guidance.

18:28:35 So we're pretty excited about that.

18:28:37 But we do have two small map amendments. One is down in the

18:28:42 Palma Ceia neighborhood, and believe it or not it's a

18:28:47 cleanup from the amendment that was done a couple of years

18:28:50 ago, it was an oversight so we decided to take it through

18:28:53 the plan amendment process, and then the other one is an

18:28:56 annexation for an area up in the far northern part of the

18:28:58 city. And that presently is in the county is planned to

18:29:04 allow one unit per ten acres, and the recommendation from

18:29:08 the city and the planning commission staff is that you

18:29:11 create a plan category that will allow them to increase

18:29:14 their development potential by 100%, that is one unit for

18:29:19 five acres versus one unit for ten acres. So those are two

18:29:22 recommendations and two small map amendments, and that's it.

18:29:26 That's it. We're not doing anything else with the map.

18:29:29 We're not making any changes to the map beyond that. Now,

18:29:32 that -- that, for anyone who's ever followed the plan since

18:29:36 its inception back in 1989, is absolutely amazing.

18:29:39 Absolutely amazing.

18:29:40 So we're pretty excited.

18:29:41 All right. So that is, in a nutshell, chapters one, two and

18:29:46 three, which are very, very important to understanding the

18:29:48 entire plan.

18:29:50 And then the way we implement the rest of the plan, I'm

18:29:53 going to briefly go through that. We've broken it up into a

18:29:56 total of nine chapters, and I've just described three of

18:30:00 them. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail over the

18:30:03 others, but what I will tell you is what they contain, and

18:30:05 particularly what are some of the new things that we have in

18:30:08 here. Because there's a lot of stuff that we brought over

18:30:11 that's been pretty good from the existing plan, but we've

18:30:14 added new things in there. I think that really reflect a

18:30:17 lot of your interests, too.

18:30:18 So when I go to chapter four, this is the building

18:30:21 sustainable neighborhoods. Now, when you think the

18:30:25 neighborhoods, or at least we did, we thought it should

18:30:27 include the neighborhood element, new area for children.

18:30:32 Children, what a concept. For the first time ever, we're

18:30:35 putting stuff in here for children.

18:30:36 We've got some of the minority affairs element in this

18:30:39 chapter. We have the housing element, the historic

18:30:42 resources, parks, recreation, open space, and the public

18:30:45 school facility element, which you all just recently adopted

18:30:48 as a new element. Doesn't that make sense, looping or

18:30:51 linking all of that and putting it together in a sustainable

18:30:54 neighborhood chapter? We thought it did.

18:30:57 And we talked about neighborhood element. Some of the new

18:30:59 stuff that we talk about is we really underscore the

18:31:03 importance of neighborhoods to the city as the city's basic

18:31:06 building block, and how we go about building strong,

18:31:10 thriving neighborhoods. Absolutely critical to the success

18:31:13 of the future of the city.

18:31:15 The importance of communication and partnership. We're

18:31:19 going to talk a little bit more about that because we're

18:31:21 looking at a very -- a different paradigm in the future for

18:31:24 the way the city interacts with neighborhoods and community

18:31:28 partners. And brand new is that community planning. The

18:31:32 community planning initiatives that this -- that the mayor

18:31:35 and this administration is undergoing in a demonstration

18:31:38 project in Seminole heights.

18:31:40 Now, let's talk a little bit about children. We go into why

18:31:43 children are important for a liveable city and the

18:31:46 challenges that they face here. And they're significant

18:31:50 challenges. We want to create a city that's a good place to

18:31:53 raise children. We need to have safe walking. Access to

18:31:57 parks and rec, arts, giving children a voice, appreciation

18:32:03 of our diverse cultures, caring for the environment, and

18:32:06 working to get children out of poverty.

18:32:09 If we don't do that, we're just going -- it's just going to

18:32:12 be a repetitious cycle and that's really going to hurt our

18:32:15 future.

18:32:16 The housing element, all your traditional stuff is from the

18:32:18 housing element is still in there. And we are beginning to

18:32:22 now relate housing to different types of neighborhoods based

18:32:25 on your neighborhood type and form. We have single-family

18:32:29 neighborhoods, we have multi-family neighborhoods. We're

18:32:32 now going to have transit oriented types of neighborhoods.

18:32:34 So brand new, actually, talking about neighborhoods in

18:32:38 relationship to what their physical form is.

18:32:41 We also have in there, housing and families and support

18:32:45 programs that get people into responsible homeownership.

18:32:51 That's absolutely critical. Greenhousing is right in line

18:32:55 with the city's initiatives and your interests in that, and

18:32:57 neighborhood leadership, actually how do we foster

18:33:01 neighborhood leadership.

18:33:02 Historic resources is all included in there, parks and

18:33:04 recreation, open spaces in there, some new things with

18:33:08 parks, recreation and open spaces is the tree canopy. When

18:33:11 I look out my office, we're up on the 18th floor, and I look

18:33:15 North, it is a sea of green. You probably know how green

18:33:19 this city is.

18:33:20 The next time any of you have a chance when you're flying

18:33:24 into San Francisco, look out the window. It is stark gray

18:33:28 with patches of green that are their parks. When you fly

18:33:32 into Tampa, it is almost a solid green with little buildings

18:33:36 poking up here and there.

18:33:38 Community street trees as infrastructure. Now, there's a

18:33:41 new concept. Expanded list of tools to encourage the

18:33:45 private provision of open space, including transfer of

18:33:48 development rights.

18:33:52 Oh, we're hitting on some good stuff here, accessibility.

18:33:56 Expanded tools to get the waterfront access. We also want

18:34:00 to use the transfer development rights idea to do that.

18:34:02 Some really, really, really wonderful things.

18:34:05 And we're going to incorporate the salient features of the

18:34:08 existing greenway plan in this plan, too. Of course, I

18:34:11 mentioned the public school facility element. You've heard

18:34:14 a lot about that.

18:34:15 When we roll into chapter five, that's our sustainable

18:34:19 environment and that has our conservation and coastal

18:34:21 management elements, and the conservation element contains

18:34:25 all your traditional things that you've heard of, but new,

18:34:27 when we talk about air quality, a narrative that now links

18:34:31 air quality and human health, the natural environment and

18:34:34 the economy. You heard this morning Mr. English talk about

18:34:38 in salt Lake City, a hundred bad air quality days and the

18:34:42 alerts that they have to put out there.

18:34:45 Companies aren't going to move to areas that have those

18:34:48 kinds of issues. Now, we don't have that as a problem. But

18:34:52 that's something we always have to be aware of and make sure

18:34:56 that we're working for that.

18:34:58 New policy language that links mass transit and bicycle and

18:35:02 walking modes of mobility to improved air quality. A direct

18:35:06 link. There's another public purpose being served there.

18:35:08 You're going to see -- there's a whole new objective area

18:35:11 with policies for lakes. Believe it or not, we have nothing

18:35:15 to protect the lakes in the City of Tampa. You know, how do

18:35:17 we maintain and improve the ecological quality, so on and so

18:35:21 forth. Urban forestry, connecting the urban forest to the

18:35:27 environmental sustainability, energy conservation and health

18:35:30 of the city. Our urban force has about I think it's seven

18:35:33 million trees when they did the inventory. A medium-sized

18:35:38 oak tree, according to U.S. department of agriculture has

18:35:42 the cooling equipment of ten to fifteen room-sized air

18:35:45 conditioners, and we have seven million trees in this city?

18:35:49 Significant impact.

18:35:49 Now, if you think of climate change and carbon footprint, we

18:35:53 don't get into that level, but we're doing something. We've

18:35:56 got to be doing something with our tree preservation

18:35:59 programs.

18:36:00 Energy conservation and green building. There's a lot going

18:36:03 on with that. Meet the future energy needs and be resource

18:36:07 efficient. So there's a whole new -- there's a whole new

18:36:11 vent on that that's put into the plan.

18:36:13 Postal management element is the other part of the

18:36:16 sustainable environment and there's new definitions for

18:36:19 coastal high hazard areas, there's new guidelines for post

18:36:24 disaster redevelopment and there's now an acknowledged need

18:36:27 to protect our commercial working water fronts, as you've

18:36:30 seen and been recently, there's a lot of pressure -- well,

18:36:32 it's eased off with the market changes, to convert a lot of

18:36:36 our waterfronts over to other things, maybe from its old

18:36:40 port and water dependent types of uses over to residential.

18:36:43 Okay. Let's get to sustainable infrastructure. Here we

18:36:48 have mobility. Don't use transportation any more.

18:36:51 Mobility. It's the new word for the new millennium. Okay?

18:36:54 Potable water, waste water, stormwater management and solid

18:36:58 waste. Okay. The mobility element includes rail, transit,

18:37:01 bus, pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, port, truck, rail,

18:37:04 shipping, airport. If it moves, it's in here. I'm going to

18:37:09 read you something from the plan, I think it's really

18:37:11 important. I want to get this into the record, and one of

18:37:14 my fans is this retired fellow that lives in my complex, and

18:37:18 he rents three special boxes from Brighthouse for his small

18:37:21 condo so that he can watch city council hearings, and so I

18:37:25 told him that I would put this into the -- you know, on

18:37:28 television for him. He's watching tonight and I'll get a

18:37:32 critique tomorrow.

18:37:33 >>GWEN MILLER: He's not watching tonight.

18:37:35 >> Cities are the pinnacle of human settlements. That's us.

18:37:40 The concentration of a relatively large number of people

18:37:42 living in a small geographic area creates some interesting

18:37:47 results, including economic conglomerations and synergies, a

18:37:51 concentration of higher education, thought and innovation,

18:37:54 and a concentration of cultures and creative expressions of

18:37:57 art. None of this would be possible if people, goods and

18:38:02 services couldn't be moved geographically, whether it is a

18:38:06 worker traveling to work, food products being shipped to a

18:38:09 grocery store, potable water being piped to a home, or an

18:38:13 E-mail being sent from one side of town to another. The

18:38:16 success of a city in part is in direct proportion to how

18:38:20 mobile it is.

18:38:22 Now, the key to successful mobility in a city is to increase

18:38:27 the number of ways someone can complete most types of travel

18:38:32 trips in the city.

18:38:33 The road network is often overcrowded because it is the only

18:38:37 feasible way to get around the city for job trips, shopping

18:38:41 trips, school trips or almost any kind of trip.

18:38:45 The frustration isn't just that the average commute is

18:38:48 getting longer, but it's because there's no other choice.

18:38:52 There is no other choice. And that's not often talked

18:38:56 about. Every aspect of liveability emphasizes the need for

18:39:00 diversity. The more diversity, the healthier something

18:39:04 tends to be. Whether it's the economy, whether it's the

18:39:08 natural environment, the same is true of mobility. A full

18:39:12 compliment of mobility choices is needed to help build a

18:39:16 liveable Tampa.

18:39:17 Okay. And that's all a lead-in to when I say it's not a

18:39:23 question of if we're going to get a rail transit system,

18:39:26 it's when are we going to get it. And there's a lot of --

18:39:29 there's a lot of movement now. A lot of energy building in

18:39:31 that direction.

18:39:33 So we -- this plan is rail transit ready. It emphasizes the

18:39:40 need. It has -- it emphasizes the direct link to the labor

18:39:45 shed and work force housing. It is getting us transit

18:39:49 ready. The land use and mobility link are inseparable.

18:39:55 Mobility and the city form, our bus system, the mixed use

18:40:00 corridor systems, the rail, it all works together.

18:40:03 Now, you heard this morning from the questioning and the

18:40:07 discussions from the TCA and Mr. English, there's a big

18:40:09 question of timing. And yes, there's going to be all the

18:40:12 details that have to be worked out with all the regs that go

18:40:17 through it, but fix the big picture in your mind and let's

18:40:19 not lose sight of it because that's where we're going.

18:40:23 And I'm not going to get into the transportation area. You

18:40:26 had a good workshop on that this morning. I think Jean did

18:40:29 an excellent job.

18:40:31 Also in our infrastructure chapter, potable water, as I

18:40:35 mentioned, waste water, stormwater, solid waste, and capital

18:40:39 improvements and they all have lots of wonderful, some

18:40:42 familiar standards you've seen before and some wonderful

18:40:45 things put in there. I won't get into a lot -- I won't get

18:40:48 into any detail about that tonight.

18:40:50 I'm going to jump to chapter seven, vibrant economy.

18:40:54 We were never allowed to touch this as a subject area about

18:40:57 ten years ago. But now it's a really hot topic. The

18:41:02 economy. And this is a new topical area, sustainable

18:41:06 prosperity. Leadership, good infrastructure, land use

18:41:09 partnership, arts, culture, they all work together. There's

18:41:14 a lot of discussion in here. It's a -- this portion of the

18:41:17 plan has been very well-put together and it brings in

18:41:20 experiences from all around the country.

18:41:24 Chapter eight, which is perhaps one of my most favorite

18:41:27 chapters. I have a lot of them. And this is people

18:41:30 shaping, changing and growing our city and we deliberately

18:41:33 chose that as the title, because we believe that the city is

18:41:37 its people, and these -- the people and everything that they

18:41:42 do, and their ability to do it that change and grow us, and

18:41:46 this has got our neighborhood element, the intergovernmental

18:41:49 coordination element, and the balance of minority, the

18:41:52 affairs element, and there's two very key concepts in here.

18:41:56 I know you've heard them before, but just give me a moment

18:41:59 to explain them because they're so important. One is the

18:42:01 city as conductor and the orchestra. That's the metaphor.

18:42:05 I love to use that metaphor. The conductor of a symphony

18:42:08 orchestra does not make the music. And when you -- when you

18:42:12 listen to an orchestra, symphony orchestra, warming up

18:42:16 before they actually play, it's just a lot of noise. You

18:42:19 hear a horn blow, hear a squeak there. But when the

18:42:24 conductor steps up to the plate -- not the plate, excuse me.

18:42:29 Getting carried away here. When the conductor steps up and

18:42:32 taps his baton and then everyone comes together and together

18:42:35 they work and they create music, beautiful music. The

18:42:39 metaphor is that you all, that's the city, legislative and

18:42:49 executive branches, are the conductor. You're the

18:42:51 conductor.

18:42:51 Now, I'm not -- I'm not suggesting that you need to go out

18:42:54 and single handedly get children out of poverty. I mean,

18:42:59 that's never been any sort of thing that the city could do.

18:43:03 But there's so many organizations such as the children's

18:43:06 board, the school board, that work with children's issues.

18:43:09 >> Actually, Terry, we're the ones with the shovel at Lowry

18:43:12 Park Zoo.

18:43:13 >> That's right. And you're -- but what they do, if they

18:43:18 can line their functional planning up with what your vision

18:43:21 is. So step up to the podium, not the plate, and articulate

18:43:32 that vision and ask your community partners to start

18:43:35 aligning functional plans. It may take some time, but y'all

18:43:39 are the conductor. And so this allows you, without having

18:43:42 to expend the resources, to be able to really guide the

18:43:45 city's future, because nobody really knows more about how

18:43:49 the city is and where it should be going than the city

18:43:52 government itself.

18:43:53 And finally, community capacity building. Boy, are we

18:43:57 getting hit with fiscal -- you know, problems with fiscal

18:44:01 resources, you know, revenue shrinking. The whole idea

18:44:04 behind community capacity building is how can we leverage

18:44:08 the investment of -- or the knowledge and capability of all

18:44:12 the people in the city to do something. Now, you have so

18:44:15 many neighborhood groups out there that work so hard to try

18:44:18 to make their communities better. Now, we've got Margaret

18:44:24 who's here tonight and I see Carol Marshall from Tampa

18:44:28 Heights, among others. Many wonderful communities in this

18:44:31 city that are trying so hard, Randy Baron from Seminole

18:44:35 Heights, that want their communities to be better. How can

18:44:38 we tap into them and empower them to be able to do it, even

18:44:42 more, even more what they do.

18:44:44 And the idea behind this is community capacity building.

18:44:47 The example that I use, and it's a very, very simplistic

18:44:50 example, but it's just for illustrative purposes only.

18:44:53 Okay. I get a million dollars. I'm the city. I get a

18:44:55 million dollars. Typically what I would do is I'm going to

18:44:58 go down the list of project needs and I'm going to pick one,

18:45:01 maybe two projects, probably one because most projects cost,

18:45:07 you know, that much money or more and so what I end up doing

18:45:09 is perhaps spending a million dollars and I end up helping

18:45:12 one, maybe two neighborhoods. But what if I were able to

18:45:15 divide that million dollars up into ten $100,000 pots, and I

18:45:19 challenge ten neighborhoods to go out and get me another

18:45:23 matching $100,000 worth of value. It doesn't necessarily

18:45:27 have to be money. It could be volunteerism. It could be

18:45:32 sponsorship from corporate sponsorship. It could be in-kind

18:45:36 contributions of experts that live in the neighborhood.

18:45:39 There's so many different ways you could do it.

18:45:41 So then, I then have empowered them to go and make some

18:45:46 change that's very important to them, and they're getting

18:45:49 $100,000 from us. They're matching it with $100,000. They

18:45:52 all go do it. I end up with $2 million worth of value

18:45:57 instead of $1 million worth of value. I have now helped ten

18:46:01 neighborhoods instead of just one, and I have more -- most

18:46:05 importantly, I have empowered ten neighborhoods to show

18:46:09 that -- they've showed themselves they can do it. And they

18:46:12 will do even more.

18:46:13 These people do so much, and they want to do so much more.

18:46:20 So this is an ideal opportunity to begin looking at, can we

18:46:24 extend fiscal resources somehow in the future and start

18:46:27 trying to do this as a means to get more out of what we want

18:46:32 for the city in the future.

18:46:33 And that's chapter eight. Chapter nine is just all your

18:46:37 plan administration, your legal status, how you do a plan

18:46:40 amendment, so on and so forth.

18:46:43 Conclusion. I mentioned earlier that to make this work,

18:46:46 it's no longer just let's pick up the future land use map

18:46:50 and take a look at it. It's now going to involve a lot of

18:46:54 leadership, a lot of partnership, close collaboration, and

18:46:57 very integrated dialogue. You will now have the tools to

18:47:02 have the holistic kind of discussions that you have been --

18:47:06 discussions that you have been asking for for so long. We

18:47:08 did our best to build this from a consensus process, from

18:47:11 the ground up. It's been five years in the making. This is

18:47:15 a major milestone. And I -- none of this would be possible

18:47:20 if it weren't for y'all, if it weren't for people like Cindy

18:47:26 Miller and Mayor Iorio and all the wonderful citizens and

18:47:29 neighborhoods and business groups that have come together.

18:47:33 You know, when you look at all the comments that came in

18:47:35 from the first public hearing, you know, they're all very,

18:47:41 very good comments. None of them were deal breakers. None

18:47:44 of them said this plan should be trashed and started all

18:47:49 over again. I think we've got something. I think we're all

18:47:52 on to something, and we're very proud to present this to you

18:47:55 tonight.

18:47:57 That's our recommendation is that you take action and

18:47:59 officially send this off to the state so they can begin the

18:48:02 review process, and that concludes my presentation.

18:48:07 [Applause]

18:48:16 >> Just a couple of comments. I would be very negligent,

18:48:21 and Terry, thank you to the compliments for me personally,

18:48:24 but there's one gentleman who's had more work thrown at him,

18:48:28 and that's Randy Goers. Randy has done an outstanding job

18:48:32 of communicating with people, drafting responses, working

18:48:35 with every constituent and department staff and city

18:48:38 planning staff. So I'm -- my thanks to him for all the

18:48:42 excellent work.

18:48:44 Again, some additional documents that we would recommend be

18:48:48 put on the record. Councilwoman Miller had given me a

18:48:53 letter from Mr. Shawn Donnelly dated July 17th, we recommend

18:48:57 that that be put into the record, and there is also a memo

18:49:00 that I submitted to council on June 23rd regarding the same

18:49:03 matter that also should be submitted for the record.

18:49:05 And Mr. Chairman, I guess my next suggestion would be is if

18:49:09 we open it up for public comment. Julia Kole, at the end of

18:49:14 public comment, does have some additional comments regarding

18:49:16 Mr. Donnelly's letter, but we believe public comment should

18:49:19 come first.

18:49:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Those who wish to address council may

18:49:24 come forward at this time, please. State your name and your

18:49:26 address, and you have three minutes.

18:49:30 >> Ron Rotella, Westshore Alliance. I want to thank city

18:49:35 council for giving us the 30-day extension. I know some of

18:49:38 you wondered whether that was going to be productive, and

18:49:40 whether you just have a whole bunch of concerns up here at

18:49:43 the end of 30 days. I want to tell you, it was productive.

18:49:46 Thank you for doing it. I want to thank the staff,

18:49:50 specifically Cindy, Randy, Michelle, Terry and Julia. They

18:49:55 were very, very responsive.

18:49:58 In some instances, they clarified a policy so we no longer

18:50:02 had a concern. In some instances they modified it, they

18:50:06 deleted some, so we really appreciate not just giving us lip

18:50:10 service. They were very interested in our concerns and were

18:50:14 very, very responsive and sincerely tried to work things out

18:50:18 with us. And we really, really appreciate that.

18:50:24 At this point, you know, as an organization, we don't really

18:50:26 have any concerns, and that's kind of a tongue in

18:50:33 cheek tacit approval, so I think we want to say something a

18:50:36 little bit stronger. We, too, are excited about the

18:50:38 opportunities that this plan presents, and I'm speaking for

18:50:40 the Westshore business districts that directs growth to us,

18:50:45 more intensity and density, help us to become a

18:50:48 transit-oriented business district, so we really, really

18:50:52 support the effort that's gone into this plan.

18:50:55 And then in closing, as you implement the land development

18:50:58 regulations and implement this plan, we really feel

18:51:01 comfortable in working with the staff that we're going to

18:51:05 experience the same level of cooperation, and we're prepared

18:51:07 to work towards the implementation of the plan as well.

18:51:11 Thank you very much.

18:51:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Rotella. We'll alternate

18:51:17 from side to side.

18:51:18 >> Good evening, council, 4004 bay villa. I am here on

18:51:24 behalf of Shawn Donnelly who had to be out of town on a long

18:51:27 scheduled trip, and rather than going into personally any of

18:51:31 the details contained in his letter, or on the issue at

18:51:34 hand, I would rather say that we have several residents of

18:51:38 the annexed area here tonight, and I'd like for them all to

18:51:41 have an opportunity to speak and be welcomed as the newest

18:51:44 citizens of the City of Tampa. Hear what their thoughts and

18:51:48 ideas are for the future land use of their specific area,

18:51:50 and the northeast quadrant of our city. I also want to

18:51:54 congratulate, applaud and thank Mr. Cullen, Miss Miller,

18:52:00 Miss Moreda, everyone who has been a part of this process.

18:52:03 I know that many members of the planning council,

18:52:07 Mr. Johnson, have been very, very interactive in this. I

18:52:10 thank you all. You've done a magnificent job. Thank you,

18:52:12 council.

18:52:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

18:52:17 >> Mr. Chairman, members of the city council, my name is Ron

18:52:20 Weaver, 401 east Jackson street, for the record, and I'd

18:52:23 like to not only compliment the staff, but also to note that

18:52:27 in doing this for a living for 34 years, this may well be

18:52:31 the best change in 30 days I've ever seen, with all due

18:52:36 respect to the other 34 years and the other hundreds of

18:52:40 plans that I've seen in about 50 jurisdictions. Thank you

18:52:43 for taking the time. Thank you for a staff that really

18:52:45 listened, seemed to be willing to understand some of the

18:52:48 practical realities like transportation concurrency. We

18:52:50 figured out what to do about that. We're going to sell the

18:52:55 frequent flier miles of Terry Cullen from visiting every

18:52:58 international city from Austin to Vancouver and that's

18:53:02 involved, and we're honored, too, that we're page 244, it

18:53:06 says the city fleet, the city car and truck fleet shall

18:53:10 address all sectors of the world economy. I think the

18:53:13 headline tomorrow will read, "City, car and truck flees

18:53:19 saves world economy" and heaven knows somebody needs to and

18:53:22 that really is on page 244. But thank you for changing the

18:53:25 standard for looking at transportation from one road failed,

18:53:27 and that's the end of a developer to a systemwide view of

18:53:34 the that folks might be able to use a parallel road. And do

18:53:37 a systemwide averaging. That's one of a dozen improvements

18:53:41 you've made through just the last dozen days through Cindy's

18:53:45 and Terry's and Michelle's and Gloria's and Randy's and Jean

18:53:49 and Julia's magnificent efforts and hard work. And finally

18:53:53 one last example by weighing of thanking you for something

18:53:56 that we're going to be working on together is the fact that

18:53:59 you changed from must share access to good faith effort to

18:54:02 share access where it wouldn't be safe or economic for folks

18:54:05 to be required to always share access, for example. You

18:54:07 worked with us with respect to transportation concurrency.

18:54:10 We still have some land development regulations to do, and

18:54:13 then finally, we see that you have provided in the Seminole

18:54:17 Heights, second bullet of what we're about on page 324, an

18:54:22 acknowledgment in the second bullet is sometimes for social

18:54:24 energy you do have some congestion for a short while, and

18:54:27 that you are reasonable in balancing what it is we're after

18:54:30 and how we achieve it. And I want you to -- I want to thank

18:54:33 you for not taking your eye off the ball, whether that ball

18:54:36 is thrown by Brett Favre or any of the other 70 quarterbacks

18:54:39 that Gruden has recruited in the last couple of months, but

18:54:42 thank you for not taking your eye off of the ball, thank you

18:54:45 for the 30 days, and did I just say something positive up

18:54:47 here? Thank you very much.

18:54:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you. Next speaker.

18:54:55 >> Mr. Chairman, council, my name is Dr. Timothy Yateman.

18:55:01 I'm a resident on Morris bridge road in North Tampa, and I

18:55:06 wanted to address you tonight, because we recently found out

18:55:10 that we live in a donut hole that was not annexed into the

18:55:16 City of Tampa, and that the wilderness that we originally

18:55:19 moved to, and bought the property ten years ago, is probably

18:55:23 not turning into wilderness anymore.

18:55:26 I'm raising my concerns that there's a proposal to go to one

18:55:32 in five, and now a further proposal to go to an SMU-3

18:55:38 designation. I think you have my letter in your possession,

18:55:41 and it represents a number of residents who live with me in

18:55:43 this area as well that couldn't make it tonight.

18:55:46 I have some serious concerns about increasing the land use

18:55:51 density in this area, particularly with the SMU-3

18:55:56 designation that allows commercial development in the area.

18:55:58 We didn't move there for this reason. I've been a resident

18:56:01 of Tampa for 15 years, a resident of Florida for 20 years,

18:56:05 and we moved out of the city to a less-dense area that we

18:56:09 felt would be preserved. Particularly this area, which is

18:56:12 on the eastern side of the road, which, for the longest time

18:56:17 has not been developed for a particular reason, because the

18:56:20 Hillsborough river basin is there, the most important and

18:56:26 environmentally sensitive area of Tampa. You need to go out

18:56:29 there during a heavy rain or flood or hurricane to see all

18:56:32 of the waters that have come across or flooded across the

18:56:36 Morris bridge road and they come from the east to the west

18:56:38 side. Much of our water basin is there and yet we're seeing

18:56:41 the development around us. The K bar ranch which once used

18:56:45 to be thousands of acres, now with thousands of homes going

18:56:48 up in a very non-sort of planned way, in my estimate. If

18:56:53 you look across the street at the number of boxes going up

18:56:56 with no real landscaping. The wire grass community is North

18:57:03 of us, with, again, a large number of homes planned, and

18:57:07 then the Thompson ranch behind us with a recent change in

18:57:11 density. So what we're seeing around us is a tremendous

18:57:14 increase in density and land usage without perhaps the need

18:57:18 in a time when we're seeing foreclosures and all sorts of

18:57:22 things.

18:57:22 The other thing is traffic and so forth.

18:57:25 So just, in closing, I appreciate the chance to speak to

18:57:29 you. I respect your decision to annex the City of Tampa.

18:57:33 That land, although I didn't quite see the purpose of that,

18:57:37 a small area, increased density in an area that's been very

18:57:41 pristine to date, and now we're talking about increasing the

18:57:45 density 30 fold over what was originally planned. I think

18:57:48 that's too much, too aggressive and inappropriate at this

18:57:50 time. Thank you.

18:57:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

18:57:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. Sir, I just wanted to

18:57:57 clarify. You live there, it's being annexed, and you want

18:58:00 to not increase the density as much as proposed?

18:58:04 >> Yes. Correct.

18:58:06 >> The part that was not annexed?

18:58:08 >> Correct. So we're in the donut hole. So if you increase

18:58:12 the density around us --

18:58:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And so your concern is that if we

18:58:17 increase our density, it will have a negative impact on your

18:58:20 area.

18:58:21 >> Absolutely. If you were to put a commercial development

18:58:23 in, it could be -- SMU-3 allows, you know, auto parts and,

18:58:28 you know, I don't know whether it allows gas stations or

18:58:30 other commercial enterprises that would affect the

18:58:33 environment, affect the value of the land, affect the value

18:58:34 of the property. We've invested a lot in the land and pay

18:58:40 taxes as well.

18:58:41 >> Thank you.

18:58:42 >> Sir, I was out of the room. I heard some of your

18:58:44 presentation in the back. Is that the 300 acres that was

18:58:46 annexed? Are you near that?

18:58:48 >> Yes. We're adjacent to it. Directly adjacent to it.

18:58:52 We're within it, actually, as I understand. We're in the

18:58:54 donut hole.

18:58:57 >> So you did not get annexed?

18:58:59 >> No.

18:59:00 >> If a staff person could put a map up, this would be very

18:59:04 helpful, and then maybe you could show us where you are. We

18:59:07 could have a better sense of it.

18:59:26 >> So this is our property here and here. We bought 20

18:59:32 acres, and it's really been preserved as a horse community

18:59:36 and horse farm, and it's been nicely planned out, and you

18:59:40 can see that we're in this donut hole that would be

18:59:43 significantly affect affected by an increase in density

18:59:52 which we don't think is needed at this time. There are all

18:59:54 sorts of Cypress trees there. Cypress are marked for

18:59:58 lowland. Lots of lowland. The reason this property was

19:00:01 constructed this way is because there's lowlands and there's

19:00:04 uplands and if you build you got to build in the uplands

19:00:07 otherwise you'll affect the lowland drainage, which is so

19:00:11 important for the Hillsborough river drainage.

19:00:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. We need to take the rest of the

19:00:15 public speakers, and if you have a question, you can come

19:00:17 back.

19:00:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to make sure that we had

19:00:21 his letter because we've got so much paperwork but I don't

19:00:23 know that I've got your letter.

19:00:24 >> It was sent to you a week ago, to each one of you.

19:00:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's from Donnelly?

19:00:29 >> No.

19:00:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He's opposed to Mr. Donnelly's

19:00:32 suggestion.

19:00:34 >> I can send you a copy tomorrow.

19:00:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you have a copy now, we can make

19:00:41 copies from it.

19:00:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right. I'll see if I can find it.

19:00:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Next speaker?

19:00:49 >> Yateman, is it?

19:00:52 >> Yes.

19:00:52 >> All right. I've got it. I'll make a copy.

19:00:58 >> Good evening, council, Jerald white, resident of the City

19:01:01 of Tampa, 8419 North 46th street. First I wanted to thank

19:01:05 the planning commission for the outstanding product that has

19:01:09 been produced for the citizens of Tampa. I'd like to thank

19:01:13 the staff of the City of Tampa for their strong work and I'd

19:01:19 like to continue to thank the Tampa City Council for a

19:01:22 dynamic plan. I spoke at the last meeting concerning the

19:01:26 light rail issues, concerning the arts within the

19:01:30 African-American community, and I also spoke concerning the

19:01:34 City of Tampa lifting up the policies that are on the books

19:01:40 in the City of Tampa as they relate to cooperation with the

19:01:44 school board. I want to emphasize that I think that's so

19:01:47 important today.

19:01:50 If you go back years ago, the school board was under the

19:01:55 oversight of the federal government, and so really, dust

19:02:01 collected on a lot of the policies related to cooperation in

19:02:04 my opinion. And so those things don't exist anymore, and so

19:02:09 now it's very important that the city of Tampa make sure

19:02:12 that all the policies related to cooperation with the school

19:02:16 board are dusted off, that there are good relations related

19:02:23 to the infrastructures of schools, the roads around the

19:02:26 schools, sidewalks and things of that nature.

19:02:29 It's great to have policies on the books, but it's -- it's

19:02:33 better when these policies are worked and exercised and

19:02:37 stroked, and that the people can see the results related to

19:02:40 the work of the Tampa City Council. Thank you for the work

19:02:45 that you're doing, and thank you for this dynamic product,

19:02:48 and I just want to emphasize again, I saw the policies

19:02:52 related to light rail and bringing citizens to the fold

19:02:57 involved. I think it's extremely important related to the

19:02:59 minority community in that we continue to be at the table,

19:03:02 that we continue to get notices related to meetings, and I

19:03:06 don't know what the mayor learned on her trip, but I know

19:03:09 there's an advisory group, but it would be great to have a

19:03:14 transportation advisory group related to minority issues

19:03:18 created within the City of Tampa. I don't know whether or

19:03:22 not this comp plan would allow such a thing, but that would

19:03:24 be a great thing to have.

19:03:26 We want to be a part of light rail. We want to be a part of

19:03:29 every step of the way. Thanks again for the great work that

19:03:33 has been done, and those seem to be my concerns. They are

19:03:41 so important. And, you know, you talk about bringing people

19:03:44 to the community, and we want to retain our young people,

19:03:46 too, that go off to college. We want them to come back to

19:03:49 jobs. And one of the ways I wanted to emphasize that is

19:03:58 show presentations within the African-American community. I

19:04:00 would love to honor martin Luther king. That would be a

19:04:09 great way to show case the inner cities, the black

19:04:12 communities of the nation. Thank you so much for letting me

19:04:15 come to speak.

19:04:20 >> For the record, Michael Brooks, 500 east Kennedy

19:04:23 Boulevard, suite 200, Tampa, 33602. Resident of the City of

19:04:26 Tampa, and I'm here on behalf of the national association of

19:04:31 industrial office properties and I, too, like my

19:04:33 predecessors, want to thank council for the 30-day extension

19:04:36 that was granted at the last hearing. I -- as many of my

19:04:40 colleagues were hopeful that we were going to make

19:04:43 significant progress during that 30-day period, and I think

19:04:46 we were all -- have come here this evening very surprised

19:04:50 and -- well, not surprised, but very encouraged by what has

19:04:54 happened. Many, many positive changes have happened over

19:04:56 the last 30 days, and the city staff and the planning

19:04:59 commission staff is to be very commended.

19:05:01 One example of that had to do with a comment that was made

19:05:05 with regard to the definition of primary transit corridor

19:05:08 and limiting it to an automobile-related level of service

19:05:12 standard, when really the entire basis of this code for the

19:05:16 future transit needs of this community are based on

19:05:19 multimodal concepts, and we were very pleased to see that

19:05:23 that change was made. It is a concept, transit corridor,

19:05:28 it's the basis for mitigation, it's the basis for future

19:05:32 land use changes, and by leaving it as its multimodal

19:05:36 concept it was intended to be, we provided financial

19:05:38 incentive and flexibility to build out the community in a

19:05:41 way that will foster those goals. So I thank council and on

19:05:48 behalf -- for the initial time that was granted and the

19:05:51 efforts and the changes that were made. They were very

19:05:53 positive. Thank you.

19:05:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you. Next speaker.

19:06:02 >> Good evening, I'm Mitch Rothenburg. I currently live on

19:06:07 9146 Highland ridge way in Tampa, and I want to thank, first

19:06:12 of all, Terry for doing a phenomenal presentation on the

19:06:15 land changes that are coming up. My family brought property

19:06:19 a number of years back on the Morris bridge corridor

19:06:23 basically perhaps to relocate there. And when we purchased

19:06:27 that acreage, some of that acreage is on frontage on Morris

19:06:31 bridge road, and some of it's in the back. And we bought

19:06:34 that not only for that particular rural feeling, but we

19:06:37 bought that because we looked forward to development, and we

19:06:41 all -- all the neighbors along that Morris bridge corridor,

19:06:43 as you know, got together, and we had the city annex our

19:06:46 property.

19:06:47 And the main reason we did that is we wanted to look forward

19:06:51 to continued growth, positive growth, although it's a rural

19:06:55 area, the reality is that Morris bridge road is going to be

19:06:59 doubled in size, perhaps tripled in size as far as the

19:07:03 laneage goes. And when that happens, those residents are

19:07:08 going to need to have additional services along Morris

19:07:11 bridge road.

19:07:12 But the reality is, whether it happens next year, five years

19:07:15 or ten years, eventually, we're going to have to have

19:07:19 services along that road. And so we're -- most of the

19:07:23 neighbors here, and some other people will be speaking, are

19:07:26 really against the new designation, and I strongly suggest

19:07:30 that we reconsider that. And thank you for your time.

19:07:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question of Jean Dorsback

19:07:43 because I didn't believe that Morris Bridge is on our long

19:07:46 range plan to expand.

19:07:48 >> Yeah. My recollection is in our long range

19:07:52 transportation plan, which is the blueprint for Hillsborough

19:07:55 county, that Morris Bridge road is a two-lane road. It is

19:07:58 not planned to be widened. It is planned to be widened in

19:08:01 the Pasco area, but within the Hillsborough county area, it

19:08:06 is -- is a two-lane road.

19:08:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Isn't it environmentally constrained?

19:08:12 >> I'm not sure if it has the constrained designation. I

19:08:15 don't know if somebody could maybe look at our comp plan

19:08:18 quickly, but I'm -- I'm almost positive it's not slated for

19:08:23 any widening in the long-range plans.

19:08:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:08:35 >> Hello. My name is Kathleen Baird. This is my daughter,

19:08:50 Tessa Baird. I live on Morris Bridge road, the area we're

19:08:56 all discussing.

19:08:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's really an unfair advantage.

19:08:59 She's so cute.

19:09:00 >> Oh, thank you. She's my assistant for the day. Anyway

19:09:04 I'm going to go ahead and start here. We oppose the zoning

19:09:07 and are for the SMU-3 zoning that Shawn pointed out in his

19:09:13 letter. I helped him compose that letter, and I'll touch

19:09:15 base on a few of those in just a moment. I'm asking that if

19:09:19 there are any questions, to please call me back up,

19:09:21 especially after the planning commission comes up, because

19:09:24 last time I was here, I spoke. There was questions that the

19:09:30 planning and the city commission could not answer and I had

19:09:33 the answers to but I could not come back up. I've owned the

19:09:37 property for 17 years. Just a quick look over to

19:09:40 Mr. Yateman's statement. His count hole was created because

19:09:43 him and a few of the other residents chose not to annex in

19:09:46 to the city. So we went around him like a horse shoe. So

19:09:50 he chose to have the county. He did not wish to join.

19:09:55 That's his number of residents.

19:09:57 I know we didn't move to the area for development, but it's

19:10:00 coming in. Everybody knows it's coming in. If he doesn't

19:10:03 like it, he should move out.

19:10:05 The heavy rain and the hurricanes I'll address shortly.

19:10:08 The Hillsborough river is actually seven miles South of us,

19:10:11 and we are no longer an environmentally sensitive area. I

19:10:15 don't care what the maps say.

19:10:18 Okay. I'm going to go ahead and move very fast here,

19:10:21 because I have a lot of information, including pictures, so

19:10:24 if you have any questions, please call me back up at the

19:10:26 end. As I said, the planning commission didn't have a lot

19:10:29 of answers last time. One question was why was this area

19:10:33 even annexed into the city. The reason was because of me.

19:10:38 I had some concerns about doing some things with some of the

19:10:41 property I own. I own a total of about 50 some acres out

19:10:44 there on different lots, and when we contacted the county,

19:10:47 the county's reply to us was they're not willing to do

19:10:52 anything because we're not in the urban development area and

19:10:54 if the city wasn't coming in across the street and if we

19:10:57 wanted to do anything with our property, we needed to go

19:10:59 ahead and contact the city about annexing in so that's how

19:11:03 this whole mess started. Shawn and I went ahead and started

19:11:06 the annexation. A few of the residents found out about it

19:11:09 and asked to join us, and I said okay. Because they wanted

19:11:12 to join into it, I asked some of the other neighbors out

19:11:15 there. So the people who were on that list, that's how they

19:11:18 came about it. Tim Yateman and a few others chose not to

19:11:24 join us, that's why he's in the donut hole. We're asking

19:11:27 for the SMU-3 heading. I feel it's discriminatory, it's

19:11:32 inappropriate and inconsistent. You're -- also, your

19:11:37 question on Morris Bridge road, that's correct. There is no

19:11:40 plan to develop it. Between cross creek Boulevard and

19:11:46 Fletcher is state forest. There is actually enough room to

19:11:49 widen it if you really wanted to, but everybody says it's an

19:11:52 environmentally protected area.

19:11:54 There are three sub developments going in across the street.

19:11:59 Eastern park is now for 500 homes, there's two other

19:12:03 development communities going in across there and there's

19:12:05 going to be two roads coming out to Morris Bridge road.

19:12:09 What we are concerned about is we -- we need Main Street

19:12:12 businesses out there. We want the SMU-3 heading because

19:12:16 you're going to need -- right now I have to go to Bruce B.

19:12:20 Downs -- is that it?

19:12:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes. Three minutes are up.

19:12:24 >> Holy cow. Hand those to him. Or actually, Tess, take

19:12:30 those pictures up there.

19:12:35 >> Ma'am, how much more did you have?

19:12:37 >> Just a few more things. Basically, that -- that area's

19:12:41 not environmentally sensitive anymore. Ever since -- I

19:12:44 drove through eastern park. They have put 27 ponds in

19:12:47 there. Ever since they started doing development across the

19:12:49 street, we have not had any water in the new river that goes

19:12:51 down to the Hillsborough river. I took these pictures on

19:12:54 Sunday. Take those pictures up there.

19:12:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. John, do you have another specific

19:13:01 question because what I don't want to do is, you know,

19:13:04 extend the time. I mean, we got other people standing

19:13:07 there. I'd rather finish that, other people speaking.

19:13:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd just like to give her one more

19:13:13 minute just to wrap up. She's got 50 acres and this is

19:13:16 obviously a big deal.

19:13:16 >> I can't -- I mean, they should just look at them because

19:13:19 I don't have time to go through all of this with them.

19:13:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can pass those around.

19:13:34 >> (Speaking off mic). On land or on the state forest. The

19:13:39 state forest is complete -- the picture of the horse is what

19:13:42 we --

19:13:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ma'am, you have to --

19:13:47 >> You have another minute, ma'am.

19:13:49 >> The picture of the horse there is where we used to cross

19:13:51 the river in the state forest. It's been dry for three

19:13:54 years now. There's no bringing that river back. If you

19:13:56 guys were concerned about the environmentally sensitive

19:13:58 properties, you shouldn't have allowed K bar ranch to go

19:14:02 ahead and develop that because the damage is done.

19:14:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I voted against it.

19:14:07 >> I'm just saying the damage is done. We're just adding to

19:14:10 the problem. We're just trying to help rectify being able

19:14:13 to do more things with our property. That's basically it, I

19:14:16 guess.

19:14:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker.

19:14:19 >>> Hello. My name is Andro. I live at 6415 Morris Bridge

19:14:28 Drive. I own 12 acres there and I oppose the five acres per

19:14:32 house. The land that I own and most of the land there is

19:14:37 pasture. That was our farm there. It's not trees or

19:14:40 anything that's going to be cut. It's basically pasture,

19:14:42 and in the wetlands you will see trees, but not there. They

19:14:47 won't be touched anyway if the land gets developed. Thank

19:14:50 you.

19:14:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sir, you oppose?

19:14:53 >> I oppose.

19:14:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You oppose the five. What would you

19:14:56 like to see?

19:14:57 >> I would like the regular that we apply, five homes we are

19:15:04 acre.

19:15:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You want higher density?

19:15:08 >> Higher density. We annexed the City of Tampa to get

19:15:14 services so if we are not going to get services, be a

19:15:19 farmland.

19:15:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. I just wanted to clarify. Thank

19:15:22 you.

19:15:25 >> I'm his wife, Paulina. Again, we -- we just want to be

19:15:34 treated as the rest of the -- of the Tampa citizens around

19:15:38 and, you know, we're talking about the neighbors that are

19:15:40 across the street, that they were allowed to divide the land

19:15:44 and develop it, and here we have this plan that is not going

19:15:48 to allow us to do that. It's going to take us -- it's going

19:15:52 to be much, much harder for us to be able to apply, and I

19:15:56 think we should be treated the same as the rest. I'm

19:15:59 surprised that in the plan, they're only taking into

19:16:03 consideration two big areas in Tampa. That's it. Why are

19:16:05 we treated like that? Why is that, you know, that -- why is

19:16:08 that going to happen? So thank you for letting me speak.

19:16:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question. These are the other

19:16:14 lady's pictures, but ma'am? That's all right, you can

19:16:19 answer them, sure.

19:16:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't want to get into -- okay, but

19:16:27 well --

19:16:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does anybody know --

19:16:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't want to start calling people back

19:16:31 up. This is a public hearing.

19:16:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to catch her.

19:16:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Because then everybody else going to want to

19:16:37 get up so I don't want to do that.

19:16:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just need somebody at some point to

19:16:41 tell me where Easton Park is.

19:16:43 >> Right across the street from the --

19:16:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that part of K bar?

19:16:48 >> Yes. Yes.

19:16:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:16:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Anybody else want to address council?

19:16:54 >> I know I already spoke, but I only used about 45 seconds.

19:16:58 Can I just --

19:16:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, ma'am. You cannot. You cannot. No.

19:17:03 >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Council, Steve Labor, West Bay

19:17:08 to Bay Street. I'm speaking as kind of a point person for

19:17:11 THAN. As others have said in the past, I can't tell you how

19:17:14 much we appreciated the 30-day extension that you provided

19:17:18 everyone to be able to work through the issues, and once

19:17:21 again, I'd like to echo the other comments that staff was --

19:17:24 your staff was incredible, incredibly responsive, and for

19:17:32 some reason, Randy Goers even got to EKE a vacation out of

19:17:38 it during the 30 days, so it probably meant a lot of

19:17:41 midnight oil, but we really appreciate it. We had E mailed

19:17:44 to all of you our last and final comments. I'm not going to

19:17:47 go into all of them specifically. They are minor compared

19:17:51 to some of the other issues that we were able to work out,

19:17:54 but I do just briefly want to just for the record mention

19:17:57 that we are still concerned about Driveway thru cuts that

19:18:02 exit into neighborhood streets. We are also concerned about

19:18:05 making sure everybody understands the granny flaps. There

19:18:08 is a controlling definition in the zoning code.

19:18:13 Constrained roads, two issues on that, while we -- while we

19:18:17 appreciate the fact that a lot was handled in this 30 days

19:18:21 to allay our fears, it still remains, it appears that the

19:18:28 center thru lane could be added to a constrained road and we

19:18:30 want to make sure it's not a single thru-lane, that it

19:18:34 actually has median and it doesn't become a suicide lane.

19:18:38 So that was our concern there.

19:18:39 We also would suggest that under constrained quarters

19:18:42 definition that the word "Economic" remain in the

19:18:45 definition, and again it's explained in the handout that was

19:18:47 sent to you.

19:18:48 We also believe very strongly that marina use really does

19:18:53 need to be addressed in the comprehensive plan. Not that we

19:18:55 think there are going to be a lot of new marinas popping up,

19:18:58 we have a lot of existing ones, but in case there should be

19:19:01 a new one, and we would encourage certainly that use, that

19:19:04 it be addressed in the comp plan.

19:19:05 And again the last one is fairly minor. It's parking

19:19:09 credits. While we appreciate the parking credits are given

19:19:12 only for the preservation of trees, we would like to have

19:19:15 that referenced in the comp plan so people don't think there

19:19:18 might be parking credits given for all other kinds of

19:19:21 reasons.

19:19:21 With that, that ends my presentation, and again, thank you

19:19:25 for giving us the additional 30 days and especially thank

19:19:29 you to staff for their working with us. Oh, I'm sorry.

19:19:32 There is one other thing. When all of this is all done, six

19:19:36 months from now, THAN has made a commitment that we are

19:19:41 going to help education our neighborhoods on the use of the

19:19:44 comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan itself, and we

19:19:48 hopefully will have some handouts, as well as some workshops

19:19:51 that we will -- we will bring forward.

19:19:53 I also spoke with Cindy, and Cindy offered the city to help

19:19:57 us in that regard as well. So we look forward to that.

19:20:00 And we also believe, by the way, for the record, we are

19:20:04 already a liveable city. This is a great place to live, a

19:20:07 great place to come. We welcome everybody to come, and

19:20:10 enjoy what we've enjoyed. Thank you.

19:20:17 >> I don't have your E-mail in front of me, but it sounded

19:20:20 like most of the things that you spoke to -- most of the

19:20:25 things you spoke to might be in the form of -- might be in

19:20:35 the form of tweaking, that perhaps we could do during the

19:20:38 adoption hearing, in between now and the adoption hearing?

19:20:41 >> Yes. I've had a lengthy discussion with Randy about

19:20:44 these issues on each and every one of the issues. I am

19:20:47 confident and THAN is confident, that the city staff will

19:20:51 work with us in trying to deal with how we might want to

19:20:54 handle these last remaining issues. So we are not concerned

19:20:57 that you have to adopt something tonight, language, but we

19:21:01 do believe that we can work with staff. At least that's

19:21:05 this person's opinion.

19:21:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right. If you guys could just keep

19:21:09 us posted on how those discussions are going, and remind us

19:21:12 at the adoption process, to try and -- you know, to try and

19:21:15 address some of these, I think it would probably be better

19:21:18 than trying to do it tonight. Thank you.

19:21:21 >> Thank you. That was a structural question not for you,

19:21:24 but maybe for staff, maybe legal, if legal is here. There

19:21:30 were small issues, important but small, that the downtown

19:21:34 partnership brought up that I thought were really reasonable

19:21:38 and in the -- my memory in reading all this is that the city

19:21:44 staff comments were yes, that would be a nice thing to do,

19:21:49 but it didn't -- they didn't say, let's write it out and

19:21:53 stick it in the plan right now, and it's similar to Steve's

19:21:56 point about marinas and some of the other things. It seems

19:22:00 to me that those are not capital letter goals, but they're

19:22:07 more like policies, that the -- that the DCA would not have

19:22:11 any heartburn over, and couldn't we, between now and

19:22:17 January, seek to refine the language and insert those into

19:22:23 the plan. Can we do that?

19:22:25 >> I actually did have an opportunity to review Stan's

19:22:29 letter. I'm not really a hundred percent sure with the

19:22:31 downtown partnership issues, except that they were the

19:22:34 previous issues from before. I think at this point we're at

19:22:36 a place where the issues that have been raised and maybe

19:22:39 some of these other minor issues are issues either one we

19:22:43 can tweak during this time, or two, I'll agree that it is

19:22:46 more appropriate they be handled as part of the land

19:22:49 development code process, so really, in reviewing that,

19:22:52 there's none of those issues were minor -- were major. They

19:22:56 were minor issues, the tweaking language, and I am

19:22:58 comfortable that those are the types of tweaks that we could

19:23:01 be in the process of making, and further flushing out, or,

19:23:05 as I said, and maybe we all decide, you know, what that's

19:23:09 more appropriate for a land development regulation and deal

19:23:11 with it through that process.

19:23:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would volunteer to work with you with

19:23:14 the list that we have leaving here, and see if, between now

19:23:18 and January, you know, where things fall out.

19:23:22 >> I think the important thing to do with that is also to

19:23:24 wait and see what our comments are back from the DCA so that

19:23:29 we're not making some changes that may impact something the

19:23:32 DCA wants us to do so we should look at them and have a plan

19:23:35 for them, but at the same time probably wait until we get

19:23:37 our comments back from the DCA before complementing

19:23:40 anything.

19:23:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay, then -- I'll wait.

19:23:51 >> My name is sue Lyon, and I promise not to cry. I

19:23:56 certainly appreciate the time that you have extended to the

19:24:00 people to work on this. It's a shame that it came down to

19:24:05 the wire, that people somehow didn't feel like the

19:24:10 neighborhood groups, even though they talked to them, they

19:24:13 didn't talk to them in the beginning, that's what we keep

19:24:15 trying to say. If you let us in at the beginning and we

19:24:18 tell you the same things we're going to tell you at the last

19:24:21 minute, it's easier for the staff, they don't have to burn

19:24:25 the midnight oil. Let us help you in the beginning so that

19:24:30 when we come up here and say, this is what we want, this is

19:24:34 still what we're going to want, we're going to still want

19:24:37 this liveable city because we hug trees all the time,

19:24:41 because we care about our neighborhoods, because people like

19:24:45 Margaret Vizzi have worked solid on this for 20 years. Not

19:24:53 today, not tomorrow, but for 20 years. She knows more about

19:24:56 this city than anybody around here, and you can't just say,

19:25:00 oh, you don't know anything, you're just a neighborhood

19:25:02 person.

19:25:03 We know things. Ron Rotella knows things. He's been here a

19:25:08 long time. And when the neighborhood people and the

19:25:11 development community come to you and say, please, don't do

19:25:16 this to us, you gotta listen, and you did, and it worked.

19:25:22 So when we come back again to tell you, please listen to us,

19:25:27 remember this time that just because the lawyers say you

19:25:32 can't do that, you can't do that, you can. You're our

19:25:36 elected representatives, and you can move mountains, and we

19:25:41 can help you. We're the little ants that carry those leaves

19:25:47 every day. So don't forget us, and we want to appreciate

19:25:50 all the work you've done and all the work the staff has

19:25:53 done. But don't put us all in that position again that it's

19:25:57 the last 30 days that we gotta -- they gotta work midnight

19:26:02 hours because the zoning committee from THAN read that whole

19:26:08 thing, from cover to cover, and they can quote you chapter

19:26:11 and verse on all of it. I can't because my mind's not that

19:26:17 coordinated. But they know it. And they can help you. And

19:26:21 if you let them in at the beginning, it will work. And I

19:26:26 thank you very much for your time.

19:26:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker?

19:26:34 >> Hi. My name is Shannon Airhart. I live at 7449 Morris

19:26:42 Bridge road with my husband Rodney who's with me. I want to

19:26:45 speak on the annexation issue. I am opposed to the RE-5.

19:26:49 We support the higher density zoning. My husband bought the

19:26:52 property 14 years ago, before we were engaged, before we

19:26:55 were married. Since then, we've been married for 12 years

19:26:58 and we've had two children. At this point, I want to point

19:27:01 out that the RE-5 is not a 100% increase on our zoning,

19:27:07 because at this point, with our 810, we can put a guest

19:27:12 house on the property. We're allowed a guest house, so

19:27:15 we're already allowed two homes per the ten acres, which

19:27:18 would be great if I only had one son, but I have two, and we

19:27:22 love it there. It's beautiful, and it is pristine, and it's

19:27:26 gorgeous, and it may not stay that way, but at this point, I

19:27:29 would like to FANTASIZE that maybe one day my two boys would

19:27:36 like to live their with their wives and their children and

19:27:40 my grandchildren, and my husband's mother may be ready to

19:27:44 live there. I would appreciate the opportunity to decide

19:27:46 who and how many live on my property, and at this point, I

19:27:50 can't even allow my two boys property of their own to live

19:27:54 there unless I leave. So please, at least entertain the

19:27:58 idea that there are some of us who would like to have a

19:28:01 little more flexibility with our property. I realize we

19:28:04 didn't have it when we bought it, but my husband was a

19:28:06 single man when he bought it, and now he got lucky and has

19:28:10 me and two boys. Thank you for your time.

19:28:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question, ma'am.

19:28:15 >> Yes.

19:28:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm hearing different things, different

19:28:19 folks. The -- I understand you want additional residential

19:28:24 units on your ten acres, or what have you, and I definitely

19:28:30 sympathize with that. The SMU, in an appropriate zoning

19:28:35 situation, could allow commercial out there on the road, not

19:28:39 necessarily heavy commercial, maybe, be mixed neighborhood

19:28:43 type commercial, and that sort of thing, and then we've had

19:28:46 some folks who say that's not why they moved out there.

19:28:49 Do you have a feeling about the commercial aspect of the

19:28:52 SMU-3, or are you mainly focused on the residential ability?

19:28:58 >> I think that the commercial is going to come, one way or

19:29:00 the other, you know, we look at it every day right now and

19:29:04 wish that it could stay just the way that it is.

19:29:06 Unfortunately, I can't put my two kids out there if it stays

19:29:09 the way it is, and unfortunately it's not staying the way it

19:29:11 is. Right now, I have cross creek Boulevard there, I have a

19:29:15 Publix on the corner, which is fantastic, because I used to

19:29:21 have to Drive to get to it. But the fact is that progress

19:29:25 marches on so I personally am not opposed to the commercial.

19:29:29 It doesn't -- you know, it's going to come one way or the

19:29:32 other in my opinion. Easton Park is going up. We have tons

19:29:36 of houses over there, more and more traffic all the time. I

19:29:39 happen to live right on the curb, right on the line, and

19:29:42 it's difficult for me to even pull out of the Driveway

19:29:45 because of the traffic. I mean, the traffic is increasing,

19:29:47 but that's not just a result of us, that's a result of

19:29:51 what's already happened on K bar.

19:29:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

19:29:57 >> Margaret Vizzi. 213 South Cheryl. My name's been

19:30:00 mentioned twice tonight. Most of the people out here, who

19:30:04 you have heard all the words about, have educated me over

19:30:09 all these many years that I've been involved, and I've just

19:30:12 been trying to help others to understand what it's all about

19:30:18 and to work as hard to keep this city and to continue to

19:30:27 have this wonderful city and have it grow, but have it grow

19:30:29 with the protection of those who live here. And that's what

19:30:36 these final six comments as some of our concerns, and one of

19:30:40 the main ones is the constrained road issue which there is a

19:30:46 definition in this plan for it, and that's why I have a

19:30:49 concern about that more because it will go up and become

19:30:54 part of the plan, and right now it says basically that that

19:30:58 one lane that would be added on a constrained road could

19:31:03 just be one of those continuous lanes without any medians,

19:31:07 and if we want safe roads, then we need to have the median

19:31:14 strips where you have a turn-in and not a continuous lane,

19:31:18 especially on a constrained road, which is usually one that

19:31:21 goes through a neighborhood.

19:31:24 So I would like, at least for this -- for it to refer to

19:31:29 what the MPO has come up with, a liveable roadway plan,

19:31:34 which says that you don't have suicide lanes. I know I just

19:31:39 talked with Jean, and she said that this is something we can

19:31:43 work on. My concern is, though, that the definition moves

19:31:47 forward. Maybe we can get that changed before January. I

19:31:53 don't know. But I did watch the TCEA workshop this morning.

19:31:58 I was glad to hear all of that. Even the definition of what

19:32:03 we mean by transit was one that I had asked, and I couldn't

19:32:08 get an answer, but I heard the answer this morning.

19:32:11 So I too, would like to thank all the people you heard

19:32:16 mentioned, plus council for giving us those 30 additional

19:32:19 days to work through this, and you have no idea what Randy

19:32:25 has put up with, with me for one because the last document

19:32:29 that they sent out last Friday, I was trying to talk to him

19:32:32 about something, and he says, look on page 15, well, I

19:32:36 didn't have the document, and I didn't know what he was

19:32:38 talking about because I don't have E-mail. So I found out

19:32:41 what it was. We got it all straightened out, and thanks

19:32:45 again, council, and I hope that we can -- if we can get this

19:32:53 constrained road definition cleared this evening, that

19:32:55 before it does come back with the final adoption that it

19:32:58 will be along with some of these others that seem to be more

19:33:00 code -- making the code clear. So thank you again.

19:33:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:33:12 >> Good evening, council. My name is marlin Anderson. I

19:33:15 live at 5007 west San hose street: I'm the president of the

19:33:24 homeowners association and I want to thank as well the city

19:33:26 staff for being so responsive on behalf of my association,

19:33:29 because we were concerned about this constrained road

19:33:31 designation for Westshore Boulevard and they met with us

19:33:35 literally at the last minute. It was a couple weeks ago,

19:33:38 and they responded to our concerns, and they did change this

19:33:42 designation, and we're very happy about that. And I also

19:33:45 want to mention that Margaret Vizzi, I agree with her 100%

19:33:50 as far as this putting a continuous lane through the middle

19:33:53 of Westshore. I think that would be a big mistake. I Drive

19:33:56 on Westshore Boulevard every day, and it actually does move

19:34:01 along pretty good without having such a lane added in there,

19:34:03 and if we did have to add in some turn lanes or something

19:34:06 like that at certain points to make it flow along better, I

19:34:09 think that would be a better solution. So this particular

19:34:12 part I agree wholeheartedly with THAN and Margaret on that

19:34:17 and I want to thank the city council for extending this and

19:34:20 giving a chance for all these issues to get ironed out

19:34:23 before we get this plan put together. Okay. Thank you.

19:34:31 >> Good evening, I'm Walter Johnson 4625 Longfellow Avenue,

19:34:37 and I'm president of THAN. I, too, would like to just thank

19:34:42 everyone, the city council for the 30-day extension. Lots

19:34:45 of good issues and lots of good work was done during that

19:34:47 30-day period, which really, and truly at this point, I

19:34:51 don't think it's been 30 days, but it's been some very good

19:34:54 work done and we do appreciate that. We appreciate the

19:34:59 cooperation we've received from staff, from the planning

19:35:02 commission and I would like to just take a moment just to

19:35:05 personally thank the zoning committee from THAN, Margaret

19:35:10 Vizzi and her group, Steve Labor, who's been a real work

19:35:15 horse in this process from the standpoint of putting things

19:35:19 together to the community, to you to the planning commission

19:35:22 and to staff. So I would just like to thank them. They've

19:35:25 done a super job and I'd like to thank you for the job that

19:35:28 you did, particularly from the standpoint of the extension.

19:35:31 It really, really, lots of issues got resolved during that

19:35:34 30-day period. So thank you.

19:35:41 >>> Good evening, council, Randy baron. Again, I also want

19:35:48 to thank you for the 30 days. A lot of good changes have

19:35:51 been put in here. I'm not going to speak to those

19:35:53 substantive changes, people have spoken about those tonight

19:35:56 better than I can. I want to talk about a little formatting

19:36:00 thing. Terry mentioned that we use the entire document.

19:36:03 He's right. I would really like to have an index. I hear

19:36:06 there's one coming, but as a neighborhood leader who looks

19:36:09 through the comp plan and wants to find different --

19:36:12 different I guess policies, I want to be able to find them

19:36:14 quickly, and I understand there is a definitions and index

19:36:17 coming, and I don't know if it's going to make it for the

19:36:19 transmitted copy, but certainly for the final adoption

19:36:22 hearing, let's make sure it's there, because it's a good

19:36:25 plan, but I want to be able to easily use it, and I think

19:36:29 that's going to be one of its -- one of the best things we

19:36:32 can do for that, is to let people use this plan in the way

19:36:36 that it's intended. So once again, thank you again for the

19:36:40 30 days and thanks all the staff for working with us. It

19:36:44 was an incredible job of all the changes that was done in

19:36:47 the last 30 days. Thank you.

19:36:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:36:53 >> Good evening, city council members. Carol Marshall. I'm

19:36:59 representing the Tampa Heights team, and right now, I just

19:37:04 want to read one thing in the Tampa Heights neighborhood

19:37:08 plan. The role of the existing neighborhood plan. And it

19:37:15 says the Tampa Heights neighborhood plan is a general guide

19:37:18 which provides a tool kit for activities and recommendations

19:37:23 guidelines that may be used to achieve the revitalization of

19:37:28 a community that is described in our vision. And then when

19:37:31 I look at the role for the plan, number 47, some parts are

19:37:40 struck out.

19:37:43 I am not -- I'm a little -- I have a few questions on this.

19:37:47 And from talking to some people that heard that we can work

19:37:53 on it between now and January, so I'm not going to get into

19:37:56 all of that, but I just want to let you know, we do have

19:37:59 some issues. It looks like it's watered down somewhat, and

19:38:05 it's just addressing the past planning efforts, and with

19:38:10 that said we will -- I will be looking at it. However, I

19:38:13 wanted to thank city council, and I want to thank everybody

19:38:17 that's been so instrumental in giving us a chance as

19:38:24 neighborhood representatives and neighborhood people to work

19:38:27 on the comprehensive plan. I've been there before years

19:38:32 ago, but we never had this much input, and I really do

19:38:35 appreciate it. I appreciate Randy. As for Margaret, she

19:38:41 doesn't know we talk about her behind her back. We call her

19:38:44 chapter 27. And she's always teaching.

19:38:46 And Cindy Miller, and Gloria, everybody has just been really

19:38:51 wonderful.

19:38:53 I do have some issues, but overall, this is one of the best

19:38:58 efforts I've seen by the city. The mayor talks about

19:39:02 working with neighborhoods and it has come through. And

19:39:08 with you all helping us, it has come through, and I want to

19:39:11 thank you for that.

19:39:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the

19:39:19 public? Okay. All right. Councilman Dingfelder?

19:39:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Randy, if I could -- first off, Randy, I

19:39:42 think on behalf of everybody up here and everybody in the

19:39:45 room, we want to thank you for really working so hard on

19:39:50 this, and this matrix is actually a fantastic in terms of

19:39:56 explaining the public's position, the city's position, the

19:39:59 city's response, their response afterwards. I mean, it's

19:40:03 really an excellent job, and I know you didn't do it alone,

19:40:06 but it looked like you led the effort, and you and Terry,

19:40:09 and Cindy and the rest of them, we thank you so much.

19:40:13 I was looking for this Westshore language. Do you happen to

19:40:17 know what bullet that was, or have any idea where this is?

19:40:23 >> Randy Goers, land development coordination. Are you

19:40:26 referring to the constrained corridor language?

19:40:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

19:40:33 >> The definitions are on -- if you have the handout that we

19:40:37 passed out tonight, the consolidated staff comments, the

19:40:40 definitions are on the last page. And I will have to scan a

19:40:47 couple minutes to find where the policy discussion is on the

19:40:49 constrained corridor.

19:40:51 There's a table that we modified the definition of Westshore

19:40:58 Boulevard. It's on page 29. Where you see in the second --

19:41:03 in the bottom half of the table where we extended the

19:41:06 definition of constrained corridor for Westshore from Azele

19:41:10 to Gandy, and I know there's one other policy. It will take

19:41:14 me just a couple of minutes to find where the other policy

19:41:17 is talking about Westshore.

19:41:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted an interpretation of what

19:41:24 is the effect of this in terms of -- I'm not talking about a

19:41:28 middle suicide lane to run the whole way necessarily, but to

19:41:32 add appropriate turn lanes and that sort of thing along that

19:41:37 section of Westshore. Is that -- would that not be allowed

19:41:42 anymore under this definition, or what?

19:41:44 >> The definition allows for a turn lane, and it's primarily

19:41:49 for the safety issues of -- or to allow for the road to

19:41:55 operate better, and from a safety standpoint and from a turn

19:41:59 standpoint. So the definition allows for a turn lane to

19:42:03 occur.

19:42:04 The definition also allows for the turn lane to be as long

19:42:08 as a turn lane needs to be, and the concern that Margaret

19:42:12 has expressed and some people in the area is that

19:42:15 theoretically you could have a turn lane that goes for quite

19:42:18 a long distance and it could pose an unsafe condition.

19:42:23 Steve Dorsback could probably provide a little more

19:42:29 information to you, but I don't think it's the city's intent

19:42:32 to create an unsafe situation. I don't know that it's

19:42:34 possible to create a definition that makes it so specific

19:42:38 that starts specifying those kind of parameters. That's the

19:42:41 sort of thing that would happen in a technical manual or the

19:42:45 actual development of the project itself. There's no

19:42:47 project slated for Westshore, but when the projects in the

19:42:50 future, if a project does come about that's when you would

19:42:53 see the real length and you could begin to look at really

19:42:56 how long it should be.

19:42:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, I just want to make sure that

19:43:00 there's enough flexibility so that when the traffic

19:43:03 engineers, you know, working with a new development or

19:43:05 whatever believe that a turn lane is appropriate in a

19:43:10 particular spot, that they have the ability to do it.

19:43:13 >> My opinion I think yes, but I'll let Jean, if she wants

19:43:17 to --

19:43:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, let's get the engineer in here to

19:43:20 confirm that. Thank you, Randy. Thank you so much for your

19:43:22 hard work.

19:43:24 >> Jeans Dorsback, transportation division. Yes, we worked

19:43:28 long and hard on taking an established definition from the

19:43:31 Florida statutes and making some revisions to it.

19:43:34 Basically, we want to be careful that the definition is

19:43:37 general enough so that we're not including design criteria

19:43:41 in this definition, and we also want to make sure that the

19:43:45 definition implies to all of our constrained roads, not just

19:43:48 to the constrained road of Westshore.

19:43:51 So understand the concern about this continuous left turn

19:43:57 lane. We call it a TWLTL, a two-way left turn lane, some

19:44:03 people call it a suicide lane. Generally speaking, it's a

19:44:06 design style. It is allowed, but as you can see, I'll give

19:44:10 Dale Mabry as an example. It used to be a seven-lane -- it

19:44:13 looked like a landing strip for an airplane. The D.O.T.

19:44:16 went back in and put medians with left turn lanes. That's

19:44:20 generally more the trend of what we would do. I'm not

19:44:23 saying that that's what we would do at every road, but we

19:44:26 are looking more at these two-way left lanes in terms of

19:44:32 safety. And the other comment would be that we don't have

19:44:34 any plans for Westshore at this time in our transportation

19:44:36 plan, so there's nothing even on the books at this time.

19:44:41 But we're -- again, we are agreeable to go back and look at

19:44:47 this definition again based on the comments, but we're going

19:44:51 to be making sure that the definition is covering all of our

19:44:53 constrained roads in the city, not specific to one

19:44:57 particular one, and we also want to make sure that it's not

19:45:00 too detailed, that we're sort of imposing a design criteria,

19:45:04 where that might not be appropriate for another road that is

19:45:08 constrained.

19:45:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. I -- I think I'm comfortable with

19:45:13 what you -- you know, the way that you've defined what we've

19:45:18 done here and where we're at. Because I think that at the

19:45:21 end of the day, when you're talking about safety, that you,

19:45:25 the traffic engineers, need to have the final word on that.

19:45:32 You know, in regard to the possibility of adding a turn lane

19:45:35 where it's appropriate. And especially, you know, since we

19:45:37 do have new development planned up and down there. From

19:45:39 Azele to Gandy, there's a lot of new things that are

19:45:43 potentially going to be going on and we don't want to tie

19:45:46 our hands, you know, with comp plan language that, you know,

19:45:49 that would tie our hands. All right. Thank you.

19:45:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. This is a note for staff to

19:45:58 take. I'm very disappointed that the downtown partnership

19:46:01 doesn't have anybody here.

19:46:03 But on page 33, under item 131, miscellaneous items to be

19:46:10 added to plan, they note, urban design, encourage greenway

19:46:15 park development beneath elevated structures, encourage

19:46:20 first-floor activation of all uses, including parking

19:46:25 structures, allow zero parking requirements for ground floor

19:46:29 retail space, require new development above a certain size

19:46:33 to bear utilities, recommend public plan that identifies

19:46:38 nodes and corridors. Those are all things that I think are

19:46:41 really important, and I'm -- you know, the plan is 500 pages

19:46:45 and maybe it should be 501, but these are things that I

19:46:52 think we could look at adding between now and January, and

19:46:55 there are a couple more things. The marina that was

19:46:58 identified, a marina definition, specific work force housing

19:47:04 goals for downtown, the removal of barriers for historic

19:47:07 preservation renovation. And wait, there was -- I mean,

19:47:13 you've done a phenomenal, fantastic, amazingly complete job,

19:47:19 but these are things that I think are appropriate for the

19:47:21 plan. I mean, they also need, you know, eventually to be

19:47:24 made into code, but they're stated goals.

19:47:28 And also, I don't think I saw water taxi under the list of

19:47:32 transportation, but I think we should stick that in there.

19:47:35 So, amazing, after years and years of working on

19:47:39 neighborhood planning and land use planning and zoning, this

19:47:44 will give us as a city council, the tools to be much more

19:47:48 specific and enlightened as we guide land use decision

19:47:53 making. And it's just a quantum leap from any previous

19:47:59 plan, and Michelle and Terry, thank you for starting from a

19:48:04 very big picture. And now I can promise you that I'll work

19:48:08 very closely with the staff to get the support of ordinances

19:48:12 done ASAP.

19:48:17 >> Julia Cole legal department. I did want to take the

19:48:26 opportunity to respond to the letter as it relates to

19:48:28 annexation so it's clear for the record and put in its

19:48:31 proper context. When these properties were annexed into the

19:48:34 city, under Florida statute, what happens is a property

19:48:38 that's annexed from the county to a city keeps the land use

19:48:42 classification on that property until such time as the city

19:48:45 puts the land use classification on it. There is no time

19:48:48 frame for that.

19:48:49 In this instance, as part of this process, and I think this

19:48:53 is what you've heard, you know, Cindy Miller and her staff

19:48:55 saying, is they were recommending that we would go ahead and

19:48:59 move forward with a land use designation which was similar

19:49:02 in scope to what was in the county. That was what was

19:49:05 talked about, and that is what is before you today. This is

19:49:09 not a petition of these property owners.

19:49:11 The city was simply fulfilling what it stated it would do in

19:49:15 terms of placing a city designation on it. If there is no

19:49:18 city designation on it, all that happens is they keep the

19:49:21 county designation. There is no time frame, as I said, for

19:49:24 that.

19:49:25 While I understand, in listening to the comments of the

19:49:27 members of the public who live up there and in reviewing

19:49:30 Mr. Donnelly's letter, they are concerned that this is not

19:49:33 the right designation, a low-density role designation. The

19:49:37 problem is is you don't have before you a petition in which

19:49:42 that particular land use classification they want, SMU-3,

19:49:46 has been analyzed, has been noticed, has been properly put

19:49:50 before you as if somebody would have brought a petition.

19:49:53 I understand that that is maybe what they want, and you know

19:49:57 what, there's nothing that happens today in this comp plan

19:50:00 update, if you put this on there, that precludes them from

19:50:04 moving forward with that petition. This isn't to say that

19:50:06 they can't move forward with that petition, and I wanted to

19:50:09 make that clear for the purposes of the record, and for the

19:50:11 purposes of the folks in the audience. That's not what this

19:50:15 is doing.

19:50:15 What this is simply doing, as city staff indicated they

19:50:19 would be doing at the time the annexation went through, is

19:50:22 placing a city land use designation with a similar type of

19:50:27 density as what was in the city. As what was in the county.

19:50:32 If this does get through, then yes, there will be an

19:50:35 obligation to then do the same thing with the zoning

19:50:37 classification. But, there is no requirement that we do

19:50:40 that. They can simply sit there with the county's

19:50:43 designation until such time these petitioners come forward.

19:50:46 And I did want to make that all very clear for the record so

19:50:49 that everybody understands that this is not anything more

19:50:52 than moving forward under the way the statute reads to place

19:50:55 a county -- a city land use designation. Thank you.

19:51:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Julie. A couple of things.

19:51:08 You mentioned notice. I think we're in a legislative

19:51:13 process, you know, I think council has discretion to modify

19:51:17 this. If you're telling us our only choice is to leave it

19:51:22 as is or go with the staff designation, the staff

19:51:25 recommendation because of notice, I don't -- I don't agree

19:51:28 with that. I don't understand that.

19:51:29 >> Maybe the use of notice wasn't right. What I meant to

19:51:33 say and I will clarify this for the record and I appreciate

19:51:35 you saying that. What I meant to say is the following:

19:51:38 Typically when you plan a property, you go through a

19:51:41 particular process, and you do have a notice, and maybe the

19:51:43 notice issue isn't as relevant in this instance, but you

19:51:47 also have an analysis about that planning designation. That

19:51:51 has not occurred here.

19:51:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right. That's my next question is,

19:51:55 is what analysis has the staff done to recommend the one

19:51:59 unit per five acres?

19:52:01 >> And I think that is the purpose behind the way this

19:52:04 designation came forward, since it is not really doing much

19:52:08 more -- a little additional density, but not much more, that

19:52:11 level of analysis, it was felt -- and I would agree with

19:52:15 this from a legal perspective -- wasn't necessary because

19:52:18 all you're really doing was mirroring what's in the county,

19:52:21 more or less, and I understand that's why these folks are

19:52:24 frustrated. They're like, well, why did we come into the

19:52:27 city if you're going to mirror it, but if there is going to

19:52:30 be an up planning, there has to be an analysis, DCA will

19:52:34 demand an analysis.

19:52:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. My other question is to someone

19:52:38 on staff that's familiar with K bar, with the K bar

19:52:41 development order and the way that's laid out, anybody up on

19:52:44 that, Randy or anybody?

19:52:47 >> Depends on the question. I might be the culprit.

19:52:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe the neighbors know the answer to

19:52:52 this, but on the site plan for the development order or the

19:52:55 PD, or whatever controls K bar, is there commercial along

19:52:59 the same stretch across the street on Morris Bridge?

19:53:05 >> I believe that what was approved, if --

19:53:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean, I know there's a lot of

19:53:11 residential.

19:53:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I just need somebody to tell me -- Gloria's

19:53:17 going to tell me. Hold on one second, sir.

19:53:21 >> Gloria Moreda, land development. There is very limited

19:53:26 ability for the commercial in K bar. I can't remember the

19:53:29 square footages, though.

19:53:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But is it -- are there any site plans

19:53:33 that show it along that stretch of Morris Bridge?

19:53:36 >> Can go along Morris Bridge. Nothing has been reviewed by

19:53:39 our office, though. Nothing has been submitted at this

19:53:44 point.

19:53:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So it's sort of vague? It's one of

19:53:46 those vague site plans that we don't know yet?

19:53:50 >> Cindy Miller, director of growth management services.

19:53:54 There is also a distinction that the K bar development had

19:53:57 an annexation agreement when the property came into the

19:54:00 city. This property does not.

19:54:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I got my question answered.

19:54:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions? Sir, sir, you can't --

19:54:12 you can't. You didn't even ask a question. Okay. Thank

19:54:18 you. You just can't talk from the audience like that.

19:54:20 Okay.

19:54:28 >> I have some issues that I want to bring up now. Can we

19:54:30 bring it up now or do we have to wait for it to come back?

19:54:37 You're too late when it comes back, right? I know one

19:54:39 thing, I was not on the board when that property was annexed

19:54:42 out in new Tampa. I was against it. I was against it for

19:54:48 the simple reason we've had enough annexations up in new

19:54:52 Tampa, and we don't provide the necessary services for that

19:54:56 area, so we're going to have more area. They got 300 acres

19:55:00 there. Down the road there's going to be a lot of amenities

19:55:04 that they want and we're not going to be able to give it to

19:55:07 them.

19:55:07 On page 20, it talks about street lights. Where there's a

19:55:13 lot of pedestrians and a lot of traffic, I think we need two

19:55:16 sets of street lights because the tall lights illuminate for

19:55:21 the cars, and when it's someone walking, you would need

19:55:26 lights that are closer to the ground so people would be

19:55:29 visible.

19:55:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me, Mr. Caetano, where was that

19:55:34 again, sir?

19:55:42 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I think it's on page 20. Of the plan

19:55:46 itself.

19:55:57 >> I agree.

19:56:00 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: You second that?

19:56:00 >> I second that.

19:56:02 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Because the tall lights illuminate for the

19:56:04 traffic, but when there's a pedestrian down there, you're

19:56:07 not going to see them. The staff, does somebody have an

19:56:28 answer for that? What's that? Well, it talks about street

19:56:33 lighting. I don't know where I saw it. Well, this is --

19:56:43 pedestrian -- let's see here. Pedestrian scale lighting for

19:56:47 parks, paths, Bayshore and residential areas. Boy where

19:56:53 there's a lot of foot traffic. I think we need another 30

19:57:00 days to study this.

19:57:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You don't have 30 days. That's the problem.

19:57:13 >> Did you want to include it?

19:57:15 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Well, I think that should be considered.

19:57:17 I think it's important. And what's an economic statement

19:57:19 for the code changes? How is this going to affect the

19:57:22 citizens and the residents and the businesses? On these

19:57:28 code changes.

19:57:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Miss Miller, do you understand his

19:57:32 question?

19:57:33 >> I believe I do. When it comes to that specificity as to

19:57:37 lighting, that is something that we as staff will have to

19:57:40 come back to you. That would be something that we would be

19:57:43 working with all the stakeholders, as well as having to

19:57:46 bring it back as a code change for city council. So that

19:57:48 would be something we would work on separately.

19:57:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that's dealing with the lighting, talking

19:57:54 about the code change.

19:57:55 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Okay. On page two, number 55 of the

19:58:02 changes made in response. These are the changes that came

19:58:05 back from the committee. Number two. Mobility options.

19:58:17 Page 55. Okay. Provide protection for commercial and

19:58:39 residential development with appropriate height buffers and

19:58:42 walls for sight and sound.

19:58:52 >> Is that language you want considered added?

19:58:55 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yeah.

19:58:56 >> What was that again, sir?

19:58:57 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Provide protection for commercial and

19:59:00 residential developments with appropriate height buffers and

19:59:02 walls for sight and sound.

19:59:09 >> I guess the question would be if -- if Mr. Caetano has

19:59:15 concerns with regard to specific language here, would it be

19:59:18 appropriate to discuss them now, or depending on what it is,

19:59:21 whether it's tweakable, like, what's the definition of

19:59:26 tweaking, if we could have a clarification of that.

19:59:29 >> It would be something that is considered by DCA to be a

19:59:32 minor change, we could work on that after transmittal.

19:59:35 Also, I believe again, there are two avenues that can be

19:59:38 pursued. Either incorporate into the comp plan or

19:59:41 incorporate into the land development regulations the codes

19:59:43 that come from the comp plan. So we would just need to be

19:59:46 able to identify the best venue to do that.

19:59:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Mr. Caetano, did you hear that?

20:00:00 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yeah, I heard that.

20:00:01 >> If I may, I guess the question would be, would that be

20:00:05 considered a tweak, or is that something that council --

20:00:08 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Can we tweak it later if we don't --

20:00:11 >> That's a question for staff.

20:00:16 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: That's it.

20:00:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

20:00:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. In the area where we were

20:00:22 looking before on page three, it refers, toward the bottom

20:00:27 of the page, page six, policy 13.3.11, walkable blocks, the

20:00:33 city shall require new development and redevelopment

20:00:35 projects going through subdivision plots to create walkable

20:00:39 pedestrian scaled blocks that incorporate publicly

20:00:42 accessible mid block pedestrian routes. I wonder why if

20:00:46 it's underscored somebody added going through subdivision

20:00:50 plat, and I wondered why.

20:00:53 >> Because specifically, what I was thinking of, I was

20:00:57 thinking of the Met Life project, which is, you know, a very

20:00:59 large scale. I think it's over 20 acres, it has ten

20:01:02 different buildings. I don't believe it went through

20:01:06 subdivision plats, but it certainly would be a more user

20:01:11 friendly development if there were a pedestrian friendly

20:01:14 block, just kind of an amorphous block, and it sort of

20:01:18 related to the issue that John Dingfelder brought up earlier

20:01:22 today if Britain plaza were to redevelop. Again, the

20:01:26 creation of pedestrian-friendly blocks as opposed to just

20:01:28 sort of a sprawling redevelopment would be preferable. So

20:01:32 why was the -- going through subdivision plat added?

20:01:37 >> I believe it's because the subdivision -- and I'm looking

20:01:40 back at my staff here. It was not addressed in the

20:01:43 subdivision sections. We needed to make sure that it was

20:01:45 specific as to subdivisions. When it comes to PD's and

20:01:49 other developments, site plans, there are other policies

20:01:51 that would address those.

20:01:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There are? Are there? If there are,

20:01:55 that's great. I just want to make sure that we don't -- as

20:01:59 we look toward the redevelopment of areas like Britain

20:02:03 plaza, that would be an example of where pedestrians blocks

20:02:07 would be helpful.

20:02:08 >> And I think as GINA has made clear, when it comes to all

20:02:13 forms of transportation, pedestrians, bikes, every form in

20:02:18 addition to it has always been vehicles, cars. We are

20:02:20 looking at that in a much more broader sense than we ever

20:02:24 did before and that's what this comp plan addresses.

20:02:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because if it's a question of creating

20:02:31 connectivities to get through very large acreages that are

20:02:34 redeveloping and make it efficient for the people that are

20:02:37 wanting to go there and for wanting to go to different uses

20:02:40 on the site, and another site would be for example the very

20:02:42 large yet undeveloped site on between Dale Mabry and Himes

20:02:46 and Cypress and the interstate. Very large, will be very

20:02:52 urban. We need to ensure that it has that kind of internal

20:02:55 connectivity to make it useful for everyone. Do you think

20:02:59 that's addressed in the plan?

20:03:01 >> Yes. My staff keeps assuring me it is.

20:03:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is? Okay. Thanks.

20:03:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.

20:03:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. In regard to the Morris

20:03:10 Bridge property, the wilderness crossing, I'm going to toss

20:03:14 out what I think might be a reasonable compromise on this.

20:03:17 I'm not thrilled at all by the Mr. Donnelly's and his

20:03:24 group's proposal of an SMU-3. For one thing, I think three

20:03:28 units per acre, we've seen the pictures across the street

20:03:30 there of how that's developing out, and -- and also, the

20:03:34 potential for commercial, like Julia Cole said, I don't

20:03:41 think we have the analysis, research or data to really

20:03:43 support that SMU-3 at this time.

20:03:45 It doesn't mean that those property owners can't come back

20:03:47 in at a later date and look for an SMU-3 or comparable

20:03:51 category.

20:03:52 On the other hand, staff is proposing the one unit per five

20:03:56 acres, which, you know, some of the folks say to leave it

20:04:03 one per ten, and some of the folks say one home per five

20:04:07 acres isn't enough to be able to kind of have their family

20:04:10 compound and that sort of thing.

20:04:13 I think a fair compromise, and this rural estate category is

20:04:19 brand new, right? Okay. I think since it's brand new and

20:04:22 it's not applied anywhere else, I think we can pretty much

20:04:24 do whatever we want with it within reason. And what I'm

20:04:28 going to suggest is that we modify this rural estate

20:04:32 category for this wilderness crossing area and the several

20:04:36 hundred acres that it applies to to one home per two and a

20:04:41 half acres. And for example, the woman who came up that

20:04:44 spoke about her two boys and her husband and that sort of

20:04:48 thing, she had ten acres. That would give her the ability

20:04:51 to have four homes on the ten acres. I think that's

20:04:55 reasonable to -- you know, I think that, in a city like

20:04:59 Tampa, I think that's what a rural estate is, you know, to

20:05:02 have two and a half acres I think is adequate. I don't

20:05:05 think we should be forcing people to have five acres for one

20:05:08 house or ten acres for one house, and that sort of thing,

20:05:12 because we're in a city. And we did annex this, and in

20:05:16 hindsight, I wish kinda we didn't -- we hadn't annexed it,

20:05:20 but now we did.

20:05:21 So now we have to deal with it, and I think we have to deal

20:05:24 with it fairly, and I think a reasonable compromise is one

20:05:27 home per two and a half acres, we'll modify the role estate

20:05:31 and everybody will go home dissatisfied because that's what

20:05:34 we do, but anyway that's my motion and we'll see where it

20:05:38 goes.

20:05:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a second. Okay. Well, it dies for

20:05:45 lack of a second.

20:05:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You didn't give it much time.

20:05:52 >> I --

20:05:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My question is is I was informed that it had

20:05:59 to maintain the current or similar I guess in size in terms

20:06:05 of the annex agreement. Is that right, counsel?

20:06:14 >> SMU-5 and now he wants to change it so he wants to change

20:06:18 the agreement.

20:06:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No.

20:06:19 >> Let me clarify. There is no agreement. That's been part

20:06:22 of the problem. The discussion at the time of the

20:06:24 annexation from staff's perspective, and I think everybody

20:06:30 assumed we were all on the same page, and apparently we were

20:06:33 not, was that a land use classification would be created for

20:06:36 the purposes of recognizing the fact it's in the city, which

20:06:41 we're required to do. At some point in time you're required

20:06:44 to do by statute, there is no time frame, but that was not

20:06:47 very far off as to what they had right now. And that is --

20:06:51 and frankly, the city staff didn't have an obligation to

20:06:55 come forward with any land use designation on this property.

20:06:59 It could have remained, and can remain, under the same land

20:07:02 use classification as what is allowed in the city. Under

20:07:05 Florida statute, you remain under county land use

20:07:08 designation, county zoning, county subdivision regulations

20:07:13 until such time as you have something in the city.

20:07:16 So that is what is in front of you. It is a policy

20:07:19 decision, and I want to make that clear. It is a policy

20:07:22 decision. However, you base your policy decisions on the

20:07:25 evidence and data and analysis that's in the record. If

20:07:29 council is comfortable that there's enough data analysis in

20:07:32 the record to support this, then, you know, the city council

20:07:36 can make that determination. I caution you, I don't know

20:07:38 how DCA is going to be receptive to that. Frankly, in

20:07:41 thinking it through, I don't know how well DCA is going to

20:07:44 be receptive to the 1 to 5, but we are in a transmittal

20:07:48 public hearing. If that is the rule of council, we could

20:07:51 transmit it up to DCA and see what their thoughts are.

20:07:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

20:07:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. This is a rural area. The

20:08:00 whole point of this plan is to develop density where we have

20:08:03 the infrastructure. We don't have the infrastructure up

20:08:08 there. There's no compelling reason to do this. It's

20:08:13 speculative on the part of the property owners, and I won't

20:08:15 support your motion, Mr. Dingfelder.

20:08:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, council Dingfelder.

20:08:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have the little photographs? The

20:08:29 one that says -- there's one that says Easton Park. Just a

20:08:41 couple of those on the back that showed Easton Park.

20:08:44 With all due respect, at one point, okay, there's several of

20:08:49 them Cindy, at one point, this was rural, and I'm sure it

20:08:52 was fantastic, and, you know, pastures and everything else.

20:08:55 But directly across the street, across Morris Bridge road,

20:08:59 all right, is Easton Park, which I'm hearing from the folks

20:09:02 is part of K bar. That's three units per acre. That's

20:09:09 SMU-3. All right. So I think we can't -- we can't live in

20:09:13 this fiction that, you know, that right across -- right

20:09:16 across Morris Bridge road, you know, that we've now accepted

20:09:20 them into our city, but we're going to hold them to, you

20:09:24 know, one unit per ten acres or one unit per five acres. I

20:09:27 think that's inherently unfair, and when you say there's no

20:09:30 services? Well, if there's no services, then how are these

20:09:34 people getting water and sewer, et cetera. They're right

20:09:38 across the street.

20:09:39 So eventually, the services can get across the street one

20:09:42 way or the other, if and when these things develop.

20:09:45 But you know what? I'm not talking about significant

20:09:48 development. I'm talking about one unit per two and a half

20:09:51 acres, okay? That's some of the lowest density in this

20:09:55 entire city. It probably is the lowest density in the

20:09:57 entire city.

20:09:58 So let's -- you know, let's just try to be a little more

20:10:02 fair and a little more reasonable. It's a compromise. Some

20:10:05 people are happy -- you know, some people might be happy

20:10:07 with the SMU-3, but we're not giving them that because that

20:10:10 includes commercial, and this type of density that we're

20:10:13 looking at. You know, what I'm talking about is still

20:10:17 little horse farms, little two and a half acre horse farms

20:10:22 and I don't see anything wrong with it.

20:10:23 And yes, staff is not happy with it, you know, staff wants

20:10:27 it, you know, left the way it was because it hadn't been

20:10:29 negotiated and we haven't gone through that process. But at

20:10:32 the end of the day, Julia Cole has said this is a policy

20:10:37 decision made by this legislative body and we've heard

20:10:40 evidence and testimony from all these folks who live up

20:10:42 there, all right, and I think that we have the legislative

20:10:44 ability to do this in the spirit of compromise, and if DCA

20:10:49 has an objection to it, they'll send it back to us during

20:10:52 the process. So, you know, let's just get off the dime and

20:10:55 give it a try.

20:10:58 >> Mr. Dingfelder, what does RE-5 give you? What are you

20:11:02 permitted to do there?

20:11:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Gloria? At the end of the day, I think

20:11:08 it's just build one unit per five acres with a well and a

20:11:12 septic tank, basically.

20:11:13 >> One unit per five acres. I believe there is some ability

20:11:16 to do some small neighborhood commercial uses, up to -- (off

20:11:23 mic) -- yeah, a .25 F.A.R., limited to 20,000 square feet

20:11:29 commercial.

20:11:30 >> So commercial would be no larger than 20,000 square feet?

20:11:33 >> Or .25, which depends on the lot size, but for a

20:11:38 residential it will be one unit per five acres.

20:11:41 >> So Publix won't go there so they still got to Drive down

20:11:45 the street.

20:11:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's fine. Let them Drive down the

20:11:48 street.

20:11:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the issue, though, is we heard from

20:11:51 staff and that is that they have to do analysis and all of

20:11:55 that before we make that kind of decision. I have not seen

20:11:58 any analysis done, so I mean, and the motion's on the floor,

20:12:01 but I'm not going to support it. I don't believe in making

20:12:03 a decision when I don't have all the information and facts

20:12:06 before you, and I don't have that, you know. There's a

20:12:12 motion been moved and seconded that -- that we change the --

20:12:17 I guess the land use category from two and a half acres to

20:12:21 one?

20:12:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, one unit for two and a half acres.

20:12:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of that motion signify by

20:12:28 saying AYE. Opposes.

20:12:32 >> Motion failed with Miller, Scott and Saul-Sena voting no

20:12:35 and Miranda and Mulhern being absent.

20:12:38 >> We need four votes, right?

20:12:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right. I'm going to make a motion and

20:12:43 see if we make get lucky.

20:12:45 >> I just want to bring to your attention under your rules,

20:12:47 and again, these rules are subject to change by unanimous

20:12:51 vote if you wish to waive them, but your rules do state that

20:12:54 when a matter which is the subject of an agenda item is

20:12:56 considered by a council and four votes are neither obtained

20:12:59 in support or in opposition to the matter, the matter shall

20:13:02 automatically be brought before the council at the next

20:13:04 regular council meeting as unfinished business. Council,

20:13:07 with this being legally not possible because of it being a

20:13:12 transmittal public hearing, it would be my recommendation

20:13:15 that there either be a motion to reconsider or the motion

20:13:19 is -- the motion to waive the rules, that doesn't apply.

20:13:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to try another motion.

20:13:28 >> We didn't have a majority.

20:13:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Excuse me. Excuse me.

20:13:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll withdraw the motion. That's very

20:13:35 helpful.

20:13:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the thing is, let the chair recognize

20:13:39 you. That's not how you -- ask for recognition and let the

20:13:44 chairman recognize you. You're out of order. Councilwoman

20:13:49 Saul-Sena.

20:13:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion.

20:13:54 >> Point of order.

20:13:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can't make a motion yet, John.

20:14:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.

20:14:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's your point of order?

20:14:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The point of order is we haven't

20:14:08 resolved my motion yet. It's out of order for her to make

20:14:12 another motion. We're stuck with my motion until we resolve

20:14:15 it.

20:14:16 >> Mr. Chairman? I'd like to withdraw my second.

20:14:21 >> The motion has already been voted on. My suggestion

20:14:23 would be a motion to waive the rules so that rule 4C does

20:14:26 not apply to this issue and make that a unanimous vote and

20:14:28 then it does not have to be continued. So my suggestion

20:14:32 would be if council does not -- the best way to resolve that

20:14:35 is to make a unanimous motion or by unanimous consent to

20:14:38 waive the rules and not apply 4C to this issue tonight.

20:14:42 >> So moved.

20:14:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

20:14:44 >> I didn't get recognized. Pardon me?

20:14:51 >> I got a second.

20:14:54 >> Okay. Your statement? We have a second.

20:14:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Who was the second? I didn't hear it. All

20:14:59 right. Councilman Dingfelder.

20:15:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was what I was trying to do, so

20:15:04 that's fine.

20:15:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So your motion is to waive the rules? Waive

20:15:08 the rules for another vote. All in favor of the motion that

20:15:12 signify by saying AYE. Oppose? Okay.

20:15:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So my motion -- I'd like to make a

20:15:22 motion that would adopt a proposal of residents of one

20:15:30 development per five acres. It's the staff recommendation.

20:15:40 >> Cindy Miller, growth management. I believe that since

20:15:43 staff has already incorporated into the comprehensive plan,

20:15:46 I don't believe you need to make a motion for that.

20:15:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Already there.

20:15:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I've got a problem with that because I'd

20:15:53 like a separate vote on that issue. So I think that motion

20:15:58 would be in order.

20:16:04 >> I'm sorry. I didn't follow what your motion would be.

20:16:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was mine.

20:16:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd like to second Linda's motion

20:16:12 because I think that motion is in order because I'd like a

20:16:14 separate vote for this Morris Bridge issue.

20:16:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As opposed to it being part and parcel.

20:16:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As opposed to it being part and parcel

20:16:21 with the rest of it, which I'm fine with.

20:16:25 >> My understanding, Mr. Dingfelder, and forgive me if I'm

20:16:28 making a presumption, but your motion was in effect to have

20:16:31 a separate vote on that. By the offer of your compromise.

20:16:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then we killed my motion through the

20:16:37 modification of the rules. Now Linda made a motion to

20:16:42 basically adopt staff's recommendation of one unit per five

20:16:46 acres. I seconded it. I'll second it for discussion

20:16:48 purposes and to get it voted on so I can vote against it,

20:16:53 just for the record, because I don't think it's fair.

20:16:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess my question becomes at this point,

20:17:01 Julia, and what I'm hearing is since all this is

20:17:05 incorporated already in staff recommendation that a motion

20:17:07 is not necessary to address that issue. What I'm hearing

20:17:10 Councilman Dingfelder, he want to vote against that

20:17:12 particular recommendation.

20:17:13 >> I think you can take an action in which you decide to

20:17:16 sever that from the other question relating to transmittal.

20:17:21 I think you do have to take a vote on the question of

20:17:24 severing, and -- that issue, and then you actually take a

20:17:27 separate vote on that. I'm not a procedural person. I

20:17:31 should really listen to Marty on that, but that's --

20:17:36 >> I suspect the motion would still allow, if those who wish

20:17:42 to support the staff recommendation as it's presented, if

20:17:48 council wishes to do that, an affirmative vote would still

20:17:50 have the same effect, assuming that there are four votes for

20:17:53 that, and it would allow somebody, if they wish to sever it,

20:17:56 if that's the intent of the motion. Is it the intention of

20:17:59 the maker of the motion, knowing that this is incorporated

20:18:02 within the plan, to have a severed vote?

20:18:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes. To allow individual council

20:18:08 members to vote specifically on this, and then on the

20:18:10 transmittal.

20:18:11 >> That's the intent of the motion?

20:18:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's the intent. Call the question.

20:18:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. So then we have to make a motion

20:18:19 first on separating it out. That's the motion.

20:18:22 >> No.

20:18:25 >> That's the effect of the motion.

20:18:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My intention is to allow this to be

20:18:28 voted on separately from the overall transmittal, and that

20:18:35 what I'm recommending in my motion is what is included in

20:18:42 the comp plan.

20:18:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. There's a motion and a second. All

20:18:44 in favor of the motion signify by saying AYE. Opposed?

20:18:50 >> Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no, Miranda and

20:18:54 Mulhern being absent at vote. Mr. Chairman could I ask that

20:18:56 the motion be formally stated for the record?

20:18:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes. My motion is specifically on the

20:19:00 question of the appropriate land use for the annexed area

20:19:05 and my motion is to vote on that separately, and that the

20:19:08 proposal reflect the recommendation of the staff in the comp

20:19:11 plan proposal.

20:19:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. We need to close the public hearing.

20:19:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

20:19:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

20:19:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Of closing the public hearing?

20:19:26 >> You don't have to transmit when the public hearing is

20:19:28 open, I believe. I believe it would be appropriate to close

20:19:31 the public hearing and then transmit.

20:19:33 >> I second the motion to close.

20:19:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded, all in favor let it be

20:19:40 known by AYE. Okay. Now we have a motion to transmit.

20:19:44 >> Council, if I may -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the

20:19:48 appropriate motion would be to transmit the draft plan that

20:19:50 was presented by the planning commission on June 26th, 2008,

20:19:53 incorporating documents that was received tonight entitled

20:19:56 the City of Tampa consolidated staff recommended changes to

20:19:59 proposed Tampa comprehensive plan dated July 24th, 2008, and

20:20:03 if that motion can be incorporated in these two documents.

20:20:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel like this is a point where the

20:20:09 orchestra sort of swells in the back of the room.

20:20:12 Everybody -- not everybody -- some of the people in the

20:20:14 audience have put in such enormous amounts of time into

20:20:16 making this the excellent document it is, it's so far

20:20:20 reaching, it is exciting to make this motion.

20:20:24 >> Second the motion.

20:20:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. It's been moved and seconded for the

20:20:29 transmittal. All in favor let it be known by AYE. Opposes?

20:20:33 Okay. So moved. Motion to receive and file.

20:20:42 >> So moved.

20:20:43 >> Second.

20:20:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying AYE.

20:20:47 Opposes? Okay. Any other business? Okay. We stand

20:20:51 adjourned. Thank you.