Help & information    View the list of Transcripts



TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, January 8, 2008
5:01 p.m. Session

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

[Sounding gavel]
[Roll Call]
17:06:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: (off microphone) the comprehensive
17:06:19 plan.
17:06:20 Thank you, sir.
17:06:21 And the game is what time tonight?
17:06:35 Mr. Fletcher.
17:06:41 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just to initiate this process,
17:06:43 what you have before you today is a request to
17:06:46 transmit a response to the department of community
17:06:48 affairs ORC report that they provided, basically

17:06:53 commenting on the comprehensive plan that you all had
17:06:56 previously transmitted to the department of community
17:06:59 affairs.
17:07:01 The purpose of the hearing today, and what we are
17:07:04 asking you to consider, is the first reading of that
17:07:06 response.
17:07:08 Our action here today is intended to be limited to
17:07:11 responses to those department of community affairs
17:07:16 comments, and not to go beyond that into new issues.
17:07:24 One point I want to raise with you before we get into
17:07:26 the issues and merits that will be before you today
17:07:30 that will be handled by Randy Goers and Julia Cole is
17:07:33 that we have presently pending with the department of
17:07:36 community affairs and the division of administrative
17:07:39 hearings a challenge to two small-scale comp plan
17:07:44 amendments that were approved by council this summer.
17:07:50 I think you will hear today from Mr. Mark Bentley
17:07:54 representing the property owners related to that
17:07:58 litigation.
17:07:59 While we believe that that is a separate issue from
17:08:01 this comp plan review, the department of community
17:08:06 affairs has attempted to roll these in together into

17:08:08 one issue as it relates to compatibility with
17:08:11 MacDill Air Force Base.
17:08:13 Our position is that they are separate issues, that
17:08:16 they should remain separate issues, and we should
17:08:19 handle that in that litigation and move forward with
17:08:23 this comp plan.
17:08:24 We do not believe that this comp plan update will or
17:08:29 should impact the property rights of Mr. Bentley's
17:08:33 clients.
17:08:33 We believe that through two ordinances, ordinance
17:08:37 2008-144, and ordinance 2008-145, that we have
17:08:43 properly addressed his client's interests and approved
17:08:50 their land use then N that instance.
17:08:52 Julia coal will speak to that in more detail.
17:08:55 But my point in bringing that up is to let you know
17:08:58 two things.
17:08:58 One is that department of community affairs has
17:09:02 intimated that they may seek judicial -- or
17:09:06 administrative review of our portion of the comp plan
17:09:11 that has to deal with compatibility with MacDill
17:09:14 Air Force Base.
17:09:16 We have drafted in this response this afternoon Mr.

17:09:26 Goers will be presenting to you what we believe the
17:09:29 department of community affairs concerns.
17:09:31 He would believe that our update is essentially
17:09:33 compatible with MacDill Air Force Base, that you
17:09:38 may hear in the future that we have some issues with
17:09:40 DCA regarding that, and we would recommend that you go
17:09:43 forward with the response that Ms. Cole and Mr. Goers
17:09:46 will be presenting to you later on, and that also when
17:09:52 you hear from Mr. Bentley, I want to make sure you are
17:09:55 aware of two things.
17:09:56 One is that we do not believe that this comp plan in
17:09:59 any way affects the property interests of his clients
17:10:03 because of the priority proceedings that were before
17:10:05 this council, and that we believe it is appropriate
17:10:08 and really essential from our perspective to keep
17:10:11 separate that ongoing litigation from this comp plan
17:10:15 amendment, so we do not want to take action that
17:10:18 explicitly links this comp plan update with those
17:10:22 small-scale amendments that were previously approved
17:10:24 by council.
17:10:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
17:10:42 >>RANDY GOERS: Land Development Coordination.

17:10:45 I would like to take a few moments to take you through
17:10:50 the major changes of the comp plan.
17:10:52 If we could have the short PowerPoint to help
17:10:56 illustrate those changes.
17:10:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: How long is the presentation?
17:10:59 >>> I hope to do in the about eight minutes.
17:11:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I was thinking it would be around 15.
17:11:10 That's fine.
17:11:10 If you do it in eight, we can live with that.
17:11:13 >>RANDY GOERS: July 24th, the comprehensive plan
17:11:17 was transmitted to DCA.
17:11:19 On October 10th, DCA issues an ORC report, called
17:11:24 an Objections, Recommendations and Comments report.
17:11:27 They are reviewing the proposed plan in accordance
17:11:29 with the requirements of state law.
17:11:32 So their review criteria is slightly different than
17:11:35 maybe what we heard at the local level because we want
17:11:39 to be sure their plan meets the statutes.
17:11:43 There were 21 objections.
17:11:45 In an ORC report the city has three options, either to
17:11:49 revise the plan to address the objections, either
17:11:53 provide additional data, analysis, to justify the

17:11:56 amendment as it was Smithed, or to withdraw the
17:11:59 specific amendment altogether.
17:12:01 Local governments have 120 days to adopt the response,
17:12:04 if received on October 10th it would be due around
17:12:07 February 10th.
17:12:08 And tonight is the first adoption hearing with the
17:12:12 second adoption hearing occurring on January 22nd.
17:12:18 When we looked at the ORC report that DCA submitted,
17:12:22 there were a number of issues but these four have
17:12:25 really dominated the discussion and represent the
17:12:28 major changes in the draft of the plan that was
17:12:31 transmitted on July 24th.
17:12:36 The military base compatibility criteria, the TCEA and
17:12:40 the map amendment, the plan category and the map
17:12:44 amendment that were annexed into the city north of
17:12:47 Morris Bridge Road.
17:12:48 I am going to take a couple minutes to highlight what
17:12:51 has changed from the plan, and the changes are, the
17:12:53 changes of the plan that was transmitted on the
17:12:56 24th as to what we are proposing, the response of
17:13:01 the ORC report.
17:13:03 Military base compatibility.

17:13:06 We retained the civilians -- the DCA wanted to us
17:13:11 adopt the more traditional military terms.
17:13:13 We decided to retain the civilian terms.
17:13:17 We added a policy that would require that the clear
17:13:21 zones, the flight paths, the noise contours, would be
17:13:23 shown on the future land use map, so that property
17:13:26 owners and city staff would know what the areas are
17:13:30 affected by those areas.
17:13:36 Prohibit peripheral in the clear zone.
17:13:41 We added a policy to make it a little clearer based on
17:13:44 DCA's objections.
17:13:47 We established a policy requiring the noise sensitive
17:13:52 development to attenuate for noise.
17:13:54 DCA wanted a standard put in place, and the standard
17:13:56 that was decided upon is a federal standard, part 14,
17:14:02 14 part 150.
17:14:03 This standard is accepted by the -- produced built
17:14:07 federal government, and is used as the standard for
17:14:10 airport planning and zoning and noise planning for all
17:14:13 civilian airports, and for military airports so it's a
17:14:18 consistent standard.
17:14:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is that applicable to?

17:14:27 >>> The noise attenuation zones.
17:14:29 There are three zones that extend from the runway.
17:14:32 One of them is wholly inside of the MacDill.
17:14:36 The other two extend out into the property areas.
17:14:41 I do have a map, if I can find it quickly.
17:15:04 There it is.
17:15:06 Can you show the map on the Elmo?
17:15:19 It's my switch?
17:15:20 There it is.
17:15:21 Okay.
17:15:22 These are the zones, the noise zones are the bluish
17:15:26 zones, and you see that there's a couple that move
17:15:29 into the private property area.
17:15:31 Those areas are also the standard.
17:15:34 We already have a standard in our zoning code which is
17:15:39 actually a little bit more strict than what the
17:15:40 federal regulations require, because our standards are
17:15:45 straight 25-decibel reduction and doesn't account for
17:15:48 different levels of the zone.
17:15:51 But moving to the CFR standards, if you are in the 65,
17:15:57 you have to just come down to below 60.
17:16:01 If you are in the 70, you have to reduce it town to

17:16:05 10.
17:16:05 So we think it's a much more flexible standard for the
17:16:09 city, but consistent with the federal regulations.
17:16:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (off microphone) is there any
17:16:18 standard in that?
17:16:19 >>> In the square box?
17:16:22 This one here?
17:16:23 That is outside the noise areas.
17:16:25 So that's standard construction requirements.
17:16:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How does that get enforced?
17:16:33 Do you have to pull a permit?
17:16:35 >>> Right now in our zoning code, the area is written
17:16:40 as the -- the noise contours within the accident
17:16:46 prevention zones.
17:16:47 We update the map to show any properties within those
17:16:49 areas.
17:16:50 They would be flagged when they come in for a
17:16:52 residential permit.
17:16:53 It's only for the noise-sensitive developments, and
17:16:55 there's schools, residential development, and so
17:16:57 forth.
17:16:58 And the purpose of that again is to insure that the

17:17:01 construction of the structures is to a minimum sound
17:17:07 level to help at ten wait for noise.
17:17:13 >> Do you have any sense of the added cost of the
17:17:15 typical single-family dwelling of, you know, in that
17:17:19 65?
17:17:22 >>> I don't because it depends on the construction
17:17:24 methods.
17:17:25 Our code doesn't say you have to build it by this
17:17:29 specific criteria. It will say that you have to
17:17:31 ensure that you have to meet this level.
17:17:33 And so it is up to the builder to come back, to give
17:17:38 the building the flexibility and freedom to come back
17:17:41 with the construction standards to be able to do that.
17:17:44 >> But they are going to have to show that to the
17:17:46 permitting office before they are allowed to move
17:17:48 forward?
17:17:48 >>> Right.
17:17:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
17:17:51 >>> One thing to be noted is the CFR regulations, they
17:17:55 recognize that normal construction standards, right
17:18:00 now bringing it down to 60 right now.
17:18:02 That's why there are no standards outside of that.

17:18:05 So there's really just about that marginal level above
17:18:10 the 50 and the 60 that we are talking about.
17:18:13 Can I go back to the presentation?
17:18:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you between first and second
17:18:17 reading do a little research and see what that cost is
17:18:19 going to be, the added cost?
17:18:21 I know it's going to vary.
17:18:23 But maybe there's some literature out there.
17:18:24 >>> Yes.
17:18:26 Let me pull some numbers.
17:18:28 >> It might be helping.
17:18:30 >>> We can do something like that.
17:18:32 >>CINDY MILLER: We'll be glad to do something like
17:18:36 that.
17:18:37 The noise attenuation for existing areas are already
17:18:40 part of our code so folks are already doing in the
17:18:43 those areas but we'll be glad to get some information
17:18:45 as to whether there is incremental cost.
17:18:47 >> Where are they doing that, like in the Westshore
17:18:49 area?
17:18:49 >>> No, in these areas.
17:18:51 This is an incremental expansion.

17:18:53 But where you already had the need for noise
17:18:55 attenuation, that has already been in these areas and
17:18:58 has already been a requirement under the building
17:19:00 code.
17:19:00 >> We have been enforcing it?
17:19:02 >>> Uh-huh.
17:19:02 >> Never heard of it.
17:19:04 Thanks.
17:19:04 >>RANDY GOERS: It's in the building code and we
17:19:07 already maintained that we had the building standards
17:19:10 in the code.
17:19:10 They wanted to see the standards in our plan.
17:19:12 So that's why it's referenced back into the
17:19:15 comprehensive plan.
17:19:16 We don't think it's going to change except that the
17:19:19 area may change because the zoning code only talks
17:19:21 about the noise areas within the APZ.
17:19:25 So it will make it a little larger.
17:19:28 We go back to the presentation.
17:19:31 The other policy, the processing of plan amendment
17:19:37 next year to take into consideration the new study.
17:19:41 As now MacDill Air Force Base produced an updated

17:19:45 AP study in October, and came to City Council,
17:19:51 presented in a workshop, and the bottom line, the
17:19:56 noise areas changed a little bit.
17:19:57 The 65 expanded a little bit more to reflect the
17:20:02 pattern and the noise that's occurring at MacDill
17:20:05 Air Force Base.
17:20:06 We are going to request that that AP study be
17:20:10 transmitted to Planning Commission for the process of
17:20:14 plan amendment and it will come back and that will
17:20:16 amend the noise contour areas.
17:20:19 We added a new policy stating the city will continue
17:20:21 to provide the information it received from
17:20:23 MacDill from the public, mostly about MacDill
17:20:27 we feel is best able to tell us the impacts of noise
17:20:30 or any other operational impacts of the air base, so
17:20:35 as they provide information to us that we would make
17:20:37 it available to the public.
17:20:45 In regard to the base we have a variety of changes.
17:20:48 Many of them were structural in the way it was
17:20:50 written.
17:20:50 We added an introduction to the TCEA before the
17:20:54 objective.

17:20:55 The state and also FDOT was struggling to understand
17:20:58 how the TCEA fit into the concepts so we put together
17:21:02 an introduction.
17:21:05 We added a new policy that would require that TCEA be
17:21:09 mapped on the land use map so people would see where
17:21:11 that was.
17:21:13 The revised policies, 46.4.5 to 46.4.9 to clarify the
17:21:20 relations of the TCEA sub districts and be the review
17:21:24 requirements.
17:21:26 This is the crux of the TCEA policies, to review the
17:21:32 various development and the various areas, and the
17:21:33 requirements that will go and the mitigation
17:21:35 requirements.
17:21:36 They were looking for something a little bit more
17:21:39 succinct and would show how it relate to the overall
17:21:42 vision.
17:21:43 We added a new policy indicating the city will amend
17:21:46 our development regulations by July 1st, 2010, to
17:21:50 implement the TCEA.
17:21:52 We included an attachment that shows how the plan
17:21:54 addresses the mobility of the urban design and the
17:21:58 mitigation requirements that are required by the

17:22:00 statute authorizing the TCEA.
17:22:09 I should say we worked very hard with FDOT that sent
17:22:13 us an e-mail and said the objections that they had
17:22:16 were addressed by the amendments.
17:22:21 Moving onto the future land use plan category, DCA has
17:22:27 strongly, in probably the strongest terms of all of
17:22:29 the discussions on our comp plans on this proposed
17:22:33 land use category, in their mind, the policy in
17:22:40 general terms, the policy of allowing one dwelling
17:22:43 unit per five in an agriculture area, that was one to
17:22:48 ten, is really a definition of urban sprawl, and we
17:22:51 didn't have the services in place, in the urban
17:22:57 service area, in the rural area, and we F we were to
17:23:01 move forward on it that they would file a challenge on
17:23:03 that amendment.
17:23:04 So we withdrew the planned category and proposed a new
17:23:09 planned category which is consistent with the existing
17:23:12 Hillsborough County planned category.
17:23:13 And the property is coming in at the same density and
17:23:17 the same entitlements that they had in the county.
17:23:21 That may not be exactly what they were looking for,
17:23:23 but in the confines of this plan update and the

17:23:26 response to the ORC report, it is what we could manage
17:23:29 to provide.
17:23:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Refresh my memory.
17:23:37 I recall the discussion.
17:23:40 In that project.
17:23:42 You know, I can't remember however many hundred acres
17:23:46 it was.
17:23:47 >>> 300 acres, I believe.
17:23:50 >> I remember the discussion.
17:23:51 I remember the petitioners and all of that.
17:23:53 But I don't remember the vote.
17:23:58 I remember the motion.
17:23:59 What was it?
17:24:00 >>> Well, what was transmitted to DCA was to create a
17:24:04 planned category, one to five dwelling units per acre,
17:24:09 and to be designate those parcels.
17:24:13 >> They had requested that the owners had requested?
17:24:17 >>> The owners had requested the annex into the city.
17:24:20 It was up to the city then to designate them with a
17:24:24 planned category.
17:24:24 I think the discussion at the meeting also went from,
17:24:28 I think for their design, three dwelling units per

17:24:32 acre.
17:24:32 I think they probably would like as much as they could
17:24:35 for their property.
17:24:38 So what was transmitted that evening was the one to
17:24:42 five, and what DCA is saying that a one to five in
17:24:45 that area, without the analysis of being able to serve
17:24:50 this area with public facilities, and the --
17:24:53 >> So they are asking for three units per acre?
17:24:57 >>> If they are here, they will probably be able to
17:25:00 tell you.
17:25:00 >> I don't see them here.
17:25:02 >>> Because they were annexed they weren't really
17:25:04 asking for a planned category.
17:25:05 I think their desire was for more.
17:25:07 They were asking to come into the city, and it's up to
17:25:11 the city to designate them with a parcel.
17:25:14 So the city designated them as a one to five.
17:25:18 >> But just to clarify, I mean, they stood in front of
17:25:22 us and they were looking for increased, significant
17:25:27 increased density, but the ultimate was more along the
17:25:33 lines of what staff had recommended which was one to
17:25:35 five?

17:25:35 >>> Yes.
17:25:36 >> Then DCA said no, we want you back to one to ten
17:25:39 because that's what the county was?
17:25:41 >>> Yes.
17:25:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Randy, based on those numbers, the
17:25:48 one to five, the units on the one to ten?
17:25:52 >>RANDY GOERS: If you had 300 -- is that right?
17:25:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: divide the 5 into 3 and 10 into 3.
17:26:00 >>RANDY GOERS: Yes, that's correct.
17:26:03 So how it changes the plan, we deleted the one to five
17:26:11 category, replaced it with the rural estates ten,
17:26:14 which is one to ten, similar to what it is in the
17:26:17 county, and designating those parcels, the rural
17:26:20 estates ten plat goer.
17:26:23 >> The rural estates ten category as proposed by staff
17:26:27 has at least the density bumped that the county had,
17:26:31 which was the auxiliary house for relatives, that sort
17:26:36 of thing?
17:26:37 Wasn't that in there, Gloria, in the county?
17:26:41 >>RANDY GOERS: In the zoning part of it.
17:26:43 But we can do that.
17:26:45 >>

17:26:45 >>: I'm just -- I don't want them to end up worse off
17:26:49 since they came into the city than they were when they
17:26:51 were in the county.
17:26:51 At least it should be a wash.
17:26:53 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
17:26:54 I think Randy has drafted it to mirror the county's
17:26:57 land use intensity.
17:27:00 The next step then will be to create a zoning category
17:27:04 to establish these that are allowed --
17:27:08 >> And in the building code, that's where they would
17:27:11 fall then?
17:27:12 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I think at that point you can
17:27:13 certainly address that issue.
17:27:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hopefully that will be staff's goal
17:27:17 as well.
17:27:21 No comment.
17:27:22 >>RANDY GOERS: Going back to the presentation.
17:27:26 These are the other issues that were in the ORC
17:27:31 report.
17:27:32 I am not going to go through each one of those,
17:27:35 because the report is there.
17:27:38 Gloria can answer any questions if you have anything

17:27:40 specific.
17:27:41 I can say that all of these in our discussions with
17:27:44 DCA have been addressed, some were more minor
17:27:50 information changes, others were providing with
17:27:53 additional explanation, and some of them were policy
17:27:57 modification or deletion.
17:27:58 There is one item that you have to make sure that we
17:28:03 are all aware of.
17:28:05 In the draft of the ORC report that was transmitted to
17:28:08 the clerk today, there's one suggestion or policy
17:28:16 change that was not included.
17:28:17 This is on policy 19-6.7 and the policy in red, a
17:28:31 bullet form, talking about working with the Tampa
17:28:33 International Airport on some coordination, and it
17:28:36 should read that the examination of compatible and
17:28:38 incompatible land uses within the runway approach
17:28:42 zones.
17:28:45 We are asking that the ORC response that you have
17:28:48 today also include this change when you approve it.
17:28:55 And going back to the presentation.
17:29:03 So if there's any questions on any of these items, if
17:29:05 you want to know a little more about what was changed,

17:29:08 I can briefly go through that.
17:29:11 If not we can open it up for general questions and
17:29:14 follow up.
17:29:17 As we move forward -- yes?
17:29:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I recall the discussion, I don't
17:29:24 know if there's a T.H.A.N -- throws a T.H.A.N. guy
17:29:27 there. But when T.H.A.N. was up here, back when we
17:29:31 were transmitting, and we talked about tweaking, we
17:29:35 said maybe there would be opportunities to tweak
17:29:40 during this portion, to address some of their
17:29:43 concerns.
17:29:45 How have we been doing on the tweaking?
17:29:47 Or is that what you are about to get to?
17:29:50 >>> We met with T.H.A.N. twice, once after the ORC
17:29:54 report was transmitted to us and we had initial
17:29:56 review, and then last week, earlier this week, we met
17:30:00 with T.H.A.N. to go over the final changes.
17:30:02 Most of the issues -- the issue that was raised in the
17:30:07 meetings we felt were really addressed at the zoning
17:30:09 issue, not the comp plan issue.
17:30:11 There's going to be requirements as we look through
17:30:13 the implementation of the development codes.

17:30:15 And we assured members of the T.H.A.N. land use
17:30:21 subcommittee that we would keep them informed as we
17:30:25 move through the code development, and make sure
17:30:27 theory part of that process.
17:30:29 So their individual or specific concerns can be
17:30:33 addressed when we do the code updates.
17:30:40 One last slide, if we can go through that.
17:30:44 So tonight we are asking that you adopt the
17:30:46 comprehensive plan with the changes that are included
17:30:49 in the response to the department of community affairs
17:30:52 recommendations and comments report.
17:30:56 With the additional change that I mentioned on the
17:30:58 Tampa International Airport policy.
17:31:02 And then January 22nd will be the second adoption
17:31:05 hearing.
17:31:06 So with that, I am available for questions.
17:31:11 Before I turn it over, it's a good time to acknowledge
17:31:13 the work that the Planning Commission staff has done
17:31:15 to get it up to this point.
17:31:18 They have spent the last -- more than the last couple
17:31:20 years pulling the plan together and responsible for
17:31:22 pulling it together, compiling it, the procedures

17:31:25 involved in adopting it and transmitting it.
17:31:28 I think they have a few things they would like to add
17:31:31 before we finally move on.
17:31:39 >>TERRY CULLEN: Planning Commission staff.
17:31:41 Beyond goo-gators I want to acknowledge all the hard
17:31:46 work the city administration has done.
17:31:48 They have done an excellent job to bring this plan and
17:31:51 the state's objections to a final conclusion.
17:31:54 We believe it's consistent with what was originally
17:31:56 transmitted to you from the Planning Commission.
17:31:59 We think you have got a top notch product in front of
17:32:02 you, and we are very excited about it.
17:32:06 On an administrative note, when the city -- excuse me,
17:32:08 the state is ready to find this in compliance, they
17:32:11 will issue something called a notice of intent.
17:32:14 If anyone wishes to get a copy of that sent directly
17:32:16 to them from the state, and when it will be published
17:32:20 in the Tampa Tribune, which they did, please see
17:32:23 Michelle Ogilvie or myself and I will get your name
17:32:27 down on that list.
17:32:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
17:32:38 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

17:32:40 Prior to moving into the public hearing phase of this,
17:32:44 tonight's hearing, I did want to follow up on comments
17:32:47 that Mr. Fletcher made at the onset of this hearing.
17:32:51 As he indicated, there were some issues that that came
17:32:54 up relating to a separate administrative hearing, and
17:32:59 you are going to hear from Mr. Bentley who is here on
17:33:02 behalf of his clients, the policy of MacDill as
17:33:08 they relate to his clients.
17:33:10 The legal department thought there is some language to
17:33:13 be added into your MacDill policies,
17:33:15 specifically -- and this is on page 4 of the ORC
17:33:19 report -- and this is 19.7.5 which is the provision
17:33:25 for the MacDill policies that relate to existing
17:33:28 uses of property, or uses of property that have been
17:33:31 approved.
17:33:31 And I'm reading this into the record so that we have
17:33:34 that as part of this record.
17:33:36 But I will give you this change in a hard copy format
17:33:40 between first and second reading and would ask when
17:33:42 you go ahead and approve this ordinance with the
17:33:44 changes, this is included in that approval.
17:33:47 Any property which receives comprehensive plan

17:33:51 amendment and/or rezoning approval by City Council
17:33:54 prior to the adoption of objectives, 19.7 and its
17:34:01 associated policies shall be allowed to develop in
17:34:03 accordance with those approvals and future density and
17:34:05 intensity shall not be reduced according to these
17:34:10 objectives and policies and other objectives of these
17:34:13 objectives and policies which are in conflict.
17:34:15 Thank you.
17:34:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just also say, council, that I
17:34:21 do appreciate all the hard work put into this by the
17:34:26 Planning Commission and the city administration, and
17:34:29 legal staff.
17:34:31 And particularly I want to acknowledge that they have
17:34:33 real kept me abreast of the ongoing issue of
17:34:37 MacDill, and with DCA airport.
17:34:41 So I wanted to make you aware of that, that they have
17:34:48 been really on top of this, and have kept me apprised
17:34:53 and abreast and made me aware of all the issues and
17:34:58 all the hard work everybody put into this.
17:35:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I had a question for Julia.
17:35:04 Only because what you just read is not what I'm
17:35:07 looking at on either copy of the responses.

17:35:11 Is this new?
17:35:16 >>> This is new, the issues that have come up in the
17:35:18 last day or two.
17:35:20 That's the one that is recommending that we go ahead
17:35:22 and have this as something that can be added between
17:35:24 first and second reading, and by having you approve it
17:35:27 at this point in time, legally, I feel comfortable
17:35:31 that we can move forward.
17:35:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
17:35:34 This is a public hearing.
17:35:34 Anyone wishing to address council may come.
17:35:37 You have three minutes.
17:35:39 Mr. Bentley.
17:35:48 >>MARK BENTLEY: 201 North Franklin Street, Tampa
17:35:51 33602.
17:35:52 I represent two major land owners close proximity to
17:35:57 MacDill.
17:35:58 One is spraymeizer international and I sent you an
17:36:02 e-mail, Mr. Chairman, and I don't want to push the
17:36:04 envelope here but I have got two clients, and I would
17:36:07 think they are entitled to two minutes each and it
17:36:12 will just take me ten second.

17:36:15 I have two kids at the university of Florida so
17:36:16 believe me, I probably won't take six minutes anyone
17:36:22 how.
17:36:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
17:36:23 We were expecting you this evening.
17:36:30 I was.
17:36:34 I was aware of the MacDill issue.
17:36:36 >> Use the hand mike.
17:37:05 >> It's on.
17:37:08 Go ahead and talk.
17:37:10 >>MARK BENTLEY: Can you hear me now?
17:37:15 Here again just briefly on August 21st, 2008, the
17:37:18 City Council unanimously approved a amendment, one
17:37:22 related to PA-702 related to the spray Meizer
17:37:28 property, roughly 24 acres, 6 or 7 and approved with
17:37:32 conditions.
17:37:33 One of them very significant, giving the city an
17:37:36 easement in perpetuity to facilitate the greenway
17:37:40 trail.
17:37:40 Okay.
17:37:41 We also imposed a cap of 15 units per acre.
17:37:45 So then with respect to Florida rock, it's entirely

17:37:48 what they characterize as the APZ-1 zone and here
17:37:52 again it's 25 acres.
17:37:54 Council imposed a condition, even though it's CMU 35,
17:37:57 that they can only have ten units per acre and the
17:38:00 rationale was the comp plan around there is 10, and
17:38:04 also it was consistent with existing developments.
17:38:09 And just as kind of a footnote to this issue here, in
17:38:12 this APZ-1 as we speak, and supporting the land use
17:38:16 study published in June 2006, there are actually 130
17:38:20 parcels in the APZ 1 with a density of 27 units per
17:38:23 acre so we had capped ours at 10.
17:38:26 I just want to give you a thumbnail of what went on.
17:38:29 I think the policy direction from council when they
17:38:31 made these changes here that allowed residential and
17:38:33 mixed use was it wasn't appropriate especially
17:38:39 continuous to residential development.
17:38:40 So that's that.
17:38:44 >> Wasn't the one on Dale Mabry also the notion that
17:38:48 it already had some development rights?
17:38:53 So I think that was part of the discussion.
17:38:56 >>> You are right, councilman.
17:38:58 Subsequent to the approval of the plan amendments,

17:39:00 both our clients filed rezoning petitions which are
17:39:02 pending because of the ongoing issues with the
17:39:04 litigation, things like that.
17:39:06 But just a couple of things.
17:39:09 I appreciate what Ms. Cole and Mr. Fletcher have come
17:39:11 up with.
17:39:12 I think that really goes a long way in terms of
17:39:14 resolving our situation, and I'd like to express my
17:39:17 appreciation to Ms. Cole, Randy and Mr. Fletcher for
17:39:21 our ongoing professionalism.
17:39:23 It's been a very difficult process and I appreciate
17:39:29 that.
17:39:30 What we have here on the Elmo -- and you all have
17:39:33 this.
17:39:34 This is policy 19.72.
17:39:35 In the event that our clients' property were subject
17:39:39 to the comp plan, this is something that's never been
17:39:41 presented in a public hearing.
17:39:42 You can see in that policy, six dwelling units per
17:39:47 acre is in the flight path, been there a long time.
17:39:51 The FAR, floor area ratio in the flight path has been
17:39:56 reduced from 1.5 to .5 so in the event our clients

17:39:59 were subject to the now plan, both of them would lose,
17:40:05 I guess could you say, 1.1 million square feet of
17:40:08 development potential or 66% of their development
17:40:10 rights so we want to make it clear on the record that
17:40:12 they are not subject to change which is very, very
17:40:16 significant.
17:40:16 And quite frankly, not only affects our clients, who
17:40:21 are property owners in the same dilemma in the flight
17:40:23 path, and I'm not sure if they are part of this or
17:40:25 not.
17:40:25 Again this is the first public forum where this has
17:40:28 been presented so those a big change.
17:40:33 The other issue is on the noise contours, this policy
17:40:43 19.77 says if you are in a contour, and you have to
17:40:47 provide mitigation as per CFR which Randy alluded to.
17:40:54 So these noise contours were prepared by MacDill
17:40:57 in 1998 and are based on a lot of variables, things
17:41:00 like that.
17:41:01 I just want to bring to council's attention the CFR
17:41:04 regulation that Randy alluded to.
17:41:06 There's actually no standards in there in terms of
17:41:10 decibel standards.

17:41:11 There's also absolutely no suggestions in terms of
17:41:13 mitigation and construction techniques.
17:41:16 So it's really not much of a standard.
17:41:18 Also, there are two standards.
17:41:21 I don't know if your staff explored this.
17:41:23 The EPC noise rule and the city's noise ordinance to
17:41:26 see if there's any conflict with those.
17:41:28 Also in terms of coming up with this noise contour
17:41:31 standard, everyone is simply relying on MacDill as
17:41:34 the appropriate standard.
17:41:35 The city has not hired and an accuse I can expert to
17:41:39 analyze the contours, mitigation, stuff like that, so
17:41:43 it's simply staff relying on the code provision so I
17:41:46 think that's the -- I guess if I was in your shoes as
17:41:54 far as the noise, what levels to be achieved, what
17:41:56 will the costs be, I think councilman Dingfelder
17:41:59 brought up, construction costs to provide, for
17:42:01 example, double pane windows, concrete block versus
17:42:06 wood construction, things like that.
17:42:07 I think that needs to be explored prior to the city
17:42:10 taking action to kind of pull this.
17:42:14 Also the cone tours.

17:42:15 How do you determine whether you are in a contour?
17:42:17 They are not necessarily in the flight path.
17:42:19 They exceed the flight path.
17:42:20 Okay.
17:42:21 So there is no legal description to ascertain whether
17:42:23 or not your properties are actually subject to the
17:42:26 contours.
17:42:27 I think there has to be something, some legal
17:42:29 description or something to come up to pin that down.
17:42:32 Otherwise you are cutting -- especially beyond the con
17:42:39 periphery of these contours.
17:42:41 I don't have much time but there are actually two
17:42:46 policies that everybody deleted that obviously you
17:42:54 don't have in front of you.
17:42:55 They were in the prior edition and both of these
17:42:58 actually suggested some accommodation for properties
17:43:00 in the flight path.
17:43:02 What you have here on the overhead is 19.7.3,
17:43:05 essentially it says in exchange for limitations
17:43:08 imposed on your development for being in the flight
17:43:10 path that you can transfer some of your entitlements
17:43:12 outside the flight path.

17:43:14 That's been deleted and we think that's a significant
17:43:16 change.
17:43:17 Also, there's another property policy -- policy 19.7.4
17:43:22 whip again has been deleted, says if your property was
17:43:24 partially in the flight path you can transfer out of
17:43:26 the flight path and that's been deleted as well.
17:43:30 And I don't really understand that.
17:43:31 But the long and short of it, Mr. Chairman, council
17:43:34 members, is that as long as we have assurance that
17:43:38 those ordinances are valid and can be recognized by
17:43:42 the city, and our clients' property rights cannot be
17:43:45 affected as proposed by this plan in the event they
17:43:48 were subject to the plan, we don't have a problem.
17:43:50 And I appreciate your time.
17:43:52 If you have any questions, let me know.
17:43:54 I would like to get something in the record,
17:43:56 Mr. Chairman.
17:43:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
17:43:57 Any questions from council?
17:43:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to receive and file.
17:44:02 >> Second.
17:44:03 (Motion carried).

17:44:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Cole, do you want to respond?
17:44:09 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:44:12 Just to respond to a couple of things that Mr. Bentley
17:44:14 mentioned.
17:44:15 He had mentioned that there was a change in the
17:44:18 allowability for the F.A.R., that it would be today,
17:44:22 and it's a 1.5 F.A.R., and then he had mentioned that
17:44:26 he would have some concerns about the fact that we had
17:44:29 made some changes between what we transmitted and
17:44:31 today.
17:44:33 And what the language read, policy 19.7.1, that on the
17:44:42 nonresidential and/or mixed use development shall be
17:44:45 limited to a .5 F.A.R. for those parcels that lay
17:44:49 adjacent to MacDill.
17:44:51 And the version that you have, of the ORC report, for
17:44:54 those parcels that lay adjacent to MacDill was
17:44:57 strapped.
17:44:58 That should not be and we should between first and
17:45:01 second reading remove that language and clarify that
17:45:04 issue.
17:45:05 And in addition, Mr. Bentley raised an issue relating
17:45:08 to some language that in this process we have set out

17:45:15 relating to transfer development rights, within these
17:45:17 areas.
17:45:21 We have, for the purposes of our environmentally
17:45:23 sensitive lands, and you have other provisions in our
17:45:25 code that relate to how you transfer your development
17:45:28 potential, ESA land from property that is
17:45:34 environmentally sensitive to your upland.
17:45:36 We had to put some language in here at one point as we
17:45:38 were discussing these issues.
17:45:39 When we read the language actually making it more
17:45:43 restrictive than what was in the general language,
17:45:46 that was required, and some of the issues that have
17:45:48 come up, we think it's just better to go ahead and
17:45:52 leave it as per the general comprehensive plan
17:45:54 provisions for the transfer of development rights of
17:45:56 environmentally sensitive lands.
17:45:58 So that's why that provision was taken out.
17:46:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Julia, the only remaining issue is
17:46:10 Mr. Bentley says the CFR doesn't really have standard
17:46:14 and yet we are including them in reference in those
17:46:16 standards.
17:46:16 So I haven't looked at that CFR provision.

17:46:20 What's up?
17:46:22 >>> I would have to defer to Randy on.
17:46:25 That as Randy said in his initial presentation, we
17:46:29 have in the City of Tampa code, standards relating to
17:46:32 construction and what has to occur in noise-sensitive
17:46:37 areas.
17:46:38 DCA found an objection as related to that, and this is
17:46:41 an attempt to deal with that objection, and in fact if
17:46:45 that is what they have used in other instances for --
17:46:52 D CA has used as their standard and that's what we
17:46:55 were trying to mirror with that objection.
17:46:56 >> So DCA is suggesting or going along with that,
17:47:01 using the CFR standard?
17:47:07 Mr. Bentley is correct and they were putting great
17:47:10 standards in there how do we enforce those?
17:47:13 >>RANDY GOERS: Land Development Coordination.
17:47:14 We provide you with the language at CFR .150, but
17:47:21 generally what it says is for residential in a noise
17:47:24 sensitive developments, that are located in the
17:47:26 contour zones, the 75, 65 and so forth, they must
17:47:31 reduce -- must mitigate and reduce their interior
17:47:35 noise level down below those thresholds.

17:47:38 And make it in increments of 5, 10, 15 or 20,
17:47:43 depending on where you are at.
17:47:44 So if you are in 65 you need to bring your noise
17:47:48 sensitive development in a man theory would bring it
17:47:50 down 5.
17:47:51 If you are in the 07 you have to bring it down 10.
17:47:53 75, down 15 and so forth.
17:47:55 They don't provide construction standards.
17:47:58 They don't provide any other type of standard that
17:48:01 someone could say, okay, that's going to do it.
17:48:03 What they are saying is we want you -- that noise is
17:48:08 going to be in these areas above the 60 level, you
17:48:14 should construct your noise-sensitive structures at a
17:48:16 level below that.
17:48:17 Normal construction will result in a 60 DNL anyway.
17:48:22 So what they are saying these areas where it's going
17:48:24 to be noisy, build your buildings to the same interior
17:48:27 noise level that the rest of your community will be
17:48:29 built at.
17:48:30 And it's up to your zoning code and your building
17:48:33 department to then specify the construction standards.
17:48:35 Or just on the property owner to come in and say you

17:48:39 show us how you are going to meet these standards,
17:48:41 which would be consistent with what Mr. Bentley is
17:48:43 suggesting in his area, but if you were to come in,
17:48:47 and say, look, I think I can build my building and it
17:48:50 will reduce it at least 5 DNL and achieve the same
17:48:55 objective as the policy then we would probably have
17:48:57 the ability to approve that.
17:49:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm hearing this.
17:49:01 Then why would you have an objection to the use of the
17:49:04 CFR then?
17:49:09 >>> Councilman Dingfelder, what it says basically, it
17:49:11 says there's really no level, they suggest.
17:49:15 They just say typical construction techniques shall
17:49:18 reduce generally 20 DBA.
17:49:21 Okay.
17:49:21 But it doesn't say in this particular contour, you
17:49:24 know, 65, how you do it, or what the standard is.
17:49:30 So the foundation of all this, looking to MacDill
17:49:34 for these 20-year-old standards or noise contours and
17:49:39 working off that, it's not like the EPC or the city's
17:49:44 noise ordinance that says the standards should be,
17:49:46 say, 55 during daytime, residential property.

17:49:49 Okay?
17:49:50 It's not like that.
17:49:52 They just have a list.
17:49:53 I'll give you all a copy of this.
17:49:55 It has a list of use that is say these are typically
17:49:57 incompatible within the flight path, or certain noise
17:50:01 contours.
17:50:02 They leave it at that.
17:50:03 It's pretty generic.
17:50:04 And I'm not going to get hung up on it but I'm just
17:50:07 saying for my perspective -- and I litigated this
17:50:11 whole amphitheater thing for two years so I have a
17:50:13 pretty good handle on noise issues.
17:50:14 From my perspective, it really doesn't give much
17:50:17 guidance, and like Randy even conceded, it doesn't
17:50:20 tell you how to mitigate at all.
17:50:22 It's really just up to you.
17:50:24 Then the final thing like I said it's really difficult
17:50:27 without whether you are subject to the contours or
17:50:30 not.
17:50:30 How are you going to do No that?
17:50:32 Thanks a lot.

17:50:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
17:50:41 >>> If I may address a couple of Mr. Bentley's points.
17:50:45 He provided for you all some materials that were
17:50:47 provided to be placed in the record, which include
17:50:51 what appeared at least to me to be the federal CFR
17:50:54 standards referenced in the code, the response that he
17:51:01 provided to you all so you will have that.
17:51:03 And it will be copied and made available to you all.
17:51:06 Based on what I have been told and reviewed, I would
17:51:09 characterize this as typically used as a best practice
17:51:14 so it would be equivalent to other situations where we
17:51:16 recommend use as a best practice, if we need to
17:51:19 clarify the way we cross referenced them, in the ORC
17:51:23 response.
17:51:23 We can do that.
17:51:24 But that's the type of thing that is included in those
17:51:26 standard.
17:51:27 The other thing I just want to point out for the
17:51:29 record is Mr. Bentley had included in here some
17:51:36 language that I think he referenced earlier.
17:51:42 As being deleted.
17:51:43 Just so we are clear, I want to make sure that you all

17:51:46 know and it clear on the record, is that this is
17:51:48 language that we had discussed with department of
17:51:53 community affairs as part of settlement discussions,
17:51:55 and the separate pending administrative litigation on
17:51:59 the two parcels which you referenced earlier, were
17:52:01 approved by council over the summer.
17:52:03 And we believe that this actually is more restrictive
17:52:08 than otherwise allowed in our code.
17:52:10 That is why we have not gone forward with this.
17:52:14 We believe if this was included, it would actually be
17:52:17 more restrictive in terms of transfer of rights than
17:52:20 were otherwise available in the code and in the comp
17:52:22 plan.
17:52:23 So I just wanted to make sure that was clear on the
17:52:25 record, since he submitted it for inclusion in the
17:52:29 record.
17:52:29 Thank you.
17:52:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
17:52:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And just for the purposes of the
17:52:34 record I did have a brief opportunity to review that
17:52:37 file.
17:52:37 Actual council had not.

17:52:38 It was just presented to council for inclusion in the
17:52:41 file.
17:52:42 I noticed that my name had been on some e-mails as
17:52:44 being cc'ed and I informed Mr. Bentley that I had not
17:52:48 received those e-mails.
17:52:49 So I just want to make that clear.
17:52:51 And finally, council, per council's rules of
17:52:53 procedure, rule 7-F states that the action of
17:52:58 receiving and filing document by the City Council
17:53:00 shall not in any way be construed to constitute
17:53:02 concurrence with or endorsement by the City Council of
17:53:06 the matter being received and filed.
17:53:07 That's council's rules.
17:53:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Baron, trying to get
17:53:17 out in about 15 minutes.
17:53:18 >>> Randy Barron, vice-president of T.H.A.N., west
17:53:24 Comanche Avenue.
17:53:25 This has been a long process and we have all been
17:53:27 working very well together over the years, actually.
17:53:31 This hasn't just been a few months.
17:53:34 I want to first thank all the parties involved, not
17:53:36 just -- basically for working with the community, and

17:53:40 being very open to getting input and being very
17:53:43 receptive to answering our questions.
17:53:46 As Mr. Goers stated, we have had 2001 meetings since
17:53:49 the July date, and several issues, we had one meeting
17:53:54 just a couple days ago, and at this point, we don't
17:54:00 have any overt objections to anything in the plan.
17:54:05 It's been explained to us a lot of this going forward
17:54:08 is now going to be implemented through ordinance
17:54:10 change, through technical manual change, through
17:54:12 policy and procedures changes.
17:54:14 And that has to happen, I guess, over the next 12 to
17:54:17 18 months.
17:54:18 That's really the meat of what's going to happen based
17:54:20 on this comprehensive plan.
17:54:21 And we want to be assured that there's going to be
17:54:24 lots of notice and lots of public interaction on
17:54:27 these, especially things like technical standards,
17:54:29 because normally those end up on the consent agenda
17:54:32 buried, it takes a magnifying glass to find what could
17:54:36 be a major change.
17:54:38 Some of the issues that came up were things like the
17:54:42 curb cuts being on the side streets.

17:54:44 Now, that's in the comprehensive plan.
17:54:45 But as was explained to us, that will actually be
17:54:48 implemented through ordinance change, through land
17:54:50 development regulations.
17:54:51 So that they can be tailored to areas where it's
17:54:55 appropriate to have curb cuts on side streets and
17:54:57 other places where it's not appropriate.
17:55:00 Again, as long as FDOT allows us to put curb cuts on
17:55:03 the major streets.
17:55:05 There is an issue about adaptive reuse.
17:55:08 It seems to be tailored now or narrowed to historic
17:55:12 buildings whereas I believe earlier it was for I guess
17:55:14 all buildings.
17:55:17 Again, we were assured that in areas like the
17:55:21 form-based zoning area for Seminole Heights, where
17:55:24 there is going to be lots of buildings that we want to
17:55:26 adaptively reuse that may not be usable for historic
17:55:32 designation, that the form based procedures will also
17:55:34 entail some comp plan amendments that will allow those
17:55:37 kind of a -- adaptive reuse.
17:55:41 So the hard and fast rules really aren't this document
17:55:44 but they are going to be coming up in the next 12-18

17:55:47 months, and while we certainly appreciate all the
17:55:51 interaction that's happened so far we want to make
17:55:54 sure that continues so that the implementation of this
17:55:59 is agreed to by all the parties.
17:56:00 So thank you very much.
17:56:01 And go Gators.
17:56:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
17:56:06 Then Councilwoman Mulhern.
17:56:09 >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
17:56:12 Mr. Baron, I share your sentiment that the real guts
17:56:16 of this is in the implementation.
17:56:18 And I have spoken with both Mr. Fletcher and Ms.
17:56:21 Miller about an ambitious and timely implementation
17:56:25 strategy.
17:56:25 And I promise you that I will be working with council
17:56:29 to make sure it moves ahead in a timely way because
17:56:32 I'm really eager to see this happen, and to make sure
17:56:35 that the public is engaged all along the way, and
17:56:38 we'll figure out a mechanism that will allow it to
17:56:41 happen.
17:56:41 The only God news about the economic slowdown is it
17:56:45 sort of frees up our staff a little bit to get on with

17:56:48 making these changes so that hopefully when
17:56:51 development comes up again we'll have new and improved
17:56:54 code.
17:56:55 And I believe that the transportation technical
17:56:57 standards are the first ones we are going to get on.
17:57:00 Because they really need to be overhauled.
17:57:02 Thanks.
17:57:02 >>MARY MULHERN: I was going to go one further and make
17:57:07 a motion that staff -- requesting that staff, and any
17:57:13 code, technical manuals and policy and procedure
17:57:17 changes that are being required or following up on the
17:57:26 comprehensive plan they be put on the agenda at we at
17:57:29 least get a brief description of what those changes
17:57:31 are, so these things that we are talking about now --
17:57:34 and there's plenty of other things in here that people
17:57:37 probably don't even know about, we may have problems
17:57:40 with.
17:57:40 So I would like to ask that you do that.
17:57:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's hold that motion in abeyance
17:57:45 until we get to our public hearing, then we can take
17:57:47 it up.
17:57:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

17:57:49 Then the other thing that I want to suggest to Mr.
17:57:51 Baron and all of his neighborhood activist friends is
17:57:56 you should be the ones pulling the trigger on the
17:57:58 things that you want to see changed in the code.
17:58:00 And that will make sure we do it.
17:58:02 So we'll try to keep you apprised as we hear things,
17:58:05 but also legality us know if you feel like we are not
17:58:09 getting to those changes that we need to make.
17:58:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?
17:58:18 This be is a public hearing.
17:58:19 Anyone else wish to address council?
17:58:21 Okay.
17:58:22 Do you want to make the T motion now, Councilwoman?
17:58:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm making a motion requesting that
17:58:27 staff, land development and legal, present changes to
17:58:33 code, the technical manual, and policy and procedures
17:58:39 to council at the very least as an agenda item, and
17:58:43 not on the consent agenda.
17:58:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded, seconded by
17:58:48 councilman Miranda.
17:58:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perhaps a friendly amendment would
17:58:53 be that we also send any proposed changes to T.H.A.N.

17:58:57 in advance, so that they have an opportunity to take a
17:59:01 look at it.
17:59:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
17:59:09 All in favor say Aye.
17:59:11 Opposes?
17:59:11 Okay.
17:59:14 Nothing else on that.
17:59:18 We need to adopt this tonight, right?
17:59:19 For the first hearing?
17:59:20 >>> You should have an ordinance and you should read
17:59:26 that ordinance on first reading for the purposes of
17:59:29 adopting the comprehensive plan and all the associated
17:59:31 amendments, which you have in front of you this
17:59:33 evening, including the.
17:59:38 >>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance adopting City of Tampa
17:59:41 comprehensive plan entitled Tampa comprehensive plan
17:59:44 building, our legacy, a livable city, including all of
17:59:51 the adopted elements and associated goals, objectives
17:59:54 and policies, providing for repeal of all ordinances
17:59:57 in conflict, providing for severability, providing an
17:59:59 effective date.
18:00:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll bring the champagne for the

18:00:06 final reading and adoption.
18:00:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are going to hold you to that.
18:00:09 It's been moved and seconded by Councilwoman
18:00:12 Saul-Sena.
18:00:13 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:00:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
18:00:18 Second reading and adoption will be on January 22nd at
18:00:21 9:30 a.m.
18:00:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have one other item that cannot be
18:00:26 heard tonight because it was not filed in a timely
18:00:28 manner.
18:00:29 We don't do anything with that tonight, do we?
18:00:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Remove it from the agenda.
18:00:33 >> So moved.
18:00:36 >> Second.
18:00:36 (Motion carried).
18:00:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There was one matter from this
18:00:39 morning's agenda that I did not get the information to
18:00:42 be able to address in a timely fashion.
18:00:44 It was a request by the Executive Director of TBARTA
18:00:50 to Mr. Bob Clifford to come on the 22nd of January,
18:00:54 the next regular meeting at 9 a.m.

18:00:56 My understanding from talking to Ms. Marshall, deputy
18:01:01 city clerk, is for the purpose of introduction she
18:01:03 believes that ten minutes would be sufficient for
18:01:05 that.
18:01:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to schedule it --
18:01:08 Well, what I suggest is if it's more than that, then
18:01:10 we schedule a workshop.
18:01:12 If it's more than ten minutes, then you may --
18:01:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, what I will do, I
18:01:17 apologize for not -- today being as long as it was I
18:01:21 was unable to make contact with Mr. Clifford.
18:01:24 I will call him first thing in the morning.
18:01:26 If it is I will notify the chair and we will change
18:01:28 the agenda.
18:01:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are going to schedule it but if
18:01:30 it's more than ten minutes we will move it to the next
18:01:32 meeting.
18:01:33 Okay?
18:01:34 So that's a motion.
18:01:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
18:01:41 (Motion carried).
18:01:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to receive and file?

18:01:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
18:01:44 >> Second.
18:01:44 (Motion carried).
18:01:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We stand adjourned.
18:01:47 We are right on time.
18:01:49 One hour.


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