Document Actions

April Comments & Questions

by Cities Team — last modified 2008-04-30 07:56

From: Gene Wells [gw@copaparts.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 6:21 PM

Thank you for your notification of the newest draft of the proposed Comp Plan changes. The draft substantially reflects what the City and Homeowners have achieved these past 3 years. They are primarily terms that have to be changed and have simply been overlooked considering the hundreds of pages this update represents. The blanket antenna prohibition, ensuring adherence to a military base plans upon civilians and JLUS reference are perhaps the newest and more pressing concerns.

Now that this draft is complete, I will notify Alliance Members of the upcoming meeting dates regarding the Plan Amendment.

I have reviewed the draft and submit to you and other addressees listed above the following comments for your consideration and action:

Homeowners Alliance Questions, Comments & Recommendations

The MacDill Air Force Base Plan Amendment

Tampa Plan Complete Draft – Version 3, dated April 9, 2008

The Ballast Point Homeowners Alliance was established solely for the purpose of the MacDill AFB Plan Amendment. Its membership consists of approximately 250 homeowners located in Interbay, Ballast Point and Sun Bay South/Gandy Neighborhoods who have, since September 2006, coordinated their efforts with the City of Tampa. Our goal has been to achieve acceptable changes to Tampa’s Comp Plan that protects our property rights and values while assisting the City in achieving compatible development in and around MacDill Air Force Base, a community asset as important to the City of Tampa as the homeowners and the civilian property they intend to regulate is.

These questions, comments and recommended changes on the MacDill Air Force Plan Amendment are based upon a review of the 3^rd Planning Commission Draft of Tampa’s Comprehensive Plan Update and are as follows:

Where will be the Contour and Flight Path Maps, used during the drafting process, be shown?

Will there be a gradient map that will show an accepted heights as you move away from the base boundaries that was shown in the public meeting?

Page 90, Policy 16.6.1: remove the “B” after the words “MacDill Air Force Base….”

Page 90, Policy 16.6.1: COMMENT: What is purpose of this prohibition? If it is because of height then include the height limitation. For instance, does it prohibit cellular antenna that may be placed on existing structures? It is believed the Grand Court has cellular antenna? Or CB or communications antenna used by businesses or homeowners where the height does not infringe upon the airspace nor violates City Codes.

COMMENT ON THE USE OF MILITARIZED TERMS. Civilian homeowners concerns regarding the use of militarized terms, such as Accident Potential Zones, have been integrated throughout the changes made with the City during 2006, 2007 and 2008. Therefore, that should be reflected throughout the Comp Plan substituting Accident Potential Zones, a militarized term, with MacDill Air Force Base Flight Paths or Approach Zones.

Page 330, Objective 45.6.: Replace the words, “Accident Potential Zones” with “MacDill Air Force Base Flight Paths.”

Page 330, Objective 45.6: Replace the words, “to ensure compatibility with air force base plans,” to “in an attempt to achieve compatibility with air force base plans.” COMMENT: Air force policies should not dictate coordination of growth and development of civilian properties outside their boundaries and jurisdiction. Suggested words continue to strive for compatibility instead of blanket adherence, as “ensure” implies, to military policies upon privately owned civilian properties not subject to military rules, regulations or policies.

Page 330, Objective 45.6.2: Replace the words, “Accident Potential Zone 1 and Accident Potential Zone II” with “MacDill Air Force Base Flight Paths.”

Page 330, Policy 45.6.3: Replace the words, “Accident Potential Zones” with “MacDill Air Force Base Flight Path.”

Page 330, Policy 45.6.3: Remove the words, “pursuant to the 2005/06 Joint Land Use Study.” The JLUS was challenged by homeowners because of the method of the study, poorly attended public meetings by homeowner, lack of notice, meetings not held in our neighborhoods and inadequate public input sought and received. The study was accepted merely for what it was, a study at that point in time. While it may be a reference, it should not be considered a Policy Document nor any future policy pursued from it. The MacDill AFB Plan Amendment consists of all policies resulting from this particular JLUS. Homeowners would expect and demand a new JLUS be conducted should any future policies be desired by any government entity.

Actually, the policy should simply read, “The City of Tampa shall promote and/or pursue compatible development within the MacDill Air Force Base Flight Paths,” PERIOD.

Page, 331, Policy 45.6.5: See comments regarding antenna prohibition regarding page 90 and REPLACE, “APZ I and II zones,” with “MacDill Air Force Base Flight Paths.”

Continued support by the Homeowners Alliance and its membership of the MacDill Air Force Base Plan Amendment remains provided the above changes are made by the City and/or Planning Commission.

Respectfully submitted April 9, 2008.

Gene Wells

The Homeowners Alliance

gw@copaparts.com

Full Name: Terry Neal

Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:48 PM

email terryneal@terryneal.com

This is certainly a unique and creative comprehensive plan...congratulations on the hard work! As a resident of Temple Crest neighborhood, I would like to see emphasis towards historic areas of the city given more attention as it seems the plan concentrates a lot of the historic notations on CBD areas. Our neighborhood has many historic features.

Also, I am concerned that our neighborhood is split by the mixed used corridor (40th Street.) I would like to see Urban Village designations given to areas of the mixed use corridor sections. Also, our neighborhood, which is 85 years old, is a suburban neighborhood in an urban setting. As we endeavor to reinvigorate our economic corridor along 40th Street, I would like to see the plan create now some sort of pre-emptive plan to retain our unique nature while blending into the surrounding area of USF and Temple Terrace.

There also should be more emphasis in the plan on USF building partnerships with the surrounding neighborhoods. I know the plan mentions this, but USF tends to be an island when it comes to reaching back to us when we reach out to them. Our area, as with the other portions of 40th Street (including McKinley) are prime areas to develop much of the research park and other professional economic engines. Without a plan to zone these existing areas in preparation for that economic rejuvenation the opportunity could well be lost.

The neighborhoods in this area, and I think in other areas of the city as well, have often felt helpless when it comes to having opportunities. I would ask that consideration be given to creating a new form of resident empowerment as well in this new comprehensive plan. Citizens should have not only the right to request let's say a CRA for their neighborhood, or to be part of an Enterprise Zone or Form-based zoning, but should also have the opportunity to resist an administration's attempt to push a designation off onto a neighborhood. Since it is the residents who know their neighborhood best, I think they should be given the right to accept or reject a designation or to propose their own within the parameters of the plan.

I would also like to see the plan empower neighborhoods with the development of their governing boards. As an example, the city-council serves as the CRA board, but no residents of the neighborhoods serve on the CRA board. I think the CRA board, the mixed used corridor village, a development district district or whatever, should have governing boards comprised of citizens, elected by their neighborhoods and with full power to act as leaders for that area of development, much like CDC's. I also think that any designation like a CRA or such, where city wide elected officials serve, should include representatives of the neighborhoods as well (again, elected by each designated area's residents.)

The more empowered citizens are with respect to their neighborhoods, the more interest they will take in ensuring success in that neighborhood.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to give feedback and if you could, include Temple Crest in more of your references to neighborhoods! We have a rich and diverse history and it often gets neglected because we are not as visible as Bayshore or Downtown.

Nevertheless we want to be a part of and play an integral role in the success of the future of Tampa and Hillsborough County!

From: scounts@childrensboard.org
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:55 AM

Thanks again for asking for review and input. 3rd draft is much improved. Nice job for readability. Minor technicality but Children's Board listed as a county partner several times in the document is actually "Children's Board of Hillsborough County". Several comments: Overall it may help to subtopic your table of contents to better assist folks navigating the document. For Example: Chapter 4 has subsections which include Neighborhoods, Children, Poverty, Etc. Note your footers and headers don't correspond to your Table of Contents. For Example: Chapter 5 is mislabeled Chapter 6, Chapter 6 is mislabeled Chapter 8 with Chapters 5 and 7 missing. I revisited Chapter 4: Children pgs 164 - 172: Overall focus still seems to center on the older or school bound child and older teens than it does infants and toddlers. Perhaps that is your intent. I notice that Policy 21.6.2 is missing. Regards, Slake Counts

Full Name: Tony LaColla

e-mail alacolla@hynca.com

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 7:56 AM

The Ybor Historic District (south of 6th Ave and west of 26th St.) should no longer allow for GMU-24 but rather CMU-35. This will speed along redevelopment of the area and eliminate the lengthy plan amendment process for properties that will most likely be CMU-35 eventually. The residents of Ybor City would like to see industrial land uses move away from the Historic District and surrounding areas. We have rock crushing facilities, asphalt production and other pollution emitting industries in Ybor City that need encouragement to leave. Changing the land use to CMU-35 will provide an incentive to sell and get out.

Draft Review

Sections

Personal tools

Document Actions

April Comments & Questions