city of tampa dca#08-2ar - tbrpc prepared by city of tampa land development and coordination...

For Council meeting of April 13, 2009 Staff Contact:

Report prepared March 4, 2009 Jessica Lunsford, ext. 38

1

Agenda Item #3.H.1

04/13/09

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

ADOPTED AMENDMENT REPORT

CITY OF TAMPA

DCA#08-2AR (EAR-based Amendments)



2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



3

The following Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report Summary

was prepared by City of Tampa Land Development and Coordination Division staff.

January 8, 2009 (updated)

Summary

Tampa Comprehensive Plan Update

DCA Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report

Obj #

Summary of DCA Objections

Summary of City Response

1

(1)

Adaptive Reuse

• Re

vise Policy 15.1.8 to clearly define the term “ad

aptiv

e reuse” and in

clud

e in

the Po

licy crite

ria by w

hich prope

rties c

an m

eet the ada

ptive reuse de

sign

ation.

• Re

vise th

e Plan to in

clud

e a de

finition se

ction that clearly defines im

portan

t, key term

s tha

t are used in th

e variou

s elem

ents of the Plan.

• Po

licy 15.1.8 w

as re

vised to be consistent w

ith th

e crite

ria ou

tlined in th

e Cha

pter 27.

(2)

Port Master Plan

• Re

vise Objectiv

e 19.2 and associated po

licies regarding th

e Plan

’s objectiv

es

and related po

licies regarding coo

rdination with th

e Ta

mpa Port A

utho

rity’s

Port M

aster P

lan to in

corporate the most recently upd

ated Port M

aster P

lan

that w

as ado

pted in Ju

ly 2008.

• Add

ition

al coo

rdination with th

e Po

rt is re

quired

. Th

e City w

ill process a plan am

endm

ent b

y Decem

ber 1

, 2009 to add

ress th

e ob

jection.

(3)

(4)

Military Base Compatibility & Noise Attenuation Standards

• Establish stan

dards, criteria an

d gu

idelines to achieve com

patib

ility of lan

d uses w

ith th

e AFB

.

• Limit de

nsity and in

tensity in th

e APZ I an

d II, and prohibit d

evelop

ment in

the Clear Zon

e.

• Dep

ict the Clear Zon

e, APZ zon

e I a

nd II, and noise con

tours on th

e Fu

ture

Land Use M

ap.

• Includ

e stan

dards for noise atte

nuation for d

evelop

ment in no

ise contou

rs.

Clarifie

d po

licies ‐

• Re

tain civilian term

s (i.e., M

acDill Flig

ht Path)

• Clear Zon

e, M

acDill Flig

ht Paths and N

oise Con

tours

will be show

n on FLU

M

• Proh

ibit vertical develop

ment in Clear Zon

e.

• New develop

ment to attenu

ate for n

oise con

sistent w

ith

Fede

ral g

uide

lines fo

r airpo

rt plann

ing (CF 14 Part 150)

• By Decem

ber 1

, 2009, FLU

M w

ill be am

ende

d to re

flect

new noise con

tour areas dep

icted in 2008 AICUZ Stud

y •

Add

ed a new policy stating that City w

ill con

tinue to

prov

ide inform

ation it receives from M

acDill AFB to th

e pu

blic.

Summary



Obj #



2

(5)

Tampa International Airport Land Use Compatibility

• Includ

e po

licies, guide

lines and stand

ards th

at ensure de

velopm

ent in the

vicinity of a

ll airports are com

patib

le w

ith th

e functio

ns and activities of the

airport a

s required by State Law

.

• Prov

ided clarification regarding the Plan

’s policies a

nd

the M‐A

P plan category.

• Add

ed a new policy calling fo

r con

tinue

d coordina

tion

betw

een the City and th

e Aviation Autho

rity to achieve

land use com

patib

ility in accorda

nce with Cha

pter 333,

F.S.

(6)

Concurrency Management

• Re

vise th

e Plan to re

quire that tran

sportatio

n facilities need

ed to serve new

developm

ent sha

ll be in place or u

nder actua

l con

struction with

in th

ree years

after the lo

cal g

overnm

ent a

pproves a building pe

rmit or its fun

ctiona

l equivalent th

at re

sults in traffic generation.

• Includ

e a po

licy that in

corporates th

e lang

uage of S

ectio

n 163.3180(2)(a

), F.S.,

regarding the availability of w

ater sup

plies.

• Po

licy 20.1.1 w

as m

odified to re

flect th

e basic statutory

requ

irem

ents fo

r con

currency con

sistent w

ith Cha

pter

163.3180, F.S.

(7)

Future Land Use Map Classifications

• Define no

n‐reside

ntial u

ses tha

t can be pe

rmitted und

er th

e “n

eigh

borhoo

d serving no

n‐reside

ntial u

ses an

d special” uses allowed in th

ose catego

ries.

• Define the “area wide” m

ix of u

ses, as ide

ntified in th

e mixed use categories

• Re

vise th

e plan categories to establish minim

um residentia

l densitie

s to ensure

developm

ent o

f a com

pact urban fo

rm th

at discourages urban sp

rawl.

• Ex

amples of n

eigh

borhoo

d serving no

n‐reside

ntial u

ses

and special u

ses a

re listed fo

r each of th

e plan

catego

ries, w

here th

ey are permitted

. •

The “area wide” term is defined as “

city‐w

ide”.

• Current land use patterns an

d market trend

s to not yet

justify th

e establishm

ent o

f “across‐th

e‐bo

ard”

minim

um densitie

s for a

ll plan categories throug

hout

the City

.

Summary



Obj #



3

(8)

House Bill 697 (Energy Efficiency)

• Incorporate strategies dem

onstratin

g that th

e land use plan discou

rages u

rban

sprawl and promotes energy‐efficient patterns

• Dep

ict o

n the Fu

ture Lan

d Use M

ap th

e existin

g an

d future electric po

wer

generatio

n an

d tran

smission systems .

• Incorporate tran

sportatio

n strategies and alte

rnative mod

es of travel to ad

dress

redu

ction in greenho

use gas e

mission

s from th

e tran

sportatio

n sector

• Incorporate conservatio

n strategies to add

ress th

e protectio

n of fa

ctors that

affect energy conservatio

n an

d that con

servation areas be m

appe

d on th

e Fu

ture Lan

d Use M

ap

• Incorporate ho

using strategies fo

r energy efficiency in th

e de

sign and

constructio

n of new hou

sing

• Atta

chment A in

clud

es a crosswalk of th

e plan

’s policies

in re

latio

n to th

e requ

irem

ents of H

ouse Bill 697.

(9)

Rural Estates – 5 Plan Category

• Do no

t ado

pt th

e RE‐5 fu

ture land use category because it prom

otes urban

sprawl.

• Re

vise th

e catego

ry to be consistent w

ith th

e Cou

nty’s Agricultural 1 unit p

er

10 acres plan catego

ry to ensure that ru

ral agricultural lan

ds th

at are ann

exed

into th

e City are not con

verted to lo

w in

tensity

, low density, and single use

developm

ent in excess of d

emon

strated need

• Th

e Ru

ral E

states‐5 Plan Category was w

ithdraw

n an

d replaced w

ith a new plan catego

ry Rural Estates – 10

Plan Category. T

he RE‐10 is con

sistent w

ith

Hillsborou

gh Cou

nty’s plan category, w

hich th

e pa

rcels

are currently designa

te.

(10)

Affordable Housing

• Re

vise Objectiv

e 26.14 to be specific an

d measurable with re

spect to the

prov

ision of affo

rdable hou

sing

. •

Revise Policies 26.14.1 throug

h 26.14.10 to in

clud

e meaning

ful and predictable

guidelines and stand

ards to be im

plem

ented regarding affordable hou

sing in

orde

r to achieve the ob

jective.

• Th

e revised po

licies must ide

ntify ade

quate sites a

nd distribution of hou

sing

for v

ery‐low in

come, lo

w‐in

come an

d mod

erate‐income ho

useholds based on

• Ex

plained that th

e ob

jective an

d po

licy qu

estio

ns ra

ised

by DCA staff are ad

dressed in Objectiv

e 26.8 not

Objectiv

e 26.14. Include

d the ap

prop

riate po

licies for

DCA staff review

. •

Revised Objectiv

e 26.8 to in

clud

e the target of 2

1,156

affordable hou

sing units by 2025 as ind

icated in th

e Hou

sing backg

roun

d section.

Summary



Obj #



4

the best availa

ble da

ta and ana

lysis a

nd th

e City

’s hou

sing needs assessm

ent.

(11)

(12)

Wetlands and Riverine Systems

• Re

vise th

e wetland polices to in

clud

e meaning

ful and predictable guide

lines

and stan

dards that w

ill ensure the protectio

n an

d restoration of w

etland

s.

• Define sign

ificant w

etland

s an

d riverine systems

• Includ

e gu

idelines and stand

ards to ensure that no encroachment into their

100‐year floo

d plain.

• Includ

e stan

dards a

nd criteria to guide develop

ment w

ithin th

e 100‐year

flood

plains so th

at th

eir fun

ctions w

ill be protected.

• Objectiv

e 38.9.1 and its a

ssociated po

licies were

with

draw

n an

d replaced w

ith policies from th

e existin

g plan re

lated to th

e protectio

n of w

etland

s an

d riverine

system

s.

• Th

e existin

g po

licies contained gu

idelines and

stan

dards w

hich w

ere more in line w

ith DCA staff’s

recommenda

tions.

(13)

Plan Amendments in the Coastal High Hazard Area

• Re

vise Policy 41.1.6 to delete the exception that allo

ws a

n increase in re

side

ntial

density in th

e CHHA. D

ensity in

creases in the CHHA are only allowed

consistent w

ith 163.3178(9)(a), F.S.

• Po

licy 41.1.6 has been with

draw

n.

(14)

Roadway LOS Standard

• Clearly define an

d identify the City

’s ro

adways that are classified as the “n

eeds

netw

ork” and

/or c

onstrained fa

cilities.

• Establish road

way LOS stan

dards for th

e City

’s needs network road

s, and

constrained road

s con

sistent w

ith th

e stan

dard established by th

e FD

OT.

• Po

licy 46.3.1 and Policy 60.4.2c.1 was re

vised to re

flect

the level o

f service stand

ard for C

ity ro

ads is LOS “D

”.

Summary



Obj #



5

(15)

Transportation Concurrency Exception Area

• Ado

pt a clear app

roach for implem

entin

g lo

ng‐te

rm strategies to sup

port and

fund m

obility w

ithin th

e de

sign

ated excep

tion area, including alte

rnative

mod

es of transpo

rtation.

• Ado

pt strategies that w

ill be used to in

corporate projects and establish clear

prov

isions fo

r the fu

nding an

d availability of m

obility projects to sup

port

developm

ent w

ithin th

e TC

EA and im

prov

e mob

ility.

• An introd

uctio

n de

scribing th

e TC

EA strategy was

inserted before Objectiv

e 46.4.

• A new policy (46.4.1) re

quires th

at th

e TC

EA be map

ped

on th

e Fu

ture Lan

d Use M

ap.

• Po

licies 4

6.4.5 – 46.4.9 w

ere revised to clarify th

e relatio

n of th

e TC

EA su

b‐districts a

nd re

view

requ

irem

ents to th

e ov

erall V

ision of th

e plan

. •

Add

ed a new policy (46.4.15) ind

icating that th

e City

will amend its develop

ment regulations by July 1, 2010

to im

plem

ent lan

d use, urban design an

d tran

sportatio

n concurrency requ

irem

ents outlin

e in th

e Plan

. •

All of th

e po

licies were renu

mbered.

• Th

e initial strike‐ou

t and und

erlin

e form

at w

as very

confusing, so the respon

se w

ithdraw

s po

licies 4

6.4.1 –

46.1.16 an

d replaces th

em w

ith th

e revision

s sho

wn.

• A crosswalk show

ing ho

w th

e Plan add

resses th

e mob

ility, u

rban design, m

itigatio

n requ

irem

ents

requ

ired by Statute is sho

wn in App

endix C.

(16)

Constrained Roadway Table (Page 368)

Revise th

e Con

strained Roadw

ay ta

ble to re

flect LOS stan

dards o

n State facilities

consistent w

ith Rule 14‐94, F.A.C.

• Th

e Table show

n on Page 368 was m

odified

. According

to FDOT, th

ere are 3 SIS conn

ectors and 1 SIS fa

cility on

the table that can

not b

e classifie

d as “constrained.

These 4 facilities a

re re

mov

ed from th

e list.

Summary



Obj #



6

(17)

Strategic Intermodal System LOS Table (Page 369)

• Re

vise The Table on Pa

ge 369 to provide clear, m

eaning

ful d

escriptio

ns

regarding levels of service stan

dards for SIS, FIH

S, and TRIP facilities, as w

ell

as all road

s with

in th

e City

. •

Identify an

d de

fine in th

e plan

, the H

igh Tran

sit L

evel of S

ervice Corrido

rs and

the constrained an

d de

ficient corrido

rs and id

entify the specific level o

f service

stan

dards for th

ese corridor ty

pes.

• Th

e Table show

n on Page 369 was w

ithdraw

n an

d replaced w

ith th

e Table from Rule 14‐94, Florida

Adm

inistrative Cod

e (F.A.C) establishing Level of

Service Stan

dards for State fa

cilities.

(18)

Maps / Data & Analysis Base Year

Revise th

e map

s and associated da

ta and ana

lysis to re

flect th

e current p

lann

ing

timeframe the map

s rep

resent and provide th

e up

dated map

s.

• Ex

plained that th

e base year for th

e Plan is 2005,

consistent w

ith th

e Ev

alua

tion an

d App

raisal Rep

ort.

All map

s, ta

bles, d

ata an

d an

alysis in

clud

e the 2005 base

year and th

e 2010, 2015 an

d 2025 plann

ing tim

eframes.

(19)

Capital Improvements Element

• Upd

ate the 5‐year sched

ule to cov

er th

e requ

ired five years

• Sh

ow projects on th

e schedu

le in a m

anner tha

t will allo

w th

e identification of

their location in th

e commun

ity.

• Clearly state fund

ing sources a

nd define abbreviatio

ns.

• Prov

ide revenu

es and exp

enditures for e

very fu

nding source

• Dem

onstrate ade

quate fund

ing in each source to pay fo

r the im

prov

ements.

• Ite

ms show

n on th

e schedu

le to th

e ov

erall p

rojected cap

ital improv

ement

need

s of th

e City sho

uld be provide

d.

• Th

e Cap

ital Improv

ements Sched

ule an

d backgrou

nd

inform

ation was out of d

ate an

d contained errors. It

was re

placed by up

dated FY

09 – FY1

4 inform

ation that

addresses the qu

estio

ns ra

ised by DCA Staff

• Th

e revised inform

ation is con

tained in App

endix B.

(20)

Policy 46.4.8 – Plan Consistency

• Po

licy 46.4.9 allo

ws d

evelop

ment tha

t is incon

sistent w

ith th

e City

’s

Com

prehensive plan prov

ided th

ey m

ake fin

ancial con

tributions to offs

et

adverse im

pacts of th

e prop

osed

. •

This Policy is in

consistent w

ith Sectio

n 163.3167(b) w

hich re

quires all

developm

ent to be con

sistent w

ith th

e City

’s Com

prehensive Plan.

• Po

licy 46.4.8 w

as re

vised to add

ress th

e issue raised by

DCA staff.

Summary



Obj #



7

(21)

Water Supply Planning

Includ

e a Po

licy to ensure coordina

tion with th

e Southw

est F

lorida W

ater

Man

agem

ent D

istrict and Tam

pa Bay W

ater Autho

rity re

garding the City

’s Ten‐

year W

ater Sup

ply Work Plan

.

• A new policy (73.3.4) w

as add

ed callin

g for

colla

boratio

n with SFW

WMD and TBW

A in develop

ing

the City

’s Ten‐ Year W

ater Sup

ply Work Plan

.

(22)

Rural Estates FLUM Change

Ado

pt a land use category that permits no more de

nsity or intensity th

an permitted

unde

r the existing Hillsborou

gh Cou

nty Agriculture land use category, w

hich

allows on

e un

it pe

r ten acres, in orde

r to discou

rage urban sp

rawl and premature

conv

ersion of rural land

s to other uses, an

d maintain sepa

ratio

n betw

een urban an

d rural lan

d uses and protect natural re

sources.

• Th

e pa

rcels show

n in PA‐2008‐1 are de

sign

ated Rural

Estates – 10 as de

fined in th

e respon

se to Objectio

n #10.

(23)

Definitions

Revise th

e Plan to in

clud

e a de

finition se

ction that clearly defines im

portan

t, key

term

s that are used in th

e variou

s elements of the Plan.

• A definition

s section will be ad

ded to th

e ad

optio

n po

rtion of th

e Plan

. Th

e de

finition

s are in

clud

ed in

App

endix D.



4

City of Tampa

EAR-based Amendments

“The City of Tampa introduces a new Comprehensive Plan to shape the City’s future. The new

plan builds on the work of the past five years and provides a framework for a Livable future and

a strategy for directing growth in the City of Tampa over the next 20 years. It recognizes that as a

city approaching build-out, Tampa’s future is about rebuilding and urbanizing, about “growing

up” because we have limited opportunities to grow out. It is not a synthesis of previous plans; it

is a new plan for a new city.

The following are staff comments:

Chapter 1: Livability and Choice

• TBRPC staff has no comment.

Chapter 2: The Livable City Vision

• TBRPC staff has no comment

Chapter 3: Urban Design and Land Use

• Industrial Development and Redevelopment: This section of the plan discusses the

importance of Industrial development and redevelopment within the City to bring in

higher wage jobs, to contribute to the property tax base, and the increasing demand for

industrial lands within Tampa.

This seems to be in direct opposition to the Objective and Policies related to Rattlesnake

Point which “encourages the transition of the Rattlesnake Point Waterfront Area from its

heavy industrial and light industrial uses to a residential/commercial mixed-use

waterfront community.”

This is a concern as we continue to see the conversion of Industrial designations to other

land use designations throughout Tampa and Hillsborough County—eliminating the

potential to support necessary industrial uses and for the creation of higher paying jobs.

Scenic Transportation Corridors

• The Courtney Campbell Causeway is a designated Scenic Highway with the east end of

the Causeway within the City of Tampa.



5

• FDOT’s Scenic Highway Program suggests that, at a minimum, the following elements

of the Corridor Management Plan should be adopted into the appropriate local

government Comprehensive Plan (the City of Tampa and the City of Clearwater):

• Corridor Vision

• Corridor Identified on a Map

• Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Current plans can be amended to incorporate scenic corridors, or communities can use the

Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process to update their plans to include scenic

corridors.

• The City of Tampa is encouraged to adopt the following Policies, or something similar,

into its Comprehensive Plan to recognize the Courtney Campbell Causeway as a Florida

Scenic Highway and to support its mission and goals, objectives and strategies:

Objective – The natural, recreational, scenic, historic, and cultural resources of the Courtney

Campbell Causeway shall be preserved and enhanced for the City of Clearwater

residents.

Policy The City shall support the mission and goals, objectives and strategies of the

Courtney Campbell Causeway Florida Scenic Highway designation as approved

by the City Council on _(date)_for the causeway located between McMullen

Booth Road and Veteran’s Highway as shown Citywide Design Structure Map

A-14 in the Future Land Use Element.

Policy The City shall support efforts to retain the current physical cross sectional

character of the causeway reminiscent of its historic origin.

Policy The City shall participate in efforts to maintain the natural environment by

supporting a coastal-style, native Florida landscape and promoting community

partnerships to control litter on the causeway.

Policy The City shall support FDOT’s pedestrian, bicycle and transportation

initiatives for the causeway including safety enhancements.

Policy The City shall continue to participate with the Corridor Management Entity

(CME) as an ongoing and effective sponsor and advocate for the Scenic

Highway designation process and implementation of improvements.

Policy The City shall continue to cooperate with intergovernmental coordination efforts

as one of the four governmental entities that include City of Clearwater, Pinellas

County, City of Tampa and Hillsborough County.

Policy The City shall participate in the education program efforts for promoting the

location and features of the causeway.

Policy The City shall participate in the maintenance and enhancements of the

recreational opportunities along the causeway and in establishing the Causeway

as a tourist point of interest.



6

Policy The City shall cooperate with FDOT’s enhancement efforts to improve the

visual appearance of the causeway.

Chapter 4: Building Sustainable Neighborhoods

• TBRPC Staff has no comment.

Chapter 5: Sustainable Environment

Conservation Element

• Policies 38.1.1 and 38.1.13, which address the acceptable use of alternative fuels

“...proven to do no harm to other sections of the world economy, population or

environment, and are secure, resource efficient and sustainable...”

Comment: There is no supporting information provided by which to identify the

acceptable alternative fuels as delimited in the policies.

• Policy 38.1.10 refers to the West Central Florida Air Quality Coordinating Committee.

Comment: This committee has disbanded.

• Policy 38.2.6 requires the preservation or conservation of representative stands of upland

native plant communities.

Comment: Size standards would be helpful to ensure that the protected communities

are of a sustainable size.

• Policy 38.5.5 states that the City will cooperate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture

and the FDEP to eliminate exotic nuisance plant species.

Comment: The City should cooperate with all agencies in such an endeavor.

• Policy 38.7.3. The City shall continue to cooperate with EPC, SWFWMD, and other

appropriate entities monitoring surface water quality, particularly for those sampling sites

relevant to protecting water quality within the City’s reservoir, in order to monitor

compliance with state water quality standards.

Comment: This cooperation should extend to all surface waters within the

Hillsborough River basin.

• Objective 38.21. To ensure that all discharges to natural surface water bodies in the

Tampa Bay watershed shall comply with state water quality standards for their designated

use.



7

Comment: This Objective and its supporting policies are very pertinent, given the

current mandates for improved surface water quality at the state and

federal levels.

Coastal Management Element

• Policy 41.1.1 The City may wish to revise the definition based on recent

recommendations of the DCA. “The area below the elevation of seaward of the category

1 storm surge line as established by the NOAA Storm Surge model, SLOSH1 and

depicted in the most recent regional evacuation study, Storm Tide Atlas”.

• Policy 41.1.9: Expansion of existing “special needs” facilities including adult congregate

living facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged and total care facilities in

the Coastal High Hazard Area may be considered if an evacuation and shelter plan is

approved by the County Emergency Management Department.

Comment: The City should carefully consider the expansion of existing “special needs”

facilities in the CHHA as evacuations of these vulnerable populations can have

potentially life-threatening consequences.

• Policy 41.2.3: The City of Tampa shall evaluate the feasibility of applying a 12-hour

evacuation time to shelter space level of service standard (or less) in approving proposed

plan amendments that increase residential density in the Coastal Planning Area for all

evacuation scenarios.

Comment: This policy seems to indicate that the City will seek to apply a 12-hour “to

shelter” LOS with proposed plan amendments. This can only be accomplished if the City

can demonstrate that there is sufficient shelter capacity in Hillsborough County.

According to the EAR, Hillsborough County still has a deficit for Category 4 and 5

storms (see page 10-13). By not adopting an LOS for out of county evacuation, the LOS

became 16 hours. Therefore mitigation would be required for all proposed plan

amendments.

• Policy 41.5.1: By 2009, the City of Tampa shall complete a Post Disaster

Redevelopment Plan to create a process for making sound post-disaster decisions and

preparing for long-term recovery needs.

Comment: Hillsborough County is currently developing a county-wide Post-Disaster

Redevelopment Plan (PDRP). Will the City adopt this plan or is the City developing its

own PDRP?

• Policy 41.5.3: The City will limit expenditures for infrastructure within the Coastal High

Hazard Area to those projects that can demonstrate…



8

Comment: The second bulleted item should be clarified to extend expedited permitting

to minor repairs only. The last bulleted item should refer to the Future Land Use Element,

the Local Land Development Code and PDRP.

Comment: Pg 10-11 of the background information of the Coastal Management

Element refers to a City of Tampa Peacetime Emergency Plan (PEP). The Tampa Bay

Regional Planning Council is not familiar with a City PEP and has not reviewed one

since 1985. In fact the term PEP has not been used in 15 years. The City has coordinated

with the County in the development of the Hillsborough County Comprehensive

Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). If the City has a separate plan, the CME should

document the consistency with the CEMP.

Chapter 6: Sustainable Infrastructure

Mobility Element

• Policy 42.2.10: Assist in the coordination of a trail network with the Hillsborough

County Greenways Committee, the Tampa Greenways and Trails Advisory Committee,

MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees, and appropriate agencies.

Comment: Recommend consideration of coordination with adjacent county MPOs and

trail committees when developing plans for trail networks.

• Policy 43.1.5: The City of Tampa shall coordinate transportation plans and programs

with HART, the MPO, TBARTA, and FDOT to improve transit service delivery in the

City.

Comment: Recommend consideration of coordinating with adjacent MPOs and local

governments, in addition to the agencies currently listed, when planning for regional

connectivity of the city’s transit services.

• Policy 45.2.4: The City shall encourage new development to participate in transportation

demand management (TDM) strategies such as carpooling, vanpooling, parking

management, flexible work hours, or provision of bicycle and mass transit facilities.

Comment: The City should also encourage “employers” to participate in TDM

strategies. In addition, telework (telecommuting) should be added to the list of TDM

strategies.

• Objective 47.4: By 2025 provide for a transportation system that permits safe evacuation

in the event of man-made or natural disasters within the parameters established in the

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council’s evacuation plan.

Comment: Recommend changing TBRPC’s “evacuation plan” to read TBRPC’s

“Regional Evacuation Study.”



9

Chapter 7: A Vibrant Economy


Chapter 8: People Shaping, Changing and Growing Our City


$ Regionally Significant: Yes, based on the fact that by their breadth and scope, the

EAR-based amendments will directly or indirectly be related to or impact regionally

significant resources and facilities.

$ Result in extra-jurisdictional impacts?: No.

$ Effects of the amendment on the following issues:

$ Compatibility among local plans including, but not limited to, land use and

compatibility with military bases:

$ Impact/protect regional facilities/resources identified in the SRPP, including

but not limited to, groundwater recharge and the availability of water supply: During the planning period of this Comprehensive Plan the City will re-

evaluate actual levels of service and adjust water consumption LOS accordingly.

However, the City will continue to rely on Tampa Bay Water to meet future

demand. In addition, the City will expand reclaimed water service, will continue

to increase conservation efforts, and will continue to protect wellhead areas and

surface water bodies.

$ Affordable housing issues and designation of adequate sites for affordable housing: Housing policies address providing residents a variety of housing

choices that accommodate various income levels and address the need for decent

and affordable housing, public housing, and special needs housing.

$ Protection of natural resources of regional significance identified in the

SRPP including, but not limited to, protection of spring and groundwater resources, and recharge potential: The City will continue to work with the

SWFWMD, EPC and other agencies in the protection of groundwater resources.

$ Effectiveness and enhancement of economic development within the region

including, but not limited to, preservation of military bases: As a result of citizen input the City recognizes their vision for a City with a

“diverse, equitable and vibrant economy and goals, objectives and policies that

promote prosperity.” This Chapter addresses supporting Vibrant Economy

opportunities through arts and culture, community redevelopment areas, economic

engines, industrial development, international markets, and maritime uses, to

name a few.

In addition the City recognizes its challenges such as competition with the

suburbs and surrounding counties, corporate consolidation, cost of growth,



10

diminishing human services programs, older industrial areas, quality education,

and skilled workforce, as a few examples.

$ Compatibility with regional transportation corridors and facilities including,

but not limited to, roadways, seaports, airports, public transportation systems, high speed rail facilities, and intermodal facilities: The City is

looking closely at transit, at infill and redevelopment and TCEAs as ways to force

more multi-modal transportation system options, including rail. The City will

also support and encourage Transportation Demand Management strategies,

including bike lanes and more sidewalks.

$ Adequacy of and compatibility with emergency preparedness plans and local

mitigation strategies (plans) including, but not limited to, the impacts on and

availability of hurricane shelters, maintenance of county hurricane evacuation clearance times, and hazard mitigation: See Coastal Management

Element comments on page 5.

$ Regional Comments: None.

• Applicable SRPP Policies: The additions and revisions contained in the

adopted amendment were found to be supportive

of and further the goals and policies of the SRPP=s

five subject areas.

$ Consistency with SRPP: Consistent.



11




12

AMENDMENT # 08-2AR (CIE)

$ Description: The City of Tampa has submitted their Capital Improvements Element

(CIE) in accordance with DCA. The CIE is required by SB 360 (2005) and HB 7203

(2007). The CIE, part of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies all capital projects that need

to maintain Level of Service (LOS) standards over the next five years.

$ Regionally Significant: Yes, the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) contains all of

the capital improvement projects that require a level of service within the Capital

Improvements Plan (CIP) within the next five years. A number of the projects are

regionally significant, primarily regarding transportation.

Below is a summary update of each area:

Stormwater – The City currently provides a level of service of “C” or better to 97% of

its basins within the city. The other 3% are currently not meeting adopted level of

service of “C.” Three stormwater projects are identified to address stormwater

deficiencies; it is not stated if these projects will satisfy the basins to meet a level of

service of “C” or better.

Parks and Recreation – The City is currently meeting level of service standards and

anticipates continuing to stay within compliance beyond the year 2015. New parkland

acquisitions are anticipated in year 2013.

Wastewater (Sanitary Sewers) – The City is currently meeting level of service

standards and anticipates continuing to stay within compliance beyond the year 2015. No

new wastewater projects are anticipated.

Potable Water – The City is currently meeting level of service standards and anticipates

continuing to stay in compliance beyond the year 2015. No new wastewater projects are

anticipated.

Solid Waste – The City is currently meeting level of service standards and anticipates

continuing to stay in compliance beyond the year 2015. No new wastewater projects are

anticipated.

Mobility (Road Network) – The City is currently not meeting level of service standards.

Projections are listed for 2015 and 2025. Several projects are listed to address various

deficiencies.

Mobility (Transit) – The City is meeting adopted level of service on all routes, except

for two. These two routes show a load factor of 1.24 and 1.20, which is greater than or

equal to the adopted 1.2 load factor. New buses or a reconfiguration of alternative routes

can be used to address this deficiency.

$ Result in extra-jurisdictional impacts?: No



13

$ Effects of the amendment on the following issues:

$ Compatibility among local plans including, but not limited to, land use and compatibility with military bases: Yes.

$ Impact/protect regional facilities/resources identified in the SRPP, including

but not limited to, groundwater recharge and the availability of water supply: The City of Tampa has not identified any LOS deficiencies with potable

water supply.

$ Affordable housing issues and designation of adequate sites for affordable housing: Not applicable to the amendment.

$ Protection of natural resources of regional significance identified in the

SRPP including, but not limited to, protection of spring and groundwater resources, and recharge potential: Not applicable to the amendment.

$ Effectiveness and enhancement of economic development within the region including, but not limited to, preservation of military bases: Not applicable to

the amendment.

$ Compatibility with regional transportation corridors and facilities, including

but not limited to, roadways, seaports, airports, public transportation systems, high speed rail facilities, and intermodal facilities: Yes.

$ Adequacy of and compatibility with emergency preparedness plans and local


availability of hurricane shelters, maintenance of county hurricane evacuation clearance times, and hazard mitigation: Not applicable, except for

transportation.

$ Regional Comments: None.

$ Applicable SRPP Policies: Economic Development 2.C, 2.I, 2.14, 2.71

$ Consistency with SRPP: Consistent.



14

AMENDMENT #2008-1 - Future Land Use Map

Wilderness Crossing Subdivision Annexation

“The request would permit consideration of low density residential uses at a rural scale of

development of one dwelling unit per five ten acres. Based on the gross acreage of 378.63 acres,

the maximum residential buildout potential would allow for approximately 75 37 residential

units. This is an increase of 38 units over the current potential. In addition, neighborhoods

serving commercial, office, or multi-use projects up to 20,000 s.f. or 0.25 FAR, are subject to

locational criteria.”

• From: Hillsborough County Agricultural-1/10

• To: City of Tampa Rural Estate-5 10 (one dwelling unit per 5 10 acres)

• Size: 378.64 acres

• Location: East side of Morris Bridge Road at the Pasco County line.

• Existing Use: Agricultural, Single-Family/Mobile Home, Heavy Industrial, Vacant

• Proposed Use: Low density residential uses

• Adjacent Designations:

• North: Residential-1

• South: Preservation

• East: Planned Environmental Community (1 du/2acres)

• West: Suburban Mixed-Use-3 and Environmentally Sensitive Area

• Adjacent Uses:

• North: Pasco County

• South: SWFWMD Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention Area

• East: Thomas Ranch Property

• West: K-Bar Ranch

• Regionally Significant: Yes, New River and all of its wetlands are designated

Regionally Significant Natural Resources.

• Result in extra-jurisdictional impacts?: Morris Bridge Road is the main road that lies

on the west side of the proposed amendment site and continues into Pasco County. It is

unknown at this time what the transportation impact, if any, will be in Pasco County.

• Effects of the amendment on the following issues:

• Compatibility among local plans including, but not limited to, land use and compatibility with military bases: The amendment is consistent with the City of

Tampa’s Comprehensive Plan.



15

• Impact/protect regional facilities/resources identified in the SRPP including, but not limited to, groundwater recharge and the availability of water supply: New River

and its wetlands are found on the proposed amendment site. All of the wetlands, plus a

buffer, should be placed in a conservation easement, and septic tanks should be kept as

far from the wetlands as possible.

• Affordable housing issues and designation of adequate sites for affordable housing:

Not applicable to the adopted amendment as the parcels are individually owned.

• Protection of natural resources of regional significance identified in the SRPP

including, but not limited to, protection of spring and groundwater resources, and recharge potential: See comments above regarding wetlands.

• Effectiveness and enhancement of economic development within the region including, but not limited to, preservation of military bases: Not applicable to the

adopted amendment.

• Compatibility with regional transportation corridors and facilities, including but

not limited to, roadways, seaports, airports, public transportation systems, high speed rail facilities, and intermodal facilities: Morris Bridge Road is the main road

that lies on the west side of the amendment site and continues into Pasco County. It is

unknown at this time what the transportation impact, if any, will be in Pasco County.

• Adequacy of and compatibility with emergency preparedness plans and local


availability of hurricane shelters, maintenance of county hurricane evacuation clearance times, and hazard mitigation: The adopted amendment is not in a

hurricane evacuation zone, however a large portion of the site is in the 100-year

floodplain.

• Regional Comments: None.

• Applicable SRPP Policies: Natural Resources: Policies 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.17,

4.43, 4.44, 4.47, 4.98, 4.99, 4.100

• Consistency with SRPP: Consistent. However all of the wetlands, plus a buffer,

should be placed in a conservation easement and septic tanks should be kept as far from

the wetlands as possible.



16

TBRPC Natural Resources of Regional Significance



17

FEMA FIRM Zones



18

City of Tampa

Proposed Future Land Use Map



19




20

2008-2

City of Tampa

3311 Granada Street

“The plan amendment site is located in the Palma Ceia neighborhood on Granada Street between

Concordia and Ferdinand Avenues. The property is approximately 5,000 s.f. in size.”

“The Tampa City Council has requested this property, which was subject to the areawide Palma

Ceia amendment (PA 04-13), be changed from Residential-10 to Residential-20. The purpose of

the amendment is to recognize the existing duplex development of the site. The duplex

development requires a Residential-20 future land use designation to retain its current use. It

was the intent of City Council not to create any non-conforming uses by the previous action of

Council regarding PA 04-13. This update will correct the error.”

_________________________________

Based on the material presented, it has been determined that adopted Ordinance #2008-2 is not

Regionally Significant and the amendment is consistent with the Council=s Strategic Regional

Policy Plan.



21

City of Tampa (2008-2)

Adopted Future Land Use Map



22

City of Tampa (2008-2)

Adopted Future Land Use Map

city of tampa dca#08-2ar - tbrpc prepared by city of tampa land development and coordination...

Documents