Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Working Meeting Minutes
October 5 , 2004
238 Conference Room

Present: Lee Medart, Pam Tayon, Gary Brown, Andy Hayes, Charner Reese, Shelia Spicola and Lisa DeVitto and Planning Commission representative: Rose Petrucha

Absent: Renee Meehan, Denise Cavanaugh, Lorraine Smith, Shirley Mora, Phyllis Pacyna-Fleming

• Meeting was called to order at 6:35 pm. Quorum noted.

• Reports:

• It was noted that no one attended last week’s meeting, September 27 th, but Charner, Lisa and Lee. The Chair handed out hardcopy comparing documents showing the changes Charner had made to the simplified one-page document that Renee had devised from the VISION and Lisa had reviewed it. Charner Reese went over the changes she had thought appropriate. There was some discussion but overall they thought it was adequate to present to the DICA with the 6 page document summary. There were no objections to Charner taking the document to DICA at their next meeting on the 12 th.

• Gandy Civic Association Meeting: The Chair thanked Renee and Lorraine for going to the meeting and talking with the members about creating a neighborhood plan. The input the Chair had gotten from Renee was that they were very gracious and thanking them for coming. They had also invited a representative from Seminole Heights there. Seminole Heights told them that they didn’t do a Plan they did an overlay district. The outcome of the meeting via Renee, was that the Gandy Group didn’t feel that they had the time, energy or the people to do a plan.

• Unfinished Business:
• Davis Islands News The Chair brought up that we needed to cement the idea about putting this plan into the newspaper. The Chair expressed concern that the Task Force had fallen behind in bringing the sections together and would like have some input on how we would like to do it. Discussion left this subject went into discussion of the following:
• Discussion of the format of the PLAN: Terry Cullen had called the Chair and had given some suggestions that were very orderly and productive. She also suggested that we needed to go back to the Tennis Courts so that we would have a “work space” for pulling this together. What Terry suggested was that we take the options that we’ve gotten and tie it back to the VISION. We do that together so we say this is part of the vision, these are the objectives; these are the options to get it accomplished. She also brought up that at a previous meeting that it was suggested that we not have anymore subcommittee meetings – Andy agreed with that and Gary agreed. Charner stated that we need an outline of the Plan so we can start to visualize it. The Chair responded that the outline that Jeffrey suggested to each of the sections was the outline of the Plan. It was then stated that it was and we needed to look at the outline and start placing items in it. It was suggested that all sections be sent via email to the Chair so she can distribute it to the members. Tampa Heights Plan is available on the Planning website: www.theplanningcommission.org. Rose offered to bring to the next meeting some sample copies of various plans. Discussion addressed the length of the plan – it was decided that the length would be whatever was necessary – the PRESENTATION to the community would have to be precise and clear – those that wanted to read the detail would have the opportunity to do so but it would presented to the community in a very simplistic way. Implementation and costs of such options will be part of the overall PLAN. Charner stated that for implementation purposes the full Plan detail is necessary but for presenting to the public, bullet items; conciseness will get the drive of the Plan easier for the general public to understand. All perspectives are different. Some want detail; some like process; some want a brief overview; it is the job of the Task Force to reach all perspectives.
• Future Land Use Plan: Rose suggested that we didn’t get into the detail of that. Evolution of the Future Land Use Plan; the land use plan that was developed in the seventies was developed to give direction to future land use planning. (Editor’s Note: The discussion on this subject was very detailed and long. I have not included it in these minutes but felt that the details that were reported in that discussion was important input for those that were not in the meeting so I’ve added them to these minutes as an attachment.)

C. Residential: Andy reported that his group started doing a survey on multi-family residential and single-family to talk about this. The last statement tonight was accurate there needs to be an assemblance of the facts and then talk about what is possible. I don’t think we know in any quantifiable way. That’s the hurdle residential needs to get over to fill in the beefy part of this. It’s clear that the majority of the stakeholders want to stay single family detached. If you look at the zoning and the way it works the only areas you need to be concerned about are the areas the abut the commercial areas and the multifamily because the location criteria “if 50% of the block is not already commercial or residential attached – you can’t get there.” Andy reported that he had gotten Shelia’s survey and has not gotten Lorraine’s. He reported that in total in surveying this mix of residential – it’s important to quantify it – and it was a good point to bring up that 70’s plan – to see where it was, where it is today and see how much it’s really changed and put that in the framework of the statements that it wants to stay predominately single-family detached. I don’t know what those percentage numbers are but when you quantify it you can begin to see trends if there are any and we’re just in the process of doing that. Rose commented that there isn’t reference in the VISION to the 75 plan but there is a reference to the D. P. Davis 25 plan. Is there someway in which the group could look back there and see what the original plan was? Absolutely – just takes time and people Andy answered. We could then have a totally picture of that, Rose stated. Andy stated that about 60% of islands were not developed and it sat until market forces developed it and it was originally developed as it was originally platted. The risk there of putting out what could be perceived as a “failed” plan.. Rose indicated that it might be more interesting than taking a 75 plan as a comparison. Charner stated see saw two over arching issues for Residential: 1.) Predominately single-family detached, and 2.)The multi-family designation along our corridor some of it was developed originally like the Mirasol and the Palace of Florence that had an “urban” design to it – up to the sidewalk, very friendly. How does that multi-family develop out in terms of its design standard? That might be a very fruitful area to consider an overlay to ensure that we don’t have the suburban requirements placed on them. The other piece of this that we were talking to deal with – for whatever reason there is an inadequate resolution of parking for anything that is “attached”. It’s not just as simple as zoning issues for the multi family or family-attached what help a lot would be if it only occurs with blocks with alleys. You have parking in the back with porches on the front in relation to the street such as the Mirasol where you are not looking rear ends of cars and a little tiny door. And that’s I think what people are reacting to and then there is a whole bunch of just poorly designed. Charner agreed that those things should be addressed by Residential; Then one more – historical aspect.

D. Commercial: Gary said he would call Terry and see if he can meet with him to review what he had written. He felt that it makes perfect sense to move into a less detailed approach because we are here as a group and we’re moving into some things that we are saying the same things but not understanding the whole of the facts. If we can present this simplistically so everyone out there understands it – and he wasn’t sure how we are going to write it. Charner asked if the big issues in the Commercial area was an overlay district to the water – Gary stated that was only one option – they had looked at 3 areas: The Gateway; The Heritage and the Village. He stated that his subcommittee was called commercial and it really should be mixed-uses. We have seen each of these areas having radically different characteristics. There is a lot of overlap between commercial and residential. He stated that the Village can be different than what it is today in a better way so that the existing businesses can survive; new businesses can come in an survive; they are Islands’ serving but won’t be significantly supported by the Islands – which is the catch 22 in all of this and start to bring back into those things that Davis had envisioned to happen, i.e., public use of the waterways, being able to enjoy and recreate more so than in our location on a busy street. Graphically – either actual pictures or sketches of how these areas including heights – want to bring in other areas such as traffic calming; parks and recreation – to bring all these parts together in options. He feels that there are going to be some very difficult concepts here for people that live here today to understand. It was suggested that perhaps we could have charettes (sp?).

• The Chair asked if there were any comments before we closed the meeting: Lisa indicated that one issue for residential is the impact of commercial and recreational – look at the negative impacts such as noise in their neighborhood and recreational properties are close to residential areas. Andy suggested that she summarize them in an email and send it out to us. Andy stated that we have discussed this – noise what kind of activity they can take up – Andy suggested that it would be parks and recreation section as issues as well as transportation. Charner stated she had addressed their specific concerns and they were asked to come into the meetings. Such as also – people that live on S. Davis would be interested in the design level of it happening. Also, the events are an impact on the residence.

Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35pm.

Schedule of Next Meetings: Tuesday Oct 19 th, Tuesday 9th, Nov 18 th semi-annual meeting DICA, Monday Nov 22 nd or Nov 23 rd (Discuss Dec in the month of November).

Meeting was adjourned 7:30 pm.

Submitted by

Lee Medart Date Approved: ______________

DETAIL OF CONVERSATION

ON

LAND USE MAP – Attachment to the Minutes of Oct 5, 2004

• Rose suggested that we didn’t get into the detail of that. Evolution of the Future Land Use Plan; the land use plan that was developed in the seventies was developed to give direction to future land use planning. The DI ’75 land use plan was folded into the Horizon 2000 plan in the mid-seventies. In 1979 this? Was taken into the Comprehensive plan and became the future land use map. The categories in the ’75 neighborhood plan land use map and the Horizon 2000 land use map categories, there was a relationship to it. In the mid-eighties there was a zoning conformance program which implemented that plan classification. In 1989 we had a plan update the plan classification changed; the terminology changed but they pretty much stayed to the general intent of what the ’75 map is saying. Plan classifications on the Islands are: Residential 6, 10, 20, 35 & 50. Those classifications allow a variety of residential types of development. Residential 6 is single family detached. Rose stated it was written down in the Tampa Comprehensive Plan it is a land use element. It has the purpose; range of uses that can be considered and the general intent of that plan classification. What implements the plan is the zoning. In the Tampa Code of Ordinances is an overall matrix that aligns zoning districts with plan classifications. Then when zoning changes come about you look at the overall comprehensive and the policy of the plan to give guidance as to if a rezoning is consistent or not consistent with the comprehensive plan. So even though a zoning can be considered by a particular plan classification the policy of the plan may prevent that zoning from being consistent with the comprehensive plan. The orange, Residential 10, is a plan classification that allows for consideration not only for single family detached, attached and the number over here is the dwelling density – 6 dwelling units to the acre; 10 dwelling units to the acre – those are maximums given conditions – there are no guarantees you’re going to get that. Residential 20 starts allowing for a little more multi-family garden apartments type thing. The Residential 35 is a little more intensive – 35 units to the acre. Town homes for the most part can be considered in the Residential 10. In the Residential 6, no. Primarily what the town houses are used for as a buffer to the single-family detached. Charner asked Rose if we could down-plan from the town-home classification since our input from the community has been to keep DI predominately single-family detached homes. Developed density on the site is key component. In many instances the lots are small. You cannot have a density inconsistent with the plan. It’s within an acre – if there are today 7 dwelling units (DUs) to the acre. There is no classification of 7, Gary explained, there is 6 and then there is 10. It’s not the size of the lots but rather how many developed DUs are within an acre. If you have detached dwellings in an area, you’re not going to get town houses in that area because of the policies of the plan that prohibit that. The single land use map, by itself, does not dictate what it is going to be. A developer has to satisfy all of the zoning requirements to satisfy that change in use. Zoning laws are under the umbrella of a bigger concept, no different than what we are doing here – our vision is very broad – which all of our plan “detail” has to fall under. Charner composed our concerns by saying, “The Plan gives you the “right” to ask for it and to say if you wanted to go to that higher density, you’re consistent with the plan. So how do you get there? You ask for a PD rezoning just like they did at the Apex – the city found it consistent with the comprehensive plan – because that area allowed that higher density in the long-range plan. You can’t get there unless you go to the PD because the existing zoning won’t allow it. We are looking 20 years out – this future land use map says that we have the potential for this to turn into town houses – is that what the community wanted – it is not. Here’s an opportunity that we ask that the planning commission review this in the light of the community’s desires can these areas be revised. She didn’t understand why it had to be based on the lot sizes. Our plan can’t change the plan but it can ask that the professionals look into it and see how they could change it to reflect our community’s desires.

The predominate multi-family is in the Classification of Residential 20 and 35. They do allow for the single family, but for future, the predominant pattern in that is for multi-family. And again, the density classifications on the tail end of those plan classifications up to 20 DUs to the acre and those are with plan developments. All these maximums are with zonings that would come in with site plan controlled district – they are not an automatic guarantee that you will ever get those densities. But it allows for consideration… Charner asked for the density classification of the Mirasol - classification is over 50. The classification of the de Leon is over 90 DUs to the acre. For the most part DI will never get to these densities is because of the parking – all of the requirements: Parking, retention, etc. We can ask for a study on the land use designations closer to the existing zoning so we don’t have those high-rises down Davis going to a PD. Density vs. high-rise: Density is related on the number of units per acre. You could have many small units. You can have large units – (you could have many high units) – Height is not a component of the comprehensive plan – Height is a component of zoning. Gary stated that right now the zoning height is 35 feet. Density is related to the number of units – say there was 10 - 1,000 sq foot units - We have till 2008 to get our updates to the Comprehensive plan. Evaluation and appraisal report is what gives items to become inclusive in the plan and that is not due till 2006. Whatever is coming out of neighborhood planning and things we will list what comes up make sure that we cover them. You have to look at the development pattern of the area. Town homes go on the “fringes” of neighborhoods. You don’t permit a Town home in the middle of a single-family detached area.

• Rose will bring the developed density map to the next meeting.
• Charner offered that we also need to draw the line between multi-family and single-family detach down the “back-yard” of the multi-family district so that a single-family detached is not facing a multi-family across the street.
• Charner asked that Rose bring more facts to the next meeting.

Meeting Minutes

Minutes of Meeting March 1, 2005
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting January 31, 2005
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting January 25, 2005
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting January 4, 2005
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting December 6, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting November 22, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting November 11, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting October 19, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting October 5, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting September 27, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting September 20, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting August 30, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting August 16, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting July 12, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting June 7, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting May 3, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting April 5, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting March 8, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting February 9, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting January 26, 2004
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting October 20, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting October 6, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting September 29, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting September 22, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting September 8, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting August 25, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting August 11, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting July 14, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting July 7, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting May 19, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting March 31, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting March 17, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting February 4, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting January 21, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting January 6, 2003
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting November 25, 2002
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting October 7, 2002
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting September 16, 2002
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting September 16, 2002
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting, August 29, 2002
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Educational Meeting August 5, 2002
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force

Minutes of Meeting July 29, 2002
Davis Islands Neighborhood Planning Task Force