Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

3 redevelopment plans compared

The City Council hopes to have a final wish list to present to the developer next week.

By KEVIN GRAHAM
Published September 23, 2005

TEMPLE TERRACE - The slow-moving plan to redevelop Temple Terrace's main commercial strip may soon pick up a little steam.

City Council members hope to have a proposal that reflects what the public wants to negotiate with developers by next week's meeting.

"We had a plan that we called the citizens' plan, but a majority of the residents did not support it," council member Frank Chillura said Tuesday night during a special meeting for residents to voice their concerns after a City Council workshop.

"Now we're back to the drawing board."

Not quite, said member Ron Govin.

He presented a proposal that outlined a scaled-down version of the original 38-acre redevelopment site. So did Ralph Bosek, the city's community services director. Both plans narrowed the city's focus to the less-than-20-acre southeast quadrant of the original redevelopment plan, which runs along N 56th Street from Bullard Parkway south to Riverhills Drive.

"Well, I feel like we're reinventing the wheel again," said council member Linda Shattles.

She said that original talks about the redevelopment area called for the project to be done in phases, which is what some suggested Tuesday.

Residents had complained about the scale of the redevelopment project, saying it would cause traffic problems. They didn't want high-rises and said the city's tab, $60-million, was excessive, Bosek said in his presentation. The original redevelopment project has been estimated to cost $325-million.

In August, residents rejected a referendum to let the city increase property taxes by 1 mill, raising up to $20-million in bonds for the massive effort.

"It was clear from the referendum that we needed to produce a reduced-scope project," Bosek said.

Council member Ken Halloway disagreed. He said the vote to deny the referendum had nothing to do with the size of the project. Residents simply sent the message that the city must find some other way to pay for it.

Halloway said he would not support the plan Bosek presented. While Govin's plan had merit, Halloway said, there was nothing wrong with the original proposal. He mentioned the several 12-hour-long town hall meetings where residents left with overwhelming excitement about what they heard.

"I believe those enthusiastic supporters are out there and they're wondering when we're going to break ground," Halloway said.

Mayor Joe Affronti called on council members to send the original plan, Govin's plan and Bosek's to the city staff for comparison. A chart would be drawn to highlight the similarities and differences of the three plans. Taking into account what residents said they want, council members will come up with a final wish list to present to the chosen developer, Unicorp National Developments of Orlando.

Govin and Bosek agreed that their plans nearly mirror each other. Where the plans differ will be up for more debate.

Govin's plan, for example, excludes a City Hall from the redevelopment area. Affronti said the city is determining whether it is more financially efficient to move City Hall. Govin's plan also does not include a community arts center, another suggestion from residents, he said.

Council member Glenda Venable said it's smart of the new plans to focus on the southeast quadrant.

"It's what people see when they drive to Temple Terrace," she said. "It's the revenue producing area."

To that end, she assured residents that the entire redevelopment area won't be forgotten.

"We're not ignoring your neighborhood," Venable said. "It's just that right now it's not on the front burner."

Kevin Graham can be reached at 813 226-3433 or kgraham@sptimes.com

[Last modified September 22, 2005, 09:00:09]