Tampa officials introduce draft overhaul of Land Development Code; council and residents press for more neighborhood input

City officials presented the first draft installment of a comprehensive update to Tampa's Land Development Code during the March 5 City Council meeting, outlining major reorganizations of zoning districts and consolidated use regulations while emphasizing the draft remains open for public input.

Abbye Feeley, the city's Administrator for Development and Economic Opportunity, introduced Jeff Greene of Clarion & Associates, who walked the council through Installment One — a 411‑page draft that includes reorganized zoning districts (Article 3), consolidated use regulations (Article 4) and updated definitions and measurement rules in Article 9. "This is a draft," Greene said. "This is the community's code. This is not going to you for adoption any time soon." Feeley told council the process will include neighborhood‑level meetings and multiple public touchpoints before any final adoption.

Why it matters: the proposed reorganization is intended to make the code more user friendly and predictable, but some proposals could change what types of development are allowed across established neighborhoods. Greene said key changes include consolidating certain residential and commercial districts (for example, a proposed Residential Single‑Family Urban district that would combine RS‑50 and RS‑60), introducing three mixed‑use districts at different scales, and imposing a minimum two‑acre threshold for planned developments to reduce the use of PDs for single lots.

Council response and concerns: Councilman Charlie Miranda raised questions about transportation capacity and land availability, saying "less than 5% of the land [is] available for new development" and pressing staff on how the code would coordinate with transit and the comprehensive plan. Greene and Feeley pointed to the comp plan's transit‑ready corridor designations and the future land use map as mechanisms to align density and transit investment.

Councilman Bill Carlson and others pressed for more granular neighborhood engagement. "If we ask them where do you want to put density, can we put a neighborhood commercial district or a transportation node — where would it go?" Carlson said, urging the consultant and staff to work neighborhood by neighborhood and to use smaller group meetings earlier in the process.

Substantive proposals and public feedback: Greene said Installment One focuses on structure and use tables and that Installments Two and Three will include administration, rezoning procedures, special use permit procedures and the development standards (parking, landscaping, tree protection). He described a new adaptive‑reuse provision and reorganized alcoholic‑beverage rules. Speakers from the planning and development communities and neighborhood advocates in public comment urged caution about consolidating RS districts and merging commercial categories that currently separate light industrial uses from retail and restaurants.

What happens next: staff said Installment Two (administration) and Installment Three (development standards) are being drafted, with additional public meetings planned (the consultant noted an Advisory Team meeting scheduled for April 1). Council members scheduled a May 28 workshop to discuss strategy for how the city allocates community funding and to continue the conversation about engagement and policy priorities. No adoption votes were taken on the LDC text at the March 5 meeting.

The council is seeking public comment on the draft; the city has posted the draft on the website and is rolling out neighborhood‑level meetings for further input.