Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Thursday, January 14, 2010
5:30 p.m. session


The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

17:33:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The City Council will now come to

17:33:14 order.

17:33:18 We will have roll call.

17:33:20 [roll call taken]

17:33:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

17:33:29 We have 5:30 item.

17:33:33 Public hearing on first adoption.

17:33:35 >> Move to open.

17:33:36 >> Second.

17:33:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:33:40 >> Aye.

17:33:42 >> Do you want to discuss with council now the new

17:33:43 process.

17:33:47 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.

17:33:49 I didn't know if you wanted me to wait until 6:00.

17:33:52 Probably appropriate since there may be folks who come

17:33:55 at that time, but I did want to address item number

17:33:56 one.

17:33:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

17:34:05 >>JULIA COLE: City Council, you have before you

17:34:08 small-scale comprehensive plan amendment.

17:34:11 It was heard a while ago and it was to reconsider -- a

17:34:12 denial of this comprehensive plan amendment.

17:34:18 A vote taken to reconsider the previous denial so it

17:34:20 comes in front of you as a result of that vote to

17:34:22 reconsider and what you will be doing in essence

17:34:26 hearing this case anew.

17:34:29 So I would treat it as a start over that you will be

17:34:31 completely hearing this anew and hearing this

17:34:34 particular comprehensive plan amendment.

17:34:38 Now there is at your 6:00 time frame a rezoning of this

17:34:43 parcel, but we will only be opening up the

17:34:46 comprehensive plan amendment at this time.

17:34:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

17:34:52 Mr. Garcia.

17:34:54 >> Good evening, members of council.

17:34:55 Thank you very much.

17:35:06 Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

17:35:09 The applicant is making a request before you this

17:35:12 evening to change the future land use category from

17:35:14 Residential-20 which is what the properties currently

17:35:16 are over here.

17:35:18 First of all, let me back up a bit.

17:35:22 This is located in the Westshore Palms area to the east

17:35:27 of Westshore Plaza west of Lois Avenue.

17:35:29 Between Lois and west shore north of Kennedy boulevard

17:35:31 and of course the interstate is to the north of this

17:35:36 particular community known was west shore palms.

17:35:40 West shore palms is transitioned into an eclectic mix

17:35:42 of residential uses throughout the years.

17:35:47 It now is home to a variety of duplexes and higher

17:35:50 intensity types of developments.

17:35:52 We have a lot of town home developments that have

17:35:54 occurred in here over the last five years.

17:35:56 Let me show you the residential land use categories

17:35:57 over here.

17:36:02 To the South, this is 6th street.

17:36:04 This is Lois.

17:36:05 This land use category is Residential-35.

17:36:08 It allows 35 dwelling units to the acre.

17:36:09 This is Residential-20.

17:36:12 You can see by the parcelization this already existing

17:36:15 town home development.

17:36:19 I will show you on this aerial here which is of a

17:36:20 greater scale.

17:36:22 There is a pretty nice town home development to the

17:36:25 northeast of -- on this particular intersection, which

17:36:30 is the intersection of Gray and Hubert.

17:36:33 As you see the subject site lies directly to the South

17:36:35 of Gray Street.

17:36:37 Here is the interstate.

17:36:40 The interstate has expanded and basically taken a lot

17:36:43 of this area out over here and we have seen a lot of

17:36:47 this encroachment of the interstate into this

17:36:49 established residential neighborhood.

17:36:51 There is an apartment complex that you can notice right

17:36:54 over here to the South, just to the South of the

17:36:55 subject site.

17:36:58 To the southwest of the site, you have an apartment

17:36:58 complex.

17:36:59 You have intensity over here.

17:37:02 This parcel directly to the north has already been

17:37:04 approved for town home development as the parcel

17:37:06 directly to the west of the site here.

17:37:10 You have a playground, an art center to the southeast

17:37:13 over here, and then, of course, you have the units over

17:37:16 here and this is basically vacant land right now.

17:37:21 So this is presently what the future land use colors

17:37:21 are.

17:37:23 They are basically requesting a change to this color

17:37:26 which is in proximity to over here.

17:37:28 This is located on our vision map that we are using now

17:37:32 in our -- in our new comprehensive plan.

17:37:35 It is in the Westshore district which is identified as

17:37:38 an area growth and opportunity for redevelopment and

17:37:41 inflow for both Commercial and residential uses.

17:37:45 As you know, this is a major business center, office

17:37:50 center, of the Westshore district and one of the

17:37:54 impediments they have faced in trying to maintain that

17:37:56 office component is to have a residential presence

17:37:58 there where people can have more of a live-work type of

17:38:01 environment and reduce the number of vehicle miles

17:38:01 traveled.

17:38:07 So this kind of fits in nicely with increasing density

17:38:10 to an area in close proximity to this business

17:38:10 district.

17:38:13 International Mall lies a mile and a half to the north.

17:38:16 Westshore Mall as I said previously lies about half a

17:38:18 mile to three quarters of a mile to the west.

17:38:21 And, of course, all the numerous business offices that

17:38:25 lie along Westshore between Boy Scout Boulevard and

17:38:26 cypress.

17:38:31 Planning Commission staff found the findings of fact

17:38:35 doesn't improve mobility and detracts residential

17:38:37 development and supports the main themes as far as what

17:38:41 -- what we want to do on the vision map for the

17:38:42 Westshore district.

17:38:45 The Planning Commission based on these finding of facts

17:38:48 found it consistent with the comprehensive plan based

17:38:51 on their request to increase density from

17:38:53 Residential-20 to Residential-35.

17:38:56 Thank you.

17:39:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner.

17:39:10 >> Good evening, City Council, Steve Michelini here on

17:39:15 behalf of Alan Johnson who proposed this development.

17:39:18 Originally the City Council granted him the ability to

17:39:21 come back before you with a revised plan reducing the

17:39:23 density, incorporating a plan development that was

17:39:28 sensitive to the area and design the size, scope,

17:39:31 massing and density.

17:39:33 What we have -- although there is no category for

17:39:38 RES-30, the development is proposed at RES-30.

17:39:39 We have to ask for RES-35.

17:39:43 When you reopen the rezoning hearing in a few minutes,

17:39:45 you will see exactly what is being proposed.

17:39:48 But the request for the land use amendment is

17:39:51 consistent with the Planning Commission's long-range

17:39:51 plans.

17:39:55 It is in a major Transportation corridor and sandwiched

17:39:57 in between interstate 275 and Kennedy boulevard as well

17:40:02 as the north-South Lois and Westshore boulevards.

17:40:06 We believe that this is a development and the request

17:40:08 is in keeping with the area.

17:40:10 Most of the developments at least in the immediate

17:40:15 vicinity are developed at RS -- sorry at RES-35, but

17:40:19 their actual density is more in line with about RES-30.

17:40:22 We are respectfully requesting your approval and the

17:40:25 land use amendment does have to proceed the rezoning

17:40:28 petition, but you will be hearing that immediately

17:40:29 following this.

17:40:33 The Transportation analysis based upon the development

17:40:36 showed that the consistency was there, and that it was

17:40:40 providing no additional impact on the network, but

17:40:42 would provide additional opportunities for housing in

17:40:45 the immediate vicinity that are needed to support the

17:40:47 business community that is immediately to the north and

17:40:49 South, as well as to the west.

17:40:53 There are residences to the east; however, most of

17:40:56 those residences are single family across Lois, but

17:40:59 those in this area are multifamily.

17:41:01 They are town house developments.

17:41:02 They are apartment buildings and such.

17:41:04 We are consistent with that and we are respectfully

17:41:07 asking your approval and your consideration for this

17:41:11 land use change.

17:41:13 I think -- you know Tony has already gone over the

17:41:13 maps.

17:41:16 There are two parcels and they are separated by Hubert

17:41:16 street.

17:41:22 One is east and one is west of Hubert.

17:41:26 You saw it a minute ago.

17:41:31 But all of the off-site -- all of the off-site issues

17:41:33 have been addressed and no off-site conditions that are

17:41:37 adverse that would in any way impact another property

17:41:41 owner, another residence in the area.

17:41:46 We respectfully are requesting your approval.

17:41:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A public hearing.

17:41:55 Anyone wish to address the council on this item?

17:41:56 Public hearing.

17:41:57 A public hearing.

17:42:02 Anyone wish to address council on this item?

17:42:03 Come forward, please.

17:42:07 If you are here to address the council.

17:42:08 State your name and address for the record.

17:42:10 You have three minutes.

17:42:14 >> My name is Jim Gardner, 4204 west Gray Street.

17:42:16 Just for the record I was not in favor of the two

17:42:19 townhouses that were approved just northeast of this

17:42:22 proposed section.

17:42:28 And I looked to some of my neighbors who are resident

17:42:31 homeowners just a couple of days ago adjoining to my

17:42:37 house and all that I was in touch with were not in

17:42:40 favor of the townhouses or certainly not in favor of

17:42:42 going to r-35.

17:42:44 Parking on the streets, parking on the sidewalks.

17:42:46 You try to walk down the sidewalks.

17:42:54 I know the neighborhood association may be for this,

17:42:57 but it seems in conflict to residential homeowners

17:42:59 because some of the board members are realtors or in

17:43:02 that business.

17:43:05 To some extent, I would be curious if some time after a

17:43:08 decision was made by the board that -- and a year or

17:43:11 two later you went to say, hey, did we make the right

17:43:14 decision about building townhouses to the area just

17:43:20 northeast of this proposed, even changing from r-20 to

17:43:20 r-35.

17:43:24 I would be in favor of it being put back to single

17:43:24 residential homes.

17:43:28 Like South of Kennedy where the swan and all those

17:43:29 areas, there are nice houses.

17:43:38 It doesn't have to be this dense.

17:43:41 It's just -- it would be nice if it was single

17:43:43 residential homes.

17:43:44 I have five signatures of the five neighbors that I

17:43:45 went to.

17:43:50 4204 Gray Street not in favor of rezoning.

17:43:53 4206 west Gray Street not in favor.

17:43:57 4203 west -- on the opposite side behind me.

17:43:59 4204 west Gray Street.

17:44:03 These are -- these are single residential homeowners

17:44:05 that have a little stock in the area.

17:44:06 They are there to stay.

17:44:10 They are not just going to move in an apartment or move

17:44:11 out.

17:44:14 I respectfully request this not be approved.

17:44:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: One of the council person request --

17:44:19 do you have a map to show us exactly where you live.

17:44:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can the staff put it up and show us

17:44:21 --

17:44:24 >> It is the second house in on gray off of Lois.

17:44:31 If you have that same -- here is where it is proposed,

17:44:34 and here is -- like I said I was against these going in

17:44:35 and these going in.

17:44:39 I am the second house on off of Lois on gray.

17:44:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Will he show us where the homes

17:44:44 were that he had petitions from.

17:44:44 >> I am sorry?

17:44:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can you show us on that map -- and

17:44:49 finally it is kind of coming into clarity for -- for

17:44:51 those of us up here.

17:44:54 Can you show us where the homes were that you have

17:44:58 petitions from who are voicing their objections?

17:45:00 >> The first --

17:45:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Point.

17:45:03 >> Myself and two others.

17:45:04 The first in on gray.

17:45:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can you point to it please.

17:45:10 >> The first person to sign, the second -- and the

17:45:11 second and the third.

17:45:15 I talked -- those are single -- single-family dwelling

17:45:22 house and just behind me on Fig, behind my house -- one

17:45:24 behind my house and the one across the street from the

17:45:25 one behind it.

17:45:29 I could have done more, I am sure, but as I said later

17:45:32 on you took a poll, I don't think that type of

17:45:35 homeowner is in favor of this.

17:45:36 That's it.

17:45:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

17:45:42 Next speaker.

17:45:43 >> Good evening.

17:45:49 My name is Richard Redis, West Gray Street.

17:45:54 I was expecting someone else to -- my speech is a

17:45:57 little slurred.

17:45:58 The neighborhood association which is across the street

17:46:01 on Lois is against this adamantly.

17:46:03 We were against it the first time, we are against it

17:46:04 this time.

17:46:07 On Gray Street there is a traffic light at Westshore

17:46:09 and gray and there is one at Dale Mabry and Gray.

17:46:10 That's it.

17:46:15 Everybody cuts -- wants to go to Kennedy, everybody

17:46:17 cuts through Gray Street.

17:46:20 Back in '06 I had a traffic study and do we are already

17:46:26 receiving 2,000 trips a day, which I have right here,

17:46:27 okay.

17:46:28 And you will see 1945.

17:46:32 And that was back in '06.

17:46:36 An RS-35 at this point is only going to add more to

17:46:39 that.

17:46:42 You also notice this is what's across the street on

17:46:46 Gray now from where they are proposing.

17:46:49 There is -- there are two drainages.

17:46:54 One on the corner of -- on the northeast corner of

17:46:57 Hubert and Gray and one on the Northwest corner.

17:46:58 That's it.

17:47:00 There is no other drainage in that area.

17:47:04 So all the water puddles up on the existing townhomes

17:47:06 that are there.

17:47:07 I am a jogger.

17:47:10 I can't even jog down those streets after a rain

17:47:14 because of the flooding.

17:47:15 And parking.

17:47:18 If you notice, they are already parking across the

17:47:21 street in the vacant lots, because there are only two

17:47:26 spots in front of the existing townhomes and one unit

17:47:28 for a car to be parked inside.

17:47:32 So if you have a family of -- two adults and child and

17:47:35 each one has a car, they are parking in the street

17:47:38 basically.

17:47:46 Across from the South side of the proposed land change,

17:47:56 you have a rec center, city-owned rec center and art

17:47:56 studio.

17:47:58 You will have children in and out, more homes, more

17:48:00 traffic, more children in the streets.

17:48:04 It's not -- it is not safe for -- for the children.

17:48:07 Not even for the joggers with all this traffic.

17:48:11 I have been almost hit a couple of times jogging in my

17:48:15 neighborhood and Westshore Palms Estates because people

17:48:17 don't stop.

17:48:21 No stop signs on Gray Street like I said.

17:48:26 There are the existing homes as far as single-family

17:48:26 dwellings.

17:48:33 You will see they are up and down gray, down Hubert.

17:48:37 There are lots of trees which I know miss Saul-Sena is

17:48:42 very fond of.

17:48:46 Let's see -- that's about it.

17:48:51 So the neighborhood is adamantly against it.

17:48:54 If you have any questions, I am available.

17:48:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Question.

17:48:57 Councilman Caetano.

17:48:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Sir, have you called anybody in

17:49:03 the city about that stormwater that is not draining?

17:49:08 >> No, Westshore pond and West Palm air are old

17:49:09 established neighborhoods and so most of the drainage

17:49:11 on the South side of the neighborhoods.

17:49:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That wasn't my question.

17:49:14 You haven't contacted.

17:49:16 >> One time when I contacted stormwater regarding the

17:49:20 flooding on our side of Lois and our neighborhood, they

17:49:22 -- we were told there is nothing that can be done

17:49:25 because there is no existing drainage pipes in that

17:49:28 area on Gray Street because everything mainly floods --

17:49:34 flows southbound or South on to north a, north b and c.

17:49:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.

17:49:39 >> All right, thank you.

17:49:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

17:49:46 >> Good evening.

17:49:49 My name is Carmen DePalma.

17:49:51 209 north Hubert.

17:49:54 For the record I am the Treasurer of the Westshore palm

17:49:56 neighborhood association and I am here to speak in

17:50:00 favor of the development.

17:50:02 I have lived in the neighborhood for about a year and a

17:50:03 half.

17:50:05 I have vacant land behind me.

17:50:08 I would like to see some development.

17:50:12 Right now there is apartments, there are townhouses.

17:50:16 I think that the way that this planned development has

17:50:24 been developed provides for seniors.

17:50:27 Because it is one of the few that has an elevator.

17:50:30 The issues that we had regarding the parking has been

17:50:34 addressed in the way it has been designed so the cars

17:50:36 can actually be inside.

17:50:38 And I think that this -- the plan that the developer

17:50:42 has showed us, I think that it is going to be an asset

17:50:46 to the neighborhood, especially considering that it is

17:50:49 a great area for the 55-plus.

17:50:52 My husband and I are in that group.

17:50:54 We think it is a wonderful place to live in.

17:50:55 Thank you.

17:50:58 >> Council, if I can, just a reminder, this is for the

17:51:00 plan amendment.

17:51:04 And fairly debatable not quasi judicial.

17:51:06 You are not looking at the separate plan coming up on

17:51:09 the separate criteria.

17:51:12 >> Carlton Polk, the President of the neighborhood

17:51:15 association, Westshore Palms.

17:51:21 And I think you all have a letter.

17:51:25 Mr. Johnson has presented his plans before our

17:51:29 neighborhood association several different times, and

17:51:32 we really haven't had anybody against it.

17:51:36 And we are basically for it.

17:51:39 Considering the little park that was talked about

17:51:43 previously, I have not ever seen any kids there.

17:51:49 I am sure there are some sometime, but I walk my dog

17:51:51 over there a lot and it is always locked up.

17:51:56 I think this will be a good asset to our neighborhood

17:51:59 association for everything Carmen said.

17:52:01 In addition to that, I think it would be a really good

17:52:04 asset because it will block some of the traffic from

17:52:08 I-75 since the D.O.T. knocked down all the houses and

17:52:12 cut down all the trees and they haven't done anything

17:52:15 that they said they were going to do but build a wall

17:52:17 to block out some of the noise.

17:52:20 And the real serious roar in the morning.

17:52:22 And that's about all I have to say.

17:52:25 Do you have any questions?

17:52:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does your association consist of

17:52:33 just residents or is it also property owners who have

17:52:38 -- who have apartments and Commercial --

17:52:40 >> Mainly just residents.

17:52:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And Commercial property owners.

17:52:44 >> Commercial property owners, yeah.

17:52:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

17:52:47 >> You are welcome.

17:52:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?

17:52:53 Petitioner, you have five minutes.

17:52:56 >> Council, I know you talked about a lot of different

17:52:59 issues that are really site plan and they are rezoning

17:53:02 issues and I don't really want to get into them now,

17:53:05 but the appropriate criteria for this is whether or not

17:53:09 a proposal for RES-35 in an area that already has

17:53:15 RES-35 in the Westshore business district in a high

17:53:19 traffic corridor is appropriate for consideration, and

17:53:22 I respectfully request that you approve that since it

17:53:23 is consistent with the development in the area.

17:53:26 And when you asked about Commercial development, the

17:53:29 Commercial is townhouses and apartments.

17:53:36 As far as the Westshore -- the Palms, the Westshore

17:53:38 Palms Neighborhood Association, we have been meeting

17:53:41 with them for over eight months and continually

17:53:43 briefing them on the development of this plan,

17:53:48 adjusting the plan according to comments that were made

17:53:50 by them and everyone in attendance there had an

17:53:52 opportunity to speak and say something that they wanted

17:53:54 to be incorporated.

17:53:58 And I don't want to get into the design merits of this

17:54:01 project, but it is a very attractive and sensitive

17:54:03 design for the area.

17:54:06 It is consistent and completely consistent in terms of

17:54:10 the land use density that is being proposed, and as I

17:54:18 said to you earlier the plan develop will restrict that

17:54:29 land use to much less of the RES-35 issue of drainage,

17:54:31 almost half a mile away.

17:54:32 On the other side of Lois.

17:54:37 I don't need to belabor the point but this project is

17:54:43 here and bon air is over here.

17:54:46 The first time we heard any comments from them.

17:54:47 They didn't attend any of the meetings.

17:54:49 They had an opportunity to discuss this with us.

17:54:52 They were told that basically they had the same

17:54:53 opportunities as everyone else.

17:54:59 And the issues of the people that were opposing this

17:55:03 are here on Lois and again a distance away from this

17:55:04 project.

17:55:07 But you have is other areas in here that are -- that

17:55:11 are the RES-35 that are consistent, and we are

17:55:14 respectfully requesting your approval.

17:55:15 It is a sensitive plan.

17:55:19 It is not -- it is not an aggressive plan.

17:55:23 Its density has been brought down to -- to a level

17:55:24 where it is in keeping with the surrounding property

17:55:29 owners, and it does provide opportunities for

17:55:34 individuals that are in their affordable housing issue

17:55:38 regarding the -- the rental rate ranging anywhere from

17:55:41 $800 to $1500 a month.

17:55:44 But for the area, it is absolutely consistent with what

17:55:46 is being requested, and we are respectfully requesting

17:55:47 your approval.

17:55:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

17:55:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Wait, can you put that back.

17:55:55 I think I walked in when you were first talking about

17:55:57 the map.

17:56:01 Show me which -- which color is the RS-35.

17:56:05 >> That is Tony's, do you want me to do it or --

17:56:06 >>MARY MULHERN: You know.

17:56:08 You probably know.

17:56:09 >> These are RES-35.

17:56:12 >>MARY MULHERN: The rust, orange color.

17:56:13 >> The darker brown and this is --

17:56:16 >>MARY MULHERN: That is RS-20.

17:56:20 >> RS-20 being requested to RS-35.

17:56:23 And part of what mitigates this is the taking of --

17:56:27 from the north side with -- 275 is taken out what used

17:56:34 to be a fairly larger number of homes, which is --

17:56:37 which now pushes the Transportation corridor South, and

17:56:41 this is also within that linkage area that you are

17:56:42 talking about for the light rail.

17:56:45 I mean these are the kind of things if you don't have

17:56:49 this type of density to support it, it will never be

17:56:50 feasible.

17:56:52 The Transportation network relies on that.

17:56:54 And it is not a step outside.

17:56:56 And we are not pushing the envelope here.

17:56:59 It is consistent with what the development pattern is,

17:57:02 and we are respectfully requesting your approval.

17:57:06 It's -- as I said to you, it is a sensitive project.

17:57:08 It is not one that sets new limits.

17:57:11 It is not one that now we have this, you have set a

17:57:14 higher limit for something else to come in.

17:57:20 It is equal to or less than what is already there.

17:57:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

17:57:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for staff.

17:57:30 >> Okay, I thought you said of me.

17:57:34 We have other petitions of support that they relate to

17:57:36 both zoning and land use and I will be happy to give

17:57:37 them to you if you wish.

17:57:39 These are from individual property owners.

17:57:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just make sure -- does that

17:57:44 conclude your rebuttal now?

17:57:45 >> Yes, sir.

17:57:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, thank you.

17:57:48 Do you have a question?

17:57:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

17:57:51 I have a question for Transportation staff and it is

17:57:56 about -- you can put the map back up that was up there.

17:58:03 Yes, thank you.

17:58:04 >> Transportation.

17:58:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

17:58:07 Hubert.

17:58:10 Is Hubert a local street?

17:58:10 >> Yes.

17:58:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the approximate width of

17:58:14 Hubert.

17:58:17 >> Approximately 20 feet in width.

17:58:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

17:58:34 Does Hubert have curbs or gutters?

17:58:36 >> No curbs or gutters.

17:58:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

17:58:40 I have a question for land use staff and that is about

17:58:42 the surrounding land uses.

17:58:47 If you could -- if you could pull out the map you had

17:58:53 before.

17:58:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development.

17:59:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Should really be the Planning

17:59:01 Commission responding to that.

17:59:07 This is -- and you may need to talk to us.

17:59:08 My understanding --

17:59:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I see what you are saying.

17:59:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is a comp plan.

17:59:13 You got to be very careful, okay.

17:59:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I am -- well then I don't --

17:59:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The issue is coming up next.

17:59:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This isn't a question but just an

17:59:26 observation that there is a discrepancy between the

17:59:32 land uses, which in this immediate area are an RS-20,

17:59:35 and the -- the land uses are single-family detached

17:59:38 homes and around it is RS-20.

17:59:42 South of 6th street where the density is greater, it is

17:59:44 an RS-35.

17:59:48 And you have a combination of multifamily and single

17:59:52 family, but if you look at this map, and you -- and you

18:00:01 understand what Mr. -- what Tony presented in terms of

18:00:03 the underlying land use, there is a disconnect between

18:00:06 the reality of what is there and the land uses on our

18:00:07 -- on our map.

18:00:10 I just wanted to share that with my fellow

18:00:12 councilmembers.

18:00:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:00:16 Any other questions from council?

18:00:17 Any other questions?

18:00:18 Okay.

18:00:20 Motion to close.

18:00:22 >> So moved.

18:00:22 >> Second.

18:00:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All those signify by saying aye.

18:00:27 Opposed?

18:00:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman.

18:00:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

18:00:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Base on the surrounding land uses

18:00:36 RS-20, I feel that the proposed change to RS-35 would

18:00:40 represent an increase in density on a -- on both sides

18:00:44 of the street that a local -- a very narrow, a very

18:00:48 inadequate relation street, and I just don't think it

18:00:50 is an appropriate change.

18:00:52 I don't think this is the right place to increase the

18:00:53 density to that degree.

18:00:57 I feel that the -- the greater intensities are closer

18:01:02 to Kennedy which is a major Transportation corridor,

18:01:06 but Hubert and Fig are local residential streets and

18:01:13 this proposed increase is -- is too much for this area,

18:01:16 and we heard testimony from the neighbors about the --

18:01:20 the impact of some of the other residents -- increased

18:01:21 density.

18:01:25 I don't think this is appropriate.

18:01:29 I move that we deny this request.

18:01:32 >> I'll second that.

18:01:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?

18:01:34 Okay.

18:01:40 There is a motion yes, Councilman Dingfelder.

18:01:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a quick question to staff,

18:01:47 if you can indulge me to reopen for a second.

18:01:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to reopen.

18:01:49 >> Second.

18:01:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All those in favor signify by saying

18:01:52 aye.

18:01:55 Opposed.

18:01:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to get a sense of the

18:01:59 r-35.

18:02:06 Either one of you.

18:02:16 The --

18:02:19 >> Could you push it up a little?

18:02:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or shrink it up.

18:02:24 >> How is that?

18:02:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The deep red is --

18:02:29 >> Dark brown.

18:02:33 This is like a dark brown.

18:02:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't split hairs.

18:02:39 >> Understood.

18:02:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is that that you mentioned?

18:02:43 >> R-35.

18:02:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is right on the -- sort of

18:02:47 near the edge of that.

18:02:52 My question on the -- I know it is a little bit apples

18:02:55 and oranges, but just gives me a perspective on it.

18:03:00 The density over in -- in the South that allowed for

18:03:05 the various -- that season R-35 or R-20?

18:03:13 >> Varies, R-20 and R-35 mixed in there also.

18:03:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A lot of it is R-35, right?

18:03:22 Wasn't it the R-35 that allowed the South Ho -- Soho.

18:03:25 >> When you are talking about Soho, it is not really a

18:03:31 neighborhood.

18:03:34 It does have a mix of R-35 and R-20.

18:03:35 There is a big difference there.

18:03:39 You have much of a historic more type of flavor there.

18:03:42 The character is a lot different than it is in the

18:03:43 Westshore Palms area.

18:03:48 I would not see any degree of historic in the Westshore

18:03:49 Palms area whatsoever.

18:03:54 Also its proximity, okay, to two major arterial or

18:03:57 three mayor arterial.

18:04:00 Lois Avenue to the east, an arterial Kennedy boulevard

18:04:01 to the South.

18:04:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am pretty familiar with those

18:04:05 neighborhoods.

18:04:06 >> Okay.

18:04:08 They are pretty different.

18:04:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, I am trying to get a sense of

18:04:16 the density that was in the area that gave rise to some

18:04:19 of the development over there which frankly -- you

18:04:23 know, there is some good and some bad over there.

18:04:26 What -- I know we are not supposed to look at the

18:04:29 specific project that they are proposing because --

18:04:33 because we don't get to that until -- until the next

18:04:37 phase, but potentially, what the R-35 -- what is the

18:04:41 potential that could go on there on these type of -- of

18:04:43 consolidated lots?

18:04:46 >> You can put basically the same types of uses, the

18:04:49 Residential-20 would allow the same types of uses.

18:04:51 The only real difference that we are talking about here

18:04:52 is the increase in density.

18:04:57 You can still have in a Residential-20 --

18:04:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The height?

18:05:00 >> No height division.

18:05:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No height issue on the --

18:05:05 >> No.

18:05:05 No.

18:05:11 If you were going to go to a base town the way that

18:05:13 would be a different story but again a different kind

18:05:16 of issue we are talking about.

18:05:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Abbye, you want to chime in a bit,

18:05:25 my question is -- thank you, Tony, appreciate it -- to

18:05:27 the potential and I am not talking about what the

18:05:30 specific plan is because I don't want to know what the

18:05:33 specific plan is, but potentially, you know, what --

18:05:43 what is the difference --

18:05:43 [Inaudible]

18:05:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY: For the purposes of the record I just

18:05:56 want to state the following since we have had other

18:05:58 issues -- I want to say for the record it is

18:06:00 appropriate as part of the determination of whether or

18:06:03 not this comp plan amendment is appropriate to talk

18:06:07 about the outmost amount of density or intensity that

18:06:09 could be allowed but not to talk about the specific

18:06:12 project that is potentially coming before you.

18:06:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That is the part where I am trying

18:06:17 to walk.

18:06:20 Feel the site we are talking about is 1.55 acres.

18:06:24 At the 35 units, it would be 54 units.

18:06:29 The 1.55 at the 20, which it currently is 31.

18:06:32 So an additional 24 potential units that could occur

18:06:33 there.

18:06:37 In looking at this, you look at all of the R-20s.

18:06:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: With the road in between it is

18:06:40 probably more limited, right?

18:06:41 >>ABBYE FEELEY: No that is the area.

18:06:44 That is the actual land area of the property.

18:06:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean just raw density, but in

18:06:49 terms of looking at it realistically in terms of

18:06:55 parking and those types of things, is it --

18:06:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY: When you then turn that into a

18:07:00 rezoning of the property, you have the potential to

18:07:03 wave those other requirements, to have leniency of

18:07:05 those requirements, et cetera, through that rezoning

18:07:10 process that could potentially allow you to achieve up

18:07:11 to the 54 units.

18:07:15 The surrounding land area, when you do an analysis of

18:07:17 the surrounding land area which Land Development

18:07:20 Coordination staff did provide as part of the staff

18:07:24 report on the plan amendment, the R-20 which is on the

18:07:28 surrounding, there are a series of PDs in the area that

18:07:31 went through the rezoning, but none of them had

18:07:33 developed at even the R-20.

18:07:37 I think that was in the report that was provided

18:07:46 related to the plan amendment.

18:07:53 >> Council, I think one of the issues that we are

18:07:55 dealing with is when you are talking about

18:07:58 Transportation issues as a basis for consideration this

18:08:00 favorably or unfavorably, you have crossed that

18:08:04 threshold, and you have gone from land use into a

18:08:07 zoning issue, and I would respectfully request that you

18:08:09 consider this based upon whether it is appropriate for

18:08:11 the area.

18:08:15 The improvements that have to be made are handled

18:08:19 typically at the rezoning level, and I can't -- I don't

18:08:20 want to get into all of that.

18:08:24 I just asked Julia if we can open the zoning hearing.

18:08:26 She said no we can't do that, we have to deal with the

18:08:30 land use first -- but there are significant differences

18:08:32 between thinking about this in terms of is it

18:08:36 appropriate for the area, is this a high transit area

18:08:39 for consideration.

18:08:43 Does the density -- and is it appropriate for the area.

18:08:46 Is this an area that is single family predominantly or

18:08:49 a multifamily higher density area, and the Planning

18:08:52 Commission has already told you it is a higher density

18:08:53 development area.

18:08:56 The single-family area is transitioning out for a

18:08:58 couple of reasons.

18:09:02 I-275 is taking out a big swath of it, and there are a

18:09:06 few other single-family homes but interspersed between

18:09:11 apartments, town houses and other styles of multifamily

18:09:11 development.

18:09:13 So the staff has recommended approval.

18:09:15 They found it to be consistent, and the request is

18:09:19 consistent based upon the long-range plan for the

18:09:21 Westshore area, and we are respectfully requesting that

18:09:24 you approve that on that basis.

18:09:27 You know, could it go back to single-family residential

18:09:29 at some point in the future?

18:09:30 It's doubtful.

18:09:37 Or could you develop 50 some odd units per acre that

18:09:42 Abbye has calculated and given to you, not practical.

18:09:45 You pointed out it is traversed by streets.

18:09:49 It simply -- it is not an assemblage of one parcel.

18:09:52 It is simply not practical to develop at that density

18:09:55 and our proposal is significantly less than that.

18:09:58 We are respectfully requesting --

18:09:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can't talk about your proposal.

18:10:01 >> I am just telling you --

18:10:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The whole point that the Chairman

18:10:04 warned us about.

18:10:06 Don't stray us in there.

18:10:08 >> I am trying not to.

18:10:11 While you were out I listened to two people talk about

18:10:14 Transportation, drainage, parking, et cetera, which was

18:10:15 way beyond the scope --

18:10:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Shouldn't have been --

18:10:20 >> Land use consideration and hear that the

18:10:23 Transportation is the basis of denial for a ask for

18:10:27 land use I think has crossed the threshold again.

18:10:29 I am asking you to please cross back into the land use

18:10:32 discussion and focus on is it appropriate for the area,

18:10:35 does it reach the long range goals of the Planning

18:10:38 Commission and the plans, it does and staff has told

18:10:41 you that and respectfully requesting your approval.

18:10:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, move the question.

18:10:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to restate my motion.

18:10:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Move to close.

18:10:50 >> Motion.

18:10:50 >> Second,

18:10:53 >> THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:10:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for indulgence.

18:10:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move for denial

18:11:01 based on the surrounding land uses and our

18:11:03 comprehensive plan speaks directly to compatibility in

18:11:06 particular request is a proposal to increase the

18:11:09 density and the proposal is not consistent with the

18:11:11 surrounding land uses.

18:11:17 The more intense land uses are -- densities are closer

18:11:21 to Kennedy boulevard, which is a major Commercial

18:11:22 corridor.

18:11:28 This is further to the north within the nonCommercial,

18:11:31 more residential area and the proposal would allow a

18:11:36 density which is not compatible and that's why I move

18:11:41 for disapproval -- denial.

18:11:41 >> Second.

18:11:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:11:46 All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

18:11:49 Opposes.

18:11:53 >> Motion failed with Caetano, Miller, Scott, Miranda

18:11:57 and Dingfelder voting no.

18:11:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:12:01 Councilman Caetano.

18:12:04 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, he move --

18:12:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have to read --

18:12:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance amending the Tampa

18:12:15 Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Future

18:12:17 Land Use Map for the property located in the general

18:12:19 vicinity of 401, 403, 404, 405 and 406 Hubert Avenue

18:12:29 and 4214 Gray Street on the South side of west Gray

18:12:34 Street and on the east side and west sides of North

18:12:37 Hubert Avenue from residential-20 to residential-35

18:12:41 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,

18:12:44 providing for severability, providing an effective

18:12:44 date.

18:12:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

18:12:48 >> Second.

18:12:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:12:51 Moved and seconded.

18:12:54 Second by Councilwoman Miller.

18:12:57 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:13:01 Opposes.

18:13:05 >> Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no.

18:13:08 Second reading and adoption February 4 at 9:30 A.M.

18:13:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will move to our 6 p.m. public

18:13:17 hearings.

18:13:20 This is -- let's have --

18:13:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open items 2 through 6.

18:13:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

18:13:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:13:29 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:13:31 Opposed?

18:13:33 You will be addressing council tonight you need to

18:13:34 stand and be sworn.

18:13:36 If you were going to be speaking.

18:13:39 If you were going to come before council to testify.

18:13:45 Will you please stand at this time to be sworn.

18:13:45 [Oath Adminstered by Clerk]

18:13:53 >> I do.

18:13:54 >> Thank you.

18:13:56 >> Mr. Chairman, I will ask that all written

18:13:58 communication that was available for public inspection

18:14:01 and City Council offices be received and filed by

18:14:02 motion please.

18:14:03 >> So moved.

18:14:04 >> Second.

18:14:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:14:08 Opposed.

18:14:14 At this time Miss Cole, Counsel, needs to give us

18:14:16 instruction on the new process.

18:14:20 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.

18:14:22 As we move into a new year and are working with a new

18:14:25 comprehensive plan, even though you already heard some

18:14:28 petitions under our new comprehensive plan, we are

18:14:30 going to change our format a little bit about how the

18:14:31 presentation goes.

18:14:34 So I will ask everyone to bear with us because we are

18:14:36 just starting to implement this tonight.

18:14:42 And the -- the intent is to have City of Tampa -- LDC

18:14:44 staff present the case just kind of say this is what is

18:14:48 in front of you and give a basic location.

18:14:50 But then actually have the Planning Commission staff

18:14:57 come up and give an overview of the project -- not that

18:14:59 specific project but of the comprehensive plan just

18:15:03 sort of as the broad perspective of what is in the

18:15:05 comprehensive plan and how the concepts of the project

18:15:07 meet the comprehensive plan and then get to the

18:15:09 specifics of the plan and have staff speak of the

18:15:11 specifics.

18:15:13 The intent being that your comprehensive plan acting

18:15:19 like a Constitutional broad document and the Land

18:15:20 Development code being the more narrow document.

18:15:23 That is how we are moving forward tonight.

18:15:26 It may be a little tricky for us all but we will move

18:15:28 forward in that direction and in the long run will make

18:15:29 for a better hearing.

18:15:30 Thank you.

18:15:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yeah, pretty much so council

18:15:32 understand.

18:15:36 You are just switching how it is presented, pretty much

18:15:37 if you want to look at it.

18:15:39 Just having the Planning Commission come first to give

18:15:44 an overall view and then to come behind that and then

18:15:46 better and then the public.

18:15:50 So that's pretty much -- and hopefully we -- we will

18:15:51 get through it tonight.

18:15:59 Okay.

18:16:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Good evening, Council, Abbye Feeley.

18:16:17 There is no cleanup on agenda.

18:16:18 Everything is ready to move forward.

18:16:20 What is before you is the agenda for Land Development

18:16:25 Coordination stating which items have revision sheets

18:16:29 and for those that have just minor revisions which are

18:16:33 the last two, I actually included those revisions on

18:16:36 the mock-up agenda I provided you with.

18:16:38 Everything else has a revision sheet tonight.

18:16:40 So I believe we are ready to begin with the items on

18:16:48 your agenda.

18:16:52 The first petition before you tonight is the case

18:16:54 related to the comprehensive plan amendment we just

18:16:57 heard.

18:16:59 File No. Z09-44, located at 401, 403, 404, 405 and 406

18:17:06 Hubert Avenue and 4214 Gray Street.

18:17:10 The ask this evening is from PD, planned development

18:17:13 residential single family attached to PD planned

18:17:14 development residential multifamily.

18:17:20 I will now turn it over to the Planning Commission.

18:17:24 >> Thank you, Miss Feeley, Tony Garcia, Planning

18:17:25 Commission staff.

18:17:31 I have been sworn in.

18:17:34 I will go a little slower since we are going with a new

18:17:38 format, so -- but thank everyone for their indulgence

18:17:40 on this.

18:17:43 First I want to show you -- in your new comprehensive

18:17:46 plan we have a vision map, and the vision map is before

18:17:46 you on the screen now.

18:17:50 And the vision map basically consists of five districts

18:17:53 which we are using to direct growth within the city.

18:17:56 Central district, the Westshore districts, the new

18:17:59 Tampa district, the South Tampa district, and the

18:18:03 University district.

18:18:05 The project before you this evening is located in the

18:18:10 Westshore district.

18:18:13 The Westshore district has been identified in the

18:18:16 comprehensive plan as one of the districts where we are

18:18:18 going to be redirecting growth.

18:18:23 I know it is a little -- miss Mulhern, I can see you

18:18:25 going like that.

18:18:27 Yes, it is big.

18:18:31 So let me outline a couple of things for you on here.

18:18:33 Within the district we have one of the major employment

18:18:37 centers not just in the City of Tampa but Hillsborough

18:18:40 County, and that the Westshore business district in

18:18:42 proximity of the Tampa International Airport.

18:18:46 A major office district, a major employment center.

18:18:51 Also what is interesting about it is it also has

18:18:53 several traditional residential neighborhoods.

18:18:55 So neighborhoods can be defined in a variety of ways

18:18:58 based on their -- on what borders these particular

18:19:00 neighborhoods, the type of corridors that we are

18:19:03 talking about, whether they are arterials or whether

18:19:06 collector roads and basically how those collector roads

18:19:09 function within the neighborhoods that they border.

18:19:10 The particular neighborhood that we are talking about

18:19:14 tonight as I keep on zooming in is the Westshore Palms

18:19:18 neighborhood, which basically is going to be located --

18:19:20 here is your interstate, so it is located to the South

18:19:26 side of the interstate over here.

18:19:30 If you look at this particular site again on a greater

18:19:34 scale, you will notice that this residential

18:19:38 neighborhood has evolved over the last 15 years.

18:19:42 Based on the land use categories that are in the area,

18:19:45 we do have a significant presence of multifamily units

18:19:50 in the area, both apartments, townhomes, duplexes, from

18:19:55 Lois Avenue extending all the way across to Westshore.

18:19:58 The neighborhood has had an erosion.

18:20:02 There is a variety of residential components in single

18:20:06 family detached to multifamily to single family

18:20:08 attached.

18:20:11 There has been an emotion and an encroachment of the

18:20:14 traditional neighborhoods which basically on the north

18:20:17 is where you have a lot of single family but that has

18:20:19 pretty much been really encroached upon with the

18:20:21 southward expansion of the interstate.

18:20:24 So it has really kind of changed the character of this

18:20:25 particular neighborhood.

18:20:32 Westshore Palms offers a lot of density potential, and

18:20:34 the Westshore area including the Westshore business

18:20:37 alliance and many of the other businesses in the area

18:20:39 are looking for ways to try to increase residential

18:20:42 intensity in the Westshore area.

18:20:45 So you can see you have Residential-20 on the east side

18:20:48 of Lois Avenue where you have northbound here the

18:20:52 residential intensity drops to residential-10.

18:20:55 Pretty much all residential-10 on this east side with

18:20:58 the exception of a couple of parcels on the north which

18:21:00 were in proximity to the interstate.

18:21:02 This over here will be significantly different.

18:21:06 When you look at what the request is, you are going to

18:21:07 Residential-35.

18:21:12 This is basically going to be to -- on 1.5 acres is

18:21:15 basically going to be for approximately 46 multifamily

18:21:17 units, which is consistent and compatible with the

18:21:22 underlying land use category of Residential-35.

18:21:24 County commission staff based on the opportunities

18:21:28 offered been the Westshore district and surrounding use

18:21:30 categories found the proposed request consistent with

18:21:38 the comprehensive plan.

18:21:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Good evening, Council.

18:21:52 Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.

18:21:54 Just reversed.

18:21:58 The request before you this evening is from PD to PD as

18:21:59 I previously stated.

18:22:00 There are three waivers associated with the request

18:22:01 this evening.

18:22:05 One is to remove two hazardous grand trees.

18:22:08 The second is to reduce the setback for the dumpster

18:22:11 placement and enclosure on the Eastern parcel from 15

18:22:15 feet to 5 feet along the South, and to reduce the

18:22:19 setback from the dumpster from 15 feet to 5 feet.

18:22:23 Should be along the east, and I will show you that.

18:22:26 I can show you that on the site plan.

18:22:30 The petitioner is proposing to construct 46 multifamily

18:22:32 residential units on 1.55 acres.

18:22:38 The proposed design incorporating three three-story

18:22:41 building with a height of 38 feet and includes tower

18:22:43 elements which will go to 45 feet and those elements

18:22:46 will not comprise more than 30% of the total roof area

18:22:47 of the building.

18:22:50 The site is separated by Hubert Avenue, land contain

18:22:53 one building on the western portion and two buildings

18:22:54 on the Eastern portion.

18:22:58 The PD setbacks are as follows: The western parcel,

18:23:05 5.9 feet north, 12.8 feet South, 8.6 feet west and 6.3

18:23:05 feet east.

18:23:09 For the Eastern parcel is 5 foot north, 5 foot South, 8

18:23:14 foot west, and 35.5 foot for the southern portion of

18:23:17 the Eastern parcel and 8.5 feet for the northern

18:23:19 portion of the Eastern parcel.

18:23:23 The associated elevations proposed of Mediterranean

18:23:27 revival style of architecture and the floor area for

18:23:32 the project is proposed at 30 dwelling units an acre.

18:23:36 And as stated, it was contingent on the zoning change.

18:23:39 And let me go ahead and show you and then I will go

18:23:43 through some of the staff findings.

18:23:45 That you all just approved.

18:23:49 Could not have moved forward given the density

18:23:49 proposed.

18:23:54 This is the zoning atlas.

18:23:58 This is -- this is the proposed shown here in green.

18:24:04 There is a current PD on this parcel for town homes.

18:24:10 There is -- to the South, going to the north, Lois and

18:24:13 Hubert.

18:24:15 This is the park that they were referring to here.

18:24:18 It is actually shown in green on this atlas.

18:24:21 There are two nonconforming multi family uses, one

18:24:23 shown here and one also here.

18:24:25 I will show you some pictures and we can look at those

18:24:26 in the aerial.

18:24:29 This is the PD for the townhomes that were stone in the

18:24:30 picture.

18:24:32 I will show you some pictures of those.

18:24:35 So there is a -- a mix of uses and now the interstate

18:24:39 comes down, which I will show you my aerial.

18:24:42 So it is about four blocks -- four or five total blocks

18:24:50 until you get down to Kennedy.

18:24:54 Here is an aerial of the site.

18:24:59 This has the new 2009 aerials underneath that you can

18:25:03 see there is a retention pond that is located.

18:25:05 This is the interstate that crosses up here.

18:25:10 Hubert here.

18:25:11 Big gray.

18:25:15 Subject property shown to you in yellow.

18:25:17 These are the apartments I just referred to as the

18:25:18 nonconforming.

18:25:23 An RS-50 zoning in here and these are multifamily uses.

18:25:25 You have the park here.

18:25:30 And then you pick up the RM-24 and RM-18 as you move

18:25:36 down to Kennedy.

18:25:40 If I can just briefly say the photos I am about to show

18:25:43 you -- I am going to start here at the southern end of

18:25:46 this property and walk up toward Hubert.

18:25:48 This picture here and I will work my way back down

18:25:53 showing you the western side the block.

18:25:55 So this is looking north.

18:25:56 This is the subject property.

18:25:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?

18:26:00 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Sure.

18:26:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is the tree with the -- with the

18:26:05 red netting around it one of the grand trees that is

18:26:10 going to be removed?

18:26:20 Maybe just when you get to that can you show us --

18:26:22 >> Doesn't look very grand.

18:26:23 Kind of small.

18:26:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Pregrand.

18:26:27 >>ABBYE FEELEY: It is not a grand tree and it is going

18:26:29 to be removed, yes.

18:26:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you can give us a sense of the

18:26:34 trees that are going to be removed as you walk through

18:26:34 this.

18:26:37 >>ABBYE FEELEY: If you want to go to sheet S-2 of the

18:26:41 site plan, you will be able to see the ones with the

18:26:42 X's.

18:26:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am looking at it but a real

18:26:46 difference of looking at these black and white site

18:26:48 plans and looking at these pictures.

18:26:51 It would be more helpful to me if you would describe it

18:26:54 in these pictures.

18:26:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Okay.

18:26:59 I did not specifically take pictures of these trees.

18:27:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you can just kind of give me a

18:27:03 sense of --

18:27:05 >>ABBYE FEELEY: So on that site plan or on that sheet

18:27:08 where it says "grand oak," that is where I am standing

18:27:11 looking north toward the interstate in this picture.

18:27:16 This is going up Hubert looking east.

18:27:25 There is that palm tree.

18:27:27 This is moving east again.

18:27:37 I believe that is the 24-inch -- and this is almost at

18:27:38 Gray Street.

18:27:48 This is the PD that is located just northeast of the

18:27:50 site.

18:27:53 Turned around on Hubert looking back west so this is

18:27:57 the northern portion of that western parcel.

18:28:02 This is moving South along Hubert.

18:28:06 And then just South, the piece that is not included in

18:28:12 this proposal, there is a single-family home.

18:28:16 At the southwest corner of Fig and Hubert is the

18:28:20 nonconforming apartment building that I referred to,

18:28:22 multifamily also, two stories.

18:28:28 And the -- the city's art studio and park located on

18:28:34 the southeast corner.

18:28:38 I did pull all the PDs that are approved in that area

18:28:41 and stories, the units, the height.

18:28:44 So I do have that information available.

18:28:46 I don't know if you want me to go through all eight of

18:28:49 those, but I am able to do that.

18:28:51 If you were looking for a comparison.

18:28:52 That is how I looked at the compatibility of this

18:28:56 project in relationship to the existing development

18:28:59 pattern and the future development pattern of that

18:28:59 area.

18:29:04 We do have a finding of inconsistency in relation to

18:29:04 technical items.

18:29:06 I would like to go through those.

18:29:16 And also there is a revision sheet that I provided.

18:29:18 I believe that all revisions reflect what is in the

18:29:21 staff report and petitioner has had the staff report as

18:29:25 to whether or not they are amenable to those revisions.

18:29:28 I need them to revise the legal description.

18:29:32 I also need them to revise the general notes section

18:29:36 adding the property folio number in the future land

18:29:40 use, utilizing the R-35 as just approved.

18:29:42 Remove the right-of-way tree table.

18:29:47 Revise waiver number 3 to provide to the proper section

18:29:50 as 1325, not 1245.

18:29:53 And also on the site plan, on that sheet s-2, there is

18:30:00 a 24-inch oak that is shown -- let me see if I can show

18:30:01 it to you.

18:30:03 This was one of Mary's comments as well.

18:30:08 This is the Eastern parcel.

18:30:10 When you are going to be -- there is only one driveway

18:30:11 on both pieces.

18:30:13 When you are going to be pulling in off of Hubert, that

18:30:17 tree as shown on the s-2 sheet right here, but it was

18:30:21 not brought fourth for retention on the property, and

18:30:25 it is staff's recommendation that that tree is saved as

18:30:28 there is adequate space for that to be saved and bring

18:30:34 that forth on both sheets.

18:30:40 Mary's comment tree and landscape that the s-2 sheet is

18:30:43 hardly legible and we would like a clearer copy, a

18:30:44 darker print.

18:30:47 Many of the trees have previously declined since the

18:30:50 time of the prior rezoning, and she identifies what

18:30:50 those trees are.

18:30:54 They are being shown as preserved under this PD and

18:30:55 staff does not want them preserved.

18:30:58 They are in terrible condition and they just need to be

18:31:00 removed and reflected in the tree table for her

18:31:03 recommendation.

18:31:07 She also mention the 24-inch oak I just mentioned to

18:31:08 you.

18:31:11 She mentions the five palm trees on-site that can be

18:31:14 transplanted and encourages that they be transplanted

18:31:19 and the tree table be amended accordingly, and lastly

18:31:23 she needs the tree table to be accurately reflected.

18:31:28 Transportation had also an inconsistent finding based

18:31:30 on the updated Transportation analysis that was

18:31:32 required as part of this application.

18:31:35 There is a mitigation that is required and that note

18:31:37 discusses that mitigation.

18:31:39 And lastly, solid waste.

18:31:43 They had an inconsistent finding related to the

18:31:44 dumpster notes.

18:31:50 They need Bollards shown and need things relabeled and

18:31:52 waivers to address the correct section.

18:31:54 That being said.

18:31:57 Pages 5 and 6 of your report, you will find the PD

18:32:01 analysis as conducted by myself in relation to the

18:32:04 compatibility of this application and latest criteria.

18:32:06 I found it consistent and found that given the existing

18:32:11 PDs and future potential and proposed design under this

18:32:13 application that it was compatible with the surrounding

18:32:17 area.

18:32:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

18:32:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

18:32:21 A couple of questions.

18:32:23 Trying to read S-2.

18:32:26 It is kind of hard to read, but it appears to me that

18:32:29 the credit debit table for trees that we are losing 111

18:32:31 or getting 77.

18:32:36 And I wondered if the position of planting trees to

18:32:41 make up for that loss?

18:32:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: They are going to be planting on-site

18:32:48 what they are required to be planting on-site for the

18:32:49 multiplier.

18:32:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay -- okay.

18:32:52 And the other question was, where you have a

18:32:56 single-family home next to this, what kind of buffering

18:33:00 are they providing?

18:33:03 Because I believe they are asking for a setback waiver.

18:33:06 >>ABBYE FEELEY: They are asking for a waiver -- let me

18:33:08 go over that real quick -- just for the dumpster

18:33:13 enclosure on the Eastern piece.

18:33:18 That waiver is right here.

18:33:28 That five-foot -- that five-foot right there.

18:33:31 Solid waste requires that it is 15 feet.

18:33:34 They had to move it out of the protective radius of

18:33:38 that 36-inch oak and shift it down.

18:33:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There is a house next door?

18:33:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Not house is over on the other piece.

18:33:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, okay.

18:33:45 What is right there?

18:33:47 I am sorry.

18:33:49 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The house -- this is -- the east side

18:33:53 runs the whole block face from Gray Street to Fig

18:33:57 street, the western piece runs only partial and has the

18:33:59 one house, that white house down to the South --

18:34:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right.

18:34:02 That's why I am trying to figure out what is in

18:34:06 between, a salad masonry wall or six feet.

18:34:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: A six-foot wood fence.

18:34:12 Because single family to multifamily required 10 foot

18:34:16 with a landscape buffer.

18:34:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This will be 38 feet and another 42

18:34:19 --

18:34:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The setback is 12 foot at that portion

18:34:30 and a 20-inch maple, 30-inch oak and 48-inch oak all

18:34:35 along -- but they are putting in a 6-foot fence and

18:34:37 those trees plus the fence that was not required and

18:34:38 above the required buffer.

18:34:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One other quick question.

18:34:42 In this area where you looked at all the other

18:34:45 potential approvals, are there any other three-story

18:34:46 buildings?

18:34:55 Okay, thank you.

18:35:04 Let me just see how I labeled them.

18:35:07 PD to the north is two story.

18:35:09 This is two story and 25 feet.

18:35:12 A two-story but maximum at 35 feet the one immediately

18:35:15 to the east.

18:35:21 The one -- 18 will allow 35 feet.

18:35:23 This two-story is at 30 feet.

18:35:27 This two-story admittedly to the west is 21 feet to the

18:35:29 top of the building and 35 feet to the architectural

18:35:33 features so it has tower elements as well.

18:35:37 And then the RM-24 would allow you at 60 feet.

18:35:39 So --

18:35:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thanks.

18:35:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?

18:36:06 >> Council, can you see that?

18:36:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I can see it but I can't read it.

18:36:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We have it.

18:36:14 In the back of your picture.

18:36:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have it.

18:36:18 >>GWEN MILLER: On the back of the picture.

18:36:20 >> Basically what we have done adjust the footprint of

18:36:24 each of these buildings to accommodate the grand trees.

18:36:27 And the trees that we are taking out are the ones in

18:36:28 poor condition.

18:36:31 The reason you are seeing those large numbers on the

18:36:34 debit table is because they are grand trees, but they

18:36:36 are so hazardous, the staff had recommended that we

18:36:37 take them out.

18:36:40 It wasn't something that we were trying to take down.

18:36:42 They are not healthy, and we had some other trees.

18:36:47 The tree that Abbye that was referring to that can be

18:36:50 saved in the entrance radius is being saved and as she

18:36:53 said it didn't transfer to the site plan.

18:36:55 It is on the other sheet, the only waiver we were

18:36:59 asking for was for the dumpster enclosure and that was

18:37:01 to save two trees.

18:37:03 So we are sandwiching in between two of them and

18:37:06 requesting that that buffer waiver be reduced in order

18:37:08 to save the two adjacent trees.

18:37:11 The property is split in half with Hubert Avenue in the

18:37:16 middle and this side over here is the Eastern side of

18:37:18 the property where there are two units.

18:37:22 All of the park something underneath the building and

18:37:25 it is fully screened and screened by a wall that comes

18:37:28 down and landscaping, so you are not going to see cars

18:37:31 as you typically would in -- in an open site plan with

18:37:32 surface parking.

18:37:35 So everything is screened, and there is security gating

18:37:38 so when you come in, especially for elderly people that

18:37:41 want to stay there, they can drive into the facility,

18:37:44 be safe and secure, have their car underneath cover so

18:37:47 it is not out in the rain, and take the elevator up to

18:37:49 their -- to their unit.

18:37:53 So it is -- it is a very sensitive design in that

18:37:54 respect.

18:38:01 This is the -- is the elevation to give you an idea of

18:38:06 the -- the design scheme so it basically is single

18:38:07 family residential in size and scale.

18:38:10 The only thing that takes it above the 35 feet are the

18:38:15 architectural features, and the pitch of the roofs are

18:38:16 not high.

18:38:19 So you have towers along the elevators elements and the

18:38:22 end elements that take it up and give it some relief,

18:38:27 but basically it is a 35-foot-high building with the

18:38:31 roofs included makes it 38 feet and the tower elements

18:38:39 take it above that.

18:38:42 We have I think addressed and are mitigating for a

18:38:43 Transportation impact.

18:38:47 The analysis showed that the level of service was a

18:38:54 when we started this project in its intensity and it

18:38:57 remains level of service A.

18:39:01 It cannot be better level of service for any project.

18:39:04 We are not near level of service about on any of these

18:39:05 sections.

18:39:07 Off-site there are level of services that are impacted

18:39:08 but not by this project.

18:39:11 They are at higher levels of service, but they are that

18:39:12 -- they are at that level now.

18:39:14 There is nothing from this project that is contributing

18:39:15 to that.

18:39:20 We have agreed to pay a mitigation fee to the

18:39:22 Transportation department, and we will put that note on

18:39:24 -- on the plan.

18:39:27 As far as the legal description.

18:39:30 The objection that staff have are technical objections

18:39:34 which easily corrected.

18:39:37 The 24-inch oak is already on the plan being saved.

18:39:40 The mitigation note, we have already committed to that

18:39:43 in the Transportation analysis, and the Bollards around

18:39:46 the solid waste dumpster, that is a design issue which

18:39:49 is easily resolved.

18:39:51 We are quite grateful we don't have more serious issues

18:39:53 to deal with.

18:39:56 In terms of the project itself, it services an area

18:40:00 which is designed by the Planning Commission and its

18:40:04 purpose is to serve the business district.

18:40:07 The long range goal is to be a higher density area.

18:40:12 We are proposing a development, a density of 30 units

18:40:16 per acre and not the 35 which would be allowed under

18:40:16 this land use category.

18:40:19 And since it is a PD and not a straight rezoning, the

18:40:22 City Council will always have the ability to weigh in

18:40:24 on any density changes.

18:40:27 Typically we -- you know, when we are in this process,

18:40:31 we are trying -- and as I said, we are meeting with the

18:40:33 neighborhood association for eight months and tweaking

18:40:37 this design, making it look right, making it feel

18:40:41 right, making the size and scale pedestrian in nature.

18:40:49 I have given you this -- this design here which --

18:40:51 which is the larger version.

18:40:55 And then you see some of the higher elements of the

18:40:59 stair towers at the end that take the height up.

18:41:01 It is not the living areas that are that high, it is

18:41:05 the other support elements.

18:41:07 With respect to the -- the significance of this

18:41:08 project.

18:41:12 It takes -- it takes vacant land and turns it into

18:41:13 housing.

18:41:17 And housing at this time in this age in dire straits

18:41:23 and needs to be provided.

18:41:26 Most people are not buying or selling homes anymore but

18:41:27 they are renting.

18:41:29 And this provides that level of service that people are

18:41:30 looking for.

18:41:34 With respect to the Transportation analysis, and I

18:41:39 think we showed you briefly that this has limited

18:41:40 access.

18:41:45 We have restricted the access to two points off of

18:41:50 Hubert street so that the entryways are opposing each

18:41:52 other and they are not going to be dumping large volume

18:41:55 of traffic on to other streets.

18:41:57 As they come in, they are captured whether you are

18:42:00 going east or west depending on which building you are

18:42:03 in and they remain there.

18:42:07 So I certainly would reserve any time for rebuttal, but

18:42:08 it is a sensitive project.

18:42:11 It is a very attractive project, and that one a lot of

18:42:19 time and consideration has gone into.

18:42:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

18:42:23 Anyone from the public wish to come forward and address

18:42:25 this issue at this time may come forward.

18:42:28 You have three minutes.

18:42:31 Anyone -- anyone want to address Council.

18:42:33 Come forward, please.

18:42:35 Anybody else?

18:42:40 >> Richard -- 3907 west Gray Street and, yes, I have

18:42:41 been sworn.

18:42:44 I spoke earlier and I am going to speak about it again.

18:42:49 This is just too much for the -- for that area.

18:42:52 You got -- on one side Lois Avenue.

18:42:56 Single family residential neighborhood and now

18:43:00 Westshore Palms by allowing all of this new,

18:43:05 three-story units going up, it is going to start coming

18:43:06 over.

18:43:10 Regardless of what anybody says, it is going to affect

18:43:11 our neighborhood.

18:43:13 Traffic, it is going to be horrendous on Gray Street.

18:43:17 People heading South on Dale Mabry, they get to that

18:43:19 apartment complex or condo unit, whatever you call it,

18:43:22 they will cut down Gray Street where that light is and

18:43:24 they will cross Lois Avenue, and there is going to be

18:43:25 more accidents.

18:43:28 There are already a lot of accidents on Lois in that

18:43:30 area as it is.

18:43:34 As far as the park being utilized, I utilize that park

18:43:36 all the time with my nephew.

18:43:40 And as you saw the picture that staff showed, there

18:43:43 were cars there.

18:43:44 People -- our neighborhood has been against it from the

18:43:46 beginning.

18:43:49 We have never been invited to a meeting to go over any

18:43:50 of the plans for this.

18:43:51 Never.

18:43:53 Never have we been invited.

18:43:58 So as far as them working with the neighborhood, yes,

18:44:00 they worked with Westshore Palms only.

18:44:04 No other neighborhood.

18:44:07 Or neighborhoods as far as Beach Park, they are

18:44:07 against.

18:44:10 Although they are not here tonight but I know they are

18:44:11 against it.

18:44:14 North bon air was against before, and we will be

18:44:15 against it now, thank you.

18:44:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Richard, what block of gray are you

18:44:19 on?

18:44:20 >> I am on 3900.

18:44:22 Right at gray and church.

18:44:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

18:44:27 [Inaudible]

18:44:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public wish to

18:44:33 address?

18:44:40 Yes, come forward.

18:44:45 >> Hi, Carmen DePalma, 209 sort Hubert and the

18:44:46 President of the Westshore Palms neighborhood

18:44:47 association.

18:44:49 I also spoke earlier.

18:44:53 We believe that this project is going to be an asset.

18:44:58 It is going to be providing sidewalks that will match

18:45:01 up to the sidewalks at the park and further down on

18:45:02 Hubert where I live.

18:45:06 We like the idea of apartments buildings because it

18:45:09 provides rental in a nice area.

18:45:12 The fact that it has an elevator is really great,

18:45:15 because they are apartment buildings but not very many

18:45:19 that have an elevator so provides for seniors.

18:45:21 And I think it is -- the way that they have worked with

18:45:24 us to -- especially to hide all the cars and stuff, I

18:45:27 think it is -- it is a great plan, and we hope that you

18:45:28 will see it that way.

18:45:30 Thank you.

18:45:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?

18:45:35 Okay, a motion to close.

18:45:36 >> So moved.

18:45:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am sorry.

18:45:39 >> I guess it is me.

18:45:42 I am Carlton polk, President of the Westshore Palms

18:45:43 Neighborhood Association.

18:45:47 Live at 211 North Hesperdes.

18:45:51 As I said before we are for that development.

18:45:54 And it will take out some more vacant lots, which we

18:45:56 have a lot of vacant lots in our neighborhood right

18:45:57 now.

18:46:03 And, you know, we did invite North Bonaire to our

18:46:08 Christmas party and Mr. Johnson was there, you know,

18:46:09 with his development.

18:46:11 So, thanks.

18:46:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Michelini, do you have anything

18:46:16 else you want to say?

18:46:17 >> No, sir.

18:46:20 We respectfully request your approval and it is a great

18:46:22 project and we met all the criteria.

18:46:25 We commit to making changes between first and second

18:46:27 reading on the site.

18:46:30 So we will have those back in front of you with the

18:46:31 correct language.

18:46:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't know what the outcome will be,

18:46:35 should it pass, I suggest you meet with the other

18:46:37 Neighborhood Association and try to get some input.

18:46:38 >> Yes, sir.

18:46:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:46:45 Mr. Caetano.

18:46:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I move for

18:46:48 approval.

18:46:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for Mr.

18:46:52 Michelini.

18:46:56 I didn't do the math to figure out what is the setback

18:46:58 on either side of Hubert street as the structures.

18:47:00 I know that the height will be 38 feet.

18:47:06 I'm trying to get a sense of what the feeling will be

18:47:09 on the building on either side of the street.

18:47:13 I didn't know what the setbacks were from Hubert to the

18:47:14 actual structure.

18:47:17 >> On the Elmo, if you look at the back side of the

18:47:19 elevation that we provided you, you can see the

18:47:21 relationship between the buildings.

18:47:24 They are not -- they are not right up against each

18:47:25 other.

18:47:28 This is at least 25 to 30 feet between buildings here,

18:47:31 and the other someone all the way across on the other

18:47:32 side of the street.

18:47:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So from the building on the east

18:47:38 side of the street to the building on the west side --

18:47:41 >> Probably 75 feet or so.

18:47:45 You got the right-of-way which is 60 feet.

18:47:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh I thought he said the

18:47:48 right-of-way was much smaller.

18:47:51 >> He said the pavement, the pavement itself is 20 feet

18:47:53 which is normal width.

18:47:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For local residential.

18:47:57 >> Single lane road or two-lane road.

18:47:59 You have 60 feet of right-of-way.

18:48:04 So you are at least 75, 80 feet between buildings from

18:48:05 side to side.

18:48:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

18:48:08 >> It is very close to what you would have for a

18:48:09 typical --

18:48:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:48:11 Thank you.

18:48:13 >> Yes, sir.

18:48:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.

18:48:15 So moved.

18:48:18 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:48:19 Mr. Caetano.

18:48:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I move for

18:48:23 approval.

18:48:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have to read it.

18:48:29 [Inaudible]

18:48:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Have a second, yes.

18:48:36 Who seconded it.

18:48:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance rezoning property in

18:48:41 the general vicinity of 401, 403, 404, 405 and 406

18:48:47 Hubert Avenue and 4214 Gray Street in the City of

18:48:50 Tampa, Florida for more particularly described in

18:48:54 section 1 from zoning district classifications PD,

18:48:57 planned development, residential, single family

18:49:00 attached to PD planned development relation multifamily

18:49:02 providing an effective date.

18:49:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

18:49:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

18:49:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One thing and I am not discussing

18:49:09 this.

18:49:12 Those in the audience, this is democracy at work.

18:49:14 Some for, some against.

18:49:15 It will be the same way.

18:49:18 But you have seen some of us chit-chatting and what are

18:49:19 we talking about.

18:49:20 We are not talking about anything that has to do with

18:49:21 this plan.

18:49:24 In fact, I am not trying to be humorous but trying to

18:49:27 find out who the photographer and I am blaming these

18:49:30 colleagues that they hired them and they are blaming me

18:49:35 that I hired them and media photographer and I say the

18:49:39 media doesn't have money to have a photographer.

18:49:42 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is he your photographer?

18:49:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, sir.

18:49:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Not saying who it is.

18:49:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't want to know.

18:49:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Taking a lot of pictures.

18:49:50 The motion.

18:49:52 All those in favor signify by saying aye.

18:49:54 Opposed.

18:49:57 >> Motion carries with Saul-Sena voting no.

18:50:02 Second reading and adoption on February 4 at 9:30.

18:50:04 >>JULIA COLE: I want to interrupt the Clerk on this

18:50:04 matter.

18:50:09 A rezoning running a comprehensive plan.

18:50:12 The second reading cannot occur for 30 days ever the

18:50:15 approval of the comprehensive plan amendment.

18:50:18 So second reading would have to occur 30 days from

18:50:19 February 4.

18:50:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the second reading on the

18:50:25 plan amendment.

18:50:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: February 4.

18:50:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That will be --

18:50:30 >>JULIA COLE: I apologize.

18:50:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 30 days after the plan.

18:50:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.

18:50:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You are talking about March.

18:50:38 >>JULIA COLE: I apologize for not raising that --

18:50:42 >> Correction then the second read and adoption on

18:50:43 March 4 at 9:30 A.M.

18:50:45 >> Thank you, Council.

18:50:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

18:50:51 Okay, Council -- what I would like to do at this point

18:50:54 -- there are a number issues that we should go ahead

18:50:58 and dispose of pretty quickly that are no controversial

18:50:59 issues.

18:51:01 What I would like to do is take those because it

18:51:03 shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.

18:51:05 We do know we have one or two that are very

18:51:08 controversial and we will be here for quite a while.

18:51:13 My under standing is item 7, item 6, and I am not sure

18:51:16 about item 5, those are noncontroversial.

18:51:19 Let's take up item 7, and let's move -- get disposed of

18:51:21 that very quickly.

18:51:24 And then item 6 pretty quickly and then I am not sure

18:51:26 about item 5.

18:51:34 Okay.

18:51:42 >>JULIA COLE: Mr. Chairman just to clarify that.

18:51:46 You would like to take item 7 now followed by item 6

18:51:47 and discuss items 5.

18:51:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: See if it is controversial.

18:51:53 If it is controversial we will take it right away.

18:51:56 The idea is to try to get those items that are not

18:51:58 controversial out of the way so that people can go

18:52:04 ahead and leave and go home.

18:52:12 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 7 on your agenda, File No.

18:52:13 V09-401.

18:52:15 This is special use request for a place of religious

18:52:22 assembly located at 4021 and 4025 Palmetto street.

18:52:29 Mr. Garcia.

18:52:31 >> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

18:52:35 I have been sworn in.

18:52:37 One more time.

18:52:39 You will be used to it after tonight, I promise.

18:52:41 On the vision map.

18:52:43 I am only going to show the vision map the first time

18:52:45 and then I will go into the particular districts from

18:52:47 now on but just for this evening.

18:52:49 The vision map.

18:52:51 This particular site is located in the Westshore

18:52:54 district also.

18:52:57 Not too far off Dale Mabry to the west.

18:53:00 I am going to zoom in a little bit more.

18:53:01 So here is the site.

18:53:07 This is Palmetto street leading in to the site which is

18:53:08 right over here.

18:53:12 I am going to give you the aerial so you can see.

18:53:14 And this is -- if I am going to show the Future Land

18:53:18 Use Map, really Palmetto street should be like this and

18:53:21 when I do that and overlay this, you are really going

18:53:22 to see -- okay.

18:53:25 This is regional mixed use 100.

18:53:28 Reaching the highest classification all the way down

18:53:30 the central business district.

18:53:32 The highest land use category and what is really

18:53:34 interesting, it is right next to residential 10.

18:53:37 Boom, one of your lowest residential land use

18:53:38 categories.

18:53:40 That is what you have to basically deal with when

18:53:43 making some of these decisions over here.

18:53:51 So here is boy scout and Palmetto leading into the

18:53:51 church.

18:53:53 This is cypress -- this is spruce and this is basically

18:53:58 Lois leading to International mall over here.

18:54:02 And basically have -- as I told you earlier before you

18:54:04 have different kind of neighborhoods and density and

18:54:08 intensity and Westshore Palms have a higher density

18:54:09 potential.

18:54:11 And Lincoln gardens garden city residential

18:54:14 neighborhood so we are really looking at a traditional

18:54:17 neighborhood that has been around for a long period of

18:54:20 time and in between, you know, Dale Mabry highway, but

18:54:22 it is a nice little community.

18:54:24 Very clean and well-kept.

18:54:27 What you have over here is a playground activity center

18:54:31 and a terminus a dead and they is difficult from design

18:54:31 aspect.

18:54:35 Off church which will go ahead and expand.

18:54:39 It is a community-serving use.

18:54:44 And as you know the expansion of an existing use.

18:54:45 Planning Commission has looked at this based on the

18:54:46 use.

18:54:50 The use is consistent and allowable as serving use in

18:54:52 the area and all types of uses such as this are allowed

18:54:56 in the residential 10 land use categories as are

18:55:01 daycare centers and ACLS.

18:55:04 And serving the population of those with special needs.

18:55:06 The Planning Commission staff based on these facts find

18:55:10 the proposed plan consistent with the comprehensive

18:55:10 plan.

18:55:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by Council?

18:55:22 Abbye.

18:55:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY: As Mr. Garcia just alluded --

18:55:28 Abbye Feeley, Land Development.

18:55:31 It is of an expansion existing place of religious

18:55:36 assembly west Palmetto to ex-and from 235 feet to 325

18:55:45 feet the building setbacks, 20-foot South, 17 foot west

18:55:47 and 52 foot east.

18:55:50 Vehicular access will be located on west Palmetto.

18:55:54 This is an interesting special use.

18:55:58 They actually have a lease for parking from the city

18:56:01 adjacent from this property.

18:56:04 We will show you that they require 98 spaces.

18:56:06 They have 38 on-site.

18:56:08 They have 28 that is through that lease.

18:56:14 So they are deficient and they do have a waiver for

18:56:16 what appears to be a large percentage on that plan,

18:56:19 because should that lease ever be terminated the

18:56:22 reality is need a full waiver to the space they

18:56:23 actually have on-site.

18:56:26 The waiver they have is from 98 spaces to 38 spaces for

18:56:28 parking.

18:56:30 And as you though Christ religious assembly requires

18:56:34 all yards at 40 feet except the front yard, so they

18:56:37 have waiver requests for the setback from 40 feet to 17

18:56:41 in the west, 40 feet to 20 feet on the south.

18:56:45 And the permission to access to a local street.

18:56:49 Go ahead and show you some pictures.

18:56:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, I was looking for

18:56:54 that abbreviated version.

18:56:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Okay.

18:57:02 I need them to revise the site plan to show us the 235

18:57:04 feet.

18:57:07 They are currently showing 150 as existing.

18:57:11 And then there was some small confusion on the linear

18:57:14 frontage for their parking area.

18:57:17 When Mary calculated she included the lease lot, and I

18:57:22 wanted them to -- it should only be their own property.

18:57:23 Those revisions.

18:57:26 Would you like to see the pictures?

18:57:28 Okay.

18:57:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold it for rebuttal.

18:57:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, petitioner.

18:57:36 Is the petitioner here?

18:57:39 Petitioner?

18:57:47 Pastor from the church?

18:57:51 Come on down.

18:57:53 State your name for the record.

18:57:58 And ask us for approval.

18:58:02 >> It is Pastor Anthony Green and we are asking for

18:58:03 approval.

18:58:05 [Laughter]

18:58:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And you have people from your

18:58:09 congregation that are here in support.

18:58:11 Stand up.

18:58:12 >> Yes, sir.

18:58:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:58:14 Thank you.

18:58:17 Thank you very much.

18:58:18 >> Thank you.

18:58:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public who is in

18:58:21 opposition to this petition?

18:58:26 Anyone here in opposition want to speak to Council.

18:58:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Now you made them rise and sit.

18:58:33 >> Move to close.

18:58:33 >> Second.

18:58:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:58:37 Miss Miller.

18:58:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you will Chairman I move an

18:58:44 ordinance approving a Special Use Permit S-2 for a

18:58:48 special place of religious assembly and single family

18:58:53 in the general vicinity of 4021 and 4025 West Palmetto

18:58:56 Street in the City of Tampa, Florida.

18:58:59 As prescribed in section 1 providing an effective date.

18:59:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Also includes all the revisions that

18:59:04 need to be made as well stated by staff.

18:59:05 Moved and seconded.

18:59:07 Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

18:59:10 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:59:12 Opposed?

18:59:14 >> Motion carried unanimously.

18:59:17 Second reading and adoption on February 4 at 9:30 A.M.

18:59:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 6.

18:59:26 >> Council, item 6 on your agenda this evening is a

18:59:31 rezoning request from PD to PD located at 3031 north

18:59:36 Rocky Point and 3002 north Rocky point in order to add

18:59:45 medical use to the existing office building.

19:00:12 >> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

19:00:13 I have been sworn.

19:00:18 Here is the land use map once again.

19:00:21 We are going to be three for three on this.

19:00:24 Believe it or not this is in the Westshore area, so

19:00:25 three in a row.

19:00:27 The third one is the charm, I guess.

19:00:30 I will be pretty brief on this one because really there

19:00:34 is no -- there is an existing medical building --

19:00:37 sorry, an existing office building that wants to add

19:00:38 some uses to it.

19:00:42 They want to use a medical use, I believe, to --

19:00:46 allowable use to the building itself.

19:00:49 So saying that very succinctly, let me go ahead and

19:00:51 show you where it is located at.

19:00:57 Here is the aerial of the site.

19:01:00 And here are the land use categories for you to take a

19:01:06 look at.

19:01:09 You have basically urban mixed use 60 and community

19:01:10 mixed use 35.

19:01:13 This is -- this is an environmentally sensitive area

19:01:15 and this is Residential-35.

19:01:17 So basically those are the land use categories that

19:01:20 exist in -- in the area surrounding the particular

19:01:20 parcel.

19:01:26 It is also -- it has a land use designation of CMU-35

19:01:29 and cg and office uses and talking about an existing

19:01:32 structure right here and basically a change of use.

19:01:34 Planning Commission staff found proposed request

19:01:36 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

19:01:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

19:01:43 Going good tonight.

19:01:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development

19:01:46 Coordination.

19:01:54 As he just stated a request for an existing office

19:01:54 building.

19:01:58 Many of are you familiar with the Rocky Point area, the

19:02:03 new Westin hotel that is out there that was just

19:02:03 completed.

19:02:04 It is beautiful.

19:02:08 They are asking to add medical office use.

19:02:11 Once uses are approved through a PD on City Council you

19:02:14 can not come through administratively and add

19:02:14 additional uses.

19:02:17 This is why they are really before you here tonight.

19:02:21 They are going to add 240,000-square-foot maximum of

19:02:31 medical office use, and -- I am sorry, 240,000 is what

19:02:35 is approved on-site, they will add a maximum of 37,000.

19:02:39 Under the new scenario they will be required 892

19:02:41 parking spaces and they have 925.

19:02:43 There are no waivers being requested before you this

19:02:45 evening, Council.

19:02:48 We have one modification, and that's to the solid waste

19:02:49 notes.

19:02:51 Solid waste does need that change to state the

19:02:56 40.1-foot-wide solid opaque door with a minimum height

19:02:57 of 6 feet.

19:03:00 Staff did find this request consistent.

19:03:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner.

19:03:06 Thank you, Miss Feeley.

19:03:09 >> Good evening, Jim Shimberg with Holland & Knight.

19:03:12 Thank you for taking us out of order.

19:03:15 Just one clarification, this existing building.

19:03:17 The only thing that will change are some of the

19:03:19 interior portion it was and asking for a maximum of

19:03:22 37,000 square feet of medical use in the existing

19:03:23 structure.

19:03:24 Nothing outside.

19:03:26 We don't have any objections as far as we know, and we

19:03:27 are asking for your approval.

19:03:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here from the public wish to

19:03:32 address Council about this project?

19:03:33 >> Move to close.

19:03:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

19:03:38 All in favor signify by saying aye.

19:03:42 Moved by Councilman Miranda and seconded by

19:03:47 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

19:03:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Chairman, I move an ordinance

19:03:56 rezoning 3002 and 3031 north Rocky Point in the City of

19:03:59 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in

19:04:03 section 1 of zoning PD planned development, business,

19:04:06 office area to have planned development, business,

19:04:10 professional medical office park area provided an

19:04:11 effective date.

19:04:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and moved and seconded by

19:04:15 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

19:04:19 All in favor signify by saying aye.

19:04:24 >> Motion carries unanimously and second reading and

19:04:25 adoption February 4.

19:04:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 5.

19:04:30 Do we have anyone in opposition to this project, item 5

19:04:33 -- anyone -- if we don't have any opposition, we can

19:04:36 take that up and get that out of the way and dispose of

19:04:39 it.

19:04:43 >> You just asked anyone opposition --

19:04:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone in opposition to File No.

19:04:47 Z09-42.

19:04:48 Okay.

19:04:51 Then let's roll.

19:04:59 We are on a roll.

19:05:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I would -- Abbye Feeley, Land

19:05:05 Development board -- I would like to submit this letter

19:05:07 of opposition for the record.

19:05:09 A lady with a young child who came in earlier this

19:05:10 evening.

19:05:13 I would like to submit that for the review.

19:05:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't have it in our packet.

19:05:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She just walked in.

19:05:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thanks.

19:05:22 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Council item number five, File No.

19:05:26 Z09-42, is a request for a rezoning at 3102 west Euclid

19:05:30 Avenue from PD residential single family to PD planned

19:05:40 development business professional office.

19:05:56 >> Tony Garcia Planning Commission staff.

19:05:58 I have been sworn.

19:06:00 There is the vision map.

19:06:02 Now I just want to finally -- we are in a different

19:06:03 area.

19:06:09 So this is in the South Tampa district.

19:06:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is that?

19:06:13 >> Going to be in the South Tampa district.

19:06:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am joking.

19:06:16 >> You caught me.

19:06:18 Good for you.

19:06:19 It is in the South Tampa district.

19:06:23 It is more an area of stability as far as our districts

19:06:23 are concerned.

19:06:25 What we are looking at in the district and what we are

19:06:28 recommending the district are more types of infill

19:06:30 projects, not necessarily projects that are going to

19:06:32 increase -- change a land use.

19:06:34 You won't see very many probably plan amendments

19:06:38 recommended for -- for either the South area or north

19:06:41 region of the City of Tampa as far as land use changes

19:06:44 are concerned.

19:06:48 Speaking of land use, here are your land use

19:06:48 categories.

19:06:51 The site is located on the southwest corner -- the

19:06:54 intersection of Euclid Avenue and South MacDill.

19:06:57 You probably recall we did some townhome projects that

19:07:01 came to you on this site of South MacDill some time

19:07:01 ago.

19:07:03 There is a little -- I guess would you call it like a

19:07:06 little village center almost to the South of this

19:07:10 intersection as we go a little further down and your

19:07:13 CMU-35 designation there.

19:07:16 This is Residential-20 and then goes residential 10 as

19:07:17 you go into the residential areas so a little

19:07:18 transition.

19:07:22 Just like a little -- it is not even really what you

19:07:24 would call a local neighborhood Commercial node.

19:07:27 Because really there is only one nonresidential use on

19:07:30 here which happens to be this site right here.

19:07:37 It is an office and basically I believe to expand the

19:07:40 office use that is currently there and will require a

19:07:42 change of the structure and I will not get into the

19:07:44 particulars as it relates to that.

19:07:47 I will let Miss Feeley get into that but I wanted to

19:07:50 let you know what the issues are as far as

19:07:50 compatibility.

19:07:54 We are talk about residential development and

19:07:56 development in this area and of a scale that is

19:07:58 reflective of whatever the land use category is.

19:08:01 This is Residential-20, which does allow the potential

19:08:05 for low density office redevelopment and development

19:08:08 that they meet locational criteria, Euclid Avenue is a

19:08:11 Commercial road and a collector road and MacDill Avenue

19:08:14 is also a collector road which as for consideration of

19:08:15 the use.

19:08:18 This is really an existing nonresidential use and they

19:08:20 are asking for expansion of that use.

19:08:22 This is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

19:08:30 Thank you.

19:08:39 >> I didn't know that was CMU-35 to -- to the immediate

19:08:40 South of the property.

19:08:43 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development

19:08:44 Coordination.

19:08:46 Let me go and show you, this is currently a

19:08:50 nonconforming use because functions as an office at the

19:08:50 present time.

19:08:54 When you rezone to a PD a house, which is what this is

19:08:58 currently under, it doesn't necessarily even in the use

19:09:01 on the property automatically becomes that as an

19:09:03 allowable use, the existing use on the property today

19:09:04 is currently office.

19:09:07 They are requesting to make an expansion to that

19:09:10 existing office instead of pursue the existing PD

19:09:14 on-site which would be a single family house.

19:09:16 There are four waivers that are being requested.

19:09:20 One is to reduce the required 8-foot vehicle use area

19:09:24 buffer from 2 foot 3 inches from the South portion of

19:09:29 the parking area South MacDill to 8 foot 4 inches to

19:09:32 the parking area adjacent to South MacDill.

19:09:34 Access of the property will be on South MacDill.

19:09:37 It is currently on Euclid Avenue.

19:09:42 Section 13.161 e a waiver of vehicle use area green

19:09:43 space.

19:09:46 27.130 to reduce the required buffer on the west from

19:09:50 15 feet with a 6 month to masonry wall to 7'3"inches

19:09:54 with a 6-foot PVC fence.

19:09:57 And existing structure that is currently there is going

19:09:59 to re90 existing building.

19:10:04 Section 27-246 to waive the required backup with 7 feet

19:10:08 utilizing a 30-foot drive aisle.

19:10:15 Mr. Garcia said it is shown here PD in green.

19:10:18 Cg and that is cg immediately to the South.

19:10:22 There are several PDs to the north along MacDill as

19:10:22 well.

19:10:24 These are predominantly office uses.

19:10:27 On the western side I will show you a couple of

19:10:32 pictures and residential on the Eastern side.

19:10:41 Here is an aerial of the property.

19:10:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Pictures or no pictures.

19:10:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Let me show you very quickly a picture

19:10:57 of the existing office.

19:11:02 Here is a view from MacDill.

19:11:10 See the several offices to the South.

19:11:11 Two-story townhomes.

19:11:18 Looking for just one other and that is the subject

19:11:26 property.

19:11:30 Staff found it consistent noon and modifications

19:11:32 between first and second reading.

19:11:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

19:11:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.

19:11:39 Can you put the picture back that you had up there.

19:11:40 >> Sure.

19:11:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You see currently and a little bit

19:11:45 of grass to the South and west.

19:11:48 When they complete the addition -- it was really hard

19:11:49 to read on the plan.

19:11:55 Will there be any --

19:11:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: It is very interesting and see -- the

19:11:59 parking that is currently in the front, that is all

19:12:00 going to be restored to grass.

19:12:03 And they are going to plant some pretty large caliper

19:12:05 trees there.

19:12:09 A minimum of 6-inch trees because they have some other

19:12:15 issues on the site.

19:12:18 So let me see if I can get that.

19:12:20 Euclid.

19:12:20 I pulled in right here.

19:12:22 A couple of parking spaces.

19:12:24 That will all be restored into green space.

19:12:26 An access off of South MacDill with two parking spaces

19:12:29 to the north, three parking spaces to the South.

19:12:34 There is currently a -- a drainage easement, a 10-foot

19:12:37 drainage easement and this is green and will remain

19:12:40 green because nothing can be put into that easement per

19:12:40 city.

19:12:43 And then those larger trees will be planted there.

19:12:46 So there will be some green space along that side as

19:12:47 well.

19:12:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:12:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No questions.

19:12:56 Council.

19:13:00 Petitioner.

19:13:09 You can give us the abbreviated version.

19:13:10 Feel free.

19:13:13 You have 15 minutes, but you don't have to use all 15

19:13:16 minutes.

19:13:17 >> Good evening, Rick --

19:13:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me -- excuse me -- well, -- thank

19:13:21 you.

19:13:23 Wait until -- okay.

19:13:24 Go ahead.

19:13:28 >> Good evening, Rick Hampton, design collaborative,

19:13:31 306 east oak avenue.

19:13:33 I am an architect for the project and I have been

19:13:34 sworn.

19:13:39 I will try to do the abbreviated version then.

19:13:43 As miss feeley said, the existing property is currently

19:13:45 zoned as a residential property.

19:13:47 That is the site plan for it.

19:13:50 And I can go through it.

19:13:54 Basically a 2800-square foot home with a 1200

19:13:59 square-foot garage and six-foot concrete walls around

19:13:59 it.

19:14:01 Approximates basically a compound.

19:14:03 I think you have seen these kind of homes when they put

19:14:05 them on busy streets.

19:14:07 There is very little green space left, and in fact the

19:14:09 garage can't go where it is currently shown.

19:14:12 It has to push further north because it is sitting on

19:14:14 top of the drainage easement.

19:14:17 So it is incorrectly drawn.

19:14:20 So that even reduces further the green space.

19:14:32 Our design is based on the concept that in 1952, Frank

19:14:36 pretty built a real estate office on that corner.

19:14:39 It was the real estate office for Palma Ceia.

19:14:42 There were very few homes built when it was originally

19:14:48 installed.

19:14:54 Did I flip past.

19:15:05 I went and pulled -- pulled the Sanborn maps that

19:15:11 showed his building in 1954, the Polk directories is

19:15:15 how we narrowed it down to '52.

19:15:19 So our design instead of tearing everything down was to

19:15:21 maintain the old building.

19:15:24 Not historic, but one of those been there forever kind

19:15:25 of structures.

19:15:36 So what we did instead was we left the existing

19:15:42 building, which you see here and then put in a new

19:15:49 two-story office structure that is attached to it.

19:15:52 We had other site constraints that we had to deal with.

19:15:55 One as Miss Feeley stated, there is an access currently

19:16:00 off of Euclid right here and an access off MacDill.

19:16:03 We have gotten rid of the access off Euclid.

19:16:07 As a matter of code, our entrance had to be 40 feet

19:16:11 from the end of the curve coming South on MacDill.

19:16:14 That forced it to be located right here.

19:16:17 We had -- there is no other place we can put it on this

19:16:18 site.

19:16:20 The yellow then is the parking area.

19:16:23 We have three spaces all the way South and two spaces

19:16:28 with a handicapped access a little further north.

19:16:32 The green, miss Saul-Sena answers your question as to

19:16:37 what is going to be green on this site.

19:16:40 We are actually -- there is -- from -- let me show you

19:16:45 the existing -- this will also answer your -- your

19:16:45 question.

19:16:48 This is the existing site as it is right now.

19:16:50 Here is the existing building.

19:16:52 That's the little wooden structure.

19:16:55 The gray represents what is currently paved.

19:16:57 So you can see what we are doing.

19:17:00 The concept was based on the comprehensive plan.

19:17:06 Euclid and MacDill both are collector roadways and are

19:17:10 -- and as such, we wanted to restore them to a green

19:17:11 corner.

19:17:14 Rather than having a paved corner as we have now, and

19:17:17 trying to keep the scale of the project down to a

19:17:19 residential scale.

19:17:23 Thus here and here are 9-inch trees and then we have

19:17:27 six-inch trees all the way around the corner.

19:17:32 Trying to green the space up as much as possible.

19:17:35 The style of the building is Mediterranean revival

19:17:36 which is in keeping with the neighborhood and in

19:17:39 keeping with the existing structure that is there.

19:17:41 It is pedestrian scale.

19:17:44 The existing building is one story.

19:17:45 The new building is two story.

19:17:48 I believe it is in the neighborhood of 25 feet high.

19:17:51 35 is certainly allowed.

19:17:55 Our coverage under the comprehensive plan is a mass of

19:17:55 65%.

19:17:58 We are at 48.

19:18:02 F.A.R. Allowed is .5, we are at .4.

19:18:08 The variances we are requesting were developed because

19:18:11 we decided to keep the existing building.

19:18:14 Once we did that, there was only one place we could put

19:18:17 the entrance as I have demonstrated.

19:18:22 Then we had to put the addition in.

19:18:29 The -- the two variances are this area here is not 8

19:18:29 feet.

19:18:31 We have reduced it.

19:18:36 And this area here in terms is not 8 -- in terms of

19:18:38 width is not 8 feet.

19:18:40 We rereduced it to get our parking.

19:18:43 We meet the parking requirement for this site.

19:18:46 We are not asking for any parking waivers as there is

19:18:48 no street parking in this part of the city.

19:18:51 So we have to park all our sites or all of our people

19:18:51 on-site.

19:18:58 The green space waiver of 145 feet is solely related to

19:18:59 those two islands.

19:19:07 In fact, we meet all of our green space requirement of

19:19:12 -- the requirement is 334 square feet and we have more

19:19:12 than twice that.

19:19:16 So none of our green space requirements are being

19:19:18 waived, the last is the back up.

19:19:21 Typically you have to have a 7-foot back up on the side

19:19:23 when do you a dead-end lot.

19:19:30 In lieu of that we stretched the parking lot north and

19:19:33 South an extra distance in order to allow the cars to

19:19:36 back out and go back out on to the street.

19:19:40 In response the letter which I just saw as you saw.

19:19:45 Honestly, I agree with what half of what she says.

19:19:49 The previous building is too big, too enclosed.

19:19:52 It was a PD that tried to come through on this site

19:19:56 years ago that was even larger than that.

19:20:00 That PD is 2800 square feet.

19:20:02 Ours is 1500 square feet.

19:20:05 I am doing the things she is asking me to do.

19:20:09 I am reduce the scale even further from what is already

19:20:12 approved by 1,000 square feet.

19:20:15 I have provided more green space than what is already

19:20:16 approved.

19:20:20 I kept the existing building, which is -- well,

19:20:23 sometimes a good thing.

19:20:26 For one comment I am afraid I have to disagree is the

19:20:29 comment about office space within this area.

19:20:34 This building was here in 1952 before she was born.

19:20:39 So -- and in her statement she says that office -- she

19:20:42 didn't expect to see office on this site.

19:20:44 It's been there for 58 years.

19:20:52 So I -- I am afraid I think it -- it is appropriate.

19:20:54 That basically concludes the presentation.

19:20:58 I apologize for rambling a bit but I did need to get

19:21:01 that in since there was some opposition to the PD.

19:21:05 And we respectfully request your approval of the

19:21:08 rezoning from PD to PD to allow for office on this

19:21:08 site.

19:21:10 Thank you.

19:21:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here wish to address Council on

19:21:15 this item?

19:21:17 This rezoning in anyone here.

19:21:19 Motion to close.

19:21:20 >> Moved.

19:21:20 >> Second.

19:21:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor by saying aye.

19:21:25 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

19:21:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a sensitive response and I

19:21:29 move for approval.

19:21:29 >> Second.

19:21:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will read it.

19:21:35 Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general

19:21:39 vicinity of 310 it west Euclid Avenue in the City of

19:21:41 Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section

19:21:44 1 presenting qualification PD planned development

19:21:47 single family to PD planned development business

19:21:49 professional office providing an effective date.

19:21:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It has been moved and seconded.

19:21:54 Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

19:21:57 All in favor signify by saying aye.

19:21:59 Oppose.

19:22:01 >> Motion carries unanimously.

19:22:05 Second reading February 4 at 9 a.m.

19:22:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The next two items are controversial

19:22:09 and contentious.

19:22:11 A three-minute break.

19:22:13 A three-minute break and we are coming right back.

19:22:16 Pardon me?

19:22:19 >> Item number 4 on Dale Mabry, the bank.

19:22:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is that the one?

19:22:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is someone here for item 4 in

19:22:28 opposition?

19:22:29 Item 4?

19:22:31 Okay.

19:22:33 , Let's take a break and take that up.

19:27:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Roll call.

19:27:55 [roll call taken]

19:27:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

19:28:02 Take up item 4.

19:28:40 >> They are here for an item that is not on the agenda

19:28:44 this evening.

19:28:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The item is not on the agenda?

19:28:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What was it.

19:28:54 Will you explain it to us.

19:28:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY: An item -- they wanted public comment.

19:28:59 I guess no public comment in the night meeting.

19:29:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, I am so sorry.

19:29:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Thursday morning is the only time we

19:29:09 have nonagenda items.

19:29:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sorry.

19:29:21 Something they wanted to talk about.

19:29:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I am sorry, Abbye Feeley, Land

19:29:24 Development Coordination.

19:29:29 Item number 4 on our agenda was File No. V09-456.

19:29:33 It is for a special use at 2101 South Dale Mabry

19:29:34 highway.

19:29:41 It is a special use for a bank with a drive in when --

19:29:49 drive-in window.

19:29:52 >> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

19:29:57 I have been sworn in.

19:30:01 Here is your vision map on this particular site.

19:30:04 It is located in -- I am going to start making you all

19:30:07 guess -- but that's okay.

19:30:08 That's correct.

19:30:12 This is in the South Tampa district which is one of our

19:30:14 districts of stability.

19:30:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All areas of the district are of

19:30:19 stability.

19:30:22 >> Instead of saying unstable, you are right about

19:30:23 that.

19:30:25 I need to find a different word.

19:30:29 Not what we would --

19:30:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Like Cuban coffee.

19:30:33 >> Whatever you like, Mr. Miranda.

19:30:36 The land use category for this particular site is

19:30:39 community mixed use 35 which is a prevalent land use

19:30:42 category along South Dale Mabry which is a mayor

19:30:47 arterial corridor represented by Commercial serving

19:30:54 uses and mid to high intensity office types of uses.

19:30:57 This is Palma Ceia west.

19:30:59 This the neighborhood over here.

19:31:03 The drop off in intensity is significant from CMU 35 to

19:31:05 residential 6.

19:31:08 Let me show you very quickly just an aerial and

19:31:11 perspective and context that reflects the Commercial

19:31:12 corridor.

19:31:15 And I will show you one of a little bit smaller scale

19:31:17 here.

19:31:20 This is plant high school to the southeast of the site

19:31:21 over here.

19:31:24 And, of course, Henderson Boulevard.

19:31:27 About three quarters of a mile to the north.

19:31:30 This is currently -- I think it is a different kind of

19:31:32 business.

19:31:35 There is going to be a bank as Miss Feeley said but the

19:31:40 special use is primarily because of the drive-thru, is

19:31:41 that correct?

19:31:46 Based on the requested use and finds the plan

19:31:48 consistent with the overall policies of the

19:31:49 comprehensive plan.

19:31:53 Thank you.

19:31:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development

19:31:57 Coordination.

19:32:00 Mr. Garcia is correct, the site is zoned cg Commercial

19:32:00 general.

19:32:04 A small portion of the rear is the RS-75.

19:32:10 It is for a bank with a drive-in.

19:32:13 He did show you the aerial.

19:32:17 Let me just show you the zoning atlas.

19:32:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The easiest way is it's the car

19:32:22 wash.

19:32:23 >> South side car wash.

19:32:27 Yes, it is.

19:32:31 And to tell you when it is 32 degrees outside and you

19:32:34 are taking pictures the Boston market smells absolutely

19:32:35 delicious.

19:32:37 Something about the cold weather.

19:32:38 But the South side car wash.

19:32:40 It is located on Dale Mabry.

19:32:43 This is the -- there is some strip Commercial

19:32:45 immediately to the South.

19:32:50 There is a bank with a drive-thru that mirrors the

19:33:03 property on the north side.

19:33:04 That is San Rafael.

19:33:08 This is -- if you were standing at the car wash looking

19:33:08 north.

19:33:10 There is the Boston Market.

19:33:13 [Laughter]

19:33:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And there is the steak and shake.

19:33:23 >> There is U.S. bank at this corner and what's

19:33:26 interesting is their four drive through -- three

19:33:31 drive-thru lanes and one pass-by lane exit on to San

19:33:34 Rafael.

19:33:36 Located on the South side of the building and come

19:33:41 together and empty out into Dale Mabry and an access on

19:33:44 San Rafael that does not interface the way it

19:33:45 interfaces here.

19:33:47 Just to show you that.

19:33:52 Down Dale Mabry, apropos -- used to be, there is just a

19:34:01 series of strip Commercial there.

19:34:02 There are two waivers.

19:34:06 Someone the access on San Rafael and the other is to

19:34:10 reduce the required separation from the drive-in window

19:34:13 from residential use from 50 feet to 15 feet.

19:34:18 A couple of findings of inconsistency.

19:34:20 One or two from myself.

19:34:24 The vehicle use green space measured on the 10 x 10

19:34:27 grid and calculations need to be provided employing

19:34:29 this methodology.

19:34:32 They also need to label the applicable direction for

19:34:33 all setbacks.

19:34:37 There was one error on there for the east.

19:34:40 Mary some comments on tree and landscape.

19:34:42 Their tree table needs to be updated.

19:34:43 I provided them with a template.

19:34:46 We require that it be in that template form and

19:34:49 standard so when it goes to construction services that

19:34:49 that's there.

19:34:54 The power line, trees also need to be addressed.

19:34:57 The Transportation needs the teller window to be

19:34:58 depicted.

19:35:04 And also for the queuing information to be clarified

19:35:06 and we will go over that with them.

19:35:11 And lastly to change the dumpster enclosure note to say

19:35:14 solid waste as they will not have a dumpster on this

19:35:14 site.

19:35:17 So with that being said, staff found the application

19:35:20 and petition request consistent with the special use

19:35:23 criteria.

19:35:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?

19:35:25 Councilman Dingfelder.

19:35:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:35:32 Transportation.

19:35:36 The -- I know the existing car wash is sort of a

19:35:41 free-for-all in terms of -- in terms of access.

19:35:44 I am not even sure there are curbs left anymore.

19:35:47 It just sort of looks like you come and go pretty much

19:35:49 randomly across -- across the whole thing.

19:35:52 That might be my imagination, but that's sort of my

19:35:54 perception of it.

19:35:58 But anyway, we are directing -- or basically

19:36:06 encouraging the traffic to come in on San Rafael, all

19:36:08 -- pretty much all the traffic, especially the

19:36:12 drive-thru traffic come in on San Rafael side on the

19:36:14 residential side.

19:36:17 And then to exit on the Dale Mabry side.

19:36:20 Was there any way to go in and out on Dale Mabry or is

19:36:24 the D.O.T. not going to allow two cuts there.

19:36:24 >> Transportation.

19:36:25 I have been sworn.

19:36:29 Yes, D.O.T. will not allow that.

19:36:34 We have them coming in on San Rafael and exiting on

19:36:39 Dale Mabry instead of exiting on San Rafael and because

19:36:41 of the neighborhood concerns.

19:36:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pretty much a D.O.T. requirement.

19:36:45 >> Yes.

19:36:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Abbye, one other thing on the wall

19:36:54 -- the house to the west looks like -- from the arrow

19:36:58 looks like a substantial house, swimming pool and the

19:37:02 whole nine yards.

19:37:07 Yeah, the buffering -- the buffering it looks like you

19:37:12 have a pretty good-sized swale.

19:37:14 Two things I guess I was concerned about was a -- was

19:37:17 the height of the wall is 6 feet was there any

19:37:22 discussion of an 8-foot -- probably an 8-foot wall.

19:37:24 Grown that has come up for discussion.

19:37:28 I know we only require 6 foot in a typical setting like

19:37:28 that.

19:37:32 And secondly, lighting.

19:37:35 Did we speak to lighting in the -- in the notes of the

19:37:39 site plan?

19:37:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I wanted to clarify, there is full

19:37:45 access on both San Rafael and Dale Mabry.

19:37:46 There is an in and out on both.

19:37:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, but looking at the way it is

19:37:51 really configured --

19:37:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY: You would have to come in on Dale

19:37:55 Mabry and go all the way around the building.

19:37:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A right and left and then come

19:37:58 around the building, I mean, I don't know.

19:38:01 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This is -- this is the house

19:38:03 immediately adjacent.

19:38:07 What was interesting -- I was showing Kathy this.

19:38:09 There is like a little barn.

19:38:11 Don't know if -- in the back there.

19:38:14 This would be what is adjacent to that area.

19:38:15 So the house is set back there.

19:38:17 I didn't see a swimming pool.

19:38:21 It is for sale not that that matters.

19:38:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The overhead aerial shot shows a

19:38:26 swimming pool.

19:38:27 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Oh, yes.

19:38:28 I see what you are talking about.

19:38:31 We really didn't talk about an 8-foot wall.

19:38:33 I don't know if staff normally brings that up.

19:38:38 It is very obtrusive sometimes especially when you have

19:38:40 a carport or something that is only set back a little

19:38:41 bit from the property line.

19:38:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the directional lighting.

19:38:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Directional light something a code

19:38:46 requirement.

19:38:49 When they go in for permitting, they are required any

19:38:52 lighting that occurs in the west end of the property to

19:38:57 have that directed at an acceptable rate for the

19:39:00 adjacent property adjacent.

19:39:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who looks at that.

19:39:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Construction services division.

19:39:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean, do they really look at

19:39:06 that.

19:39:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.

19:39:10 Put that on the record.

19:39:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions?

19:39:15 Petitioner.

19:39:22 >> I am Gary Boucher, zoning engineer, Indiana Avenue,

19:39:23 Palm Harbor.

19:39:24 I have been sworn.

19:39:28 Basically we want to take down a car wash and request a

19:39:31 special use for the drive through.

19:39:34 We think we have done a good job on the layout and can

19:39:38 accommodate all issues and we commit to make the

19:39:40 changes -- the changes between first and second

19:39:41 reading.

19:39:44 And we are here to answer any questions that you have.

19:39:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any question by Council?

19:39:50 Anyone here in opposition to this petition?

19:39:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Quick question.

19:39:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone in opposition.

19:39:56 Anyone need to speak to Council on this issue.

19:39:57 Councilman Dingfelder.

19:40:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Abbye, did we hear -- that

19:40:05 neighborhood association on Palma Ceia west.

19:40:07 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Did I not receive any communication.

19:40:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They got noticed.

19:40:11 >> Move to close.

19:40:15 >> Second opposed, Nay those in favor signify by saying

19:40:15 aye.

19:40:16 Opposed.

19:40:21 Councilman Dingfelder.

19:40:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think some of us are going to

19:40:26 miss that car wash, but I guess that is not a factor.

19:40:28 So I will go ahead and move -- move the following

19:40:30 ordinance.

19:40:31 >> Second.

19:40:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: An ordinance requesting a Special

19:40:37 Use Permit S-2 approving a bank with drive-thru window

19:40:40 and Commercial General and RS-75 single family zoning

19:40:46 district in the general vicinity 7.2101 and providing

19:40:51 an effective date.

19:40:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

19:40:56 Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

19:40:58 All in favor signify by saying aye.

19:41:00 Opposed.

19:41:02 >> Motion carries unanimously.

19:41:07 Second reading and adoption on February 4 at 9:30 A.M.

19:41:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Down to our last item of rezoning.

19:41:22 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item 3 on your agenda is File No.

19:41:25 Z09-21 located at west lake avenue a request from

19:41:29 rezoning of RS-100 PD planned development to create two

19:41:33 single-family lots.

19:41:43 99 feet by 132 feet.

19:41:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Garcia.

19:41:58 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:41:58 Tony Garcia.

19:42:03 I have been sworn in.

19:42:08 Vision map and your specific district.

19:42:13 This is the South Tampa district.

19:42:16 More particularly, I would like to show you the land

19:42:17 use categories for this particular area.

19:42:24 This is located in the South Tampa area.

19:42:26 As you can see this is just a couple of blocks north of

19:42:31 Morrison.

19:42:34 South of Swann.

19:42:39 Predominantly land use designation for this area is

19:42:43 residential 6.

19:42:49 Just go ahead and show you the -- the aerial for the

19:42:50 area.

19:42:53 As you can see this is pretty much single-family

19:42:54 detached residential in character.

19:42:57 The residential 6, as I go back to the future land use

19:42:59 category, I would like to tell you that some features

19:43:02 of the Residential 6 category, the future land use

19:43:05 category, I am speaking of not the zoning district, the

19:43:09 future land use category are the characters single

19:43:12 family detached permitted approximately building

19:43:15 heights generally range from one to three stories and

19:43:19 the neighborhoods are more homogeneous in size, forms

19:43:21 and types with residential uses.

19:43:25 Garages and curb cuts along the frontage is very

19:43:26 common.

19:43:28 Notable opportunities within this district include

19:43:33 maintains neighborhood stability and also fostering

19:43:38 compatible infill for mobility and sustainability.

19:43:42 The rezoning to PD will allow the subject property as

19:43:48 Miss Feeley said in two buildable lots in excess of

19:43:52 13,000 square feet and I believe the reason for the

19:43:57 request is they do not meet the frontage under the r

19:44:00 S-100 and based on the residential category and those

19:44:04 features I told you about that residential 6 allows and

19:44:07 the nature of the infill and compatibility, Planning

19:44:09 Commission staff finds the proposed request consistent

19:44:16 with the comprehensive plan.

19:44:19 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development toward

19:44:27 nation.

19:44:33 As Mr. Garcia said, the petition 3310 west Salt Lake

19:44:37 City a request from r S-100 to PD development for the

19:44:39 creation of two buildable zoning lots.

19:44:42 We mentioned that 99 x 132.

19:44:47 The r S-100 zoning district requires minimum lot width

19:44:52 of 100 and minimum depth of 100.

19:44:55 These lots will be 99 x 132 feet so they will be over

19:44:56 13,000 square feet.

19:44:59 They just don't have the minimum lot width.

19:45:01 Therefore they are utilizing the PD in order to

19:45:04 establish to a 99-foot lot.

19:45:08 All other development regulation also -- will utilize

19:45:10 the r S-100.

19:45:15 All setbacks, height, accessory structures, everything

19:45:18 else will be developed on-site pursuant to the r S-100

19:45:18 standards.

19:45:22 Therefore the standard setbacks for r S-100 are 25-foot

19:45:27 front yard, 25-foot rear yard and 7-foot side yard.

19:45:28 Maximum building height is 35 feet.

19:45:30 The photographs of the surrounding properties were

19:45:40 provided for the proposed elevation.

19:45:52 I think I gave you all my zoning atlas sheets.

19:46:13 The subdivision which is the subdivision in question

19:46:17 this evening is eight blocks and starts at swann and

19:46:18 goes down to Morrison.

19:46:22 These eight blocks here and it is those eight blocks

19:46:25 that my analysis refers to and what I will be

19:46:26 discussing this evening.

19:46:28 As you can see the subject property is shown in green.

19:46:30 Within those eight blocks, there are several properties

19:46:34 that are zoned RS-75.

19:46:37 On the northern block here -- excuse me?

19:46:41 Oh, sorry.

19:46:44 Sorry about that.

19:46:46 The eight blocks -- yes, sir.

19:46:50 The eight blocks start up at Swann and run down to

19:46:54 Morrison and that it terrible.

19:47:01 They run Lincoln to Himes.

19:47:04 >> That is the original subdivision.

19:47:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The legal subdivision.

19:47:14 >> The property was subdivided back in 19 -- 1924

19:47:17 these lots were created.

19:47:20 So Gulfview Place was the subdivision.

19:47:23 When you look at the existing development pattern of

19:47:26 the area and we provide you with the red-blue map.

19:47:29 We provide you with the original subdivision and the

19:47:32 block we are talking about is block 5.

19:47:35 So I normally do all the blocks adjacent.

19:47:38 Had there been blocks adjacent I would have included

19:47:38 those.

19:47:42 I have Mr. Grandoff did the entire subdivision but I

19:47:45 did the six blocks in question immediately adjacent

19:47:46 which that is one.

19:47:51 So the lots were originally platted at 66 foot with the

19:47:56 exception of the corners that were varied from 72 to 78

19:47:56 feet.

19:48:00 You will see on the zoning atlas that there are several

19:48:03 -- there are four properties within the eight blocks

19:48:07 that are currently RS-75.

19:48:11 And there is one that is CG, which is at the corner of

19:48:15 Henderson.

19:48:19 The red-blue map that I just talked about looks at the

19:48:21 existing development pattern.

19:48:25 Everything shown on this map in blue is a lot that is

19:48:31 99.99 feet or smaller, and everything in red is 100

19:48:32 feet or larger.

19:48:38 The red conformed to the RS-100, and the blue do not.

19:48:43 Of the 61 lots that we analyzed not including the two

19:48:48 RS-75s, 33 of them are red which is 54% and 28 of them

19:48:51 are blue, which is 46%.

19:48:55 So 28 of the 61 lots have been developed, including the

19:49:04 lot immediately to the west at 99.99 feet or less.

19:49:09 This map -- I guess if you were to draw property lines,

19:49:12 the one you rode down the street, you would see if you

19:49:14 were red or blue, that's really what it is.

19:49:16 When you drive down the street, you don't see a

19:49:18 property line to know whether or not you are built on

19:49:23 100 or 98 feet or 96 feet, et cetera.

19:49:26 A lot of the legal descriptions are a lot and a half.

19:49:29 So if it was platted at 66 foot and it is a lot and a

19:49:34 half, it is 66 plus 33, which gets them to the 99.

19:49:40 And that is what a lot of the blue on the map is.

19:49:44 On page 3 of your staff report, you will find that

19:49:46 analysis.

19:49:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One question.

19:49:51 On these lots that you are talking about, 33 and 28, 54

19:49:53 and 46.

19:49:55 Are there any lots that do not meet the

19:50:02 10,000-square-foot?

19:50:06 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I would assume not, because the depth

19:50:08 is 132 feet.

19:50:10 They were all platted at 132.

19:50:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

19:50:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And while you are there --

19:50:15 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Okay.

19:50:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Actually Mr. Chairman you wanted us

19:50:20 to wait until she is done.

19:50:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yeah.

19:50:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I just want to make sure that I go

19:50:27 through -- really what you see on the site plan in

19:50:30 front of you and the purpose of this PD is the creation

19:50:32 of the 99-foot lots.

19:50:34 You will see a square on your plan on each of the lots.

19:50:37 That square is not a building footprint.

19:50:39 That square is a building envelope.

19:50:42 When you apply the RS-100 setback where possibly that

19:50:44 building could go on the site.

19:50:47 On the western side that has the large oak in front,

19:50:49 there is 22 feet on the bottom.

19:50:52 Mr. Riley was here earlier tonight.

19:50:55 There are limbs on that tree that will extend out and

19:50:58 he wants to ensure if there is a second-story house

19:51:01 that is developed there, that second story would be set

19:51:02 back 27 feet.

19:51:05 That was an item not included in my revisions but I

19:51:07 wanted to make sure they are here.

19:51:10 Also we would like a note added related to the trees,

19:51:15 and I have discussed all these items with Mr. Grandoff.

19:51:18 It is that a tree table for each lot is required at the

19:51:20 time of permitting including the trees identified for

19:51:21 removal and retention.

19:51:24 The best trees on-site will be considered for retention

19:51:28 including the 30-inch live oak, the 21-inch, the

19:51:33 13-inch cedar on the west parcel and 20-inch Magnolia

19:51:35 and cedar.

19:51:37 Given the property size and dimension these trees

19:51:39 should be able to be retained through the design

19:51:44 process through cut-outs, setbacks, underlations in the

19:51:45 building.

19:51:47 Parks and rec would like that added for the second

19:51:49 story on the west side for 27 foot.

19:51:53 And also that they review -- note be added that they

19:51:55 approve it at time of permitting.

19:51:58 Transportation needs a note that they will comply with

19:52:02 article 10 off-street parking and loading and all

19:52:04 information technical standards for driveways at the

19:52:06 time of permitting.

19:52:09 Since these are just building envelopes, we couldn't

19:52:11 have them put on will the driveways or things are right

19:52:12 now.

19:52:14 The purpose behind the PD is the creation of the 99

19:52:18 foot because of the 198 feet of frontage.

19:52:21 Just in my analysis, that red-blue.

19:52:26 The 61 was the total area that the analysis conducted

19:52:28 on the block face.

19:52:32 That is the lots -- the lawn life that contains the

19:52:36 subject property that is split 50-50.

19:52:39 One smaller than 100 to the west and 100 foot or

19:52:41 greater to the east and then vice versa.

19:52:44 So the block face as you can see has two blues and two

19:52:47 reds so a 50-50 split.

19:52:51 It is only one foot and given the development pattern

19:52:56 and that there is a series of both lots at 100 feet and

19:53:00 lots -- staff did find this PD appropriate according to

19:53:02 the PD criteria.

19:53:05 You can see that analysis on page 4 and 5 of my staff

19:53:05 report.

19:53:08 And I am available to answer any additional questions.

19:53:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.

19:53:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a couple of preliminary

19:53:13 questions.

19:53:15 You go back to the zoning map.

19:53:22 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Sure.

19:53:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So in the -- in the area that you

19:53:31 analyzed -- well, the area that you started with, the

19:53:38 eight block area, the original Gulfview plat.

19:53:52 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Need a highlighter but --

19:53:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Very nice.

19:53:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: That's it.

19:53:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So just for clarification, there

19:54:05 has been no PDs in that eight-block area ever?

19:54:07 Approved anyway.

19:54:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: that's correct.

19:54:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Have you known of any that have

19:54:12 ever applied?

19:54:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: No, I don't.

19:54:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

19:54:18 Might have been before our time perhaps.

19:54:19 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I do --

19:54:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, go ahead.

19:54:22 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Let me just comment for a minute.

19:54:25 As you know two periods of zoning conformance in the

19:54:28 City of Tampa, in the '50s and again '87.

19:54:34 Prior to '87, this probably was an R-1 or R1A.

19:54:35 I can look in my staff report.

19:54:39 It didn't become RS-100 until zoning conformance in

19:54:42 '87.

19:54:45 So there would have been development patterns, existing

19:54:49 housing that was there prior to '87 and houses

19:54:52 developed there after '87 that developed under the

19:54:56 RS-100 that were blue lots so to speak.

19:54:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was actually my next question.

19:55:02 Looking at the zoning map, there are PDs and there are

19:55:08 PDs to the -- to the east -- east of Lincoln, and then

19:55:12 there is PDs -- there are some PDs to the north and

19:55:12 northeast.

19:55:17 And then there are PDs probably to the west.

19:55:21 Some of them probably fall off the map.

19:55:25 But to reiterate, within that eight-block area there

19:55:27 are no PDs?

19:55:28 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Correct.

19:55:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What -- what is the -- what is the

19:55:43 side and rear setback in our code -- in our Euclidian

19:55:45 code for a RS-100.

19:55:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Exactly what they are using 7-foot

19:55:50 sides and 20-foot rear.

19:55:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all I have for now.

19:55:53 Thanks.

19:55:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions from the Council?

19:55:54 Okay.

19:55:59 Petitioner.

19:56:01 Has everyone been sworn that on to the is going to

19:56:02 speak?

19:56:06 If you have not been sworn, stand at this time.

19:56:08 If you have not been sworn, please stand if you were

19:56:13 going to be speaking tonight to the Council.

19:56:13 >>.

19:56:13 [Oath Adminstered by Clerk]

19:56:19 Thank you.

19:56:21 >> Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the City

19:56:21 Council.

19:56:24 My name is John Grandoff.

19:56:26 Suite 3700 Bank of America plaza.

19:56:29 And this evening I have the pleasure of representing

19:56:32 miss Vance Blanchard.

19:56:35 I am also joined by Mr. Jim Stutzman of Stutzman

19:56:39 Consulting and Mr. Lance Curry of our firm also.

19:56:41 Before I begin my presentation I would like to put the

19:56:44 site plan on the easel so you can see it and I can give

19:56:50 some explanation about it.

19:56:53 This is the site plan we have on file as of December 3

19:56:53 --

19:56:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Grandoff, you have to use the mic

19:56:58 if --

19:57:03 >> We have this on file and the site plan that has --

19:57:04 and can you hear me?

19:57:08 Is that better?

19:57:10 Let's step back for a minute.

19:57:15 Gulfview place platted in 1924, a vast majority of

19:57:16 66-foot lots.

19:57:23 Vance owns three 66 x 132-foot lots.

19:57:26 She merely wants to take one lot and a half and one lot

19:57:30 and a half to create two lots that are 99 feet by 132

19:57:36 feet and build a home -- sell it for building of a

19:57:37 home.

19:57:41 According to the RS-100 zoning district.

19:57:46 We have filed a PD because we are deficient in one

19:57:49 category which is the lot frontage that requires 100

19:57:50 feet.

19:57:55 Let me toss back real quick for the r 1 a zoning

19:57:59 category which was back in 1987 and zoning conformance,

19:58:05 go further back it became en vogue.

19:58:10 From then until '87 was r 1 a, the minimum lot width

19:58:14 was 60 feet and many homes in here that were certainly

19:58:20 complying with the 66-foot platted lot width and

19:58:21 complying with zoning.

19:58:25 1987 kept this as r 6 under the plan which meant you

19:58:28 had to have a minimum of 7,000 square feet per acre --

19:58:31 per lot which would allow six units per acre.

19:58:34 But you had to have 100 feet of frontage.

19:58:37 Now at that time, many homes were already built.

19:58:40 Some of them had been built as early as 1925 forward

19:58:43 through the depression, through world war II, through

19:58:48 the post world war II boom and through the '50s and the

19:58:49 baby boom.

19:58:55 I have a photo journal I will show but many of these

19:58:55 homes.

19:58:59 We simply want approval to build according to these

19:59:01 lots and the homes will look very much like what is

19:59:04 already on the Gulfview plat.

19:59:07 Some of the homes at 66 to 12 feet.

19:59:08 Some are 86 feet.

19:59:09 Some are at 99 feet.

19:59:14 Obviously some are at more than 100 feet.

19:59:18 The -- the building envelope merely shows that -- what

19:59:20 the setbacks are.

19:59:21 Let me get you oriented.

19:59:22 This is north.

19:59:23 Lykes Avenue.

19:59:27 There is a platted setback requirement of 35 feet.

19:59:31 So the building has to be 35 feet back, not the typical

19:59:32 25 feet.

19:59:35 And that's enforced by the plat and by adjoining

19:59:37 property owners.

19:59:42 Vance is honoring the 35-foot setback for home.

19:59:46 The 25-foot setback that is shown is the porch set

19:59:46 line.

19:59:50 And these two setbacks created in 1924 and we are

19:59:53 honoring that to preserve the vista down the street.

19:59:57 The side setback can be up to seven feet on each side

20:00:03 and the rear 20 feet which is classic rS-100 setbacks.

20:00:05 We are wide open to talking about further setbacks

20:00:06 being considered.

20:00:08 We will certainly consider that if that's an issue.

20:00:09 Let's talk about the trees.

20:00:16 In the entire assemblage, this is 13,000 square feet of

20:00:20 property -- this is 26,000 square feet.

20:00:23 Each lot will be 13,000 square feet.

20:00:26 There is one grand tree at the front of the western

20:00:26 lot.

20:00:28 That tree will not be taken down.

20:00:32 And we agree with Mr. Riley's suggestion of a 27-foot

20:00:34 setback from the second story of the home.

20:00:37 For that matter, we agree with the other suggestion by

20:00:42 miss -- by Miss Danowitz as to the tree table that

20:00:43 would be required as permitting.

20:00:45 That is automatically required anyway.

20:00:48 We will put that on the site plan.

20:00:50 We are merely asking for zoning approach this evening.

20:00:53 The remainder of the trees -- let's talk about the

20:00:55 trees that are within the building number.

20:00:58 An oak tree and an oak mystery and over here a Magnolia

20:01:00 and a cedar and an oak.

20:01:02 These are not slated for removal.

20:01:04 I have to show them on the site plan to meet the

20:01:07 requirements of the PD, and I have to also show the

20:01:08 building envelope.

20:01:12 We have a condition 7 here that says the building

20:01:15 setback -- excuse me for a moment.

20:01:22 Let me hand this to you.

20:01:23 Excuse me.

20:01:25 These are the conditions we have on the setback so you

20:01:28 may have them close by.

20:01:37 Please pass those around.

20:01:49 Okay.

20:01:52 Let's get down to -- to condition 7.

20:01:55 The building setback lines illustrate the required

20:01:59 yards according to section 27.77, City of Tampa code.

20:02:03 The principal structure for each home shall be designed

20:02:07 and built within the setback line as required in the

20:02:12 rS-100, the oak tree and grand trimming of this tree

20:02:16 shall be permit according to ASC standard, the American

20:02:18 National standard for tree care operations.

20:02:23 Very typical standard -- all protected trees on the

20:02:26 site -- other trees other than the oak tree -- all

20:02:29 protected may be retained or removed by the owner when

20:02:31 construction of the home is permitted according to the

20:02:33 final design of each home.

20:02:35 When each home was permitted for construction, the

20:02:38 owner will comply with chapter 134.

20:02:43 Landscape and tree planning requirements as in 13.161.

20:02:44 You are all very familiar with that.

20:02:47 A protected tree does not have to be removed but it can

20:02:53 be removed if there is enough tree table credit for

20:02:54 building site.

20:02:57 So when we come to permitting, we prepare a tree table

20:02:59 and determine which trees will be removed from the

20:03:02 home, or which trees may be kept depending on the

20:03:05 owner's preference.

20:03:07 That is a right that every property owner has in Tampa

20:03:10 today as to protect the tree.

20:03:13 But expect that the grand tree will not be removed.

20:03:16 A few other items.

20:03:20 We are going to follow permitting criteria for

20:03:20 Transportation.

20:03:23 That addresses the comments from the Transportation

20:03:23 department.

20:03:26 We have to modify note 10.

20:03:28 They want some more detail.

20:03:29 We will be glad to do that.

20:03:32 That is already required anyway.

20:03:35 There are other various typical zoning notes, location

20:03:38 of fire hydrants, where is the fire station, solid

20:03:40 waste will be collected at the front obviously.

20:03:43 Each home will be separately permitted.

20:03:45 This is condition 6.

20:03:47 And stormwater design for each of the two homes will be

20:03:49 in compliance with the City of Tampa stormwater

20:03:57 technical standards manual for the private developments

20:04:01 for section 1 b.

20:04:03 What does that mean that you have to meet stormwater

20:04:06 conditions and design the home so it properly drains

20:04:12 and you have to meet it within this building setback.

20:04:14 Step over for a moment and show you some photographs.

20:04:19 I took these photographs over several -- several weeks,

20:04:28 and what I have done is -- if you look at Abbye's study

20:04:31 -- let me have -- let me see this for a second.

20:04:36 Do you all have her -- her zoning study?

20:04:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have the red-blue --

20:04:46 >> That is one, on the red-blue map -- okay, okay.

20:04:49 I just need it for guidance here.

20:04:55 On the red-blue map, let me explain what I did -- is I

20:04:58 started at Lincoln and Morrison, and I went down

20:05:00 walking down Morrison.

20:05:05 I came up Himes, I went down Mullin, back to Lincoln, I

20:05:11 came down Lykes, went to Himes, I went down McKay, and

20:05:14 I included the houses on the north side of McKay also.

20:05:18 We all agree that there is not a significant amount of

20:05:20 building character on the north side which is Swann

20:05:22 Avenue.

20:05:24 And this being Swann avenue and Henderson Boulevard.

20:05:25 Okay.

20:05:29 So going through the neighborhood, we had the house

20:05:31 here on Morrison.

20:05:35 This is the Bell home which is a 66-foot lot.

20:05:37 And again these -- these are homes that would typically

20:05:41 be built in this neighborhood in which a prospective

20:05:44 buyer of these lots will probably follow.

20:05:48 I did not pull -- only one one story homes.

20:05:52 These are all two-story homes with significant

20:05:53 accessory structures.

20:05:56 The home on Morrison, 66-foot lot.

20:06:01 The Draper home on Mullins, 66-foot lot.

20:06:04 The Robins home on Mullins, 66-foot lot.

20:06:09 The Steinbrenner home on Mullin, 89-foot lot.

20:06:14 The Turner home on Mullin, 86-foot lot.

20:06:16 Focus on that home for a second.

20:06:19 That is a significant house.

20:06:24 Complies with RS-100 zoning district, but it is 14 feet

20:06:26 too short if you pulled out the ruler.

20:06:31 This home was built before 1987 and became vested when

20:06:33 zoning conformance came into play.

20:06:36 All of these homes I am showing you are vested or were

20:06:41 built on vested lots that were deeded after 1987 -- or

20:06:42 before 1987.

20:06:46 Beautiful homes.

20:06:51 The Alvarez home on Mullin.

20:06:54 The Anis property.

20:06:58 A vacant lot on Mullin and I believe Glenn.

20:06:59 72-foot lot.

20:07:07 Changed hands in -- changed hands in 2006 for $600,000.

20:07:11 Let that soak in for a second.

20:07:16 72-foot lot, 2006, changed hands for $600,000,

20:07:23 buildable today under the RS-100 zoning district just

20:07:28 as Vance plans to do.

20:07:30 -- home, 66-foot lot.

20:07:31 All beautiful homes.

20:07:35 A spectacular display of architecture.

20:07:40 This home that is immediately behind Vance's property,

20:07:41 66-foot lot.

20:07:43 I am going down Mullin.

20:07:48 The Evans home, 99-foot lot.

20:07:49 Very distinguished home.

20:07:54 The Mullin home, 99-foot lot.

20:07:59 The Melo home now on Lykes, coming down Lykes Avenue,

20:08:02 Lykes and Lincoln, 76-foot lot.

20:08:04 Nearly 24 feet short.

20:08:06 Very nice home.

20:08:14 The Garner home, 90-foot lot, diagonal from Vance's

20:08:14 property.

20:08:18 Very distinctive ranch-style home.

20:08:23 Next door to Vance's property is the Hanalin home,

20:08:24 99-foot lot.

20:08:25 Beautiful home.

20:08:31 The McGinnis home down the street, 98-foot lot.

20:08:36 Very expensive, somewhat ranch-style to the front with

20:08:40 a bungalow style to the rear.

20:08:42 Beautiful landscaping.

20:08:47 The Dyke home, 99-foot lot.

20:08:51 Beautiful home, beautiful wall on the front.

20:08:52 The Haynes home.

20:08:53 What you can do on 66 feet.

20:08:57 66-foot lot next door to the McGinnis home.

20:09:03 The Lorenzen home, 99-foot lot.

20:09:06 Beautiful home.

20:09:07 Seven-foot setbacks.

20:09:11 Just like we want to do.

20:09:13 Now I am on McKay.

20:09:16 The Shapiro home, 99-foot lot.

20:09:18 This is on McKay and Himes.

20:09:21 You can probably see this house if you are coming South

20:09:23 on Himes from henderson boulevard.

20:09:30 On the north side of McKay, the Mesina home, 66 into

20:09:30 the.

20:09:34 Georgian architecture, looks like it is right out of

20:09:35 Williamsburg.

20:09:40 The savage home, 66-foot lot next door to the Mesina

20:09:41 home.

20:09:44 Here is the Mesina house.

20:09:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When you are done you can organize

20:09:47 the parade of homes.

20:09:48 >> I really enjoy it.

20:09:50 It is a fascinating part of the practice.

20:09:53 You get to appreciate some nice architecture and I

20:09:54 spent a nice afternoon here.

20:09:59 The Newfeld home next door to the savage home.

20:09:59 66 feet.

20:10:02 The Skigis home, 99 feet.

20:10:07 The Flynn home, 66 feet.

20:10:10 And finally almost to Lincoln avenue, the Rosenfeld

20:10:12 home, 66 feet.

20:10:18 I didn't give you all the houses.

20:10:22 I probably forgot several houses.

20:10:28 Two-story distinctive architecture what you will see on

20:10:30 these lots but for one foot.

20:10:37 That's it.

20:10:42 Now if you go into Abbye's -- Miss Feeley's study, she

20:10:50 goes right to the zoning code and she notes that the

20:10:54 test in a PD -- when you are considering a PD under

20:10:59 27321-6 is the development quote accurate -- excuse me

20:11:02 appropriate in location, character, and compatibility

20:11:07 with the surrounding neighborhood.

20:11:11 You would -- please recall the photograph I have just

20:11:14 given you and when considering a PD, appropriate in

20:11:16 location, character and compatibility with the

20:11:21 surrounding neighborhood.

20:11:26 And Miss Feeley's report on page 2, additional

20:11:27 conditions we can add.

20:11:29 We can add those with no problem at all.

20:11:33 If you skip through her analysis of 321 that I have

20:11:41 reviewed, it comes to item 6 which I quoted.

20:11:45 And her finding of fact on the appropriateness

20:11:47 instruction is quote, pursuant to the analysis of the

20:11:50 surrounding area as discussed above, there are several

20:11:53 lots immediately adjacent and within close proximity to

20:11:56 the subject property that are less than 100 feet in

20:11:57 width.

20:12:01 Therefore the proposed lots fit in creation of two

20:12:04 99-foot lots are compatible with the existing

20:12:06 development pattern of the surrounded impacted

20:12:07 neighborhood.

20:12:10 And she also finds the proposed architecture is

20:12:14 consistent with the surrounding area.

20:12:16 Now how does she know?

20:12:18 I took many of these photographs and provided them to

20:12:21 Miss Feeley and her staff so they can review those as

20:12:25 an adjunct I said I provided to you as well and many of

20:12:27 those photographs are included in that essay.

20:12:32 May I have a few more minutes, Madam chair mill up to

20:12:33 Councilmembers.

20:12:35 >> To wrap up.

20:12:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Two more minutes.

20:12:37 >> Okay.

20:12:40 I will go to the conclusion in Mr. Garcia's report

20:12:43 which he summarized for you and he wrote that the

20:12:46 request is for a proposed residential infill

20:12:49 development that will result in two buildable lots each

20:12:54 over 13,000 square feet, exceeding the RS-100 by over

20:12:55 40%.

20:12:58 Remember the requirement is over 10,000 square feet.

20:13:00 These lots will be 13,000 square feet.

20:13:03 The only deficiency would be that each lot falls one

20:13:05 foot short of meeting the required frontage.

20:13:09 The request would recognize the existing residential

20:13:09 character.

20:13:11 Those are the photographs I showed you.

20:13:15 It is consistent with the comp plan.

20:13:16 In addition to being compatible with the existing

20:13:21 single family detached uses that are predominant in the

20:13:23 area.

20:13:27 The proposed request is compatible.

20:13:30 Poses no adverse impact and is consistent with the

20:13:33 comprehensive plan.

20:13:34 Let me look at my notes.

20:13:39 I believe I am wrapped up on that.

20:13:41 One more point.

20:13:45 In doing this analysis and looking at the plat, I

20:13:47 pulled all of the ownership.

20:13:54 The largest lot -- largest -- largest zoning lot is 208

20:13:58 feet with a home on it in this neighborhood.

20:14:04 The next largest is 198 feet, and it is Vance's

20:14:04 property.

20:14:09 And then another one on the corner of Swann -- excuse

20:14:12 me on the corner of Himes and Morrison and this is 198

20:14:13 feet.

20:14:16 So this one is 208.

20:14:19 Vance's is 198.

20:14:23 This is 198.

20:14:27 So there is the apex of lot width when you have a clear

20:14:32 indication and precedent for lots that are below 100

20:14:34 feet and certainly compatible with the neighborhood and

20:14:35 with each other.

20:14:37 I respectfully request your approval this evening, and

20:14:40 I would like to are have an opportunity at rebuttal if

20:14:41 necessary.

20:14:42 Thank you for your time.

20:14:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

20:14:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.

20:14:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.

20:14:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could have my little red-blue

20:14:49 map.

20:14:52 But in the meantime, what -- I don't know if you or

20:14:56 staff mentioned the history -- the history of this.

20:14:58 Is there -- is there a house on here now?

20:14:59 >> No.

20:15:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When was the last time there was a

20:15:03 house on there.

20:15:06 >> I think 2003?

20:15:11 2003?

20:15:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you can just repeat --

20:15:17 >> It was -- it was vacant when she purchased it in

20:15:19 2003.

20:15:22 There was a home on that was demolished, but it has

20:15:26 always been the three lots under one deed.

20:15:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She demolished it.

20:15:29 >> I don't believe so.

20:15:29 [Inaudible]

20:15:32 It was already vacant.

20:15:33 It was already vacant.

20:15:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She purchased when?

20:15:36 >> 2003.

20:15:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: With knowledge.

20:15:40 Zoning?

20:15:40 >> Yes.

20:15:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nothing else right now.

20:15:44 Thanks.

20:15:45 >> May I file this with you.

20:15:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Sure.

20:15:48 Give this --

20:15:53 >> For rebuttal -- what I am filing is I put the photo

20:15:56 essay I provided to you in a binder, and behind each

20:16:00 photograph is the property appraiser's printout

20:16:02 confirming the lot width and the ownership.

20:16:04 >>GWEN MILLER: anyone in the public who would like to

20:16:07 speak on this item.

20:16:10 If you were going to speak, please line up and speak.

20:16:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Somebody take the white map down.

20:16:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Come up to the mic and speak.

20:16:18 Start speaking.

20:16:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Abbye, take that white map down.

20:16:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't forget to confirm you have

20:16:26 been worn.

20:16:29 >> Rebecca Johns, I am here on behalf the board of

20:16:32 Directors of the Gulfview civic association.

20:16:34 I have an authorization that I would like to put into

20:16:43 the record, and I also have 84 signatures opposing this

20:16:50 rezoning from the civic association.

20:16:53 And I have been sworn.

20:17:01 Looking at this map, it is true that the red and the

20:17:04 blue look pretty even; however, all of those blue

20:17:08 properties with the exception of one were developed

20:17:10 prior to 1987.

20:17:13 As a matter of fact, most of them were developed prior

20:17:14 to 1960.

20:17:18 Looking in this area, there are no PD rezonings as

20:17:22 Councilman Dingfelder pointed out, and I don't know of

20:17:25 any recently that have come forward.

20:17:28 The board of Directors is extremely concerned about

20:17:30 setting a precedent for this neighborhood.

20:17:33 They don't want to be here two years from now looking

20:17:36 at this map that now has five or six PD rezonings in

20:17:37 the neighborhood.

20:17:40 They are concerned about the path that this is going to

20:17:43 take the neighborhood down and what is going to happen.

20:17:46 The residents of this neighborhood move here because of

20:17:48 the traditional character of this neighborhood.

20:17:53 There are few remaining RS-100 in the City of Tampa and

20:17:54 this is one of them.

20:17:55 They move here.

20:17:55 They stay here.

20:17:57 They raise kids here.

20:17:59 And their kids buy property in the neighborhood.

20:18:02 They buy the properties because of the character of the

20:18:03 neighborhood.

20:18:06 They want to stay that way.

20:18:10 According to the Tampa code, the purpose of a PD zoning

20:18:14 is to recognize unique conditions and allow development

20:18:16 flexibility.

20:18:18 Granting PD zonings, Council should give consideration

20:18:21 to potential adverse impact to the surrounding

20:18:24 neighborhood and Council should also promote and

20:18:27 encourage development where appropriate and location,

20:18:29 character and compatibility with the surrounding

20:18:29 neighborhood.

20:18:33 That is not the instance in this case.

20:18:36 PD zonings should be used in those instances where --

20:18:39 where the development is beneficial to the

20:18:41 neighborhood; however, it just doesn't have a place in

20:18:42 the zoning code.

20:18:45 Again, not the case here.

20:18:52 This PD rezoning is simply being used as a way to -- to

20:18:53 deviate from the zoning regulations.

20:18:55 This property is not unique.

20:18:57 No substantial hardship.

20:19:00 No legitimate bases for this lot to be divided into two

20:19:00 lots.

20:19:05 The Tampa comp plan also states that the policy in the

20:19:08 South Tampa district is to preserve, protect, and

20:19:11 enhance single-family neighborhoods.

20:19:13 It also requires new development to respect and respond

20:19:16 those existing conditions that contribute to the

20:19:18 overall character of the neighborhood.

20:19:23 That's all the Neighborhood Association is asking or

20:19:25 the Board of Directors is asking to be done, to

20:19:29 preserve and protect the neighborhood as is.

20:19:35 Looking at the proposed site plan, I realize that trees

20:19:39 are an issue that will come forth during permitting,

20:19:41 but there is no way that two homes can be put on this

20:19:47 property without impacting some of the trees.

20:19:51 You see trees all around -- around the perimeter.

20:19:57 Those trees will be impacted with two homes.

20:19:59 And just -- we just ask in conclusion if you are

20:20:02 inclined to grant this rezoning tonight, that you

20:20:06 impose a condition for ten-feet side setbacks.

20:20:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

20:20:09 Next speaker.

20:20:10 Quick question sir.

20:20:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For either side.

20:20:16 If I may ask a question, miss Johns.

20:20:24 How many parcels that are not -- in other words that

20:20:30 are not 188 or 199, how many parcels are left that are

20:20:34 singularly owned and that are larger than 100,000 -- I

20:20:38 mean 10,000 square feet.

20:20:40 >> You are asking how many are conforming?

20:20:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I know that number is on the red

20:20:42 and blue.

20:20:46 What I am asking is are those properties that are

20:20:52 conforming to the -- prior to '87 but after '87.

20:20:55 I am just asking -- I know you are a lawyer and good

20:20:58 one, if not, you wouldn't be here.

20:21:02 So I am asking how many properties of those in the area

20:21:07 would fall under the PD possibility, quote, unquote, to

20:21:14 be developed in this manner.

20:21:17 >> Well, looking at the red and blue, I don't have the

20:21:19 measurements for all of the properties.

20:21:26 But you can see that most of the reds are pretty large

20:21:27 properties.

20:21:29 I can't say that the property owners would come in and

20:21:33 request the same type of PD; however, I don't know

20:21:34 what's going to happen.

20:21:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that, and neither do

20:21:40 I, but I am looking at a single vast amount of land

20:21:43 that would be owned by one person, that would fall

20:21:45 under this criteria.

20:21:48 And I am looking at -- and I see maybe one other -- I

20:21:50 don't know if it is true or not.

20:21:51 But one --

20:21:57 >> I see one, two, three --

20:22:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, of those, 198 or less than

20:22:02 200?

20:22:04 I don't know.

20:22:06 I honestly don't know.

20:22:11 >> I do believe they are less than 200; however, right

20:22:13 now we are talking about a 99-foot lot.

20:22:16 I don't know that somebody is going to come in and

20:22:16 request --

20:22:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 66-foot lot.

20:22:19 >> Right.

20:22:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand.

20:22:23 >> They are just worried about --

20:22:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand the apprehension.

20:22:34 >> Any other questions?

20:22:38 >> My name is Colen Brandly, and I live at 3309 West

20:22:43 Lykes directly across the street from the subject.

20:22:46 I wrote a letter to all of you and to staff that I

20:22:50 think you received yesterday in is the second attempt

20:22:55 at this after they applied to get the RS-75 which they

20:22:56 with drew.

20:22:59 They are using their PD to change their zoning.

20:23:00 We moved there 15 years ago.

20:23:03 There was a single-family home in the middle of the

20:23:03 lot.

20:23:05 The owner passed away.

20:23:07 Since then three other owners.

20:23:10 Each time the owners intended to have a single-family

20:23:12 home on the lot.

20:23:14 Many people in the neighborhood, including us,

20:23:17 purchased here specifically for the protection RS-100

20:23:23 afforded us, ot at least we hoped.

20:23:26 It was always our understanding that the nonconforming

20:23:29 lot if you tore the house down you could not build

20:23:30 again if it was 75.

20:23:31 I could be wrong.

20:23:32 I am not an attorney.

20:23:35 I am not a land use person.

20:23:37 Want to make few points.

20:23:40 A lot of points being made of 66 feet.

20:23:42 Platting is a lot different than zoning.

20:23:45 Yes, in 1924 it was platted.

20:23:47 I would like -- I don't know if this will show up.

20:23:50 Does it show, no.

20:23:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes.

20:23:56 >> I only did Lykes Avenue, and as you can see there

20:23:59 are eight lots that fall under 100 feet.

20:24:00 There are 21 that are over.

20:24:07 Most of are 132 x 132 that sit in the middle of our

20:24:07 lots.

20:24:12 They are saying they will abide by the RS-100 setbacks.

20:24:15 I dare you to find a house on Lykes that is that close

20:24:16 to their neighbor's house.

20:24:19 Don't 66 foot that they keep bringing up.

20:24:24 There is one house on Lykes that is 66 feet wide on

20:24:25 the lot.

20:24:28 We think it is inconsistent.

20:24:31 It will be detrimental to the surrounding property's

20:24:33 aesthetic and long-term value.

20:24:37 I can tell you that people come into our neighborhood

20:24:39 and are amazed how many trees we have.

20:24:43 They can't believe this park-like setting exists in the

20:24:45 urban -- in the core of the City of Tampa.

20:24:48 We want to protect that.

20:24:51 I really -- I can't even say -- we were so stunned that

20:24:55 staff approved this because PD -- I have only seen used

20:24:58 for Commercial or multifamily, but in a residential

20:24:59 neighborhood?

20:25:02 They said this was primarily single family.

20:25:02 No.

20:25:07 It is exclusively single family.

20:25:10 An easy way to protect the trees on that lot would be

20:25:13 to build one house as the intent was all along.

20:25:16 I am trying to hit all the high points here.

20:25:21 I wish that will Grandoff would have gone down and read

20:25:24 the residence 208.

20:25:28 They are all listed there.

20:25:31 I think that's all my things.

20:25:33 Let me see.

20:25:35 We are very concerned that -- I know it is only one

20:25:35 foot.

20:25:37 We are concerned it sets a precedent.

20:25:40 And you can look back in history -- I mean I have lived

20:25:44 there for 15 years.

20:25:46 Our house was built in 1924.

20:25:50 We are all very proud of the historical character and

20:25:52 we take care of what we have.

20:25:57 And Abbye's study pointed out aptly, there is no PD

20:25:58 zoning in our neighborhood.

20:26:00 I think that is it.

20:26:01 Thank you.

20:26:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you submit that for the record.

20:26:05 >> My little list.

20:26:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Your little list.

20:26:08 >> Sorry it is so messy.

20:26:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we are going to rely on it we

20:26:11 should have it.

20:26:16 >> I prepared it with the RS-75 and kept it in my file.

20:26:18 Do I give it --

20:26:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We will put your name on it so it

20:26:24 will have some --

20:26:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.

20:26:35 >> Good evening, I live at 3313 West Lykes Avenue,

20:26:39 caddy corner from the subject property and directly

20:26:42 next door to who spoke with you.

20:26:44 I will echo what she just said.

20:26:46 I lived in the neighborhood for 22 years.

20:26:48 My home was built in 1926.

20:26:51 We have 166 feet of frontage on our property.

20:26:56 I did not do independent measuring as apparently Mr.

20:26:59 Grandoff and Miss -- Feeley did.

20:27:01 I am assuming that all of those measurements are

20:27:05 correct and the red-blue map is accurate.

20:27:09 I would like to suggest that you guys please focus --

20:27:11 if you look at that red-blue map, the majority of the

20:27:15 lots in close proximity to the subject on our street

20:27:16 Lykes Avenue are in fact red.

20:27:20 Most -- almost all the lots across the street are the

20:27:23 large estate type properties and we are very concerned

20:27:25 setting a precedent here despite what some of the

20:27:27 petitioners said.

20:27:28 It will change the character of the neighborhood.

20:27:30 It will set a very dangerous precedent.

20:27:32 We are very proud of this neighborhood.

20:27:36 It is a beautiful, historic, lovely picturesque

20:27:40 neighborhood with gorgeous trees, very estate-like

20:27:45 homes, and even with 99-foot lots with what they are

20:27:48 planning to do, two giant houses jammed on that lot

20:27:50 which originally as they said was a single-family

20:27:53 beautiful home, and that's what it was always intended

20:27:53 to be.

20:27:57 So we would respectfully request that you please deny

20:28:03 this.

20:28:04 >> Good evening, Council.

20:28:07 My name is Melissa Stedman.

20:28:11 I live at 3401 Mullin Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

20:28:14 I am very much opposed to this as well.

20:28:17 And I won't go into everything that I wrote, but

20:28:20 interestingly enough, all the pictures that Mr.

20:28:27 Grandoff presented this evening in his presentation, I

20:28:31 believe maybe every single one of those homeowners have

20:28:33 signed a petition in opposition to this project.

20:28:38 So I think everyone's biggest concern is the planned

20:28:39 development.

20:28:41 Allowing one individual to receive special treatment by

20:28:47 changing existing zoning designation is detrimental to

20:28:51 our surroundings homes and neighborhood and we would

20:28:54 appreciate it if you would deny this request.

20:29:00 Thank you for your time.

20:29:02 >> Thank you Councilmembers.

20:29:03 I am Jim Goodwin.

20:29:06 3306 West Lykes.

20:29:13 The property immediately to the east.

20:29:18 Like the property owner Vance, my wife and I bought the

20:29:22 property that we have moved into two years ago, but we

20:29:23 are not newcomers to the neighborhood.

20:29:27 My wife grew up around the corner.

20:29:28 She is here.

20:29:31 My wife's parents are here.

20:29:33 They live around the corner as well.

20:29:34 They have lived there for 40 years.

20:29:37 Her aunt and uncle live in the neighborhood.

20:29:41 And in fact I think you have everybody who is in the

20:29:44 neighborhood -- raise their hand.

20:29:48 So we have -- you see -- and we lost probably 10

20:29:49 people.

20:29:55 So we have got 40 to 50 people here tonight to show

20:29:58 how this is not compatible with the neighborhood.

20:30:04 And we have got a petition signed by I think 90 people.

20:30:07 So we have got another 40 people who are not here.

20:30:11 I think without exception everyone in the neighborhood

20:30:14 is opposed to this.

20:30:19 And you are going to put a PD right next to a property

20:30:23 that my wife and I bought two years ago.

20:30:25 Spent a lot of noun improve.

20:30:27 We have six children.

20:30:29 We -- we love this neighborhood.

20:30:32 And you can see how the people in the neighborhood love

20:30:34 it.

20:30:38 And please consider our request that you deny it.

20:30:45 Thank you.

20:30:54 >> Good evening, my name Becky Hewitt Rauenhorst.

20:30:58 I probably think that of all the people here in this

20:31:02 room gathered tonight, myself or somebody in my

20:31:08 immediate family, meaning my parents have lived at 3305

20:31:14 Mullin avenue where I reside today since 1951.

20:31:17 My parents purchased the property at 3305 Mullin avenue

20:31:22 which is directly behind the property in question to

20:31:27 accommodate me, and I was born in 1952.

20:31:30 So my husband and I purchased the property from my

20:31:33 parents when they finally decided they were too elderly

20:31:36 to live in this two-story house.

20:31:42 We purchased the property which is 165 feet wide.

20:31:44 We kept the property intact.

20:31:49 We left -- we did demolish the house and built a new

20:31:51 house which sits in the middle of the property.

20:31:54 We built a home in keeping with the rest of the homes

20:31:56 in the neighborhood.

20:31:59 We built it to look like an old home that had been

20:32:03 there since 1927 when the original house on my property

20:32:05 was built.

20:32:10 The other people who have purchased property in this

20:32:12 neighborhood have done so for the reasons that you've

20:32:19 heard, and the 66-foot business doesn't stand up

20:32:22 anymore and it really never did.

20:32:26 When my parents purchased the house at 3305, they

20:32:32 bought the 165 feet, and there was a lot on one -- a

20:32:35 lot on one side -- half a lot on the other and the

20:32:38 house sat on the -- on the remainder.

20:32:43 So those who have built new homes or who have added on

20:32:49 to existing homes have really tried to keep the houses

20:32:52 in -- in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, and

20:32:56 they have expanded on their homes and not cut them

20:33:00 down.

20:33:03 The one property that the anis family bought on the

20:33:09 corner of Glen and Mullin may be 66 feet wide, but they

20:33:13 bought it with no intention of ever building another

20:33:15 dwelling there.

20:33:18 They bought it to protect the -- the neighborhood and

20:33:21 the property next to them.

20:33:25 So I think we have a lot of history here.

20:33:27 I have grown up in this neighborhood.

20:33:31 I made my husband buy a house so that we could stay in

20:33:34 that neighborhood, and that's the way we want to keep

20:33:35 it.

20:33:38 And the planned development issue really frightens us

20:33:41 because there are many other properties in the

20:33:46 neighborhood that could fall into this scheme down the

20:33:51 road, and there are elderly widows living in some of

20:33:53 these homes that are quite large, but they are staying

20:33:56 in their homes and bringing people in to help them so

20:34:00 that they can stay there.

20:34:02 So we hope that you will deny this request so we can

20:34:05 maintain the integrity of our beautiful neighborhood.

20:34:10 Thank you.

20:34:22 >> My name is Brenda Corn, and I live at 3212 St.

20:34:25 Nicholas on the South side of the golf course.

20:34:27 Interestingly enough my daughter's home was the first

20:34:31 home that was pictured with the 66 wide lot.

20:34:33 And I, too, had my daughter move in the neighborhood

20:34:37 with her family and two children, and the -- my point

20:34:40 being these historical homes that were primarily built

20:34:44 in the '20s as mine was originally on four and a half

20:34:46 lots and then one lot was sold off.

20:34:49 I am still -- could have torn down and built two, but

20:34:53 like most neighbors we have chosen to improve what we

20:34:54 have with our old homes.

20:34:59 There are some that are built on -- on lesser lots than

20:35:07 that RS-100 but when that RS-100 implemented back in

20:35:08 '89.

20:35:10 Two purposes.

20:35:12 One for the infill and secondly to control what we see

20:35:18 as being -- coming 100 feet so you can not -- so it is

20:35:19 more consistent with the neighborhood.

20:35:23 So our purpose in doing that, we don't have the deed

20:35:29 restrictions like the other RS-100 does in South Tampa

20:35:31 where you have wider setbacks.

20:35:33 We don't have the historical preservation.

20:35:35 And yet we are historical neighborhood.

20:35:39 The beauty of this neighborhood is that homes are built

20:35:47 a lot greater than seven feet apart, by allowing this

20:35:51 zoning change or special use or whatever, what you do

20:35:55 is open us up not only to the infill of allowing two

20:35:58 more homes, but more importantly allowing the square

20:36:03 footage of some massive homes built on what was a

20:36:07 3,000-square-foot home that was torn down or less, and

20:36:11 now you are looking at using the land value of the

20:36:13 square footage with the setbacks.

20:36:19 Originally I figured the -- could be 7,000 for each

20:36:20 lot.

20:36:22 Three stories, 28,000.

20:36:26 With the new 35 deed restriction and 27 for the oak

20:36:32 tree, my calculation comes to about 5,720 square feet

20:36:34 per level.

20:36:36 Multiply that by three times.

20:36:40 Our vulnerability is of the contractor putting a

20:36:43 17,000-square-foot home.

20:36:47 Let's see they are more reasonable and go with a

20:36:51 12,870-square-foot home on two story.

20:36:56 Based on that land value ratio, that is about 11% land.

20:36:59 If you look at my daughter's home on one of the small

20:37:04 lots, 66 wide lot, her home is built in the '20s.

20:37:05 2700 square feet.

20:37:09 She has 68% land compared to the improvements of the

20:37:10 house.

20:37:17 When I looked at McGinnis's home on a 99 width lot.

20:37:21 A historical home they just added on.

20:37:26 They have 73% land -- land to improvement ratio.

20:37:28 And looked at just on the two ladies sitting next to

20:37:35 me, that's 50s home that was built on the '8 7 -- the

20:37:40 87 foot, the land to improvement is 77%.

20:37:46 My point being if you look at that blue and red map

20:37:48 that someone was so kind to provide for us.

20:37:50 Ten of those homes on the corner lots.

20:37:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

20:37:52 Thank you.

20:37:59 Next speaker.

20:38:01 >> My name is Marianne Hanlan.

20:38:07 We own the property to the west -- the subject property

20:38:10 on Lykes, the reason that attracted me to the

20:38:13 neighborhood was the unique character of the big lots.

20:38:19 I have an aunt that sits won it lots on Lykes right

20:38:21 diagonal from me.

20:38:22 And another aunt.

20:38:25 And since I was a little girl, I really loved that

20:38:25 neighborhood.

20:38:28 When I bought the house, I was under an impression that

20:38:34 unless these lots were deeded in separate names, they

20:38:36 could not be divided.

20:38:38 So I thought, wow, that's great.

20:38:45 And I -- I am very big for property rights and I feel

20:38:47 it is unfortunate it has come to this.

20:38:51 I wish she could have researched this before she bought

20:38:53 the lot and would have saved a lot of time for everyone

20:38:55 and for herself.

20:38:58 So -- and I just think it is a really unique character

20:39:04 of an area, and I believe we can -- thank you.

20:39:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, next speaker.

20:39:13 >> My name is Carol garner and alive at 3301 Lykes

20:39:14 Avenue.

20:39:17 I am the -- the house she referenced to with the

20:39:20 one-story built in the '50s.

20:39:23 We are one of the ranches in that area.

20:39:26 And I just will not take any more of your time.

20:39:30 I agree with everyone who has spoke before me.

20:39:34 We are very much against this planned development PD

20:39:36 designation for our neighborhood.

20:39:40 And I think our civic association is -- has voted --

20:39:44 the board has voted in favor of supporting all of us to

20:39:47 be against this PD designation.

20:39:49 Thank you.

20:39:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:39:55 Next speaker.

20:39:59 >> Eleanor McGinnis and I live at 3408 Lykes Avenue,

20:40:01 and I am in agreement with everything that has been

20:40:03 said up until now.

20:40:05 I will ask you to please deny this.

20:40:10 I just feel like the plan development is not what we

20:40:12 want on those streets.

20:40:14 Other arrangements maybe but not planned development.

20:40:14 Thank you.

20:40:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:40:23 Next speaker.

20:40:25 >> I am -- Williams.

20:40:27 I live at 3316 West Lykes Avenue.

20:40:31 Two doors down from the subject property.

20:40:36 I like Becky Raunhorst earlier.

20:40:40 My family has lived in that neighborhood since 1950.

20:40:44 I bought the lot in 1974 from my family and I did not

20:40:46 develop my home until 1990.

20:40:51 I waited until such time as I could build the home that

20:40:53 I wanted to live there for the rest of my life.

20:40:56 And I have been there all these years and plan to stay

20:40:57 there.

20:41:03 So I am terribly upset with what has been tried to be

20:41:06 planned here for these -- for this neighborhood.

20:41:09 As the other speakers have said, our neighbors, our

20:41:12 fellow neighbors, we pride ourselves in this

20:41:12 neighborhood.

20:41:15 And we want to keep it that way.

20:41:20 And I would ask that you not pass this planned

20:41:23 development for the sake of all the rest of us that

20:41:28 lived here a long time in Tampa, and like I said, my

20:41:30 family has been here since 1925.

20:41:33 But I have been in that neighborhood since 1950.

20:41:34 And I want to keep it that way.

20:41:38 I want to keep it -- I built with all the

20:41:40 specifications at the time.

20:41:45 And I want it to be done that way as well.

20:41:46 Thank you.

20:41:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:41:52 Anyone else after -- anyone else?

20:41:54 Okay.

20:41:56 >> Good evening, Angela Rodriguez.

20:41:59 My husband Daniel and our three children live across

20:42:04 the street from the lot that they would like to change.

20:42:07 And I would like to reiterate what everyone else said

20:42:09 before us.

20:42:12 Mainly -- you know when I first moved to Tampa 15 years

20:42:15 ago and I went into that neighborhood, I was like, this

20:42:17 is the most beautiful neighborhood in Tampa.

20:42:20 It is -- and you tell anyone where you live, and they

20:42:23 are like, oh, the beautiful -- the oak trees.

20:42:26 And, you know, that's why we live there, because we

20:42:27 love that.

20:42:29 And we want to raise our families there.

20:42:32 And, you know, I would hope that you keep it like it

20:42:32 is.

20:42:35 It is -- it is a beautiful neighborhood that we want to

20:42:37 keep like it was -- like it was planned to be back in

20:42:41 the '20s and our home was built in 1927.

20:42:45 And thank you very much.

20:42:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If we can take the Mike to -- to -- so

20:42:51 you won't have to walk so far.

20:42:51 That will be fine.

20:42:57 He can stand right there -- he can stay right there.

20:42:58 He can -- he can sit down.

20:43:08 Have him sit down.

20:43:11 >> Thank you for your time.

20:43:18 I am Dr. Davis bowling and I live at west Mullin

20:43:18 avenue.

20:43:20 I have one objection here in is a beautiful

20:43:21 neighborhood.

20:43:23 I object to the changing of the zoning.

20:43:26 And in your position here, you have a decision to make

20:43:32 whether to -- two houses in spite of a defect of one

20:43:33 foot.

20:43:37 But in the future somebody else in your position say

20:43:40 they granted an rd for this one, it is easy to change.

20:43:44 And look at -- some of the zonings I saw a while ago or

20:43:47 some of the areas that were primary neighborhoods and

20:43:48 now have a business in them.

20:43:51 Then it is suddenly easy to change that business to

20:43:56 give them a little more room for more setbacks or more

20:43:57 sizes.

20:43:59 That is my concern about changing the zoning of this

20:43:59 neighborhood.

20:44:01 Thank you for your time.

20:44:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:44:05 Anyone else?

20:44:09 Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal.

20:44:12 >> I may need a little extra time, Mr. Scott, and let

20:44:15 me see if I can accomplish that.

20:44:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's go with the five minutes right

20:44:17 now.

20:44:18 >> I certainly will try.

20:44:22 We initially filed a RS-75 rezoning on this application

20:44:24 and the Planning Commission was concerned because that

20:44:27 would create a precedent for future approvals.

20:44:31 Recognizing that, we figured we would amend the

20:44:33 application to a PD, which under the law creates

20:44:35 absolutely no precedent.

20:44:38 I will put it in the site plan, condition 11, this

20:44:40 approval will not create any precedent for future

20:44:41 approvals.

20:44:42 That is the law.

20:44:43 We will put it in the site plan.

20:44:47 Let me dispel the notion of a PD creating some issue of

20:44:48 precedence.

20:44:52 Every property has to be judged on its own when you

20:44:54 come into a zoning application.

20:44:59 We would certainly be willing to extend the setbacks.

20:45:04 I sent the site plan to the Gulfview association on

20:45:05 December 3.

20:45:08 I made three telephone calls to her to discuss the site

20:45:08 plan.

20:45:09 Absolutely response.

20:45:11 I had no choice but to draw the envelope under the

20:45:16 RS-100 we didn't know what would work or what would not

20:45:16 work.

20:45:21 We would certainly consider continuance to meet with

20:45:24 the Gulfview to consider miss John's suggestion that a

20:45:28 10-foot setback be placed on the side of the Goodwin

20:45:28 home.

20:45:29 We can do that.

20:45:32 The first we heard of what would be their preference.

20:45:34 We can carve out some of these trees if they absolutely

20:45:36 must have some of these trees saved.

20:45:40 We would like to have some dialogue on that point.

20:45:43 That is why you send notices out.

20:45:45 Couple of things.

20:45:50 I don't know where the 66-foot lot issue got going.

20:45:55 There are vested lots that are 66 feet in the

20:45:59 neighborhood and they are there and very beautiful home

20:46:02 and miss corn's daughter lives in one of them and she

20:46:03 is in opposition.

20:46:08 Miss Stedman lives next door to the Turners.

20:46:12 Let me show you the house next to miss stedman.

20:46:14 These are her neighbors.

20:46:16 An 86-foot parcel.

20:46:17 Bear with me for a second.

20:46:21 If you took every home in this neighborhood with less

20:46:23 than 100 feet of frontage, you could theoretically

20:46:28 assign each one of them a PD zoning district in 1987

20:46:30 when they did zoning conformance.

20:46:31 Could you have done that.

20:46:35 The PD is really a red herring in this.

20:46:37 I have no other application to go to.

20:46:38 If there was a RS-99.

20:46:41 We would have filed a RS-99.

20:46:45 Either 75 or 100, if you fall in there, you have to go

20:46:47 PD.

20:46:51 Miss Raunhorst made a very compelling argument having

20:46:53 lived in the neighborhood so very long.

20:46:56 I think that is very remarkable because she has seen

20:47:00 these homes from 99 feet down 66 feet built and

20:47:04 flourish with children, parents, grandparents, widows,

20:47:07 Americans living the American dream in Gulfview place.

20:47:09 That is the character of the neighborhood as

20:47:14 illustrated by Miss Feeley's study and by our picture

20:47:16 essay.

20:47:21 We speak of the anis lot which is the vacant lot right

20:47:25 here.

20:47:30 Mr. Goodwin's inlaws purchased the lot in 2006 for

20:47:33 $600,000 and said on record they have no intention of

20:47:35 ever developing continue to.

20:47:39 There is no deed restriction on this that says this

20:47:43 property will be held for a conservation easement for

20:47:45 Gulfview and will never be built.

20:47:48 If that is their intention, it would be a way to

20:47:51 solidify for protection of the neighborhood by putting

20:47:55 the deed of value of the title of $600,000.

20:47:59 You can pull a permit on that lot and build a house on

20:48:05 a 62 -- or 72-foot lot.

20:48:08 Mrs. McGinnis came in opposition.

20:48:12 I even had an opportunity to meet miss McGinnis on the

20:48:14 street one morning when I was taking some photographs

20:48:17 and I explained to her what we were doing.

20:48:21 This her home on a 98-foot parcel with very, very

20:48:23 efficient use of the property.

20:48:26 I mean it's -- it is not maxed out but it is pretty

20:48:27 close.

20:48:28 Remarkable home.

20:48:32 That can be done with these two lots at 99 feet which

20:48:35 are larger than her home parcel.

20:48:40 Mrs. Garner came forward an objection.

20:48:44 Let me remind you miss garner's home is on a 90-foot

20:48:45 lot across the street.

20:48:50 Miss Hanlan is next door.

20:48:53 Probably the most compelling home that we have.

20:48:55 This is immediately next door.

20:48:57 The large oak tree is over here.

20:48:59 This is the hanlan home.

20:49:01 We can build a home that is similar to that home in

20:49:05 square footage, setbacks, architectural detail on 99

20:49:08 feet, the exact same lot size.

20:49:15 Next door to the Hanahan home.

20:49:17 Mr. Williams lot is 105 feet.

20:49:24 He is in opposition to miss Blanchard's project but

20:49:27 lives immediately next door to the hanlan's home with

20:49:30 the same lot of which we can build the same type of

20:49:32 house with very similar architecture.

20:49:35 Excuse me for one moment and let me gather my thoughts

20:49:38 here.

20:49:40 I have another suggestion for you if you have not seen

20:49:42 this neighborhood in detail and you want to take that

20:49:45 binder I provided to you -- I can provide seven of

20:49:48 those to you by Monday morning and you can drive the

20:49:50 neighborhood with it and see for yourselves as a -- as

20:49:53 a decider of this application to convince you of what

20:49:55 we are showing you this evening.

20:49:56 We are open to do that.

20:49:58 We are not in a big hurry.

20:50:02 This is 13,000 square feet versus the requirement of --

20:50:05 of 10,000 square feet.

20:50:14 99 feet versus the requirement of 100 feet.

20:50:15 84 signatures.

20:50:16 I have not evaluated that.

20:50:19 I suppose you have not evaluated all 84 signatures and

20:50:22 where they came from and whether they live on similar

20:50:23 parcels or not.

20:50:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Grandoff.

20:50:28 >> Give me one minute please.

20:50:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: One minute.

20:50:29 Wrap it up.

20:50:31 One minute.

20:50:35 >> Miss Johns is all conclusary that we will affect the

20:50:37 neighborhood and adverse impact.

20:50:37 Hardship is not involved.

20:50:39 We are not in a hardship test.

20:50:40 It is not a variance.

20:50:43 You must base your decision on competent, substantial

20:50:45 evidence in the record that supports the staff's

20:50:47 recommendation and the Planning Commission

20:50:49 recommendation and the evidence we put forward.

20:50:53 If you were going to vote against the proposal, there

20:50:58 must be similar competent, substantial evidence proving

20:51:01 that this is not compatible or consistent with the

20:51:03 neighborhood when you consider all the evidence in

20:51:05 front of you and the reports of your staff and the

20:51:06 Planning Commission.

20:51:11 We would welcome the opportunity to meet with these

20:51:15 folks and make these homes something they would

20:51:17 certainly find remarkable.

20:51:19 I thank you for your time this evening.

20:51:22 I respectfully request your approval.

20:51:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, question from Councilman

20:51:26 Dingfelder.

20:51:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me.

20:51:28 John.

20:51:30 I just have a question about suggest said because it

20:51:32 seemed to be contradictory.

20:51:36 You opened your rebuttal with -- you started off with a

20:51:42 RS-75 -- two RS-75 lots as your -- as your application.

20:51:44 >> No, let me clarify.

20:51:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And then -- and now you are here

20:51:48 with a PD.

20:51:49 >> Let me explain what happened.

20:51:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then later on -- let me finish.

20:51:55 Later on you said we -- we have no other category to go

20:51:56 to except for a PD.

20:52:01 It seemed to be contradictory.

20:52:04 >> Okay.

20:52:06 In the comprehensive plan you have r-6, which dictates

20:52:11 at least 7,000-square-foot per parcel.

20:52:17 The two conforming zoning designation in the r 6 is

20:52:19 RS-75 R&D RS-100

20:52:25 I figured the path of least resistance without causing

20:52:28 too much trouble is file a RS-75 because we don't have

20:52:31 100 feet because that is what we filed.

20:52:33 The Planning Commission staff and city staff, when they

20:52:36 looked at the plat came to the same conclusion.

20:52:39 There is a significant precedent issue of putting an

20:52:43 RS-75 and could be a problem of someone else coming in

20:52:46 with 75 feet or less and pointing to this as precedent.

20:52:48 And I said I understand.

20:52:49 Let me back up.

20:52:51 We will file a PD application.

20:52:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.

20:52:56 >> Each lot will be 99 feet.

20:52:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Semantics are important especially

20:52:59 for the record.

20:53:00 >> Let me make it clear.

20:53:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said, quote because I wrote it

20:53:07 down, we had no other category to do except for a PD

20:53:09 which is not exactly true.

20:53:09 >> It's true.

20:53:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There was a staff recommendation to

20:53:14 go from perhaps the 75 to the PD, but in reality there

20:53:16 were two opportunities there, correct?

20:53:17 >> And I think they were right.

20:53:19 I think RS-75 --

20:53:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tell me if I am correct first.

20:53:24 >> You are correct but may I explain one thing.

20:53:27 In a perfect world, there would have been a RS-99

20:53:28 zoning district.

20:53:32 I would never have thought of a RS-75 zoning district.

20:53:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the magic number between

20:53:36 the RS-75 and the 99?

20:53:38 I mean -- you said --

20:53:40 >> In the zoning code?

20:53:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me finish John.

20:53:44 I let you finish.

20:53:45 This terms of precedence.

20:53:47 In terms of precedence.

20:53:49 What is the magic number because you are saying well,

20:53:53 we are only a foot difference, okay, and we want a PD.

20:53:57 We want the first PD in that eight-block Gulfview

20:54:01 subdivision and what is the magic number.

20:54:04 You said I am willing to put on my site plan this does

20:54:07 not set a precedent, but I think you and I both know

20:54:10 that that -- there is no legal force in effect of

20:54:10 saying that.

20:54:12 A precedent is a precedent.

20:54:14 The -- let me get back to my question.

20:54:17 What is the magic number, okay.

20:54:22 Because your client next week, all right might come in

20:54:27 and say and have a similar situation and say, John, I

20:54:29 saw what a bang-up job you did at Council.

20:54:32 You got a unanimous vote of City Council for that

20:54:33 99-foot lot.

20:54:39 But I got this 85-foot scenario, okay.

20:54:41 I think you can make it work.

20:54:47 So what -- why isn't that precedent for to you come in

20:54:49 next month or next year with that 85-foot lot or that

20:54:52 92-foot lot or that 96-foot lot.

20:54:54 What is the magic number?

20:54:57 >> Under the law PD does not create any precedent that

20:54:59 would bind a government of future approval.

20:55:01 Absolutely no precedent at all.

20:55:03 And that is the beauty of the PD.

20:55:06 It gives the government the control of the site plan

20:55:09 but does not bind you of creating precedent.

20:55:11 The RS-75 would.

20:55:13 The RS-75 would.

20:55:15 Let me digress for a moment.

20:55:20 You know why all the PDs on the other side of Lincoln,

20:55:23 that is because of a special act that the legislature

20:55:27 passed many years ago creating kind of a separate

20:55:29 colony out of parkland.

20:55:32 What happened was you couldn't do any downzoning in

20:55:33 parkland.

20:55:34 Everything had to be a PD.

20:55:37 That is why you have the proliferation of PDs east of

20:55:41 Lincoln, past MacDill all the way to Howard.

20:55:43 I can tell you and the city attorney can give you --

20:55:48 none of PDs were precedent but had no other choice but

20:55:50 to do PD.

20:55:51 I don't think there is a magic number.

20:55:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think here is the problem with

20:55:55 how we describe it.

20:55:59 Because what happens is -- and we see a slippery slope

20:56:01 all the time, the red-blue mess.

20:56:04 Some people confuse it with politics, but it is not.

20:56:05 We do.

20:56:08 Abbye has done a very good job tonight and every other

20:56:11 night of presenting these red-blue maps.

20:56:14 That is exactly the precedent that happens because on

20:56:18 the red-blue map, you don't see PD or not PD.

20:56:23 What you see is a smaller and smaller lot size.

20:56:25 How they got there in this particular neighborhood, you

20:56:26 know how they got there.

20:56:29 But in other neighborhood, they got there and you --

20:56:34 because you put PDs in there or other attorneys or land

20:56:38 use people put PDs in there and then pretty soon you

20:56:41 end up with the red blue map that establishes exactly

20:56:44 the precedent that you say is not established.

20:56:50 That I think is exactly what you have heard, you know,

20:56:53 many, many of these neighbors speak through tonight and

20:56:55 87 of them signed against it.

20:56:58 They recognize there are 99-foot lots in this

20:57:01 neighborhood and there are 66-foot lots in this

20:57:03 neighborhood -- some, okay.

20:57:08 But -- but I think the precedent issue of swapping a PD

20:57:10 right in the middle of it that starts that slippery

20:57:13 slope, and I don't know -- I don't know how you

20:57:15 possibly get around that.

20:57:16 >> Let me explain something.

20:57:20 If you -- if you left it as is, then would you have 198

20:57:24 feet that would have potentially 7-foot setbacks on

20:57:29 each side, a monolithic home and building at a density

20:57:33 of three units per acre in a plan category that is

20:57:37 asking you to support public services, water, sewer,

20:57:39 Transportation, et cetera at 6 units per acre.

20:57:44 We are cutting the density in half at 3 units per acre.

20:57:46 I think that is quite remarkable on a

20:57:52 13,000-square-foot lot next to lot that is merely one

20:57:54 foot short.

20:57:57 When you -- and then if you look at section 321 that

20:57:59 talks about why do you have PDs.

20:58:03 PDs are created for these issues where you can't quite

20:58:08 pigeonhole the project into a zoning category, and you

20:58:10 should --

20:58:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me interrupt here.

20:58:15 I -- and if there is a question -- but -- let me finish

20:58:18 -- what I -- what I hear is a debate that is going back

20:58:19 between two attorneys.

20:58:21 If you have a question, I -- let's stick to the

20:58:24 question and answer so that we have -- we have a line

20:58:27 of other -- a whole list of other Council people who

20:58:28 want to raise questions.

20:58:31 So what I hear is an argument going back -- or a debate

20:58:33 between two attorneys.

20:58:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am just looking for clarification

20:58:37 but I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.

20:58:39 I think I have one or two others right now.

20:58:40 Hardship.

20:58:42 Did I hear you mention hardship at some point in this

20:58:43 discussion?

20:58:45 I thought I heard a little whisper of hardship.

20:58:46 >> Let me explain.

20:58:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But I didn't get around to it and

20:58:51 let me -- I will totally finish the question for you --

20:58:53 before you answer.

20:58:55 >> I will totally wait.

20:58:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

20:58:59 Because the evidence of record earlier in the evening

20:59:02 was I asked you the question when she bought the house

20:59:05 and I think you said somewhere around 2003 or something

20:59:08 like that -- she bought the lot and at that time the

20:59:09 lot was vacant.

20:59:11 And my next question was, was she aware of the existing

20:59:13 zoning on it.

20:59:17 And you said yes.

20:59:21 Okay, I don't want any confusion on that because then

20:59:24 it goes to the next question is did you mention

20:59:26 hardship?

20:59:28 >> No.

20:59:31 Miss Johns mentioned hardship and criticized our

20:59:34 application saying I have not proved any hardship.

20:59:38 In a PD I am not required to prove a hardship.

20:59:41 It is in a variance review board to consider.

20:59:45 I should not be penalized for not proving hardship.

20:59:48 >> I wanted to make sure on this point.

20:59:50 I agree with you 100%.

20:59:52 You don't have to prove hardship.

20:59:54 I agree with that.

20:59:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda and Councilwoman

20:59:59 Saul-Sena.

21:00:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

21:00:07 I guess one side is about a foot and the other side is

21:00:10 about break the intent of that foot.

21:00:13 I will play along the line that I am hearing, well,

21:00:16 have you verified all those individuals that sign or

21:00:17 didn't sign or whatever.

21:00:22 I take whatever is presented to me or to us that is

21:00:26 valid, that somebody didn't go over into another room

21:00:28 and sign somebody else's name.

21:00:33 We are not having a scandal here on absentee ballots.

21:00:35 We don't have a dangling Chad.

21:00:39 We just take things as they are presented at face

21:00:39 value.

21:00:42 That's my opinion on that side.

21:00:50 What I ask Mrs. Johns, the question about are there

21:00:54 other areas in this neighborhood that have consistent

21:00:57 -- that have more than 100 foot.

21:01:00 And there was I think two or three others.

21:01:04 I am not certain -- I remember two in the bottom and

21:01:08 one in the -- I think there were two that were greater

21:01:14 than 100 -- I am not on one side.

21:01:16 Take it easy.

21:01:19 Don't yell at me.

21:01:23 >> If I may, Council, Abbye Feeley, Land Development.

21:01:26 I believe what you are asking is how many others come

21:01:29 back to do this.

21:01:32 I see one other property that is 198 feet of frontage,

21:01:35 and it is already zoned RS-75.

21:01:38 It is the Cruzen piece of property.

21:01:41 The other piece of property that is larger than 198

21:01:46 feet that can come back and ask 208 feet, and since

21:01:50 they are RS-100 could already today tear down that

21:01:55 house and make two 100-foot lots.

21:01:58 >> They meet the criteria of 100-foot frontage.

21:02:01 >>ABBYE FEELEY: According to my records no one to come

21:02:05 back 198 and ask you for two 99s.

21:02:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That answers that portion.

21:02:07 Thank you very much.

21:02:13 So what we have is -- thin heard a debate or statements

21:02:18 made about size of the house that could be built.

21:02:23 And I followed it pretty well until I believe that the

21:02:26 house size became larger than the lot size in my

21:02:27 calculation.

21:02:29 I am not saying that they were wrong in their

21:02:31 calculations but in my calculations.

21:02:34 I said maybe they are right, but I didn't think they

21:02:35 were.

21:02:39 But I understood the intent and the intent is what I

21:02:41 was looking at, not the math.

21:02:43 So I -- I understood that portion very well.

21:02:50 What we have here in my opinion is -- does this

21:02:53 constitute a change, yes and no.

21:02:59 It constitutes a change because you are splitting 199

21:03:06 by 2 and coming up with something short of 100 front.

21:03:09 So you have the required 10,000, yes.

21:03:12 But you don't have the required frontage, no.

21:03:16 So now you get to the point of setback.

21:03:21 Do the setbacks meet the criteria of the neighborhood.

21:03:26 Meet the criteria of the city zoning maps and so forth,

21:03:28 but doesn't meet the criteria that the neighborhood are

21:03:32 certainly larger than 7-foot setback from the property

21:03:34 line of what I have seen in the past.

21:03:37 And then -- it looks so simple and becomes so

21:03:40 complicated like a doctor doing surgery.

21:03:42 You see the X-ray.

21:03:44 When you go in, you find something else.

21:03:46 And now you got to act real quick because you weren't

21:03:47 prepared for that.

21:03:50 You are basing it on the information you received.

21:03:54 So without being doctors, let me say that.

21:03:57 But what I am getting at is a foot becomes very

21:03:58 complicated.

21:04:00 And this area is land zoning.

21:04:03 If I had another foot on me, I would be in the NBA.

21:04:06 So what I am saying is that it is how you apply that

21:04:09 one foot, and I am not trying to be comical, but I am

21:04:12 trying to relate to what a foot means in a mind.

21:04:15 It means nothing in a way.

21:04:19 But when you try to apply it to life standards, it

21:04:20 means a lot.

21:04:26 So that -- that's what we have to work with.

21:04:30 And so case that I have ever seen here is simple.

21:04:32 You both have -- both sides making a presentation and

21:04:36 usually like in today both sides have a valid point.

21:04:39 So these are the -- the things that we have to wrestle

21:04:43 with and deal with and I understand both sides of the

21:04:44 issue.

21:04:48 I think I do, because one is making more of a legal

21:04:51 point, and the other one is saying, you know what,

21:04:55 legal is legal, but neighborhood is neighborhood, and

21:04:58 we have precedence over what you are saying because it

21:05:01 doesn't -- it doesn't -- it doesn't fit the character

21:05:02 of the block that I live in.

21:05:05 And I understand what you are saying.

21:05:10 So these decisions are all based on what we hear, what

21:05:12 we come up with.

21:05:18 Is there a PD in those eight blocks, no.

21:05:21 From Miss Feeley, the others that testified.

21:05:27 There is not one PD in those eight blocks as of today.

21:05:29 I understand 1954.

21:05:31 I understand '56.

21:05:33 I understand what happened in 1987.

21:05:37 And all those things come together, and at the end,

21:05:42 there is a decision that us seven have to make.

21:05:48 So I don't want anyone today in this hearing anyway --

21:05:51 it's been very well handled on both sides.

21:05:54 Very professional on both sides.

21:05:56 There was courtesy on both sides.

21:05:59 And you applied yourself to what you believe is

21:06:01 correct, and that is what it is all about.

21:06:03 But Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make a motion until

21:06:06 I hear the rest of the Councilmembers speak.

21:06:09 I think that will be in order, but I will wait until

21:06:13 the Council debates it, and then we will decide

21:06:15 accordingly like we always do.

21:06:16 Thank you very much.

21:06:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt one

21:06:19 second.

21:06:25 The -- when I was in the back I was whoofing down the

21:06:28 last cold slice of pizza and Miss Feeley say something

21:06:30 in response to Mr. Miranda.

21:06:35 Ask Council's indulgence let me ask Miss Feeley about

21:06:39 her conclusion -- otherwise we can wait but it sort of

21:06:40 gets lost.

21:06:42 If Council will be okay with that.

21:06:43 Just one quick question.

21:06:45 Miss Feeley.

21:06:50 I heard what you said about a single -- the single lot,

21:06:50 okay.

21:06:55 And the Capatanos have one big lot and this lot is one

21:06:59 big lot, okay, and I don't know how Charlie -- if Mr.

21:07:01 Miranda asked you the question.

21:07:04 But I want clarification, in theory if you -- in some

21:07:08 of these properties, if these people combined with my

21:07:10 next-door neighbor -- I have 66 feet.

21:07:12 My next-door neighbor has 132 feet.

21:07:15 And I am looking at many of those situations right

21:07:16 here, okay.

21:07:20 They could combine up so the same 198 feet that this

21:07:23 parcel has, correct?

21:07:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY: That is a correct statement.

21:07:26 I was speaking to --

21:07:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nothing legal to stop them from

21:07:29 doing that.

21:07:30 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Absolutely.

21:07:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I sell and my next-door neighbor

21:07:37 sells and total up to the same 198 we are looking at

21:07:37 today.

21:07:39 A lot of opportunity for that in this neighborhood,

21:07:40 correct?

21:07:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Absolutely.

21:07:48 I was look at all properties in single separate

21:07:48 ownership today.

21:07:51 And that is what --

21:07:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Might have been how Mr. Miranda

21:07:57 asked it and I was not in the room and I heard it in

21:08:01 the back and I wanted to clarify because I have been

21:08:05 studying this red-blue map all night long and it didn't

21:08:06 sit right.

21:08:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Right, ownership properties today noon

21:08:11 and conglomeration.

21:08:13 Yes, single separate ownership.

21:08:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

21:08:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

21:08:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

21:08:22 Change is at the heart of the conversation today is the

21:08:25 character of the neighborhood.

21:08:30 And Tampa traditionally develops in our historic

21:08:36 neighborhoods with lots of a certain size but with the

21:08:38 expectation that you would own several lots and what

21:08:41 would you have on either side of the home is a garden.

21:08:44 And in the housing frenzy of the last ten years, let's

21:08:49 say, we have had a shift where every single lot is

21:08:53 considered a lot rather than considering a home, a

21:08:56 residence, a garden, the rhythm of a neighborhood with

21:09:00 certain expectations in terms of widths and setbacks.

21:09:03 I personally live on Davis island where the original

21:09:05 lots were 33 feet.

21:09:09 And -- or 25 feet, but people put a bunch of them

21:09:12 together and in the feeding frenzy of the decade it all

21:09:13 broke up.

21:09:15 I think what is before us top isn't a very

21:09:18 extraordinary neighborhood in the consistency that it

21:09:22 has been able to maintain and the absolute beauty and

21:09:25 very special distinctive character it has, and that's

21:09:31 -- that, to me is the issue before us, is our comp plan

21:09:34 talks about maintaining and respecting the character of

21:09:37 neighborhoods as one of the prime expectations in the

21:09:38 comp plan.

21:09:41 What we have heard top isn't a great deal of testimony

21:09:43 is to that character.

21:09:49 And I think that our responsibility is -- as a City

21:09:52 Council is to figure what -- what are the values that

21:09:54 we -- that are special in our community.

21:09:57 And I think we have heard very clearly about it.

21:09:59 I will not be supporting the request.

21:10:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Are there any other questions from

21:10:02 Council, from staff.

21:10:04 If not we need a motion to close.

21:10:06 >> So moved.

21:10:08 >> Second to close.

21:10:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:10:15 What is the pleasure of Council.

21:10:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If this is --

21:10:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.

21:10:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

21:10:24 I think every Councilmember before we vote this is

21:10:27 going to have to be done a matter where legally worded

21:10:38 or legally presented would be proof, solid proof that

21:10:40 what this Council said and what this Council meant.

21:10:47 So I am asking for a little help from the legal side.

21:10:49 If you were looking to deny this what is the wording

21:10:54 that would legally stand up.

21:10:57 Because I am -- I am looking around, and I am -- I am

21:11:03 getting the feelings that this may not end here.

21:11:11 So I want -- I want clarity on that -- on the wording.

21:11:19 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.

21:11:22 In making a determination on any Land Development

21:11:24 rezoning, you will be looking to the comprehensive plan

21:11:28 and you would be looking to the specific PD criteria.

21:11:31 There are no waivers, so we wouldn't be using waiver

21:11:35 criteria, you would simply be using the PD waiver

21:11:35 criteria.

21:11:38 There is criteria located within your staff report,

21:11:42 specifically on page 4 of the staff report.

21:11:44 There are 27.321.

21:11:46 You want to be looking through those criteria and

21:11:49 making a determination as to how this application

21:11:54 doesn't comply with each of those criteria or any of

21:11:57 those criteria specifically.

21:12:00 And so that's really what would be your basis in making

21:12:02 a determination.

21:12:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You spoke very well to me in

21:12:07 general, now give me the terms.

21:12:10 >>JULIA COLE: Well, you can look at 371 purpose.

21:12:17 You would be looking at subsections 1, promote the

21:12:19 efficient and sustainable use of land and

21:12:21 infrastructure with careful consideration of potential

21:12:25 adverse impact to natural elements surrounded impacting

21:12:28 neighborhoods and cultural resources.

21:12:31 You would be looking at subsections 2 --

21:12:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We can't follow you --

21:12:35 >>JULIA COLE: I am looking at the staff report, page

21:12:37 4.

21:12:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are on page 4 as well.

21:12:40 And --

21:12:42 >>JULIA COLE: Showing as my page 4 on the staff

21:12:43 report.

21:12:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You are looking at --

21:12:52 >>JULIA COLE: 27.321.

21:12:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Through go.

21:12:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 27.321.

21:12:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would be glad to take a shot of

21:12:58 it if anyone wants --

21:13:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Please take a shot of it.

21:13:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have the floor.

21:13:05 I don't want to fall through the cracks.

21:13:07 I don't want any member to fall through the cracks,

21:13:08 that's why I am asking for this.

21:13:11 I could ramble on something and say something and then

21:13:13 it will be held against me and the neighborhood and

21:13:17 everybody else.

21:13:18 >>JULIA COLE: I mean I can go through all of the

21:13:23 criteria, and it really would be a determination on the

21:13:26 maker of the motion and then ultimately for the

21:13:28 remainder of City Council to determine whether or not

21:13:31 that is appropriate, but you have subsection 1,

21:13:35 subsection 2.

21:13:40 Subsection 3 -- well, more of a procedure question.

21:13:43 Subsection 4, acknowledgment of --

21:13:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You are talking about subsection 1,

21:13:49 the potential adverse impact on elements and

21:13:52 surrounding impact from neighborhood and so forth and

21:13:53 so on.

21:13:54 >>JULIA COLE: That's correct.

21:13:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You are looking at two, the

21:13:59 development that will not be provided or allowed under

21:14:02 the general zoning classification.

21:14:04 >>JULIA COLE: And which encourages compatibility and

21:14:06 design, et cetera.

21:14:09 I could go continue to 3 and 4.

21:14:14 Staff finds is not applicable and looking at -- your

21:14:17 determination but the language seems to have a

21:14:18 particular tint.

21:14:20 Subsection 5, encourage Land Development, reducing

21:14:24 Transportation needs, conserves energy, maximizes the

21:14:27 preservation of natural resources.

21:14:31 Subsection 6, promotes and encourages development where

21:14:34 appropriate and location, character, compatibility and

21:14:37 with the surrounding impacted neighborhoods,

21:14:40 environment and geography.

21:14:44 Subsection 7, which is promoting desirable living and

21:14:46 working environments.

21:14:48 That would be possible through the strict application

21:14:52 of minimum requirements of the zoning district.

21:14:56 Subsection 8, promote architectural features and

21:14:59 elements that compliment the surrounding community.

21:15:03 And nonpromote the use and retention of existing

21:15:06 building stock --

21:15:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I -- I realize that

21:15:14 all have spoken.

21:15:22 And it is my intent to have this zoning be denied on

21:15:29 the basis of section 27.321.

21:15:30 >> Second.

21:15:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And anyone can come in and chime in

21:15:35 and help me out if they would like, but what is it that

21:15:36 we are looking for.

21:15:39 When you look -- and I am going to go to section 8

21:15:43 first, promote architectural advance and features of

21:15:46 the area, the character.

21:15:51 We -- by presentation the setback and this zoning area

21:15:54 was 7 foot.

21:15:58 Most of those residents who live in that block do not

21:16:00 have 7 feet.

21:16:01 They are much greater somewhat.

21:16:07 It was presented and visualized in the photos.

21:16:12 That along with the living environment and the working

21:16:17 environment, which means this, I am not a lawyer

21:16:21 There is nothing against wrong being a lawyer.

21:16:25 In fact I have too many lawyers in my own family.

21:16:34 And I am living in a lawyer's house now but it is what

21:16:36 -- the perception that you live that makes you feel

21:16:39 well where you are at.

21:16:44 I am happy where I am at, but that's not my home.

21:16:45 So I understand what you are saying.

21:16:50 You are happy being there because that is your home.

21:16:52 And you live there and you had your blood, sweat and

21:16:56 tears put into that residence, no matter the size of

21:16:56 it.

21:16:58 No matter the longevity of it.

21:17:02 That is what you chose to do.

21:17:09 To promote and encourage appropriate in the location

21:17:12 and the character of the compatibility with the

21:17:14 surrounding impacts of the neighborhood.

21:17:15 That means a lot.

21:17:16 It means a lot to you folks.

21:17:18 It means a lot to the people here.

21:17:21 It means a lot to those 84 signatures that we had or

21:17:24 87, whatever the number was.

21:17:29 But I feel strongly that when you look at the

21:17:33 sustainable land use, and when you look at that, if

21:17:38 everyone had a lot of 100 foot, there would nobody

21:17:42 problem, but like I started asking, and then it was

21:17:44 clarified later on in another discussion, certainly

21:17:49 there are adjoining neighbors that could come together

21:17:55 and could buy each other out and could come back to

21:17:55 this Council.

21:18:02 There is a lot of coulds here but it can't happen and

21:18:03 have for the same thing.

21:18:07 I think that is the mind set that we have today.

21:18:09 More is better.

21:18:12 Larger is even better.

21:18:14 And don't worry about anything else.

21:18:17 It will work out tomorrow.

21:18:22 These things life that you live in today and the

21:18:26 densities in which you live in and the land use.

21:18:32 When you look at item 4 under 27.321, acknowledging the

21:18:38 change or technology, economic or consumer preference

21:18:43 that allow the ingenuity and imagination of planning.

21:18:45 What does that mean?

21:18:48 Well, to me, when you start looking at imagination of

21:18:50 planning, it means changing something that doesn't

21:18:53 exist to something that you want it to exist.

21:18:55 And there is nothing wrong with that.

21:18:59 To think and to have and to hold, but when you look at

21:19:03 where you live, it may not be where I live, but where

21:19:08 you live, you imagine living just like you are.

21:19:10 Because that's what you bought.

21:19:14 So I understand both sides.

21:19:19 But the preponderance of -- of things that were brought

21:19:23 up, sustainable land use and the infrastructure.

21:19:26 When you look at those things and you start thinking

21:19:31 that anything that is possible in life could happen.

21:19:35 We all are not going to live here forever.

21:19:40 So one landowner could buy the other landowner upon

21:19:43 them leaving to go somewhere better than this.

21:19:45 And then you have the same problem again.

21:19:49 So it could happen.

21:19:52 And those are the reasons that -- that I feel strongly

21:19:56 that this should be denied.

21:20:01 Anything else I should put in, Julia?

21:20:04 >>JULIA COLE: The statute requires you to identify the

21:20:06 provisions in the code which you have done.

21:20:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern and then

21:20:11 Councilman Dingfelder.

21:20:12 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

21:20:16 I think Mr. Miranda mentioned section 8 under 27.321

21:20:20 and 6, I think.

21:20:25 I also think that under section 5, toward the end,

21:20:28 encourage development which reduces Transportation,

21:20:30 dot, dot, dot.

21:20:33 When you get to the next page, it talks about

21:20:39 preservation of wooded areas, areas of unusual beauty

21:20:43 or importance to the natural ecosystem, open space,

21:20:46 green space, and historical and archaeological sites.

21:20:50 So I know this is just a residential neighborhood, but

21:20:55 it is exceptional for the wooded quality that it has.

21:20:59 It is very beautiful, and it is definitely historical.

21:21:06 So I think that -- that's another basis for denial.

21:21:10 I think Mr. Miranda mentioned numbers too.

21:21:13 Compatibility and overall site design and scale.

21:21:16 I think he mentioned that and with the example of the

21:21:25 setback and -- and the section 1, he -- talked about --

21:21:30 about the consideration of potential adverse impacts to

21:21:31 on-site natural elements.

21:21:36 It may be that once you get to court of law, having a

21:21:42 PD isn't considered a precedent, but in this quasi

21:21:49 judicial body, we look at those maps, and it can't --

21:21:54 that is not unlikely that people -- if we were to allow

21:21:57 this, that future Councils or this Council in future

21:22:01 cases will look to say, well, we can't really deny this

21:22:04 PD request because we allowed this one.

21:22:07 So I think that the reality is it becomes a precedent

21:22:09 for the Council's decision.

21:22:13 So I -- I think there is plenty of basis for denial

21:22:19 here.

21:22:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.

21:22:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

21:22:25 Thank you Mr. Miranda, miss Mulhern, Mr. Miranda to

21:22:26 make the motion.

21:22:29 I seconded the motion and I did want to elaborate a

21:22:31 little bit with regard to the comprehensive plan which,

21:22:38 of course, is the first document we start with.

21:22:39 Mr. -- Tony.

21:22:44 Tony Garcia -- excuse me, Tony.

21:22:47 Mr. Garcia started off the evening, and we all sort of

21:22:50 Chuckled A bit for a different reason, but he started

21:22:54 off by saying that this is now called the South Tampa

21:22:59 district in our new comprehensive plan.

21:23:03 And the South Tampa district by definition is all about

21:23:06 neighborhood stability and, boy, then for the next hour

21:23:08 or two this is what we heard from this neighborhood, is

21:23:10 that they are looking for stability.

21:23:14 And specifically I wanted to point out to -- to the

21:23:19 provision that Mr. Garcia pointed to, policy 18.4.10

21:23:23 which is in our staff report, page 3.

21:23:27 And I want to make a finding and include it in my

21:23:31 second that differs from his staff conclusion.

21:23:39 Specifically this policy says that it is the intent of

21:23:41 the city that new residential redevelopment project be

21:23:46 minimally disruptive to adjacent areas, to do this the

21:23:49 city shall assess the potential positive and negative

21:23:51 impact on the physical development and the character

21:23:57 and the character of the surrounding area.

21:24:01 And -- and I think that clearly the evidence that we

21:24:06 have heard, we have made a conclusion to make a finding

21:24:10 that this project -- that this redevelopment --

21:24:13 potential redevelopment project has a negative impact

21:24:18 on the character of the surrounding area based on the

21:24:22 testimony competent, substantial testimony that I heard

21:24:22 tonight.

21:24:32 On the next page, on page 4, as margined out, 37-321

21:24:38 paren 1, paren 1 speaks to -- before I get to paren 1,

21:24:40 we have to look at what the purpose of a PD district

21:24:41 is.

21:24:45 We talk about PD districts all any long, but we have to

21:24:47 look at what the purpose is.

21:24:50 On this page and in this code, it says what the purpose

21:24:53 is the purpose of this article allowing PDs is to

21:24:58 provide for zoning districts that recognize unique

21:25:01 conditions allow design flexibility and promote planned

21:25:05 diversification and integration of uses on structures

21:25:09 which other zoning districts cannot accommodate.

21:25:13 The unique condition I would like to make a finding

21:25:15 with Council's vote hopefully that there was no

21:25:19 evidence whatsoever of a truly unique condition, okay.

21:25:23 What we have there is a long-standing condition that --

21:25:29 that there was an old house on this 198-foot lot that

21:25:32 was there, it was operating fine.

21:25:33 Somebody knocked it down.

21:25:35 And somebody can build a new one right on that same

21:25:37 footprint.

21:25:41 You know these -- yes, these -- we have a lot of random

21:25:47 stuff going on in this neighborhood for reasons that we

21:25:50 have spoken to all night, but there is nothing unique

21:25:53 in my opinion about this 198-foot lot, any different

21:25:56 than the lot I just described about miss Jones hooking

21:26:00 up with Mr. Smith being next door neighbors and

21:26:07 creating their own 198-foot lot adding miss Jones lot

21:26:11 to Mr. Smith's 132-foot lot.

21:26:12 That could happen all across this neighborhood.

21:26:16 So, therefore, this particular lot is not unique.

21:26:19 And in my opinion in that regard.

21:26:23 >> Can I respond to that, Mr. Dingfelder.

21:26:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not really.

21:26:26 It is up to the Chairman.

21:26:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Nope.

21:26:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

21:26:31 The last thing I wanted to mention -- I think it is the

21:26:34 last thing -- well, there are two more, I am sorry.

21:26:43 The -- 27.321, paren 2 speaks to compatibility.

21:26:47 And this project I would make a finding of fact that

21:26:49 the evidence that has been presented to us tonight

21:26:53 shows that this project is not compatible with anything

21:26:59 that has gone on here for the last 23 -- 23 years since

21:27:05 1983 when all these perhaps smaller lots got vested in.

21:27:07 And then the last one which I think has already been

21:27:14 spoken to is 27.321, paren 6, and again that speaks

21:27:17 specifically that this -- that we are not to approve

21:27:20 PDs unless they promote and encourage development where

21:27:23 appropriate in character and compatibility with the

21:27:26 surrounding impacted neighborhoods.

21:27:29 That -- that is what we heard tonight.

21:27:33 Plenty of competent, substantial evidence over and

21:27:35 over, and I apologize.

21:27:38 One other thing that I wanted to mention because I --

21:27:42 with all due respect to our staff who does a wonderful

21:27:47 job and tirelessly works, with all due respect I would

21:27:50 second the motion based upon the finding that we differ

21:27:52 with their conclusion.

21:27:58 They concluded at the bottom of page 3 that -- that

21:28:06 based upon her analysis -- red-blue analysis this was

21:28:07 consistent.

21:28:09 I think it is important that we put on the record that

21:28:10 we differ from that.

21:28:12 One of the reasons I differ with it because if you look

21:28:16 at the red-blue map directly on the street, on this

21:28:21 block between Lincoln and Glen, we look at the red-blue

21:28:24 map, directly across the street from the property are

21:28:28 three lots that are at least 100 feet.

21:28:29 They are red lots.

21:28:30 They are compatible.

21:28:32 And they are at least 100 feet and directly to the east

21:28:39 of this subject property, again, is a red lot that is

21:28:40 compatibility.

21:28:46 And only one that abuts this property on Lykes is the

21:28:50 little property -- is the property to the west.

21:28:55 And that is the only one of the five that are on Lykes

21:28:56 directly right there.

21:28:59 So I think that with all due respect, the staff

21:29:02 analysis was a little broad.

21:29:06 Went out six blocks, added up reds and blues and this

21:29:07 and that.

21:29:09 I would say the most relevant factor on this analysis,

21:29:13 this red-blue analysis is what is going on on that

21:29:16 block on that face, and additionally we have heard

21:29:19 testimony that the majority of the lots all up and down

21:29:21 likes are also conforming.

21:29:26 So that's -- that's my second to your motion with your

21:29:29 consent.

21:29:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Are you finished?

21:29:34 Very brief.

21:29:36 Thank you, John.

21:29:39 He is -- I think my colleagues tonight have tried to

21:29:42 lay out a very strong case should this arrive in

21:29:46 Circuit Court; however, I am going to give the shortest

21:29:49 speech I made in my life probably now.

21:29:54 That is I am going to support the motion.

21:29:59 When you look at this case, the issue that is there

21:30:04 now, there is no PD, nowhere in this neighborhood.

21:30:07 It would be setting a precedent there is a motion on

21:30:09 the floor.

21:30:12 All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:30:15 Opposed.

21:30:15 Okay.

21:30:18 >> Motion carried unanimously.

21:30:22 Mr. Chairman, could that motion be condensed for the

21:30:27 record.

21:30:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion denied.

21:30:31 >> I made the motion.

21:30:32 >> I seconded it.

21:30:35 >> I will get that information from you.

21:30:37 >> If I can --

21:30:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me be clear.

21:30:43 The motion was made by Councilman Miranda outlining in

21:30:50 -- in the finding of fact those items one through nine.

21:30:50 Yeah.

21:30:53 And Councilman Dingfelder seconded that with additional

21:30:57 information.

21:30:59 And included -- yes, okay.

21:31:02 >> Mr. Chairman, I need to make sure my involved

21:31:04 complete if you would please give me a moment here.

21:31:07 I want to make sure the blue binder that I provided

21:31:09 will be filed in the record.

21:31:17 Also the Cruzen and Capatano, I would like to prove

21:31:19 where these were located.

21:31:22 Property appraiser sheets and our study that have

21:31:24 circled those and the Blanchard --

21:31:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am not sure if it is appropriate

21:31:28 after the record is closed.

21:31:31 >> What if I read in the folio number.

21:31:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I will leave it to the attorney.

21:31:36 >> My question, Mr. Grandoff, was why was that not

21:31:39 presented at your case in chief or at the opportunity

21:31:40 for rebuttal.

21:31:44 >> It came -- it was discussed in my case in chief.

21:31:45 Mr. Dingfelder brought it up after the record was

21:31:49 closed when he questioned Miss Feeley about where were

21:31:53 those three lots that were 198 feet plus.

21:31:56 Well, those are the Blanchard lots, the Cruzen lots and

21:31:59 the Capatano lots.

21:32:01 If he opens the door after the public hearing is closed

21:32:05 an queried staff, I have a right to substantiates that

21:32:06 evidence.

21:32:08 I can merely -- I can read it by folio number.

21:32:11 I just want to make it easy for everybody.

21:32:16 This is the Cruzen property and the Capatano property

21:32:18 that were referenced in the discussion.

21:32:21 >> The point to rebut a particular point that was made?

21:32:23 >> Just to show where they are.

21:32:27 Because no -- we are referring to the Capitano and

21:32:28 Cruzen property in thin air.

21:32:30 Nobody knows where they are.

21:32:32 >> That was not part of your essay?

21:32:34 >> That's correct.

21:32:36 But it is part of my argument.

21:32:40 I did not file it in my case in chief.

21:32:43 I am asking to supplement the record so I can justify

21:32:45 where those properties are located.

21:32:48 I could read them by address and not supplement the

21:32:48 record.

21:32:54 I just want to know where I am talking when I refer to

21:32:56 the Cruzen property.

21:33:00 >>JULIA COLE: Can I take one moment to look at the

21:33:01 document.

21:33:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Grandoff, can I make a legal

21:33:15 suggestion?

21:33:18 Mr. Shelby, can I make a legal suggestion?

21:33:23 >> No, sir, you are not serving as an attorney.

21:33:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am just making a suggestion.

21:33:32 When he goes to court he can ask the court --

21:33:37 >>JULIA COLE: Not as a writ of certiorari.

21:33:40 I am asking the court to ascertain.

21:33:45 Is this simple visual evidence that was already in the

21:33:47 record then I think it is appropriate, if it is

21:33:49 containing information isn't part of that analysis,

21:33:52 then I would object to it going into the record.

21:33:54 >> I would agree.

21:33:57 >> I would like to state on the record I am offering it

21:34:00 to show the lot width of these parcels.

21:34:00 That's it.

21:34:02 Which is what was discussed.

21:34:08 208 feet and 198 feet as is the Blanchard property 198

21:34:09 feet.

21:34:11 I have a right to prove where I am getting that

21:34:11 information.

21:34:14 >>JULIA COLE: I think -- he has given me two documents

21:34:17 to review, and if he would like to make a proffer on

21:34:19 one of the documents, that's fine, but I think it is

21:34:22 not appropriate for that information to come in the

21:34:24 format that he has it.

21:34:26 So I am going to object to one of the documents.

21:34:29 The other document is simply a representation from

21:34:33 Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's office and my

21:34:34 recollection of the record and this is showing those

21:34:38 parcels that we did -- the Cruzen property and I

21:34:41 believe another property that was raised by many people

21:34:42 as part of the record.

21:34:44 I think that is a visual representation of the

21:34:45 information that was submitted.

21:34:48 I wouldn't have a problem with that -- with these two

21:34:51 documents being submitted as part of the record.

21:34:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Want to mark them and.

21:34:54 >>JULIA COLE: I mean I -- I think we can just have

21:34:57 these accepted as part of your record when you receive

21:34:57 and file.

21:35:02 The other document as Mr. Grandoff should like to

21:35:04 proffer it after the record is closed and wants to

21:35:06 raise the argument later.

21:35:08 >> For purposes of the record if we could mark those in

21:35:09 some way --

21:35:12 >> Let's read the address off of each one.

21:35:14 What I have here and proffer in the record is property

21:35:18 appraiser printout for 3415 west Morrison which is the

21:35:23 Cruzen property and 3400 west Lykes which is the

21:35:25 capitano property.

21:35:28 They are being offered prove the lot width.

21:35:32 Providing a Gulfview place parcel assessment that we

21:35:34 patterned after the zoning department assessment that

21:35:37 circles these properties and indicates the

21:35:39 nonconforming lots and the conforming lots.

21:35:42 I have one other -- one other evidentiary question.

21:35:43 Let me give you --

21:35:45 >> If I can.

21:35:48 >> Miss Cole my understanding the last document that

21:35:50 was referenced is --

21:35:53 >>JULIA COLE: The last document that was referenced, I

21:35:55 believe there is always adequate evidence that is

21:35:57 similar to that in the record.

21:36:01 What I object is that it has been colored in a way that

21:36:05 haven't been shown to Council and -- I do think the

21:36:08 property appraiser's records are both -- business

21:36:12 records that are kept in the course of the property

21:36:15 appraiser's web site but also consistently raised as

21:36:17 two specific properties and how large they are and I

21:36:20 think that is just simply indicating that in a written

21:36:21 format.

21:36:23 >> My question then miss Cole is with regard tore this

21:36:26 document here.

21:36:28 -- regard to this document here.

21:36:30 The Gulfview.

21:36:33 >>JULIA COLE: Not appropriate to come into the record.

21:36:37 >> Then we will exclude that with Mr. Grandoff's -- his

21:36:38 objection is noted.

21:36:41 >>JULIA COLE: He can make an objection and proffer

21:36:43 that for a judge to maybe determine later whether or

21:36:45 not it should have been there.

21:36:47 >> Mr. Grandoff, I am going to hand this document back

21:36:48 to you.

21:36:50 >> I want to proffer that for the record and it can be

21:36:51 determined --

21:36:53 >> Write on there that it is proffered.

21:36:56 >> Proffered with objection.

21:36:58 >>JULIA COLE: What I will ask is that Mr. Grandoff

21:37:03 after we completed any all business related to this

21:37:06 petition and he can proffer it up for the purposes of

21:37:08 the record.

21:37:10 >> I totally agree with this procedure.

21:37:13 The other question I have is I was not here at the

21:37:14 beginning of the meeting.

21:37:20 I don't know if Mr. -- Mr. -- Mr. Shelby -- excuse me,

21:37:24 if Mr. Shelby obstructed the Council to exclude any

21:37:26 ex-parte communication.

21:37:29 >> I don't have a specific -- Mr. Grandoff, I don't

21:37:32 have a specific recollection.

21:37:34 Just for the purposes of this --

21:37:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me answer for you, yes, you did.

21:37:37 You did do that.

21:37:39 You always do.

21:37:42 You did -- yes, I remember that specifically.

21:37:44 >> Mr. Chair, he did request a motion to receive and

21:37:47 file, but he did not specifically state or request

21:37:51 ex-parte communication.

21:37:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: At the beginning of the hearing, he

21:37:58 stated if there has been any ex-parte communication or

21:38:01 written document you need to disclose that.

21:38:02 He said that at the beginning of the meeting.

21:38:06 Now listen, listen.

21:38:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead and say it --

21:38:11 >> In cases there a misunderstanding in that we have a

21:38:15 court reporter here present, in that this is now being

21:38:19 recorded and could be presented to a circuit judge, I

21:38:23 would ask you now to clarify --

21:38:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Wait a minute, you have to open

21:38:26 that meeting up.

21:38:30 >> No, I am asking you right now irrespective of your

21:38:33 decision, has any member of this City Council -- and

21:38:35 let me read it.

21:38:38 Engaged in I ex-parte communication with the petitioner

21:38:42 or any member of the public, and if so would you please

21:38:46 describe with whom, when that communication occurred

21:38:50 and the sum and substance of that communication?

21:38:53 I am going to ask you collectively as a Council.

21:38:57 Has anyone have an ex-parte communication.

21:39:03 For the record I see no affirmative response.

21:39:08 >> Please define what you are saying.

21:39:12 >> An ex-parte communication is a communication

21:39:16 relating to the subject matter of this hearing that

21:39:21 took place outside of this public hearing tonight.

21:39:26 Relative to this particular parcel, relative to this

21:39:32 particular action with any party that you had

21:39:35 discussion with.

21:39:39 >> I meant -- I believe this lady here is the young

21:39:43 lady that owns the property sitting next to Mr.

21:39:46 Stedman, that your --

21:39:48 >> Miss Blanchard.

21:39:52 >> If you can just stand and identify yourself.

21:39:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, no, no.

21:39:59 >> We are going to take this level of information to

21:40:01 where we are actually going to make a determination

21:40:07 that maybe some evidence -- ex-parte evidence is on the

21:40:09 record -- I have no other option than suggest that this

21:40:13 record gets reopened for that purpose.

21:40:19 >> Listen, I don't even speak for myself.

21:40:24 >> Based on miss Kohl's suggestion, I would ask the

21:40:27 record be reopened for this purpose.

21:40:30 -- the hearing.

21:40:31 >> Second.

21:40:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion reopened and seconded.

21:40:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To reopen.

21:40:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Already did.

21:40:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:40:41 All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:40:43 >> For the limited purpose.

21:40:49 >> Again Mr. Caetano, you had indicated that you had

21:40:53 opportunity to speak with someone and that person I

21:40:55 believe -- Mr. Grandoff.

21:40:58 >> This is miss Blanchard that Mr. Caetano --

21:41:01 >> Yes I went out to the lobby here, and this young

21:41:03 lady was sitting there.

21:41:05 I introduced myself first.

21:41:10 I shook hands with Mr. Stutzman -- is that your name --

21:41:11 he knows who I am.

21:41:13 I introduced myself to this lady.

21:41:15 I did not discuss anything.

21:41:17 I didn't know what she was here for.

21:41:20 Okay.

21:41:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just being polite.

21:41:24 Not guilty.

21:41:25 >> Okay.

21:41:26 Stand up.

21:41:27 Please bear with me.

21:41:30 I want to make sure that the disclosure also includes

21:41:31 E-Mails.

21:41:34 And if any E-Mail was received by any City

21:41:35 Councilmember.

21:41:38 I ask that those E-Mails be incorporated by evidence

21:41:40 into the record.

21:41:43 >> Mr. Grandoff I will say I have a specific

21:41:44 recollection with regard to that.

21:41:46 I ask that all written communications that have been

21:41:48 available for public inspection in City Council's

21:41:50 office be received and filed into the record prior to

21:41:53 them taking action tonight.

21:41:53 >> Okay.

21:41:54 Just so we are very clear.

21:41:57 I will make a public records check, and those will go

21:42:00 into the record without objection so we have a full,

21:42:02 fair record of what occurred.

21:42:05 Now last but not least, I would like to tend to this

21:42:06 item --

21:42:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold one second.

21:42:10 Just for the record because apparently looking at my

21:42:15 notebook, my office received it looks like about 15 or

21:42:19 20 letters and E-Mails from some in the community on

21:42:20 this issue.

21:42:25 I did not see them until -- until the hearing opened

21:42:29 and then I opened up my notebook to item 3 and started

21:42:30 reading them.

21:42:36 And my secretary -- my assistant, Cindy, as a matter of

21:42:38 course, whenever we get these, which I am sure all

21:42:42 Council does, submits them to the Clerk, and they end

21:42:45 up in the file.

21:42:49 So that's -- that is just what we do in every zoning

21:42:50 case.

21:42:52 We can't stop E-Mails from coming in.

21:42:54 Once they come in we have to print them out.

21:42:55 We print them out.

21:42:58 We stick them in the notebooks, but we also give the

21:43:03 Clerk a copy, and just so the record is clear, that is

21:43:04 what happened in this case.

21:43:07 I didn't read it until the hearing opened and I imagine

21:43:11 would you have as much opportunity because they have

21:43:12 been coming in all week.

21:43:15 >> I didn't have any opportunity to look at them.

21:43:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They have been coming in all week.

21:43:19 I assume they are in the file.

21:43:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't have a computer.

21:43:27 I don't have a city cell phone so nobody can call me

21:43:31 either, but I do have a staff that does get E-Mails

21:43:34 with my name on them.

21:43:38 I don't read any of them.

21:43:42 She tells me the text of what she has received for the

21:43:42 day.

21:43:45 I guess I am a little different than most.

21:43:47 I don't think there is an elected official in Florida

21:43:51 that doesn't a computer.

21:43:52 That's how I work.

21:43:56 I don't bring anything to this podium other than a

21:43:59 piece of paper and a folder for the agenda.

21:44:00 I don't bring no E-Mails.

21:44:02 I listen to the public.

21:44:06 I make my decision unbiased based on what I hear, and

21:44:09 maybe I am old-fashioned, but that's how I operate.

21:44:16 Thank you.

21:44:17 >> Mr. Chairman if I can clarify please.

21:44:19 It is the custom and practice of this City Council when

21:44:21 those E-Mails are generated, they are not placed

21:44:24 directly into the Clerk's files, but they are placed in

21:44:29 a box at the counter of the City Council reception area

21:44:32 where they are available for public inspection, and

21:44:37 those E-Mails are then forwarded to the Clerk prior to

21:44:41 the taking of the action that is present before City

21:44:43 Council and by motion and vote, those are then

21:44:47 incorporated into the file and that is how the E-Mail

21:44:51 arrived into the file tonight.

21:44:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other thing I have to note for

21:44:55 the record is that a lot of these E-Mails now looking

21:44:58 at them, I didn't bother looking at the dates earlier,

21:45:02 but a lot of these started coming in last summer, June

21:45:06 -- I have got June 2009, September 2009.

21:45:09 And then there is a handful that came in this week.

21:45:12 So I would -- I would just urge to you look at -- look

21:45:16 at these, Mr. Grandoff, because I would say more than

21:45:20 half of them came in three to six months ago.

21:45:25 >> Thank you.

21:45:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

21:45:28 >> Second.

21:45:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded -- all in favor --

21:45:34 >>MARY MULHERN: For what it's worth, I didn't look at

21:45:36 any E-Mails until I was sitting here in the meeting

21:45:43 tonight.

21:45:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:45:46 All in favor say aye.

21:45:47 Opposed.

21:45:51 >> Move to receive and file.

21:45:55 >> We have new business.

21:45:55 [Inaudible]

21:46:09 -- and the Chamber of Commerce of west Tampa.

21:46:12 >>JULIA COLE: One second, Mr. Grandoff did need to

21:46:15 tender his document for the purposes of the record and

21:46:17 what he will do the court reporter will hold the

21:46:19 document for the purposes of that.

21:46:24 >> What I am tendering is the Gulfview base parcel side

21:46:29 specimen that incorporates the entire plat according to

21:46:31 the city records and according to the zoning atlas that

21:46:42 is marked z 09.21 in various colors.

21:46:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

21:46:43 There is a motion.

21:46:48 Who seconded the motion.

21:46:48 >> Second.

21:46:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:46:52 All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:46:53 Opposed.

21:46:56 Do we finish up, Mr. Grandoff.

21:47:01 >> Now she can give that to the Clerk.

21:47:01 [Inaudible]

21:47:02 >> That's fine.

21:47:05 Just attach it to the transcript.

21:47:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

21:47:07 >> Thank you very much for your time this evening.

21:47:09 I appreciate your --

21:47:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: New business.

21:47:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Grandoff.

21:47:13 Thank you.

21:47:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

21:47:21 We have a planned accommodation for HART and I need to

21:47:25 reschedule that February 18 from January 21 to February

21:47:26 18.

21:47:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:47:29 All in favor say aye.

21:47:30 Opposed.

21:47:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The last thing Soho Courier City

21:47:36 they have been having noise problems and called TPD out

21:47:39 there and TPD says we don't have meters that are

21:47:43 operating anymore, noise meters and our officer's

21:47:49 certificates are lapsing and I wanted a report from tPD

21:47:52 of the enforcement of noise issues related to the

21:47:54 equipment available and the officers that are

21:47:55 certified.

21:47:58 And this will be 30 days.

21:47:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:48:02 All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:48:03 Opposed.

21:48:06 We have three requests coming from the administration.

21:48:09 We -- we gave you copies.

21:48:12 You should have them at your -- okay.

21:48:18 So the request is for -- on the January 21, from solid

21:48:21 waste --

21:48:22 >> So moved.

21:48:22 >> Second.

21:48:24 >> Ceremonial.

21:48:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On the ceremonial.

21:48:29 All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:48:30 Opposed.

21:48:31 Have that for the record.

21:48:36 The other one is from miss Miller requesting five

21:48:43 minutes during February 4, 2010 to provide status on

21:48:44 Transportation.

21:48:45 Is there a second.

21:48:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second but Mr. -- but Mr. Chairman

21:48:53 I think that five minutes for the sustainability report

21:48:54 is pretty --

21:48:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That is what they are requesting.

21:48:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, but that might be all

21:49:02 they have to say but we may have some questions.

21:49:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But the ruling on the staff report is

21:49:06 five minutes.

21:49:08 The rule -- you are ruled on the staff report is five

21:49:11 minutes, is that right?

21:49:13 All in favor.

21:49:17 February 4.

21:49:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me -- I want to --

21:49:21 [Inaudible]

21:49:25 >> Are you looking at the one --

21:49:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The request is from the administration

21:49:31 February 4 for five minutes.

21:49:32 Transportation concurrency.

21:49:33 Moved and seconded.

21:49:36 All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:49:36 Opposed.

21:49:43 And last one is -- requesting up to ten minutes on

21:49:47 February 18 during staff report portion of the City

21:49:50 Council meeting to provide Council with a briefing on

21:49:57 the following, the Tampa resolution number 2008-575

21:49:58 green resolution.

21:50:01 Number two, a report on the infield development and

21:50:04 sustainability design workshop hosted by the Planning

21:50:06 Commission and the metric for comparison through the

21:50:09 comprehensive plan and various city codes.

21:50:11 That's two of them.

21:50:14 So that's 10 minutes.

21:50:15 Yeah.

21:50:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

21:50:16 >> Second.

21:50:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

21:50:22 Let me submit this for the record.

21:50:26 Anything else that needs to come before Council?

21:50:27 I am happy too.

21:50:31 We stand adjourned.



The above represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.