Help & information    View the list of Transcripts





TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

Thursday, October 14, 2010
5:01 p.m. session


DISCLAIMER:

The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
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.



17:03:39 [Roll Call Taken]

17:03:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Chairman, move to open Items 1

17:03:43 through 8.

17:03:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?

17:03:46 >> Second.

17:03:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:03:51 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:03:54 Before we move forward, we have a memoranda from

17:04:00 Councilwoman Capin who is leaving early at 8 p.m. due to

17:04:02 a scheduling conflict, I believe.

17:04:03 Clerk, do you have a copy of it?

17:04:05 You have a copy?

17:04:05 All right.

17:04:09 We will take up Item 5 first.

17:04:10 Mr. Garcia.

17:04:14 Is Mr. Garcia here?

17:04:19 He has asked that we take up Item Number 5 -- I saw Mr.

17:04:21 Griffin moving forward.

17:04:22 >>TONY GARCIA: Did you call my name?

17:04:24 Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

17:04:29 Thank you for calling me, but I will gladly yield the

17:04:32 podium to Mr. Griffin.

17:04:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You had a request to go forward but

17:04:35 okay.

17:04:41 >> Stephen Griffin, Planning Commission staff.

17:04:49 Number 5 is your annual update that will include the

17:04:51 schedule of projects that Council adopted in September

17:04:53 21, 2010.

17:04:57 This is required by state statute to update the Capital

17:04:58 Improvement Element.

17:05:00 It did go before the Planning Commission this past

17:05:06 Monday October 11 and the Planning Commission

17:05:09 recommended to the City Council that it is consistent

17:05:10 with the comprehensive plan.

17:05:12 We are here to answer any questions if you have them.

17:05:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone have any questions?

17:05:15 This is a public hearing.

17:05:18 Anyone from the public wish to address Council on Item

17:05:18 5?

17:05:21 Item 5?

17:05:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to --

17:05:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

17:05:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

17:05:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:05:29 Okay.

17:05:33 We need to move this tonight, right?

17:05:34 Mr. Miranda?

17:05:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, move an ordinance

17:05:43 amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan Improvement

17:05:48 Element for Fiscal Year 2011 to Fiscal Year 2016

17:05:53 providing for all ordinances and conflict providing for

17:05:56 severability, providing for an effective date.

17:05:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

17:05:58 >> Second.

17:05:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:06:02 Seconded by Councilman Caetano.

17:06:05 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:06:07 Opposed?

17:06:11 >> Motion carries unanimously.

17:06:15 Second reading October 8 at 10:30 A.M.

17:06:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next item.

17:06:18 Item 2.

17:06:24 Item 1, sorry.

17:06:28 >> Councilmembers, Item 1 and Item 7 are related.

17:06:32 They are both plan amendments relating to the Tampa

17:06:33 Green Tech Corridor.

17:06:40 The Item 1 is the actual text amendment and Item 7 is

17:06:41 the map amendment.

17:06:44 Again these were heard by the Planning Commission on

17:06:48 June 28, and the Planning Commission found them

17:06:50 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

17:06:53 There were some comments from state reviewing agencies,

17:06:58 and we have Mr. Randy Goers from the Tampa staff to

17:07:04 reduce those items.

17:07:06 >> Randy Goers, City Land Development Coordination

17:07:07 Division.

17:07:10 Just to familiarize yourself, this is the area that is

17:07:13 affected by the Economic Development Overlay, the area

17:07:16 just South of USF.

17:07:19 And, again, the purpose of the plan amendment is to

17:07:22 create an option for property owners that come in if

17:07:25 they meet certain green standards or performance

17:07:28 criteria where they can get a bonus incentive.

17:07:32 In the plan amendment, the actual bonus incentive wasn't

17:07:34 defined.

17:07:36 The Department of Community Affairs asked us to

17:07:38 establish in the policy what that maximum would be.

17:07:41 So we modified one of the policies to make it a maximum

17:07:46 F.A.R. of 3 and no more than 24 dwelling units for those

17:07:50 that have the residential as an accompanying use.

17:07:53 There are other questions from FDOT, Department of

17:07:55 Transportation, Department of Community Affairs asking

17:08:00 for more information on the impact on the level of

17:08:00 service.

17:08:04 We provided that in the data analysis section.

17:08:08 We felt we addressed the questions at DCA and the other

17:08:11 agencies have provided and provided you with an amended

17:08:16 set of policies.

17:08:19 Questions?

17:08:21 >>CURTIS STOKES: Mr. Goers, I have a question regarding

17:08:24 the green standards -- the only reason we did not

17:08:26 include the enterprise zones in that?

17:08:29 >> Well, this was the area of the Tampa Industrial Park

17:08:33 area, so it was really an amendment for this area where

17:08:39 the industrial land use were predominantly located to

17:08:42 protect those industrial uses for the areas for the

17:08:44 expansion.

17:08:46 To my knowledge, I don't know if there was any

17:08:49 discussion for any areas outside of this area.

17:08:52 It was primarily for the area where the industrial lands

17:08:55 were under potential threat of redevelopment in the

17:08:56 future.

17:08:58 >>CURTIS STOKES: Is it possible to include the

17:09:01 enterprise zones to that in the future?

17:09:04 >> It can be looked at in the future for potential

17:09:07 expansion.

17:09:09 I believe -- the Planning Commission will be looking at

17:09:12 the evaluation and appraisal report and the update of

17:09:14 the comprehensive plan in the next couple of years, so

17:09:18 it could be incorporate in that, or if the Council

17:09:20 wishes, they could ask the Planning Commission to look

17:09:21 at it.

17:09:24 >>CURTIS STOKES: Could I ask that -- Mr. Chair, can I

17:09:27 ask that the Planning Commission add in the enterprise

17:09:33 zones in what you are doing?

17:09:35 >> It would be a motion by Council to do that.

17:09:36 >>CURTIS STOKES: Make a motion --

17:09:38 >> If we can finish this item up.

17:09:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We probably need to finish the whole

17:09:42 thing and then make motions, I guess.

17:09:45 That has been our process, I believe.

17:09:47 I will just make a note.

17:09:54 Okay.

17:09:57 Anyone from the public?

17:09:58 On Item 1 and 7.

17:10:01 Item 1 and 7, anyone from the public?

17:10:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

17:10:05 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, what effect does

17:10:12 this have on this area?

17:10:14 >> The plan amendment does not remove any existing

17:10:17 entitlements that the property owner has but provides an

17:10:21 additional option for increased intensity if the

17:10:24 property owner chooses to take advantage of -- for the

17:10:27 targeted industry that is outlined in the text.

17:10:33 The main point of it was to provide opportunities for

17:10:38 high-tech increase for jobs in that area given that its

17:10:42 location is close to University of South Florida.

17:10:48 It would help spur collaboration and spin-off businesses

17:10:49 that would come out of the University of South Florida

17:10:50 area.














17:10:53 So the existing property owners keep their entitlements.

17:10:55 We don't change anybody's zoning.

17:10:57 We don't change anybody's land use.

17:11:00 We just provide an additional option for increased

17:11:05 intensity if they choose to use it for those targeted

17:11:07 industries in the plan.

17:11:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: No one is compelled --

17:11:09 >> No one is compelled.

17:11:11 An additional option if they choose to take.

17:11:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.

17:11:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

17:11:15 >> Second.

17:11:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:11:20 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:11:22 Opposed?

17:11:23 The ordinance.

17:11:29 Councilman Stokes, do you want to read the ordinance?

17:11:31 >>CURTIS STOKES: Move an ordinance of first adoption,

17:11:34 an ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan to

17:11:36 establish an Economic Development Overlay associated

17:11:40 with the Green Tech Corridor that enables development of

17:11:44 targeted industries in selected areas of Tampa provided

17:11:48 of ordinances, provided for severability for an

17:11:49 effective date.

17:11:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.














17:11:53 Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

17:11:56 Those in favor signify by saying aye.

17:11:56 Opposed.

17:11:59 >> Motion carries unanimously second reading and

17:12:02 adoption at October 28 at 10:30 A.M.

17:12:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 7, do you have an ordinance for

17:12:05 that?

17:12:11 Councilwoman Mulhern.

17:12:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Chairman, I move an ordinance

17:12:17 amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use

17:12:22 Map to designate the economic overlay in the general

17:12:27 vicinity of University of Florida, Bougainvillea, 30th

17:12:32 Street, 46th Street, 50th Street, and McKinley Drive,

17:12:35 providing for severability and providing an effective

17:12:36 date.

17:12:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by Councilman

17:12:40 Miranda.

17:12:42 >> Motion carries unanimously.

17:12:46 Second reading and adoption October 28 at 10:30 A.M.

17:12:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 2?

17:12:54 >> Councilmembers, this is a text amendment to the

17:12:57 public schools facility element.

17:13:01 This amendment is to modify with regard to when the

17:13:05 student generation rate would with be modified.

17:13:08 It is to remove the two-year requirement.














17:13:11 This requirement would not provide the school board with

17:13:17 the most up-to-date population data because it would not

17:13:21 take into account the 2010 census.

17:13:24 So we are modifying this policy to allow the school

17:13:26 board to have more flexibility when it does provide

17:13:28 opportunity to update the student generation rate so

17:13:32 they can use the best available data.

17:13:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

17:13:36 Anyone from the public wish to address Council on Item

17:13:36 2?

17:13:38 Anyone from the public?

17:13:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

17:13:40 >> Second.

17:13:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:13:46 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:13:49 Councilwoman, do you want to read the ordinance.

17:13:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

17:13:54 An amendment for the comprehensive plan school facility

17:13:58 element for objective related to student generation rate

17:14:03 providing for the severability and providing for an

17:14:04 effective date.

17:14:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:14:08 Seconded by Councilwoman Capin.

17:14:10 All in favor, opposed.

17:14:12 >> Motion carries unanimously.














17:14:16 Second reading and adoption October 28 at 10:30 A.M.

17:14:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 3.

17:14:26 >> Councilmembers, this, again, is a text amendment to

17:14:27 the Mobility Element.

17:14:30 This text amendment is being made by the City of Tampa

17:14:36 to take into account the options under Senate Bill 360

17:14:42 with regard to the mobility policies and with regard to

17:14:44 the transportation in the exception area.

17:14:46 The Planning Commission did find this consistent with

17:14:49 the comprehensive plan; however, there were some

17:14:51 comments from the state reviewing agencies.

17:14:57 And I have him address those to you.

17:15:00 >> Randy Goers, Land Development Coordination.

17:15:03 The purpose of this plan amendment was to meet the

17:15:05 requirements of Senate Bill 360 when it was passed that

17:15:08 would have allowed us to expand the Transportation

17:15:12 Concurrency Exception Area to coincide with the entire

17:15:15 city boundary as was -- was established in the Senate

17:15:17 Bill 360, excuse me.

17:15:20 And to adopt a mobility plan, a mobility strategy for

17:15:21 moving forward.

17:15:24 As you may know, Senate Bill 360 was found

17:15:32 unConstitutional by, I think, the Leon Circuit Court.

17:15:36 Shortly thereafter -- DCA objected to this plan

17:15:39 amendment on the basis of that finding by the Circuit














17:15:40 Court.

17:15:45 Shortly thereafter, it was appealed and DCA then

17:15:49 published a ruling that said Senate Bill 360 is in

17:15:53 effect until -- under the original provisions throughout

17:15:55 the duration of the -- of the appeal.

17:16:01 So the -- the DCA's objection basically went away

17:16:04 because Senate Bill 360 is in effect; however, there is

17:16:07 still an appeal and we don't know what the outcome of

17:16:08 that appeal is going to be.

17:16:13 The city staff is advocating that we take some caution

17:16:15 in this proposed plan amendment.

17:16:18 We are recommending that we withdraw the provision that

17:16:21 said we were going to expand the TCA or the Currency

17:16:24 Exception Area throughout the entire city.

17:16:27 Concurrency provision remains in effect in New Tampa.

17:16:31 The TCA stays the same as it is today.

17:16:33 But we do want to adopt the policies that are

17:16:36 established on mobility strategy, because those are

17:16:40 policies which are sound for moving forward to make sure

17:16:43 that our mobility is preserved.

17:16:47 So with our changes, we withdraw the amendment -- the --

17:16:51 draw the amendments to Policy 46.41 which would have

17:16:52 extended the TCA.

17:16:55 We modified one of the policies that talked about the

17:17:01 provisions in Tampa remaining in effect unless mutually














17:17:02 agreed upon.

17:17:04 They stay in effect as they are today.

17:17:06 There is a question about a negotiation afterwards

17:17:09 because of a change in the law and we want to keep the

17:17:11 policies for the mobility strategy.

17:17:13 If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer

17:17:14 those questions.

17:17:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by Council?

17:17:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close --

17:17:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Comments?

17:17:26 Anyone from the public wish to address Council?

17:17:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

17:17:28 >> Second.

17:17:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My question is, on this -- we are

17:17:32 amending the language or section, is that right?

17:17:33 We are doing that tonight?

17:17:35 >> Yes.

17:17:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, okay.

17:17:38 So that has already been drafted?

17:17:39 >> Yes.

17:17:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Just wanted to make sure.

17:17:41 Motion to close.

17:17:43 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:17:44 Opposed?

17:17:48 Councilman Caetano, do you have the ordinance?














17:17:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.

17:17:53 An ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan

17:17:58 Mobility and Capital Improvements Element to modify and

17:18:01 add objectives and policies related to Transportation

17:18:05 concurrency and strategies for mobility providing for

17:18:09 repeal of all ordinance in conflict, providing for

17:18:13 severability, providing an effective date.

17:18:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:18:17 Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

17:18:20 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:18:21 Opposed.

17:18:24 >> Motion carries unanimously.

17:18:27 Second reading on October 28 at 10:30 A.M.

17:18:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 4.

17:18:35 >> Councilmembers, Item 4 and Item 8 are related dealing

17:18:40 with the 40th Street planning area.

17:18:44 The first part of the amendment is the text amendment

17:18:47 for the 40th Street planning area.

17:18:52 It is a continuation of the city's form-based codes for

17:18:56 community planning, and this text amendment would create

17:18:59 objectives and policies related to the vision plan that

17:19:04 was adopted for the 40th Street planning area.

17:19:07 Just to give you an idea of the area that we are talking

17:19:12 about, the area that is outlined in the fuchsia color is

17:19:17 the 40th Street planning area.














17:19:23 The second part of this amendment is the map amendment.

17:19:26 This amendment is to change approximately 33 acre notice

17:19:31 40th Street planning area to a mixed use land use

17:19:34 category, CMU-12.

17:19:38 This opportunity allows for property owners to take

17:19:41 advantage of the improvements along 40th Street

17:19:46 providing them opportunities for Commercial development

17:19:51 and higher density residential development that will

17:19:54 complement the 40th Street planning area and the vision

17:20:01 and the guiding principles of that document.

17:20:03 This just shows you what it will look like after the

17:20:06 proposed plan amendment comes into effect.

17:20:08 Again, this is a map amendment that would change

17:20:12 approximately 33 acres along the 40th Street corridor.

17:20:14 The Planning Commission did hear this, and they found

17:20:16 both of these, the text and the map amendment,

17:20:18 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

17:20:21 There were no comments from the state reviewing agencies

17:20:33 on this map and text amendment.

17:20:37 >> Randy Goers, Land Development Coordination.

17:20:39 I want to make one comment on the land amount.

17:20:42 The review at the state and regional level went very

17:20:44 smoothly.

17:20:48 There weren't any negative comments a groundwork of the

17:20:50 Seminole Heights plan amendment plan that went through














17:20:53 that helped the staff to understand how to process these

17:20:59 plan amendments and also the work of Cathy Coyle and the

17:21:01 neighborhood that produced these amendments.

17:21:03 I wanted to make sure that right now very simple

17:21:05 adoption and everything wept through smoothly, but

17:21:09 really a result of all the work that the neighborhoods

17:21:11 and staff put in the plan amendment.

17:21:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public wish to address

17:21:16 Council on Item 4 and 8?

17:21:19 4 and 8?

17:21:19 >> Second.

17:21:20 >> Second.

17:21:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:21:26 All in favor, opposed?

17:21:28 Item 4.

17:21:30 >>CURTIS STOKES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

17:21:33 The ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan to

17:21:37 add goals, objectives and policies for establishing the

17:21:39 40th Street corridor Community Vision Plan for all

17:21:41 ordinances in conflict provided for severability,

17:21:44 providing an effective date.

17:21:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:21:47 Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

17:21:49 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:21:52 Opposed?














17:21:53 Item 8.

17:21:58 Councilwoman Mulhern, do you want to read it?

17:21:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

17:22:01 I move an ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive

17:22:06 Plan, Future Land Use Element, generally -- Future Land

17:22:09 Use Map general will he bounded by Busch Boulevard on

17:22:12 the north, 22nd street on the west, Hillsborough Avenue

17:22:15 on the south, and Tampa city limits on the east from

17:22:18 Residential-10, Residential-20 and Residential-35 to

17:22:21 Community Mixed Use-35 providing for a repeal of

17:22:24 ordinances, providing for severabilities, providing for

17:22:28 an effective date.

17:22:29 >> Moved.

17:22:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

17:22:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

17:22:34 >> Motion is carried.

17:22:37 Second reading and adoption on Items 4 and 8 will be on

17:22:43 October 28 at 10:30 A.M.

17:22:45 >> Councilmembers, your final plan amendment this

17:22:48 evening is a privately initiated plan amendment.

17:22:53 It is a map amendment to change the land use category

17:22:57 and approximately 12 acres from the current designation

17:23:01 of Heavy Industrial to Residential Mixed Use-100.

17:23:05 A regular scale plan amendment, the plan amendment is

17:23:08 located in your central Tampa planning district.














17:23:11 And you can see where the red arrow is showing its

17:23:20 location on Adamo Drive and 50th Street.

17:23:25 Additionally, the plan amendment is located within the

17:23:31 core activity center that you can see on your Elmo.

17:23:34 The effect of this map amendment would be to change the

17:23:36 land use category to a mixed-use category from its

17:23:39 current industrial category.

17:23:45 This would introduce uses that are more synonymous of

17:23:48 mixed uses, commercial, residential, but it does not

17:23:51 allow any more industrial use on the property.

17:23:55 It also takes it to a category that was more synonymous

17:23:57 with an urban or city form.

17:24:02 The Regional Mixed Use-100 as you know is a very intense

17:24:03 land use category allowing for Commercial, professional

17:24:06 office, and residential development.

17:24:08 Somewhat out of character with the industrial uses that

17:24:14 are along this important corridor.

17:24:17 Just to give you an idea, this is the plan amendment

17:24:24 site specifically.

17:24:26 This will be the plan amendment site with the proposed

17:24:36 Regional Mixed Use-100.

17:24:38 The Planning Commission did review this and found it

17:24:40 inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

17:24:42 Additional comments from state reviewing agencies not in

17:24:44 favor of this plan amendment.














17:24:47 They did object to it from the Tampa bay regional

17:24:54 planning Council, along with the port short.

17:24:58 Mr. Randy Goers may have additional comments from the

17:25:03 city staff with regard to this plan amendment.

17:25:06 >> Randy Goers, Land Development Coordination division.

17:25:08 It was transmitted to the state agencies, the Department

17:25:10 of Community Affairs did not comment.

17:25:13 In our conversations with them, they indicated it was

17:25:15 purely a local issue.

17:25:19 This plan amendment did address a critical state concern

17:25:23 because of their -- the stress of dealing with a number

17:25:26 plan amendments and only dealing with the issues that

17:25:29 affect the critical state concerns so it is a local

17:25:32 issue, something for the City of Tampa to decide.

17:25:38 The Department of Transportation indicated conflict with

17:25:41 traffic along with the corridors.

17:25:46 They cited the inconsistency of the port master plan,

17:25:50 and the -- again, just the traffic issue in the area.

17:25:53 The -- the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council said it

17:25:55 was inconsistent with the state regional policy plan.

17:26:00 They raised inconsistencies with the port master plan.

17:26:03 They questioned the -- the introduction of a residential

17:26:05 plan category in a predominantly residential area and

17:26:08 cited the incompatibility of land uses.

17:26:12 The department of state objective and on some














17:26:15 preservation of the historical architectural resources

17:26:18 and had a policy in the plan that assured that.

17:26:22 The city staff is still advocating or still objecting to

17:26:26 the plan amendment based on two or three key principles.

17:26:29 The first being that the plan category itself was not

17:26:31 the most appropriate plan category for what the property

17:26:33 owner is requesting.

17:26:37 In his petition, -- the petitioner is asking to do an

17:26:39 office Commercial development.

17:26:44 It doesn't need a residential plan category to do that.

17:26:46 He can do that with the existing plan category.

17:26:48 If you look at where the residential mixed use plan

17:26:54 category is going, it is going to the center of a quite

17:26:56 a bit of industrial plan category.

17:27:00 It is introducing a plan category which is inconsistent

17:27:01 to the character.

17:27:03 We are not opposed to the development that the property

17:27:04 owner is suggesting.

17:27:06 The idea of a Commercial development in that area is

17:27:09 appropriate with the land use category.

17:27:11 We are objecting to the land use category being placed

17:27:12 there.

17:27:15 We are advocating that the property owner just move

17:27:18 forward with a -- with his petition on that site given

17:27:23 the existing plan category and come in under that














17:27:25 category as opposed to changing it.

17:27:28 The comp plan does have a provision that was put in

17:27:34 during the update which talked about how we review plan

17:27:37 amendments in certain areas.

17:27:41 And it is in the report, but I can put it out there.

17:27:49 literal -- it has three parts to it.

17:27:56 This is on page 498 of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

17:27:59 Basically says when a plan amendment map request, that

17:28:02 we need to look at -- at these three criteria before we

17:28:05 can move forward on it or at least move forward

17:28:06 competently.

17:28:10 Question is, is there a land use category -- a land use

17:28:13 of similar density or intensity located on one side of

17:28:15 the subject parcel.

17:28:17 In this case there isn't.

17:28:21 It is isolated by other industrial plan categories.

17:28:25 There is no designated primary transit corridor within

17:28:27 the walking distance that is placed there.

17:28:31 What this means when you read the polls as a City

17:28:36 Council can determine whether or not this parcel or plan

17:28:38 category is appropriate.

17:28:42 If it meets what -- or stock exchange appropriate, if it

17:28:43 meets those conditions.

17:28:49 If it doesn't meet those conditions.

17:28:51 So in the event it doesn't meet those conditions and














17:28:56 City Council may deny this plan amendment request or

17:28:58 request the Planning Commission to generate -- or

17:29:04 recommend a different plan category.

17:29:07 You can recommend moving forward to adopt this plan

17:29:10 category, but if you do so you need to look at the

17:29:13 existing plan category and make a finding that it is no

17:29:14 longer of any benefit.

17:29:18 That is purely a decision that Council has to make, but

17:29:21 in our opinion, the plan category does have a benefit.

17:29:23 He can still come in and do a Commercial office building

17:29:25 with the existing plan category.

17:29:31 He is just for -- for whatever reason just asking for an

17:29:43 increase in density and residential plan category so --

17:29:47 if you and Julia Cole will help us out in the procedure.

17:29:49 If you were to find the existing plan category of no

17:29:52 economic benefit and you were to consider this change of

17:29:54 use, then find it consistent.

17:29:59 Then the property owner would then need to come in as a

17:30:02 site control plan category and meet all the requirements

17:30:04 of the code in that respect.

17:30:07 In our discussions with the property owner, it would be

17:30:11 synonymous of coming in today as a PD in a site plan

17:30:12 control district.

17:30:15 So we are a little bit unsure what the exact benefit is

17:30:18 or why the property owner is asking for the change when














17:30:21 he can go forward with the exact request with under the

17:30:24 current plan category.

17:30:29 I will be available for questions if you wish.

17:30:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So in essence you are saying that based

17:30:34 on the category now, they can come in and do whatever

17:30:38 they want to do now without having to change it?

17:30:40 >> They can make the -- come in with the same proposal

17:30:44 that he wishes to have under the plan category today.

17:30:49 And also, this was our other reason for continuing with

17:30:49 our objection.

17:30:53 It shows that -- a summary of all the agencies' comments

17:30:54 throughout the process.

17:30:58 Those are at the top show -- those objected to the plan

17:30:59 amendment.

17:31:02 Those who had comments that were primarily comments

17:31:05 about incompatibility of the port, traffic concerns,

17:31:08 incompatibility with the residential plan category.

17:31:12 DCA did not object, and then there were no comments

17:31:18 provided by -- by S.W.F.W.M.D. Or the Department of

17:31:19 Community Affairs.

17:31:23 So it was just the -- our review of the plan amendment

17:31:26 and also what all the agency comments have said

17:31:31 throughout the entire review proposal that we field that

17:31:35 the RMU-100 is inappropriate for the area and we are

17:31:37 objecting and recommending a denial for the plan














17:31:39 amendment.

17:31:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

17:31:51 Okay.

17:31:54 >> So if this was changed, they would be able to put

17:31:56 condominiums there?

17:31:59 >> A residential -- and this is one of the questions for

17:32:01 the long run.

17:32:05 RMU-100 would allow for a residential component of up to

17:32:07 100 dwelling units per acre.

17:32:09 And the site is about 12 acres.

17:32:13 A fairly large site for -- for a plan designation of

17:32:15 that density and intensity.

17:32:20 The RMU-100 is typically referred for locations around

17:32:23 the downtown as a transitioning plan category.

17:32:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

17:32:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.

17:32:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

17:32:33 Three items and I have to leave -- similar distance and

17:32:33 density.

17:32:37 One was something that measured or touched at least one

17:32:40 of the same density recommendations, and the other was a

17:32:45 quarter of a mile of 1320 feet, which is 80 feet short

17:32:46 of a quarter of a mile.

17:32:49 Quarter of a mile is 440.

17:32:51 A little bit more -- yeah, 440.














17:32:55 You are talking about 80 and 40, 120 feet from a quarter

17:32:59 of a mile distance although -- you have category of

17:33:00 quarter of a mile.

17:33:04 Are we saying now that -- if it is not near a station,

17:33:09 that's what it said, remember designation station or

17:33:12 something to that effect the language was.

17:33:14 There it is there.

17:33:18 Designate transit station or designated transit corridor

17:33:21 that now it just doesn't go anywhere?

17:33:22 >> What the --

17:33:24 >> Because I am asking because there is a bullet train,

17:33:28 a slow train, a fast train, a wagon train, a light rail.

17:33:30 There is a lot of things coming.

17:33:31 >> Yes.

17:33:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And being sold to the public as

17:33:36 anything -- well, then all the way around, everybody is

17:33:39 going to turn rich.

17:33:41 Which I believe.

17:33:45 In fact I got two signs at my house.

17:33:49 Maybe I am the only Councilmember who have those signs.

17:33:51 >> The policy with plan amendments.

17:33:54 And it doesn't pertain to development.

17:33:57 So for those -- the properties that have the current

17:34:00 plan designation and they are moving forward on

17:34:04 proposals, they can move forward as they -- at any














17:34:06 point.

17:34:08 What it pertains to is when there is a consideration of

17:34:12 a plan amendment, and it was put -- during the plan

17:34:16 update for -- really for circumstances like this when

17:34:20 you have an area that is planned to be a certain type of

17:34:23 character, say an industrial corridor like this, and you

17:34:26 had a plan category that is being recommended that has

17:34:29 the potential to change the entire corridor.

17:34:31 It provides Council with that mechanism to stand back

17:34:34 and say, is this what we want?

17:34:37 What's wrong with the existing plan category?

17:34:38 Is it stopping development?

17:34:42 Or -- or other things that can be done.

17:34:46 If you in your deliberations look at that plan category

17:34:48 and say, it is going to help us to keep that plan

17:34:49 category.

17:34:52 Let's go ahead and approve the change.

17:34:55 In this case, what we are -- what we are saying that the

17:34:57 existing plan category still have benefits, the property

17:35:01 owner can still come forward with this development.

17:35:04 We are trying -- we are trying to -- understand what the

17:35:05 benefit is.

17:35:08 We think there is going to be a negative impact on the

17:35:13 road, that it might spur additional residential

17:35:16 development in an area that is being planned for














17:35:16 industrial development.

17:35:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right, if I may, Mr. Chairman,

17:35:22 and one more thing and 1320 feet is the right amount of

17:35:26 a quarter of a mile, but my brain was in recess there

17:35:28 for a second.

17:35:31 But let me just say that -- so then we are comfortable

17:35:35 with looking at what we are seeing in Adamo Drive

17:35:37 between Tampa and Brandon.

17:35:41 It is one of the major corridors into the city, just as

17:35:43 major as Kennedy Boulevard.

17:35:50 Just as heavily traveled as Spruce or Boy Scout

17:35:54 Boulevard coming into the city, and just as unglorified

17:35:57 as any road we have leading into the city.

17:36:01 So what -- not you, sir, please don't take this

17:36:03 personally, but whatever we are saying, the top three

17:36:07 versus the bottom three, there are three for here and

17:36:13 three against because no objection means -- [Speaking

17:36:16 foreign language]-- which means, do as you please.

17:36:20 Is this what we are saying that that corridor is what we

17:36:20 want?

17:36:22 The way it is?

17:36:27 With empty warehouses?

17:36:33 Certainly development there has been long searched for.

17:36:40 IKEA was one of the first.

17:36:42 Whoever made investments in that area, I welcome and














17:36:43 support them.

17:36:49 So I have a hard time digesting all the facts right now.

17:36:56 Because I know what I see, and that's what bothers me.

17:36:58 >> I can only say that the property owner can come in

17:37:00 today with the proposal he is asking for.

17:37:03 So -- he can move forward and achieve the vision that he

17:37:04 wants.

17:37:06 It is just that he is asking for something that is not

17:37:08 necessarily needed.

17:37:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: But I can't speak for the property

17:37:12 owner because I don't know what is in that mind.

17:37:16 I guess that mind will be debated here in a few minutes.

17:37:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

17:37:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.

17:37:23 So this is a privately initiated plan amendment request?

17:37:24 >> Yes.

17:37:26 >>MARY MULHERN: And so we are not hearing from the

17:37:28 property owner?

17:37:29 >> He is here and --

17:37:31 >>MARY MULHERN: We are still asking you our questions.

17:37:32 Okay.

17:37:33 Sorry.

17:37:34 It has been a long time.

17:37:40 We are not getting a lot of action around here lately.

17:37:43 >> Like I said, I just want to show this map.














17:37:46 We talked about the transit corridors, this is the map.

17:37:48 You have seen this map many times before.

17:37:50 These are the transit corridors we are talking about.

17:37:54 The whole concept behind the comp plan was to encourage

17:37:55 development within these corridors where they are

17:38:00 investing the public dollars, and to make sure we can do

17:38:03 everything we can to facilitate development in these

17:38:06 corridors to support transit.

17:38:09 >>MARY MULHERN: Can you show us where the property is

17:38:11 on there?

17:38:13 >> It would be about over here.

17:38:15 >>MARY MULHERN: That is not at all on your corridor

17:38:16 map?

17:38:17 >> The corridors are up here.

17:38:21 If it is not in the color -- the areas that are colored,

17:38:22 it is not in the corridors.

17:38:27 It is in the white area just north of --

17:38:32 >>MARY MULHERN: Even in the longer term like the TBARTA

17:38:36 plan, that is not a corridor?

17:38:38 >> Once the plans move into a phase where there is a

17:38:45 funding attached, the plan that is being funded to the

17:38:49 referendum, once those corridors become set, and if it

17:38:53 is funded, then there will be a place on the map and

17:38:54 adopted as corridors as well.

17:38:57 >>MARY MULHERN: So what you are showing us there, we














17:38:58 have already adopted those?

17:39:02 But we haven't adopted it for the Adamo or the I-4

17:39:03 corridor?

17:39:15 >> Yes, the routes and the current level of service --

17:39:18 >> That doesn't even include those future -- transit

17:39:21 oriented development routes aren't on there?

17:39:25 Those are just where we have existing --

17:39:30 >> The D.O.T. are planned.

17:39:33 They are planned and funded in the Long-Range

17:39:34 Transportation Plan right now.

17:39:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

17:39:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?

17:39:52 >> Mr. Chairman -- good evening, Mr. Chairman and

17:39:54 Council.

17:39:57 I have a powerpoint to put up in a minute, but I have a

17:40:01 couple of points to make up first.

17:40:04 Amend this vote by this body a month, month and a half

17:40:07 ago which was I think somewhat quickly passed over.

17:40:10 This issue as you know was sent up to the Department of

17:40:13 Community Affairs, and the primary job of DCA is to

17:40:18 review this amendment or review amendments with the

17:40:19 city's comprehensive plan.

17:40:21 They are the top dog.

17:40:22 We all know that.

17:40:26 And, you know what, that request came back to you














17:40:29 without a single comment or concern.

17:40:32 Not a single fingerprint from DCA.

17:40:36 I had a conversation with DCA too and I will show you

17:40:41 other information with Chris Wigglesworth, the planner

17:40:45 with DCA, and in my conversation with them, they were

17:40:47 considering local considerations and what kind of uses

17:40:48 in the area.

17:40:50 That was a conversation himself to myself --

17:40:52 >> THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Pressman, state your name and

17:40:53 address.

17:40:57 >> Todd Pressman, 6015 in Palm Harbor, Florida.

17:40:59 That is the critical determinant for you.

17:41:02 Your action last month was to send this up to DCA to

17:41:05 talk with the planning agency and they came back and

17:41:05 told you it was fine.

17:41:07 It looked good.

17:41:07 Move ahead.

17:41:11 Now in terms of the other agencies, the staff here threw

17:41:13 a couple of things at you.

17:41:16 When you look at the number of agencies, what they are

17:41:21 primarily -- in fact what -- what they are responding to

17:41:23 are the residential element of it.

17:41:26 As I explained to you at our last meeting, we have a

17:41:31 pending application for OP-1, Office Professional 1.

17:41:33 Fees have been paid.














17:41:40 It is scheduled in my calendar and will be here two

17:41:42 weeks after you finally approve this.

17:41:44 That has been there all along.

17:41:47 For staff and us is what is the best way to skin the

17:41:47 cat.

17:41:52 And staff is pushing one way.

17:41:54 We chose to go the other way.

17:41:57 Quite frankly, we came in with the PD.

17:41:59 I didn't handle it, someone else handled it a year and a

17:42:02 half ago and it came back with so many comments and so

17:42:04 many requirements, and so many costs, the project was

17:42:05 dropped.

17:42:08 It was dropped for six to eight months until I took a

17:42:10 look at it and tried to figure out another way to skin

17:42:12 the cat.

17:42:15 The reason we ended up with this zoning is and I will

17:42:16 show you.

17:42:19 It is a little bit involved, but quite frankly the only

17:42:21 way to get the height necessary to make the project work

17:42:28 was to go through an OP-1 zoning and the RMU-1 shouldn't

17:42:31 only land use category that is compatible with the same

17:42:31 category.

17:42:33 We are all going to end up in the place.

17:42:35 You will have your hands all over it.

17:42:37 You will have site plans, all the rules, all the














17:42:40 regulations, allied ordinances, staff will have their

17:42:43 time at it, but I think negatively the staff -- I have

17:42:47 great respect for all of these guys, very easy to throw

17:42:48 darts at a project.

17:42:51 It is real easy to throw a few darts and pick out

17:42:56 something that is negative and is not positive.

17:42:58 We can switch to the overhead or to the -- to the

17:43:01 powerpoint, thank you.

17:43:04 The Department of Community Affairs against had zero

17:43:04 comments.

17:43:08 In regard to what Mr. Goers said from the government web

17:43:11 site, the division of community affairs worked with

17:43:13 local governments and other state agencies to ensure

17:43:16 high quality growth ensure that comprehensive plan

17:43:18 comply with local comprehensive planning.

17:43:19 That is their critical function.

17:43:20 You see the site.

17:43:23 This is an aerial of it.

17:43:26 And there is quite substantial Commercial activity

17:43:26 around it.

17:43:27 This is the view of the site.

17:43:31 This is an eastbound view and the southbound site.

17:43:33 It is real important to say to you that this site has

17:43:36 remained vacant since the beginning of time.

17:43:40 There is a small gas user on the corner of the 12 acres,














17:43:43 but in terms of the criterion of is there value, is this

17:43:47 the right category, you just simply have to look at the

17:43:47 site.

17:43:50 It has been vacant since the beginning of time.

17:43:52 This is an elevation of what is proposed.

17:43:53 Another elevation of it.

17:43:58 It is referred to.

17:43:59 You have seen this before.

17:44:00 Another elevation for you.

17:44:03 Drive home the point that agencies are responding to the

17:44:03 residential.

17:44:06 Obviously the DCA felt differently than most of the

17:44:08 other agencies.

17:44:11 And at that time, there was not a single word of

17:44:13 consideration for the zoning file with Tampa as the

17:44:14 agency sought.

17:44:18 And I told that you we are -- that we are filing for

17:44:19 OP-1.

17:44:21 Now criteria in the comprehensive plan that will support

17:44:21 this.

17:44:24 And the first one is urban infill.

17:44:27 You have heard of urban infill for years.

17:44:32 Use limited land use source more efficiently to pursue a

17:44:34 development plan encouraging infill development on

17:44:37 vacant and underutilized site.














17:44:39 That fits this site perfectly but you haven't heard that

17:44:40 from the staff.

17:44:42 They chose to pick out the negative points from the

17:44:43 comprehensive plan.

17:44:47 DCA has an urban infill policy, local government

17:44:51 comprehensive plans and development regulation must

17:44:54 include strategies of existing facilities and service.

17:44:55 You didn't hear that about this project.

17:44:57 A big urban infill project.

17:45:00 And with regards to the central district -- central

17:45:03 Tampa district, there are some points to the

17:45:05 comprehensive plan that note the focus and development

17:45:08 that support mass transit of the ability.

17:45:11 Located right at the crosstown expressway and Councilman

17:45:14 Miranda brought up a point that points to a specific

17:45:15 criteria.

17:45:18 We don't know where the commuter rails and the commuter

17:45:19 systems are going to go.

17:45:23 And the other comprehensive policy or -- indication of

17:45:25 the plan that attracting private investment that should

17:45:27 attract new development.

17:45:31 I went through a longer edition -- I won't go through

17:45:34 all the points, but important to look at how this is the

17:45:38 current site, and how the planning agency that wrote the

17:45:42 planning agencies looked at the ikea site a few years














17:45:45 ago right down the street on Adamo.

17:45:49 Characterized Adamo that it was a thriving industrial

17:45:52 corridor and a range of these issues.

17:45:53 You don't hear that today.

17:45:57 That was told years ago that a booming industrial

17:45:58 corridor that has since changed.

17:46:01 Planning Commission approval, the result has been a slow

17:46:04 transition away from Heavy Industrial reflected by

17:46:06 recent development of several properties of general

17:46:10 Commercial uses along South Adamo.

17:46:12 You didn't hear that today but you heard that a few

17:46:12 years ago.

17:46:14 Very inconsistent.

17:46:16 Extremely inconsistent.

17:46:18 Again the Planning Commission approval that there will

17:46:21 eliminate adverse Heavy Industrial uses.

17:46:22 They wanted to eliminate them at the time.

17:46:25 Allow them in the current land use category.

17:46:28 And the recommendation that was made was clearly

17:46:35 indicating the trend Adamo Drive shifting from mixed

17:46:36 uses to industrial uses.

17:46:37 Consider the economics.

17:46:41 I think that is an important consideration.

17:46:43 St. Pete times said Tampa bay watt 12.6%.

17:46:46 The second worse -- the second worse in the entire State














17:46:46 of Florida.

17:46:48 I don't have to go into those points.

17:46:51 This is a good economic project.

17:46:53 This was a project that was dead.

17:46:55 They left it in the file alone.

17:47:01 And we tried to bring it back.

17:47:05 And regarding those transit policies that Councilman

17:47:07 Miranda was talking about.

17:47:11 We read the papers and a lot of talk and a copy of the

17:47:14 article that even the transit authority planners don't

17:47:18 know the specific -- what will be selected before the

17:47:19 November 2 referendum.

17:47:22 How can you determine a policy directed to you from the

17:47:24 Planning Commission that is your new policy when transit

17:47:28 routes and commuter rail routes aren't known.

17:47:31 Now they are scrambling to try to get a few of the

17:47:32 routes out before the November 2 election.

17:47:34 It is a flawed policy.

17:47:36 Ladies and gentlemen -- Mr. Chairman and Councilmembers,

17:47:40 if I may, that policy is going to affect every single

17:47:41 land use amendment that comes through.

17:47:44 That is not just for this site.

17:47:47 So be aware that that policy is going to require,

17:47:50 according to staff, the way they are readding it today,

17:47:52 that every single land use amendment will have to come














17:47:54 in for site plan control.

17:47:56 I don't know if you intended that but a far-reaching

17:48:00 criterion that is brand-new in the comprehensive plan.

17:48:03 Here is part of the difficulty that we have.

17:48:05 In terms of the rezoning code.

17:48:06 We are looking for height.

17:48:08 We had to have the height, the height was critical.

17:48:12 OP-1 zoning was the only category that will let us go to

17:48:13 a higher level.

17:48:17 As I told you, the only compatible land use category was

17:48:19 RMU-100.

17:48:21 Some that's how we looked at trying to devise a way to

17:48:25 work within the code parameters to come back to you.

17:48:27 This is the way we skin the cat.

17:48:29 Staff told you another way.

17:48:31 DCA said it looked fine.

17:48:35 Now with regard to FDOT, I think it is important to look

17:48:37 at the FDOT requirement.

17:48:39 They are actually referring to -- referring to the

17:48:42 impacts that there are going to be alternatives and

17:48:45 elements if you look at their report that would affect

17:48:48 any development, not just necessarily this capacity.

17:48:51 So they had -- they had concerns and interest in a

17:48:55 number of different capacities.

17:48:57 And again, primary transit door deers.














17:48:58 What are they?

17:49:02 In your criterion of the comprehensive plan looking back

17:49:05 to the criteria they are dogging you to review that to

17:49:08 designate a primary transit corridor ensures a city

17:49:11 urban development and mixed use villages that these can

17:49:15 change, they can be new, they can be different, and they

17:49:18 quite frankly are going to be devised by all the

17:49:20 different municipalities working together.

17:49:23 So in summary, we ask you to consider the larger

17:49:24 picture.

17:49:27 Please consider a strong DCA recommendation.

17:49:32 Please consider consistent evaluation and consideration.

17:49:34 We ask for your consideration on valid policies and

17:49:38 objectives that do apply to this site and please factor

17:49:43 in the significant economic impacts for this project.

17:49:47 We appreciate your support not too long ago, and we ask

17:49:48 for your support again.

17:49:49 Thank you.

17:49:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from Councilmembers?

17:50:02 Anyone else in the public would like to speak?

17:50:06 Close the public hearing.

17:50:09 >> Julia Cole, legal department.

17:50:11 I think -- there is a lot of discussion during this

17:50:17 hearing from the applicant as to a zoning that has

17:50:20 either been filed, it has been put on hold while we are














17:50:22 waiting to go through this process or have -- or he

17:50:25 intends to bring forward and typically it is something

17:50:30 we don't talk about as part of the comprehensive plan

17:50:30 process.

17:50:35 But I do want to make it clear to you because I think

17:50:38 that the biggest issue with this particular plan

17:50:41 amendment -- because I think that the biggest issue with

17:50:47 the particular plan amendment allowing the user -- by

17:50:51 improving in comprehensive plan amendment.

17:50:55 By approving it, you are making the opportunity for the

17:50:58 property owner to make a request for a residential

17:51:01 component of a project at some point in the future.

17:51:03 I think it is important enough to sincerely make clear

17:51:07 because it was talked about the OP-1 category what the

17:51:11 OP-1 category entails with the permitted and allowable

17:51:12 uses.

17:51:13 Thank you.

17:51:16 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thank you, Abbye Feeley, Land

17:51:16 Development Coordination.

17:51:19 Did I review these amendments as the zoning staff and

17:51:21 Land Development Coordination and did provide comments

17:51:25 back to Mr. Goers in your staff report relating to the

17:51:29 potential and affects related to this land use change.

17:51:35 I can briefly -- as Mr. Pressman said, there was, in

17:51:37 pact, a PD application on this site.














17:51:41 A PD application on this site given the current land use

17:51:47 will allow a maximum height of whatever FAA would allow

17:51:49 and Council would approve.

17:51:51 An opportunity for a petition to come forward on this

17:51:54 piece of property under a PD zoning and achieve the

17:51:57 height for an office building that Mr. Pressman was

17:51:59 looking for.

17:52:02 Allowable uses in the OP-1.

17:52:07 Which the OP-1 is the only nonsite plan-controlled

17:52:11 zoning district under the RMU-100.

17:52:12 Okay.

17:52:16 So you can make -- the land use will be RMU-100 and come

17:52:20 in for a rezoning under the OP-1 and not require a site

17:52:20 plan.

17:52:23 It will be a general Euclidian zoning district.

17:52:27 OP-1 does allow for an array of residential uses.

17:52:31 I just wanted to go through either by special use or by

17:52:32 permitted right.

17:52:37 And those would with include bed and breakfast.

17:52:39 Would also include a cemetery which is a different kind

17:52:43 of residential use.

17:52:43 [Laughter]

17:52:49 Congregate facility, multidwelling unit, single-family

17:52:54 attached dwelling unit, semi-family, semi-detached,

17:52:56 single-family attached.














17:52:59 Two family, which is duplex that is typically an

17:53:03 upstairs and downstairs, two unit, extended family

17:53:05 residence.

17:53:09 Going through a clinic, a club, a college, day care,

17:53:15 nursery facilities, funeral parlors, hospitals,

17:53:21 hotel/motel, places of religious assemblies, public or

17:53:27 cultural facilities and some of your major OCS, the

17:53:28 office component.

17:53:30 When staff reviewed this, we thought there was an

17:53:32 opportunity for this development to occur with a PD

17:53:35 zoning versus changing the entire land use underneath.

17:53:41 And that by putting the RMU-100 into the corridor you

17:53:43 are setting precedent for other land use changes to

17:53:46 occur along that corridor for more intensive use and

17:53:51 residential uses in that area.

17:53:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda?

17:53:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I question myself and sometimes I

17:54:01 tell myself, if it is so bad, why is it in the code?

17:54:05 If it is not workable, why do we permit it?

17:54:08 As he says, you were explaining yourself, I am telling

17:54:11 myself, okay, did I hear right?

17:54:13 Did I understand what was said?

17:54:18 Do I understand the parameters of the application?

17:54:22 When you talk about OM-100 and the things that go with

17:54:23 it.














17:54:26 If all those things that you said are correct, and I

17:54:29 assume they are, then why would we leave it in there,

17:54:31 why would government let it happen.

17:54:34 Why don't we change our own code and our own ordinances

17:54:39 so that can happen, will not happen, but we choose not

17:54:39 to do that.

17:54:45 We chose to let this go offer a long process and I am

17:54:47 not talking about you specifically and sit here and say

17:54:50 this is terrible, this is not acceptable, but we leave

17:54:51 it in the code.

17:54:55 If this goes down, up, whatever, five years from now, it

17:54:57 may be another application and another part of the city

17:55:01 where the same set of circumstances because the code or

17:55:04 the applications to those processes have not been

17:55:06 changed.

17:55:09 Today we are doing plan amendments.

17:55:14 So what we are saying is, why don't we do a plan

17:55:17 amendment involving OP-100.

17:55:18 If it is so terrible.

17:55:23 That's what I am -- with myself, not you in.

17:55:26 But I have to express myself to you.

17:55:33 It's hard.

17:55:34 >> May I?

17:55:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I hope so.

17:55:39 >> The OP-1 is not bad designation.














17:55:43 An appropriate designation in many areas of the city.

17:55:48 What is happening in this instance -- I am talking about

17:55:51 it as a layer cake, the bottom layer of the ca I can is

17:55:53 the industrial land use which does not allow for

17:55:56 residential and allows for unlimited types of offices

17:55:58 and industrial types of uses.

17:56:01 When you go up the layer of the cake, the next -- the

17:56:04 frost something that zoning that sits on top of that

17:56:04 land use.

17:56:06 >> Like a wedding cake.

17:56:10 >> Like -- yes.

17:56:13 As you go up the cake, you are getting more restrictive.

17:56:16 And the IG land use which is what they have today, there

17:56:20 is an opportunity to do the project that Mr. Pressman's

17:56:22 client wishes to pursue on that property without

17:56:24 changing the bottom layer.

17:56:27 And I think for the city and for us in the planning

17:56:30 staff, we definitely take notice to those things that

17:56:33 are changing in relation to the long-term vision of the

17:56:37 city, and what land uses are appropriate, especially on

17:56:43 Adamo given that it has been a long time industrial,

17:56:49 while to the ports, you have a lot of other things there

17:56:53 that will not be appropriate to sit next to 100 unit per

17:56:56 acre residential given the surrounding areas.

17:56:59 So I think Mr. Pressman said it well.














17:57:00 Many different ways to skin a cat.

17:57:02 I think when we look at this change and we look at the

17:57:05 effect it may have in the long term of this corridor, we

17:57:07 want to take that into consideration for all of the

17:57:10 parcels that front that corridor and the current

17:57:11 characteristics that are there.

17:57:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me just correct, skinning a cat

17:57:14 is just a phrase.

17:57:16 We are not trying to skin anything.

17:57:16 [Laughter]

17:57:19 I don't want headlines tomorrow and all this kind of

17:57:20 stuff.

17:57:23 Or breaking news on both sides.

17:57:27 So what -- what I am trying to get at is that cake that

17:57:31 we are talking about should be delineated that the cake

17:57:35 can never be built at all, but we don't have that that

17:57:35 way.

17:57:41 So I remember when Adamo Drive was one -- that and 41

17:57:44 and 301 was the only corridors from the east side.

17:57:48 I saw the transit corridors that were selected, and

17:57:55 guess what, I guess Adamo Drive will be the main

17:57:57 corridor along with the Lee Roy Selmon expressway

17:58:01 because there are no express routes I see on that plan

17:58:04 because I guess that area can very well -- if the light

17:58:08 rail passes could be serviced by HARTline buses which














17:58:10 25% of it should be going in that direction.

17:58:16 So what I am saying is, I -- I understand what you said

17:58:19 in the grasp of it, but on the other hand, I have a plan

17:58:21 here in front of me that tells me you can't build

17:58:24 anything or should not build anything within 1320 feet

17:58:26 or quarter of a mile of a station.

17:58:29 Should be within that other station.

17:58:33 So that leaves 99.9% of the land unavailable for any

17:58:35 type of development for anything other than close to the

17:58:37 station.

17:58:40 I do understand -- do you understand that I am trying to

17:58:40 say?

17:58:44 We sell something and for every action there is a

17:58:44 reaction.

17:58:46 So we are selling something that we want, government,

17:58:48 and then we are saying for the better of the people,

17:58:50 this is what you need.

17:58:53 But are you saying you are forgetting about the rest of

17:58:57 the world?

17:59:00 >> I think in relation to the transit routes and what is

17:59:03 expected, it will be a approach by the rest of the city

17:59:05 to recognize that that route is now established and

17:59:08 change the land uses appropriately along that corridor.

17:59:12 So the corridor as a whole supports it.

17:59:16 In a piecemeal manner such as what is before us tonight














17:59:20 to change one piece that the project being desired there

17:59:23 can be built without that change.

17:59:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, I am not going to debate that.

17:59:27 Could be or could not be.

17:59:29 I heard evidence earlier that the PD had too many things

17:59:32 attached to it and, therefore, they didn't go that

17:59:32 route.

17:59:34 It wasn't the same gentleman.

17:59:35 I wasn't here when that happened.

17:59:37 I don't believe I was.

17:59:42 So what I am saying, it is awful difficult to be on this

17:59:46 side and understand all of the logistics of both sides.

17:59:49 As of now the conflict remains wider.

17:59:51 You said if the area was to be developed.

17:59:53 So then are you saying if you do one, would you go all

17:59:59 the way and do them all, like have -- like 830, 826

18:00:05 Palmetto Expressway, buildings all the way around

18:00:07 through Hialeah and all that.

18:00:09 >> We would look at the policy division for that area

18:00:11 and the support -- the mass transit plan that is going

18:00:17 in there, and it might RMU-100 is not the most

18:00:22 appropriate use or that a UMU-60 or something less dense

18:00:25 that can work with existing industrial uses might be

18:00:25 better.

18:00:27 I think that we would approach it that way.














18:00:30 The one thing I wanted to say is that there was

18:00:32 testimony that it couldn't -- they couldn't get the

18:00:35 height that they desired under the current land use with

18:00:38 a rezoning, and I thought that was a little concerning,

18:00:40 because as I mentioned, a PD, you can get whatever

18:00:44 height you petition City Council for.

18:00:48 In an OP district, you could get 60 feet, but then the

18:00:52 chart that Mr. Pressman showed you, a sub note on there

18:00:56 that says for every foot above 60, step the building

18:00:57 back another foot.

18:00:58 So not limited at 60.

18:01:01 For a large piece of property you can go potentially

18:01:02 much higher than that.

18:01:06 And all of those items need to be taken into

18:01:06 consideration.

18:01:10 Yes, the PD can sometimes be a tedious process and

18:01:12 causes other requirements to come before you, but those

18:01:16 aren't requirements that will necessarily have to be met

18:01:19 under a straight Euclidian zoning district when a

18:01:22 project went to permitting.

18:01:28 So --

18:01:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern, do you have a

18:01:31 question?

18:01:34 If you don't, that's fine.

18:01:39 >> If I may, Council, may I say a few words?














18:01:42 I wanted to get some clarity to what Mr. Pressman was

18:01:47 talking about, because it referred that DCA had no

18:01:48 objections.

18:01:49 They did not comment.

18:01:52 They wanted to leave it to a local decision.

18:01:55 So if we leave it to a local decision, we have to look

18:01:59 at what our local agencies had commented on.

18:02:01 And very important for this particular site is where it

18:02:04 is located for our community.

18:02:08 Again, it is in the core activity center.

18:02:13 And as you know, the Port of Tampa is one of our main

18:02:15 economic engines.

18:02:18 The port made comments to Council and to the Planning

18:02:21 Commission that they had serious concerns with this

18:02:24 request.

18:02:27 The port is vigorously looking at making some

18:02:33 expansions, not only for the port itself, but looking at

18:02:35 the areas around it given the characteristics what will

18:02:39 be happening with the port over the next 10 to 15 years

18:02:44 with the activity of the Panama Canal being widened.

18:02:48 Your port is important in our community.

18:02:50 It has a master plan.

18:02:52 It looks out to what is needed to support the support

18:02:53 over the years to come.

18:02:56 And it is declared and found that this area is going to














18:02:59 be an important factor to the port's growth and

18:03:02 development in maintaining the land uses that are going

18:03:05 to be supportive of the port.

18:03:09 So if DCA has indicated to you listen to your local

18:03:12 agencies, one of the main agencies that made comments

18:03:15 with regard to this site is the port Authority, and they

18:03:18 have given you their recommendation not to approve this

18:03:20 plan amendment.

18:03:23 Clearly, your comprehensive plan has made accommodations

18:03:28 for Adamo Drive.

18:03:32 Your comprehensive plan looked at Adamo Drive as a mixed

18:03:35 use Commercial village from 26th Street going west in

18:03:36 toward downtown.

18:03:41 It views that area as the area to have your mixed uses.

18:03:47 That is why you see the CMU category on the site where

18:03:49 IKEA is located.

18:03:53 Just for a reference, IKEA could have been built in the

18:03:54 industry category.

18:03:58 That plan amendment was done for another applicant, and

18:03:59 IKEA took advantage of that.

18:04:02 If you look at that IKEA site, you look catty corner

18:04:04 from where that is, there is residential development

18:04:06 with the box factory.

18:04:09 So it is in keeping with your comprehensive plan,

18:04:12 talking about that mixed use corridor village looking at














18:04:16 Adamo Drive going west in toward downtown.

18:04:22 Your comprehensive plan strictly viewed Adamo Drive east

18:04:27 of 26th street to support one of your major economic

18:04:31 engines, your Port of Tampa and leaving that area

18:04:34 consistent for industrial development.

18:04:41 A key factor that you should remember is the RMU-100

18:04:44 negates any industrial uses, residential, Commercial,

18:04:45 office.

18:04:47 No industrial.

18:04:51 So you are taking valuable land that the port has

18:04:55 designated as key for its economic growth away from them

18:04:59 and giving the opportunity for something inconsistent

18:05:04 with the port activity center and the port master plan.

18:05:07 Just a little clarity from what your local agency, who

18:05:09 knows what is happening here, has said about this plan

18:05:10 amendment.

18:05:11 Thank you.

18:05:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?

18:05:16 Any questions?

18:05:19 Let me take public comment and then you can have the

18:05:21 final word, Mr. Pressman.

18:05:22 Anyone from the public?

18:05:24 Anyone from the public wish to address Council?

18:05:26 Anyone from the public?

18:05:30 Okay, Mr. Pressman, you have five minutes rebuttal.














18:05:31 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

18:05:33 Thank you, board members.

18:05:37 A lot of inconsistencies here, but the one -- the number

18:05:40 one critical factor that I want you to know is that this

18:05:44 is about assurances.

18:05:48 He was looking for assurances that before he invested

18:05:52 hundreds of thousands of dollars on studies and plans

18:05:58 and a mind-numbing list was produced by PD, that he gets

18:06:01 assurances that City Council is positive and supports it

18:06:02 in going forward.

18:06:03 That is what this is about.

18:06:09 It is about in a PD throwing a ton of money up front

18:06:12 with no assurances, and, ladies and gentlemen, as much

18:06:14 as I respect the staff, to stand here and say we approve

18:06:17 the PD, PD is no problem.

18:06:20 That is not assurances of any kind.

18:06:21 There are a lot of inconsistencies.

18:06:27 First staff says light industrial area but I quoted word

18:06:31 for word on what they told you on what Adamo corridor

18:06:33 was, and that wasn't industrial.

18:06:37 Mr. Gerkin, who I have the greatest respect for, came up

18:06:39 before you and talked about some editing of those

18:06:39 policies.

18:06:43 I quoted exact policies that were recommended to you.

18:06:49 They say they have residential down at the port and














18:06:50 works next to industrial but tonight they are telling

18:06:51 you it doesn't work.

18:06:55 Those are serious inconsistencies in the report and

18:06:56 recommendation before you.

18:06:59 Another inconsistency.

18:07:02 I talked a little bit about zoning, and your attorney

18:07:07 told you can't talk about zoning, but then Abbye with

18:07:09 great respect started talking about all the zoning

18:07:09 problems.

18:07:12 Again it is easy to throw darts at a project.

18:07:14 But the record here is clear.

18:07:17 I have told you a number of times, and it is on -- it is

18:07:20 in your file what is proposed here and what is on the

18:07:21 record.

18:07:24 If anyone else is coming up behind me, that record is

18:07:27 clear on what is proposed on what we intend to do and

18:07:29 that clears the record in that respect.

18:07:33 And DCA did not -- repeat, did not, for a third time,

18:07:35 did not send you a message they were leaving it for

18:07:37 local planning authorities.

18:07:40 No message from DCA.

18:07:41 I had personal communication with them.

18:07:42 Zero comments.

18:07:46 That is an exemplary report from DCA.

18:07:49 I alert you today, the number one land planning agency














18:07:52 that what is consistent or not consistent they have

18:07:54 given you a straight a report card and that is the

18:07:56 reality and those are the facts.

18:08:00 So, Mr. Chairman, and board members, again, these

18:08:02 policies will be far-reaching for you.

18:08:05 And the bottom line summary, this is about bureaucracy

18:08:05 killing the project.

18:08:07 We need your support.

18:08:08 We need to get this project going.

18:08:11 We need to get these type of projects moving for the

18:08:12 economy.

18:08:14 We appreciate your attention and appreciate the staff's

18:08:14 work.

18:08:18 Thank you.

18:08:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman.

18:08:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Pressman, don't run away.

18:08:27 What is the reason the port is opposed to this.

18:08:31 >> The port has -- if I may say sarcastically have taken

18:08:34 a colored pencil and drawn on tens of -- I don't know

18:08:37 how many hundred office mile that they are claiming for

18:08:37 themselves.

18:08:40 I consider is a personal land grab.

18:08:40 It is a huge area.

18:08:42 I can put that map up again.

18:08:45 But quite frankly, office certainly goes along that if














18:08:48 you are going to be including and carving out square

18:08:51 miles of the City of Tampa, you are certainly going to

18:08:54 need to have office support.

18:08:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So this has been available for the

18:08:57 port if they wanted it.

18:08:58 >> Absolutely.

18:09:00 Since the beginning of time.

18:09:03 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: How long has it been there?

18:09:06 >> Since the beginning of time it has been there.

18:09:06 I will answer that.

18:09:09 Nobody else has come to use it in that capacity.

18:09:15 Now that you want this property, they are opposed to it.

18:09:17 >> That's correct.

18:09:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can I see that map again?

18:09:20 I want to refresh my memory.

18:09:22 >> Go back with the powerpoint --

18:09:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The one that has blue lines.

18:09:28 >> Well, if I may, the blue line -- I think we want the

18:09:31 overhead -- sorry, sir, the Elmo please.

18:09:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That is the one that I want.

18:09:36 >> I have to say Councilman if I may real quickly, the

18:09:39 blue area -- another example of a big government grab.

18:09:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Because it is my thought and I

18:09:43 haven't shared it to anybody, if you speak on it, you

18:09:45 will be speaking out of turn.














18:09:50 See I remember -- I can tell how did it, what day it

18:09:53 was, at what hour, and what the vote was.

18:10:00 All that land on Channelside from Kennedy and

18:10:06 Channelside north on the west side of the property, the

18:10:09 north side of the property, and the east side of the

18:10:13 property was rezoned by this Council to residential, am

18:10:16 I correct or not?

18:10:17 Hello?

18:10:21 Anybody home?

18:10:25 The land on Channelside I am speaking about.

18:10:29 >> Everything west of Channelside Drive and South of

18:10:30 Kennedy?

18:10:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No north of Kennedy, west of the

18:10:35 water -- you know where the banana boats used to be.

18:10:42 North between the -- the inlet and Adamo Drive and east

18:10:49 between the inlet and 21st street.

18:10:51 Hasn't that been rezoned for residential?

18:10:53 >> Yes, it has.

18:10:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: doesn't that go through the port?

18:10:58 >> Yes.

18:10:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

18:11:01 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You are never wrong, Mr. Miranda.

18:11:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I was wrong once and I made a

18:11:07 mistake.

18:11:08 [Laughter]














18:11:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:11:09 Yes.

18:11:11 >> Just a reminder, Council.

18:11:14 This is not quasi judicial.

18:11:17 It is a legislative matter which means that the burden

18:11:20 is different and you do not have to find -- make

18:11:21 findings.

18:11:24 It does not have to be based on competent substantial

18:11:25 evidence.

18:11:26 A fairly debatable standard.

18:11:31 With a comp plan it is different than a rezoning.

18:11:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.

18:11:34 >> Second.

18:11:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Those in favor signify by saying aye.

18:11:37 Opposed.

18:11:40 What is the pleasure of the Council?

18:11:43 Mill thank you, Mr. Chairman, an ordinance to amend the

18:11:45 comprehensive plan Future Land Use Element, Future Land

18:11:47 Use Map for the property located in the general vicinity

18:11:52 of southeast Adamo Drive and 50th street from Heavy

18:11:57 Industrial to Regional Mixed Use provide for

18:11:59 severability and providing an effective date.

18:12:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A second.

18:12:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

18:12:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It has been moved and seconded.














18:12:09 All in favor signify -- yes?

18:12:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I am not going to support this and I

18:12:14 wanted to put this in a little bit of perspective and I

18:12:18 am glad Councilman Miranda brought up the Channel

18:12:22 District, because we did make a lot of -- and I don't

18:12:28 know -- I think it was this Council that made some of

18:12:32 those zoning and land use changes and even in that area

18:12:36 which was approximate to Ybor City and downtown where we

18:12:38 are starting to have more residential and we are

18:12:42 starting to have residential in that Channel District.

18:12:44 I mean that is truly urban infill.

18:12:48 And I think when you talk about going 25 blocks or 26

18:12:53 blocks to the east into kind of the heart of the port

18:13:00 and also in an area that is zoned, you know, IG.

18:13:02 At this point, it doesn't make sense considering that

18:13:05 what the applicant has said they want to do with the

18:13:08 property could be accomplished without changing it so

18:13:12 drastically from industrial to -- to having all those

18:13:12 uses.

18:13:16 So I think -- you know, just because we did it before, I

18:13:19 don't know that that -- that makes it the right thing to

18:13:21 do at this point.

18:13:24 So I think there has been enough -- I mean part of what

18:13:29 we do here -- we are one of those local agencies that

18:13:32 have to make those decisions about how the city wants to














18:13:38 grow, and I applaud this property owner for wanting to

18:13:40 bring jobs here and I think that is fantastic.

18:13:43 Anything you want to do to bring jobs here, but this

18:13:48 idea that we need more dense residential out on -- in

18:13:51 the middle of an industrial district doesn't -- let's

18:13:53 bring some industry here.

18:13:54 Let's bring some offices.

18:13:57 Some jobs, some businesses.

18:14:00 But I don't see any need to open this up to not only

18:14:06 residential but dense residential.

18:14:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion has been moved and seconded.

18:14:10 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:14:11 Opposed?

18:14:14 >> Motion carried with Mulhern voting no.

18:14:19 Second reading and adoption on October 28 at 10:30 A.M.

18:14:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:14:31 We move to our 6:00 items.

18:14:32 >> Want to do clean up first.

18:14:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me -- where is the attorney on

18:14:38 Blanchard case.

18:14:42 We need to deal with that first.

18:14:54 Where are the attorneys for the Blanchard case?

18:14:54 >> Good evening.

18:14:57 Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the City Council,

18:15:02 my name is John Grandoff, my address is suite 3700 Bank














18:15:02 of America plaza.

18:15:05 I am here on Item Number 2.

18:15:12 On behalf of Mrs. Vance Blanchard.

18:15:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move 9 through 17.

18:15:17 >>GWEN MILLER: On Item 2.

18:15:19 >> Council this technically on tonight's agenda.

18:15:23 This is Item Number 10, second Item on the 6:00 -- but

18:15:25 on your agenda as Item Number 10.

18:15:28 Also Item Number 14 should not be opened because it

18:15:29 cannot be heard.

18:15:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Cannot be heard.

18:15:36 Number 1014 cannot be heard.

18:15:38 Open all the items except for number 14.

18:15:38 Okay.

18:15:40 Is there a second?

18:15:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.

18:15:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:15:49 Before Mr. Grandoff began testifying -- anybody who will

18:15:50 be speaking or be sworn.

18:15:52 If you are going to be speaking or testifying or say

18:15:57 anything to Council tonight, you have to be sworn.

18:16:02 [Swearing In Witnesses]

18:16:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On Item Number 10, Mr. Grandoff.

18:16:08 >> I just want to ratify everything I just said was

18:16:09 under oath.














18:16:13 I have some extraordinary reasons to request a continue

18:16:17 was of miss Blanchard's application to November 18.

18:16:20 She has a very serious illness with one of her children

18:16:22 in the family and I explain this to all parties

18:16:22 involved.

18:16:24 We learned of this late in the afternoon.

18:16:27 We have agreed on a continuance date of November 18 and

18:16:31 at the Council's pleasure request that date.

18:16:33 >> At 6 p.m. sir?

18:16:34 >> Yes, please.

18:16:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we do that, we need to hear from

18:16:38 the public on that.

18:16:41 Anyone wish to speak on the continuance?

18:16:43 Anyone need to speak on the continuance?

18:16:47 On Item 10, on the Blanchard case, the attorney

18:16:49 requesting a continuance.

18:16:50 Okay.

18:16:52 >> Julia Cole, legal department.

18:16:55 Make sure that November 18 date -- it is a correct date.

18:16:56 Thank you.

18:16:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, Council.

18:17:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I believe Mr. Stokes was making a

18:17:02 motion.

18:17:07 >>CURTIS STOKES: A motion to move 10 to November 18.

18:17:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 18 to 6:00.














18:17:11 Moved and seconded by Councilman Miranda.

18:17:15 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:17:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Our sympathies to the illness.

18:17:17 >> Thank you.

18:17:19 Thank you for your time.

18:17:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And then also Item Number 14, we need

18:17:26 to remove that from the agenda.

18:17:26 >> So moved.

18:17:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second on removal Item Number 14.

18:17:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:17:33 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:17:37 Moved by Councilman Miranda and seconded by Councilwoman

18:17:38 Mulhern.

18:17:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In all fairness to her.

18:17:42 >> Mr. Chairman if I can just very briefly.

18:17:43 I believe the Clerk has had items that have been

18:17:47 available for public inspection in City Council's office

18:17:50 and I ask that those be received and filed into the

18:17:52 record before Council takes action by motion please.

18:17:54 >> So moved.

18:17:54 >> Second.

18:17:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:17:57 All those in favor.

18:17:59 >> And again, Mr. Chairman, for the people who are

18:18:02 speaking, if you do speak, make sure that your name is














18:18:05 listed on the sign-in sheet outside so that the Clerk

18:18:09 has a record of who did speak and, again, a reminder

18:18:11 that you do need to be sworn.

18:18:12 Thank you.

18:18:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: okay.

18:18:15 Okay.

18:18:17 Item 9, we will proceed with the first Item for our 6:00

18:18:20 agenda.

18:18:28 6:00, Item 9, File Number Z10-20.

18:18:30 >>TOWANDA ANTHONY: Towanda Anthony, Land Development.

18:18:37 The property address is 225 North Dundee Street.

18:18:43 Requesting to rezone from RS-75 to PD to a single-family

18:18:51 detached parcel that would be 700 square feet.

18:18:54 >> Good evening, Council, Tony Garcia, Planning

18:18:55 Commission staff.

18:18:57 I have been sworn.

18:19:02 The subjected site is located in the South Tampa or

18:19:06 peninsular planning district as you can see on vision

18:19:08 map I have for you posted on Elmo.

18:19:14 This site does offer opportunity for infill development.

18:19:17 As miss Anthony has already told you, this site is going

18:19:19 to be subject of a split.

18:19:22 Show you the land use designation.

18:19:26 Residential 6 for single family detached residential

18:19:28 uses and a much better perspective of the site.














18:19:31 Show the unique consideration of the lot, it is a very

18:19:35 long lot that goes all the way up.

18:19:38 The split will allow to you recognize the existing home

18:19:41 on the site and also another buildable potential for the

18:19:43 vacant parcel which is directly to the east of where the

18:19:45 existing home is at.

18:19:49 Let me get my pen out here quick so I can show you.

18:19:52 So the residence is here and they will be splitting it

18:19:56 to allow a conforming lot to recognize the existing home

18:19:59 and of course an additional lot for any potential use of

18:20:00 the property.

18:20:01 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request

18:20:16 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

18:20:21 >>TOWANDA ANTHONY: Towanda Anthony, Land Development.

18:20:27 Show you a map of the site.

18:20:28 Here is the zoning atlas.

18:20:32 The parcel is in the green hatched area surrounded by

18:20:38 RS-75.

18:20:45 Here is an atlas.

18:20:49 You can see the entire original lot, and it will be

18:20:59 split to create a 7500 square-foot lot.

18:21:00 Here is picture of the site.

18:21:06 You can see the existing structure.

18:21:10 We have another picture of the site.

18:21:12 With one additional picture of the site.














18:21:18 And you can see there is a house in the back that will

18:21:23 -- that will be taking on the split.

18:21:30 It will be joined with the parcel in the rear.

18:21:32 And this is the site to the east.

18:21:34 This is the site to the west.

18:21:51 And this is looking around the street.

18:21:55 The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property from

18:22:02 RS-75 to PD for the creation of a lot 5000 feet wide and

18:22:07 7500 square feet in area and to invest the existing

18:22:10 structure as conforming, the subject property does not

18:22:14 meet the RS-75 minimum lot width.

18:22:19 Existing lot width is 50 feet and the rs-75 zoning

18:22:22 district is 75 feet, the property is surrounded by

18:22:28 single-family residential and abuts to the north.

18:22:31 The proposed setbacks are as follows.

18:22:34 The front is 25 feet, the rear is 12 feet, and the

18:22:36 corners are seven feet.

18:22:41 The main structure currently conforms to the proposed PD

18:22:44 setback and the maximum building height is 35 feet.

18:22:48 Photos have been provided for the elevation.

18:22:52 The development review committee has found the plan

18:22:57 consistent; however, the revision proposed by the Land

18:23:00 Development and Land Development Coordination -- excuse

18:23:05 me, landscape specialist modified between first and

18:23:08 second readding so will find the plan consistent.














18:23:13 Are there any questions?

18:23:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Question by Council?

18:23:16 Councilwoman Mulhern.

18:23:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Can you explain this a little bit to

18:23:20 me?

18:23:25 The -- this long, narrow lot.

18:23:28 Explain what the relation is to -- what is the

18:23:31 petitioner want to do on this lot?

18:23:34 And what -- what is the relation -- I guess -- yes.

18:23:36 You it look at this one.

18:23:40 Is it adjoining to the -- to --

18:23:44 >> Right.

18:23:48 The site will be split off -- and that is the PD that

18:23:49 they are requesting.

18:23:55 The remaining portion of the site will remain RS-75.

18:23:58 >>MARY MULHERN: All right, the -- show me what the

18:24:03 whole is.

18:24:07 >> It is over 17 -- square feet.

18:24:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, that is the lot and asking to --

18:24:14 >> The front portion is 7500 square feet will be rezoned

18:24:15 to PD.

18:24:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Why don't you draw a line on there that

18:24:21 shows which portion they want to rezone.

18:24:23 >> It will be the front portion.

18:24:27 >>MARY MULHERN: The portion on Dundee, they want to














18:24:29 rezone that as --

18:24:33 >> They will rezone that as a PD to create a new lot,

18:24:40 7500 square feet and the existing structure.

18:24:44 >>MARY MULHERN: The new lot.

18:24:49 >> 50 by 75 foot, the requirement for the RS-75 zoning

18:24:53 district.

18:25:01 Have the 75 feet of frontage.

18:25:12 The request is to create a 7500-square-foot lot.

18:25:14 And that is the existing structure.

18:25:18 And the remaining portion of the site a little over 9000

18:25:26 square feet will remain RS-75.

18:25:29 >>MARY MULHERN: They want to split that --

18:25:34 >> They want a split.

18:25:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay --

18:25:37 [Inaudible]

18:25:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Not yet, not yet, not yet.

18:25:41 We have some questions by Council.

18:25:47 So we need to let staff and then when you come you can

18:25:49 respond.

18:25:53 Councilwoman Capin and Councilman Stokes.

18:25:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Let me look.

18:25:56 I have it here.

18:26:00 The back part of it would be buildable?

18:26:03 Because it is 9,000 square feet but -- it doesn't have

18:26:06 the depth?














18:26:10 The lot part that is broken off.

18:26:14 >> The 9,000 square feet, it is currently vacant.

18:26:16 And between first and second reading it will be joined

18:26:19 with the adjacent property.

18:26:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN: It be joined with the -- okay.

18:26:29 If it were split further down, then would the -- would

18:26:31 the front property be --

18:26:35 >> Because it doesn't have the 75 feet of frontage, it

18:26:37 would still be nonconforming.

18:26:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That's what I thought, okay.

18:26:42 It would not be conforming no matter where you split

18:26:42 this on --

18:26:46 >> Right, with an RS-75 zoning lot.

18:26:48 You can keep what you have, but if you make any changes,

18:26:49 you have to meet code.

18:26:54 And that's why they are rezoning PD and not RS-75.

18:26:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

18:26:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman.

18:27:01 >>CURTIS STOKES: Stokes Madam, on your map, on your

18:27:07 line -- the house Dundee.

18:27:09 That portion on that house and another portion on the

18:27:11 other house?

18:27:16 >> This front portion will create 7500-square-foot lot,

18:27:19 including the existing structure.

18:27:20 >>CURTIS STOKES: Okay.














18:27:23 >> And the vacant structure will be joined with the

18:27:24 property to the north.

18:27:26 >>CURTIS STOKES: Okay.

18:27:27 Thank you.

18:27:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by Council?

18:27:35 Petitioner?

18:27:44 You have 15 minutes, but you don't have to take the full

18:27:45 15 minutes.

18:27:46 [Laughter]

18:27:49 >> Steve Michelini.

18:27:51 You asked a couple of questions and let me explain to

18:27:54 you what precipitated this.

18:27:57 In the aerial photograph, you can see that the main

18:27:59 structure is here.

18:28:01 That is Mr. Yerrid's house.

18:28:04 And he purchased this property because this property was

18:28:08 being marketed as two buildable lots, and he didn't

18:28:11 really want that to happen.

18:28:14 There is some waterfront in here that he wanted to

18:28:17 protect and make part of his side yard, and we -- we

18:28:20 originally petitioned the city to -- to allow this to be

18:28:25 split off so that he wouldn't have to tear this house

18:28:27 down, and that's what the objective is.

18:28:30 It is not to create another buildable lot.

18:28:33 It is to preserve the existing house that's here.














18:28:35 And that is what the rezoning does.

18:28:41 It creates this as -- as a stand-alone lot.

18:28:42 This is very unusual lot.

18:28:45 It is the only one I could find in the entire

18:28:52 subdivision that is almost 400 feet in depth a little

18:29:01 over 300 plus -- it goes out a little bit into the water

18:29:02 extremely long and narrow.

18:29:06 Because RS-75, could you never meet the 75 feet frontage

18:29:07 requirement.

18:29:09 That is really the issue we are addressing here with

18:29:16 Council is to provide the 7500 square feet of lot size

18:29:19 that is required so it meets the minimum and allow the

18:29:21 existing house to remain on the site.

18:29:23 And any future development that comes on to this

18:29:32 northern half -- I am sorry on to the -- on to the

18:29:35 Eastern half which is here, anything that goes there

18:29:40 will have to comply with RS-75 development regulations

18:29:47 so you couldn't from the setbacks that are required.

18:30:02 This parcel here is going to be joined is going to be

18:30:04 joined in this manner.

18:30:06 So this is the remainder of being joined with the main

18:30:08 parcel over here.

18:30:13 So you would have the stand-alone house here, and then

18:30:17 the remainder would be joined here with this parcel.

18:30:22 And that's really in a nutshell, that is what -- what














18:30:24 the proposal is that is before you.

18:30:27 And it is not -- it really is not to create another

18:30:30 buildable lot, it is to preserve the one unit and not to

18:30:35 create more units without the density in that particular

18:30:35 area.

18:30:38 The -- like I said to you, the -- in the subdivision and

18:30:42 actually I went beyond the subdivision within almost a

18:30:45 mile radius, I couldn't find another lot with that kind

18:30:48 of depth and configuration.

18:30:51 There are other lots that are in the area that are 50

18:30:55 feet wide and they will each have single-family homes on

18:31:00 them and they vary in depth.

18:31:04 I don't know -- this is a picture of the house.

18:31:09 And Mr. Yerrid just thought it was -- it was a waste of

18:31:15 -- of very fine home just to tear it down.

18:31:19 So he renovated the house and then realized that it

18:31:26 couldn't -- the remaining yard, which is here -- that's

18:31:28 a view back from -- from the water looking back toward

18:31:36 the house that huge piece of land could not be joined

18:31:38 with his house and protect the individual -- the

18:31:40 single-family house on the east side.

18:31:43 So anyway, that is the objective here.

18:31:46 To my knowledge -- I received a couple of phone calls on

18:31:49 it, but the questions were all related to what are you

18:31:53 trying to do and when I explained we were joining that














18:31:57 with the main house parcel, no one else called me back.

18:32:04 This -- this picture here is taken from about where that

18:32:08 new lot line will be drawn.

18:32:12 The only -- the only issue that we have any concern

18:32:21 about is request in here that we pay a in lieu fee for

18:32:24 sidewalks on the property.

18:32:27 The ordinance has changed when that report was written,

18:32:30 and I think we are consistent with the new ordinance.

18:32:33 I don't think we have a problem with that.

18:32:39 But on the San Gable Court side, that is a private road.

18:32:41 That is not a city right-of-way.

18:32:46 The own ones that are existing right-of-ways that are

18:32:54 city streets right-of-ways are Dundee and Juneau.

18:32:58 We respectfully request relief from that except what is

18:33:00 provided in the code for sidewalk and structure.

18:33:03 If you don't have any questions, I would certainly yield

18:33:08 to you now and -- but anyway, the proposal really is to

18:33:11 protect the waterfront and to join it with another

18:33:16 adjacent structure so someone could not come in and

18:33:21 shoehorn a new house into a sliver of land.

18:33:25 It probably was always intended to be one single unit.

18:33:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:33:28 That completes your presentation.

18:33:33 Councilwoman Capin and Councilwoman Mulhern.

18:33:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN: First of all, the back part.














18:33:40 You stated it was the intention not to make a buildable

18:33:41 lot.

18:33:43 It can't be a buildable lot.

18:33:43 >> No.

18:33:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN: One.

18:33:48 The other part is, this is being separated so that this

18:33:53 front house may be sold.

18:33:56 >> No, he own it is already.

18:34:00 He doesn't want it to tear down.

18:34:04 His intention is for his son to live in that house.

18:34:06 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

18:34:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

18:34:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I think you explained most of it,

18:34:15 although I think they might want a window on the back of

18:34:18 that house, because there is no view of the water in the

18:34:21 little house.

18:34:21 [Laughter]

18:34:25 >> The garage is on that side and windows that they can

18:34:28 -- it is an existing home and they are not planning any

18:34:29 changes to that.

18:34:33 They renovated it as I said quite extensively, and then

18:34:39 realized that -- that they had an issue regarding it.

18:34:41 >>MARY MULHERN: It looks -- when I looked at it, it

18:34:46 looked like a lot of narrow strips that got bought up to

18:34:48 have that big house.














18:34:56 Anyway, so -- he owns the entire strip, and he is adding

18:35:02 it to -- okay.

18:35:03 >> That's correct.

18:35:08 He owns the entire length all the way from DUNDEE all

18:35:10 the way to the water.

18:35:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:35:14 I see staff standing up.

18:35:19 I don't know what you -- oh, you are not here for the

18:35:24 city -- as a city representative.

18:35:26 >> You even this big house.

18:35:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public wish to address

18:35:29 Council at this time?

18:35:30 Anyone from the public?

18:35:34 Anyone from the public may come forward at this time.

18:35:36 >> Good evening, Council.

18:35:40 Bob McDonough.

18:35:42 West Gable Court, Tampa, Florida.

18:35:44 If you look at the Elmo, the picture.

18:35:47 The house with the orange roof, I am the hole in the

18:35:49 middle of the doughnut.

18:35:51 This property belongs to Mr. Yerrid.

18:35:53 This property belongs to Mr. Yerrid.

18:35:55 This property belongs to Mr. Yerrid.

18:35:56 This is my house.

18:36:00 I am the only affected person by this annexation, and I














18:36:02 wholly support it.

18:36:04 Before Mr. Yerrid bought this house, it was actually in

18:36:08 a horrible state of disrepair.

18:36:11 It was fixed up and his aunt is living there.

18:36:13 His 85-year-old aunt from West Virginia and he did that

18:36:16 to bring her closer to him.

18:36:19 As the only affected neighbor, I fully support this.

18:36:22 Thank you.

18:36:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:36:25 Anyone else from the public?

18:36:26 Motion to close.

18:36:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

18:36:38 >>TOWANDA ANTHONY: Towanda Anthony, Land Development.

18:36:44 Your action last Thursday regarding sidewalks, the

18:36:46 revision on your sheet.

18:36:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:36:51 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:36:55 Councilman Caetano?

18:36:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Comaker a community garden out of

18:37:00 that back yard area.

18:37:02 >>MARY MULHERN: That would be a very good thing to do.

18:37:05 I am sure Bob would help him.

18:37:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance rezoning property in

18:37:13 2205 north Dundee street and more specifically described

18:37:17 in section 1 of zoning district classification RS-75














18:37:20 residential single family to PD planned development,

18:37:25 single family detached provide effective date.

18:37:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and -- yes?

18:37:30 >> Sorry, includes the revision sheet with the --

18:37:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, all the revisions.

18:37:36 The -- the revision that -- that was requested.

18:37:38 Striking bullet 1.

18:37:43 But all the other items are included -- moved by

18:37:47 Councilman Caetano, seconded by Councilman Miranda.

18:37:50 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:37:53 >> Motion carries unanimously.

18:37:56 Second reading and adoption November 4 at 9:30 A.M.

18:37:58 >> Thank you, Council.

18:38:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next Item, Item Number 11.

18:38:05 V 10-281.

18:38:08 >> This is a special use petition.

18:38:10 V 10-281.

18:38:14 The address is 102 W. Crest Avenue.

18:38:18 The zonings is rs-50, residential single family and

18:38:29 proposing a special use for off-street Commercial.

18:38:31 >> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

18:38:35 I have been sworn in.

18:38:40 The subject site is located within your central planning

18:38:43 district on your vision map which offers -- one of the

18:38:45 three planning districts within the City of Tampa that














18:38:48 offers the greatest opportunity for redevelopment and

18:38:50 job opportunity.

18:38:56 Specifically zoning down a little bit more located in

18:39:00 the Seminole Heights, greater Seminole Heights area.

18:39:02 A little more complex, located on the west side of

18:39:07 Nebraska avenue.

18:39:09 And as far as the land uses are concerned, this is heavy

18:39:12 commercial -- that is the old land use.

18:39:14 Community Commercial 35 and all Residential-10.

18:39:17 This is the subject site.

18:39:23 Let me show you -- of course this is reflected by -- you

18:39:26 have a variety of commercial use, general commercial and

18:39:30 neighborhood commercial serving uses along Nebraska as

18:39:36 it is parallel corridor to Florida applicant avenue.

18:39:41 The site does have a residential land use 10 category

18:39:43 which allows considering of nonresidential uses

18:39:47 predicated on what the uses can be considered for.

18:39:49 You can put churches in the R-10.

18:39:52 You can use R-10 for temporary parking.

18:39:53 I stress "temporary parking."

18:39:58 And also for retention, as well as those other -- and

18:39:59 for day cares.

18:40:02 Those are the types of uses you can put aside

18:40:06 single-family detached homes in the R-10.

18:40:09 The request for you is a special use for a very small














18:40:10 parking lot.

18:40:13 I believe it is five or six spaces as I recall and one

18:40:15 residential home adjacent to it, to the west of the site

18:40:19 that will have to be properly screened in, buffered as

18:40:20 per code.

18:40:25 Planning Commission staff had no objections or -- and

18:40:27 also found it consistent with the comprehensive plan.

18:40:30 Let me reiterate one more time this is R-10.

18:40:32 A rs-50 land use.

18:40:34 There is no opportunity for any kind of Commercial

18:40:37 structure to be placed on the site based on the land use

18:40:37 category.

18:40:41 Thank you.

18:40:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions of Council?

18:40:45 Councilman Stokes?

18:40:48 Any Council.

18:40:51 >>CURTIS STOKES: Sorry, what type of residence -- what

18:40:53 type of business is that?

18:40:55 >> I believe it is an auto accessory related business.

18:40:57 The one that is direct will he to the east of the site

18:40:58 on the corner.

18:41:00 Is that the one you are asking me about?

18:41:01 >>CURTIS STOKES: Yes, sir.

18:41:02 >> Auto related.

18:41:05 I believe that is -- the owner of that business, I














18:41:09 believe, is the one who is applying for this particular

18:41:10 request, from what I understand.

18:41:12 >>CURTIS STOKES: Thank you, sir.

18:41:12 >> You are welcome.

18:41:17 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That was my question too.

18:41:17 [Inaudible]

18:41:21 -- going to put in that parking lot next door?

18:41:24 >> The one -- well, he might be able use it for his

18:41:28 employees but as I stress before this is not a very

18:41:29 large lot.

18:41:31 You have to put one, I think -- miss Anthony will get

18:41:33 into the details.

18:41:36 They can put four or five spaces at the most.

18:41:38 One has to be a handicapped space.

18:41:40 Not a lot of impact that can be done to the residential

18:41:41 street.

18:41:43 Only be an ancillary use.

18:41:45 You can not take a Commercial truck that might be

18:41:47 related to that site and leave it on that lot overnight.

18:41:50 That is not considered temporary parking.

18:41:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Because it looks like he has got

18:41:55 about 15 cars parked there right now.

18:41:59 >> Well then -- code enforcement needs to pay him a

18:42:02 visit if he has 15 cars parked there.

18:42:03 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you, sir.














18:42:06 >> You are welcome.

18:42:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Miss Anthony?

18:42:27 >>TOWANDA ANTHONY, Towanda Anthony, Land Development.

18:42:37 The property is located in the green hatched area,

18:42:39 Florida Avenue.

18:42:46 And the parcel here abutting Florida is the auto sales,

18:42:49 the special use request is for.

18:42:53 And you can see it is surrounded by uses.

18:43:03 PD zoning and this is a cell tower here is the aerial of

18:43:05 the property.

18:43:12 Abutting Crest avenue, Florida Avenue and Hyatt Street.

18:43:14 The property that is requesting the special use, the

18:43:21 auto sale.

18:43:31 Here is a picture of the site.

18:43:33 A picture of the site looking east and this is the auto

18:43:34 sales shop.

18:43:36 This is the picture of the site looking west, and this

18:43:39 is a residential property.

18:43:44 Looking north across the street, this is also a parking

18:43:49 lot.

18:43:58 This is a view eastbound Crest Avenue.

18:44:03 The applicant is requesting a special use again Council

18:44:06 for off-street Commercial parking lot to provide

18:44:09 off-street parking for the adjacent Commercial use

18:44:12 located to the northeast of the site.














18:44:15 The 10-acre site is locate west of Florida Avenue and

18:44:18 abuts the existing commercial use it will serve.

18:44:21 The site is adjacent to Commercial uses to the South,

18:44:26 east and north and residential to the west.

18:44:32 Parking spaces being proposed five standard spaces and

18:44:35 one compact space, the Development Review Committee

18:44:38 found the plan consistent; however, the revisions that

18:44:41 are proposed are made between first and second reading,

18:44:46 the revisions are from Land Development Coordination.

18:44:49 Land coordination tree and landscape.

18:44:53 Those revisions are made between first and second

18:44:55 reading and we will find the plan consistent.

18:44:59 Are there any questions?

18:45:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

18:45:06 Petitioner?

18:45:16 Petitioner?

18:45:17 >> Good evening.

18:45:21 My name is Stavros Laliotis.

18:45:25 I am an agent for the petitioner.

18:45:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: State your name again.

18:45:30 >> Stavros Laliotis.

18:45:34 Good evening, Chairman, and members of the board.

18:45:38 Like everything that was said, basically his -- his

18:45:40 property -- he sells autos.

18:45:44 And the property right behind it he wants to use for














18:45:47 customer parking.

18:45:51 As everyone has already stated.

18:45:56 We don't see anything inconsistent or nor did the city

18:45:59 find anything.

18:46:05 I think there was an additional waiver that needed to be

18:46:07 requested.

18:46:13 I believe a BUFFER, changing from a 15-foot to a 5 on

18:46:16 ate Jay sent property on the residential side between

18:46:18 his property and the residence.

18:46:22 And we were going to build a six-foot concrete block

18:46:22 wall.

18:46:27 The only other waiver I can think of is the -- is one of

18:46:32 the parking spaces, the ratio as it comes back is 7

18:46:33 feet.

18:46:35 We need to change that to 4.

18:46:40 Those are the waivers that we are asking at this time.

18:46:41 And that's all.

18:46:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, Councilman Miranda.

18:46:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I just want to make sure that you

18:46:47 understood what Mr. Garcia said.

18:46:51 This is for temporary parking.

18:46:53 >> I have gone over that with my client.

18:46:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Did I hear wrong?

18:46:55 No.

18:46:58 It is for full-time parking?














18:47:01 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development.

18:47:02 This is for a Commercial parking lot.

18:47:06 Commercial parking lot serve adjacent Commercial uses.

18:47:07 It is not temporary.

18:47:11 It will not allow open storage of cars from his other

18:47:15 business, but for his clients who are coming there,

18:47:18 other people who are coming there, they can park there

18:47:21 and walk into the service or his employees or himself.

18:47:23 It serves as a Commercial parking lot.

18:47:25 It is not temporary parking lot.

18:47:26 I apologize for any --

18:47:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right, let me ask you this --

18:47:35 uh-oh, side bar.

18:47:42 Sorry for the delay.

18:47:45 This is great because this is government in process.

18:47:56 And I like this.

18:47:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't know, looks like a

18:48:00 disagreement.

18:48:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The customer can't be there

18:48:04 overnight.

18:48:07 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Correct, no storage of vehicles.

18:48:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: He is talking about cars.

18:48:10 We are talking about the same thing.

18:48:12 >>ABBYE FEELEY: No storage of vehicles may occur on

18:48:13 that site.














18:48:14 Parking, yes.

18:48:15 Storage, no.

18:48:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: When you close the front door, the

18:48:21 vacant lot has got to be vacant, am I correct?

18:48:22 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.

18:48:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

18:48:24 Thank you, sir.

18:48:26 Thank you.

18:48:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by Council?

18:48:30 Yes, Councilwoman Capin.

18:48:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Real quick here.

18:48:37 On this lot, is there any fence around that lot?

18:48:40 Wall where you are asking to go from 15 feet to 5 foot

18:48:42 on the residential side.

18:48:47 But I am asking when you leave at night, that lot is

18:48:48 open?

18:48:50 >> It's open.

18:48:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN: It's open.

18:48:54 >> The it's open.

18:48:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Not anything will be there.

18:48:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Right, nothing is supposed to be there.

18:49:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public hearing.

18:49:03 Anyone wish to address Council on this Item.

18:49:06 Please come forward.

18:49:07 Anyone else?














18:49:09 Please come forward.

18:49:10 >> Good evening, Councilmembers.

18:49:15 Patty Ellsworth, and I have been sworn.

18:49:19 I live at 101 Crest avenue next door to the subject

18:49:20 property for the last 24 years.

18:49:23 A lot has happened in the past year since the house next

18:49:24 door was torn down.

18:49:29 One of my main concerns is a change in ground elevation.

18:49:34 Heavy fill with huge hunks of asphalt were laid on the

18:49:35 property.

18:49:39 Now I have a rain overflow from the property to my

18:49:41 carport.

18:49:45 W. Crest Avenue is unique because the street is like a v

18:49:47 and the rain runs off in the middle of the road.

18:49:50 Based on the history this past year, the empty lot is

18:49:54 already being used for unknown offense by other people

18:49:56 during the week and weekends.

18:50:00 On Saturday nights, that lot is completely full.

18:50:02 And I hear loud music in my home.

18:50:06 I feel this could be a code enforcement dilemma.

18:50:09 Thank you.

18:50:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

18:50:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Ma'am, what do you mean by loud

18:50:13 music?

18:50:18 >> From where the lot is, in the corner -- where their














18:50:20 business is, there is a church behind it, and there is

18:50:24 another building behind it.

18:50:26 There is people filling that lot, and they are standing

18:50:31 around between the back of the church, small church, and

18:50:35 another back -- and another building, and they are all

18:50:37 standing around.

18:50:41 And there is loud music, and I don't know what is going

18:50:43 on and this lot next door to my home is completely full

18:50:45 of cars, you guys.

18:50:47 Completely.

18:50:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Well according to request, it can

18:50:53 only be used for his patrons or his employees, and when

18:50:56 he closes that at night, there should be no one there.

18:50:59 >> But guess what, there is no fencing at all around

18:51:01 that property whatsoever.

18:51:04 At all.

18:51:07 On the Florida Avenue site behind the church, that is

18:51:11 behind their property, and on Crest Avenue in front of

18:51:16 that location.

18:51:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The I want to raise is the music coming

18:51:22 from the car lot or coming from the church?

18:51:22 >> I don't know.

18:51:24 I can't answer that.

18:51:27 Honestly I don't know who is allowing -- I don't know

18:51:28 who is there.














18:51:30 I just know there are a lot of people standing around.

18:51:32 The lot next door to my house.

18:51:34 It is completely full.

18:51:38 The church that is behind the lot has been using that

18:51:41 lot next door to me for quite a while now since the

18:51:47 house was been torn down and the gravel has been laid.

18:51:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there anything else around there

18:51:54 other than the church and this dealership?

18:51:57 >> Yes, another building next to the church, but I don't

18:51:59 know what type of business that is.

18:52:02 And there was some tables set up back there.

18:52:04 And I don't know what was going on.

18:52:07 I just -- I see people standing around and loud music.

18:52:11 I mean it was music.

18:52:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:52:12 All right.

18:52:15 You want --

18:52:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, I would like -- can -- hello, can

18:52:23 we put this map back up an show us where -- was this

18:52:29 ever up there?

18:52:32 Where the car lot, where your house is, where the

18:52:35 building is, where is this church?

18:52:38 What are we talking about?

18:52:39 >> Okay.

18:52:41 This is the car lot, correct?














18:52:42 The car dealership?

18:52:47 This right here is where they -- where the people were

18:52:53 standing around.

18:52:53 Okay.

18:52:56 Thank you.

18:52:58 It is hard to see with these trees.

18:53:02 But in the corner of this lot right here, it is all

18:53:02 open.

18:53:04 The church is back here.

18:53:08 They have parking right here, and there is open concrete

18:53:10 here.

18:53:12 And there are a bunch of people standing around here,

18:53:17 but this whole lot is full of cars.

18:53:20 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And where is your house?

18:53:22 >> I am right next door to the lot.

18:53:23 Right next door.

18:53:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Is that where the six-foot fence is

18:53:28 going to go up along that line?

18:53:29 It's got to.

18:53:31 That's where it is going up.

18:53:32 Okay.

18:53:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So six-foot fence going up and you

18:53:37 would be opposed to that?

18:53:45 >> Not to the fence -- not to the six-foot.

18:53:48 I am just concerned about parking when they are not














18:53:50 there.

18:53:51 That's what I am concerned about.

18:53:54 I am concerned about in the evenings, and I am concerned

18:54:00 on the weekends.

18:54:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

18:54:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to ask you one question before

18:54:06 you sit down, the building right across the street from

18:54:08 you on Crest, is that a house?

18:54:10 >> Yes, ma'am, it is.

18:54:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Did you say that the empty lot we are

18:54:13 talking about right now was a house until it was just

18:54:15 torn down recently?

18:54:16 >> Yes, ma'am.

18:54:19 The owner of that house passed away, and the family sold

18:54:21 the property and it had been sold quite a few times, and

18:54:25 then eventually it was bought, and the house was torn

18:54:26 down.

18:54:27 It was residential, the home.

18:54:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, thanks.

18:54:31 >> Thank you.

18:54:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano.

18:54:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Garcia or Abbye.

18:54:38 I don't know who can answer the question.

18:54:43 What time does that business close normally?

18:54:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I don't know that answer, Mr. Caetano.














18:54:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Maybe the owner can answer or the

18:54:51 agent.

18:54:57 >> Dan lima, reside at 412 Raven wood trail.

18:55:00 I am the son of the owner of the property lot, Monday

18:55:04 through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. other than that,

18:55:05 nobody will be to that lot.

18:55:08 >> Would you be opposed putting a chain across there

18:55:12 when you leave at night no one can get in there.

18:55:14 >> Not a problem.

18:55:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Evidently they are trespassing.

18:55:20 Did you know there were people there at night?

18:55:23 >> No we live a good hour away.

18:55:24 I never come back at nighttime.

18:55:27 As far as I know the lot was supposed to be empty.

18:55:29 We have an alarm on the car lot.

18:55:34 But the car lot is open --

18:55:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We need to put a restriction there

18:55:40 that you have a sign with -- with a chain going across

18:55:44 and a sign stating after 6 p.m. that nobody is supposed

18:55:47 to be in that lot and a sign so that the police will

18:55:48 notice that.

18:55:51 >> What I believe she is talking about the whole noise

18:55:54 -- the art gallery that opened next door and I believe

18:55:57 that is what they are doing on the weekends at

18:56:01 nighttime, the art gallery and we will be more than














18:56:05 happy to do the wall on her side so she won't have any

18:56:05 problems.

18:56:08 Excuse me -- so she won't have any problems with them ,

18:56:11 and we put a chain-link fence so nobody from that group

18:56:16 can park in the parking lot after hours.

18:56:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can we put that restriction.

18:56:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's hear from the public.

18:56:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: All right, thank you.

18:56:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

18:56:25 Next speaker.

18:56:27 >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Council,

18:56:30 Gary Ellsworth, President of the South Seminole Heights

18:56:32 Civic Association.

18:56:33 No relation to Patty.

18:56:36 We both happen to think it is a great name.

18:56:39 I want to give you a little bit of history on this

18:56:41 property, and I won't go back too far.

18:56:45 And I apologize kind of for the quality of this map.

18:56:47 This was compliments of google earth, but this is the

18:56:50 house that used to be on the property.

18:56:52 And it was in bad condition.

18:56:56 It had, as you can see, some blue tarps from leaky

18:56:56 roofs.

18:56:59 You will also see trees here, and I believe there were

18:57:02 three, maybe two.














18:57:04 And that's kind of where this journey has led us to

18:57:06 tonight.

18:57:11 I have put up pictures of it presently because Land

18:57:12 Development Coordination had those.

18:57:16 A year ago that I received a call with the trees that

18:57:20 you saw on the google map were being cut down.

18:57:29 This was on the 9th of October last year on a Sunday.

18:57:34 We alerted TPD, code enforcement and the tree hotline,

18:57:37 and I believe that -- I believe city staff has advised

18:57:40 me there were fines and those fines were paid and that

18:57:43 did not come up in the report tonight.

18:57:45 Shortly after that, we got another call about heavy

18:57:45 fill.

18:57:50 And these are the chunks of asphalt that Miss Elsworth

18:57:54 referred to.

18:57:58 Shortly after that the -- make no mistake about it,

18:58:00 there is a parking lot there.

18:58:04 So, you know this request for a parking lot, it has

18:58:08 become a request for the right kind of parking lot.

18:58:13 The first notice that we received from this hearing

18:58:18 tonight was from the Tampa Cares notice that goes out to

18:58:20 neighborhood to neighborhood in June.

18:58:23 We do not support this because we do not feel it will be

18:58:25 used for the intended purposes.

18:58:28 I believe it is going to be exactly what it is now.














18:58:31 It is going to be an overflow lot that is infringing

18:58:33 into the neighborhood.

18:58:36 And I understand from talking to staff that if that

18:58:40 happens, it becomes a code enforcement issue, and most

18:58:44 of you know who have been here a week at least that I

18:58:47 don't need another code enforcement issue.

18:58:49 We are still trying to resolve code issues from the

18:58:51 Greco administration.

18:58:56 So -- that's -- that's -- I am not trying to be cute, I

18:58:59 am trying to be very honest on that.

18:59:03 We did -- the rose patrol when Miss Ferlita was here and

18:59:05 Bill Doherty was the Code Enforcement.

18:59:07 We still have violations that stand.

18:59:09 I guess the neighborhood association is not convinced

18:59:14 that this is going to be for a -- for the use as

18:59:17 designated in this request and therefore we do not

18:59:21 support it.

18:59:22 >> Anyone else from the public?

18:59:24 Anyone else from the public?

18:59:27 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, legal department.

18:59:30 Want to make it clear to Council in rendering a

18:59:33 decision, you need to clearly look at the code and make

18:59:35 determination based upon that.

18:59:36 Thank you.

18:59:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand.














18:59:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mrs. Cole, may I ask you a

18:59:40 question.

18:59:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Whoa, you can't have it twice before

18:59:43 I.

18:59:45 I haven't spoken yet, sir.

18:59:50 The fairness code by Chairman Scott.

18:59:54 4.3627.

18:59:57 I know I am not trying to be cute, but -- and I

18:59:59 understand Julia Cole knew I was going to say something

19:00:03 so she prewarned the public that what I am going to say

19:00:05 I can't hold for or against the petition.

19:00:08 So I confess that I am not holding it for or against the

19:00:16 petitioner; however, when you have a lot according to

19:00:19 code, even if you were to have a buildable lot according

19:00:23 to code and you were going to put that lot to a higher

19:00:28 elevation and you had a swale, at the time of permitting

19:00:32 that swale or whatever it is, to make sure the water

19:00:34 runoff from your property and continue to somebody

19:00:38 else's property must be built at the time that you apply

19:00:38 for that permit.

19:00:40 That is part of it.

19:00:42 However, here is the problem.

19:00:50 What -- and I am not speaking about this petition.

19:00:51 Let me make that clear again.

19:00:54 When everything is done and everything is signed and














19:00:54 everything is built.

19:00:56 Something happens with nature.

19:01:01 That swale doesn't become a swale because it is not

19:01:02 maintained and it builds up.

19:01:06 Guess what happens after that, the water runs off to

19:01:07 somebody else's property.

19:01:10 I have two cases like that in the office now.

19:01:11 So we call.

19:01:13 And guess what happens.

19:01:20 They can't find that that is a violation because it

19:01:23 wasn't -- I am not blaming anyone, but I am just saying

19:01:25 that these things happen through time.

19:01:26 It evolves.

19:01:30 And what I am saying here, if I have heard right, in

19:01:35 some other land, not here, it has been already higher

19:01:37 elevation.

19:01:41 So I can't hold that against this petitioner, but if

19:01:45 that's so, even if you allow this, they have to bring

19:01:48 that back down to grand elevation so that that water

19:01:56 runs off to the nearest wastewater area or at least has

19:02:00 a chance to go off, but it can not runoff to somebody

19:02:02 else's property.

19:02:04 That is the only thing I am going to say right now until

19:02:08 the petitioner finishes with his rebuttal and then I

19:02:09 will question the petitioner.














19:02:10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:02:12 I am sorry, Mr. Caetano.

19:02:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano.

19:02:17 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Miss Cole?

19:02:19 In other words, when they put this -- whatever they put

19:02:23 on this, they are supposed to have a permit in order to

19:02:26 do what they did?

19:02:29 >>JULIA COLE: They very well may have needed a permit

19:02:31 and very well may be in the code enforcement process to

19:02:32 deal with that issue.

19:02:35 What I am saying for today what you are looking at is

19:02:38 whether or not this property and this petition -- this

19:02:43 petitioner meets the special use criteria, and if you

19:02:45 determine they meet the criteria, then it would be

19:02:47 appropriate for you to approve it.

19:02:49 If you determine they don't, it will be appropriate for

19:02:53 you to deny it, but you can't deny it based on the fact

19:02:56 there may have been a code enforcement violation.

19:02:59 There may have been some outstanding things that were

19:03:01 done to this property that were done in line with the

19:03:01 code.

19:03:05 Moving forward, assuming that you go ahead and approve

19:03:06 this and even if you don't approve this.

19:03:08 They are going to have to resolve whatever they have

19:03:11 done that might not be correct.














19:03:13 Correctly done in our code.

19:03:16 And if they move forward to construct what they will be

19:03:20 allowed to construct under this Special Use Permit and

19:03:22 the record is clear and the applicant is clear, they

19:03:24 will have to comply with our code.

19:03:27 They are going to have to pull building permits and they

19:03:29 are going to have to construct their Commercial parking

19:03:32 lot in a manner consistent with our code requirements,

19:03:35 our drainage requirements, our tree code requirements,

19:03:40 buffer requirements, et cetera.

19:03:42 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: To your knowledge do you have code

19:03:45 enforcement.

19:03:52 >>JULIA COLE: I don't.

19:03:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can we recommend that?

19:03:54 >>JULIA COLE: No.

19:03:58 I would advise against that whether there is a code

19:04:00 violation on somebody else's property.

19:04:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public wish

19:04:10 address Council on this item?

19:04:16 >> I live right across the street from the lot.

19:04:20 I have been there ten years at my address.

19:04:25 And the one thing that is consistent -- kind of a

19:04:28 consistent problem with this lot during the daytime

19:04:32 hours is car alarms.

19:04:34 They just go off all the time.














19:04:37 It is a matter of getting out there -- it is an

19:04:38 irritation.

19:04:42 And it is pretty obvious to everybody in this

19:04:45 neighborhood that has watched this process, the house go

19:04:48 down, the demolition, blowing everything out.

19:04:51 Putting the lot in there and almost immediately after

19:04:55 that there were cars parked all over it.

19:04:57 What they intended to do, okay.

19:04:59 So this deal with the chain, I heard that

19:05:01 recommendation, okay.

19:05:02 I heard that.

19:05:07 But on the public and the parking and some the traffic

19:05:11 that she was -- that Patty was talking about earlier,

19:05:14 there is a new business a couple blocks up the street

19:05:18 called The International.

19:05:21 Kind of a late-night bar.

19:05:24 Very busy, especially on Friday and Saturday nights.

19:05:27 And those folks drive around like anywhere else looking

19:05:29 fore a place to park.

19:05:34 And two blocks -- they come over there and they park.

19:05:36 Well, this is just the way it is, you know.

19:05:40 So if that chain is up there, then I understand that is

19:05:41 a remedy.

19:05:46 But overall, you know, if they stand up here and swear

19:05:49 to you that they are not going to put cars for sale on














19:05:50 that lot.

19:05:53 It is going to be empty at the end of the business day,

19:06:09 you know, if you believe that, then all right.

19:06:09 [Laughter]

19:06:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?

19:06:14 Petitioner?

19:06:15 Rebuttal?

19:06:19 You have five minutes of rebuttal.

19:06:23 >> Just like to quickly state that, you know, some

19:06:26 things have happened in the past or not.

19:06:28 Not sure -- not really clear on that, but I have heard

19:06:30 all the issues so far.

19:06:35 It doesn't seem anything that we are doing is going to

19:06:37 not help that situation.

19:06:41 I mean, we had, you know, cars parking on the lot which

19:06:46 would be alleviated by putting the concrete -- six-foot

19:06:50 concrete fence up along with a chain or something that

19:06:54 will block cars -- that was two complaints, the other

19:06:56 was runoffs and whatnot.

19:06:59 Although sometimes the land is higher, you know.

19:07:02 The -- the city does its best, and the contractors do

19:07:06 their best to be sure that the runoff -- the water runs

19:07:07 off properly.

19:07:11 And the one resident that abuts the property actually is

19:07:17 going to have a concrete wall right there.














19:07:21 The water should by its own act of nature run toward the

19:07:23 street.

19:07:27 But before we say that the -- that the runoff won't

19:07:30 happen or will happen, I mean, I think it is better left

19:07:35 off to letting the engineers, surveyors and land

19:07:39 developers actually put this small parking lot and have

19:07:42 the water run off where it needs to be.

19:07:45 And as to the accusations that, you know, car also be

19:07:47 sold off the lot and whatnot.

19:07:51 I mean, I still think we live in the country where you

19:07:54 are innocent until proven guilty, and to deny something

19:08:00 on the fact that somebody might do something in our

19:08:04 opinion isn't quite something that needs to be done in

19:08:06 this country.

19:08:11 Other than that, I don't think any the issues that were

19:08:15 brought up today were overbearing in any way.

19:08:18 Thank you.

19:08:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.

19:08:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just one second.

19:08:26 I understand your Constitutional rights.

19:08:28 No one is questioning that.

19:08:34 I can also tell you this, if this passes, I am going to

19:08:39 tell you how I vote for it, with a wall -- you know why

19:08:40 you need a wall.

19:08:45 You know how much a gallon of water weighs?














19:08:46 8.33 pounds.

19:08:49 So even the wall would with crumble if there was a

19:08:54 continuous flow of water against a wall.

19:08:57 That is why mountains fall because water is one of the

19:09:01 most powerful earth movers that there is because of the

19:09:04 weight per volume.

19:09:08 The only way I would support it if you had a chain-link

19:09:12 fence around that area so that the neighborhood would be

19:09:16 somewhat protected.

19:09:21 And then I can't say that the city is going to go out

19:09:23 there and look at it on a daily basis.

19:09:27 I don't think that would happen, but I can tell you that

19:09:32 the city would look at it on an occasional, and if there

19:09:34 is a complaint from the neighborhood it would be on a

19:09:35 daily basis.

19:09:40 If that was to pass, then that lot would be back to code

19:09:43 enforcement, back here -- I think there was evidence of

19:09:47 that already that so much a day.

19:09:52 That may or may not hinder some situations.

19:09:56 I see you have about 20 cars parked on your lot now as I

19:10:00 look down just quickly at the car lot.

19:10:02 I assume you own the corner.

19:10:05 Do you?

19:10:07 I am making an assumption that your client owns the

19:10:09 corner.














19:10:12 So I also make an assumption that no cars for sale will

19:10:14 be at the lot.

19:10:17 Am I correct?

19:10:19 >> In the proposed lot?

19:10:22 There will be no cars for sale in the proposed lot?

19:10:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yeah.

19:10:27 Not a lot in Brandon, that one.

19:10:28 Am I correct?

19:10:31 >> Correct, I think I understand.

19:10:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What happens if there is a car for

19:10:35 sale on that lot?

19:10:39 >> Then I guess you would leave it to code enforcement.

19:10:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Pardon me?

19:10:43 >> If there is a car for sale on the proposed lot that

19:10:46 we are asking to put for Commercial park something in

19:10:48 what would happen?

19:10:51 I guess they would -- code enforcement would take the

19:10:52 appropriate steps.

19:10:56 What else would happen.

19:10:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

19:11:01 Are you -- are you willing to add a condition that the

19:11:05 complete -- you have a wall on the western side of the

19:11:11 lot, 6-foot block fence wall holding that up.

19:11:13 What about the rest of the property?

19:11:15 Because we hear there are people parking in there now,














19:11:19 and if you don't have -- and I -- I appreciate what

19:11:24 Councilman Caetano is saying.

19:11:29 But that is really not a -- a big deterrent if people

19:11:35 can go around the chain-link -- I mean the -- the draw

19:11:39 that you are going to put of some sort -- the chain.

19:11:42 Are you amenable of having the rest of the lot fenced

19:11:46 in?

19:11:48 >> Fenced in with -- I don't know the expense behind --

19:11:50 with a chain-link fence or something?

19:11:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Whatever meets the requirement of a

19:11:54 wall?

19:11:56 >> He would be all right with that.

19:11:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And then the front, will it have a

19:12:04 sliding gate so it is locked so nobody can get in two

19:12:05 blocks down from the bar?

19:12:08 >> We don't have a problem with that.

19:12:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay, thank you very much, sir.

19:12:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

19:12:16 Motion to close.

19:12:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

19:12:25 >> Second.

19:12:28 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Sorry, Abbye Feeley, Land Development

19:12:28 cooperation.

19:12:31 I was listening to the changes you were recommending.

19:12:34 Towanda and I both were making notes.














19:12:38 You do have a revision street sheet -- sheet in front of

19:12:39 you.

19:12:42 This process works on that revision street and all the

19:12:46 other modifications need to be clearly spelled out so

19:12:49 the modifications can be made between first and second

19:12:52 reading and the Zoning Adminstrator can certify those

19:12:53 plans.

19:13:02 I didn't have a highlighter, but -- the wall being

19:13:05 proposed is along adjacent to the residential.

19:13:08 What I am hearing being discussed is some sort of

19:13:11 continuation of either that wall or some sort of fencing

19:13:15 and then a rolling gate that would occur across the

19:13:16 driveway.

19:13:21 Per our code, they could have a three-foot solid wall

19:13:25 that would come across the front of the parking lot or

19:13:29 four-foot opaque -- four-foot transparent which could be

19:13:31 a wrought iron or something but since they are having

19:13:34 the wall poured here may be beneficial to just continue

19:13:38 that across and then the rolling gate could occur just

19:13:39 across the driveway.

19:13:42 Is that what was being discussed?

19:13:45 Just -- I don't know where you are going to go on that

19:13:48 measure, but if that's what is being discussed and I

19:13:51 would ask that you make a motion to add a note that that

19:13:55 gate is to remain locked at the times the business is














19:14:00 not in operation and that no cars remain that area.

19:14:05 Again, open storage cannot occur on that site, and that

19:14:10 includes storage of any vehicles.

19:14:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may before we close.

19:14:16 You see we are trying to find a balance here so that you

19:14:19 can accomplish what you want and the neighborhood is

19:14:20 protected all at once.

19:14:23 I think if these things happen, what miss Feeley put

19:14:26 here and is added to the Land Development Coordination,

19:14:29 landscape and so forth, that the neighborhood would at

19:14:33 least have some feel that in the future that noise is

19:14:34 not coming from there.

19:14:38 So you don't have to be unjustly accused by me maybe

19:14:39 that you are doing something wrong.

19:14:44 And if that gate is locked, like I was going to make a

19:14:47 suggestion that that be added to the plan, then you are

19:14:51 vindicated from any people who might want to use that

19:14:55 open storage area for something it wasn't designated to

19:14:57 be and that is my only contention.

19:15:00 Or mine -- and I am sure the Councilmembers feel the

19:15:09 same way.

19:15:14 >> Just a quick question for miss elsworth, are you

19:15:21 comfortable for a six-feet concrete wall beside your

19:15:26 home because it seems very unsightly.

19:15:28 >> My main concern to be honest with you I don't want to














19:15:30 see cars next door to my house.

19:15:31 I decent.

19:15:34 Also, you are talking about the front of the property on

19:15:36 Crest Avenue.

19:15:39 You also need to take into consideration the side of the

19:15:39 lot.

19:15:45 Because the church is on that lot, the building right

19:15:48 next to that church can drive right on that lot.

19:15:51 So making sure that nobody has access to that lot when

19:15:52 that business is closed.

19:15:55 That is my concern.

19:16:00 Thank you.

19:16:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I questions the question to staff --

19:16:11 let me hear from staff.

19:16:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What is allowable right now on zoning

19:16:18 on that lot.

19:16:23 >> An rs-50 lot, so single-family lot.

19:16:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No parking or anything allowed will be

19:16:26 there.

19:16:29 >> The parking lot cannot be permitted unless they go

19:16:31 through a special use.

19:16:32 Nothing can take place there.

19:16:36 >> Right now if there is any parking, it is illegal.

19:16:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So if this does not pass tonight, they

19:16:42 just have an empty lot there that will be continue to be














19:16:44 utilized by somebody.

19:16:47 >> That shouldn't be utilized as a parking lot, but you

19:16:49 will have a vacant residential lot.

19:16:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, but my point though is, it is not

19:16:56 -- and if we don't do anything with it tonight.

19:16:59 And we understand if it does not pass, the church will

19:17:04 continue to utilize that parking.

19:17:08 Somebody else will continue to utilize it.

19:17:11 At night, day.

19:17:14 >> Well, because it is a vacant lot, there is access to

19:17:16 the adjacent properties, it will probably continue to be

19:17:19 used but there is a citation on the property for illegal

19:17:22 parking.

19:17:25 So it would go through the code enforcement process.

19:17:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand.

19:17:33 >> He has a vacant lot, but it will continue to be used

19:17:35 for illegal parking.

19:17:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to make it clear if nothing

19:17:42 happens at all, still going to have parking evidently

19:17:47 from the church -- he guess the church and -- I guess

19:17:50 people who come.

19:17:55 That the observation I am trying to make.

19:17:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Maybe from the art gallery.

19:18:05 From the art gallery and -- bars, whatever.

19:18:08 So -- what I hear Mr. Miranda trying to do is trying to














19:18:12 alleviate and protect the neighborhood for them -- but

19:18:13 the neighborhood say they don't want it.

19:18:16 So I am trying to give a clear picture of what you are

19:18:17 going to have.

19:18:20 Mr. Miranda says and if I hear what he is saying, put a

19:18:23 fence around, put a wall there, let's lock it up.

19:18:29 And I heard miss elsworth said then I don't want nothing

19:18:30 there.

19:18:33 She said I don't want any car there is period.

19:18:34 That's what she said.

19:18:36 I stand to be corrected if that's not what she said.

19:18:39 I thought she said I don't want any car there is period.

19:18:41 >> I think she said she did not want to see cars from

19:18:43 her house.

19:18:47 >> See cars.

19:18:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She don't want to see any.

19:18:52 >> He had asked home run -- I don't -- he had asked her

19:18:54 if she minded the wall.

19:18:57 And she said she didn't want to see cars from her house

19:18:59 so that would give her the greatest protection.

19:19:01 The wall is what is required by code.

19:19:03 I think what we are hearing on church side -- let me

19:19:08 just show -- on church side here, this is miss

19:19:11 Elsworth's property here.

19:19:15 On the church side, on the east and then on this














19:19:19 commercial property on the south, there is access to the

19:19:20 site.

19:19:25 So if we do the wall and then chain off the front, that

19:19:27 is not going to help the situation of other people still

19:19:29 using the lot.

19:19:34 The petitioner has said that they would put a chain-link

19:19:38 fence on this area and also -- so on the east and also

19:19:42 on the South to stop access from those other properties

19:19:47 on to theirs, and then the masonry wall adjacent to the

19:19:51 residential and then the smaller masonry wall in the

19:19:54 front with the sliding gate.

19:20:01 The last I think that Miss Cole had advised me is that

19:20:04 she recommended that actual hours of operation be placed

19:20:06 for the parking lot.

19:20:09 If we said business hours and they say they are open 24

19:20:12 hours and the lot can be used for 24 hours.

19:20:16 So in order to avoid any confusion related to that note,

19:20:19 we should probably put hours of operation for the lots.

19:20:21 Thank you.

19:20:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: He may want to state that again which I

19:20:27 heard Monday through Friday from 10 to 6:00 is what I

19:20:27 heard.

19:20:31 You want to come back and --

19:20:35 >> We do open on Saturday, sometimes on Sundays, but we

19:20:39 usually close by 2:00 in the afternoon.














19:20:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman.

19:20:43 Why don't you give us the hours you are talking about

19:20:45 being open.

19:20:47 A car lot that does income tax.

19:20:53 >> 10 a.m. to 6:00 and say Saturday from 10 to 2:00.

19:20:57 Anything else beside that, no cars should be there at

19:20:58 all.

19:21:01 >> If I may, if we can leave some room open just in case

19:21:04 he decides to do business later on a Sunday maybe go

19:21:07 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. seven days a week or something

19:21:09 like that because in the future --

19:21:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That is stretching it.

19:21:14 I think you are stretching it.

19:21:17 Okay, yes.

19:21:18 You can request that now, I don't think you are going to

19:21:20 get it, but you can request it.

19:21:22 Yes, go ahead.

19:21:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Miss Elsworth, Mrs. ELSworth, do you

19:21:32 understand what is being proposed next to your house

19:21:36 with the fence all the way around the front of it is 3

19:21:40 foot with a roller gate, and then the concrete 6 foot

19:21:44 along the side of your house.

19:21:46 >> I am aware what they are proposing.

19:21:50 I am -- I am just concerned.

19:21:54 What you are all propose and what they are proposing, is














19:22:00 it going to really help.

19:22:01 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Well, it would have to happen, the

19:22:06 fence, the chain-link, it -- it would to happen or they

19:22:10 will not be there for parking.

19:22:13 Had is being proposed here would have to happen.

19:22:18 That chain-link that -- closing of that lot, at 6 p.m.

19:22:22 and all of it being where there is no access unless they

19:22:27 cut the fence and really want to park in there.

19:22:30 That is what -- that would have to be done.

19:22:32 >> Okay.

19:22:33 Okay.

19:22:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So I wanted to know if you were aware

19:22:36 --

19:22:39 >> I understand it and I am very clear on it.

19:22:43 I would be more happier if the property was taken care

19:22:46 of properly like you said per the wall, the brick wall

19:22:51 and the fence, to close it in so nothing going on on

19:22:51 that piece of property.

19:23:01 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That is exactly what is being proposed.

19:23:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?

19:23:11 >> I don't have any further comment.

19:23:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close --

19:23:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Comment receipt now.

19:23:16 This is your last shot because we will close the hearing

19:23:18 and there will be no more comment.














19:23:21 If you want to add something to it, you better say it

19:23:23 now or forever hold your peace.

19:23:28 >> I just wanted to clarify the hours of operation.

19:23:31 Monday through Friday, 10 to 6 p.m. and Saturday and

19:23:34 Sunday 10 to 2 p.m. is that okay?

19:23:41 Other than that -- and the three waivers that.

19:23:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second to close.

19:23:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

19:23:46 All in favor signify by saying aye.

19:23:47 Opposed?

19:23:48 Okay.

19:23:52 What is the pleasure of Council?

19:23:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: With the restrictions I will move

19:23:56 the ordinance providing it meets all the restrictions

19:24:00 that are attached to this revision sheet for case

19:24:04 V10-281, 102 W. Crest Avenue.

19:24:09 Addition to that, that there be a masonry six-foot wall

19:24:13 between the residence of the west side to the adjacent

19:24:19 property on the east side, a six-foot and a three-foot

19:24:24 masonry wall across the front on the northern side of

19:24:27 the property on Crest with an opening sufficient meeting

19:24:30 code requirements that would have a sliding gate with a

19:24:33 lock, and that the eastern property adjacent between

19:24:37 this property and the southernmost property running

19:24:45 South and also South running to the western portion














19:24:49 should be a chain-link material that nobody should be

19:24:54 entering the lot without a lock and business hours

19:24:57 Monday through Friday from 10 to 6 and Saturday and

19:25:01 Sunday from 10 to 2 and the lot should be closed after

19:25:04 the business closes during those hours, 10 to 6 on

19:25:08 Monday through Fridays and Saturday and Sundays, 10 to 2

19:25:09 p.m.

19:25:13 and I don't mean in the morning, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

19:25:14 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

19:25:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: With a sign posted that it is for

19:25:21 your parking only.

19:25:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?

19:25:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I seconded.

19:25:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me read the ordinance.

19:25:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Miranda did a great job.

19:25:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance of a Special Use

19:25:36 Permit approving off-street parking in rs-50 residential

19:25:43 single family en in the general vicinity of 102 W. Crest

19:25:45 Avenue providing an effective date.

19:25:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am going to vote against it.

19:25:49 I am going to vote against it because we started out

19:25:51 Monday through Friday 10 to 6:00.

19:25:54 Then we went to Saturday and then we added Sunday,

19:25:55 number one.

19:26:00 Number two is, --














19:26:01 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I don't think we added Sunday.

19:26:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, we did.

19:26:09 And then lastly, I am not so sure the walls will get

19:26:11 done once they start looking at what the cost is going

19:26:11 to be.

19:26:14 Concrete wall six feet high will be pretty expensive,

19:26:17 but anyway, motion has been made, seconded.

19:26:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me speak to my own motion if I

19:26:22 may under the rules.

19:26:26 If it passes, and it is not in conformity with what we

19:26:30 just read into the record, then the problem does not go

19:26:31 away.

19:26:34 But the neighborhood -- for the neighborhood and for the

19:26:34 petitioner.

19:26:37 You will be fined on something on a daily basis, and you

19:26:43 will continue to be fined on daily basis until the last

19:26:45 straw that breaks the camel's back.

19:26:47 So I am trying to be fair.

19:26:49 Why am I supporting this?

19:26:51 I think it is a compromise that will work.

19:26:54 You don't see cars there.

19:26:58 You have protection from the outside that now the lot is

19:26:59 secured.

19:27:03 Right now the lot is not secured at all.

19:27:05 There is an opening in the front.














19:27:09 There will be an opening in the front if it passes, and

19:27:14 that opening is codified with a lock and a key so that

19:27:17 it closes during the seam hours that the business is in

19:27:18 operation.

19:27:21 Opens and closes.

19:27:25 Simultaneously with the business hours Monday through

19:27:30 Friday 10 to 6 and 10 to 2 Saturdays and Sundays.

19:27:34 >>CURTIS STOKES: I am going to join Chairman Scott.

19:27:36 The lack of design standard for neighborhoods.

19:27:40 Understand miss elsworth is comfortable with the

19:27:44 six-foot fence beside her house, but issue with the lack

19:27:45 of design standard.

19:27:52 And when I look at the picture of -- and I realize it is

19:27:55 a snapshot and a history.

19:28:00 I count 20 cars outside of this building scattered.

19:28:03 Some parked in front with no way out.

19:28:06 I am not fairly convinced that this lot wouldn't be used

19:28:08 for overflow parking.

19:28:12 I understand it is a code enforcement issue at this, but

19:28:15 we all know the code enforcement is backed up.

19:28:16 It takes them a while.

19:28:19 By the time you get a code enforcement letter three or

19:28:22 four weeks before you get a hearing and then after that

19:28:29 -- Chairman Scott, this motion.

19:28:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor say aye.














19:28:34 Opposers, nay.

19:28:36 >> Motion carried with Capin, Scott and Stokes voting

19:28:38 no.

19:28:41 Second reading and adoption will be on November 4 at

19:28:41 9:30 A.M.

19:28:53 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, this is going to

19:28:55 have a second reading?

19:28:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

19:28:58 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: At that point could we require

19:29:01 they get a building permit to do what they are going to

19:29:01 do.

19:29:02 >>GWEN MILLER: You can't.

19:29:03 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Expect do it?

19:29:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They -- anyway when they go --

19:29:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, a point of special

19:29:26 privilege.

19:29:30 I would like to recognize from Tampa palms that we have

19:29:33 Mr. Gene Fields who is Chairman of the Tampa Palms

19:29:35 Community Development District.

19:29:36 And Mr. Bill Edwards.

19:29:39 Where are you, Mr. Bill Edwards?

19:29:43 He is Chairman of the Tampa Palms Homeowners

19:29:43 Association.

19:29:47 And it is very unusual that they come down here.

19:29:49 Thank you.














19:29:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:30:02 There must be a reason.

19:30:06 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I am sorry, and the -- and the

19:30:10 backbone of the outfit, Miss Maggie Wilson.

19:30:13 Are you here?

19:30:14 Raise your hand.

19:30:14 Okay.

19:30:25 Thank you.

19:30:32 >>TOWANDA ANTHONY: Towanda Anthony, Land Development.

19:30:37 Rezoning petition and the property is 15102 Amberly

19:30:38 Drive.

19:30:40 The current zoning is PD.

19:30:44 Place of religious assembly, school and day care and the

19:30:48 proposed zoning is PD to allow for a Commercial

19:30:53 telecommunications tower.

19:30:55 >> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

19:30:58 I have been sworn.

19:31:00 The subject site is located in the new Tampa planning

19:31:01 district.

19:31:05 We don't really talk about this very often here in

19:31:05 Council.

19:31:07 We don't get too many of them.

19:31:10 But anyway in the new Tampa zoning district on your

19:31:11 vision map.

19:31:13 This is an area considered a more stable area.














19:31:16 The South Tampa area, but does offer opportunities for

19:31:20 infill development and mixtures of development that are

19:31:22 complementary to the surround urban area.

19:31:26 The request is for a 100-foot communication tower

19:31:30 nestled -- the subject area is nestled in a heavy,

19:31:34 wooded, vegetative area and is not in direct proximity

19:31:40 to any residential uses as is outlined and articulated

19:31:47 when it comes to towers because a 100-foot buffer waiver

19:31:49 for cell tower.

19:31:50 This is 100 feet.

19:31:53 It no residential uses within the 100% buffer waiver

19:31:55 that is required for the cell tower.

19:31:57 The Planning Commission staff founded the proposed

19:32:00 request consistent with the comprehensive plan.

19:32:08 Thank you.

19:32:12 >>TOWANDA ANTHONY: Towanda Anthony, Land Development.

19:32:14 Council, this one waiver to increase the tower height

19:32:22 from 80 feet to 100 feet.

19:32:31 The amendment that has -- we have asked that it be

19:32:35 removed before first and second reading.

19:32:37 Staff report will have no waivers.

19:32:41 And I will now show pictures of the site.

19:32:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Removing that request?

19:32:46 >>TOWANDA ANTHONY: Yes, on the staff report to remove

19:32:48 between the first and second reading.














19:32:51 A requested waiver that is being removed.

19:32:55 The zoning atlas, the parcel was in the green hatched

19:32:55 area.

19:33:04 This is the entire site of the PD.

19:33:09 Here is an aerial -- aerial of the site.

19:33:12 And the location of the communication cell tower will be

19:33:19 located in this proximity.

19:33:26 Here is a picture of the site.

19:33:29 Here is another picture of the site.

19:33:32 And Tony Garcia of the Planning Commission stated, it is

19:33:35 a heavily wooded vegetative area.

19:33:38 There is a picture of the site looking South and a

19:33:41 picture of the church.

19:33:45 This is looking across the street to the west, and this

19:33:50 is residential, and it is more than 300 feet away.

19:33:53 This is looking north across the street and this is a

19:33:56 Commercial establishment.

19:34:03 And this is a view looking down Amberly Drive.

19:34:06 The petitioner is requesting to rezone a portion of the

19:34:14 existing PD to PD for the erection of a 100-foot

19:34:20 communication tower located generally at 10052 Amberly

19:34:22 Drive, the rezoning request will allow for portion of

19:34:27 the 4.4-acre site consisting of 3600 square feet of

19:34:29 leased area to be rezoned.

19:34:33 This area will be known as the Commercial communication














19:34:34 tower site.

19:34:37 That Commercial communication tower site is surrounded

19:34:39 by church property.

19:34:42 The area will be screened with the required

19:34:48 eight-foot-wide PVC fence and 15-foot landscape buffer.

19:34:51 Elevations are attached to the site plan.

19:34:54 The proposed setbacks from the edge of the compound are

19:35:00 as follows: 175.8 feet to the east, 54 feet to the

19:35:09 South, 374.8 feet to the west, and 51 feet to the north.

19:35:12 The development review committee has reviewed the

19:35:16 petition and finds it inconsistent; however, as provided

19:35:18 in your revision sheet, if the recommended revisions are

19:35:21 made between first and second reading, the Land

19:35:24 Development Coordination, as well as Land Development

19:35:27 Coordination landscape specialist will find the petition

19:35:30 consistent.

19:35:41 Are there any questions, Council?

19:35:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, petitioner?

19:35:48 >> Good evening.

19:35:49 Lauralee G. Westine.

19:35:52 I have provided a duplicate package of my application

19:35:55 and the documents I will show to the Clerk and I will

19:35:59 ask that that respectfully be received and filed.

19:36:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Documentation has been presented to the

19:36:09 Clerk.














19:36:11 May I proceed while he is --

19:36:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, go ahead.

19:36:15 >> The only thing is I need to be sworn.

19:36:16 I was standing outside.

19:36:17 I am sorry.

19:36:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else need to be sworn.

19:36:23 Anyone else who has not been sworn?

19:36:26 [Swearing In Witnesses]

19:36:27 >> I do.

19:36:28 >> Thank you.

19:36:31 >> My name is Lauralee G. Westine.

19:36:35 I have with me tonight T-Mobile's team Shon Sparks,

19:36:37 radio engineer.

19:36:39 Before you we have three revisions to make before second

19:36:43 reading and certainly T-Mobile has no objection of doing

19:36:44 any of those.

19:36:46 With regard to the question as to whether or not that is

19:36:49 a waiver or not, because it is a planned development, it

19:36:51 is not required to be listed as a waiver.

19:36:54 That's why it is not that the height isn't being

19:36:57 requested, it is that the waiver simply isn't being

19:36:58 required on the plan.

19:37:03 I don't know if that has been clearly expressed.

19:37:07 A finding of consistency with the Planning Commission.

19:37:12 A 100-foot monocross.














19:37:15 That is an actual photograph of a monocross.

19:37:17 150 feet in Pasco County.

19:37:20 This one is 50 feet smaller than that, but that is --

19:37:23 that is an actual depiction of one.

19:37:30 My client also did simulation if I can flip through and

19:37:31 find them fast enough.

19:37:33 They are there.

19:37:36 And we did -- we took a photograph -- because we are not

19:37:39 surrounded immediately by residential, we took one from

19:37:42 the closest residential to the north, to the west, from

19:37:49 the east, and the first from the north, from this --

19:37:54 from the north looking South, only the very top of the

19:37:55 pole is visible.

19:38:00 Looking from the east over, it is really not visible at

19:38:00 all.

19:38:07 And from the west, there is not much visibility if any

19:38:08 at all.

19:38:10 The photos are very dark.

19:38:14 What we -- the manner which those photo simulations are

19:38:18 actually made is a balloon is flown at the correct

19:38:23 height, and the pole height is simulated in so we are

19:38:26 not goes guessing at the height and visibility is.

19:38:27 We can simulate it in.

19:38:31 We are at the Episcopal church currently zoned PD and a

19:38:35 future land use of SMU-6.














19:38:37 We are located within the Tampa Palms Homeowners

19:38:38 Association.

19:38:41 We have received as of July 14 preliminary approval from

19:38:44 the Tampa Palms Owners Association; however, in the

19:38:47 event you were to approve this evening and then after

19:38:50 second reading, we will have to go back for formal

19:38:53 construction drawing approval as well.

19:38:56 But we have gone forward and received their -- their

19:38:59 approval.

19:39:03 An article appeared in the August-September 2010 Tampa

19:39:10 Palm's "Citizen" that was kind of a Q & A on the tower.

19:39:12 August -- I am sorry.

19:39:15 There was an article that was published in the Tampa

19:39:19 Palms "Citizen" about the tower back in August and

19:39:19 September.

19:39:22 As of yesterday although I know some folks have signed

19:39:26 up to speak today, at least as of yesterday zoning

19:39:29 hadn't heard from anyone and Clerk hadn't heard from

19:39:31 anyone with regard to this matter and my office hadn't

19:39:32 heard from anyone.

19:39:36 This tower provides the ability for three carriages to

19:39:38 collocate inside it.

19:39:42 Looking back at the monocross, all the antennas are

19:39:46 located on the inside of the pole in addition to the

19:39:46 cable.














19:39:50 Your Land Development code requires that -- to be able

19:39:51 to support two carriers.

19:39:54 This tower will in fact be able to support three in

19:39:56 excess of your Land Development code regulations.

19:40:00 The monocross tower was obviously selected to be

19:40:08 compatible with the -- with the church on the site.

19:40:14 This is an aerial of the site.

19:40:21 If I have the Elmo with that.

19:40:25 This red X right there is the approximate location where

19:40:28 the tower will be located.

19:40:31 The parcel is right here and owned by the church and the

19:40:34 parcel to the South is also own by the church.

19:40:36 As you can see you have quite a bit of dense vegetation

19:40:43 both to the north and to the South and along Bruce B.

19:40:43 downs as well.

19:40:50 The tower is locate off of Amberly over 300 feet --

19:40:52 sorry 218 feet.

19:40:55 It is kind of pigeon hole back there and buffered by

19:41:00 both the vegetation as well as the church itself.

19:41:02 If you had a chance to go out there you sometimes miss

19:41:04 the drive because the vegetation comes in so much.

19:41:09 Current tract is 4.4 acres, but as I did point out they

19:41:13 own the property to the north and to the South.

19:41:17 There is a 3600-square-foot compound proposed surrounded

19:41:23 by 8-foot PVC and 15-foot landscape buffer as required














19:41:25 by the code appeared that will allow for the three

19:41:28 carriers -- the space to support the three carriers'

19:41:29 equipment.

19:41:32 In compliance with your Land Development code, the tower

19:41:35 is sited so we have nonresidential uses on two or more

19:41:36 sides.

19:41:38 We provided your staff radio frequency engineering

19:41:41 package showing need of service and I will have Mr.

19:41:43 Sparks testify at the very end.

19:41:46 We exceed seed the setback for this requirement -- for

19:41:47 this use.

19:41:50 In fact the closest residential use is over 300 feet

19:41:56 away, which is three times the 100% of the tower height

19:41:57 requirement.

19:42:00 Prior to setting the tower, we did go through the EPC

19:42:03 wetland determination process to make sure that we were

19:42:05 not encroaching on any wetlands.

19:42:07 And this site is in compliance with that.

19:42:11 And we have -- we have epc take a look at it.

19:42:14 Designed with a 40-foot collapse point which is well

19:42:16 within the parent tract, which is one of the

19:42:19 requirements of your code that the tower have a collapse

19:42:21 point within the parent tract.

19:42:23 Again I mentioned three times over what the requirement

19:42:25 is from a residential use.














19:42:28 We made an effort to centrally locate the tower on the

19:42:32 parcel, not to put it up on the road, not to encourage

19:42:35 on the trees and tuck it in as close as we could without

19:42:37 taking down any trees.

19:42:39 We are not asking for anyone waivers.

19:42:41 This will not take up any parking spaces.

19:42:45 The current site will stay in compliance.

19:42:48 We are not -- as I pointed out before, we are not asking

19:42:52 for any waivers and we meet the tower code in addition

19:42:53 to the PD code.

19:42:58 We received a determination of -- of -- a determination

19:43:03 of no air hazard on January 1, and that is in the packet

19:43:05 that I gave to the Clerk.

19:43:08 But for 110 feet, we add that little extra bit to make

19:43:10 sure that there is no mistakes.

19:43:14 We did send the letters -- the registered letters a

19:43:16 required by the Land Development code to the other

19:43:17 carriers.

19:43:20 I do want to point out that in Hillsborough County, in

19:43:27 1999, gone up, 68.5% of 911 calls came from wireless

19:43:27 phones.

19:43:31 If I can have Shon Sparks come up Marty -- if Mr. Shelby

19:43:35 wouldn't have any objection of me asking him direct

19:43:38 questions to move the procedure along.

19:43:40 >> He is your witness.














19:43:42 >> Okay, please state your name.

19:43:42 >> Shon Sparks.

19:43:43 >> Have you been sworn.

19:43:44 >> Yes, I have.

19:43:46 >> Please tell the Council about your background and

19:43:48 your years of experience.

19:43:50 >> I have been employed with T-Mobile for going on ten

19:43:51 years now.

19:43:54 Seven of those years as a Radio Frequency Engineer.

19:43:56 Prior to that I was a ground radio communication

19:43:59 journeymen in the United States Air Force.

19:44:01 >> Are you familiar with this area?

19:44:02 >> Yes, I am.

19:44:04 >> How is the need for a new site determined?

19:44:08 >> Primarily off of customer complaints, statistical

19:44:13 analysis, tests and computer modelized prediction tools.

19:44:16 >> Was there a structure or tower in your search area on

19:44:19 which you could locate T-Mobile's antennas and serve

19:44:20 this area?

19:44:22 >> No, there was not.

19:44:22 Have.

19:44:25 >> Have you an opportunity to review the FAA

19:44:27 determination of no air hazard.

19:44:27 >> Yes.

19:44:29 >> Will this tower comply with that?














19:44:30 >> Yes, it will.

19:44:33 >> Are you familiar with the FTC requirements.

19:44:33 >> Yes.

19:44:36 >> Will the antenna comply with that as well?

19:44:38 >> Yes, they will.

19:44:47 >> If I can have a moment.

19:44:50 I do have a set of plans, but frankly I think the aerial

19:44:53 more or less says -- says more than any of the set of

19:44:55 plans could.

19:44:58 As to where the tower is going to be located.

19:45:11 But I am here for any questions you may have.

19:45:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me speak about -- disruptive

19:45:18 technology.

19:45:25 What happens if a new technology comes in and -- I

19:45:29 remember the -- most people in the audience not over 30,

19:45:32 used to have a long antenna.

19:45:35 Then Cadillac started with the antenna that went up when

19:45:38 you turn the key off it went down.

19:45:41 Now you don't see antennas on car the little dotted this

19:45:44 I think that looks like somebody threw a bubble gum

19:45:45 stick and it stuck.

19:45:50 So what I am saying is, is there anywhere on these

19:45:52 antennas where if they are approved or I guess they have

19:45:58 to be approved, next thing I am going to say that if

19:46:01 this technology comes in and a new technology that takes














19:46:06 over an existing technology that creates some type of a

19:46:12 acceptance of it, what happens to something of this size

19:46:14 whether it is there or anywhere else in the city.

19:46:17 Is there a provision that these things come down?

19:46:18 >> Yes, sir.

19:46:21 Your code actually has -- it one of 50% of the codes

19:46:23 that I deal with that actually does -- it has the

19:46:26 forethought to put in a removal criteria.

19:46:29 And in that case, if -- if the tower -- if the use of

19:46:33 the tower is discontinued for 180 days, it shall be

19:46:36 deemed abandoned and the tower -- and the tower owner's

19:46:38 responsibility to take that down.

19:46:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

19:46:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano.

19:46:48 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: This map that was handed -- the

19:46:49 yellow outline.

19:46:49 >> Yes, sir.

19:46:51 I can see from here, yes.

19:46:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.

19:46:54 That is owned by the church?

19:46:55 >> Yes, sir.

19:46:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Does it run over to Tampa Palms

19:47:00 Boulevard?

19:47:03 >> Looks like -- I am looking at a copy now.

19:47:06 It looks like there is -- looks like there is














19:47:08 right-of-way there.

19:47:10 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Not Tampa Palms boulevard.

19:47:12 >> Does it flow into the corner?

19:47:13 I believe their property does.

19:47:23 Let me double check my plans if I may have a moment.

19:47:26 I do know that the -- I do know that the next adjacent

19:47:31 parcel is owned by Great Episcopal.

19:47:34 I don't know if I can answer candidly if that goes all

19:47:35 the way to Tampa Palms.

19:47:39 I can tell you that the immediate next parcel does.

19:47:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Why isn't that on this drawing?

19:47:46 Why is it you only have part of the property?

19:47:51 >> The parcel is divided into several parcel ids.

19:47:54 Parcel identification numbers that are broken down.

19:47:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.

19:47:59 >> That is something that I imagine as the -- as the

19:48:01 church was given the property from the developer that

19:48:03 they would give it to them in parcels.

19:48:06 It wasn't given in one lump sum where it got one parcel

19:48:08 identification number.

19:48:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Under a different folio but they

19:48:13 own all the -- folio, but they own all the -- how many

19:48:15 parcels do they own?

19:48:20 >> If you give me a moment, I am looking at -- I see --

19:48:25 I see at least two different parcel ids.














19:48:27 Three?

19:48:28 If I may.

19:48:33 May I put this up for you?

19:48:39 Let's see.

19:48:42 Here is -- here is our tower site and our parent tract.

19:48:44 This area here.

19:48:46 I see that they own this parcel.

19:48:47 This is a separate parcel.

19:48:51 I see that they own this parcel which is a separate

19:48:52 parcel.

19:48:55 It appears that they own this parcel down here to the

19:48:56 South.

19:49:01 And candidly, I can't tell if there if there is

19:49:08 something that goes over there.

19:49:12 I am looking for a property appraiser printout that I

19:49:23 had done which may help us.

19:49:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Are there any other questions?

19:49:30 From the Council?

19:49:33 Any other questions that you may have?

19:49:37 Okay.

19:49:40 You can -- when you come back on rebuttal if you can

19:49:43 answer that how many parcels if you find it?

19:49:44 >> I will look.

19:49:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Stokes.

19:49:50 >>CURTIS STOKES: Question for staff.














19:49:54 Given the -- the petition, do you have to change the

19:50:00 zoning to accomplish what the petitioner is requesting?

19:50:05 >> Yes, the current zoning is PD, and under PD, the use

19:50:08 is approved for place of religious assembly and day care

19:50:11 and church and would have to rezone for the

19:50:12 communication tower.

19:50:16 >>CURTIS STOKES: You can't have a cell tower of a place

19:50:19 of religion, assembly and day care.

19:50:22 >> No, under PD the use that you requested and they

19:50:25 didn't request the use of the tower in order to add that

19:50:28 additional use they have to go back to the PD.

19:50:30 >>CURTIS STOKES: Is it possible for church to add in

19:50:36 their deed restrictions that allow it to remain that

19:50:38 particular type of property?

19:50:41 Is that possible?

19:50:44 The deed that allow it is to remain a place of assembly

19:50:48 or religious institution.

19:50:53 >> Instead of going through the PD process?

19:50:57 They will have to go through PD to allow for the

19:50:58 additional use.

19:51:01 A PD and site plan patrol and the only uses on-site are

19:51:03 those approved as part of a PD.

19:51:05 Even through a deed they can not allow for a use that

19:51:11 was not approved as part of the PD.

19:51:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?














19:51:14 We will hear from the public.

19:51:17 Anyone from the public wish to address Council?

19:51:19 Anyone from the public?

19:51:21 Any public testimony at this time?

19:51:23 No public testimony?

19:51:23 Okay.

19:51:24 If you all will come forward.

19:51:26 If you were going to be testifying.

19:51:30 Start lining up so we can know that you want to speak.

19:51:33 I was getting ready to close the public hearing.

19:51:33 >> Yes, sir.

19:51:34 Good evening.

19:51:39 My name is Andrea Braboy.

19:51:41 I have been sworn and and see your speaker list outside

19:51:42 the door.

19:51:49 I live at 16006 Burnham Way in Tampa Palms area 2 where

19:51:54 this cell tower, this 100-foot cell tower is being

19:51:54 built.

19:52:02 It is not complimentary to Tampa Palms 2 there, there

19:52:06 are no 100-foot structures of any kind, especially a

19:52:08 bell tower in Tampa Palms 2.

19:52:15 My family and I have been in Tampa Palms 2 since 2003.

19:52:17 We bought there and are still there because of the

19:52:21 area's unusual natural beauty.

19:52:25 This cell tower is completely out of character for the














19:52:28 neighborhood, and I am pretty certain it is going to

19:52:32 even further drive down our property values.

19:52:35 It is also going to further reduce the amount of natural

19:52:41 areas that we have for the wildlife and our own

19:52:44 enjoyment.

19:52:50 They -- this cell tower is being requested in an area

19:52:55 where such a thing is not intended to be built.

19:52:59 The landscaping, the petitioner has recommended in no

19:53:03 way mitigates the 100-foot cell tower.

19:53:09 The 15-foot evergreen tree also not mitigate a 100-foot

19:53:11 cell tower site.

19:53:15 I am also concerned that once we start doing this in the

19:53:20 neighborhood, then we open the door to further similar

19:53:29 development and the neighborhood will just never recover

19:53:32 from this problem.

19:53:37 I have been there 2003 and I never or herd of the Tampa

19:53:39 palm citizen.

19:53:40 I am very familiar with the publications in the

19:53:42 neighborhood and this one is news to me.

19:53:45 Not only do I not support the cell tower.

19:53:47 I am adamantly against it and asking that you disapprove

19:53:49 this petition.

19:53:52 Thank you very much.

19:53:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, next speaker.

19:53:59 >> William Albertson.














19:54:02 5201 Friar Tuck Court in Tampa Palms.

19:54:08 I lived there and the previous speaker was very eloquent

19:54:11 and hit on just about everything that I wanted to say.

19:54:15 I also find it very disingenuous they would use a

19:54:18 religious symbol for a cell tower.

19:54:25 I find that not only -- the concept but the idea -- you

19:54:28 know -- that's all I would like to say.

19:54:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:54:31 >> May I add --

19:54:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Nope, nope.

19:54:36 >> Do I get an opportunity ask a question?

19:54:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Rebuttal.

19:54:38 You have everybody to speak.

19:54:40 >> Are you making that request?

19:54:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me -- let me -- ma'am, this is not

19:54:47 a court proceeding; however, we recognize it is a quasi

19:54:51 -- quasi judicial -- thank you.

19:54:54 You will have time for rebuttal when everybody from the

19:54:55 public gets through.

19:54:57 You will have an opportunity to come and raise any

19:55:00 questions or talk to us as I understand it.

19:55:01 Yes, sir.

19:55:04 >> Mr. Chairman, if she is making a request for cross

19:55:07 examination, it might be appropriate for the chair to

19:55:10 hear what the question is and phrase that question then














19:55:19 to the person who wants to excuse me from what she wants

19:55:20 response.

19:55:24 Quasi judicial matters can be the subject of cross

19:55:24 examination.

19:55:27 Although it has not happened here, courts have held that

19:55:33 cross examination is proper but depends how you wish to

19:55:35 handle it, sir.

19:55:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well I guess my concern is if she is

19:55:39 going to question every witness that comes before

19:55:41 tonight if we are going to do that, we could be here

19:55:43 some time.

19:55:46 He hears what you are saying, but -- my 14 years as an

19:55:50 elected official, I have never had an attorney question

19:55:54 a public -- I mean --

19:55:57 >> Mr. Shelby, the only thing I am trying to ask folks

19:56:00 to do on this aerial point out where they live.

19:56:02 I don't wish to ask them questions as such sir.

19:56:05 What I am asking is on this aerial for them to .out to

19:56:08 you where they live.

19:56:12 >> And -- and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that would be an

19:56:14 appropriate request under the circumstances.

19:56:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

19:56:16 All right.

19:56:18 Thank you.

19:56:21 >> Did I hear inappropriate or --














19:56:24 >> A-n.

19:56:27 An appropriate request.

19:56:30 Is that the extent of which you wish to cross-examine.

19:56:33 >> The extent of which I wish to cross-examine.

19:56:34 I ask them to do that.

19:56:37 I will actually leave the map on the Elmo.

19:56:39 He don't need to speak to them directly.

19:56:41 I would just ask for them to please point out on here

19:56:46 where they live.

19:56:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:56:54 Mill put it down on the --

19:56:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Look down on the Elmo.

19:56:58 On the Elmo.

19:57:03 >> Very conveniently this map leaves off where my

19:57:08 residents live and many of the area 2 residents -- very

19:57:08 conveniently.

19:57:11 I wish I could use this map to point out my home.

19:57:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, ma'am, see we can't get into

19:57:16 another testimony because here again the public -- the

19:57:17 public has spoken.

19:57:19 The request now is to point out.

19:57:22 If it is not there, you need to say it is not there.

19:57:26 >> It is not there, sir, thank you.

19:57:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman.

19:57:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I was going to bring that up before we














19:57:32 have people answer because looking at that map, I don't

19:57:37 know that everyone's house is going to be on there.

19:57:46 >> My house is not on that map either.

19:57:48 >>MARY MULHERN: What is the boundaries of this map?

19:57:52 What is the distance?

19:57:55 >> The distance is -- he mean -- and I can give them to

19:58:00 you just from my survey, approximately 200 --

19:58:03 approximately 200 to 300 feet across the road.

19:58:07 400 feet to Bruce B. downs, it is greater than 400 feet

19:58:10 up to Tampa Palms boulevard.

19:58:15 And I don't even want to ballpark it there, but it's --

19:58:19 to the -- just the roadways, it is far in excess of 400

19:58:21 feet.

19:58:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

19:58:25 Maybe you people can show us sort of general --

19:58:29 generally beyond the map if they are just beyond those

19:58:29 borders.

19:58:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me hear from the attorney.

19:58:33 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, legal department.

19:58:36 Let me make it clear according to this where to have the

19:58:39 persons who are getting up to speak about this petition

19:58:42 to answer a specific question relating to the map.

19:58:45 Florida law does provide a certain level of due process

19:58:49 to a petitioner, and there have been some court

19:58:52 decisions relating having this canine of question being














19:58:52 asked.

19:58:54 It is completely appropriate and I want it clear for the

19:58:56 record that the petitioner is asking for something that

19:58:59 they do have the right to ask for.

19:59:04 And if City Council should like additional information,

19:59:06 ie where do you live somewhere else, I think that is

19:59:09 appropriate as well, but I wanted this record to be

19:59:11 clear that there is nothing inappropriate about what has

19:59:12 been asked.

19:59:14 Thank you.

19:59:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well he guess early on the question was

19:59:19 can I question the witnesses.

19:59:21 And so that was a concern I had.

19:59:23 Are we getting into a court proceeding.

19:59:26 You know, and I am hearing you -- I am hearing you say

19:59:29 that, yes, that is permissible but we have to argue that

19:59:33 another day because then we are -- well, anyway, I am

19:59:35 going to say something but --

19:59:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman.

19:59:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

19:59:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: This body will vote either yes or

19:59:42 no, okay.

19:59:47 If miss Mulhern lives in South Tampa and she votes no or

19:59:51 yes, I don't know how she is going to vote.

19:59:55 Does that put her in a predicament because she doesn't














19:59:57 live near this cell tower.

19:59:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That is not the issue.

20:00:01 >>JULIA COLE: I was trying to make clear I don't want

20:00:03 there to be some kind of -- and there is a court

20:00:04 reporter here.

20:00:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We understand.

20:00:09 >> I wanted it to be very clear that this type of

20:00:11 request is appropriate and that the fact that this

20:00:13 petitioner has made the request should not be held

20:00:26 against this petitioner.

20:00:26





20:00:40 >> I do sit on the CDD board.

20:00:42 I am not representing them tonight.

20:00:44 The experiences I will recount to you are my own

20:00:47 personal experiences.

20:00:48 I was here at council approximately nine years ago,

20:00:51 supporting the expansion of the grace church, preschool




20:00:55 program, and future development, and we tried to

20:01:02 achieve an understanding with grace over the years,

20:01:05 where they shared the same common vision for Tampa

20:01:07 Palms and Grace church.

20:01:14 We have not been successful in doing that.

20:01:17 Our concerns are that in order to build a cell tower,

20:01:22 if it results in the rezoning of the property, and

20:01:24 makes it easier for the balance of the property to be

20:01:29 later rezoned, it is on the flagship corner of Tampa

20:01:34 Palms.

20:01:35 And it cannot be any more visible to the people in the

20:01:38 community or outside the community than it is on that

20:01:42 corner.

20:01:49 We are very proud of the community.

20:01:50 The community three years ago agreed to an assessment

20:01:53 of $3 million over five years to make improvements, to

20:01:56 make the 20-year-old debt-free community not look 20

20:02:00 years old.

20:02:01 And we are three quarters of the way through with that

20:02:04 right now.

20:02:05 So we are not sitting back an just complaining about

20:02:08 what everybody else is doing.




20:02:09 We are going forward on a proactive basis on our own

20:02:13 because we care about our community, and we are putting

20:02:16 the money in place to show it.

20:02:18 So as you look at this, if there would be some way to

20:02:21 deal we've this, in a manner that would not prejudice

20:02:25 the later rezoning of the rest of the property, and we

20:02:29 would appreciate it.

20:02:31 Thank you very much.

20:02:31 Oh, and I do not live on the map.

20:02:34 I'm just beyond the top of the map, about seven houses,

20:02:38 one pond and three dogs.

20:02:41 [ Laughter ]

20:02:58 >> I live in Tampa Palms.

20:02:59 I'm also the president of the palma vista town home

20:03:02 association, just off the map.

20:03:08 It's not directly on the map but very close.

20:03:23 One of the reasons petitioner is here, we didn't really

20:03:27 know that it was being contemplated.

20:03:35 If we go back as some of us do to early 1989 when Tampa

20:03:41 Palms was first developing, this piece of property

20:03:45 wasn't always zoned as a church and designated as a

20:03:49 church property.




20:03:50 And it's been held that way when people looked at this

20:03:55 property over the years.

20:03:56 But it's always been held as a church property.

20:04:00 It's a very unique piece of property.

20:04:03 Those of us who live in the area respect that property

20:04:09 as a church property and would like to see it

20:04:11 maintained as a church property.

20:04:18 Most of us drive by there on a regular basis, at least

20:04:21 twice a day.

20:04:21 When you drive down amber, you are going to see this

20:04:27 tower.

20:04:28 No matter what you heard from the petitioner you are

20:04:30 going to see this tower very large, cross-like

20:04:35 structure.

20:04:37 We ask because of it that we feel it is incompatible

20:04:41 for the type of use we have out there and that we have

20:04:46 had over the years.

20:04:48 We ask that you deny this.

20:04:51 Thank you.

20:04:59 >> I'm Warren Dixon.

20:05:00 I have been sworn.

20:05:01 I live also at 16006 Vernon way in Tampa Palms.




20:05:07 I am off the map to the north of the location for the

20:05:12 tower.

20:05:14 Tampa Palms is under assault.

20:05:18 We are dealing with Progress Energy, high power

20:05:23 transmission lines, Florida gas transmission lines with

20:05:27 its noisy clean-out station, pumping station for the

20:05:32 gas line.

20:05:34 Major roadway construction, and now a request to rezone

20:05:38 a church property to commercial use.

20:05:42 Now, the church property was donated in part by the

20:05:47 developer of Tampa Palms for that use, as a church,

20:05:51 church school, so forth.

20:05:53 Later, the CDD also donated some of its property to

20:05:59 that same use.

20:06:00 Unfortunately, several times in past years, the church

20:06:04 has tried to sell its property to commercial interests.

20:06:09 That's the concern.

20:06:11 Some church leaders of the current grace Episcopal

20:06:15 church have voiced a desire to sell the property and to

20:06:18 relocate their church further out Bruce B. Downs

20:06:21 Boulevard.

20:06:22 They are already aware of that.




20:06:25 Rezoning this little 60 by 60-foot parcel to commercial

20:06:29 use will make it easier for any purchaser of the church

20:06:34 property to seek to have it rezoned because continuous

20:06:42 land would have already been zoned commercial.

20:06:44 As Mr. Field pointed out, it's our premier entry into

20:06:51 both area one and area two, even though it's on the

20:06:55 area two side.

20:06:56 We don't want a strip mall there.

20:06:58 We don't want the property destroyed.

20:07:00 We don't want the views entering Tampa Palms destroyed.

20:07:04 We are trying very hard to maintain the suburban

20:07:07 residential character of our neighborhood.

20:07:12 I'll also point out on the map, this area to the upper

20:07:21 side of the church is going to be used by the county as

20:07:28 a drainage pond.

20:07:30 It will become a pond: Most of the trees there that

20:07:34 had you see are going to disappear, not all of them,

20:07:37 but you are going to be able to see that structure from

20:07:41 Tampa Palms Boulevard, in addition to Amberly.

20:07:48 We are asking you, please, not to open the door to

20:07:50 something that's going to be inconsistent with our

20:07:54 suburban residential character.




20:07:57 I will also point out that there is a major power line

20:08:00 easement that crosses Tampa Palms.

20:08:04 It literally bisects going perpendicular to Bruce B.

20:08:09 Downs.

20:08:09 There are already three cell towers within the confines

20:08:13 of that easement.

20:08:16 We don't really know why T-Mobile cannot locate another

20:08:21 cell tower there if chose to, even if the current cell

20:08:25 tower is at fault doesn't mean they can't build another

20:08:28 one in that more suitable location.

20:08:31 Thank you.

20:08:31 (Bell sounds).

20:08:34 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can I ask Mr. Dixon a question?

20:08:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: He'll come back.

20:08:44 >> My even name is marrying Margaret Nelson, sanctuary

20:08:49 drive in Tampa Palms and I'm off the map, in many ways,

20:08:53 but that one, too.

20:08:54 I'm coming here to ask you for one thing, and that is

20:08:57 to protect the neighborhood stability in Tampa Palms.

20:09:01 We are a planned community.

20:09:03 The balance between residential, commercial and places

20:09:07 of worship were established formally more than 20 years




20:09:11 ago.

20:09:11 The property that you have seen on that map was given

20:09:16 to the grace church to establish that and maintain it.

20:09:20 The CDB properties that were given have reversion

20:09:25 language in them, so they can't go to anything but

20:09:28 church and school.

20:09:29 The developer properties do not.

20:09:33 One solution here that gives T-Mobile its tower, the

20:09:38 church its revenue from the tower, would be to ask the

20:09:41 applicant to willingly take the property he was given,

20:09:45 he/she, she were given, and add deed restriction

20:09:50 language to it, that prevents to the CU that's on that

20:09:55 property today, church, school, daycare.

20:09:57 That was the only thing I wanted to ask you to do.

20:10:00 I would note one other thing that was questioned by you

20:10:05 earlier.

20:10:05 You asked if the properties go all the way to Tampa

20:10:10 palm Boulevard.

20:10:10 It does not.

20:10:11 There's a strict along there that belongs to the CDB.

20:10:15 Thank you very much.

20:10:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.




20:10:17 Thank you.

20:10:17 >> Good evening.

20:10:24 My name is Willey Perez, sanctuary drive, Tampa Palms.

20:10:33 I'm not on the map.

20:10:36 I am president of the Tampa Palms residents

20:10:45 association, not homeowners association.

20:10:47 We have two significant commercial developments on our

20:10:53 property including city plaza with a very large Publix

20:10:56 on it, and we have a professional park with doctors,

20:11:04 lawyers, dentists and that sort of thing.

20:11:06 So Tampa Palms owners association is very business

20:11:10 friendly and very used to being in business.

20:11:14 This property is being designated in the master plan

20:11:18 since 1985 as church and school and daycare.

20:11:24 As we heard the original site was granted by a

20:11:27 developer.

20:11:27 Three other small lots later by the CDD but with

20:11:34 regression language in case anything was done that the

20:11:38 CDD didn't approve of.

20:11:41 Two or three years ago, there was an attempt to sell

20:11:44 one of those parcels, and the CDD intervened and said

20:11:50 you can't sell them because it will revert back to us.




20:11:54 The door was being opened quite deliberately to build a

20:11:58 strip mall there.

20:12:00 The cell tower is somewhat innocuous.

20:12:05 We didn't realize the cross was -- the first thing we

20:12:09 saw was the little cross at the top, but it's still a

20:12:13 flagpole with a cross piece.

20:12:15 The danger is that we have tried, in discussion was the

20:12:19 management of grace Episcopal, to get them voluntarily

20:12:25 to restrict their deed restrictions to this cell tower.

20:12:35 They refused

20:12:36 They clearly see the potential down the road to sell

20:12:39 this property in the heart of Tampa Palms for total

20:12:45 unburdened commercial rezoning.

20:12:50 And we are totally opposed to it.

20:12:52 By the way, this site is very close to the site, maybe

20:12:55 not directly relevant but very close to the site where

20:12:59 Walgreen's was denied not long ago.

20:13:09 That's where the park is.

20:13:11 So the cell tower, we don't like it, but we will bite

20:13:18 our tongue, but we are asking council if the property

20:13:23 owners are not willing to write deed restriction

20:13:26 language in there, then we are asking council to limit




20:13:30 their approval to have say it's limited only to this

20:13:34 cell tower use and nothing else.

20:13:36 Thank you.

20:13:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:13:42 Next speaker.

20:13:43 >> My name is Phil Peters.

20:13:46 My wife Wendy and I live in the Nottingham subdivision

20:13:50 in Tampa Palms.

20:13:52 And we have a different view.

20:13:54 And I apologize to my neighbors in Tampa Palms.

20:13:58 But we are only a few blocks from where the proposed

20:14:01 cell tower is.

20:14:05 And we have lived there about seven years.

20:14:06 There's nonexistent signal almost there.

20:14:10 It's so weak, you can't download an app, you are lucky

20:14:18 to make a phone call, you are lucky to complete a phone

20:14:21 call.

20:14:23 When I talked to you about this, it was strictly about

20:14:26 the cell tower.

20:14:27 Nothing about commercial development.

20:14:30 But there really is a need for the tower.

20:14:34 And I had no idea it looked like a cross.




20:14:39 But to me, if the church put a cross there and nobody

20:14:44 knew that was a tower, they wouldn't know the

20:14:46 difference.

20:14:48 There's really a need for the tower.

20:14:51 That's it.

20:14:51 >> Where is your house?

20:14:55 >> My house is right up Amberly.

20:14:59 And it's -- I'm just a little bit off the map right

20:15:11 there.

20:15:13 It's just a little bit off.

20:15:15 But it's only a few blocks away.

20:15:24 >> You have spoken already.

20:15:28 >> I also live in Nottingham H.I would like to suggest

20:15:34 that the chairman that he get another carrier because I

20:15:37 have in a problems.

20:15:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: To be clear, you can only speak one

20:15:43 time unless there's a question raised by one council

20:15:46 person.

20:15:46 >> My name is Kristen Mallia, 5022 Wesley Drive.

20:16:00 I'm not on the board of Tampa Palms.

20:16:02 I guess I'm kind of the personal emotional side.

20:16:06 But I just would like to state, I am not on that map as




20:16:10 well in terms of my home, but less than 100 feet away,

20:16:17 about 50 feet away.

20:16:18 My four, six and eight-year-old played on the

20:16:21 playground at the convenience grace Episcopal school

20:16:26 until the church just suddenly closed it a year ago.

20:16:31 It was a thriving school.

20:16:32 It was about 13 years old.

20:16:38 And so I think that, you know, even though the school

20:16:42 is no longer there, and I still am trying to get

20:16:45 answers, as early as this morning when the minister

20:16:50 from the church called me, because he knows I have been

20:16:55 in all the papers, I have been expressing my opinions.

20:16:58 I just don't understand this.

20:16:59 I don't understand why it's happening.

20:17:04 I do know the church is needing strong financial

20:17:09 support right now.

20:17:12 Fortunately, a carrier has come along and they are

20:17:15 willing to help.

20:17:18 The other thing I don't understand is there are, as

20:17:23 somebody had mentioned, there are a lot of cell towers

20:17:25 in this area.

20:17:28 I believe there is one less than a mile at fire station




20:17:32 number 20.

20:17:35 There are also two others located at the intersection

20:17:37 of Bruce B. Downs and I-75.

20:17:41 And there is another one about two miles away at Bruce

20:17:48 B. Downs and 42nd street, I believe.

20:17:52 I too, as someone else mentioned before, I don't

20:17:55 understand why T-Mobile can't just hook onto those.

20:18:01 As I said, since our school suddenly closed a year ago,

20:18:05 I have worked diligently to try to find out what's

20:18:07 going on, and we just do not seem to get any answers.

20:18:12 And one thing that was mentioned this evening was you

20:18:18 have not received much response in opposition for this.

20:18:23 There is a lot of opposition.

20:18:25 And I have tried.

20:18:27 I'm a stay-at-home mom.

20:18:31 I have tried for quite awhile now to get the word out

20:18:34 about this.

20:18:34 And the news letters and the papers, and I'm just

20:18:39 blind-sided by how many people don't read the papers, I

20:18:44 might don't get it but I see it online.

20:18:47 And even the signs that I guess you all post, I'm not

20:18:52 sure who, but the ones that announced that this meeting




20:18:55 is going to take place.

20:18:56 There were two that were located on the property to

20:19:00 notify the homeowners about it.

20:19:03 You could not see them.

20:19:05 The one that was visible to the street, usually the

20:19:08 writing just in the past month, we had a big meeting

20:19:13 about the widening of Bruce B. Downs, and those signs

20:19:16 were big and bold and in bright bold black letters, and

20:19:22 this one, I just can't help but think --

20:19:26 (Bell sounds).

20:19:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

20:19:27 Thank you, ma'am.

20:19:28 Your time is up.

20:19:29 Three minutes.

20:19:30 Anyone else from the public?

20:19:31 Okay.

20:19:32 You have a question here by council.

20:19:34 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Dixon, you stated that the

20:19:38 county was going to use some of that land for drainage

20:19:43 when they widen Bruce B. Downs.

20:19:46 Have they given that land for the county?

20:19:48 Or are they selling it?




20:19:51 >>> I don't know where the negotiations are.

20:19:53 Part of the land, as I understand to be taken, belongs

20:19:56 to the CDD, and part of it to the church.

20:19:59 I don't know where the negotiations or the situation

20:20:03 stands with the church.

20:20:04 I do know that the county maps out the area that hi

20:20:07 designated up here for the retention pond from Bruce B.

20:20:12 Downs.

20:20:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Perhaps the attorney could answer

20:20:16 that.

20:20:19 >>> going to your question, I don't have any

20:20:30 information as to what is -- whether the county is

20:20:33 using that property or not.

20:20:34 I simply don't know.

20:20:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You haven't heard of any

20:20:38 negotiations?

20:20:39 >> I haven't heard of any negotiations.

20:20:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: All right, thank you.

20:20:46 Mr. Edwards?

20:20:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You can't speak from the audience,

20:20:54 sir.

20:20:54 You have to speak on the record.




20:20:55 >>GWEN MILLER: He said he doesn't know.

20:21:00 Nobody knows.

20:21:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, thank you.

20:21:02 We have five minutes of rebuttal.

20:21:03 >>> I'm going to move backwards and try to talk fast.

20:21:11 My suggestion is if your decision tonight would be made

20:21:15 or would be more comfortable if we were to explore the

20:21:17 information with the county as to whether or not what

20:21:21 part about it is going to be used for a retention pond,

20:21:24 my client would be willing to continue this for two

20:21:26 weeks so that I can get with the county, and I can pull

20:21:28 whatever plans I need to and talk to whatever

20:21:31 engineers.

20:21:31 That is an offer that is on the table.

20:21:34 That information is critical in your decision tonight.

20:21:36 With regard to the signs, the signs were provided to my

20:21:39 client by the city.

20:21:41 One of the things that I want to -- that I want to

20:21:44 continue to point out is that this tower is sited not

20:21:50 only in accordance with the CDD but with your tower

20:21:56 codes,.

20:21:57 100 percent of the tower height is something that we




20:21:59 think makes the tower compatible with surrounding uses.

20:22:02 You said if it's commercial or nonresidential, that's

20:22:05 fine, you can do set back.

20:22:08 But this is residential, we are going to maximize that

20:22:11 and make you go to 100 percent N.this particular case

20:22:14 we are three times that requirement.

20:22:16 I'm going to quickly have my engineer come up and ask

20:22:18 him a question.

20:22:21 Sir, please state your name.

20:22:22 >> Sean Sparks.

20:22:24 >> You had the opportunity to listen to some of the

20:22:25 folks testify previously.

20:22:28 One, would you be able to use a tower located two miles

20:22:30 away to serve this area?

20:22:33 >>> Not to serve this use, no.

20:22:34 >> Is T-Mobile currently located on all the towers

20:22:37 surrounding the Tampa Palms area?

20:22:39 >>> To my knowledge, yes.

20:22:40 >> And are we located on the power lines already?

20:22:44 >>> Yes, ma'am.

20:22:44 >> Tampa gentleman's comment -- sorry.

20:22:49 The gentleman gentleman's comment with regard to Mr.




20:22:53 Peters to get another carrier, as you are aware, as

20:22:57 your attorney if he were here counsel you in the

20:23:00 federal law protects -- when they sold these

20:23:04 frequencies, they said you can't treat one different

20:23:06 from another.

20:23:07 Just because Verizon has coverage doesn't mean T mobile

20:23:10 can't provide coverage.

20:23:12 It doesn't mean the solution is get an AT&T phone.

20:23:15 I wish he were here so you know I'm not making this up

20:23:19 as I go along but.

20:23:23 All carriers are to be treated equally.

20:23:25 What I hear tonight is fear of commercial development

20:23:28 and that's why I offered to postpone this for a couple

20:23:30 weeks.

20:23:31 It doesn't sound as much -- I think what the bigger

20:23:35 concern is, is this opening a door?

20:23:39 Is this all of a sudden going to go to where they can

20:23:42 rezone it to commercial?

20:23:44 The answer to that is no.

20:23:45 The use of that would be added to this parcel, the

20:23:48 other uses don't change.

20:23:50 The other allowable things on this PD don't change.




20:23:53 The only thing that gets added is one communication

20:23:55 tower within a 606 by 60.

20:23:57 And if you all wanted to put other language in there,

20:24:00 emphasizing that in some form or fashion, my client has

20:24:03 no objection to that.

20:24:04 But with that said, this tower being located here in no

20:24:07 way sets a precedent for the remaining 20-plus acres to

20:24:11 ever be rezoned as commercial.

20:24:17 Of this approval would only be limited to cell phone

20:24:19 tower.

20:24:19 There was a comment about the cross and someone feeling

20:24:23 uncomfortable about the use of a cross as a symbol.

20:24:26 Certainly my client does not have any objection to

20:24:28 changing this to a flagpole type tower at the same

20:24:32 height, flying a flag, not flying a flag, depending ow

20:24:36 close people want to tap a look at that.

20:24:39 The cross we thought was compatible with a church use.

20:24:42 And in that flagpole situation, the antennas and the

20:24:46 cables would still be located inside.

20:24:49 My biggest concern -- and Mr. Stokes, you asked the

20:24:52 question.

20:24:52 You had said, do I have to rezone this parcel to get a




20:24:55 tower?

20:24:56 And the answer to your question is somewhat yes.

20:25:01 Somewhat yes and no.

20:25:02 This underlying PD has CG uses in it.

20:25:12 At that point I would withdraw that but go to my next

20:25:14 point.

20:25:16 In essence, if we didn't rezone a PD to add a tower,

20:25:21 whether it be a commercial PD, industrial PD or

20:25:23 residential PD, in essence what this be city has done

20:25:26 by saying we don't ever want to amend the PD to allow a

20:25:29 tower is you effectively prohibited service throughout

20:25:32 a majority of your residential areas.

20:25:37 This isn't a situation where T-Mobile is going in and

20:25:41 saying this parcel is zoned -- I'll just pick R-1,

20:25:46 where towers are specifically prohibited.

20:25:48 PDs are meant to be flexible document with certain

20:25:51 provisions, that they then can be allowed and sited

20:25:56 properly.

20:25:57 We talked about the power lines.

20:25:59 My concern, although council member Caetano is not

20:26:03 here, he had talked about the drainage pond and the

20:26:06 trees disappearing.




20:26:07 We do have the required Land Development Code,

20:26:10 landscape buffer surrounding all four sides of the

20:26:12 property, and there is the existing dense vegetation.

20:26:15 With that said that is why I made the offer to continue

20:26:18 this to find what is really going on.

20:26:23 My concern is that is it going to be simply on that

20:26:26 corner, and we are still going to have 200 feet of

20:26:29 dense vegetation?

20:26:30 I don't want to leave you with an impression that

20:26:33 anybody knows that area is just going to be plowed.

20:26:40 Again, only to reiterate, this property is a separate

20:26:47 parcel than that corner parcel and it doesn't set a

20:26:50 precedent.

20:26:50 (Bell sounds)

20:26:53 And unless you have questions for me, I would ask for

20:26:57 your approval of this, or I would ask that you ask me

20:27:00 to continue it, which of course I would.

20:27:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Stokes.

20:27:05 >>> May I ask that this be received?

20:27:09 >> Yes, all of that will be submitted.

20:27:11 The earlier information will be part of the record as

20:27:13 well.




20:27:13 >> I'm identifying the maps for the record as exhibit

20:27:18 one.

20:27:22 And I am handing it to ...

20:27:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

20:27:33 I'm sorry to interrupt.

20:27:36 But obviously there's been self issues that have come

20:27:40 up relating to the church's underlying land use, and

20:27:48 the use of the drainage, and other assorted issues that

20:27:51 have come up tonight.

20:27:53 Council, I had heard an indication that the petitioner

20:27:58 would have no objection to a continuance.

20:28:01 And if council would be so inclined, it would certainly

20:28:04 give me and Ms. Cole the opportunity to be able to

20:28:08 spend some time to look at these issues, to be able to

20:28:11 more properly advise council and a period of time that

20:28:18 those questions are at some point in your deliberations

20:28:20 going to be coming up.

20:28:22 So it would be my recommendation if that there would be

20:28:25 no objection from the petition every, and if you could

20:28:27 say that on the record, to continue this for a brief

20:28:29 period of time to allow Ms. Cole and I to be able to

20:28:32 address these issues.




20:28:34 >>> there's no objection as far as T-Mobile.

20:28:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That would allow us to be able to

20:28:40 properly advise council during deliberation.

20:28:43 >>CURTIS STOKES: That was my suggestion to postpone

20:28:45 this for two to four weeks to allow Mr. fields and Mr.

20:28:51 Edwards the opportunity to go back to the church and

20:28:53 negotiate the language that allows us, Tampa Palms, to

20:28:57 protect, and we talked a lot today about planned

20:29:02 developments here at Tampa Heights.

20:29:04 We talked about the 40th Street redevelopment issue.

20:29:08 I just would like the community, the CDD and the -- the

20:29:13 opportunity to talk to the grace Episcopal about

20:29:15 inserting deed restriction language that allows that

20:29:23 part of Tampa Palms to remain what it currently is.

20:29:26 Thank you.

20:29:26 >>> If I may just ask.

20:29:32 We have requested a possible second reading on 11-11

20:29:35 based on the fact I am going to be out of town on a

20:29:37 mission trip, and if I would make a suggestion that

20:29:40 this matter be continued until that 11-11 date.

20:29:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's the date you are requesting?

20:29:46 >> 11-11.




20:29:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's veterans day and there is no

20:29:51 meeting.

20:29:51 The next meeting the city will have a night meeting

20:29:53 will be November 18 in the evening.

20:29:56 Would that be acceptable?

20:29:58 >>> Yes.

20:29:59 I will find a way.

20:30:00 Yes.

20:30:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 6 p.m. then, council, if you would

20:30:03 consider on November 18th.

20:30:06 If there's a motion, sir.

20:30:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, I think we'll do that.

20:30:09 I think, though, councilman Stokes and to the few that

20:30:14 came to add language for the church to have a

20:30:19 condition, I don't think council has the power to do

20:30:22 that.

20:30:23 And the attorney may want to speak to that.

20:30:25 City attorney.

20:30:27 I don't think we have that kind of power to mandate or

20:30:30 request that they have that contained of languaged to

20:30:34 deed.

20:30:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And those are the kind of issues that




20:30:37 I would like to be on firm legal footing when I advise

20:30:39 you because I don't want to say anything that would

20:30:41 possibly jeopardize whatever decision the City Council

20:30:44 makes.

20:30:45 So that will be one of the issues that Ms. Cole and I

20:30:48 will look at.

20:30:49 But my suggestion would be at this point in time that

20:30:54 council not engage in that discussion until we have the

20:30:56 opportunity to have that research done.

20:30:58 I certainly wouldn't want to put council in any

20:31:01 inappropriate situation, and certainly I would not want

20:31:03 to have the parties, the petitioner or the CDD,

20:31:10 involved in anything inappropriate without being

20:31:12 understood what the ramifications may be.

20:31:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The second thing I was going to say is

20:31:18 maybe the petitioner will want to meet with all the

20:31:21 citizens here tonight that have not had an opportunity

20:31:23 to meet with you to hear them out, explore some of

20:31:26 their issues and concerns.

20:31:28 Okay.

20:31:28 Is there a motion for continuance to the 18th?

20:31:33 The motion to continue until the 18th of November




20:31:36 at 6:00 p.m.

20:31:38 Moved and seconded.

20:31:41 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

20:31:43 Opposes?

20:31:44 Okay.

20:31:47 Item 13.

20:31:57 Item 13.

20:32:20 >> Land development.

20:32:35 This is a request for rezoning.

20:32:38 The property address is 4109 to 4111 and 4113 West

20:32:45 Cypress street.

20:32:46 They are requesting to rezone from PD.

20:32:51 And residential single-family to PD to allow for office

20:33:04 professional.

20:33:13 >> Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

20:33:20 The site is located in the Westshore planning district

20:33:22 area on your vision map.

20:33:28 Here is Dale Mabry.

20:33:32 It's going to be just on this side just a little past

20:33:36 Dale Mabry.

20:33:37 Let me show you a the land use map.

20:33:39 Here is Cypress Street.




20:33:41 The overpass.

20:33:42 Of the interstate.

20:33:43 Here is Lois.

20:33:45 The land use category on this particular site, the

20:33:47 north side of Cypress Street is residential 20 which

20:33:49 allows consideration of nonresidential uses

20:33:53 particularly.

20:33:54 More specifically low density office types of usage are

20:33:57 already existing office, the particular segment of

20:34:01 Cypress Street, approximately three other residential

20:34:03 offices that have been approved by this body at one

20:34:06 point or another.

20:34:08 I'll show you an aerial.

20:34:12 So you have several commercial uses already in

20:34:13 existence on this particular site of Cypress Street.

20:34:18 The location which allows consideration because cypress

20:34:22 is considered a collector road according to your

20:34:25 classification map for the City of Tampa.

20:34:26 Land use category allows for consideration.

20:34:28 This will be a classic in-fill low-density office

20:34:32 development within the Westshore business district

20:34:34 boundaries.




20:34:35 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request

20:34:37 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

20:34:52 >> Towanda Anthony, land development.

20:34:56 There are four waivers being requested.

20:34:59 One buffer waiver and three waivers to the overlay

20:35:04 district, the Westshore commercial overlay district.

20:35:10 I will now show a map of the site.

20:35:20 Here is the zoning atlas.

20:35:26 The two parcels in the hatched area in the request

20:35:31 before us tonight.

20:35:32 It's surrounded by residential office, CM uses, one is

20:35:39 CG uses, and CI uses.

20:35:42 Along cypress.

20:35:46 Here is the aerial of the site.

20:35:59 Abutting cypress.

20:36:06 And the picture of the site, the vacant lot.

20:36:13 Here is a picture of the site looking west.

20:36:18 Here is a picture of the site looking east.

20:36:22 Which is south across the street.

20:36:26 And this is another picture looking south across the

20:36:28 street.

20:36:30 And a view looking west toward Westshore.




20:36:40 The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from

20:36:47 RS-50 and PD to PD to allow for professional office.

20:36:51 The site is 10,300 square feet and the existing use is

20:36:55 vacant.

20:36:56 The site is located just east.

20:37:04 It's surrounded by commercial zoning districts to the

20:37:07 south, west and east, and residential to the north.

20:37:09 The applicant proposes to construct a 5,000 square foot

20:37:16 four feet office building, square foot office building,

20:37:21 excuse me.

20:37:21 The site was approved under VO -- 9-17 for 5,073 square

20:37:29 foot business professional office in 2009.

20:37:31 The current application adds an additional 6503-foot

20:37:36 lot to the west side of the development, along with the

20:37:41 stipulation, expansion as discussed above.

20:37:44 The building setbacks are as follows.

20:37:46 18 feet to the south.

20:37:48 19 feet to the north.

20:37:50 62 feet to the west.

20:37:52 57 feet to the east.

20:37:53 The required parking is 17 parking spaces and 19

20:37:57 parking spaces are being provided.




20:37:59 This includes 13 compact, one ADA and five standard

20:38:03 spaces.

20:38:04 The maximum building height is proposed at 32 feet.

20:38:10 The development review committee did find the plan

20:38:12 inconsistent.

20:38:15 However, if the recommended revisions are made between

20:38:18 first and second reading from Land Development

20:38:20 Coordination, then we would find the plan consistent.

20:38:25 Are there any questions, council?

20:38:26 Had

20:38:45 >> Nelson Priede, 3614 middle road in Lutz and I have

20:38:50 been sworn.

20:38:51 This is my cousin.

20:38:55 We were here approximately a year ago this month, and

20:38:57 we owned a 50-foot by 103-foot lot that was explained

20:39:02 to you.

20:39:03 And at the time, prior to that, I attempted to purchase

20:39:06 the same property to the west of us, another 50 by

20:39:10 103-foot lot.

20:39:12 And the owners, a brother and sister, were not

20:39:14 interested in selling that, and through the

20:39:18 machinations of doing a PD we came in front of you.




20:39:21 You all were very kind in working with us.

20:39:23 We had some variances that you allowed us and we got

20:39:26 the PD passed.

20:39:28 Lo and behold a short time after that I received a call

20:39:31 and they were interested in selling their property.

20:39:33 So we were dealing with a PD on a 50 by 103-foot lot,

20:39:38 and was not really that compatible.

20:39:41 It would work.

20:39:42 We acquired the other piece.

20:39:43 Now we have 100 by 103, so obviously, to make a better

20:39:50 project, we kept the same height.

20:39:52 We didn't change any of that.

20:39:53 In fact, we reduced a lot of the variances down.

20:39:56 We had originally, I think, five or six and now we are

20:39:59 down to three, a couple of minor ones here that we have

20:40:02 no problem adhering to.

20:40:04 It's two-story.

20:40:05 The first story is approximately 100 square feet.

20:40:09 It's cantilevered.

20:40:12 And the second story is 3200 feet to give us alleges

20:40:15 over 5,000 square feet of office space.

20:40:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?




20:40:21 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

20:40:22 on this item?

20:40:25 Anyone like to speak?

20:40:27 Close the public hearing.

20:40:28 >> Move to close.

20:40:29 >> Second.

20:40:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to clogs.

20:40:34 All in favor?

20:40:35 Opposed?

20:40:36 Mr. Caetano.

20:40:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance rezoning property in

20:40:44 the general vicinity of 47109, 4111 and 4113 West

20:40:50 Cypress street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

20:40:53 particularly described in section 1 of zoning district

20:40:55 classifications RS-50, residential single-family, and

20:41:00 PD, planned development, office, business professional,

20:41:03 to PD, planned development, office, business

20:41:06 professional, providing an effective date.

20:41:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.

20:41:12 All in favor?

20:41:13 Opposed?

20:41:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does that motion include the --




20:41:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: With the restrictions.

20:41:26 Do you have a copy of that, sir?

20:41:28 With the restrictions.

20:41:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And the waivers, whatever the

20:41:31 restrictions already handled between first and second

20:41:34 reading.

20:41:34 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Right.

20:41:36 Thank you, Mr. Miranda.

20:41:44 >> Towanda Anthony, land development.

20:41:46 Council, this is a special use petition application

20:41:49 number V-10-279.

20:41:53 The address is 1106 east 109th Avenue.

20:41:56 The current zoning on the property is RS-60.

20:42:00 And the they are requesting special use for place of

20:42:04 religious assembly, school and daycare.

20:42:08 .

20:42:12 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:42:14 I have been sworn.

20:42:16 The subject site is located at the university planning

20:42:18 district which is one of your three planning district

20:42:20 on your vision map that offers the opportunity for

20:42:23 additional growth and employment.




20:42:27 I would like to show you a more detailed map, future

20:42:32 land use map, that shows the land use categories.

20:42:35 In a residential 20.

20:42:41 This is residential 10.

20:42:44 This is community commercial 35.

20:42:47 And this is also residential 20.

20:42:49 This is residential 35.

20:42:51 This is your railroad line.

20:42:52 This is 109th Avenue.

20:42:54 I'll give you a little better perspective with an

20:42:56 aerial to show you the site.

20:42:59 As you can see, open space, existing center by the

20:43:04 church, and wanting to put something in addition to

20:43:07 that.

20:43:08 To expand the uses which are ancillary uses for the

20:43:13 church.

20:43:13 Here is Nebraska Avenue.

20:43:15 Here is 109th.

20:43:17 Here is 15th street.

20:43:19 So you're southwest of the University of South Florida

20:43:26 where you are at over here.

20:43:32 Ms. Anthony already told you what the uses are going to




20:43:34 be.

20:43:35 It's very consistent with land use category.

20:43:37 As I told you earlier this evening the residential land

20:43:40 use categories are R-10, 20 and 35 allow for uses such

20:43:46 as daycare centers or places of worship such as the

20:43:49 example here in front of you right now.

20:43:50 Planning Commission staff found the proposed Consistent

20:43:52 with the comprehensive plan.

20:44:02 >> Towanda Anthony, land development.

20:44:05 Council, there are four waivers requested.

20:44:09 Two waivers to the special use criteria, and two

20:44:13 waivers to the parking requirement.

20:44:20 I will now show pictures of the site.

20:44:24 The zoning atlas, you can see here is the parcel in the

20:44:30 green hatched area.

20:44:31 It's surrounded by residential RM-50 as well as RM-60.

20:44:34 And CI.

20:44:40 Here is an aerial of the site.

20:44:44 East 109th Avenue.

20:44:50 The CSX railroad.

20:44:55 Here is a picture of the site.

20:44:58 That's the existing church.




20:45:01 Here is another picture of the site.

20:45:03 As you can see to the rear.

20:45:05 And there's a lot of trees.

20:45:09 Here is a view looking east to the abutting

20:45:13 residential.

20:45:14 There's a view looking west on the railroad tracks.

20:45:18 You can see multifamily residential.

20:45:23 There's a view looking south across the street.

20:45:27 And looking east.

20:45:33 The applicant is requesting a special use approval to

20:45:42 allow for place of religious assembly including school,

20:45:45 daycare, administrative offices.

20:45:46 The applicant is proposing an additional one story

20:45:52 150,000 square foot worship center to an existing

20:45:55 church.

20:45:55 The existing 4,883 square foot church structure will

20:45:59 remain.

20:46:01 The site is 2.69 acres and is located on the northeast

20:46:06 corner of 10th Avenue and Montana Avenue and

20:46:10 surrounded by residential and boarded by the CSX

20:46:14 railroad to the west.

20:46:15 The building setbacks are as follows.




20:46:17 88 feet to the north.

20:46:19 To the south 35.2 feet.

20:46:21 To the west 27.6 feet.

20:46:23 And to the east 4.5 feet.

20:46:26 The Is 152 parking spaces, and this is based on a 500

20:46:32 feet capacity.

20:46:33 And one daycare employee and 96 spaces are being

20:46:36 provided including four ADA spaces.

20:46:39 1 standard spaces and 28 compact spaces.

20:46:47 With the waiver for institution parking.

20:46:49 A waiver for parking previously approved by council for

20:46:53 92 spaces under the original special use V 08-62.

20:46:59 The development review committee did find the plan

20:47:01 inconsistent.

20:47:02 However, if the revisions on the revision sheet are

20:47:10 made between first and second reading, Land Development

20:47:12 Coordination Lee and landscape and solid waste then we

20:47:18 would find the plan consistent.

20:47:19 There are any questions, council?

20:47:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions?

20:47:27 >> Ron O'Shea, professional engineer, Inc.

20:47:39 We are requesting a special use to expand the church to




20:47:45 11,000 swear foot building.

20:47:47 As far as for the waivers, the transportation waiver,

20:47:51 most of the worshipers, they walk to the church, and --

20:48:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is anyone here in opposition to the

20:48:02 church?

20:48:02 Anyone here in opposition?

20:48:06 Okay, thank you very much.

20:48:08 You understand all the conditions and things?

20:48:10 >> Yes.

20:48:14 Per the advice of site plan, we have no problems.

20:48:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

20:48:24 Snoop move to close.

20:48:25 >> Second.

20:48:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

20:48:27 Opposes?

20:48:27 Okay.

20:48:28 Councilman Miranda.

20:48:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, move an ordinance

20:48:34 approving special use permit S-2 along with all the

20:48:38 revisions as recorded on the record today between first

20:48:43 and second reading, approving a place of religious

20:48:46 assembly in an RS-60 residential single-family zoning




20:48:49 district in the general vicinity of 11701 east

20:48:52 109th Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida more

20:48:54 particularly described in section 1 thereof providing

20:48:57 an effective date.

20:48:57 >> Second.

20:48:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

20:49:01 All in favor?

20:49:04 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano and Capin

20:49:06 being absent at vote.

20:49:08 Second reading and adoption for this and the

20:49:10 previously-heard item, which was Z-10-33 will be on

20:49:14 November 4th at 9:30 a.m.

20:49:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:49:20 Item 16.

20:49:21 >> Towanda Anthony, land development.

20:49:27 This is a rezoning quarterback application Z-10-30.

20:49:30 The address is 4610 south Manhattan Avenue.

20:49:34 And they are requesting to rezone from RM-24 and CG

20:49:39 commercial general to PD planned development to allow

20:49:42 for a congregate living facility, large group care.

20:49:53 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:49:54 I have been sworn.




20:49:56 This site is located in South Tampa, planning district,

20:50:02 which is one of your districts of stability that still

20:50:06 offers the opportunity in certain cases for in-fill

20:50:08 development, which is being proposed to you this

20:50:13 evening in the form of this application by the

20:50:14 applicant.

20:50:21 This is just north of Gandy Boulevard on south

20:50:23 Manhattan.

20:50:27 Urban mixed use 60 along Gandy Boulevard.

20:50:32 A lot of CMU 35 along Manhattan, and the site that we

20:50:37 are talking about this evening is really going to be

20:50:39 for an expansion of an existing use for a use, I know

20:50:45 council is well aware of we had conversations in the

20:50:47 past month for types of use for the growing elderly

20:50:49 population to service them.

20:50:53 There are a lot of similar types of uses along this

20:50:55 part of south Manhattan in addition to a lot of

20:50:57 churches, along Manhattan.

20:50:59 The use is consistent with the general principles in

20:51:03 the comprehensive plan.

20:51:04 City Planning Commission found the proposed request

20:51:07 consistent with the comprehensive plan.




20:51:09 Thank you.

20:51:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

20:51:23 >> Towanda Anthony, land development.

20:51:28 The land use being requested, this includes three

20:51:33 waivers to chapter 13, tree and landscape, a buffer

20:51:35 waiver, a parking waiver, and a waiver for solid waste.

20:51:46 I will now show pictures of the site.

20:51:51 The zoning atlas.

20:51:52 The property is located in the green hatched area.

20:51:54 The CG parcel as well as RM-24 parcel.

20:51:58 It's surrounded by CI uses, as well as the multifamily

20:52:02 residential RM 35.

20:52:07 An aerial of the site.

20:52:11 Manhattan Avenue.

20:52:17 This is the existing facility.

20:52:19 And the expansion will be located in the rear of the

20:52:23 property.

20:52:26 There's a picture of the site.

20:52:31 This is an additional picture of the site.

20:52:36 Here is the site looking south.

20:52:38 The site looking north.

20:52:40 You can see this residential multifamily.




20:52:46 Looking west across the street.

20:52:49 And this is the view looking north.

20:52:53 North on Manhattan and looking south on Manhattan.

20:53:04 The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to

20:53:09 allow for 30,245 square feet addition to an existing

20:53:16 59,755 square foot congregate living facility for a

20:53:21 total of 90,000 square feet.

20:53:25 There are currently 179 beds and no additional beds are

20:53:28 being proposed.

20:53:29 The 4.6-acre site is surrounded by commercial uses.

20:53:36 To the south and residential to the north and west.

20:53:39 The proposed PD building setbacks are as follows:

20:53:43 To the north 22.5 feet.

20:53:45 To the east, 12.5 feet.

20:53:47 To the south, 20 feet.

20:53:49 And to the west, 25 feet.

20:53:51 The maximum building height is 45 feet.

20:53:55 A total of 52 parking spaces are required.

20:53:57 And 64 spaces are being provided.

20:54:01 This includes one ADA space, three compact spaces.

20:54:10 The development review committee has found the plan

20:54:14 inconsistent.




20:54:14 However, if revisions are provided on the revision

20:54:19 sheet between first and second reading, we would find

20:54:21 the same consistent.

20:54:22 There were staff findings of Land Development

20:54:24 Coordination and Land Development Coordination,

20:54:27 landscape specialists, as well as transportation.

20:54:31 Are there any questions?

20:54:33 >> Questions by council?

20:54:35 Thank you.

20:54:35 Petitioner?

20:54:36 .

20:54:42 >> Good evening.

20:54:43 Stacie Krimmen with Sanders, and I have with me Brian

20:54:51 Pollett, and I have been sworn.

20:54:52 I will be brief at this late hour.

20:54:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is anyone here in opposition?

20:54:57 Anyone here in opposition to this petition?

20:55:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

20:55:04 >> Second.

20:55:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

20:55:06 Okay.

20:55:08 Mulhern.




20:55:10 Ma'am, let me just say to you, thank you all for what

20:55:12 you do in South Tampa.

20:55:14 I'm in and out thereof a lot.

20:55:18 My godmother was there.

20:55:20 I have several members of my church that are there.

20:55:23 So thank you all for what you are doing.

20:55:28 I have been out there a lot.

20:55:29 >>> Thank you.

20:55:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Move and an ordinance rezoning

20:55:33 property in the general vicinity of 4610 south

20:55:35 Manhattan Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

20:55:37 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

20:55:39 district classifications RM-24 residential multifamily

20:55:43 and CG commercial general to PD planned development,

20:55:46 congregate living facility, large group care, providing

20:55:49 an effective date.

20:55:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.

20:55:53 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

20:55:55 Opposes?

20:55:56 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano and Capin

20:55:59 being absent at vote.

20:56:00 Second reading and adoption will be on November 4th




20:56:03 at 9:30 a.m.

20:56:04 >> item 17.

20:56:08 The last item for the evening.

20:56:10 And this is a continued public hearing.

20:56:23 >> This is a rezoning request Z-10-2, property address

20:56:29 is 351 Henderson Boulevard, 3411 and 3409 West Swann

20:56:34 Avenue.

20:56:35 The request is to rezone from CG commercial general to

20:56:38 CG planned development -- to PD planned development,

20:56:42 also retail pharmacy with a drive-in.

20:56:58 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:56:58 I have been sworn.

20:57:00 The final evening for the evening we have before you a

20:57:03 proposed request, Ms. Anthony stated for a retail

20:57:08 pharmacy, and I guess the key is going to be a

20:57:11 drive-through.

20:57:12 It's already approved for, and you have existing on

20:57:14 there a Walgreen's, it has been there for quite a few

20:57:18 years now serving the South Tampa area, this particular

20:57:21 segment of Henderson Boulevard.

20:57:23 As you can see on the future land use map there's two

20:57:25 land use categories, residential 35 and mixed use 35,




20:57:29 the latter of which is a predominant land use category

20:57:32 along Henderson Boulevard which allows commercial

20:57:35 serving uses.

20:57:37 Land use category of residential 35 which allows

20:57:39 commercial uses of which allows request for what is

20:57:45 being proposed here this evening.

20:57:49 The land use to the south is residential 6, the Gulf

20:57:53 view, within the boundaries of the Gulf view and

20:57:57 neighborhood association.

20:57:58 This category is residential 10.

20:58:00 We have some residential 20 along Swann, primarily low

20:58:05 density office uses, and professional serving uses.

20:58:11 There are a lot of -- variety of low density uses along

20:58:14 this segment of Henderson in addition to neighborhood

20:58:17 serving commercial and general commercial serving uses.

20:58:20 Requested for you is really for the modification of the

20:58:22 existing Walgreen's there to allow to the north to

20:58:25 allow it to be able to serve the customers patronizing

20:58:30 the Walgreen's for this period of time.

20:58:32 It is a 24-7, has operated as a 24-7 for all that time

20:58:37 and will continue to do so, I believe.

20:58:38 Planning Commission staff found the proposed staff




20:58:41 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

20:58:42 Thank you.

20:58:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:58:46 >> Towanda Anthony, land development.

20:58:56 There are no waivers requested.

20:59:00 I will show pictures of the site.

20:59:03 Zoning atlas.

20:59:06 The green hatched area.

20:59:12 CG zoning district surrounded by CG and RS 100.

20:59:19 There's an aerial of the site.

20:59:26 The existing property as well as parcels.

20:59:33 Hander son to the west.

20:59:34 Swann to the south.

20:59:38 Here is a picture of the site, the view from Henderson.

20:59:43 Picture of the site of Swann.

20:59:50 Swan also near the vacant lots.

20:59:54 The view east of the property.

20:59:59 South of the property across the street.

21:00:02 Eventual uses.

21:00:05 The view looking north.

21:00:10 And a view looking east of Swann Avenue.

21:00:17 The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to PG




21:00:23 and RM-24 to PD to allow for retail sales, convenience

21:00:28 goods and pharmacy, with a drive-in window.

21:00:30 The plan proposes to reconstruct the existing

21:00:33 Walgreen's retail establishment.

21:00:36 The new building will be 14,820 square feet, with a

21:00:42 drive-in window for the pharmacy.

21:00:43 The proposed building setbacks are as follows.

21:00:47 To the south, 55.54 feet.

21:00:50 To the east, 61 feet.

21:00:51 To the west, 32.8 feet.

21:00:53 And to the north, 34.49 feet.

21:00:57 The maximum building height is 35 feet, a total of 59

21:01:01 parking spaces are required, and 59 parking spaces are

21:01:05 being provided including three ADA spaces, 20 compact

21:01:09 spaces, 36 standard spaces and seven bicycle spaces.

21:01:15 The development review committee has found the plan

21:01:18 consistent.

21:01:19 Are there any questions, council?

21:01:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is your time now.

21:01:28 >>> Good evening, council members.

21:01:30 Gina Grimes, hill ward Henderson.

21:01:33 We represent Encore real estate development and I'm




21:01:37 joined here this evening from Encore by pat Pedronis.

21:01:46 Also is Ty Macks, our planning expert, and also Randy

21:01:51 Coen from Cohen consulting who is our transportation

21:01:54 consultant.

21:01:55 As you heard, the proposal is to rezone afternoon CG

21:01:59 and RM-24 to PD to allow for the redevelopment of an

21:02:04 existing Walgreen's drugstore.

21:02:07 It's very simple proposal.

21:02:08 We are going to tear down the existing store, rebuild a

21:02:11 new slightly larger store, and add a drive-through

21:02:14 window.

21:02:15 The store will only be an additional 2,271 square feet.

21:02:20 The reason for the request is the existing store has

21:02:23 been in operation about 1 years.

21:02:25 The floor plan is outdated.

21:02:28 Walgreen's is also in the process of company-wide

21:02:30 updates.

21:02:31 And so they are hoping this store is one of the ones

21:02:34 they can update.

21:02:35 In addition to the store, being outdated you have a

21:02:40 site that is basically outdated.

21:02:42 You have issues with parking there.




21:02:43 I don't know if any of you visited that store but they

21:02:46 have the dumpster right almost centrally locate in the

21:02:48 parking lot, when they have goods delivered, the

21:02:52 loading dock blocks several of the parking spaces as

21:02:55 well as the dumpster, and the site just does not

21:02:59 operate efficiently.

21:03:01 Another main reason for the redevelopment proposal is

21:03:04 also because of the addition of the drive-through.

21:03:08 Drive-throughs are very typical these days for drug

21:03:12 stores, and that is basically as a result of customer

21:03:16 demand.

21:03:16 Walgreen's also found that as our population ages,

21:03:20 there's been an increase for prescriptions, and again

21:03:24 the drive-through is for the convenience of the

21:03:26 existing customers.

21:03:27 The site does have some history and I am going to go

21:03:30 through it quickly because I need to leave time for

21:03:32 Randy.

21:03:34 But in 2005 there was a rezoning similar to this that

21:03:38 was proposed and denied.

21:03:39 However, there are several important distinguishing

21:03:41 factors between what was denied in '05 and what we are




21:03:45 proposing today.

21:03:46 First and foremost we have reduced the size of the

21:03:48 store.

21:03:50 Previously, the store was proposed to be 17,000 square

21:03:55 feet.

21:03:55 This is only a proposal for 14,820 square feet.

21:03:59 The other store was two stories.

21:04:00 This is a one-story store.

21:04:02 So again cut in half.

21:04:03 The other proposal, the 05 proposal was for two drive

21:04:08 through windows.

21:04:09 This is only one.

21:04:11 Cut the number in half.

21:04:12 We moved the dumpster and the loading to the rear of

21:04:15 the proposed structure as opposed to on the side, as it

21:04:21 was in 05.

21:04:22 We increased buffering in the landscape area in the

21:04:25 eastern front of the property directly adjacent to the

21:04:27 residential area, and also the accent point, the 05

21:04:31 proposal, proposed two access points onto Henderson

21:04:35 Boulevard, and we are only proposal one.

21:04:36 The existing swan access point will stay exactly where




21:04:40 it's located.

21:04:40 We are not moving that.

21:04:42 Also, an important, two other important factors between

21:04:46 the 05 proposal and this one is that we are not

21:04:49 requesting any waivers whatsoever to any of the

21:04:52 criteria.

21:04:53 So that's significant compared to the 05 proposal.

21:04:57 And last is applies to the audience.

21:05:01 This time, there are only, I believe, three people here

21:05:04 that want to speak to this matter.

21:05:06 I think the last time probably the council chambers

21:05:09 were filled.

21:05:10 Again, just very quickly.

21:05:12 An issue that may come up had to do with the traffic

21:05:16 that may increase in the neighborhood and the fact --

21:05:21 the alleged fact that this store may impact that area.

21:05:24 We want to emphasize this store is in fact a

21:05:26 neighborhood store.

21:05:27 In fact, we have a graphic in your package of material.

21:05:36 It's tab 3-A.

21:05:38 And what it shows is that 70% -- and this is by zip

21:05:42 code -- 70% of the customers that go to this Walgreen's




21:05:45 store live within a two-mile radius of the store.

21:05:49 And you can see that with the circles, the one-mile

21:05:56 radius and two-mile radius.

21:05:57 We also believe the proposed redevelopment will not

21:06:00 attract customers from other stores, because if you

21:06:02 will notice, there are three other Walgreen's stores

21:06:05 also in close proximity to this store.

21:06:07 So you are not going to have a situation where people

21:06:10 are going to drive them down south all the way up

21:06:12 through this neighborhood or through this area to get

21:06:15 to the Henderson store when they have a store in close

21:06:17 proximity to them.

21:06:19 But 70% of our customers come from within a two-mile

21:06:22 radius.

21:06:22 So this isn't cut-through traffic.

21:06:24 This isn't an impact to the neighborhood.

21:06:26 These are people that live of in this neighborhood.

21:06:29 The need for the drive-through, we have included in

21:06:33 your package of materials four petitions that was

21:06:38 stationed at the drugstore, about 494 people signed the

21:06:42 petition, 491 said yes.

21:06:45 There was a drive-through window, they would use it




21:06:48 instead of coming into the store.

21:06:49 Only three people said no.

21:06:52 Most of the people identified convenience as the

21:06:54 primary reason that they prefer the drive-through.

21:06:57 However, for some people, a drive-through is a

21:07:00 necessity, for elderly people, people with handicaps,

21:07:02 people that are sick and don't want to come into the

21:07:05 store, don't feel they can.

21:07:06 The drive-through is a tremendous convenience, and I

21:07:09 would argue that it's a necessity.

21:07:12 Another example for the customer demand of the store

21:07:16 very quickly, this store along with the downtown CVS

21:07:19 store are the only two drug stores in this area that do

21:07:23 not have drive-through windows.

21:07:26 On this rendering, tab 3-B in your package of

21:07:31 materials, it identifies every Walgreen's location and

21:07:34 every CVS location, and again this location and the

21:07:39 downtown location are the only two that don't have the

21:07:41 drive-through windows.

21:07:43 And obviously that's as a result of customer demand.

21:07:46 The new prototype for drug stores is for drive-through

21:07:50 windows.




21:07:50 I am going to turn it over to Todd but I want to add a

21:07:53 couple things.

21:07:53 I would ask that you keep it in perspective what this

21:07:56 proposal is.

21:07:57 It's simply a redevelopment of an existing use.

21:08:00 There's in a guessing with this proposal like you have

21:08:04 with a lot of PDs where you are not sure of the

21:08:07 impact on the neighborhood.

21:08:07 This business has been there for 18 years.

21:08:10 We are going to update it.

21:08:11 It's Gulf of Mexico to be slightly enlarged and there's

21:08:13 going to be a drive oaf through added.

21:08:15 There's no guessing here.

21:08:16 Now what this business is going to -- how it's going to

21:08:19 be operated and the impact that we think that it will

21:08:21 have in the area, and it's a positive one.

21:08:23 Also, in this economic climate you have the opportunity

21:08:27 here to promote and facilitate a several million dollar

21:08:33 investment in the neighborhood.

21:08:34 That's important.

21:08:35 I think in this economic climate.

21:08:37 Also, you have the opportunity to implement a provision




21:08:40 in your comprehensive plan that specifically calls for

21:08:43 incentives for this exact type of commercial

21:08:46 redevelopment.

21:08:48 And I am going to let Ty address that.

21:08:50 Lastly, I just need to put on the record that we did

21:08:52 meet with many of the neighbors in close proximity to

21:08:55 the site.

21:08:56 The only individuals here are from Gulf view.

21:09:00 I will put on the record that even though this was not

21:09:01 in the Gulf view civic association jurisdictional

21:09:04 boundaries, we did go ahead and meet with the Gulf view

21:09:07 civic association.

21:09:08 In fact we continued the hearing so that we could meet

21:09:10 with them.

21:09:12 We have a letter of support from the adjacent property

21:09:16 owner who is the president of the homeowners

21:09:19 association, the condominiums, or the townhouses just

21:09:22 to the east of the property, stating that she supports

21:09:25 the rezoning to include the new and expanded Walgreen's

21:09:28 with a drive-through pharmacy.

21:09:29 She's spoken to most of the residents and no one has

21:09:32 expressed dissent.




21:09:34 We met with neighbors that live directly across the

21:09:36 street, explained the proposal to them.

21:09:38 They also are not here tonight.

21:09:40 The two homeowners associations, Gray Gables and Bon

21:09:44 Air, advised they have no objections.

21:09:46 The remaining objectors are from Gulf view.

21:09:49 With that I will turn it over to Ty Macs to address the

21:09:52 comp plan and compatibility and the study he conducted.

21:09:55 >> Good evening, Chairman Scott and council members.

21:09:59 Ty Macks, planner with Inglehart Hammer and associates.

21:10:03 I have been sworn.

21:10:04 As Ms. Grimes indicated, in the booklet that was handed

21:10:08 out to you, Ethel Hammer and I did prepare a complete

21:10:12 and very thorough analysis of the site, and we also did

21:10:15 a consistency analysis of the comprehensive plan

21:10:18 policies and objectives which are included in that

21:10:21 packet.

21:10:22 Briefly, I would like to go over a few points of the

21:10:25 site plans.

21:10:31 The PD site plan that was submitted with the rezoning

21:10:38 request complies with all of the sections of the city

21:10:41 code.




21:10:41 There are no waivers requested which is really

21:10:43 important to this petition, so the key components to

21:10:46 the site plan include improved access to the site, as

21:10:49 well as improved vehicular circulation throughout the

21:10:52 parking, and the parking layout.

21:10:56 As a compliment to being located along the two major

21:10:59 Hartline transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle access

21:11:02 have been improved by providing the appropriate

21:11:05 sidewalks and demarcated crosswalks to the Walgreen's

21:11:09 from the public right-of-way.

21:11:11 The proposed retail has been locate on the site which

21:11:15 meets or exceeds all of the setback requirement.

21:11:19 The building will be placed to provide the greatest

21:11:21 setbacks from the residential uses to the east and to

21:11:23 the south.

21:11:25 The proposed building is set back 55 feet from the

21:11:28 west, from west Swann Avenue and 32 feet from Henderson

21:11:33 Boulevard, 61 feet from the east property line which is

21:11:36 the residential town home and 35 feet from the rear

21:11:39 property line.

21:11:41 Although the retail building's main entrance of

21:11:44 Henderson Boulevard and West Swann Avenue, the building




21:11:47 has been both Henderson and Swann, the building has

21:11:51 been situated in a manner that we feel the majority of

21:11:53 the daily activity is primarily focused along Henderson

21:11:57 Boulevard, which is the primary arterial roadway.

21:12:01 This is achieved by placing the majority of the parking

21:12:03 spaces as well as the handicapped space as long the

21:12:07 Henderson Boulevard, and bicycle parking racks have

21:12:12 also been provided for bicycles. Traffic.

21:12:18 The proposed building -- dedicated here to the loading

21:12:22 and solid waste activities which are typically

21:12:24 associated with this type of business.

21:12:26 This gets these activities outside of the front yard

21:12:30 where they currently are.

21:12:32 They are currently along the Swann Avenue area.

21:12:35 The applicants proposed a rather enhanced landscape

21:12:40 plan, and as part of that landscape plan, they have

21:12:44 enhanced the buffer to the residential properties to

21:12:46 the east.

21:12:48 In your packet, you will find a rendering, an artist

21:12:55 rendering which illustrates an existing photograph of

21:12:58 the existing situation on the east side of the

21:13:01 property, and that an artist's rendering that




21:13:05 illustrates the proposed buffer adjacent to the

21:13:10 residential town homes.

21:13:12 That buffer has been augmented by 1-foot trees which

21:13:16 are greater in height and size than of course what's

21:13:20 required by the code.

21:13:24 We completed a very thorough and exhaustive analysis of

21:13:27 the comp plan policies, and that's included in your

21:13:30 packet, and again I will just reiterate that no waives

21:13:33 are requested.

21:13:34 Along with the code requirements, and we ask for your

21:13:37 favorable approval.

21:13:42 >> Randy Coen, Cohen and company.

21:13:45 I have been sworn.

21:13:45 I was asked to do a traffic study for this project.

21:13:48 It was actually a rather unique request.

21:13:50 The reason being city transportation department

21:13:52 determined that this project was de minimis, did it not

21:13:55 require a traffic study be completed in any way, shape

21:13:58 or form.

21:13:59 However, we did one.

21:14:00 We did one because of the history of the project and to

21:14:02 ensure that that was a correct determination.




21:14:04 I'm here tonight to tell you that it was absolutely a

21:14:07 correct determination.

21:14:08 The project didn't even come close to requiring a

21:14:10 traffic study under city code.

21:14:12 I can also tell you that with the redevelopment of the

21:14:14 site there are no changes in level of service on any of

21:14:17 the roadways or intersection studied in this particular

21:14:20 project.

21:14:21 From an access standpoint, the only change really is

21:14:24 that the driveway on Henderson Avenue will be moved

21:14:27 farther north.

21:14:28 That's a requirement of Florida Department of

21:14:29 Transportation because Henderson Boulevard is actually

21:14:32 a State Road.

21:14:34 Swann, our driveway remains exactly where it is today.

21:14:37 The operation continuation of that driveway has been,

21:14:42 if you will, somewhat dictated to us by City of Tampa

21:14:45 transportation department, and with the strong

21:14:47 consideration from the solid waste department to ensure

21:14:50 that service can be provided to this particular site.

21:14:52 Glad to answer any questions.

21:14:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.




21:14:56 Anyone from the public wish to address council?

21:14:59 Anyone from the public wish to address council?

21:15:02 >> I just want to add one further item, that my client

21:15:07 just mentioned, that the drive-through will be operated

21:15:10 without any kind of enter com or speaker, it will be

21:15:15 hand held just like you have at some banks, you have a

21:15:18 hand-held receiver where you would speak with the

21:15:21 pharmacy inside, so that way there would be no noise

21:15:25 impact to the adjacent area.

21:15:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:15:29 >> My name is Patricia Torres, I live at 3618 west

21:15:36 Lykes Avenue.

21:15:37 And I am a community liaison for Gulf view civic

21:15:42 association.

21:15:42 And I think Ms. Grimes will be surprised with what we

21:15:45 are going to say.

21:15:48 I have a letter here that I would like to also give to

21:15:51 each of you.

21:15:56 With our response to their request.

21:16:02 I can read from the letter.

21:16:10 The overwhelming majority of the neighbors who

21:16:12 responded to our poll are in favor of the expansion.




21:16:15 We understand and welcome the improvements to the

21:16:18 parking lot.

21:16:19 We also welcome the drive-through pickup window for the

21:16:21 sake of our convenience.

21:16:23 The location of the delivery area is a vast improvement

21:16:26 and more efficient in allowing for better flow of

21:16:29 traffic.

21:16:30 This letter is intended to convey the response and the

21:16:33 concerns with Gulf view neighborhood to Walgreen's

21:16:37 request of expansion to their Swann and Henderson

21:16:40 location.

21:16:40 The current parking layout is inadequate as well as

21:16:43 dangerous, and some of us including myself have had

21:16:46 accidents in the parking lot.

21:16:49 Moving the Henderson entrance further to the east is a

21:16:51 huge improvement from a safety perspective.

21:16:54 No one can object to the quality of the landscaping and

21:16:57 the addition of the masonry wall on the east side of

21:17:00 the property.

21:17:00 So I think it is safe to say of that we like what we

21:17:03 see, and the proposed site plan presented to us by

21:17:06 Walgreen's at our last board meeting.




21:17:09 However, there are comments that have appeared over and

21:17:13 over from the majority of the in any case, the

21:17:16 conditions that were repeated most frequently in our

21:17:19 polling are, number one, we request Walgreen's not come

21:17:25 back at any future time requesting a license to sell

21:17:28 beer and wine.

21:17:29 Number two, we prefer that Walgreen's discontinue

21:17:31 hanging banners and putting out snipe signs.

21:17:35 They need to do it -- be better at utilizing their

21:17:40 digital sign.

21:17:42 Keeping with the appearance of the neighborhood.

21:17:44 Number three, very important to us is the issue of the

21:17:48 turn signal in all directions of the intersection of

21:17:51 Swann, Henderson and Himes.

21:17:52 The turn signal is vitally important to the flow of

21:17:55 traffic through the intersection.

21:17:56 A turn lane in each direction already exists, but a

21:18:00 signal would move traffic through the intersection more

21:18:02 efficiently and safely.

21:18:04 It is our understanding that Henderson is a State Road,

21:18:07 but we feel it is imperative for Walgreen's, the City

21:18:10 of Tampa, and the state to work together on this issue




21:18:13 to make it happen.

21:18:14 Traffic is increasing in this area and at this

21:18:17 intersection.

21:18:18 It needs to be addressed.

21:18:19 I am sure Walgreen's will pick up additional business,

21:18:22 with the addition to the drive-through window, which

21:18:26 will only make matters worse.

21:18:30 Walgreen's is the only drugstore in the whole area that

21:18:34 does not have a drive-through window, and I'm sure that

21:18:38 there are probably a lot of people who live even in

21:18:40 Gulf view that go to Howard and Swann because they have

21:18:44 a drive-through window so they will pick up more

21:18:47 business which will cause more traffic there at that

21:18:49 intersection.

21:18:50 We the Gulf view neighborhood ask that you please

21:18:52 require Walgreen's to incorporate these concessions

21:18:56 into their plan for expansion of their present

21:19:00 location.

21:19:01 Thank you for your consideration.

21:19:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

21:19:04 Next speaker.

21:19:04 >> Brenda Korhn, 32127 San Nicholas.




21:19:16 I live in Gulf view.

21:19:17 I have been sworn in.

21:19:18 I want to say thank you to the Walgreen's group for

21:19:21 doing such a phenomenal job in the neighborhood.

21:19:25 When I polled the neighborhood initially, we had just

21:19:28 more people in favor of it, and I am very much in favor

21:19:31 of it, and as pat expressed, some of the neighbors'

21:19:35 concerns, we all see it as a real benefit to the

21:19:40 neighborhood from the drive-through.

21:19:43 I am one who will use the prescriptions now.

21:19:45 I have never used that pharmacy for prescriptions for

21:19:50 one reason, they don't have a drive-through.

21:19:53 So I do see that further increase of traffic could come

21:19:56 about.

21:19:57 Then, at the same time, knowing this is a State Road, I

21:19:59 actually work right next door.

21:20:03 I would hate to see the project denied if something

21:20:06 couldn't be worked out with the short term on the road

21:20:10 situation right now.

21:20:11 With the turn light.

21:20:14 I know there's a lot involved since it's a State Road.

21:20:16 But I'm very much in favor of it, as most of the




21:20:19 neighbors are.

21:20:20 And my vote is in favor, with some of the concessions

21:20:26 that the neighborhood has expressed with the beer and

21:20:29 wine, that was something that a few people expressed

21:20:33 their feelings over, and also the light that was

21:20:39 mentioned the third one.

21:20:42 The signs.

21:20:43 Definitely the signs.

21:20:44 We don't like the signs that are out there.

21:20:46 It just takes away from this beautiful building that

21:20:49 will be built.

21:20:50 And thank you for all the hard work.

21:20:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:20:55 Petitioner?

21:20:56 >> I just want to make it clear for the record that I

21:21:01 know there was comments about not wanting this to move

21:21:04 forward without alcoholic beverage and stand alone

21:21:09 process and should be dealt with in this process.

21:21:18 >>GINA GRIMES: With that being said I don't think I

21:21:20 need to address the alcoholic beverage issue.

21:21:22 As far as the signs in the right-of-way, I know what

21:21:23 they are speaking of.




21:21:25 They are not permitted, and we would agree to -- we

21:21:31 don't even need I guess to put a condition on the site

21:21:33 plan because they are not permitted by code already.

21:21:35 So of that is something that they will commit to

21:21:38 insuring that that doesn't occur in the future.

21:21:41 I think they are talking about like flu shot signs that

21:21:43 appeared close to the roadway.

21:21:45 The last issue on the signalization and the turn lane

21:21:48 at that intersection at Swann and Henderson and Himes,

21:21:52 I am going to let Randy address that issue.

21:21:54 >> Randy Coen again for the record.

21:21:58 We would be happy to meet we've the City of Tampa, the

21:22:01 D.O.T., regarding the provision of left turn signals.

21:22:04 We do have to realize, though, that unfortunately there

21:22:06 is a warrant issued so we can get no assurance other

21:22:11 than our best base number working with the city and the

21:22:14 D.O.T. to see if that can be accomplished.

21:22:15 >>MARY MULHERN: A transportation question.

21:22:22 So Randy, and maybe our transportation department.

21:22:29 Ms. Grimes, you shouldn't be surprised.

21:22:30 I'm happy to see that you are putting a drive-through

21:22:32 here.




21:22:33 I'm about halfway between this and CVS on Swann.

21:22:38 But it's always bothered me the way it's set up now,

21:22:43 that when I come east on Swann, I can turn into the

21:22:48 parking lot there, but then to go back home, I have to

21:22:54 go over to Henderson, I have to make a left turn out to

21:22:58 Henderson, then I have to wait at the light, because

21:23:03 the city won't allow to you come out of the parking lot

21:23:06 onto Swann and make a left turn.

21:23:08 And I think the reason is because they are worried

21:23:12 about traffic backing up.

21:23:14 But the reality is, if the traffic is backed up on

21:23:18 Swann, you can't turn left out of the parking lot, so

21:23:23 it shouldn't be a problem.

21:23:25 But I would like to be -- and I'm telling you

21:23:27 Walgreen's would get a lot more business even without a

21:23:32 drive-through, if you didn't have to make dry-run

21:23:37 circles just to get in and out onto -- what is Swann, a

21:23:41 collector?

21:23:41 I don't know what kind of road you call it.

21:23:43 >>> Actually, I think I have some of very good news for

21:23:46 you.

21:23:47 This particular rezoning in PD, one of the requirements




21:23:49 the City of Tampa required to be able for this property

21:23:53 from solid waste perspective single-family to remove

21:23:55 that prohibition from the Swann Avenue driveway, so you

21:23:58 will be able to turn both directions.

21:24:00 Of course there will be times of day whereof you would

21:24:02 not be doing that.

21:24:03 But it's more of a drive judgment issue in the future.

21:24:07 >> Am I wrong?

21:24:07 It seemed like you weren't supposed to make a left turn

21:24:11 out onto Henderson.

21:24:14 >> Both of them now are full access driveways, yes.

21:24:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, good.

21:24:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say that the configuration of

21:24:27 the traffic pattern is much better in this one than it

21:24:29 is currently.

21:24:31 The ingress and egress on Henderson close to Swann is

21:24:35 extremely dangerous.

21:24:36 Why do I say this?

21:24:38 Supposed to -- when it backs up or somebody is coming

21:24:42 out and then this car behind you can't get around the

21:24:46 car because the car behind you backs up.

21:24:51 You have to buy nerve medicine before you get in.




21:24:54 You could take a drink but not there.

21:24:56 So what I'm saying is, it is a great improvement, I

21:25:00 think, to the neighborhoods, and proximity, and to the

21:25:05 neighborhood, further north where you have more ample

21:25:10 room to move, and the 59 spaces that are necessitated

21:25:16 by the requests are up to 59.

21:25:20 So if I remember looking at the total of the store,

21:25:27 12,900-some feet, you have 2300-foot expansion of

21:25:32 between the old store and the new store, nothing near

21:25:35 17,000 that was asked some time back.

21:25:39 When you look at all of those things and you apply it

21:25:41 to the principles of the standard and what the

21:25:43 neighborhood, I think everybody wins here.

21:25:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

21:25:48 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

21:25:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:25:51 All in favor?

21:25:52 Who wants to read the ordinance?

21:25:54 Councilman Miranda.

21:26:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And this has no waivers.

21:26:02 I remember.

21:26:02 I don't have to say the waiver sheet.




21:26:04 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Normally, the surface is included

21:26:12 in it, right?

21:26:13 Okay.

21:26:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I read an ordinance

21:26:19 for first reading rezoning property in the general

21:26:21 vicinity of 3518 Henderson Boulevard and 3409 and 3411

21:26:26 West Swann Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida more

21:26:28 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

21:26:31 district classification CG commercial general and RM-24

21:26:36 residential multifamily to PD planned development,

21:26:39 retail, pharmacy, drive-of in window, providing an

21:26:42 effective date.

21:26:43 >> Second.

21:26:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:26:46 All in favor?

21:26:47 Opposed?

21:26:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

21:26:51 vote.

21:26:51 Second reading and adoption will be on November 4th

21:26:53 at 9:30 a.m.

21:26:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to receive and file.

21:27:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.




21:27:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

21:27:06 Any new business?

21:27:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, back some months

21:27:14 ago, we attempted to get an ordinance drawn up, and it

21:27:19 did not pass.

21:27:21 And this is in reference to any elected official from

21:27:24 the City of Tampa who leaves office before his expired

21:27:28 term, okay, that they would not be able to come back

21:27:34 and run again for at least four years till the next

21:27:38 election.

21:27:41 All right?

21:27:41 I would like our city attorney Chip Fletcher to prepare

21:27:45 an ordinance for presentation to council at the next

21:27:47 regular meeting that facilitates this.

21:27:51 And I hope this council will support this.

21:27:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.

21:27:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and second.

21:27:58 What's the date it's supposed to come back?

21:28:00 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I don't know how long it will

21:28:03 take Mr. Fletcher.

21:28:04 It's a very simple -- one paragraph.

21:28:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, you could do it conceivably




21:28:19 with doc agenda.

21:28:20 It might be difficult for next meeting.

21:28:22 The 21st.

21:28:24 Of that would be difficult.

21:28:25 November 4th?

21:28:27 Will that be acceptable?

21:28:28 Because you have a lot of hearings on the 21st.

21:28:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me just say for the record that

21:28:36 there will be -- I will not be in the City of Tampa on

21:28:40 November 4th.

21:28:41 It doesn't matter to me.

21:28:42 But I more than likely will not be even in the country

21:28:46 on November 4th.

21:28:47 >> Would you be here on the 21st?

21:28:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The 28th is my meeting, I

21:28:53 believe we have, and after the 4th, two weeks after

21:28:58 that, I will be certainly back.

21:29:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, two points.

21:29:05 Number one is you have a meeting on November 18th,

21:29:10 but also Mr. Fletcher did have that ordinance prepared

21:29:12 for you the last time, and if the clerk is able to put

21:29:16 it on the next agenda, it should take no additional




21:29:19 work.

21:29:20 Other than that, my suggestion would be if you wish to

21:29:21 have Mr. Miranda present, the 18th, you say, of

21:29:26 November?

21:29:26 It's your call.

21:29:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Why can't we do it in the two weeks?

21:29:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council's pleasure.

21:29:33 My recollection is he walked in with the ordinance.

21:29:37 >>CHAIRMAN: Two weeks then.

21:29:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What is it, 21st or 28th?

21:29:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The 28th is only for a CRA in the

21:29:46 morning and plan amendments at 10:30.

21:29:48 You have no regular meeting.

21:29:49 >>GWEN MILLER: 21st.

21:29:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that a motion then?

21:29:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: 21st of October.

21:29:57 Very simple because there might be own or two words.

21:30:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and second.

21:30:03 All in favor?

21:30:04 Opposes?

21:30:05 Okay.

21:30:07 Anything else?




21:30:08 Thank you, council.

21:30:09 We stand adjourned.

21:30:11 (meeting adjourned)

21:49:21



DISCLAIMER:

This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
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.