Help & information    View the list of Transcripts




TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

Thursday, February 10, 2011
5:30 p.m. Meeting


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.


17:34:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Good afternoon.

17:34:06 Council will come to order.

17:34:08 We will have roll call.

17:34:10 [Roll Call Taken]

17:34:24 We will take up the first item on our agenda, Item

17:34:28 Number 1.

17:34:31 I guess we need to open the public hearing.

17:34:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, so moved to open

17:34:37 hearings 1-5, nonquasi judicial.

17:34:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:34:45 All those in favor signify by saying aye.

17:34:48 Let me read into the record, we have Councilwoman Capin

17:34:51 will be coming late due to a previously scheduled event

17:34:55 and given a memo from me that I have to leave early.

17:34:58 I have to leave earlier because of a scheduling conflict

17:34:59 as well.

17:35:00 Thank you.

17:35:00 Okay.

17:35:02 Item 1.

17:35:05 Staff want to brief us on -- public on this one.

17:35:08 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Good evening, Council, Catherine

17:35:10 Coyle, Land Development.

17:35:15 The first ordinance is for the barbed wire, electric

17:35:16 fence.

17:35:20 At your last workshop, you directed us to do changes to

17:35:21 that language.

17:35:23 That language was amended and routed.

17:35:25 We went to the Planning Commission last month, and there

17:35:29 were no comments or observations to the language at that

17:35:30 point.

17:35:33 So it is back before you as directed at the last

17:35:35 workshop.

17:35:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, any questions?

17:35:40 This is a public hearing.

17:35:45 Anyone wish to address Council on Item 1?

17:35:49 Anyone wish to address Council on Item 1?

17:35:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

17:35:52 >> Second.

17:35:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

17:35:57 All in favor signify by saying aye.

17:36:02 Opposed?

17:36:05 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

17:36:07 I move an ordinance of the City of Tampa relating to the

17:36:10 electric fence regulation making comprehensive revisions

17:36:15 to City of Tampa code of ordinance Chapter 27 zoning

17:36:21 amending section 27-133, fence and wall regulations,

17:36:26 repealing all ordinances provide for severability,

17:36:27 providing an effective date.

17:36:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

17:36:31 >>CURTIS STOKES: Second.














17:36:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by Councilman

17:36:38 Stokes.

17:36:43 >> Motion moved with Councilwoman Capin absent at vote.

17:36:45 >> Item 2, the community garden.

17:36:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.

17:36:52 This was not changed and routed as is.

17:36:56 It does show within the standard use table, Table 4-1,

17:36:58 also Table 8-1 for Ybor City.

17:37:02 And the use table for the downtown and channel district

17:37:06 shows the inclusion of community gardens as a Special

17:37:11 Use 1 with corresponding criteria in 27-272 for that

17:37:12 special use.

17:37:14 And nothing was changed at the Planning Commission as

17:37:16 well.

17:37:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

17:37:19 This is a public hearing.

17:37:21 Anyone wishing to address us on Item 2, the community

17:37:29 garden.

17:37:33 >> Margaret Vizzi, South Cheryl, speaking for Tampa

17:37:33 Homeowners.

17:37:37 From the very beginning of the community gardens, Tampa

17:37:41 Homeowners come to you and asked to make this process

17:37:45 not an S-1 which doesn't allow public hearing but just

17:37:48 goes to the Zoning Adminstrator for approval, but to

17:37:50 have an S-2.














17:37:52 The neighborhoods are concerned, the immediate

17:37:55 neighbors, as well as the neighborhoods that there can

17:37:57 be an impact.

17:38:01 Therefore, Tampa Homeowners asking that you change this

17:38:06 from the S-1 where there is no public hearing, notice or

17:38:08 anything of the kind to the neighborhoods.

17:38:14 And have a public hearing and do that for making it a

17:38:15 S-2, of course.

17:38:18 That is what Tampa Homeowners is asking.

17:38:21 I know there is a concern about the fees and Tampa

17:38:25 Homeowners vote that if Council agrees that they want to

17:38:30 reduce the fees to have a public hearing, we have no

17:38:33 problem with that, but we are very strong on asking to

17:38:36 you please make it an S-2 with the public hearing so

17:38:40 that the neighbors, the neighborhood can come to you and

17:38:45 express their feelings about having community gardens in

17:38:45 the neighborhoods.

17:38:46 Thank you.

17:38:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

17:38:52 Next speaker.

17:38:53 >> Good evening, Council.

17:38:58 Richard Petrica, West Linebaugh Avenue.

17:39:02 I come in support of the administrative S-1 language as

17:39:04 it has come back from the Planning Commission.

17:39:10 I hope that Council is coming to the conclusion this is














17:39:17 a grass-roots effort that may -- that you may not want

17:39:19 to openly restrict.

17:39:20 I hope it can move forward as such.

17:39:24 Thank you.

17:39:27 >> Good evening.

17:39:32 I live at 101 East Florist Street in Seminole Heights.

17:39:35 I just wanted to make a statement that I am -- I have

17:39:39 been part of Seminole Heights Community Gardens since

17:39:42 its inception, and I would definitely support the SU-1

17:39:46 if I have that right, and then lowering the

17:39:49 administrative cost so having a garden, a community

17:39:52 garden, I think that, you know, neighborhood concerns

17:39:55 are definitely a good point, and I know -- I can only

17:39:59 speak for the garden I am involved with, but we like --

17:40:02 we wanted to reach out to our community and make sure

17:40:05 they were on board with it, and have a system set up if

17:40:08 there are complaints, that it's addressed and we work

17:40:10 through those issues.

17:40:13 Making it where we would have to have a public hearing

17:40:16 at the -- at a regular fee that that would cost, it

17:40:21 would be a real hardship on a nonprofit -- we are

17:40:24 aspiring to be a nonprofit, but it would be a real

17:40:28 hardship because I understand upwards of $1,000 and we

17:40:31 don't -- that's about what we have in our bank account

17:40:32 period.














17:40:34 So if you could just consider that.

17:40:37 And, you know, whatever we would need to do to work with

17:40:39 the neighbors around us, we would -- I know that we will

17:40:41 be glad to do that.

17:40:45 But, yeah, I go there for the sunshine, neighbor --

17:40:48 meeting the neighbors, and learning how to garden, and

17:40:52 it is not a money-making venture, so we don't have a lot

17:40:55 of money to spend on any such public hearing.

17:40:57 Thank you.

17:41:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

17:41:03 >> Susan Long, East Broad Street.

17:41:07 It is my understanding if it is a S-1 it costs roughly

17:41:09 $200 bucks.

17:41:13 If it becomes an S-2 because of the documentation that

17:41:16 is required, the surveys, et cetera, et cetera, it costs

17:41:17 close to $,000.

17:41:18 The exact numbers I don't have.

17:41:22 You -- the community gardens are set up so that they

17:41:25 can't make money.

17:41:28 And it is also my understanding that you, as City

17:41:30 Council, has the authority to waive some of that

17:41:34 documentation so that maybe an aerial view and

17:41:38 description from the property appraiser's office would

17:41:39 be sufficient.

17:41:41 I don't believe that the community gardens are opposed














17:41:43 of having a public hearing.

17:41:46 They are opposed to the cost of a public hearing.

17:41:50 If you would be willing to waive some of those

17:41:53 requirements so that the fees and it is something they

17:41:59 can afford, I think that than and the community gardens

17:42:01 can reach an agreement, thank you.

17:42:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess -- I guess from -- the question

17:42:07 is about the cost of the fees.

17:42:11 I always thought it was -- it was the cost that was

17:42:13 relative to the public hearing expense.

17:42:16 Do you want to talk to us about that?

17:42:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, Catherine Coyle, Land

17:42:20 Development.

17:42:23 The cost that we charge for our applications is relative

17:42:25 to the amount of time and labor and expenditure that it

17:42:27 actually costs to process them.

17:42:30 Council in the past has adopted lesser fees for certain

17:42:32 types of applications.

17:42:35 Very few and far between.

17:42:39 In this particular case from this is processed as a

17:42:43 Special Use 1, a Special Use Permit it is $181.

17:42:45 It is typical in those types of applications like we do

17:42:51 with special event vendors and temporary vendors that we

17:42:55 do allow the application to include an aerial or -- and

17:42:57 or dimensional sketch because it is something that is














17:43:01 fairly temporary.

17:43:04 I would assume at some point that if this were processed

17:43:08 as a S-1, we would look at the same type of application

17:43:10 requirement for the administrative permit.

17:43:14 If this were to become a Special Use 2 as you see what

17:43:16 comes before you for Special use 2, you get the

17:43:20 full-blown site plan, you get a survey of the property,

17:43:22 you have to understand where the tree locations are,

17:43:25 what other impacts to the other codes are.

17:43:27 In theory, you could not necessarily waive those

17:43:31 application requirements, but you could set a different

17:43:31 standard for those.

17:43:35 It would be unlike any other Special Use 2 that we have

17:43:36 if you were to do that.

17:43:41 When they come for public hearing, we do certify legal

17:43:44 descriptions, and they are noticed to the public in

17:43:45 their letter as well.

17:43:49 I would -- I tread lightly with eliminating the minimal

17:43:50 requirements completely.

17:43:54 It would be something we would have to explore, and what

17:43:58 would be the level legally for those who be processed.

17:44:01 Currently a special use application that comes before

17:44:04 you is $2012, I believe, just for the application fee,

17:44:08 and that is a full review of the DRC, our office to

17:44:11 process it, coming before to you hold the public














17:44:11 hearing.

17:44:14 In addition to that are the costs for the plans and

17:44:16 surveys to be prepared.

17:44:19 And generally speaking, a lot of people do bring some

17:44:23 type of representation, but that is purely up to them.

17:44:25 There is a very different cost factor between the two,

17:44:28 and there can be varying levels of information that come

17:44:32 in, depending on the nature of the request.

17:44:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?

17:44:36 Yes, Councilman Miranda.

17:44:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: These mics are all not working so we

17:44:47 need to speak louder to the audience.

17:44:49 Mine has a red light.

17:44:50 I guess it means stop.

17:44:53 But what I am saying is this.

17:44:54 This is not something new.

17:44:56 Tampa has had gardening and community gardens without

17:44:58 the name for 100 years.

17:45:04 I know in East Tampa, Jackson Height, West Tampa, Ybor

17:45:08 City, Gary, all that area there certainly had it when

17:45:12 you barter for two eggs and a little change of sugar,

17:45:14 whatever you had, to the people could make it through

17:45:15 the day and their lives really.

17:45:17 That's what it was.

17:45:20 This reminds me of another incident that we had called














17:45:24 the 80% rule, where in some areas it was acceptable and

17:45:27 in some areas it was not acceptable, and we did finally

17:45:31 reduce that to nothing, I believe.

17:45:35 And what I am saying is that in order for this -- but

17:45:39 during the days that it was functional for 100 years,

17:45:42 there was never any selling of anything.

17:45:45 There was -- basically there was very little

17:45:46 infrastructure in the city.

17:45:50 What we see now, even though some don't like it all, is

17:45:55 100,000 times better when most of us on the dais were a

17:45:57 kid living in Tampa in the audience.

17:46:00 So what I am saying is times have changed, realities

17:46:03 have changed, expectations have changed, and I am

17:46:06 certainly not against community gardens.

17:46:08 I am not in favor of the mechanics where it has an S-1

17:46:12 and we don't see it, and it goes in, and then something

17:46:15 happens, and you start the sale.

17:46:18 If I remember -- I believe one of the gentlemen -- I may

17:46:22 be correct, I am going with memory, wanted alcohol sales

17:46:24 at that time and that was turned down.

17:46:26 I am not saying that is the same person, but I am saying

17:46:28 that was turned down.

17:46:32 Now you have more locations of where they have -- what

17:46:38 do you call these things, port-a-lots, port-a-Johns,

17:46:39 possibility of that.














17:46:43 And these white portable tents and so forth and so on.

17:46:45 It doesn't fit everywhere.

17:46:48 So that's why I am saying that it should be an S-2 so

17:46:54 that not only than is represented but the neighbors at

17:46:58 least get a notification what is going on and up to is

17:47:01 here to say yea or nay.

17:47:03 That is the discussion of the day.

17:47:08 Not the garden but the application of Miss Long pointed

17:47:11 out how do you apply the reality to the theory of the

17:47:14 project and that's where we are at, Mr. Chairman.

17:47:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

17:47:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask a question of Ms. Vizzi?

17:47:29 There were any neighborhood associations that

17:47:35 individually voted against this community garden

17:47:37 ordinance.

17:47:37 >> No.

17:47:41 And it was -- the discussion was whether to put the two

17:47:46 motions together, and that's why the one went with --

17:47:50 >>MARY MULHERN: So who is it from than that doesn't

17:47:53 want us to have S-1 use for community garden?

17:47:58 >> I think the attendance of that meeting, which was the

17:47:58 January meeting.

17:48:00 >> Did you vote that you don't want --

17:48:02 >> Oh, yes, there was a vote taken.

17:48:05 >>MARY MULHERN: What is the rationale -- what are you














17:48:07 afraid of?

17:48:10 >> The negative effect that could occur.

17:48:14 That is what the neighbors who would have this right

17:48:19 next to them possibly, that it would just show up.

17:48:22 I think Ms. Miller brought up in the very beginning that

17:48:25 could you wake up one day and there would be one garden

17:48:28 coming in next door, and you didn't even know about it.

17:48:33 >>MARY MULHERN: What are you afraid of about gardens?

17:48:37 >> Well, if one person has a vegetable in their yard is

17:48:41 one thing, but when you are attracting people to come to

17:48:44 one area and you have many more than one person, you

17:48:47 know, coming together in the evenings and having a party

17:48:50 almost every day to come take care of their -- it is the

17:48:54 negative impact that could occur to the next-door

17:48:56 neighbor, and then ultimately into the neighborhood

17:48:57 itself.

17:48:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Won't restrictions that have been

17:49:05 written in here over the past three years?

17:49:08 There is no alcohol.

17:49:10 >> That was a big thing.

17:49:13 When that popped in to.

17:49:16 But just the negative effects and I would say that sue

17:49:20 Lyon is here and so is the new President of Tampa

17:49:26 Homeowners and the T.H.A.N. meeting yesterday -- met

17:49:31 Jerry Frankhowser and would like to know as well that,














17:49:32 yes, there was a vote.

17:49:35 And there was not a single neighborhood that voted

17:49:37 against it.

17:49:39 And if you want the list of those that were present that

17:49:43 evening, I could get it from Fred and send it to you.

17:49:45 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah, I am just trying to understand

17:49:48 the rationale it, but thank you.

17:49:49 Thank you very much.

17:49:59 I have a question for Cathy then.

17:50:04 The -- I am going to have to -- it's just beyond me.

17:50:08 I don't even know how to talk about it anymore, so -- I

17:50:11 guess what my question for you is if we were going to

17:50:15 change this, I thought there were -- there were problems

17:50:20 with changing it to a public hearing -- this is for

17:50:22 Julia actually.

17:50:25 Wasn't there some legal problem if you don't have a

17:50:30 basis to have a public hearing and deny something?

17:50:34 I mean if there is not something -- what's the point of

17:50:39 having public hearing if the -- if the restrictions are

17:50:43 already in the permit and the ordinance already are

17:50:46 denying anything that might be a nuisance.

17:50:49 I mean what -- I just can't remember since this has been

17:50:52 going on for three years, but I know that you were not

17:50:56 really supportive of -- or had some problems with making

17:50:58 that a public hearing.














17:51:02 So remind me what the problem was?

17:51:05 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.

17:51:08 The discussion was to find a way to have a just

17:51:12 stand-alone public notice for the community gardens

17:51:15 meaning they can get an administrative permit but a

17:51:18 public notice component to it or have some kind of

17:51:20 public notice and a hearing on something you have no

17:51:21 standards for.

17:51:25 That is why if City Council does want to have a public

17:51:29 hearing and input to form the basis of an approval or

17:51:33 denial, you can switch it from a S-1 which is an

17:51:36 administrative review that doesn't allow there to be

17:51:39 consideration and discretion based upon neighborhood

17:51:45 issues to an S-2 in which part of your review of an S-2

17:51:49 is whether or not given an individual area of the city,

17:51:51 given an individual neighborhood, whether or not it is

17:51:54 within the public interest to have that use there.

17:51:57 So that's where your discretion does lie.

17:52:02 It is legally acceptable to make it an S-2.

17:52:04 It isn't legally acceptable to just provide public

17:52:07 notice and keep it an S-1.

17:52:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

17:52:10 What would be the standard whether a garden is in the

17:52:15 public interest or not?

17:52:18 >> For we have one of the Special Use 2, you look at














17:52:21 first have they met the special criteria and up to City

17:52:25 Council to take individual evidence whether it is in the

17:52:28 public's interest to approve that special use 2 in that

17:52:29 location.

17:52:31 That is your discretion.

17:52:33 >> We would be determining if -- if they have met the

17:52:36 criteria.

17:52:37 >>JULIA COLE: Yes.

17:52:40 >>MARY MULHERN: And if that is in the public interest.

17:52:41 >>JULIA COLE: Correct.

17:52:44 >>MARY MULHERN: If we were to do this and turn it into

17:52:46 an S-2, could we pass it tonight?

17:52:50 Or do we have to go back, spend another three years on

17:52:50 this?

17:52:52 >>JULIA COLE: I would recommend if you wanted to change

17:52:55 it to a special use 2 we would just -- we have another

17:52:58 night -- night meeting March 10, I believe, for the

17:53:00 other amendment.

17:53:03 Just continue that night to give me enough time go back

17:53:06 through and change all the tables, and I could bring it

17:53:13 back that night with that direction.

17:53:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

17:53:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What is your pleasure, Council?

17:53:22 >>GWEN MILLER: I move to continue it so Ms. Cole can go

17:53:24 back and make the changes.














17:53:26 >>CURTIS STOKES: I will second that.

17:53:27 I think every neighborhood is different.

17:53:29 I can't imagine waking up one morning in the

17:53:33 neighborhood and a vacant lot and there is a -- a garden

17:53:34 going next door.

17:53:38 I don't want -- I would want some kind of input what is

17:53:39 going next door to me.

17:53:41 I would second that motion, Ms. Miller.

17:53:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion is to continue and direct

17:53:49 staff to go back to a S-2.

17:53:49 >>GWEN MILLER: That's correct.

17:53:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I heard the motion and also heard

17:53:55 what we said, a mechanism possibly for reducing the fee,

17:53:59 and I would like to get feedback on that possibility.

17:54:01 >>JULIA COLE: Through resolution, City Council can set

17:54:03 fees obviously.

17:54:05 You can choose --

17:54:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: But we are going to need

17:54:09 recommendation from somebody like you.

17:54:15 >> Yeah, to process a Special Use 2 it costs $2015.

17:54:18 It is -- it really is Council's discretion at what fee

17:54:27 you would like to charge for that otherwise.

17:54:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

17:54:33 >> Costs the city that much to process it.

17:54:36 >>MARY MULHERN: If we were to -- we could waive that














17:54:39 fee but the city would have to pay for it.

17:54:46 >> In kind, he would essentially -- yes.

17:54:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman.

17:54:51 >>MARY MULHERN: I am only going -- I think that is what

17:54:53 we are going to have to do if we are going to have a

17:54:56 hearing.

17:54:59 >> I guess if I had any recommendation it would be if

17:55:03 you are looking to reduce the fee would be to reduce the

17:55:08 $200 limit as a S-1.

17:55:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks.

17:55:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Caetano.

17:55:15 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes, ma'am, can you come back.

17:55:17 Miss Coyle.

17:55:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, sorry.

17:55:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What would the total costs be, all

17:55:23 figures put together.

17:55:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Of what?

17:55:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Of this application if somebody

17:55:29 wanted to apply for it?

17:55:31 Do they have to have a survey.

17:55:33 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's correct, for a Special Use 2

17:55:33 --

17:55:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What is the total cost for

17:55:36 everybody.

17:55:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I can not tell you the survey costs














17:55:40 and site plan.

17:55:41 Not a regulated business.

17:55:45 All surveyors and engineers charge different fees.

17:55:50 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What are the fixed cost.

17:55:55 >> $2015 if that is the cost for the city to process it.

17:55:58 The outside cost we have no control over.

17:56:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Stokes.

17:56:03 >>CURTIS STOKES: I think my question was answered, Mr.

17:56:04 Chairman.

17:56:08 >>MARY MULHERN: If we change it to an S-2, no way to

17:56:11 waive those requirements for a site plan or a survey.

17:56:13 If we are going to do this, we need to work with you and

17:56:16 change those requirements for community garden, because

17:56:20 they are not going to be able to afford to do all of

17:56:23 that just to -- to plan to garden.

17:56:26 >>CATHERINE COYLE: To answer you directly on what the

17:56:29 bare minimum requirement would be whether or not a field

17:56:33 survey would be required, what type of legal description

17:56:35 would be required if it is enough to get it from the

17:56:39 property appraiser which, in some cases, are wrong on

17:56:41 those web sites, and from that agency.

17:56:43 I would have to go back --

17:56:47 >>MARY MULHERN: No, that is not my question.

17:56:48 My question is can we waive that?

17:56:52 Can we waive that in a S-2 for this particular type of














17:56:53 use?

17:56:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: This is what I am saying to you.

17:56:57 I can't necessarily answer you for that.

17:57:00 I would need to talk to the legal department what the

17:57:03 minimum requirement would be for submittal.

17:57:06 Our standards are the same for all of the applications

17:57:08 that come before you, and many of those requirements are

17:57:10 there for a reason because you are literally changing

17:57:13 things about real property, uses that are allowed on

17:57:17 them, zoning districts on them, and so on.

17:57:19 >>MARY MULHERN: This is not building anything so it is

17:57:21 a little different.

17:57:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That is something I would have to

17:57:30 discuss with legal.

17:57:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A motion.

17:57:35 And the motion is to continue this until March -- the

17:57:37 mics are not working.

17:57:40 >> If they can turn up -- if they can turn up the

17:57:42 monitors --

17:57:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They couldn't hear.

17:57:47 They just said they couldn't hear.

17:57:53 >> I will check with the --

17:57:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion is to continue the item

17:58:08 until March 10 to make it an S-2 and to reduce the fees

17:58:09 to $200.














17:58:11 >>MARY MULHERN: That's okay, the fees.

17:58:13 She was talking about the requirements for the

17:58:13 petitioner.

17:58:18 >>GWEN MILLER: For the legal to find out what the fees

17:58:20 would be.

17:58:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Come back again.

17:58:23 Did you not set the fee for $200?

17:58:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That question was asked and I

17:58:27 responded with the recommendation.

17:58:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Set the fee for $200, but the other

17:58:33 requirements you will have to check with legal and what

17:58:38 Councilwoman Mulhern raised about waiving those others.

17:58:40 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Just so you know any changes to the

17:58:41 application process, it is a process.

17:58:44 That does not have to be done within the cycle, the

17:58:46 January and July cycles.

17:58:49 So in the interim, even before the next first reading, I

17:58:50 can work with the legal department.

17:58:54 We are going to have to bring back a regulation for you

17:58:57 to pass for the $200 fee acknowledging that.

17:59:00 I can work with them what the bare minimum is to process

17:59:01 that type of application to you.

17:59:04 I will say not just for community gardens, it is

17:59:06 difficult sometimes to change application for one and

17:59:07 not all.














17:59:10 You don't want to give any special treatment to any one

17:59:11 particular type of use.

17:59:16 Special Use 2s are there for a particular reason, they

17:59:18 were developed to have a higher level of review.

17:59:21 I can work with them over the next couple of weeks and

17:59:22 to be able to come back.

17:59:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think you need to do that.

17:59:27 I think we need to come back with a continuance.

17:59:31 What was the date, March 17?

17:59:35 March 10.

17:59:36 >> I am sorry to interrupt.

17:59:38 I want to be clear on the motion.

17:59:44 With regard to the basis and the manner in which you

17:59:47 have to create statutorily to the code and the

17:59:50 procedures to get to that $200.

17:59:54 Do you want that to be part -- that $200.

17:59:57 Do you want that to be part of the motion?

17:59:59 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know what you are asking.

18:00:02 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Asking me to continue this to March

18:00:06 10 at 5:30 p.m., directing me to change it to a Special

18:00:07 Use 2.

18:00:12 Secondarily, you are also making a motion bringing back

18:00:16 a resolution adopting a $200 fee for community garden.

18:00:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that a separate motion.

18:00:20 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I believe -- I would recommend that.














18:00:22 I am not a lawyer.

18:00:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Should be a separate motion.

18:00:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion moved and seconded.

18:00:32 All those in favor signify by saying aye.

18:00:36 Now we need a motion for the $200 fee.

18:00:39 >>CURTIS STOKES: So moved.

18:00:39 >> Second.

18:00:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: How can you put a fee if this

18:00:42 haven't passed yet.

18:00:43 You --

18:00:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You are directing me to bring back a

18:00:51 resolution on March 10 essentially adopting that.

18:00:55 March 24 -- I apologize would be second reading.

18:00:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second reading is March 24?

18:00:58 >> For the fee.

18:01:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: For the fee?

18:01:01 Okay.

18:01:03 There is a motion for that.

18:01:04 >>CURTIS STOKES: So moved.

18:01:05 >> Second.

18:01:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All that favor signify by saying aye.

18:01:11 Okay.

18:01:12 Item 3.

18:01:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you, Council.

18:01:17 Catherine Coyle, Land Development.














18:01:19 I have an E-Mail from Vince Pardo from Ybor City

18:01:23 Corporation, the title on agenda includes an amendment

18:01:25 to section 27-180.

18:01:29 They are asking to continue that particular amendment to

18:01:32 -- also to the March 10 hearing for more discussion with

18:01:34 the stakeholders.

18:01:37 The ordinance that was transmitted to you through the

18:01:39 agenda, that particular provision was stricken.

18:01:42 If you read it tonight on first reading, it doesn't

18:01:45 include that so be sure to read the title from the new

18:01:45 ordinance.

18:01:47 I will submit this and ask that you continue

18:01:51 specifically the amendment to section 27-180 to March 10

18:01:58 at 5:30.

18:02:10 Council, the remainder of the ordinance revolved around

18:02:14 a lot of cleanup items and items required by the

18:02:17 comprehensive plan adopted in 2009.

18:02:19 It was also the inclusion of the revised language for

18:02:22 the material recovery facilities and recycling

18:02:26 facilities for the IGNH as directed by Council, the

18:02:28 retail bakery use.

18:02:30 The inclusion of the calculation for the emergency

18:02:33 evacuation shelters, which is mandated by the

18:02:38 comprehensive plan.

18:02:42 And the general cleanup of references in the code to














18:02:46 department of public works, now referencing to the

18:02:48 transportation division which is the correct location

18:02:50 for those decisions.

18:02:55 And then the new definitions, the retail bakery,

18:02:59 universal ways, recycling and recovery facility.

18:03:01 Majority of that as I said were cleanup items or

18:03:04 actually directed by Council or required by the

18:03:05 comprehensive plan.

18:03:09 There were no comments or objections at the Planning

18:03:09 Commission.

18:03:11 And that's it.

18:03:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here wish to address Council on

18:03:15 Item 3?

18:03:18 Anyone wishing to address Council on Item 3?

18:03:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

18:03:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

18:03:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Those in favor signify by saying aye.

18:03:24 Opposed?

18:03:25 An ordinance.

18:03:29 Want to read Councilman Miranda.

18:03:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You said something about 180,

18:03:34 amended section 27-180.

18:03:36 You want that out or in?

18:03:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes continued to March 10 at 5:30.

18:03:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have to say that that part being














18:03:43 March 10.

18:03:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The title in the ordinance doesn't

18:03:47 include --

18:03:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I read an ordinance

18:03:51 for first public hearing of ordinance of the City of

18:03:55 Tampa making comprehensive revisions to code of

18:03:58 ordinance Chapter 27 community garden -- reading the

18:03:59 wrong one.

18:04:00 Community Gardens.

18:04:04 Thank God I can read English.

18:04:05 Or I think I can.

18:04:07 Thank you, sir.

18:04:10 This is even longer.

18:04:12 >>GWEN MILLER: You asked for it.

18:04:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No he gave it to me.

18:04:16 Chairman move an ordinance for first reading of City of

18:04:20 Tampa relating to Chapter 27, general revision and

18:04:21 comprehensive revision to code ordinance Chapter 27

18:04:25 amending sections 27-77.

18:04:27 Official schedule of district regulation, amending

18:04:31 sections 27-152, dog-friendly restaurants, amending

18:04:34 section 27-153, reserved.

18:04:37 Amending section 27-154.

18:04:44 Reserved, amending section 27-511.

18:04:50 Recycling materials and goods, amending section 27-177,














18:04:56 historic districts established, amending section 27-180,

18:05:03 off-street parking, amending section 27-42671, special

18:05:06 event parking lots, interim parking lots and residential

18:05:10 parking for stadium events, amending section 27-272

18:05:15 regulating governing individual special uses, official

18:05:17 schedule of permitting.

18:05:20 Official schedules of permit principal, accessory and

18:05:24 special uses, amending section 27-452, official schedule

18:05:28 of permitted principal, accessory and special uses,

18:05:34 amending 27-545, definitions in ordinances.

18:05:38 Providing for severability, providing an effective date.

18:05:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second.

18:05:42 >> Second.

18:05:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:05:46 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:05:49 >> Motion carried with Capin and Stokes being absent at

18:05:52 vote.

18:05:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we need to make a motion on to it be

18:05:58 continued.

18:06:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to continue that section to

18:06:03 March -- March 10 at 5:30.

18:06:05 At that specific time and date.

18:06:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A second.

18:06:10 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:06:11 Opposed?














18:06:12 Item 4.

18:06:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Item Number 4, Catherine Coyle, Land

18:06:16 Development.

18:06:23 A privately initiated amendment to the fence materials,

18:06:28 the decorative perimeter bracing.

18:06:31 This is put forward by Nathan Matthews and I believe he

18:06:37 is here.

18:06:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A public hearing.

18:06:41 >> Good evening, Nathan Matthews.

18:06:54 What we would like to do is amend section 27-133 to --

18:06:58 to add corrugated metal panels.

18:07:02 I already presented pictures of fence that is currently

18:07:04 up on our residence.

18:07:07 We did it at 144 Baltic Circle.

18:07:13 This is just to amend the -- the ordinance to allow this

18:07:19 fencing material.

18:07:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you seen that?

18:07:21 >> Yes.

18:07:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is it okay?

18:07:27 >> All a matter of taste.

18:07:31 This particular amendment -- originally he had just the

18:07:35 allowance of the corrugated metal as an allowed

18:07:35 material.

18:07:37 We had him add in that it would have a decorative

18:07:41 framing and structural bracing to give some dimension














18:07:47 and, you know, final design of fence itself.

18:07:51 The metal panels are actually inferior to it.

18:07:54 So at this point we are leaving -- the language is

18:07:57 pretty clear that it does have to have decorative

18:07:59 bracing.

18:08:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano.

18:08:03 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is that a galvanized metal,

18:08:05 aluminum?

18:08:07 What type.

18:08:11 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It is galbanum.

18:08:15 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So it is not going to rust?

18:08:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Correct.

18:08:17 This is the outside.

18:08:19 >> The outside of one neighbor and this is the outside

18:08:23 of the other neighbor.

18:08:27 It will not rust.

18:08:37 This is what we are abutting up to.

18:08:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Just so you know and understand as

18:08:42 you see on the outside to the opposing property, you see

18:08:45 just a panel and the vertical bracing.

18:08:50 The code does require essentially the left brace

18:08:54 something shown to the neighbor, and on the interior, as

18:08:57 with any wood fence or anything else, the interior needs

18:08:58 the bracing.

18:09:02 You as the owner get what is known as the ugly side














18:09:05 fence and the nice side of the fence --

18:09:06 [LAUGHTER]

18:09:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What would the height limitation

18:09:10 be on that.

18:09:11 >> Six foot.

18:09:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Still six feet.

18:09:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern.

18:09:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Madam chair.

18:09:18 You kept moving those pictures around.

18:09:20 Which house does the fence go with?

18:09:22 I would like to see --

18:09:23 >> I will show you.

18:09:25 I have an aerial of the whole house.

18:09:28 Here is the aerial of the whole house.

18:09:29 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh.

18:09:33 Does that have 11-car garage?

18:09:42 >> No, no, three-car garage.

18:09:46 [Inaudible]

18:09:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Architecturally is it supposed to match

18:09:51 the roof?

18:09:57 >> The roof is actually galbanum also.

18:10:01 It is designed by the actual landscape architect.

18:10:02 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

18:10:03 Thanks.

18:10:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions from Councilmembers?














18:10:13 Anyone in the public like to speak on item 4?

18:10:15 >> Susan Long.

18:10:16 It is a beautiful house.

18:10:18 And it is a beautiful fence.

18:10:20 Unfortunately, not every neighborhood is that

18:10:24 conscientious about making -- I don't know any way you

18:10:28 can -- say galvanized -- I can see them all over my

18:10:28 neighborhood.

18:10:32 Roofing material from Home Depot and slapping a wooden

18:10:35 frame around it and saying they are good to go.

18:10:39 But you can't say, well I like yours and I don't like

18:10:40 yours.

18:10:42 You don't have that option, so basically I am kind of

18:10:43 opposed to it.

18:10:45 I think that one looks great.

18:10:48 But I can just see it won't look that good in most other

18:10:50 places.

18:10:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?

18:10:56 What is the pleasure of Council?

18:10:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

18:10:59 >> Second.

18:11:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.

18:11:03 All in favor say aye.

18:11:09 Opposed, nay.

18:11:15 The ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, relating to














18:11:17 fence and wall regulations making comprehensive

18:11:21 revisions to the City of Tampa code of ordinance Chapter

18:11:26 27 zoning -- amending section 27-133 fence and wall

18:11:27 regulations.

18:11:31 Repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in

18:11:35 conflict therewith providing for severability, providing

18:11:37 an effective date.

18:11:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a second?

18:11:40 >> Second.

18:11:41 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second.

18:11:42 All those in favor say aye.

18:11:45 Opposed, nay.

18:11:48 >> Motion carries with Capin and Scott being absent at

18:11:49 vote.

18:11:53 Second reading adoption March 3 at 9:30 A.M.

18:11:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We will now have presentation of

18:12:51 commendation to the boy scouts.

18:12:57 >> Tampa Lowry Park Zoo sponsors boy scout group.

18:12:59 The 15th anniversary serving the City of Tampa

18:13:03 communities in brief history.

18:13:06 Troop had 16 eagle scouts.

18:13:09 The zoo troop has been involved in many Hillsborough

18:13:12 River cleanups near zoo, has participated in great

18:13:15 American cleanups and various city parks and have done

18:13:18 coastal cleanup throughout Hillsborough County.














18:13:22 Many of the eagle scouts projects have been conducted at

18:13:27 Lowry Park Zoo, Hillsborough River State Park, MOSI and

18:13:30 TECO's Manatee Viewing Center.

18:13:33 One of the eagle scouts recently presented the Boy

18:13:36 Scouts of Florida in Tallahassee where the scouts

18:13:38 presented Lieutenant Governor with the state of the

18:13:40 Florida -- State of Florida scouting report.

18:13:44 Last month, two of the troop's 47 eagle scouts led the

18:13:47 Pledge of Allegiance at the Governor's inauguration.

18:13:53 The troop's first scoutmaster was Joe Godrie of the

18:13:56 Tampa Tribune and son was the first troop's eagle scout.

18:13:58 On behalf of the Tampa City Council, I would like to

18:14:03 congratulate Troop 47, its founders, scouts, scout

18:14:06 leaders and scout parents on 15-year anniversary by

18:14:09 honoring them with this commendation.

18:14:13 Who is going to accept this?

18:14:18 Scoutmaster?

18:14:22 Congratulations.

18:15:27 [Applause]

18:15:48 [Laughter]

18:15:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda.

18:15:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam chair.

18:15:55 I don't know if they are here.

18:15:57 Is Josie Little here?

18:16:00 I don't know -- we will wait.














18:16:01 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

18:16:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We will wait a while.

18:16:05 If I can hold Item Number 6.

18:16:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We will come to it.

18:16:11 A public hearing at 6:00.

18:16:32 Are you ready to clean up the agenda?

18:16:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Good evening, Council.

18:16:36 Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.

18:16:39 I believe everything is in order to move forward this

18:16:43 evening with the exception of item number 13, which was

18:16:48 a misnotice and could not be heard this evening.

18:16:52 We are going to move that to March 10.

18:16:56 And it is already on there that way.

18:17:00 Excuse me, other than that, we are ready to go.

18:17:01 >> Move to be removed from the agenda.

18:17:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I open to move items 6-14.

18:17:08 They are quasi judicial proceedings and the witnesses

18:17:08 have to be sworn.

18:17:11 Since I am here and I believe we had testimony this

18:17:15 cannot be heard, they are rescheduling to March 10, the

18:17:18 year 2011 at 6 p.m.

18:17:22 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second to open all public

18:17:23 hearings.

18:17:25 All in favor say aye.

18:17:27 Opposed, nay.














18:17:30 Yes, Mr. Shelby.

18:17:34 >> All written proposals will be received and filed into

18:17:34 motion.

18:17:35 >> So moved.

18:17:38 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second.

18:17:39 Those in favor say aye.

18:17:40 Opposed nay.

18:17:43 >> A reminder if there have been any ex-parte

18:17:46 communication relative to tonight's hearings, please

18:17:48 disclose that relative to taking application.

18:17:52 And lastly as Councilmember Miranda stated, these are

18:17:53 quasi judicial.

18:17:55 There is a sign-up sheet outside.

18:17:58 If you are going to be testifying, please make sure that

18:18:02 your name is on the sign-in sheet, and Madam chair, the

18:18:04 witnesses are required to be sworn.

18:18:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Persons who are going to speak tonight,

18:18:15 will you please stand and be sworn in.

18:18:43 [Swearing In of Witnesses]

18:18:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Council, the first item on your agenda

18:18:50 this evening is a continued public hearing on z-1034.

18:19:01 Located at Hyde Park Place, 208 West Platt and 319

18:19:02 Bayshore.

18:19:05 I would like to briefly go over that.

18:19:07 I don't think I mentioned my name into the record for














18:19:08 the transcript.

18:19:11 Let me do that, Abbye Feeley, Land Development

18:19:12 Coordination.

18:19:14 This case before you was originally heard by City

18:19:16 Council on December 9.

18:19:18 And it was continued per the direction of Council in

18:19:20 agreement with the applicant to meet with the residents

18:19:25 of the surrounding area to address concerns brought

18:19:26 forth at that hearing.

18:19:28 Land Development Coordination received a revised site

18:19:31 plan on January 27, and the following modifications were

18:19:31 made.

18:19:35 What I have done is I have done a little mock-up side by

18:19:38 side to put them on the Elmo and show you what those

18:19:49 modifications were.

18:20:04 The first is that there was a reduction in the left

18:20:05 side building.

18:20:11 This is the original rezoning from --

18:20:11 [Inaudible]

18:20:23 The entire west side was at eight stories with a small

18:20:26 -- that was reduced to a maximum of 20%.

18:20:30 What is being proposed this evening is a five-story,

18:20:33 six-story, and then eight-story.

18:20:38 The five shown there in blue, 30 feet.

18:20:42 In depth north-south and approximately 45 feet wide














18:20:46 until you get to that cut-out with an atrium-type area.

18:20:50 It has been six stories for a depth of 100 feet.

18:20:56 130 feet for the entire and steps up to the eight

18:21:00 stories.

18:21:05 Also initially there was a stand here in between

18:21:07 building 3 and building 2.

18:21:15 This stand was originally 75 feet wide and the third to

18:21:17 the 8th floors of the building.

18:21:19 That has been modified.

18:21:23 It has been reduced to 37 and a half feet, and it will

18:21:28 now stand only the fourth and fifth floors of the

18:21:32 building in addition to that modification, the massing

18:21:36 of the buildings have been brought further south.

18:21:43 So it was originally 101 feet, now at 10 feet for the

18:21:47 massing.

18:21:51 Next, there was discussion of inclusion of a loading

18:21:52 zone.

18:21:56 There was no zoning zone.

18:22:00 In this area there is now a loading zone had been added

18:22:06 next to the compactor space.

18:22:10 And there was also a loading zone added on the building

18:22:12 to the south in the alley.

18:22:24 Let me just show you that.

18:22:30 That there.

18:22:33 These southern buildings, there was a loading zone here.














18:22:36 I didn't print that out in the other format because

18:22:38 transportation is requiring that be removed.

18:22:40 So that is not going to stay on the plan.

18:22:43 It can not function in that alley that way.

18:22:46 So that -- you are going to see this being recommended

18:22:47 as being removed.

18:22:50 Lastly, the elevations that correspond with the site

18:22:55 plans have been revised to match the modifications that

18:22:57 have been made to the west side of building.

18:23:03 And also to the area that is being proposed to span the

18:23:05 two buildings.

18:23:09 As I just mentioned, some of these modifications -- once

18:23:12 the plans came in with the modification I did route them

18:23:13 to DRC.

18:23:16 I received comments from both solid waste and

18:23:18 transportation concerning the modification, and I have

18:23:24 identified the required modifications under bullets 1,

18:23:30 3, and 4 -- I am sorry, 1, 2, and 3, in order to take

18:23:32 care of the requirements per code.

18:23:34 Let me go ahead and go through that.

18:23:40 The first, the -- although the -- it is noted at 37 and

18:23:42 a half it scales at 40 feet.

18:23:44 So this must be revised.

18:23:46 Also, there are two waivers that need to be removed from

18:23:51 the site plan as they are not required, waivers 2 and 5.














18:23:55 And the third comment from Land Development is to remove

18:23:59 the note at the bottom of the site data table.

18:24:02 For transportation, they needed that optional loading

18:24:04 space on the alley removed.

18:24:08 They needed a note added to the access shown on the

18:24:12 alley to the structured parking deck that would be

18:24:14 controlled and limited to guests and staff of the

18:24:16 developer's leasing office.

18:24:19 That access would be prohibited there for residents of

18:24:20 the development.

18:24:24 They needed a note added that if warranted, two years

18:24:29 after the certificate of occupancy the developer shall

18:24:33 install a right turn only sign and a stop sign at Hyde

18:24:35 Park Place and z street.

18:24:40 They needed a visual depiction that the driveway on the

18:24:44 alley for building 4, phase 3, be removed because access

18:24:47 would be addressed at the time that building plans came

18:24:48 in on that.

18:24:51 And also they concurred waivers 2 and 5 needed to be

18:24:52 removed.

18:24:54 Solid waste needed some modifications when that loading

18:24:56 zone was added.

18:25:01 The depth for the compactor was modified to an

18:25:03 unserviceable depth.

18:25:04 So that needed to be changed.














18:25:09 They also needed the service bay corrected.

18:25:12 What we've done is -- I did share all of these comments

18:25:14 with the petitioner.

18:25:18 The petitioner has shown us a PDF so far with these

18:25:23 modifications, the technical modifications made in order

18:25:26 for the project meet code, and it does appear that all

18:25:28 those modifications can be made.

18:25:32 If you look at number 4 on the memorandum I provided

18:25:36 modifications requested by the petitioner.

18:25:39 In an E-Mail I received from the applicant, placed on

18:25:41 communications they had with the neighbors, there are

18:25:44 two additional items they wish to have added, and that

18:25:46 would be to add the note that any development on phase

18:25:52 3, building 4, shall have access on west Beach Place and

18:25:52 Vern street.

18:25:55 And any access from the rear alley would be limited to

18:25:57 solid waste, fire or other emergency vehicles.

18:26:01 And also visual depiction that the loading zone

18:26:06 currently shown on Parker relocated to z street.

18:26:10 With that being said, staff is available for any

18:26:11 questions.

18:26:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions, Councilmembers?

18:26:22 >> Barbara Lynch, Land Development Coordination.

18:26:24 I am here on the vacating that is associated with this

18:26:25 rezoning.














18:26:29 I know Jim -- Jimmy Cook was here last time and gave a

18:26:32 presentation, but if you want recap of what they want to

18:26:34 do, I will be happy to do that.

18:26:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone want to have -- a briefing on --

18:26:40 that's fine.

18:26:42 Thank you, Barbara.

18:26:45 Is there inconsistent public who would like to speak on

18:26:46 item number 6?

18:26:49 >> Council, I believe -- Mr. Gardner is it your

18:26:54 intention to hear items 6 and 7 together?

18:26:54 >> That's correct.

18:26:58 Obviously item -- the vacating item 6 has to be voted on

18:26:59 first.

18:27:02 I think it only makes sense to combine the two for sake

18:27:07 of conversation and go separately on 6 and 7.

18:27:09 >> So if you wish then Council -- if you wish to have

18:27:12 public comment, you can have it directed to 6 and 7 if

18:27:13 you wish.

18:27:16 Also just a reminder, Council, this is a continued

18:27:17 public hearing.

18:27:23 And what that means is that the speaks who have

18:27:26 previously spoken should be limiting their comments to

18:27:29 the issues that are the subject of the continuance.

18:27:32 So in other words, this is not a whole new public

18:27:32 hearing.














18:27:35 This is a continuation of the first public hearing.

18:27:38 Again, there will be -- if this moves forward a second

18:27:42 public hearing when those speakers who wish to just

18:27:44 repeat what they said previously would have the

18:27:47 opportunity at the second public hearing.

18:27:55 >> Truett Gardner, North Tampa Street.

18:27:56 If we can put this up.

18:27:58 We have a couple of easels.

18:28:03 With respect to Abbye's comments and changes to the site

18:28:04 plan.

18:28:06 As you recall we were with you on December 9, we had a

18:28:08 completely clean staff report.

18:28:11 No objections at all, the objections that resulted from

18:28:15 solid waste and transportation were direct results of

18:28:18 trying to work with the neighbors, make some changes

18:28:21 that they wanted to have made, which then put us in

18:28:24 conflict with transportation and solid waste.

18:28:27 We have gone back to transportation and solid waste,

18:28:30 worked out the differences there, to try to find some

18:28:34 common ground that solves the -- the neighbors' concerns

18:28:46 while also satisfying the department.

18:28:50 Good evening, again, Truett Gardner, north Tampa street.

18:28:53 My client is Crescent Resources LCC.

18:28:56 We were last in front of you on December.

18:28:57 Many of you will recall.














18:29:00 And what we heard from you at that hearing is, you liked

18:29:04 a lot of the elements of our project, but there was some

18:29:08 vocal concerns raised, and our task was to go to those

18:29:13 neighbors, try to work with them, try find some common

18:29:16 ground, and come back with a new solution.

18:29:19 And I am here tonight to tell you that we abided exactly

18:29:21 by your rules.

18:29:27 We went out, we sincerely listened.

18:29:33 Ms. Hammer if you will -- Ms. Hammer is handing out a

18:29:37 package I will be speaking from.

18:29:40 And once you get it, if you -- if you get table of

18:29:45 comments which is on the second page, my -- my comments

18:29:56 will -- will flow directly with that table of comments.

18:29:59 As I was mentioning, we heard you loud and clear.

18:30:00 We went out.

18:30:02 We had numerous meetings.

18:30:06 Under Tab 1, I detail seven separate meetings we had

18:30:10 with different neighboring factions, individuals,

18:30:11 groups, everything.

18:30:15 On top of that, we have had so many telephone calls and

18:30:17 E-Mails that I couldn't begin to count them.

18:30:18 And it was a good exercise.

18:30:22 It was a fruitful exercise and we are excited to be back

18:30:24 in front of you tonight with what we think is a great

18:30:30 project that addresses those concerns.














18:30:33 Many of the changes that we make -- it is never easy to

18:30:36 make changes on either side, but many of these changes

18:30:39 have had a direct negative impact on the financial

18:30:43 viability of our project, but with respect to my client,

18:30:46 they are excited to make those changes if they feel that

18:30:48 it addresses the neighbors' concerns.

18:30:50 They want to be good neighbors, and they want this to be

18:30:53 a project that everybody is proud of.

18:30:55 While I wish I was in front of you tonight saying we

18:30:58 have got 100% agreement with what we are -- we are

18:31:04 proposing to you tonight, that's not the case.

18:31:08 And -- but what -- I think what will totally come to

18:31:12 bear that the changes we have made directly pertain to

18:31:14 exactly the concerns that were raised.

18:31:18 And that we have made positive strides in that

18:31:19 direction.

18:31:24 And also, some other good news to report, is that

18:31:30 through our efforts, we have taken some people who were

18:31:32 against us before and turned them into strident

18:31:36 supporters of the project and in addition to that some

18:31:38 additional supporters.

18:31:41 Tab 2 of my handout, I have three of those highlighted.

18:31:45 The first is the President and ceo of Tampa General

18:31:48 hospital, who voices his concern supporting the project

18:31:51 and expressing the need to house physicians, nurses and














18:31:53 other employees in close proximity to the hospital.

18:31:57 Secondly is Don Phillips, who is actually here in

18:31:58 attendance tonight.

18:32:00 He owns the Commercial component of the existing

18:32:05 development and was formerly an opponent of the project

18:32:10 and Mr. Sajy, owner of apartments in Hyde Park.

18:32:13 He would be a competitor to this project directly and he

18:32:16 writes -- and again it is under Tab 2, expressing his

18:32:19 support and stating this is something that Tampa truly

18:32:22 needs at this time.

18:32:25 Again, without question, I am completely confident that

18:32:27 our changes to the development directly address the

18:32:30 questions that were raised and the concerns that were

18:32:34 raised at our last hearing and the meet that is have

18:32:34 followed.

18:32:37 In all of our conversations, we have heard two primary

18:32:38 concerns.

18:32:50 The first -- and I am going to go to the Elmo on these.

18:32:58 -- the first concern and the primary concern was --

18:33:00 >>GWEN MILLER: It will come on when you speak.

18:33:02 Just start talking.

18:33:07 >> The first primary concern was the neighbors --

18:33:15 perhaps a concern that they wanted our building --

18:33:43 [Inaudible] -- are we on?

18:33:46 The remainder of the property is currently vacant with














18:33:50 the exception of the memorial park, which is a park that

18:33:53 they maintain they have improved -- and will continue to

18:33:55 maintain in perpetuity.

18:34:00 And stepping back is a lower rise development -- or low

18:34:05 rise structure, mostly consisting of multifamily.

18:34:09 So the concerned voice was that the neighbors wanted our

18:34:11 development to set back to them.

18:34:15 So what we have done in response to that is taken this

18:34:19 eight-story structure here, reduced it to six-story

18:34:22 structures and attaching here, and then reduced it to

18:34:26 five stories on the corner there.

18:34:30 And then secondly, another concern raised was that there

18:34:34 was -- if you will recall, a structure spanning Beach

18:34:39 Place here, and what we wanted to do there -- to address

18:34:43 the neighbors -- is to take the width of that structure,

18:34:44 we reduced it in half.

18:34:47 We also took the structure itself.

18:34:53 It was five-story structure and reduced to two stories

18:34:57 and reduced it by three stories and back to there we

18:35:00 lost a total of 11 units in making that concession

18:35:07 there.

18:35:12 And lastly, I wanted to address one other issue, which

18:35:22 is the vacating of this span of the alley here which was

18:35:27 also an issue before.

18:35:29 And with respect to that hit a couple of highlights














18:35:32 there why we deem it is appropriate.

18:35:42 And in fact, the tab number 5 lists all those reasons

18:35:43 and detail.

18:35:46 But I wanted to address just a couple of the highlights.

18:35:50 First, crescent has already approved and has already

18:35:52 approved the span of right-of-way in two locations.

18:35:56 Not asking anything more than that.

18:35:57 Want to keep two locations.

18:36:00 Moving from Beach Place, which is a public street, to an

18:36:03 alley which is basically a back alley and service alley.

18:36:06 Secondly, just wanted to make this point extremely

18:36:06 clear.

18:36:12 The alley will remain completely open for vehicle --

18:36:14 vehicular and pedestrian use.

18:36:17 And utilization of the alley will not be affected in any

18:36:18 way.

18:36:20 Thirdly, we are not proposing to vacate the entire

18:36:23 alley, only a 38-foot portion of it.

18:36:28 And then finally, but equally as important, there are

18:36:31 absolutely no objections to our request to vacate this

18:36:32 portion of the alley.

18:36:34 Been reviewed by numerous city departments including

18:36:37 transportation, solid waste, and the fire department.

18:36:40 That I am going to turn things over to Steve Smith and

18:36:43 Ethel Hammer, but I did want to leave you with one last














18:36:51 thing, which is number 6 in your tab and what this shows

18:36:53 is what is currently approved under the existing site

18:36:55 plans for the development.

18:36:58 And if you will notice the building next to the 3, 4, 5

18:37:01 which is the yellow building on the far left is an

18:37:04 8-story building approved as part of the site plan.

18:37:08 What we are asking to do is to take 8 stories, that same

18:37:12 size building, replace the 21-story tower next to it and

18:37:15 replace the 26-story tower next to it, again, with an

18:37:16 8-story building.

18:37:22 With that, I will turn things over to Ethel Hammer and

18:37:26 then Steven Smith.

18:37:30 >> Good evening, I am Ethel Hammer with Inglehart,

18:37:32 Hammer and Associates.

18:37:37 My address is 4343 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 320,

18:37:38 Tampa.

18:37:41 I am here this evening as a planning expert.

18:37:43 I have been asked to evaluate this project with respect

18:37:49 to its consistency with your comprehensive plan and with

18:37:52 your PD criteria in your Land Development code.

18:37:54 I also analyzed the project in relation to the

18:37:58 previously approved project and to the proposed project

18:38:03 with respect to current entitlements, as well as urban

18:38:04 form and design.

18:38:07 Now the first thing I wanted to talk about was the














18:38:07 comprehensive plan.

18:38:11 I reviewed the goals, objectives and policies of your

18:38:13 plan, and I prepared a written report which I am not

18:38:14 going to review.

18:38:16 It is going to go into the record.

18:38:18 But I wanted to hit a couple of highlights.

18:38:20 The proposed project is consistent with the

18:38:24 comprehensive plan, specifically with numerous policies

18:38:28 that you have that promote more intensive development

18:38:31 within close proximity to employment centers, transit

18:38:34 stops, community services and amenities, as well as

18:38:36 shopping opportunities.

18:38:39 This project is also consistent with policies that

18:38:43 address transition in form and scale between existing

18:38:46 and proposed development and provides a mix of housing

18:38:49 types within urban environments.

18:38:53 I also reviewed the criteria within your planned

18:38:55 development section of your Land Development code and

18:38:59 find this project consistent with those criteria as did

18:39:00 your staff.

18:39:04 These criteria encouraged the integration of different

18:39:07 types of land uses within one unified development.

18:39:12 It encourages compact development focusing on green

18:39:16 space, open space and architectural compatible with the

18:39:18 surrounding neighborhood.














18:39:20 These projects meet all the criteria as I have

18:39:21 mentioned.

18:39:23 The staff agrees with that.

18:39:27 The majority of this project is located within the RMU

18:39:29 100 future land use district.

18:39:34 The southern portion is within the r-83.

18:39:38 The majority of the property is also located within the

18:39:40 CBD periphery.

18:39:45 Both of the future land use districts in contrary with

18:39:50 the CBD directory contemplate urban density with

18:39:52 nonresidential intensity.

18:39:55 To the west of the subject PD is property designated

18:39:58 residential-50 on the Future Land Use Map.

18:40:03 The majority of which is zoned residential office.

18:40:06 This neighborhood to the west is a mixed area.

18:40:11 It has offices, retail, group homes, social services,

18:40:13 and residential structures that have been converted for

18:40:18 multifamily and a few existing single-family homes.

18:40:22 Compatibility between the proposed project and the

18:40:25 existing neighborhood is achieved by providing

18:40:28 transition in height and scale as Mr. Gardner has

18:40:31 pointed out to you, buffering, screening, increased open

18:40:37 space, and separation by roadways or alleys.

18:40:40 Architectural modifications to the building mass

18:40:42 immediately adjacent to the neighboring properties is














18:40:47 effective when ensuring compatibility, as it proposed at

18:40:50 the western end of building 2, where the number of

18:40:55 floors have been reduced from 8 to 6 and 5.

18:40:58 Now what is most important and relevant here I think is

18:41:00 the significant differences between what is currently

18:41:05 approved for this project and what is being proposed.

18:41:10 And we did a graphic that I believe has been passed out

18:41:16 to you that has all the buildings colored and numbered

18:41:21 and then we analyze those buildings with respect to what

18:41:24 is approved and what is proposed.

18:41:27 This table demonstrates that the two primary and most

18:41:32 high-profile buildings within the project which are

18:41:35 those -- this building I guess would be building number

18:41:38 one and building number two are being reduced in height

18:41:43 from 26 and 21 stories to 8 stories.

18:41:46 The approximate building coverage for each building is

18:41:48 also being reduced.

18:41:50 So in other words, the amount of footprint that is on

18:41:54 the ground is smaller than what is currently approved.

18:42:00 In fact there is the 10% reduction that goes from 64% of

18:42:02 the site to 54% of the site.

18:42:05 Now I want to point out some -- what I consider to be

18:42:08 some significant planning considerations that would

18:42:10 warrant approval of this project.

18:42:13 Again, the significant reduction in height.














18:42:19 And I think that is most exempt fried by this graphic

18:42:22 which we show what is being proposed on the bottom

18:42:25 versus what is actually approved.

18:42:28 Significant reduction in height.

18:42:30 Very few waivers have been requested.

18:42:35 The proposed PD complies with your landscaping

18:42:36 ordinance.

18:42:39 Represents a reduction in the total number of units from

18:42:42 570 that was originally approved down to 490.

18:42:46 So 80 units less than what is currently approved.

18:42:49 There is a 10% reduction in the overall building

18:42:52 coverage which, of course, translates into more open

18:42:54 space on project.

18:42:58 There is a centralized parking garage that fronts on

18:42:58 Hyde Park Place.

18:43:02 Now there is no parking garage that fronts on Bayshore

18:43:05 in this plan, which there are parking garages that front

18:43:07 on Bayshore in the existing.

18:43:10 So I believe that that is more neighborhood friendly

18:43:14 than what is currently approved.

18:43:18 In summary, this proposed development provide for an

18:43:20 appropriately scaled residential project that is

18:43:23 compatible with the existing uses and the activities

18:43:25 that surround it.

18:43:27 It increases open space.














18:43:31 It significantly reduces the scale and height of the

18:43:34 structures and increases the neighborhood compatibility

18:43:37 by eliminating garage space at ground level on the

18:43:38 Bayshore.

18:43:42 This project will complement the high on Mr. File area

18:43:45 of the city along Bayshore and become more compatible

18:43:47 with the surrounding development than the currently

18:43:49 approved PD.

18:43:54 And so about that, I would like to introduce Mr. Smith.

18:43:56 >> Thank you, Ethel.

18:44:00 My name is Steven Smith, Cooper, Jon, Smith architect

18:44:01 here in company.

18:44:06 I at least get to talk about some of --

18:44:10 >> As you can tell, we are trying to get everything down

18:44:13 to 15 minute and with us having the vacating and zoning

18:44:16 reduction we ask for five minutes more tops.

18:44:19 >>GWEN MILLER: The pleasure of Council?

18:44:20 >> So moved.

18:44:23 >>GWEN MILLER: You may have five more minutes.

18:44:23 >> Thank you.

18:44:24 I will try to be very brief.

18:44:27 I at least get to talk about some of the more fun

18:44:31 aspects and that is some of the architectural features.

18:44:34 In some of what you heard tonight, two -- two elements

18:44:38 of the plan, how we step down to the neighborhood, and














18:44:41 how we bridge over right-of-ways.

18:44:45 They seem to be two very interesting areas.

18:44:50 And what I want to show new both instances, there are

18:44:58 great examples of sensitive architectural solutions.

18:45:02 Want to just refresh your memory on the site plan, where

18:45:04 we are stepping down to the neighborhood is to the west

18:45:07 right here along the Hyde Park Place.

18:45:11 And as -- as has been discussed, the portion of the

18:45:14 building closest to the single-family residences will

18:45:19 step down from 8 to 6, and then to 5 in the first 35

18:45:21 feet back from the right-of-way.

18:45:26 And what I wanted to show you is -- they are terrific

18:45:28 examples all around Tampa.

18:45:33 Some of the most -- buildings that we have.

18:45:38 On Davis island, seven stories immediately to the side

18:45:39 and rear.

18:45:41 Residences of Davis island.

18:45:46 Closer to this project, and in the center of Hyde Park,

18:45:49 building that -- that most folks don't even notice.

18:45:52 This is the six-story Seville.

18:45:55 It is on Morrison and Dakota.

18:46:01 And the Seville sits 15 feet from a single-family

18:46:01 residence.

18:46:06 Again it is architectural language an how to meets the

18:46:08 streets and the ground are what makes that -- make that














18:46:10 work.

18:46:15 Again in the center of Hyde Park, this is the Valencia,

18:46:19 seven stories next to single family.

18:46:28 I am going to show a diagram, a parcel diagram, and it

18:46:32 is showing the transition down.

18:46:34 Here we have the west end of the building, eight

18:46:37 stories, stepping down to six, 35 feet back, and then

18:46:44 down to 5, which is getting fairly close to the 35-foot

18:46:47 height limit of single-family residence.

18:46:52 And it steps on down in a fairly elegant fashion.

18:46:59 Moving on to the -- over the right-of-ways.

18:47:01 This is the most interesting for architects because we

18:47:07 love to do portals and bridges over roads when we can.

18:47:11 It is something that you see throughout -- throughout

18:47:17 Europe, the old country, buildings, dwelling, over --

18:47:18 over streets.

18:47:21 And what they do is they -- they tend to become

18:47:21 landmarks.

18:47:27 They tend to become memorable identifiers.

18:47:29 Things we are intrigued by.

18:47:32 They are closer to home.

18:47:35 This is down in Coral Gables.

18:47:40 Coral Gables originally had six entrances planned.

18:47:44 All spanning the rights-of-way.

18:47:48 Four were built -- this is the most lovable, the Douglas














18:47:51 entrance, and it happens to be dimensionally very

18:47:54 similar to what is being proposed.

18:48:00 The closer view -- the Douglas entrance is about 20 to

18:48:07 24 feet to the top and about 35 to 40 feet in width and

18:48:15 has habitable space above it.

18:48:20 Closer to home even -- even more so is -- this is a

18:48:26 stand MacDill Avenue by the academy of the holy names.

18:48:32 Crescent has made revisions to the crossing on Hyde Park

18:48:36 Place, and as you can see, it has diminished in scale to

18:48:38 be more like the Douglas entrance.

18:48:41 There is -- there is openness above it, openness below

18:48:42 it.

18:48:47 We think it will be very attractive entry bang to the

18:48:49 neighborhood, as well as the neighborhood entrance into

18:49:02 the Bayshore area.

18:49:12 A little bit more about the it is how vital they are to

18:49:16 having a low mid-rise scheme.

18:49:19 They allow three buildings on three blocks to all be

18:49:21 linked back to a central garage.

18:49:25 And doing this, you are able to have a very efficient

18:49:27 garage which means you don't have to build a million

18:49:30 units to pay for parking cars, which seems to be one of

18:49:33 the biggest losses of development today.

18:49:37 So what we would like to say is isn't something -- this

18:49:42 is a renders along Bayshore showing eight stories.














18:49:47 Isn't it preferable to let you -- to what you have seen

18:49:50 before, which is the image of what was approved

18:49:52 previously.

18:49:54 We think everybody will benefit.

18:49:59 It is pretty easy to see from this photograph that views

18:50:04 from both one Bayshore will be preserved because in this

18:50:08 photograph, the views down Bayshore are blocked think

18:50:11 about middle building, as well as the views of 3, 4, 5

18:50:14 are blocked to downtown Tampa.

18:50:17 So it seems like pushing everything down.

18:50:18 Everyone seems to benefit.

18:50:19 Thank you.

18:50:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from Councilmembers?

18:50:24 Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak on

18:50:26 items 6 and 7.

18:50:47 If you want to speak on items 6 and 7, please come up.

18:51:07 >>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak, please come up

18:51:07 and start speaking.

18:51:10 Who is going to speak first?

18:51:13 Somebody please come up and speak.

18:51:17 >> Sam Corson, 16 Hyde Park Place.

18:51:21 I represent myself as a building owner and the Bayshore

18:51:26 terrace apartments that we manage our building at 214

18:51:27 Hyde Park Place.

18:51:30 We still vehemently object to this project.














18:51:33 It is not neighborhood friendly.

18:51:34 They did not reach out to me.

18:51:36 Maybe they reached out to somebody, but there was no

18:51:38 public meeting that I was invited to.

18:51:41 I heard that there might have been some meet that is

18:51:46 wept nonprivate, but I wasn't invited to any meeting.

18:51:49 Changes they have made are unsubstantial.

18:51:53 They do not address the issues, and frankly it is very

18:51:55 neighborhood unfriendly.

18:51:59 The massing that -- it is ironic that they are asked --

18:52:03 that they are -- what am I trying to say.

18:52:07 It is ironic that they are presenting the lowering of

18:52:11 the height on Bayshore as a good thing now because 11

18:52:14 years ago they wanted it.

18:52:16 And now what they have done is they are pushing that

18:52:19 mass back toward the neighborhood.

18:52:26 The Crescent Lynn tunnel is still way too low, way too

18:52:27 wide.

18:52:29 If you span the alley and give up those rights, it

18:52:33 threatens our ability to use that alley.

18:52:35 To park on that alley.

18:52:37 Tenants park on that alley.

18:52:41 If the sanitation trucks change future, they might not

18:52:44 be able to get up this thing and then we are going to

18:52:45 have a big problem.














18:52:50 The massing from the neighborhood to the structures is

18:52:53 still much, much too great a change.

18:52:59 The last PD had a much -- much more gradual transition

18:53:02 to the neighborhood, and it is not the Crescent Lynn

18:53:05 tunnel that we know and love, it is our historic

18:53:08 neighborhood that belongs to Tampa for over 100 years

18:53:16 that we treasure.

18:53:18 It -- they will build something.

18:53:21 We don't need to approve this.

18:53:22 Send them back.

18:53:25 They will be back with something better.

18:53:28 This does not do it.

18:53:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.

18:53:36 >> Good evening, Councilmembers.

18:53:39 My name is Richard Diaz.

18:53:42 I am with the firm of Diaz, Pearson and associates here

18:53:43 in Tampa.

18:53:46 1200 West Platt street, suite 204.

18:53:47 I have been sworn in.

18:53:51 And I been retained by the residents and the homeowners

18:53:56 of the 345 Bayshore project, 345 Bayshore homeowner

18:53:59 association.

18:54:02 My presentation is not going to follow some of the

18:54:05 information that has already been given to you as

18:54:08 testimony, but I do want to outline some very serious














18:54:11 concerns that my client has, and I believe that those

18:54:14 concerns are also going to be shared by a number of

18:54:17 other adjacent property owners.

18:54:21 So the residents in the homeowner association of 345

18:54:23 Bayshore.

18:54:26 We are going on record this evening as opposing this

18:54:26 petition.

18:54:30 We don't oppose the project in its entirety, but we

18:54:33 believe it must be remanded back for revisions that will

18:54:37 be appropriate following some of the bullet points that

18:54:40 I am going to make this evening as well as others.

18:54:46 The petitions z 10-34 plans to amend an existing PD

18:54:47 zoning plan.

18:54:50 It was previously approved in 2006 and there is an

18:54:51 earlier approval.

18:54:53 The petition changes the number of the approved

18:54:54 conditions.

18:54:56 As you have indicated you have heard some of the

18:55:01 building heights have been reduced; however, as of the

18:55:05 submittal of this petition at this round, we know of

18:55:07 five different submittals that have been made.

18:55:10 It appears that the submittal is somewhat carrying the

18:55:14 form of a moving target, some options come up.

18:55:19 The developer makes a few changes, and it is hard to

18:55:19 keep track of this.














18:55:23 The developer is really a sophisticated developer.

18:55:24 Mr. Gardner and here.

18:55:28 He is a very experienced land use attorney, but this

18:55:30 project has the appearance of being one that -- let's

18:55:33 throw something up on the wall and see what sticks and

18:55:36 if we have opposition we will address it and revise it.

18:55:40 Councilmembers, that is not the spirit of the PD zoning

18:55:40 plan.

18:55:45 We don't see a reason why this plan can't be buttoned up

18:55:48 to satisfy the concerns of the neighborhood and -- and a

18:55:51 true and valuable plan be submitted so that the

18:55:54 information on the four corners of the document becomes

18:55:55 the new zoning plan.

18:55:58 That is the way it happened in 2006.

18:56:01 And for the most part, that is how it happened in the

18:56:02 city.

18:56:04 However in this particular project, it seems to be a

18:56:08 moving target that is unfair to the residents who have

18:56:10 difficulty, an it is a challenge to match up and see

18:56:16 what the changes are being made almost on a daily basis.

18:56:20 The specific items is that the buildings that are shown

18:56:24 on the PD plan, you have seen some wonderful-looking

18:56:25 graphics.

18:56:28 Curiously those graphics omit an 8-story building

18:56:33 directly adjacent to my client's building at 345.














18:56:37 That is indeed an 8-story building as proposed.

18:56:41 It is an 8-story building on the current approved PD

18:56:44 zoning plan and we find it fairly remarkable that within

18:56:47 this 8-story building, the details and the disclosure

18:56:51 indicate that two floors will be garage parking, the

18:56:54 ground floor and the first floor will be garage parking.

18:56:58 The other six stories will be residential units,

18:57:00 accommodating 11 units.

18:57:03 Now elsewhere in the PD zoning documents that are

18:57:08 submitted, those 11 units occupy --

18:57:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir, your time is up.

18:57:13 >> We have a number of residents here that have

18:57:16 indicated their interest in relinquishing their time.

18:57:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Too late.

18:57:20 Do you have a sign-in sheet.

18:57:21 >> Yes, ma'am.

18:57:22 >>GWEN MILLER: You should have given it to our

18:57:23 attorney.

18:57:25 Are you holding it now?

18:57:26 >> It is out front.

18:57:28 >>GWEN MILLER: You need to have it in your hand.

18:57:38 Next speaker.

18:57:43 >> For the -- for the -- may I, Madam chair.

18:57:46 If you wish to relinquish your time, there is a speaker

18:57:48 waiver form that is available outside.














18:57:52 Those who do relinquish their time do have to be present

18:57:52 --

18:57:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Give it to attorney.

18:57:57 >> I do need to see the form to make sure those people

18:57:57 are present.

18:58:00 If you have a speaker waiver form, please do give it to

18:58:02 me before you speak.

18:58:04 Is Karen Crawford here?

18:58:06 Yes, thank you.

18:58:13 Phyllis Dushki.

18:58:18 Starts with a -- something d and the last name is e --

18:58:19 pardon?

18:58:21 >>GWEN MILLER: His hand is up.

18:58:23 >> And Jessica Glover.

18:58:29 And that is four additional minutes for a total of 7.

18:58:31 >> I'd also -- I don't know if I have the opportunity,

18:58:34 but I would like to address item 6 separately from item

18:58:36 7.

18:58:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Seven minutes to do 6 and 7.

18:58:42 >> First I would like to address the vacating of the

18:58:43 alley.

18:58:48 My name is Ellen Sussman.

18:58:54 My family has owned 210 Hyde Park and West Beach Place

18:58:56 since 1999.

18:58:58 I have come before City Council many, many times and














18:59:00 only on this project.

18:59:04 This is the only -- this land has taken all my time.

18:59:07 All the presentations -- all presentations I have made

18:59:09 before City Council have concern this particular land

18:59:10 and I have been here a lot.

18:59:11 It's amazing.

18:59:14 The first on the vacating of the alley.

18:59:16 I think you need to know the history of the vacating of

18:59:17 Hyde Park Place.

18:59:21 11 years ago, this same develop, before they declared

18:59:25 bankruptcy, came before you and presented this wonderful

18:59:31 mixed-use development, an application to be included in

18:59:33 the CBD periphery.

18:59:36 Lots of really wonderful plans for this vibrant,

18:59:43 exciting corner to the gateway of the entry of Tampa.

18:59:44 We have some objections.

18:59:45 That is our building.

18:59:48 It was built 1910.

18:59:51 We own building behind this built in 1900.

18:59:53 These are historically preserved.

18:59:57 We are required by code and whatever, the guidelines to

18:59:59 maintain these buildings in a certain standard to

19:00:01 preserve their historic significance.

19:00:04 We have done that over the years at great cost to a

19:00:06 small family company.














19:00:07 We continue to do that.

19:00:10 We have been living next to a vacant lot for 11 years.

19:00:13 They tore down a two-story building that is in that

19:00:15 picture that was next to us.

19:00:17 And we have been living next to this vacant land with

19:00:21 the promise of this beautiful mixed use community.

19:00:24 In return to that mixed use community, we vacated our

19:00:25 street.

19:00:29 The cities gave crescent resources the length of Hyde

19:00:34 Park Place, the width of Hyde Park Place, Parker, we

19:00:36 gave it to them for their good care in exchange of all

19:00:38 the wonderful mixed use communities that they were going

19:00:41 to provide us, and it didn't happen.

19:00:44 An at the time we vacated it, we the neighbors, all of

19:00:48 us, asked, what happens if this doesn't happen?

19:00:48 What happens then?

19:00:51 We were told that the PD process would protect us, that

19:00:54 the PD process would require the developer to come back

19:00:57 and start from square one, but that's not the case.

19:00:59 They own that land now.

19:00:59 It is theirs.

19:01:01 They can build above the road.

19:01:05 Their initial proposal to us 11 years ago built above

19:01:06 the road.

19:01:09 The same spanning of this bridge.














19:01:10 We raised a big stink then.

19:01:12 And they agreed with us.

19:01:15 They were very, very accommodating 11 years ago.

19:01:18 They listened to us and they heard us and they

19:01:20 eliminated that spanning of the bridge, and they gave us

19:01:22 the proposal, the beautiful picture that you saw.

19:01:26 With all of the density or the majority of density

19:01:30 toward the Bayshore which has a lot of density on it.

19:01:35 Our building -- the city code requires -- I went to the

19:01:36 Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

19:01:38 I am a single mother of two young children.

19:01:40 I work two jobs.

19:01:42 And I had to take the time out to study the Tampa

19:01:45 Comprehensive Plan, but that is what I have been doing

19:01:45 for the whole week.

19:01:51 In it I discould have had sings policy 26.5.3 that

19:01:54 allows additional height and density to specifically

19:01:57 allow the surrounding parcels to decrease and view

19:02:00 blockage and shadows from the new structures.

19:02:02 They are supposed to move the density away from these

19:02:06 historic structures and leave space between us.

19:02:10 They are supposed to preserve the unique identity of

19:02:12 this historic neighborhood.

19:02:16 The Tampa Comprehensive Plan support historic

19:02:18 preservation in neighborhood and housing design that














19:02:21 supports the conservation, enhancement and continued

19:02:25 enhancement of areas of the city with historical and

19:02:27 architectural and cultural value.

19:02:28 None of this is planned.

19:02:30 Just the massing on this.

19:02:33 If we give them the rights to the alley like we gave

19:02:36 them the rights to Hyde Park Place, who know what is we

19:02:38 are going to end up with 11 years from now.

19:02:41 It is -- it is not like we get to take it back.

19:02:45 Once we give them the rights to that alley, the air

19:02:48 rights to our alley that we used every day that the

19:02:51 tenants use and walk the dog.

19:02:55 Who wants to walk under a tunnel to get to Bayshore.

19:02:58 They don't want to vacate the alley or maintain the

19:03:01 alley or take care of the alley, they want to profit

19:03:02 from our air over the alley.

19:03:03 That's what they want.

19:03:05 The whole thing is about putting more money in their

19:03:10 pocketbook, but I got to tell you, my beautiful

19:03:12 building, it doesn't sit on the road.

19:03:14 Their project is going to sit up right 8 feet from the

19:03:14 road.

19:03:17 We are not talking just about the height mass next to

19:03:17 us.

19:03:21 We are talking about being completely enveloped by their














19:03:24 building, because it sits right on the road.

19:03:27 Where else in Tampa do you have eight-story buildings

19:03:32 with no front setbacks, but because they own the road in

19:03:35 front of us, because we gave it to them, they don't have

19:03:36 to do a setback.

19:03:38 They are not required.

19:03:42 So if you think five and six stories next to this

19:03:47 beautiful building, that the five stories -- it is going

19:03:48 to be where the building starts.

19:03:51 Six stories next to the building because this thing goes

19:03:52 right up to the road.

19:03:57 So you are talking about a massive -- their drawings --

19:03:58 we did one too.

19:04:03 It doesn't really show how -- how horrible it -- how

19:04:06 horrible this really is next to our building because it

19:04:08 doesn't show you that our building sits back.

19:04:10 We have a front yard setback.

19:04:16 They are not required because of our wonderful PD to

19:04:19 have a front yard setback.

19:04:21 Not required setbacks anywhere.

19:04:23 Look at the massiveness of this building.

19:04:26 This mass does not belong in this historic neighborhood

19:04:30 that -- our Tampa plan says we are -- we are trying to

19:04:31 preserve.

19:04:33 These buildings will fall into disrepair.














19:04:36 We will not have -- we will not be able to afford to

19:04:40 maintain them because we will lose the value of them

19:04:42 when you hide us behind this building of theirs.

19:04:46 And the reduction of the -- of the tunnel over the road,

19:04:49 yeah, they have the right to do that.

19:04:52 But is it -- do they have the moral right to do that

19:04:56 because they told us 11 years ago before we gave them

19:04:58 our road that they weren't going to do it.

19:04:59 They told us.

19:05:00 It is the same company.

19:05:03 They declared bankruptcy.

19:05:06 They quitclaimed themselves this land for $100.

19:05:06 A parcel.

19:05:08 If it is not the same company.

19:05:11 What company is going to quick claim the land for $100

19:05:12 for someone else.

19:05:13 I don't know.

19:05:14 But this is not a good plan.

19:05:18 We have a PD in place that was vetted by Council that

19:05:20 was worked on by the neighborhood, worked on by the

19:05:20 developer.

19:05:22 We took all of that time.

19:05:25 We came up with something that was agreeable to all of

19:05:28 us, that allowed us access to Bayshore that allowed us

19:05:31 to continue having a neighborhood behind their














19:05:34 neighborhood, because that's what is going to happen.

19:05:36 This is their neighborhood and there is going to be --

19:05:40 you know the little ghetto behind it.

19:05:42 If you don't vote no on this or don't ask them to go

19:05:44 back and talk to the neighbors.

19:05:46 Only people they talked to were the people that called

19:05:48 them except for me because I had an attorney.

19:05:52 They -- they called and arranged a meeting with me.

19:05:56 It's really -- it is very, very disconcerting.

19:06:00 And getting back to Richard -- which she never got to

19:06:05 finish, there are a lot of inconsistency within the site

19:06:07 plan where they are building 118 parking spaces in that

19:06:11 8-story building next to 3, 4, 5.

19:06:14 But kite plan shows -- the drawing I think shows 118

19:06:17 spaces but the data thing only shows 25.

19:06:24 There is a problem.

19:06:28 >> Madam chair, members of Council, Mr. Diaz, is it?

19:06:32 Council, to inform you just to let you know and let the

19:06:33 public know that unfortunately there was a

19:06:37 miscommunication with the officer outside with regard to

19:06:39 the speaker waiver form.

19:06:41 That has been rectified.

19:06:44 Mr. Diaz does have a speaker waiver form, and in the

19:06:46 interest of due process and protecting the record, I

19:06:52 will ask that he bring it forward, and he does not have














19:06:55 obviously the original three minutes, but he does have

19:07:01 -- sir, you have more than seven names.

19:07:04 You are only allowed under the Council's rules a total

19:07:06 of ten minutes so I am just going to read the first

19:07:08 seven names and give the rest.

19:07:10 Is that okay, sir?

19:07:10 >> That is fine.

19:07:12 I appreciate it.

19:07:15 >> Michael Shendel, are you here?

19:07:17 Pat Dunick.

19:07:19 Lynn Andrews.

19:07:22 Paul Merritt.

19:07:25 Edward Stoneis.

19:07:27 John Lavery.

19:07:29 And John Robins.

19:07:32 The other two names I am going to cross out and the

19:07:34 second sheet I am going to give back to you.

19:07:46 That is an additional seven minutes, sir.

19:07:53 >>GWEN MILLER: STate your name on the record again.

19:07:55 >> Thank you, my name is Richard Diaz.

19:07:56 I have been sworn in.

19:08:01 My address 1200 West Platt Street suite 204 in Tampa.

19:08:05 I represent the residents and the homeowner association,

19:08:07 345 Bayshore.

19:08:09 Where I left off, Councilmembers is the petition is not














19:08:10 consistent.

19:08:13 It has got a variety of ambiguities and vague features

19:08:17 that are practically impossible to track.

19:08:20 I was describing the petition's master plan and the

19:08:25 presentations given thus far somehow do not disclose

19:08:30 the full tint of the building adjacent to 345 Bayshore,

19:08:34 an 8-story building shown on the site plan.

19:08:36 Two floors of parking that accommodate 118 spaces yet

19:08:40 the building discloses parking for about 25 spaces.

19:08:44 The building disclosed six floors of residential units,

19:08:48 11 residential units to be bill will on six floors.

19:08:54 And the plans also disclose 94,956 square feet of

19:08:55 residential area.

19:09:00 Now it challenges conventional wisdom how six-story

19:09:03 residential building with 11 units is going to occupy

19:09:05 about 95,000 square feet.

19:09:07 We just don't think that is going to happen.

19:09:12 The applicant Mr. Truett has indicated earlier -- Mr.

19:09:15 Gardner, I am sorry, that the access which was formally

19:09:20 shown on the alley will be amended only to allow garbage

19:09:22 trucks on the alley and the access will be changed to

19:09:25 Vern and best Beach.

19:09:28 That's fine; however, the overriding concern with the --

19:09:31 with the building adjacent to 345 and the building

19:09:36 adjacent to Beach is that it is going to be impossible














19:09:41 to restrict or prohibit Commercial use of the alley

19:09:44 whether you have ups, delivery trucks, whatever.

19:09:46 The number of units and number of residences that are

19:09:49 going to occupy these buildings.

19:09:53 It will be physically impossible to restrict Commercial

19:09:54 on the alley.

19:09:56 Barely 12 feet wide.

19:09:58 10 feet in most places, 12 in some.

19:10:05 We don't believe it is -- to compromise public safety on

19:10:09 a sub standard alley, no sidewalks, no pedestrian

19:10:10 circulation.

19:10:13 That is a critical of a good land use plan and we

19:10:16 believe the plan ought to be revised to incorporate

19:10:17 those features.

19:10:21 Your attorney will tell you I am sure if he doesn't,

19:10:24 that it is not the city's obligation to require a

19:10:27 developer to dedicate right-of-way in exchange for

19:10:27 zoning.

19:10:29 We are not asking for that.

19:10:33 We are asking for a project that meets the minimum

19:10:36 standards for traffic to be imposed on an alley.

19:10:38 Make the alley, convert it into a street, put sidewalks

19:10:43 on it, and make it a pedestrian-friendly accessway.

19:10:46 There is no more that needs to be done.

19:10:50 The last point that I will make before I give you a list














19:10:55 of my bullet points is, the residents of 345 are

19:11:00 concerned that rooftop mechanical units, air

19:11:03 conditioning systems, chillers, coolers, mechanical

19:11:06 equipment, that may very well likely be placed on the

19:11:10 roof top has no mention of any obligation for developer

19:11:14 to shield that, shield it from sight.

19:11:15 Shield it from sound.

19:11:17 Now many times that equipment when placed on the ground

19:11:19 is traditionally shielded.

19:11:22 And so we are asking that we believe that it would be

19:11:25 appropriate for the developer to commit the shielding

19:11:27 that mechanical equipment from view.

19:11:33 The residents of 345 are concerned and upset about the

19:11:37 opportunity to look at an unsightly roof top that could

19:11:38 be built next door.

19:11:42 So in summary, Councilmembers, there is serious

19:11:48 ambiguity on the master plan that is not consistent and

19:11:49 opens the door for interpretation, the graphics that

19:11:53 have been presented here this evening have omitted the

19:11:57 building that is going up directly adjacent to 345, yet

19:11:59 it is contained within the PD zoning petition.

19:12:01 We are not sure what's up.

19:12:06 And we believe it ought to be disclosed fully with what

19:12:08 the developers intend to do.

19:12:11 We appreciate you very much accommodating me for the














19:12:14 extra time, and I do have a handout that I would like to

19:12:25 submit for the record summarizing our bullet points.

19:12:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.

19:12:36 Next speaker.

19:12:40 Mr. Shelby.

19:12:42 >> Thank you.

19:12:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

19:12:48 >> Sorry, one additional name, Bill Lai.

19:12:49 Thank you.

19:12:51 Four minutes please.

19:12:51 >> Good evening.

19:12:57 My name is Janet Lai, and I have been sworn.

19:13:01 Coming to speak as a resident of Bayshore boulevard and

19:13:05 to speak as a citizen and taxpayer of the City of Tampa.

19:13:07 My husband Bill and I purchased -- we were original

19:13:11 purchasers of our unit of Parkside in 2005 and we

19:13:13 currently reside in that unit.

19:13:16 We have four major concerns that we would like you to

19:13:19 consider when you are dealing with this proposed

19:13:20 development.

19:13:22 First, we do not think that it is in the best interest

19:13:26 of Tampa citizens and taxpayers to vacate the air rights

19:13:29 so that the streets or alleyways in this proposed

19:13:30 development.

19:13:33 Further rights or assets of the City of Tampa, and they














19:13:36 should not be given freely to a private dole are for

19:13:37 their own profits.

19:13:41 Second, when we purchased our unit in 2005, we did so

19:13:45 with the awareness that we were buying an equity

19:13:47 interest in our individual unit.

19:13:49 We were also buying an weak tee interest in the common

19:13:52 areas that covered three building sites, our building

19:13:56 parkside, the lots immediately to the south of us, and

19:13:58 the lots to the west of us.

19:14:01 We believe knowingly bound together in a master

19:14:04 association that gave us common equity interest and

19:14:07 future financial obligations for upkeep of those common

19:14:08 areas.

19:14:10 We do not think that it is in the best interest of the

19:14:15 current owners or the mortgage companies that own to

19:14:18 these owners for two additional properties to be joined

19:14:23 to our master association without our explicit consent.

19:14:26 Due to the changes that this will create to our equity

19:14:29 provisions and our ongoing financial obligations of

19:14:32 common areas expenses.

19:14:37 Also, we are concerned of the single ingress-egress

19:14:39 points of all the new properties at the junction of

19:14:41 Parker and Hyde Park street.

19:14:44 These are really small brick road and they are already

19:14:46 hard-pressed to accommodate existing traffic.














19:14:49 When you add -- almost 700 additional vehicles from the

19:14:53 parking garage and trash removal and loading zones to

19:14:56 this one tiny spot, it is going to create an untenable

19:14:58 traffic situation.

19:15:01 We would like to ask at a minimum that the plan be

19:15:06 redesigned so that it could improve the alleyway to the

19:15:09 south of the proposed parking structure building so that

19:15:13 it would be able to accommodate ingress and egress from

19:15:14 that point also.

19:15:18 Lastly, we believe the joining these four buildings via

19:15:24 passageways over public streets really is undesirable.

19:15:27 To have one large building to cover four city blocks and

19:15:31 in a zig-zag pattern, we think it is in keeping with the

19:15:34 aesthetics we believe the citizens of Tampa would want

19:15:37 to see for such a prominent spot in the city.

19:15:40 This is the last large piece of undeveloped land on

19:15:44 Bayshore boulevard and sits at the corner of Platt and

19:15:44 Bayshore.

19:15:46 That makes it the gateway to our city.

19:15:48 That places a greater responsibility on this

19:15:48 development.

19:15:55 Since it is not going to just impact the current future

19:15:56 residents of this development.

19:15:59 More importantly it will impact the impression our city

19:16:03 will give to future businesses, convention planners














19:16:06 whether they decide to make Tampa their choice.

19:16:08 I respectfully request that you consider these issues

19:16:12 when making your decision about this development.

19:16:15 This development will have far-reaching effects on the

19:16:16 future of our city.

19:16:17 Thank you.

19:16:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.

19:16:27 >> Donald Phillips, 14 West Platt street.

19:16:30 Madam chair, honorable members of council, citizens of

19:16:34 Tampa, my primary reason to come before you today is two

19:16:34 fold.

19:16:41 One is a practice that I have personally as I have at

19:16:45 times complained or found issue with the practices of

19:16:47 even elements of the city.

19:16:49 Upon those things being rectified.

19:16:53 I have a personal obligation to come forward also and

19:16:54 recount those.

19:16:59 And secondly is as a citizen and business owner adjacent

19:17:04 to this, and my comments are to be construed in that way

19:17:07 and not in a capacity that I serve on any board or

19:17:09 appointment.

19:17:12 My original opposition was primarily due to the loading

19:17:18 zone location and its proximity to our entrance at 142

19:17:19 West Platt.

19:17:26 And due to the addition of a change to this plan, and my














19:17:29 willingness to come forward and accept that and in the

19:17:32 notes I will now withdraw my opposition.

19:17:36 Based on the additional assurances of the petitioner,

19:17:40 which I think is noble to assist in a much-needed

19:17:44 renovation to the Columbus Park at the Platt street

19:17:45 entrance.

19:17:49 Something I have worked on or attempted to work on for

19:17:53 quite some time.the present administration at no avail

19:17:55 even at the offer of free on table.

19:18:03 And the further assurances which I think is -- to docks

19:18:11 and the wharfs adjacent to the Jose and I am in favor to

19:18:12 speak in favor of the petitioner.

19:18:15 I am not a neighbor of residents and cannot claim

19:18:17 ownership to some of the concerns that these neighbors

19:18:24 have.

19:18:30 Those not with Standing, the ad valorem tax.

19:18:34 While things can be better, I could be richer and

19:18:40 thinner, I am want to oppose a $60 to $70 million

19:18:42 investment in these harsh economic times.

19:18:47 My own interest as a competitor notwithstanding.

19:18:51 I spoke with the architect today, linked to Mr. Gardner

19:18:55 and have traded some E-Mails with the owner of this

19:18:59 company Crescent, my competitor, and have been assured

19:19:02 that continuing efforts to address all elements that

19:19:05 have been expressed of reasonable nature will be














19:19:07 continued to be pursued.

19:19:16 The further utilization of this vacant urban land

19:19:17 unwind.

19:19:21 I would love to see more density, more mixed use and

19:19:22 more urban utility.

19:19:29 That said, our continued inability as a city in

19:19:32 leadership to deliver real mass transit solutions,

19:19:34 social solutions regarding issues regarding

19:19:40 homelessness, panhandling, and urban employment leaves

19:19:44 us with diminishing options.

19:19:48 In the real environment of the choices presented we may

19:19:50 be fortunate to get the investment shown.

19:19:54 In closing, better leadership, better infrastructure,

19:19:57 smarter transportation options and greater employment

19:19:59 will yield more favorable plans.

19:20:00 Thank you.

19:20:08 >> Thank you.

19:20:09 >> Good evening, Councilmembers.

19:20:13 My name is Jamie Myers, 306 South Platt avenue, Tampa,

19:20:14 33606.

19:20:24 I have additional signers.

19:20:28 June Busey.

19:20:29 Gene Ligon.

19:20:36 Adrian Garcia and Sue Ann Heske.

19:20:42 Four additional minutes.














19:20:44 Thank you.

19:20:46 >> I put something on the Elmo.

19:20:47 I have pictures to put on there.

19:20:50 The first one, let me straighten it out.

19:20:53 It a view from -- as I come out my building on the

19:20:57 corner of Plant and Hyde Park boulevard.

19:20:59 This being Hyde Park boulevard going down.

19:21:02 We were here in December, and we discussed a number of

19:21:04 things and apparently they have come back.

19:21:08 I have not been contacted, so a lot of this I was

19:21:12 learning on fly and I dispute the developer's contention

19:21:15 that he has contacted -- contacted a number of residents

19:21:17 and they were opposed to it.

19:21:20 Apparently they were select residents.

19:21:23 Don Phillips, his concern was the trash and I spoke with

19:21:28 him on it and all have axes to grind and his ax has been

19:21:31 ground to a dull blunt and now he supports it.

19:21:33 I find that surprising.

19:21:37 As we also see further down, there is another picture of

19:21:39 this -- of this view down there, and I am going to talk

19:21:42 about -- the element I am most concerned about, and of

19:21:47 course this is the reverse view looking up from Bayshore

19:21:50 back to Plant Avenue.

19:21:52 We have two issues here.

19:21:56 We have a step down from originally I think the PD














19:22:03 called to four stories next to the property that will

19:22:05 transition into my neighborhood.

19:22:08 A building rehab that was a significant amount of money.

19:22:11 Started an office there when it was still a blighted

19:22:12 area.

19:22:14 All we wanted was a transition into that neighborhood.

19:22:17 We are losing that, though they have made a little bit

19:22:20 of a commendation but I don't think it goes far enough.

19:22:22 The other issue is this span.

19:22:25 We have been represent by architects with a beautiful

19:22:28 old world span and the picture was such we couldn't tell

19:22:33 what was around it and showed us also a gateway to Coral

19:22:34 Gables.

19:22:37 Again, completely out of context in a very urban

19:22:37 environment.

19:22:43 Here we have a small, a narrow brick street in which

19:22:45 they want to take a span across.

19:22:51 They say in the original PD they had a right to do that.

19:22:53 The original development and what they told these people

19:22:56 11 years ago, they weren't going to do that.

19:22:56 That was taken out.

19:22:59 That element was taken out and the opposition probably

19:23:02 relented as a result of it, but what you did grant to

19:23:05 them was 40 feet up.

19:23:07 40 feet up.














19:23:10 That's what you all said they could have 40 feet up.

19:23:13 If they are going to build a span which they said they

19:23:13 were not.

19:23:15 The lowest it could come was 40 feet.

19:23:18 That was the issue we were here last time with and

19:23:21 discussed it that they would come back and do that.

19:23:23 They were going to put six stories of apartments above

19:23:24 that.

19:23:27 Basically you are going to look at a wall going down

19:23:27 Hyde Park boulevard.

19:23:31 Now they said only three to five stories and that's

19:23:35 fine.

19:23:43 Mr. Gardner said one I think that stuck in my craw.

19:23:46 Given -- that's all we want.

19:23:47 We want nothing more.

19:23:49 That is a falsehood.

19:23:51 That is not accurate.

19:23:53 He wants to take that 40 down to 20.

19:23:56 That will create not a span but a tunnel.

19:23:57 Look up, folks.

19:24:01 That is 20 feet.

19:24:02 That is 20 feet.

19:24:04 35 feet is to the end of the wall.

19:24:07 Tell you what, given an extra ten feet to the light,

19:24:07 okay.














19:24:09 That is what they are talking about.

19:24:11 Double that.

19:24:12 Now imagine it.

19:24:14 Double it, now imagine it.

19:24:16 That is what they agree to do.

19:24:19 The reason they are here is because they want to reduce

19:24:20 it to this tunnel.

19:24:24 To go from a span to a tunnel.

19:24:29 Councilmembers, imagine turning out from your building,

19:24:33 looking to the east toward the ocean and seeing this

19:24:37 versus what they promised which was double that, 40 feet

19:24:37 high.

19:24:40 That is what we are talking about here.

19:24:44 So for what Mr. Guard network to represent to you, that

19:24:47 he is asking for nothing more than what you have

19:24:52 provided is a blatant falsehood, that is a

19:24:55 misrepresentation to this board and to the people in

19:24:59 this room, and it is not accurate.

19:25:01 It is a very unique neighborhood.

19:25:02 I am happy my building is there.

19:25:05 I live on Davis island so my commute is wonderful.

19:25:07 I enjoy it very much.

19:25:09 I understand this needs to be developed.

19:25:11 I wish it was going to be developed the way it was,

19:25:15 because it would push it more to Bayshore, but I am also














19:25:19 fully aware of the economic realities that we live in

19:25:21 now and the fact they have to modify their development

19:25:23 in order to make it financially feasible.

19:25:24 I will support that.

19:25:28 I would rather have this than an empty field; however,

19:25:31 they can do it and still comply with their PD.

19:25:34 Lower their buildings, spread out the density as they

19:25:36 are talking about, and still manage to transition.

19:25:39 I am not here is to say that this development should not

19:25:40 get built at all.

19:25:43 I realize that ship has sailed.

19:25:45 I understand that.

19:25:48 But I am asking to you hold them to their original

19:25:48 bargain.

19:25:53 Hold them to the original criteria for which this body

19:25:56 said, okay, if you were going to do this development, if

19:25:58 we are going to give you the City of Tampa street, the

19:26:02 people of Tampa street, you will be limited to 40 feet.

19:26:05 If we are going to let you do this high-rise

19:26:09 development, this very, very comprehensive development

19:26:15 next to a residential -- a mixed residential and --

19:26:18 office use with a next tallest building is three

19:26:21 stories, we are going to have to tear down to meet them.

19:26:23 That was the bargain they made.

19:26:29 I am asking to you hold them to it.














19:26:31 Once again, look at this room.

19:26:34 That is the tunnel they are talking about, except it is

19:26:38 not going to be quite this wide.

19:26:42 That is not consistent with the neighborhood that

19:26:46 creates basically a wall.

19:26:49 Ruins the transition that everybody else in that

19:26:52 neighborhood and the surrounding has to Bayshore

19:26:53 boulevard.

19:26:56 We have just as much right to that as they do.

19:27:10 Thank you.

19:27:25 >> I have an additional minute.

19:27:28 >> So off total of nine names, the last two I guess on

19:27:30 second sheet I would cross off.

19:27:32 You are entitled to a maximum of seven even though lines

19:27:34 of 12.

19:27:36 >> That's nice, I am entitled.

19:27:38 Would you read the names to let Council know there are

19:27:40 more people interested as well that didn't choose to

19:27:42 stand up and speak.

19:27:45 >> Well, sir, I just have to read what the names are

19:27:48 that can be speaking -- that can waive their times.

19:27:50 Michael burns.

19:27:51 Thank you.

19:27:55 Spencer Nipp.

19:27:56 Patty Rratcloud.














19:27:58 Did I say that correctly.

19:28:01 Martha Bear.

19:28:04 Stephaie Levenhouser.

19:28:05 Did I say that correctly?

19:28:06 I am sorry.

19:28:07 A Stephanie --

19:28:08 >> I am right here.

19:28:10 >> I didn't see you.

19:28:14 I am sorry.

19:28:18 Veronica -- okay.

19:28:23 And Ethan Socol.

19:28:23 Okay

19:28:24 Thank you.

19:28:25 That is a total of ten minutes.

19:28:26 >> Okay.

19:28:27 Thank you.

19:28:30 I probably won't take the ten minutes so I am sure

19:28:32 everybody will be happy about that, but hello City

19:28:33 Council.

19:28:38 I am Tom May of 322 South Platt Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

19:28:40 I live in Hyde Park where they are proposing their

19:28:41 development.

19:28:45 I was also here 10, 11 years ago going through the same

19:28:47 process.

19:28:49 The meeting with zoning and transportation which I have














19:28:54 done again and spent many hours down there with the new

19:28:56 PD they are proposing.

19:28:59 I would prefer that they keep their original PD, work

19:29:02 within the boundaries of that, and the other PD which

19:29:04 states Bayshore.

19:29:06 Let them work within the boundaries of that with traffic

19:29:07 and trash.

19:29:10 I really don't think banning these neighborhoods at

19:29:14 least on the alley which really should focus on and 7

19:29:18 separately because one of these issues is giving up the

19:29:21 public's right to the airspace to a private developer

19:29:25 for him to make money off of that for the citizens of

19:29:25 Tampa.

19:29:29 Whether it is a bridge, unit, whatever.

19:29:33 Should not be entitled to any public airspace and no

19:29:34 other neighborhood should be subjected to this either as

19:29:38 well.

19:29:41 I, as well, was not contacted by the developer after

19:29:45 speaking and having several minutes given to me as well.

19:29:47 They made no attempts to reach me as well.

19:29:50 And in trying to figure out if he was trying to touch

19:29:55 base with anybody, I also own a unit at one Bayshore and

19:29:58 called the HOA board and they told me that they had not

19:30:01 reached out to them, but they had called upon him

19:30:03 because they haven't heard from him, and this actually














19:30:06 happened about a week before this meeting.

19:30:08 And we all started meeting with Abbye and transportation

19:30:12 to try to figure out what they had changed and what they

19:30:13 were proposing.

19:30:16 So I really do not feel they have spent any time with

19:30:18 the neighborhood to try to have something for all of us

19:30:22 to work together for and to actually understand what our

19:30:30 concerns are with the project.

19:30:33 I do think that the other PD should stay intact as well

19:30:35 as a historic neighborhood.

19:30:38 We originally had four story ace butting a historic

19:30:41 neighborhood with units facing the neighborhood,

19:30:44 embracing the two neighborhoods together joining as one.

19:30:47 We also as well -- I will reiterate as probably somebody

19:30:51 else already said, we have vacate the city street of

19:30:53 Hyde Park and the anticipation that they will clean the

19:30:57 brick, bring in the mixed usage and everybody would be

19:30:58 happy and work together.

19:31:01 Also on the new plan, we have noticed that they have

19:31:05 added another street which they mentioned before for

19:31:09 their applicant or their property manager to you.

19:31:12 That alley, if you have been on it, is a very narrow

19:31:16 alley and it is used as a two-way street and certainly

19:31:19 will not be used with additional access on it.

19:31:23 If they want parking of that Bayshore unit that they are














19:31:27 proposing and have parking to meet that, it will be --

19:31:30 just like Bayshore garden was when those buildings were

19:31:32 there and we all interacted.

19:31:36 But as well if you look at that span.

19:31:39 That span they want to introduce into the alley is

19:31:40 abutting the tunnel.

19:31:42 No matter which way you are going through the tunnel,

19:31:45 you will have some blind access road that is going to

19:31:49 have a potential tenant or somebody working there

19:31:54 crossing over the alley and honestly it is a blind spot.

19:32:00 There will be an accident there.

19:32:03 And I often want to speak of a comprehensive plan.

19:32:06 We did learn a lot about the comprehensive plan.

19:32:07 I am a layperson.

19:32:08 I work a job.

19:32:11 I am a realtor and I am in property management.

19:32:12 I am pro development.

19:32:15 I am pro responsible development.

19:32:18 And staying in the confines set by the PD.

19:32:22 Where everybody spent all the time and energy to make it

19:32:23 all work together.

19:32:26 Don't try to combine two PDs.

19:32:30 Actually if they develop the Bayshore PD with their

19:32:34 parking and whatnot, that could be a conversion in the

19:32:34 future.














19:32:38 All parking in one area is not healthy for that corner

19:32:39 of Bayshore.

19:32:40 That is the jewel of Tampa.

19:32:43 It needs to be developed responsibly and what -- and

19:32:44 embracing our city.

19:32:46 They are not living here.

19:32:47 They will develop.

19:32:48 They will lead.

19:32:51 Okay.

19:32:58 That is pretty much all I have to say.

19:33:02 I have to say, too, 11 years ago, the amount of time

19:33:07 Crescent spent with us was unbelievable in comparison to

19:33:11 what is happening to us today, it is like -- 100% to 0%

19:33:14 on the current developer.

19:33:16 And I still would like him to reach out to us and sit

19:33:18 down with us and make something that is good for all of

19:33:27 us to live with.

19:33:32 I just really want to stress that when it shall what I

19:33:36 have to say that you know what I am here and saying to

19:33:39 you that we should not give away the public air rights

19:33:42 to any private developer in any neighborhood, and he

19:33:45 certainly has not expressed some type of a hardship in

19:33:48 which this should have to happen.

19:33:52 He has plenty of land to develop responsibly and with a

19:33:57 great amount of effort, I know he is bring us a good














19:34:00 project, something that Council themselves in my

19:34:03 neighborhood can be proud of and citizens of Tampa as

19:34:09 they drive past it every day on Bayshore and our

19:34:10 visitors come and visit us.

19:34:11 Thank you.

19:34:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.

19:34:19 >> I live at 275 Bayshore.

19:34:22 I would like to preface my comments with a brief thank

19:34:24 you to the City Council.

19:34:27 All of are you running for reelection and can't chance

19:34:30 to see some of you again, thank you for the work you

19:34:31 have done for the City of Tampa.

19:34:34 I feel there has been a lot of progress since the last

19:34:36 Tampa City Council meeting in December.

19:34:40 Various residents of park side have met independently

19:34:42 and with Crescent.

19:34:45 Many E-Mails and phone calls have transpired since the

19:34:49 meeting held in my home with park side and Crescent in

19:34:50 January.

19:34:52 I believe both groups are listening to each other and

19:34:54 working toward a common goal.

19:34:57 Parkside has raised several concerns with Crescent.

19:35:01 One much the major concerns was and is traffic on Hyde

19:35:02 Park Place.

19:35:07 Park side's only garage egress point and Crescent's only














19:35:10 egress point stumble into Hyde Park Place.

19:35:14 I fear that is too much traffic for one little brick

19:35:14 road.

19:35:18 But analysis has been done and the results say the road

19:35:20 can handle it.

19:35:22 I will hasten to add someone at some point approved

19:35:26 traffic roads for Bruce B. downs and being a resident of

19:35:29 new Tampa for 12 years, I can tell you they were wrong.

19:35:32 And another concern is the location and appearance of

19:35:34 the eight-story parking structure.

19:35:36 One of the issues with the parking structure is the

19:35:40 location of the trash compactor and the traffic pattern

19:35:43 of the truck that will come to empty it again on Hyde

19:35:45 Park Place.

19:35:48 Had tried to minimize the additional load on our little

19:35:51 brick road and impact on the view from park side by

19:35:54 proposing to move to that area by the paved alley side

19:35:58 of the parking structure, but whatever reason, approval

19:36:02 from solid waste folks have not been forthcoming.

19:36:04 Trash truck services in adjacent neighborhood currently

19:36:09 use the alleyway and don't know why trash trucks can't.

19:36:12 The last concern I will address is the aesthetics of

19:36:13 this project.

19:36:15 Not everyone feels that the look of the project and

19:36:19 rental versus condo concept will fit our neighborhood.














19:36:20 From my part, I welcome diversity.

19:36:22 It makes life more interesting.

19:36:26 If you stand on the sidewalk in front of the proposed

19:36:30 project and face east, you will notice the aesthetics of

19:36:31 the current landscape.

19:36:35 The Convention Center, Harbour Island, Tampa General,

19:36:39 apparently I am not the only one that feels diversity is

19:36:40 a good thing.

19:36:43 If Crescent's project is complete with our required

19:36:48 codes and the arc, it seems to me Crescent has a right

19:36:50 to build a project of its designs on land it owns with

19:36:53 the proper structure it sees fit.

19:36:55 I moved to park side in August but I am not new to

19:36:55 Tampa.

19:36:59 I moved here in 1963.

19:37:01 Except for the 20 years of my husband's military

19:37:04 service, I always called Tampa home.

19:37:07 As a member of this community, a long-time resident of

19:37:12 Tampa, and an avid proponent of the urban lifestyle, I

19:37:16 will urge the City Council to approve Crescent's project

19:37:18 without further delay and respectfully ask City Council

19:37:21 to urge solid waste to approve trash collection from the

19:37:22 alley.

19:37:41 Thank you.

19:37:43 >> Did I say it correctly?














19:37:47 One extra minute please.

19:37:47 >> Good evening.

19:37:50 My name is Elizabeth Clifford, and I have lived in Tampa

19:37:52 for five years.

19:37:56 And I live in -- I currently live park side building on

19:37:56 Bayshore.

19:38:01 I serve on the board there and this is my third.

19:38:03 I think Parkside building is one of the prettiest

19:38:06 buildings on Bayshore Boulevard and I am proud to call

19:38:11 it my home and I think Crescent did a good job with the

19:38:11 vision.

19:38:15 I was hopeful that the property would be a further

19:38:16 extension of that vision.

19:38:19 The last City Council meeting you asked Crescent to go

19:38:22 away and address their concerns.

19:38:26 We did meet with Crescent at -- at our initiative.

19:38:29 The Parkside residents reached out to Crescent, but we

19:38:32 didn't -- they didn't -- they weren't able to meet with

19:38:36 us until January 25 which was about a week before their

19:38:40 submittal deadline for this City Council meeting.

19:38:44 At our meeting, we gave them a list of 11 concerns, but

19:38:47 I am only going to address the four most important for

19:38:50 residents of parkside.

19:38:52 I know some of these are repeating and I will be very

19:38:53 brief.














19:38:55 The parking garage.

19:38:58 This was one of biggest concerns and we asked if they

19:39:00 would be willing to distribute the parking throughout

19:39:02 the development similar to our building that we live in,

19:39:05 that we currently reside in downtown where parking will

19:39:08 be located under each building.

19:39:12 The location of the trash collection.

19:39:15 The project currently shows a single trash collection

19:39:17 point for entire project.

19:39:20 All 375 units which happen to be located almost direct

19:39:23 directly across from the main entrance to our building.

19:39:26 We asked if they would be willing to locate the trash

19:39:30 compactor so it was further away from our entrance, and

19:39:33 I believe Kathy just addressed that.

19:39:38 I know that residents would like to relocate it, but as

19:39:42 it stands it is still on the site plan, and if the PD

19:39:45 gets approved tonight, the trash collection will be --

19:39:51 is approved to be in that location.

19:39:54 We also asked if they consider individual drive-up

19:39:56 access to each building which is more in keeping with

19:39:58 the high-rises on Bayshore boulevard.

19:40:00 We also expressed our concern over the lack of

19:40:03 greenspace on the project.

19:40:06 They were required to give 33% green space which

19:40:09 includes the park and the small grassy area adjacent to














19:40:10 parkside.

19:40:13 The remaining green space will be enclosed with privacy

19:40:15 fences and inaccessible to the public.

19:40:19 And lastly, the concern over the bridge height.

19:40:23 This was the only eye them a Crescent addressed of the

19:40:28 11 we gave them apart from potentially doing the trash

19:40:29 compactor.

19:40:31 They have now reduce the of the high bridge from eight

19:40:33 stories to five and a half stories if you include the

19:40:35 height of the pitched roof over it.

19:40:38 I would still prefer -- I know that crescent is entitled

19:40:40 to put the bridge in.

19:40:44 I don't think that we can object completely to it.

19:40:49 I would actually prefer a bridge similar to the one that

19:40:52 even presented earlier, the one he actually designed,

19:40:55 the holy names bridge.

19:40:56 Okay.

19:40:59 Now on the flip side of our meeting with Crescent, I

19:41:02 want the City Council to know that I am pro development

19:41:03 nor site.

19:41:07 I have been anxiously waiting five years for this to

19:41:10 happen and understand it will generate jobs and income

19:41:12 for the City of Tampa, but as a citizen of Tampa, I urge

19:41:15 the city to really consider this particular development

19:41:19 and how to relates to the Tampa Comprehensive Plan.














19:41:21 Although the -- the developer addressed some of the

19:41:26 massing as it relates to single-family homes, I don't

19:41:32 think it is enough.

19:41:41 Okay.

19:41:44 The original PD ten years ago, City Council found it

19:41:48 appropriate that there be four-story buildings abutting

19:41:50 the residential neighborhood.

19:41:52 In other words this building right here, this is

19:41:53 parkside.

19:41:55 This building right here originally was approved at four

19:41:59 stories, and this section right here was originally

19:42:06 approved to four stories.

19:42:11 I also went and looked at the comprehensive plan, and I

19:42:14 am just going to read one item from it which addresses

19:42:17 the -- particularly the building massing because I think

19:42:20 that is another big concern of the residents.

19:42:21 And I guess I am done.

19:42:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, your time is up.

19:42:25 >> Thank you.

19:42:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.

19:42:31 >> Madam Chairman, Council, my name is Paige McKee.

19:42:34 I have been sworn in.

19:42:36 West Bay to Bay Boulevard.

19:42:38 I am with Hardin Construction Company.

19:42:39 We are a large builder.














19:42:44 We have built a lot of the prominent builds in Florida.

19:42:49 And just downtown Tampa, going back 30 years, suntrust

19:42:53 building, Marriott waterside, the Hyatt regency.

19:42:56 Most recently the plaza on harbor island.

19:42:58 Grand Central and Kennedy and the immediate area of this

19:43:05 project we built we built the 345 tower and one

19:43:06 parkside.

19:43:09 We do not have a construction contract to build this

19:43:10 project on here.

19:43:12 Just an interested citizen.

19:43:14 And I am for the project.

19:43:17 When we worked with Crescent Resources before, they

19:43:21 moved to us they are a top tier developer.

19:43:22 They do things the right way.

19:43:24 They put together a great team with architects and

19:43:27 engineers, and before they communicate very good with

19:43:30 the city and the community.

19:43:33 They were very concerned about disruptions to the public

19:43:35 and did a lot of things to keep things from happening.

19:43:39 They relocated to the park and have to improve the

19:43:40 streets.

19:43:41 They did things right.

19:43:44 And they will continue to do that.

19:43:47 We know -- all of us know that right now it is very

19:43:49 difficult to get a significant project approved, to get














19:43:50 it financed.

19:43:53 There is significant risks with that.

19:43:56 Crescent has been in this community for a long time and

19:43:58 they have maintained an office here for several years

19:44:02 and set up by Hodges so they intend to stay here.

19:44:05 I am very confident they will do it right.

19:44:06 So they are taking a risk.

19:44:09 They are showing confidence in Tampa, and right now with

19:44:12 the economy like it is, that is important.

19:44:17 This project in my opinion which provided 250 to 300 new

19:44:20 jobs over about a 12 to 14-month period.

19:44:24 Probably 25 to 30 permanent jobs, and, again, it shows a

19:44:27 lot of confidence in our city.

19:44:30 So I would encourage to you support the project.

19:44:33 Kind of clear the way to let the project move forward in

19:44:38 it -- in an efficient manner.

19:44:42 Again, thank you.

19:44:46 >> Hi, my name is Leslie Copick.

19:44:48 I am a citizen.

19:44:51 I live on West Sunset Boulevard in Sunset Park.

19:44:54 And I am here tonight because of reading about the

19:44:56 project, understanding what is going on in the project,

19:45:01 and I really echo a lot of things that the neighbors say

19:45:03 in the neighborhood and feel that no developer have the

19:45:06 right to take our air rights and use them for their














19:45:06 property.

19:45:09 I also feel like most neighbors will be impacted most.

19:45:12 Many of these people have lived in the neighborhood for

19:45:16 10, 20, 30, and some of them 40 years and have given up

19:45:18 their name to let other people speak on their behalf.

19:45:21 And I urge you to listen their concerns.

19:45:24 It sounds like most people are okay with the previous

19:45:27 PD, but it is really important that you his to the new

19:45:29 things that are coming up and the lack of interest of

19:45:30 the developer reaching out to the neighbors.

19:45:32 They all live there.

19:45:35 If you post a note on their door, mailed, they would be

19:45:36 there.

19:45:38 They seem like they have had no contact at all from the

19:45:39 developer.

19:45:42 So I urge you to -- to reject the project as it is

19:45:43 proposed.

19:45:54 Thank you.

19:45:55 >> Good evening, Council.

19:46:01 I am Corinne Dishler, 275 Bayshore Boulevard, unit 1503.

19:46:03 Vice President of the One Bayshore Master Association

19:46:06 and resident of the Parkside of One Bayshore

19:46:10 Association, the one Bayshore Master Association

19:46:12 consists of four sub associations on this site plan.

19:46:15 I point this out only to let you know that this is not a














19:46:18 neighbor versus neighbor issue.

19:46:21 Parkside is in partnership with crescent to maintain the

19:46:24 streets and the park.

19:46:26 And this relationship at this point will exist long

19:46:28 after construction is completed.

19:46:32 At the last Council meeting, I stood alone as a resident

19:46:34 in support of this project, and again I am here to

19:46:37 support this proposed development, but this time I know

19:46:39 I am not alone.

19:46:43 Last November, Councilman Scott closed the meeting with

19:46:46 the request that Crescent meet with the neighbors and

19:46:48 talk things through.

19:46:50 On January 25, the crescent team met with the neighbors

19:46:53 to the west of the project site to hear their concerns.

19:46:56 Immediately after that, the parkside committee -- the

19:46:59 parkside committee met with crescent to present a formal

19:47:01 agenda for what is considered to be the top 11 concerns

19:47:04 of parkside residents.

19:47:07 There were five members of the crescent team and five

19:47:11 members representing parkside.

19:47:14 In the hour and a half discussion, the topics included

19:47:17 explanations of what entitlements have already been

19:47:20 required and what waivers were being requested.

19:47:25 Plus concerns about building aesthetics, parking drive

19:47:29 aisles, bridge over park place, drive-up and delivery














19:47:33 access, loading zones, traffic egress and ingress, trash

19:47:38 compactor room and even grand oak tree in the park.

19:47:41 Three days later, a new site plan was presented to the

19:47:44 city with several alterations in direct response to the

19:47:47 parkside residence and neighbors' concerns and what is

19:47:49 permissible by city staff.

19:47:52 I feel the alterations were significant and crescent

19:47:57 made every feasibly possible change they could.

19:48:01 Additionally we are told their intention was to move the

19:48:04 trash compactor entrance to the south side of the

19:48:08 parking garage outside of parkside's view.

19:48:10 However, this is not the city's desire to allow this

19:48:12 access from the alley.

19:48:15 Should this petition be approved, I request Council to

19:48:19 reconsider to make the necessary -- to -- to reconsider

19:48:25 the allowance of the compactor entrance and allow cress

19:48:28 sent to make the necessary alley improvements to make it

19:48:28 possible.

19:48:33 Its current positioning is one of parkside residents'

19:48:34 main concerns.

19:48:36 From here on a matter of trust.

19:48:40 Whether or not I penalty like the design is irrelevant.

19:48:43 Crescent pledged to continue the process through the

19:48:44 process, I think they will.

19:48:48 Even through bankruptcy, they have never missed a














19:48:49 reduced payment.

19:48:52 They continue to make payment on properties generating

19:48:53 zero income for them.

19:48:56 They deserve return on their investment.

19:48:58 After years of vacancy, this project is sorely needed

19:49:01 and create jobs and should deliver substantial income to

19:49:02 the city.

19:49:05 Please deliver a favorable vote for this project and

19:49:09 please consider any future PD requests to relocate the

19:49:11 trash compactor entrance.

19:49:20 Thank you.

19:49:25 >> Hello, my name is David Slagy, 5202 Seminole.

19:49:27 I want to express my opposition to this project.

19:49:31 It sets a dangerous precedence that allows private

19:49:34 corporations to seize public right-of-ways for private

19:49:35 use.

19:49:41 A flyover at the public alley is seizure of the public

19:49:44 right-of-way and will encourage others to follow suit.

19:49:46 It will block out the sunlight and will change the wind

19:49:50 patterns that are generated in that area with some

19:49:55 unknown consequences.

19:49:57 Once this is done, it can not be undone.

19:50:01 The private citizens of company are required to follow

19:50:05 current setback laws and rules and the petitioner should

19:50:07 have to follow suit as well.














19:50:12 Thank you.

19:50:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.

19:50:22 >> Jeff Shirtlock, Bayshore.

19:50:26 I obviously have a small check in this game.

19:50:28 I am one small public voice.

19:50:30 I lived in parkside for last three years.

19:50:31 My issue.

19:50:33 Obviously the property has to be developed but my three

19:50:34 issues.

19:50:36 Density, congruous en see and aesthetics.

19:50:39 The traffic is already bad on the -- on the blocked

19:50:41 street that is already there.

19:50:41 Hyde Park Place.

19:50:46 You put another 400 units, you guys en title another 400

19:50:48 units on that property, it is going to be a mess there.

19:50:50 It is a mess now.

19:50:52 You can barely -- when there is a car parked on the

19:50:55 street, two cars can barely pass each other.

19:50:57 One car has to pull off.

19:51:01 That is what the 100 units at parkside right now and

19:51:03 already existing traffic there.

19:51:08 The -- putting another 470 units -- let me just put it

19:51:08 this way.

19:51:11 I understand that basically Crescent wants to make a

19:51:12 buck.














19:51:15 They got property, they have gone into bankruptcy and

19:51:18 renegotiated their debt and out and lean and mean and

19:51:20 they want to make money.

19:51:20 I get that.

19:51:25 The thing is they are going too hard on the project.

19:51:32 They are skipped the -- put in a cantilever, $2 million

19:51:35 building on Bayshore and decided to go with a lower

19:51:39 apartment complex because the demographics, people can

19:51:39 afford that.

19:51:42 If you guys are going to allow that -- I don't think

19:51:44 that best suited for the neighborhood.

19:51:46 Tens of millions of dollars have gone into Tampa

19:51:46 General.

19:51:49 How many tens of millions gone into Riverwalk, the

19:51:51 museums and parks.

19:51:54 Do we want square boxes in basically the best parcels

19:51:56 that is right in that area of town?

19:51:57 I say no.

19:52:03 I think that basically and another thing -- I have not

19:52:05 spoken to by Mr. Gardner or all the other affluent

19:52:08 people -- they have Hardin out there.

19:52:12 A big corporate billion dollar company overrolling not

19:52:14 only the public but you guys as well.

19:52:16 That is my feeling.

19:52:19 I feel they should go back and bring this down whether














19:52:21 100 units or 150 units.

19:52:22 No green space at all.

19:52:24 Look at the site plan.

19:52:28 I don't see anything for any parks.

19:52:32 Looks like a six-foot setback and big massive buildings

19:52:38 and 1,000 units plus their friends.

19:52:40 Where is this traffic going to fit.

19:52:43 I am curious where the city stands as far as the traffic

19:52:44 staffers on this.

19:52:45 Is anybody looking at this?

19:52:47 To me it is curious.

19:52:53 So as a resident of parkside five years and as a

19:52:55 concerned citizen, I am asking to you basically have

19:52:58 them send this back, let's, you know, talk about this

19:53:01 some more, redo this, and then come back and get this

19:53:02 where it is going to fit.

19:53:05 It is not about basically making a buck today.

19:53:06 What everybody has to consider during the next 100

19:53:09 years, what is going to be on that property.

19:53:13 So not about -- well, today, market standard says it

19:53:17 should do this, how about five years from now, 10 and

19:53:17 25.

19:53:19 We need to all make our decision.

19:53:24 Thank you for your time.

19:53:28 >> Gerald Matthew, 325 Bayshore and the gentleman who














19:53:31 went before me took a lot of the thunder away from me.

19:53:34 I guess the City of Tampa is considering giving public

19:53:37 airspace to developers, which I think is inappropriate.

19:53:41 Secondly, speaking to a couple of people that I live

19:53:46 with, we have really seen detailed plan for what is

19:53:47 going on next door to us.

19:53:50 We are pretty concerned about it.

19:53:53 I tell you what, I would love to see this thing go back

19:53:56 to where it was 12 years ago where it was public use,

19:54:00 property, with retail establishment and, you know, an

19:54:03 influx of people and keeping a historical nature.

19:54:06 Building overpasses to me whether it is happening in

19:54:07 Miami or not, it really doesn't keep the historical

19:54:11 nature of Bayshore boulevard what it should be.

19:54:13 I have been there only five years and I am from the

19:54:14 major metropolitan area.

19:54:17 I think we need to preserve what we have.

19:54:24 So thank you for your attention.

19:54:26 >> Hi, Lori Watson.

19:54:29 I am the President of the board of parkside one

19:54:31 Bayshore.

19:54:35 Back in December, we submitted to you a petition that

19:54:39 was signed by a number our residents asking for you to

19:54:42 oppose the project for a number of reasons.

19:54:46 A number of those residents are here tonight.














19:54:48 If they can raise their hand.

19:54:49 That will be great.

19:54:51 They are not getting up here to speak.

19:54:55 We did meet with Crescent, and as you heard from

19:54:59 Elizabeth and Corrine and Kathy that a number of issues

19:55:03 were addressed by us to them.

19:55:08 I have a list of items that they said that they have

19:55:09 changed.

19:55:15 One is in order for the development to better relate to

19:55:19 the neighborhood -- neighboring properties in the west.

19:55:23 From six stories to five stories on the corner facing

19:55:28 Hyde Park Place.

19:55:31 You have heard from -- who lives right adjacent to that

19:55:35 -- to the prior PD was down to four stories and she

19:55:37 would still like it to be that way.

19:55:40 There are several changes to the bridge structure over

19:55:42 Hyde Park Place.

19:55:46 The width -- width of the structure is being reduced by

19:55:49 50%, the structure will no longer contain residential

19:55:53 units but will allow for more transparent structure.

19:55:56 The structure will be reduced from five stories to two

19:55:59 stories, but you have also heard that is not entirely

19:56:00 accurate.

19:56:07 They are asking for the airspace to -- the tunnels to go

19:56:11 from 40 something feet to 21 feet or something like














19:56:15 that, and it still won't be as transparent as we would

19:56:18 like it to be.

19:56:20 And it will be a wind tunnel.

19:56:23 They said that they have added additional loading zones,

19:56:26 but I am not sure that is entirely true because -- that

19:56:28 would have to be, I guess, the fact of that

19:56:30 transportation because I don't know if that is really

19:56:31 going to happen.

19:56:35 And they also have asked -- said that they would like to

19:56:39 move the compactor location, but as the PD stands right

19:56:42 now and from what we can tell, that has not been moved

19:56:49 and so in closing, I just want to you ask them to come

19:56:57 back with a better, more responsible plan.

19:57:02 The -- Tampa planning commission has a guideline that

19:57:06 they have given for the city of -- or the little area of

19:57:07 Hyde Park.

19:57:10 And I want to you reading is real quick to you.

19:57:14 To employ the concepts and techniques of urban design

19:57:18 and planning and design of Hyde Park in order to enhance

19:57:22 physical and visual appearance of the city as an unique

19:57:26 area that will create a distinct image of the mind of

19:57:28 local citizens and visitors alike.

19:57:33 So we would like a development -- but we would like to

19:57:34 work further with the developer.

19:57:43 Thank you.














19:57:45 >>GWEN MILLER: If anyone else is going to speak, will

19:57:47 you please come up and speak.

19:57:49 >> Good evening, Council.

19:57:50 Len Hodges.

19:57:53 I have not been sworn in just yet.

19:57:55 >> Anyone else need to be sworn in?

19:57:58 Please stand and raise your hand if you need to be

19:57:59 sworn.

19:58:05 [swearing in of witnesses]

19:58:11 >> Again, my name is len.

19:58:14 I am Vice President for the Commercial development

19:58:18 office that has been here in Tampa for 14 years.

19:58:22 I was here for the December hearing, and I have even --

19:58:25 I noticed during that hearing as well as tonight

19:58:28 Crescent a sometimes referred to as an out-of-town

19:58:31 developer and quite the opposite.

19:58:35 We made a substantial -- the Company made a substantial

19:58:40 commitment in 1997 here in Tampa from a Commercial

19:58:43 standpoint, as well as a multifamily standpoint, with

19:58:47 substantial land acquisitions that were purchased at

19:58:48 that time.

19:58:51 We developed space, commercial space in the Westshore

19:58:55 sub market as well as north Tampa hidden river Corporate

19:58:58 center and crosstown center and east Hillsborough and

19:59:01 Parkway Center in South Hillsborough County.














19:59:05 I think if you look at those projects, you get a sense

19:59:09 of the fact that crescent is here on a long-term basis.

19:59:13 Our employees live here and so the two Bayshore projects

19:59:16 is an example of our continued commitment to the

19:59:17 community.

19:59:21 The quality of our product -- I think it speaks for

19:59:21 itself.

19:59:25 If you look at any of our commercial products, as well

19:59:28 as the multifamily projects that Crescent has completed

19:59:32 across town center and east Hillsborough County.

19:59:36 I think you will find that the -- the type of product --

19:59:39 the type of people that go into designs those projects

19:59:40 speaks for itself.

19:59:46 It is a -- an endearing quality that the community can

19:59:49 be proud of and I think you will find the same to be

19:59:50 true.

19:59:53 The economic benefit of the project speaks for itself.

19:59:56 It has been talked about earlier especially in these

19:59:56 times.

20:00:01 The cities are dying for these type of projects to be

20:00:03 distinguished to the local economy and I can't help but

20:00:06 think that it would fit into need.

20:00:09 In closing, I would just like to say that two Bayshore

20:00:14 in general will be another example of Crescent's

20:00:17 commitment to quality and adapting to the community.














20:00:19 Thank you very much.

20:00:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mr. Gardner.

20:00:31 >> My name is Joan king, 723 Bayshore boulevard and my

20:00:35 husband and I owned 212 Beach Place for 28 years.

20:00:39 It was a home on the Tampa city directory in 1903.

20:00:42 So it is at least 108 years old and it is surrounded by

20:00:46 Victorian and other 1920 homes, some of which have been

20:00:50 converted into rental units.

20:00:56 Each place itself is only one block long and a narrow

20:00:58 street lined with trees with a small island in the

20:01:04 center of it near the Bayshore end.

20:01:07 With the beach in front -- most of the street is only 19

20:01:11 feet, and this is curb to curb.

20:01:11 19 feet.

20:01:15 When you get down to that island, it is 13 feet, 8

20:01:19 inches, an right at the corner of that island is one of

20:01:20 the proposed buildings.

20:01:23 One of the eight-story structures.

20:01:27 Until about five years ago, there was two three-story

20:01:30 apartment building that flank Beach Place, and they had

20:01:35 a total of, I think, 72 unit with parking on-site for

20:01:37 all these tenants.

20:01:39 When the apartments were sold, these buildings were

20:01:42 demolished and they have been vacant lots ever since.

20:01:45 Today's proposal and it is important to note that there














20:01:49 are two different parcels that want to be rezoned, and

20:01:53 ought not to be combined into a single approval.

20:01:58 They want to build now over 400 apartment units and

20:02:00 single parking garage.

20:02:07 Details of these units' sizes and building accesses are

20:02:11 not specific, and because they lack any specifics in

20:02:16 these plans, a number of questions come to mind.

20:02:20 Are the tenants going to walk up the two blocks to their

20:02:23 parking garage space for every errand and every trip

20:02:25 that they make?

20:02:28 How is all this trash going to be collected from all the

20:02:29 units twice a week.

20:02:32 What are the garbage truck routes.

20:02:34 Earlier this evening it was revealed that the structure

20:02:39 that is going to be closest to vern, the corner of

20:02:43 Bayshore and Vern, the city trash department is not

20:02:45 going to allow a truck down that alley because the alley

20:02:47 is only 10 feet wide at most.

20:02:53 So where is that trash going to go?

20:02:55 And maybe more importantly to me, I haven't heard this

20:02:58 addressed, where are the moving vans going to park.

20:03:03 How are the moving advance going to access all these

20:03:04 units over this space.

20:03:07 Apartment representers are more transient than owner

20:03:12 occupants of single-family home, town houses, condos.














20:03:15 These are target University of Tampa students.

20:03:18 As renters, students are even more transient.

20:03:21 They generate even more moving van traffic.

20:03:25 And then my husband and I who are long experienced as

20:03:29 landlords, undergraduates are less meticulous in

20:03:32 maintaining their rental living areas.

20:03:36 These two parcels adjoin our old, well-preserved

20:03:39 structure and our neighbors on narrow old streets and

20:03:40 alleys.

20:03:47 They are bound on three sides by one-way access, Plant

20:03:50 Avenue, Platt street, south on Bayshore.

20:03:54 Vern is two ways, but most afternoons traffic

20:04:00 bottlenecks stack up to the Davis island bridge access.

20:04:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, ma'am.

20:04:03 Your time is up.

20:04:05 Anyone else who would like to speak?

20:04:08 Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

20:04:09 Mr. Shelby.

20:04:09 >> Yes, thank you.

20:04:13 Before Mr. Gardner makes his rebuttal, Council I just

20:04:16 want to for the record so we are clear just bringing it

20:04:19 to your attention that rule 5 c allows that City Council

20:04:22 may establish time limits for members of the public to

20:04:23 address Council.

20:04:26 Rule 6 b states that request for additional time may














20:04:28 only be granted if the participant making the request

20:04:31 establishes to the satisfaction of Council that

20:04:34 additional time is necessary to afford procedural due

20:04:35 process.

20:04:40 And lastly, and rule 6 a states that if a quasi judicial

20:04:44 public hearing is continued, speakers at the continued

20:04:47 public hearing are limited to the issue that is the

20:04:50 subject to the continuance with the petitioner allotted

20:04:52 five minutes to rebuttal and you want to bring to

20:04:55 Council's attention again as I stated on the outset,

20:04:57 these are continued public hearings.

20:05:01 Number 7, you do have a changed site plan, but to bring

20:05:03 to your attention and the attention of the public there

20:05:08 were no changes in this continuance to item number 6.

20:05:11 Therefore, those people who spoke had a previous

20:05:14 opportunity to address the items in number 6 and this

20:05:16 petition remains the same with no changes.

20:05:25 With that being said, rebuttal is appropriate.

20:05:27 >> Truth Gardner.

20:05:29 I wanted to thank you for your time and everybody for

20:05:32 their time and in support and opposition.

20:05:33 I think it is great we have this interest in this

20:05:38 project and in this city.

20:05:40 If you will give us latitude on the rebuttal.

20:05:42 We want to be thorough in addressing everybody's














20:05:44 concerns and address the high points of the zoning as

20:05:47 well as the vacating since we are dealing with the two

20:05:49 separate applications.

20:05:53 With that being said as brief and efficient as possible.

20:05:56 But I just want to run down the -- individually some of

20:05:58 the concerns that were raised and see particular help

20:06:02 solve some of -- some of the myths and some of concerns

20:06:06 there.

20:06:08 First one is the easiest one.

20:06:11 Mr. Diaz who was the first person who spoke was speaking

20:06:15 solely about this lot here which as you can see is not

20:06:19 getting a lot of attention in this development.

20:06:23 In fact Crescent has no plans at all to develop this at

20:06:24 this point.

20:06:26 If you look at the site plan it doesn't make a bit of

20:06:30 sense, 8 stories, 11 units, this is not going to happen.

20:06:32 That being said whatever does go there will be back in

20:06:39 front of you for your review, and for your consideration

20:06:42 and I have sent an E-Mail to the board members of 345

20:06:45 today telling them as we have with this project, we will

20:06:48 be more than willing to work with them on whatever

20:06:50 should go on that block realizing it is important to

20:06:51 them.

20:06:54 Secondly, Mrs. Sussman, we have tried time and time

20:06:57 again to work with her and to find a workable solution.














20:07:01 She wanted us to step back to her -- to her structure.

20:07:08 We agreed to do so, stepping back from not only 26 that

20:07:11 was originally proved from 2086 but to 6 to 5.

20:07:16 Not even including the 26 that we stepped down from, we

20:07:18 are losing 11 additional units from stepping down from

20:07:20 the 8 to 6 and the 6 to 5.

20:07:23 We felt like we were really making a strong attempt in

20:07:24 her direction there.

20:07:27 Secondly, she asked for a right turn on z street.

20:07:30 She did not want the residents of our building to go

20:07:31 down her street.

20:07:33 We agreed to that.

20:07:36 Notice on the site plan.

20:07:40 Thirdly, she did not like the structure over Hyde Park

20:07:40 Place.

20:07:43 We put the greatest amount of emphasis on that.

20:07:46 Reducing that by three stories from five to two, taking

20:07:50 all the units away from it, and reducing the width in

20:07:50 half.

20:07:52 You can speak to the architects tonight.

20:07:56 There is a myth going around on this wind tunnel effect.

20:07:59 And they can address that there is absolutely no

20:08:02 evidence out there to prove that this is true.

20:08:06 And -- but we would hope that even if this myth was true

20:08:10 that taking this down that far will help in that regard.














20:08:15 This is actually support of Mr. Phillips.

20:08:17 We appreciate his support.

20:08:20 We tried for the past eight years to work with the city

20:08:21 to redo the Marina.

20:08:22 We will continue to do that.

20:08:25 And lastly, we are happy to be part of this on the

20:08:28 revitalization of Columbus park.

20:08:32 Mr. Myers, I think a picture is worth a thousand words.

20:08:35 He showed this picture of Hyde Park Place with this

20:08:42 beautiful wide-open vista but if you were to back up 15,

20:08:48 20, give him the Ben 50 the doubt 50 feet, this is what

20:08:49 would you see.

20:08:53 A tree-lined street with the inability to see anything

20:08:55 beyond it.

20:08:59 That shouldn't handle his concern.

20:09:03 With respect to Mr. May, there is a lot of comments on

20:09:07 wanting to live back in 2001 in the PD that was approved

20:09:09 in 2001.

20:09:12 Would probably love to develop that site in 2001.

20:09:13 It didn't happen.

20:09:16 That PD is now a cartoon, and won't be developed.

20:09:19 We have come forward with what we believe is the best

20:09:21 development.

20:09:24 I won't take up any more of your time, because I want

20:09:28 ethyl and Steven to give a little bit of testimony and I














20:09:31 would like to conclude and it will take me no more than

20:09:34 one minute.

20:09:37 >> Ethyl hammer again for record.

20:09:39 I have a few points I wanted to make.

20:09:42 The first one is that a majority of this property at

20:09:45 least the focal point of this property that most people

20:09:50 made comments about is in one of your most intense and

20:09:52 dense future land use categories.

20:09:57 It is in a category called regional mixed use 100.

20:10:02 Now that category allows an F.A.R. Of 3.5 and with the

20:10:07 density bonuses because we are in the CBD periphery and

20:10:09 the development agreement executed several years ago, it

20:10:13 actually allows an F.A.R. of 5.1.

20:10:19 This project is way below what was envisioned by the

20:10:22 comprehensive plan category that was placed by City

20:10:24 Council on this property.

20:10:28 As far as the setbacks that were discussed, this is an

20:10:31 urban form development, and rightly so.

20:10:34 This is the type of development that you want in the --

20:10:36 in the regional mixed use plan category.

20:10:39 You don't want something that looks like a neighborhood.

20:10:43 What is important here is the transition to the

20:10:44 neighborhood.

20:10:46 You know this regional mixed use plan category is

20:10:50 immediately up against residential 50.














20:10:55 So the transition is important, and we believe that the

20:10:58 set down that has been provided and the lowers of the

20:11:02 number of units, they gave up 80 units over their

20:11:05 existing approval helps provide that transition, helps

20:11:08 reduce the traffic, and provides a more compatible

20:11:11 project.

20:11:13 >> If I could ask for just several more minutes.

20:11:15 We are wrapping up.

20:11:19 It will still take the architect a couple of minutes and

20:11:25 me a few minutes.

20:11:30 >>GWEN MILLER: What is the pleasure of Council?

20:11:32 >> They requested an additional three minutes for

20:11:37 rebuttal.

20:11:39 >>GWEN MILLER: So second -- hold on.

20:11:43 No second.

20:11:44 All right, three minutes.

20:11:46 >> Thank you.

20:11:53 I wanted to mention that the project again has -- it has

20:11:56 the approval of the arc.

20:12:00 For six years I served on the arc, and I can tell you

20:12:04 that they will hold the developers' feet to fire and

20:12:08 have a very high standard for what they will approve for

20:12:10 its architectural statement going forward.

20:12:15 So I can assure you that this -- that journey has just

20:12:15 begun.














20:12:19 In looking at some of things that have been said, the --

20:12:23 the bridge element was -- was portrayed wrong by the

20:12:24 individual.

20:12:27 This room is 12 to 14 feet.

20:12:29 What we were showing is double that.

20:12:32 And the bridge that we were showing Coral Gables is

20:12:37 exactly the height, and we would be five feet or more

20:12:37 wider.

20:12:41 And we feel that was a bit unfair.

20:12:45 I think the -- that maybe the -- the biggest thing that

20:12:54 I wanted to maybe remind everyone and maybe being lost a

20:12:57 bit is this is what we could have had.

20:12:57 And we talked about that.

20:13:01 And it seems -- it just seems very odd that we are

20:13:04 saying that this -- or that they are saying this would

20:13:09 have fit Tampa and Bayshore better than eight stories of

20:13:10 what we are proposing.

20:13:18 And again the eight stories is essentially taking one

20:13:24 story in addition to the base of one Hyde Park and using

20:13:27 that as the building block for three blocks.

20:13:33 I personally as an architect and a planner would rather

20:13:38 have that as how those three blocks are played out than

20:13:41 the other.

20:13:46 If we had three blocks, I certainly would rather go

20:13:49 follow something like this.














20:13:52 I would rather have three blocks of a massing that

20:13:57 resemble Paris at 6 to 10 stories than something like

20:13:58 Dallas which is what we have.

20:14:02 That is 26, 21 stories.

20:14:04 I mean, please.

20:14:20 Thank you.

20:14:24 >> One reminder whispered in my ear.

20:14:27 We are substantially increasing the amount of green

20:14:29 space an I want to conclude by saying we worked

20:14:30 extremely hard.

20:14:32 I combed through the transcript.

20:14:35 We have all combed through the transcript and one

20:14:38 gentleman who said I haven't -- unfortunately, I never

20:14:39 met the man.

20:14:43 He seemed like a nice guy, but hard to meet with

20:14:44 somebody that you never met before.

20:14:46 We have worked extremely hard to satisfy your concerns

20:14:49 that go to the neighborhood, take it to them, an come

20:14:52 back with substantial changes.

20:14:54 And if you feel we have addressed those changes, we

20:14:57 would recommend that you move this project forward

20:14:57 tonight.

20:15:00 Thank you very much for your time.

20:15:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.

20:15:04 >> Council, I would ask that before you close the public














20:15:06 hearing, you take the opportunity to answer any

20:15:10 questions of the witnesses that you may have before

20:15:11 doing so.

20:15:14 Again when you do close the public hearing, the item

20:15:18 that should be taken up first would be the vacation, and

20:15:21 that then would be followed by item 7.

20:15:24 >> Question by Councilmembers Mrs. Mulhern.

20:15:25 >> Thank you.

20:15:31 This is actually for solid waste.

20:15:31 Or transportation.

20:15:34 Actually I am not sure which one of you wants to answer

20:15:41 this about the -- several people talked about the fact

20:15:46 that they -- they had proposed -- the petitioner said

20:15:49 they proposed to put a compactor in, and that was

20:15:50 denied.

20:15:54 Where -- can you show us where that was and why -- and

20:16:02 if so -- if it was denied, why it was denied?

20:16:07 >> Solid waste.

20:16:17 This location, Hyde Park Place here and the compactor

20:16:18 location is here.

20:16:21 That has always been the -- the place that I reviewed

20:16:23 the site plan.

20:16:26 The petitioner asked if it could be on the alley,

20:16:33 service of the alley, and the width of -- the width is

20:16:35 between 9 and a half to 10 feet wide.














20:16:40 The truck itself 9 and a half feet wide and way to

20:16:43 maneuver a compactor truck in that area.

20:16:45 But as far as the -- this is the only area that was

20:16:48 reviewed for compactor, and that is really the only area

20:16:50 that the compactor could go.

20:16:55 It would have to be -- the pavement width needs to at

20:17:00 least be 20 feet wide to access a compactor.

20:17:02 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess a question for -- if you can

20:17:06 answer it, if not maybe Mr. Gardner can tell us.

20:17:10 So where -- because I am looking at -- I am trying

20:17:15 figure -- how -- of all these buildings, how many --

20:17:18 where is the garbage collection going to be?

20:17:20 Just that one spot you showed me.

20:17:36 Just one spot of garbage collections.

20:17:39 >> The site will have on-site valet service.

20:17:41 On-site person fell in delivering their refuse for one

20:17:50 centralized.

20:17:54 >> This portion and this portion and no trash will leave

20:17:55 the interior of the building.

20:17:57 >> What does that mean "valet."

20:18:04 Wheeled garbage cans?

20:18:06 >> Crescent has done this and various multifamily

20:18:11 developers, trash use, the trash gets dropped down and

20:18:15 in one common director and a centralized compactor so

20:18:17 the building manager takes the trash from the solid














20:18:21 waste, wheels it and puts it in the compactor,

20:18:27 compactor, and at regular intervals that is removed.

20:18:33 That is the solution for --

20:18:35 >> The first floor of all these buildings are all going

20:18:37 to have parking?

20:18:39 >> That is what we believe is the beauty of this.

20:18:42 Instead of having to share multiple parking garages,

20:18:45 multiple headlights, one centralized garage that is

20:18:47 tucked in the middle.

20:18:49 Garages aren't the prettiest things to look at.

20:18:52 We tucked that in the middle and placed the units in the

20:18:54 development to be able to express.

20:19:00 >> Was is the garbage chutes all going to go -- I just

20:19:03 can't picture it, but I guess --

20:19:07 >> There is a collection area within each building, and

20:19:11 the property manager takes what has been dumped through

20:19:14 the chutes, and periodically will take it to the

20:19:15 compactor.

20:19:17 >>MARY MULHERN: That is what is going to be going

20:19:20 through the tunnel, is the -- that is one of the things

20:19:25 that will be going through the tunnels.

20:19:25 >> Correct.

20:19:31 It will be going through the tunnel.

20:19:32 [Inaudible]

20:19:33 >> State your name is.














20:19:38 >> I am with MSAR architect, the way we do it is we have

20:19:40 trash rooms on each side of the parking deck.

20:19:43 The residents as they go in the afternoon and in the

20:19:47 morning to their car, they take their garbage.

20:19:50 There is a chute -- a chute system within the parking

20:19:53 deck and it all goes down to the bottom level.

20:19:56 Management then takes from that trash room and takes it

20:19:58 over to the compactor.

20:20:03 And there it is exacted and this is where -- compacted

20:20:06 and that is where solid waste picks it up.

20:20:09 If you look at the site plan two trash rooms on either

20:20:11 side the parking deck.

20:20:13 Each of the residents go to the parking deck on a

20:20:16 regular basis and take their garbage with them and throw

20:20:19 it down the trash chute at their level.

20:20:21 [Sounding Gavel]

20:20:24 >>GWEN MILLER: We are not going to have laughing -- you

20:20:26 need to go outside because -- if you don't want to hear

20:20:29 it, you can go outside.

20:20:31 >>MARY MULHERN: I am just curious about this because --

20:20:34 >> Again a solution that we have done in numerous rental

20:20:35 projects.

20:20:38 It is very typical for urban rental projects, and it is

20:20:42 fairly -- it's the norm.

20:20:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I think this seems to me the difference














20:20:47 here is the spanning of all these different buildings

20:20:49 connecting together.

20:20:52 You know it is not really typical for Bayshore if you

20:20:56 say these were all on Bayshore -- all the buildings on

20:21:00 Bayshore they each have their own -- typically if you

20:21:03 were developing an apartment complex or condo building,

20:21:08 it would have its own garbage collection and its own

20:21:09 dumpster.

20:21:13 And I see how it is a solution for you, but I don't

20:21:15 think it is -- I think it is an unusual kind of solution

20:21:19 to come to.

20:21:21 >> Mrs. Mulhern, similar to wanting to reduce the

20:21:28 number of parking garages which is not the best thing to

20:21:31 look at, the developer is trying to reduce the number of

20:21:33 compactors which is something we don't want to see and

20:21:38 full-time property management taking trash from where it

20:21:42 is chuted to this exact are, so we felt it was best to

20:21:46 -- compactor, so we felt it was west to have one

20:21:52 compactor location as opposed to multiple.

20:21:53 >>MARY MULHERN: And then one more question -- I am

20:21:57 sorry, I am getting tired and moving slow.

20:22:03 Remind me again the -- the vacation -- the original

20:22:09 vacated street was Hyde Park?

20:22:10 >> Yes.

20:22:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.














20:22:15 So you are still -- and is --

20:22:18 >> Let me clarify that for you.

20:22:20 So Hyde Park Place actually for its entirety was

20:22:25 vacated, and the vacated document states that Crescent

20:22:27 may build above 43 feet.

20:22:29 That will be from here to here.

20:22:33 We are restricting that to here, and this, the way the

20:22:37 vacating document is read, and this she can chime in on

20:22:38 this if you would like.

20:22:42 The way the vacating document is read, they are allowed

20:22:45 to build entitlements their property above Hyde Park

20:22:46 Place.

20:22:49 We are restricting it just to this area as opposed to

20:22:54 that span moving all units from there.

20:22:57 In return for that, a second walkway was approved.

20:23:00 Just the walkway, no units above, spanning Beach Place

20:23:03 which was a public street, a beautiful brick street, and

20:23:06 so the second span wept from here to here.

20:23:10 We are removing that span and are placing it in this

20:23:17 alley solely in that location here.

20:23:21 And we feel that is a better solution.

20:23:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay --

20:23:24 >> -- the view down the alley.

20:23:28 We feel it will be better served on that alley than on

20:23:29 Beach Place.














20:23:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Now I am start to remember this.

20:23:36 Now when you say that Hyde Park was vacated but then one

20:23:38 Bayshore was built.

20:23:42 So there was never going to be anything built over the

20:23:43 street, was there?

20:23:49 >> There has been -- I think somebody said tonight five

20:23:49 themes proposed.

20:23:54 So obviously it would not happen as it abut the park,

20:23:58 but anywhere along here to here, and with this being

20:24:03 built, -- to completely answer your question, anywhere

20:24:08 from here to here can be built 43 feet with the.

20:24:11 >>MARY MULHERN: What was the last PD for that -- for

20:24:15 that -- where Hyde Park Place was vacated.

20:24:19 Where was -- was there going to be an -- over a bridge?

20:24:21 >> In last substantial deviation, so we still have a

20:24:24 development agreement, still have the vacating document

20:24:27 and those two would control, but on the last version of

20:24:31 the PD, this was to be a 26-story tower.

20:24:35 This was to be an 8-story parking deck just as it is

20:24:35 today.

20:24:39 And this in the back was tucked down to four.

20:24:42 And reduced it from eight.

20:24:45 >> There wasn't a bridge over Hyde Park.

20:24:48 >> No, in the last proposal there was not but the

20:24:52 vacating document and the development would control.














20:24:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, thanks.

20:25:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?

20:25:01 Mr. Miranda.

20:25:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: A remark that flew kind of quickly

20:25:09 about the waterfront.

20:25:16 The Bayshore Marina as dilapidated as it is shall always

20:25:20 be public in my book.

20:25:24 And whether it is the President or anybody else, I don't

20:25:29 know what the line is now for availability for boats but

20:25:33 at one time it was over 200 and we never did complete

20:25:33 the Bayshore.

20:25:38 We did only one.

20:25:40 And I don't know who the developer was, but some time

20:25:45 back, there was conversation around that, and Council

20:25:48 never approved that and to my judgment never will.

20:25:52 I want you to know if you were thinking of the water.

20:25:55 Look at Key West.

20:25:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by Councilmembers?

20:26:01 Need to close the public hearing then.

20:26:02 >> I move.

20:26:03 >> Second.

20:26:05 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second.

20:26:06 All those in favor say aye.

20:26:08 Opposed nay.

20:26:10 What is the pleasure of Council.














20:26:11 >> Item 6 please.

20:26:14 >> Do it separately.

20:26:17 >>GWEN MILLER: What is the pleasure of Council on item

20:26:19 6.

20:26:22 Mr. Caetano.

20:26:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I move approval on number 6.

20:26:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Turn your mic on.

20:26:31 He has the ordinance ready for to you read.

20:26:35 Mr. Caetano, you need to read the ordinance.

20:26:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.

20:26:40 On ordinance vacating closing, discontinuing and

20:26:43 abandoning a certain right-of-way, airspace above that

20:26:47 portion of the alleyway lying south of Hyde Park Place,

20:26:50 north of Beach Place, east of Plant Avenue, and west of

20:26:56 Bayshore boulevard in revised map of Hyde Park Place, a

20:27:01 subdivision -- a subdivision in the City of Tampa,

20:27:03 Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more fully

20:27:09 described in section 2 hereof subject of the certain

20:27:11 covenants and restriction as more particularly

20:27:15 prescribed therein providing an effective state.

20:27:17 A motion and a second.

20:27:19 A question on the motion, miss Mulhern?

20:27:21 >>MARY MULHERN: I am just going to say I am not going

20:27:24 to vote for this vacation, and I wasn't here when they

20:27:30 -- none of us were, I guess, or maybe Mr. Miranda was














20:27:35 here, but when they vacated that entire length of Hyde

20:27:39 Park Place, I certainly wouldn't have voted for that.

20:27:46 I mean this is -- the architect talked about a sensitive

20:27:52 -- sensitive architectural solution, and this I think is

20:27:57 a solution for a problem that was created by design of

20:28:01 the -- of these connecting these three buildings that

20:28:04 just -- it doesn't.

20:28:09 It is not appropriate to the historic district or to

20:28:13 just basic urban form to -- to create something like

20:28:17 that with these bridges over brick streets.

20:28:20 And I -- I also think that, you know, the basic

20:28:26 principle of urban design is the grid, and the street.

20:28:28 And that is the number one thing that you need to work

20:28:33 with, especially in a historic district is to -- to

20:28:35 respect those trees.

20:28:42 So I know that there was -- I understand that there was

20:28:47 this -- that the -- the alley was -- or the street was

20:28:52 vacated, but I agree with the -- with the neighbors who

20:28:56 said that, you know, we don't need to give away the air

20:28:57 rights to that.

20:29:00 And I just look at this and I think, yes, we need to

20:29:03 develop this, and there are all kinds of solutions, and

20:29:06 the very tall towers were not going to work in this

20:29:11 market, but the reality is that you could build separate

20:29:15 buildings and combining these in a way that is going to














20:29:16 require that vacation.

20:29:19 I just -- I can't support that.

20:29:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda.

20:29:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Since my name was mentioned and I

20:29:28 believe that if I remember the date of the rezoning was

20:29:34 2006.

20:29:35 '04?

20:29:37 Mr. Miranda was in exile here.

20:29:38 I was not here.

20:29:40 That is for the record.

20:29:45 I want to clear that up real quick.

20:29:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

20:29:48 We have a motion and a second on the floor.

20:29:50 All in favor of that motion say aye.

20:29:52 Opposed nay.

20:29:55 >> Motion carried with Scott being absent at vote and

20:29:56 Mulhern voting no.

20:30:01 Second reading and adoption on March 3rd at 9:30 A.M.

20:30:06 >>GWEN MILLER: What is your pleasure on Item Number 7.

20:30:26 Mr. Caetano, are you going to read it.

20:30:26



20:25:31 >>GWEN MILLER: There will be a recess for five minutes.

20:29:54 [RECESS]

20:29:54 [ROLL CALL]

20:38:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

20:38:41 >>CURTIS STOKES: Here.

20:38:41 >>And Scott.

20:38:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number eight.

20:38:50 >> Thank you, Council.

20:38:52 Abbye Feeley, item 8 is located at 4711 North Central

20:38:59 Avenue.

20:39:00 And the request this evening is from RS-50

20:39:05 single-family to PD, planned development for a public

20:39:09 cultural facility.

20:39:10 In this case, a new library.

20:39:13 There are no waivers being requested.

20:39:14 And I will defer to Mr. Garcia.

20:39:28 >>TONY GARCIA: Good evening, members of Council.

20:39:30 Tony Garcia, Councilmember staff.

20:39:33 I know it's been a while.

20:39:35 Out of sight, out of mind.

20:39:36 But glad to be here.

20:39:37 Okay.




20:39:45 The site is located, it's the site of the old library

20:39:48 that currently exists in Seminole Heights.

20:39:50 Very quickly, the land use category is major public,

20:39:53 quasi public.

20:39:55 As you can see, the site is located right here.

20:39:59 They happen to own this piece over here, which is not

20:40:01 part of the site plan.

20:40:02 So Hillsborough High School is directly to the

20:40:04 northwest of the site.

20:40:05 It is located on central avenue.

20:40:08 Miss Feeley has already given you some general

20:40:11 description that it's really going to be for the

20:40:13 demolition and then a redevelopment of this site for a

20:40:16 much nicer library to seven the citizens in the

20:40:19 surrounding greater Seminole Heights area.

20:40:21 Planning Commission found the proposed request

20:40:23 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

20:40:27 >> Thank you, Mr. Garcia.

20:40:28 Go ahead and familiarize you with where we in the city,

20:40:40 as Tony just showed you.

20:40:42 We are at the southeast corner of Central and Osborne.

20:40:47 Everything is RS-50.




20:40:53 This is Hillsborough High School.

20:40:54 Here it is in the RS-50 schools are allowed in any

20:40:57 zoning district.

20:40:58 I-275 to the east.

20:41:01 Here's an aerial shot.

20:41:04 Here's the current library.

20:41:10 And there are elevations provided in your site plan

20:41:14 package.

20:41:15 This is looking southeast.

20:41:18 This is looking east from across Central, moving south.

20:41:23 Moving south.

20:41:25 We do have the Angus Goss Memorial Pool which is

20:41:32 city-owned property, just to the south as well.

20:41:34 And Memorial Middle to the west.

20:41:38 This is the parking lot for Hillsborough high, just to

20:41:44 the northwest of the site.

20:41:45 And then there's school property also east of the site

20:41:50 where all of the buses queue for pickup in the

20:41:54 afternoon.

20:41:54 As stated, there are no waivers being requested.

20:41:57 The applicant is proposing to rezone the 1.1-acre site.

20:42:00 Surrounded by Memorial Middle, Angus Park to the south,




20:42:05 parking, 275 south to the east and Hillsborough high to

20:42:08 the northwest.

20:42:09 Single-family residential immediately to the north

20:42:11 across Osborne.

20:42:12 The proposed development will contain 30,000 square

20:42:16 foot two story structure with surface parking as well

20:42:19 as covered parking located under the building.

20:42:21 The proposed design incorporates a ten-foot build-to

20:42:27 line on both the north at Osborne Avenue and west with

20:42:27 Central Avenue.

20:42:29 The side setback is ten feet and the rear setback is

20:42:32 15 feet on the east.

20:42:33 A total of 60 parking spaces are required and 61 spaces

20:42:38 are being provided.

20:42:39 Elevations have been provided, which illustrate

20:42:42 eclectic architectural style including craftsmen and

20:42:47 Spanish features.

20:42:48 One minor modification that would need to be handled

20:42:53 within first and second reading.

20:42:55 I have provided a revision sheet with the requested

20:42:57 revision and the revised tree table.

20:43:00 The applicant is aware of this and will make those




20:43:02 changes.

20:43:03 You can see my analysis on payables two and three.

20:43:06 We're very happy to bring this project here tonight.

20:43:09 It is in keeping with the recently approved vision for

20:43:11 the Seminole Heights form base code.

20:43:14 That Will be coming your way, to translate into the

20:43:17 LDRs to the build-to lines and staff has no

20:43:20 objection.

20:43:20 Thank you.

20:43:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

20:43:29 >> Good evening.

20:43:30 Sol J. Fleischman junior, Fleischman Garcia architect

20:43:37 and I have been sworn in.

20:43:39 We are right pleased to be involved in the Seminole

20:43:41 Heights library.

20:43:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if you have any opposition.

20:43:45 Anyone like to speak in opposition to this petition?

20:43:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anything else you want to say?

20:43:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything important you want to tell us?

20:43:57 [ Laughter ]

20:43:58 >> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

20:44:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.




20:44:03 >> Move to close.

20:44:03 >> Second.

20:44:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Have motion and second to clause.

20:44:06 All in favor of the motion say aye.

20:44:07 Opposed nay.

20:44:13 >> Madam Chair, move for first reading rezoning

20:44:17 property in the vicinity of zoning district,

20:44:22 residential single-family to PD planned development,

20:44:25 public cultural facility providing an effective date.

20:44:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second, all in favor

20:44:30 of the motion say aye.

20:44:31 Opposed nay.

20:44:33 >> Motion carried with Scott being absent at vote.

20:44:35 Second reading and adoption will be March 3rd at

20:44:37 9:30 a.m.

20:44:55 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 9, Abbye Feeley, Land

20:44:58 Development Coordination.

20:45:00 Is a request for rezoning at 2008 South Clearview

20:45:04 Avenue.

20:45:05 The request is from RO-1, residential office to PD,

20:45:09 planned development for a medical office.

20:45:19 >> Good evening, members of Council.




20:45:21 Tony Garcia Planning Commission staff.

20:45:22 Once again, I have been sworn.

20:45:24 On your comprehensive plan vision map, this site

20:45:30 located in South Tampa planning district, basically a

20:45:32 district that's stable and is a district that does

20:45:35 allow, however, opportunities for infill development.

20:45:38 The site, the subject site, to give you a little

20:45:43 context, is located just to the east of the

20:45:46 intersection of Neptune and south Dale Mabry.

20:45:49 So it's south of Henderson Boulevard, the Publix at

20:45:52 Neptune is just hop, skip, not even a jump away from

20:45:56 there.

20:45:57 Palma Ceia -- Gulf view is a neighborhood to the east.

20:46:02 The land use category here is community mixed use 53

20:46:04 along Dale Mabry, which allows general commercial and

20:46:07 neighborhood commercial uses.

20:46:09 Low office densities.

20:46:12 Residential 20, which is where the site is at, also

20:46:15 allows the potential for low intensity office uses.

20:46:22 Then of course the residential six, which is one of

20:46:24 your, your next to lowest residential land use

20:46:27 category.




20:46:27 If you look at the aerial here, you can obviously see

20:46:30 that the development is like, here's the parking lot

20:46:32 for the Publix, to the northwest of the site.

20:46:34 Of course the bank is adjacent to the subject parcel.

20:46:38 Subject parcel currently does have an existing doctor's

20:46:41 office.

20:46:42 It has been there for a certain period of time.

20:46:44 So it has become part of the fabric of this immediate

20:46:48 surrounding area.

20:46:49 The request is actually for an expansion of the

20:46:51 existing medical office that's on the site.

20:46:53 Staff found the proposed request consistent with the

20:47:01 comprehensive plan.

20:47:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The request has several waivers.

20:47:12 As Tony did say, this is an existing structure in the

20:47:15 RO-1 district.

20:47:16 They're looking to do an expansion.

20:47:18 That expansion then would have to comply with the RO-1

20:47:21 standards or it needs to rezone in order to get the

20:47:24 waivers necessary to comply with those standards.

20:47:26 So that is the position we are in tonight.

20:47:28 Those waivers are to allow reduction in the northern




20:47:32 buffer abutting property to the north, from three feet

20:47:36 to zero feet.

20:47:37 It's a waiver of 50 square fate of green space.

20:47:39 The second allows a six foot fence in lieu of the six

20:47:46 foot required masonry wall for the southern portion of

20:47:48 the eastern boundary.

20:47:50 I can show you that.

20:47:51 The third is reduce the minimum lot size for the RO-1,

20:47:55 that's one of the reasons to be the PD.

20:47:57 Ten thousand square feet to 7,500.

20:48:00 And the last is to allow maneuvering in the

20:48:03 right-of-way for the parking of the seven spaces that

20:48:05 are currently along Clearview.

20:48:08 Let me go ahead and show you where we are.

20:48:10 As Tony mentioned, we are just one block east of Dale

20:48:12 Mabry.

20:48:13 The subject property is shown here in green.

20:48:18 This is all RO-1.

20:48:21 From Neptune all the way south to San Rafael.

20:48:29 The corridor to the west is commercial zoning.

20:48:32 You can see the red line separating commercial general.

20:48:35 Here's an aerial of the property.




20:48:37 You can see Wachovia bank is here.

20:48:41 There are several dental offices, orthodontics office

20:48:44 here, dental office here.

20:48:46 This is the subject property.

20:48:47 And then adjacent parking lot.

20:48:50 There's also strip commercial that spans the entire

20:48:53 block phased from Dale Mabry to Clearview, heading

20:48:56 south of the bank property.

20:48:59 Here's a picture of the subject property.

20:49:06 Southern boundary.

20:49:15 That's the parking lot to the south.

20:49:17 Multifamily down at the south.

20:49:21 This is the dental office adjacent to the subject

20:49:25 property to the north.

20:49:26 Looking at that building from Neptune.

20:49:30 And on the west side of Clearview, this is the back of

20:49:35 the strip commercial working our way south, back up

20:49:38 north toward the Wachovia.

20:49:40 You then hit the Wachovia and the Wachovia parking.

20:49:44 And you can visually see Dale Mabry across.

20:49:48 This is a look north at the intersection of Neptune and

20:49:51 Clearview.




20:49:52 There is an existing 996 square foot building with a

20:50:03 height of 15 feet on the property.

20:50:05 And the current request is seeking to add a 500 square

20:50:07 foot addition, which is actually the enclosure of the

20:50:10 existing carport.

20:50:13 The point 172-acre site is southeast of the

20:50:18 intersection.

20:50:18 Setbacks are as follows.

20:50:20 Seven foot south, 21.1 foot north, 33.4 foot west and

20:50:24 26 foot east.

20:50:26 Required parking for the building with the addition is

20:50:29 nine spaces and a total of nine spaces are being

20:50:31 provided.

20:50:32 Including two along the south of the property, if you

20:50:34 look on your site plan, that are being accessed through

20:50:37 that parking lot.

20:50:38 I showed you a view that pretty tight -- let me talk

20:50:45 about that.

20:50:46 Because we do need to get the access agreement in

20:50:48 between first and second reading.

20:50:50 Here's the driveway into this carport.

20:50:52 Which would be closed.




20:50:55 On your site plan, you'll see two spaces that are on

20:50:57 the southern end of the property that are actually

20:51:00 oriented north-south.

20:51:03 They would access in through this driveway that is

20:51:06 currently the Wachovia parking lot.

20:51:08 And they're going to have an access agreement for those

20:51:13 spaces.

20:51:14 There are several modifications that need to be made to

20:51:17 the site plan in between first and second reading.

20:51:20 I have provided those on a revision sheet.

20:51:22 One of those is also the provision of that access

20:51:26 agreement.

20:51:30 I think other than that is predominantly minor

20:51:35 technical modifications that need to be made in order

20:51:38 to get the site plan to a place where it can be

20:51:41 approvable and meet all technical standards.

20:51:44 Staff is available for any question.

20:51:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Before the petitioner comes, has

20:51:47 everyone here been sworn in?

20:51:50 I know some of you were out in the lobby.

20:51:52 Everybody's been sworn in who is going to speak?

20:51:55 Would you please stand and raise your right hand if you




20:51:57 have not been sworn.

20:52:00 [Oath administered by Clerk]

20:52:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, petitioner.

20:52:07 >> Joe Toph on the authorized agent of the architect.

20:52:11 I have been sworn.

20:52:12 This is a little dental office that was built in the

20:52:16 early 1960s and has been an ongoing dental office

20:52:20 ever since then.

20:52:21 When the zoning changed back from the RO 2 days to the

20:52:24 RO, residential office, it became a nonconforming use

20:52:28 as you know, medical is required to either go special

20:52:31 use or rezone.

20:52:32 Because of these issues with the site, the staff

20:52:34 recommended we go with the PD plan to style these

20:52:37 things together.

20:52:38 Predominant one being that the parking is, it's on the

20:52:41 private property but it backs out into the street.

20:52:44 It uses the right-of-way.

20:52:45 Just the way the property was developed back in the

20:52:47 '60s.

20:52:48 So that was probably the main issue that we had.

20:52:50 Then as you see, there are two new spaces to meet the




20:52:55 parking requirements.

20:52:56 So they're going to access from the south parking

20:52:58 garage with the bank.

20:52:59 The bank's attorneys have not gotten the documents to

20:53:01 us yet.

20:53:02 For the agreement.

20:53:04 But they have agreed in principle to it and they're

20:53:06 just waiting to get the legal documents to us.

20:53:08 If you have any questions.

20:53:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to

20:53:12 speak on item nine?

20:53:14 >> Move to close.

20:53:15 >> Second.

20:53:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second to close.

20:53:17 All in favor of the motion say aye.

20:53:19 Opposed nay?

20:53:25 >> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

20:53:26 An ordinance being moved for second for second reading.

20:53:31 An ordinance for rezoning property in the general

20:53:41 vicinity of 1008 South Clearview Avenue in the City of

20:53:44 Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section

20:53:47 one, from zoning district classification RO-1,




20:53:49 residential office, office medical to PD planned

20:53:52 development, office medical, providing an effective

20:53:54 date.

20:53:55 >> On the revision sheet --

20:54:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?

20:54:02 >> Second.

20:54:03 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye.

20:54:04 Opposed nay.

20:54:07 >> Motion carried with Scott being absent at vote.

20:54:09 Second reading and adoption will be March 3rd at

20:54:12 9:30 a.m.

20:54:23 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley Land Development

20:54:25 Coordination.

20:54:26 The next item on your agenda is Z-11-04 located at 318

20:54:31 south Edison avenue.

20:54:32 The request before you this evening is to rezone from

20:54:35 RM-24, residential multifamily to CN, commercial

20:54:39 neighborhood, to establish storefront residential.

20:54:42 Storefront residential is when you have both a

20:54:45 commercial use and residential use in one property.

20:54:47 This is for an espresso cafe and gallery.

20:54:52 And the request is convert 356 square feet. Existing




20:54:56 front porch, covered porch, to be a walk-up espresso

20:55:03 cafe.

20:55:07 >> Good evening, Council.

20:55:09 Once again Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

20:55:12 I have been sworn in.

20:55:13 The site presently before you is located in the central

20:55:18 planning district on the revision map.

20:55:21 One of the three district that offers the greatest

20:55:24 opportunity for economic development potential and the

20:55:26 generation of job creation.

20:55:27 Site is located in the Historic Hyde Park area.

20:55:32 As you can see here, give you a little context.

20:55:36 Platt Street is just to the north.

20:55:38 Mixed use 35, which allows office, general commercial,

20:55:41 neighborhood commercial, special retail type of uses.

20:55:45 Pretty much what you have here.

20:55:46 The category this brown category right here is

20:55:48 residential 35.

20:55:49 Which allows a variety of different types of uses.

20:55:53 Does allow high density potential, 35 dwellings per

20:55:56 acre.

20:55:57 But also allows professional office use or residential




20:56:00 office use.

20:56:00 Here's Gorrie elementary right here.

20:56:06 Boulevard.

20:56:07 And here's Gorrie elementary.

20:56:08 We have the new ALF, really nice ALF that was just

20:56:13 built just north of Gorrie.

20:56:14 Parking lot over here.

20:56:15 Let me go ahead and show you the aerial.

20:56:17 This is at a pretty big scale and it's upside down.

20:56:20 There's the Lee Roy Selmon crosstown.

20:56:22 Site is on one of these little side streets.

20:56:24 The character for this area, for most of you that are

20:56:27 familiar with it, is really eat high density

20:56:30 residential or professional office.

20:56:32 This particular area, that's really what that character

20:56:34 is.

20:56:35 You have a couple institutional uses, a couple of

20:56:37 schools.

20:56:37 Then of course north of Swan, it's primarily either

20:56:41 high density residential.

20:56:43 That's a scattering of some single-family detached.

20:56:46 But it's really not the predominant use.




20:56:48 The uses are pretty eclectic.

20:56:51 But the dominate use is probably professional office.

20:56:54 What you have over here is actually a residence, one of

20:56:56 the few residences we have on these neighborhood local

20:57:00 streets.

20:57:00 But it is for a very interesting use, as Ms. Feeley has

20:57:06 spoken about.

20:57:06 It's for an espresso cafe.

20:57:09 I this I the hours, she's probably go into all the

20:57:12 specifics, but based on what's being presented, there's

20:57:15 not any adverse impact in the way of addition at

20:57:18 creation of structures that are going to impact the

20:57:20 adjacent residential uses that are there or the office

20:57:23 uses or any additional transportation impacts.

20:57:27 Which Miss Feeley will go into more detail.

20:57:31 Planning Commission found the proposed request

20:57:33 consistent with the comprehensive plan.

20:57:35 Thank you.

20:57:37 >> Tony always steals my thunder.

20:57:41 Okay.

20:57:41 As Tony mentioned -- let me go back.

20:57:47 Pretty eclectic part of the city.




20:57:51 The property is shown here in green.

20:57:53 Last month, we were here on an office building right

20:57:58 here, off of Horatio.

20:58:00 And the school board property that we did near Gorrie

20:58:06 for the parking lot is here.

20:58:07 Then we just did that school board piece here.

20:58:11 Two day cares and a preschool located in this area.

20:58:15 Not to mention several office buildings along

20:58:19 Boulevard.

20:58:20 Mr. Mechanik's office building is there on south

20:58:22 Boulevard.

20:58:22 And also the grove financial that used to be MacDill

20:58:26 federal credit union located immediately to the

20:58:30 property to the north, which spans the entire block

20:58:33 from Edison to Boulevard.

20:58:34 Here's an aerial of the site.

20:58:38 Also there are several PDs in this area for townhouse

20:58:42 style, condo style, multifamily development.

20:58:45 In this aerial you can see horizon bay was under

20:58:48 construction.

20:58:48 They currently are leasing up and have I believe 20

20:58:52 some tenants.




20:58:53 I was on the phone with them this week.

20:58:55 So that's good.

20:58:56 Here is a picture of the subject property.

20:59:00 Another one.

20:59:04 So the area we are discussing will be over in this side

20:59:09 of the property.

20:59:09 The day care immediately to the south, busy out there

20:59:16 that day.

20:59:17 Grove financial to the north.

20:59:18 Here's a look down the street.

20:59:20 There is some on-street parking.

20:59:23 And on the west side of the street, there is some

20:59:26 single-family residential.

20:59:29 That might be on the east side.

20:59:31 Some multifamily that's Edison place.

20:59:33 At Old Hyde Park.

20:59:36 The property -- there are three waivers associated with

20:59:43 this.

20:59:43 One is to allow for the existing plantings and six foot

20:59:48 wood fence along the southern property line to stay in

20:59:50 lieu of the ten foot planted buffer.

20:59:53 The second is to reduce required parking from 11 spaces




20:59:56 to two spaces.

20:59:57 The cafe is required nine spaces.

21:00:00 The house is required two.

21:00:01 So that will be a total of 11.

21:00:03 They have the two to meet the residential.

21:00:05 But they're asking to wave the nine spaces for the

21:00:09 cafe.

21:00:10 I believe the petitioner will speak.

21:00:12 They're trying to get an agreement with grove financial

21:00:14 to use some of their spaces.

21:00:16 As it is a walk-up use, only, the hours are from

21:00:19 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

21:00:22 No Saturday and Sunday.

21:00:23 It is very limited, limited use, but would serve the

21:00:28 immediate area.

21:00:29 And the last is to reduce the northern side yard

21:00:32 setback from ten foot to zero for the existing shed on

21:00:35 the property and from ten foot to nine and a half for

21:00:38 the existing main structure.

21:00:39 The last thing, photos of the existing building have

21:00:45 been provided as elevations.

21:00:47 And lastly, there is one site plan modifications.




21:00:51 When we did the waiver on the site man, we only did

21:00:54 from nine to zero for the cafe and left out the

21:00:59 residential.

21:00:59 So the waiver is really from 11 to two.

21:01:01 11 spaces, which is the nine plus the two for the

21:01:03 house.

21:01:04 And the two are existing, so the waiver is from 11 to

21:01:07 two spaces.

21:01:08 Other than that, analysis is on pages two, three and

21:01:13 four of the site plan.

21:01:14 Staff did find it consistent.

21:01:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

21:01:21 >> Hi, my name is Jessica Glover.

21:01:23 I reside at 318 South Edison Avenue.

21:01:26 I have been sworn in.

21:01:27 And yeah, it's a wonderful old, 102-year-old home.

21:01:32 We want to keep that nostalgia.

21:01:35 And authenticity of the home.

21:01:37 So there's not going to be a huge amount of

21:01:39 construction being actually very minimal construction

21:01:43 being done for this.

21:01:45 And it is a walk up to go espresso cafe.




21:01:48 So there is no seating.

21:01:49 It should be just really nice for the neighborhood.

21:01:53 There are so many businesses around.

21:01:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?

21:01:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Not to do with the zoning, but what

21:02:02 year Volkswagen vagabond was that in the driveway?

21:02:04 [LAUGHTER]

21:02:05 >>It's a '76.

21:02:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Very nice.

21:02:08 Those were the good years.

21:02:09 >> It is.

21:02:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to

21:02:12 speak?

21:02:12 Mr. Caetano?

21:02:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We recognize everything.

21:02:19 You going to have seating?

21:02:21 >> There's not going to be seating.

21:02:23 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So it's strictly a take-out.

21:02:25 >> Strictly a take out.

21:02:27 >> And there's parking in the street?

21:02:29 >> There's parking in the street.

21:02:30 Plenty during the day.




21:02:31 When the preschool next door, when the aren't Pa are

21:02:33 dropping off the children, they're there so shortly,

21:02:36 they park, drop off their kids and go.

21:02:38 There just seems to be ample parking throughout the

21:02:40 day.

21:02:41 And also the bank has coincided with us if we need to

21:02:46 get something in writing, but they do have extra spots

21:02:49 for us.

21:02:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on

21:02:52 item ten?

21:02:56 Need a motion to close.

21:02:57 >> So moved.

21:02:58 >> Second.

21:02:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second, all in favor

21:03:00 say yea.

21:03:01 Opposed nay.

21:03:04 >> Thank you.

21:03:04 >> We haven't done anything yet.

21:03:09 >> Counsel, when you do, if you motion for approval,

21:03:13 please include the modification.

21:03:15 >> In order to rezoning property in the general

21:03:17 vicinity of 318 south Edison avenue in the City of




21:03:19 Tampa, Florida, more particularly described as section

21:03:22 one from zoning district classifications RM 24

21:03:25 residential multifamily to CN, commercial neighborhood

21:03:29 storefront residential, espresso cafe gallery,

21:03:34 providing an effective date.

21:03:35 Plus the modifications for the waivers.

21:03:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second.

21:03:43 All in favor of the motion say aye.

21:03:46 >> Just for the record, there was no revision sheet on

21:03:48 that.

21:03:48 It was just -- did you want to state it for the clerk

21:03:51 or not necessary?

21:03:53 Do you know clear what it is?

21:03:55 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I had read it into the record, but it

21:03:57 was to modify the parking waiver from nine to zero, to

21:04:00 be 11 to two.

21:04:03 >> And the motion carried with Scott being absent at

21:04:05 vote.

21:04:06 Second reading and adoption will be March 3rd

21:04:08 at 9:30a.m.

21:04:16 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Council, the next item on your agenda

21:04:18 is Z-11-05, it's located at 3004 West Cypress Street.




21:04:25 The request is from RS-50, residential single-family to

21:04:29 CN, commercial neighborhood for office business

21:04:31 professional and all other CN uses.

21:04:43 >> Good evening.

21:04:44 Once again, members of Council, Tony Garcia, Planning

21:04:47 Commission staff.

21:04:48 I have been sworn.

21:04:49 This particular site is also located in the Central

21:04:55 Tampa planning district.

21:04:56 Your district of one of the three that offers the most

21:04:59 opportunity for economic development and job creation.

21:05:01 The site more specifically is located just outside of

21:05:10 the Oak Park Neighborhood Association.

21:05:15 Located east of the intersection of MacDill Avenue and

21:05:17 cypress.

21:05:18 The categories over here, this color right here, this

21:05:22 very light beige color is residential ten.

21:05:24 It is pretty much strictly for single-family detached

21:05:28 residential and some cases, maybe some town home

21:05:31 development, depending where it's located at.

21:05:33 The then the pink color, mixed use, which allows for

21:05:37 general commercial and low intensity office types of




21:05:39 uses.

21:05:40 Then the residential 20, on the south side of cypress

21:05:43 streets, which allows the potential for neighborhood

21:05:45 commercial.

21:05:46 And then low intensity, office use.

21:05:48 Which is what, which is the request before you this

21:05:51 evening, which is going to be for an office type use.

21:05:55 Then of course residential ten to the south.

21:05:57 Give you a little bit of context, let me go ahead and

21:06:01 show you the aerial.

21:06:02 As you can see, this is a light neighborhood commercial

21:06:08 node at this intersection.

21:06:08 And this is just several hundred feet to the east of

21:06:11 the intersection, you have neighborhood commercial use

21:06:13 to the south.

21:06:14 This is like a little strip, just to the north on the

21:06:17 northeast corner over here.

21:06:18 This is a letter carrier's hall just to the north of

21:06:21 the site.

21:06:22 Then right over here a little further to the east is

21:06:25 Alessi bakery to give you context to the location of

21:06:29 the site.




21:06:30 Here's the site.

21:06:30 A vacate piece of land.

21:06:32 Two large trees -- trees on the site which are going to

21:06:36 be preserved as part of the site plan requirement.

21:06:39 It is vacate.

21:06:42 Professional office use.

21:06:43 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request

21:06:45 consistent with the residential 20 category.

21:06:47 Thank you.

21:06:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development

21:06:54 Coordination.

21:06:56 As Tony mentioned, we are on cypress.

21:07:07 Gomez to the east, MacDill to the west.

21:07:09 Lemon street to the south.

21:07:09 Here's the property.

21:07:12 There is a large PD to the west.

21:07:14 There is commercial general zoning for the majority

21:07:17 across the street, which is the Tampa letter carriers.

21:07:21 There's a brand new building I'm going to show you here

21:07:24 that was a recent PD for an office building.

21:07:26 He told you about Alessi's.

21:07:35 Did not stop in and buy any cookies while I was out




21:07:38 there this week.

21:07:39 Here is the property.

21:07:39 It is vacate.

21:07:40 There is two large trees.

21:07:42 I'm going to show you those.

21:07:43 Those are being preserved, which is required.

21:07:46 Couple waivers triggered off of that.

21:07:48 There is a single-family house on both sides of the

21:07:53 subject property.

21:07:54 Here's the subject property.

21:08:01 Here are those two nice trees.

21:08:07 The property to the west.

21:08:15 I'm sorry.

21:08:15 I'm reversed.

21:08:17 There's property to the east.

21:08:19 This is the property to the west.

21:08:20 This is the large PD at the end, which is dance studio.

21:08:25 This is the Tampa letter carriers.

21:08:31 Look east toward Alessi's, commercial to the west.

21:08:36 And there is that new office building.

21:08:39 Here's another little piece of that.

21:08:41 The request before you this evening has two waivers.




21:08:50 One to reduce the required landscape buffer on the east

21:08:54 from 15 feet to the six foot masonry wall to 6.86 feet

21:08:59 with six foot PVC finances.

21:09:02 Landscape buff from 16 to ten feet with PVC fence and

21:09:08 landscape buff on the south, from six foot masonry

21:09:11 walling to PVC fence.

21:09:14 Second is reduce the main aisle width from 20 feet to

21:09:20 ten feet to save the existing oak tree.

21:09:22 That's going to be one of the revisions we're going to

21:09:27 talk about also, but you'll see here that in order to

21:09:29 provide the adequate radius around the tree, we have to

21:09:32 narrow that drive aisle.

21:09:33 The point 37-acre property is currently vacate.

21:09:39 The request is to construct a 2937 square foot office

21:09:43 building with a maximum height of 22 feet.

21:09:46 The site is surrounded by residential to the east, west

21:09:49 and south and commercial to the north across West

21:09:50 Cypress.

21:09:51 The proposed building setbacks are as follows.

21:09:55 48.3, two feet north.

21:09:57 Ten foot southeast and west.

21:10:00 Required CN setback is 20-foot north and ten foot to




21:10:03 the west south and east.

21:10:05 Required parking for the proposed use is ten spaces and

21:10:08 ten spaces are being provided.

21:10:10 Elevations proposed an eclectic architectural style.

21:10:14 There are a couple modifications that need to be made.

21:10:17 I did provide you with a revision sheet in your

21:10:19 package.

21:10:20 The first I just need that first waiver revised.

21:10:25 Also, I need the six foot PVC fence labeled on the site

21:10:30 plan.

21:10:30 Legend shows a chain link fence and revision to the

21:10:33 parking calculation also.

21:10:34 Right now it's showing only nine spaces is are

21:10:36 required, but it needs to be rounded up to ten.

21:10:39 Modification to that drive aisle to show pervious

21:10:42 pavement.

21:10:42 And then a couple transportation notes also, which

21:10:45 relate back to the spaces.

21:10:48 And that if professional office use is changed to any

21:10:51 of the other CM uses, they will go ahead and meet

21:10:55 parking requirements, since no parking waiver has been

21:10:58 requested this evening.




21:11:00 Staff is available for any questions.

21:11:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

21:11:06 >> Thank you, Madam Chair and Council, Jim Porter with

21:11:09 the law firm of Adams and Reese in Tampa.

21:11:11 We agree with the staff's recommendations.

21:11:14 We'll make the modifications that are requested.

21:11:16 The intent is to build and develop a small law office,

21:11:20 about 2900 square feet.

21:11:21 It fit in with the neighborhood.

21:11:24 The design will be at a residential style, so what will

21:11:26 fit in nicely with what's there and what's developing

21:11:29 on cypress.

21:11:30 Be happy to answer any questions.

21:11:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to

21:11:33 speak on item number 11?

21:11:36 >> Close.

21:11:37 >> Second.

21:11:38 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye.

21:11:40 Opposed nay.

21:11:46 >> I move an ordinance rezoning property in the general

21:11:49 vicinity of --

21:11:51 >> Second.




21:11:51 >> 3004 West Cypress Street in the City of Tampa,

21:11:56 Florida, more particularly described in section one,

21:11:58 from zoning district classifications, RS-50,

21:12:00 residential single-family to CN, commercial

21:12:03 neighborhood office business professional and all other

21:12:06 CN uses, providing an effective date.

21:12:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion.

21:12:09 All in favor aye.

21:12:12 >> With the required added concerns the city had with

21:12:16 between first and second reading.

21:12:17 >> Second reading and adoption will be on March 3rd at

21:12:20 9:30 a.m.

21:12:22 >> Thank you, Council.

21:12:23 >>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.

21:12:35 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The next item is Z-11-06.

21:12:39 It's located on south Trask street.

21:12:42 A number of lots on south Trask Street.

21:12:44 And the request this evening is from PD planned

21:12:47 development residential single-family detached and

21:12:49 single-family attached, to PD, planned development,

21:12:53 residential single-family detached.

21:12:55 There are no waivers being requested.




21:12:57 If I may for a moment before Tony comes up, the PD that

21:13:01 is on this property was done back in '03.

21:13:05 And it was a multi-block PD.

21:13:07 It had 85 lots.

21:13:09 Those 85 lots had either single-family attached, which

21:13:13 more visually is known to you as townhouses.

21:13:17 Or single-family detached, which is a typical

21:13:20 single-family lot.

21:13:22 In the existing PD, it set the minimum single-family

21:13:26 lot at 50 feet.

21:13:27 Which is typical of our RS-50 standard.

21:13:30 The town home lots were smaller, they were like 22 feet

21:13:35 for the town home lots.

21:13:36 They came in to us, administratively, to change some of

21:13:41 the town home lots to single-family lots.

21:13:44 And make them 42 feet to 48 feet.

21:13:47 Because the existing PD setback minimum at 50 feet,

21:13:51 that could not be approved administratively.

21:13:53 And that's what's back before you tonight.

21:13:56 So there was both single-family attached and

21:13:58 single-family detached permitted in this multi-block

21:14:01 PD.




21:14:01 It was just that the minimum lot for single-family

21:14:04 detached had to be 50 feet.

21:14:05 And what they're proposing is to combine some of those

21:14:09 15 town home lots into eight single-family lots.

21:14:12 So, that is what is before you tonight.

21:14:15 I'll let Mr. Garcia talk and then I'll come back up.

21:14:19 >>TONY GARCIA: Good evening, members of Council.

21:14:26 Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

21:14:28 I have been sworn.

21:14:29 The site is located in the South Tampa area.

21:14:32 On your vision map, the South Tampa district is a

21:14:36 district known as the district of stability.

21:14:39 So what you have as far as opportunity is really

21:14:41 opportunity for maybe some infill development.

21:14:43 Ms. Feeley will are described a certain degree with the

21:14:51 applicant is requesting.

21:14:51 This has pretty much been a -- they don't need to be on

21:14:58 me.

21:14:58 Need to be on the map.

21:14:59 Thanks, Marty.

21:15:00 Did we see this map?

21:15:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.




21:15:05 Already saw that but not up so we see it.

21:15:11 >> Thank you.

21:15:12 Enough of seeing me.

21:15:14 This is located in the South Tampa area.

21:15:18 It's just -- it's really just going to be not too far

21:15:21 north of MacDill Air Force Base.

21:15:24 So it's pretty far south.

21:15:26 It's off of Gandy.

21:15:28 What you have here is pretty much solid residential

21:15:31 character.

21:15:31 What you have also is a pretty eclectic mix of

21:15:34 residential products.

21:15:36 It's a hundred percent residential in character.

21:15:39 You can see by the planting over here, as Miss Feeley

21:15:43 already described, you have single-family attached and

21:15:45 detached uses.

21:15:46 As more clearly depicted on this aerial.

21:15:49 So you have town home development of different sizes

21:15:52 and you also have single-family detached homes.

21:15:55 So, here are the two pieces the request is for nine

21:15:59 single-family.

21:16:00 It's gone from town home, which is currently the,




21:16:03 what's allowed on the site, to single-family detached.

21:16:06 So you have single-family detached here and then town

21:16:09 home here and town home here.

21:16:10 So the interface will be residential.

21:16:13 But the interface is going to be a bit of a mixed bag.

21:16:16 On this site is pretty much solidly town home and then

21:16:19 right over here, you have, this will interface

21:16:22 single-family -- can't see it?

21:16:26 The green scrolly thing.

21:16:35 How's that?

21:16:37 Is that good?

21:16:39 >> That's better.

21:16:42 >> Okay.

21:16:43 Let's try this one more time real quick.

21:16:45 Well, it is what it is.

21:16:55 It's the current site plan we have.

21:16:56 You can come up and say whatever you like, sir.

21:16:59 It's what I have to work with but anyway, what we have

21:17:02 here though, it is, the fact are it is a residential

21:17:06 presence.

21:17:06 You do have a variety of single-family detached and

21:17:09 single-family attached unit.




21:17:11 Request is for single-family detached, which is solidly

21:17:15 what's allowed under the residential use category.

21:17:19 Clearly state on the comprehensive plan.

21:17:21 The primary uses are going to be for single-family

21:17:24 residential.

21:17:24 County commission stand finds proposed request based on

21:17:28 the request consistent with the comprehensive plan.

21:17:31 Thank you.

21:17:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, land development.

21:17:59 Just to show you the zoning atlas page.

21:18:01 You see the PD here to the north.

21:18:04 The subject PD that we're talking about also stands up

21:18:08 and around that way.

21:18:09 This is included in the 85 lots also.

21:18:13 So those 85 lots I was talking to you about under the

21:18:17 original subdivision and PD are shown there as PD.

21:18:20 Everything else surrounding is predominantly RS-50 and

21:18:26 CN when you pick up to the south.

21:18:28 Of the 81 lots, 65 lots have been built.

21:18:36 20 lots remain vacant.

21:18:39 The subject lots we are talking about, as Tony said,

21:18:42 were shown on the current PD site plan to be




21:18:44 single-family attached.

21:18:47 There's single-family attached built to the north and

21:18:50 the east.

21:18:50 Single-family detached with garages in the back that

21:18:55 load off of the alley.

21:18:57 I'm going to show you, all this is alley loaded.

21:19:00 There are no garages in front on these blocks

21:19:03 everything loads off these alleys.

21:19:05 The last five lots are not part of the application

21:19:08 tonight.

21:19:08 Those would remain as town homes under the existing PD.

21:19:12 Unless they were to make lots, as I said, of 50-foot or

21:19:15 more, then they could be considered admiral for a

21:19:20 single-family home.

21:19:22 So, the applicant is proposing to rezone 15

21:19:31 single-family lots along South Trask Street from PD to

21:19:36 PD in order to create nine single-family detached home

21:19:39 lots.

21:19:39 Property was initially rezoned in 2000 as part of a

21:19:43 larger 85-lot development for both single-family

21:19:45 detached and attached.

21:19:49 Of the 85 lots, 65 have been developed.




21:19:53 The current request is to convert 15 of the vacant lots

21:19:58 from an average 22-foot single-family attached lot to a

21:20:01 42-foot single-family detached lot.

21:20:04 The proposed lots range in size from 42 feet four

21:20:07 inches as the smallest, to 48 feet, 38 -- 48.38 feet as

21:20:13 the largest.

21:20:14 Given that the existing PD on the property had minimum

21:20:17 lot size for single-family detached as I stated of

21:20:20 50-foot, the proposed change could not be done

21:20:23 administratively.

21:20:24 The proposed lots all have rear access from an alley

21:20:28 and do not have garages on the front facade of the

21:20:31 homes.

21:20:31 The typical setbacks are as follows.

21:20:34 Five foot front and side.

21:20:35 Ten foot rear.

21:20:36 This is one foot greater than the current setbacks,

21:20:40 side yard setbacks on the 50-foot lots.

21:20:43 Right now on the existing PD, if you were a 50-foot

21:20:47 single-family lot, you had four foot side yards.

21:20:51 I'm going to show you what that looks like built,

21:20:53 because there are existing single-family homes.




21:20:56 What they're saying is they're going to go to a smaller

21:20:58 lot, but they are going to increase that side yard

21:21:01 setback so that same distance separation exists that

21:21:05 exists now on the 50-foot lots.

21:21:08 So I'll show that to you as well.

21:21:10 We have some minor modifications that need to be

21:21:14 provided.

21:21:15 Here's the subject block.

21:21:18 This is looking south from Bradley, looking south.

21:21:26 And you can see there the town homes that would

21:21:31 interface with.

21:21:32 And the single-family -- you've got the garages in the

21:21:35 back.

21:21:36 I'll show you a little bit closer.

21:21:37 This is at the south end, looking north.

21:21:40 This is across on Trask, looking west.

21:21:53 So these are the single-family garages.

21:21:55 I'm looking right here now, looking this way.

21:22:02 So this is the back of the town homes.

21:22:04 That are, that face on St. Patrick.

21:22:09 This is the back alley of those.

21:22:12 So you can see that they all have a double garage that




21:22:14 loads onto the alley.

21:22:16 And I'll give you a little bit closer perspective of

21:22:19 that.

21:22:20 This is on Trask also.

21:22:28 The northern part of south Trask.

21:22:31 These are the two sets of town homes that are already

21:22:35 built, so the single-family detached would go at the

21:22:37 end of that lot.

21:22:39 The end of that block, I'm sorry.

21:22:44 These are the single-family houses, the garages you saw

21:22:50 in the back, so these are the ones on the opposite

21:22:52 side.

21:22:53 Of where the single-family would also interface.

21:22:56 We are on this street here.

21:23:00 So these garages would back to the garages of the

21:23:03 proposed single-family lots.

21:23:05 Gives you an idea of what's built there.

21:23:09 And I am going to show you the separation between them.

21:23:12 It's a tight fit.

21:23:16 But it's got great character down there.

21:23:20 Here are a couple others.

21:23:25 As you see no, garages in the front.




21:23:27 This is looking up the alley.

21:23:32 Of the single-family side, this is looking up the alley

21:23:40 of the town home side.

21:23:55 >> Two modifications, one is that the current plan does

21:23:57 not show an maximum building height.

21:24:00 So we'd like them to add 35 feet to be consistent with

21:24:03 the RS-50 a single family district.

21:24:07 And the second is when the tree and landscape was done

21:24:09 on this subdivision, it was done on all 85 lots.

21:24:12 And it was treated through subdivision process.

21:24:17 In order to carry through what the required mitigation

21:24:19 is on these lots, we're just asking that a note be

21:24:22 added for what would be required.

21:24:24 And they would be required a total of 12 inches of

21:24:26 trees per lot.

21:24:28 That's not 12 trees.

21:24:29 That would be either three four-inch trees or two

21:24:34 six-inch trees at the time of planting.

21:24:36 If they could not be planted on the site, they could

21:24:40 have the option to plant into the tree bank.

21:24:42 With that being said, those would be the revisions.

21:24:45 Staff is available for any questions.




21:24:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

21:24:53 >> Good evening.

21:24:53 My name is Charles Otero with Otero Engineering.

21:25:01 1223 North Florida Avenue.

21:25:04 I'm the petitioner's representative.

21:25:05 And I want to say for the record that we are agreeable

21:25:07 to making the recommended changes that staff has

21:25:11 presented to you.

21:25:12 And with that, we're available for questions.

21:25:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to

21:25:16 speak on item number 12?

21:25:25 >> Yes, ma'am.

21:25:25 My name is Richard Diaz.

21:25:28 I have been sworn in.

21:25:30 I'm with Diaz, Pearson and associates, engineers and

21:25:33 land planners in Tampa.

21:25:34 1200 West Platt Street.

21:25:36 The homeowners association has retained me to represent

21:25:39 them and review this petition and present some concerns

21:25:43 to you.

21:25:43 And I am prepared this time with a speaker's waiver

21:25:48 form for three individuals, who have been willing to




21:25:52 surrender their minute so that I could extend my

21:25:55 presentation.

21:26:04 >> Charles Bucie?

21:26:06 Thank you.

21:26:06 Erika Harding?

21:26:09 And Judy Barton.

21:26:12 Three additional minutes.

21:26:13 >> Thank you very much.

21:26:15 Councilmembers, this is a petition to rezone from PD to

21:26:21 PD, as Abbye has indicated to you.

21:26:23 This was a previously rezoned master plan community.

21:26:28 It is an outstanding community.

21:26:29 The planners and developers of the community did a very

21:26:33 attractive job and a functional mix of town home units

21:26:38 in the center of the project, with surrounding

21:26:41 single-family lots and single-family residences along

21:26:45 the perimeter.

21:26:45 The single-family lots, as Abbye indicated to you,

21:26:50 reflect a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

21:26:52 On the east side.

21:26:54 The perimeter, those lots are 63 feet.

21:26:56 And they accommodate single-family residences.




21:26:59 The photographs that were shown really display a very

21:27:02 attractive project.

21:27:04 The project was originally designed for some 85 units.

21:27:09 20 are vacant.

21:27:13 The vacant unit are the town homes and they do appear

21:27:15 in the central part of the project I have a graphic

21:27:18 that will represent that.

21:27:19 This represents the petition.

21:27:49 You've seen the graphics like this.

21:27:50 Outlined in red are the six proposed lots that are in

21:27:55 the center.

21:27:56 There are currently 22-foot wide town home lots.

21:28:00 The applicant is proposing six single-family lots.

21:28:03 Unfortunately, on the east side, there are three lots

21:28:07 that are town home lots that are likewise proposed for

21:28:11 single-family.

21:28:12 The problem in the concern that the homeowners have is

21:28:16 that the addition of the new single-family lots is

21:28:21 incompatible in lot width to the existing lots that are

21:28:25 directly across the street from the west.

21:28:26 Those are 50-foot wide lots.

21:28:28 To add the internal change of the new 22-foot wide, or




21:28:36 even wider lots is not a compatible mix.

21:28:41 What we have looked at and what we have studied would

21:28:43 be an option to this arrangement.

21:28:59 Where the same property that's being rezoned can be

21:29:02 changed from, in the internal row, five single-family

21:29:07 lots and two on the east side.

21:29:09 The problem associated with the lots on the east side

21:29:13 of the Trask Street approach is, that lot on the south

21:29:18 end contains a 20-foot existing paved ingress, egress

21:29:22 easement.

21:29:22 So while Abbye indicated the lot width is represented

21:29:27 as some 48 feet.

21:29:29 The actual buildable width, because the street occupies

21:29:32 20 feet, is only a 28-foot lot.

21:29:34 Hence, the incompatibility of the proposed

21:29:38 single-family lot widths with the adjacent property.

21:29:41 The last desirable proposal that the homeowners have

21:29:49 found after this study that would be compatible is

21:29:52 shown on this plan.

21:29:55 And it represents the begs option to rezone the

21:29:58 internal row, convert that entirely to single-families,

21:30:03 those seven lots that are outlined in green would




21:30:05 mirror the 63-foot wide lots that are on the west.

21:30:09 However, if those lots were reduced to 50 feet, they

21:30:12 would be compatible with the other lots in the

21:30:15 subdivision and hence, you have a compatible blend of

21:30:19 50-foot wide lots next to 63.

21:30:21 So we think that the reduction of the town home lots in

21:30:25 exchange for the single-family lot concept is not a bad

21:30:28 concept.

21:30:29 However, narrowing the lots to the dimension that the

21:30:33 developers are proposing simply is an incompatible mix.

21:30:38 The last graphic that I have represents the challenge

21:30:42 of doing this conversion.

21:30:43 And this is the plot plan that will result in the

21:30:58 conversion of the lots.

21:31:00 Here you have a 90-foot deep platted lot.

21:31:03 Unfortunately, 12 feet of that is a paved alley.

21:31:06 So you subtract the 12 feet from the 90, you'll have to

21:31:10 subtract five feet from the front, which is an existing

21:31:14 utility easement.

21:31:16 By the petitioner's dimensions, you'll have a driveway

21:31:19 that's accessed from the alley for the single-family

21:31:21 residence, a garage and a house.




21:31:24 The reduction in the buildable lot area, because the

21:31:28 lot is so narrow, it's only 42 feet, really doesn't

21:31:32 yield an adequate size house.

21:31:34 It would have to be a two-story unit obviously.

21:31:37 But hence the concern is the creation of an

21:31:40 incompatible mix in the town home row for single-family

21:31:44 lots that are smaller than the adjacent single-families

21:31:47 across the street.

21:31:48 The residents of this community, they are active.

21:31:55 The community is a homeowners association is well

21:31:58 funded.

21:31:59 They take care of the improvements.

21:32:00 They like the community and they take a high degree of

21:32:03 interest in the community.

21:32:04 They're not opposing the conversion of town home units

21:32:08 that are vacant to single-family.

21:32:12 We are just asking the petitioner look at a little more

21:32:16 sensitive blend for compatible lots in converting

21:32:19 single-family, from town homes to single-family units.

21:32:22 Thank you for the time.

21:32:23 And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

21:32:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Miranda?




21:32:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Only question I have.

21:32:28 We are talking only solely about the west.

21:32:30 What is to the north of this property and to the east

21:32:33 and what size lots are those?

21:32:39 >> Mr. Miranda, I have the subdivision plat.

21:32:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That one there I did vote on.

21:32:44 >> 55-foot lots to the north.

21:32:45 There's 50-foot lots to the north.

21:32:48 63-foot lots on the east.

21:32:49 And 50-foot lots on the west.

21:32:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So to the east is also 50 foot lots?

21:32:56 >> 66.

21:32:57 >> What the town homes are at?

21:32:59 >> The town homes are across the street from 66-foot

21:33:03 lots.

21:33:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: May I ask you to put that graphic

21:33:07 back up?

21:33:07 I'm talking about between Trask and alley, and between

21:33:21 the southern-most part, which is, I guess not buildable

21:33:25 at any time, and Bradley.

21:33:27 What are those, what size lots are those?

21:33:31 Where the town homes are at, to the north and to the




21:33:34 east?

21:33:34 >> It's my understanding the lots on the north are --

21:33:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, not those lots.

21:33:39 Where your finger is at, down.

21:33:42 >> To the east, these are 50-foot wide --

21:33:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't have the apparatus.

21:33:47 No, not this here.

21:33:50 >> Those are town homes.

21:33:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Where the town homes are at.

21:33:54 >> These town homes --

21:33:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right there.

21:33:57 That's what I'm talking about.

21:33:58 >> These are typically 22-foot wide lots for town

21:34:02 homes.

21:34:02 In accordance with the subdivision plat.

21:34:05 The end lots are slightly wider.

21:34:07 These lots are 63 feet wide across from the alley.

21:34:13 But these can be easily made 50 feet lots because they

21:34:17 would be compatible with these.

21:34:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay, thank you.

21:34:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano?

21:34:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Those seven lots, you say they're




21:34:27 50 by what?

21:34:32 >> They're 90 feet wide, is recorded in the plat.

21:34:35 90 feet deep.

21:34:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: 50 feet wide?

21:34:39 >> Yes.

21:34:39 However, the 90 feet is encumbered by a paved alley and

21:34:44 five foot utility strip, which reduces the footprint.

21:34:48 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What's going to happen to the lots

21:34:49 to the right of that on Trask Street?

21:34:56 >> The vacant lots to the right.

21:35:00 >> Right there.

21:35:00 >> Where I'm pointing right now is an occupied five

21:35:03 unit town home.

21:35:04 The town home was built after the aerial photograph was

21:35:08 taken.

21:35:09 What is vacant is the south five lots that are town

21:35:13 home.

21:35:14 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What's going to happen to those

21:35:16 lots?

21:35:18 >> They are the subject of this petition.

21:35:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That means we could be back here

21:35:26 again on the same project?




21:35:28 >> No, sir.

21:35:28 The area covered by the petition is outlined in yellow.

21:35:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: He's including those in his

21:35:34 petition.

21:35:34 >> Yes, sir.

21:35:35 What is concerning the homeowners is the vacant town

21:35:40 home lots, which are five platted lots, which are not a

21:35:44 part of this petition.

21:35:46 If it were a part of the petition, it would make for a

21:35:49 more uniform conversion of town homes to single-family.

21:35:53 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.

21:35:53 Thank you.

21:35:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the public that

21:35:56 would like to speak?

21:35:57 Come up and speak.

21:36:04 >> Council, Madam Chairman, my name is James Barton.

21:36:08 I live at 7206 South St. Patrick's Street, Tampa,

21:36:12 Florida.

21:36:12 And I have been sworn in.

21:36:14 I am the president of the homeowners association.

21:36:16 The homeowners association took over from the builder

21:36:21 in late 2009.




21:36:23 And has been in existence a little over a year.

21:36:27 And we have built this community into a viable

21:36:31 community, we're completely solvent.

21:36:33 Only thing we have been worried about is what would

21:36:35 happen to these lots that haven't been developed.

21:36:38 We realize that if they, they could be developed eat as

21:36:42 town homes or 50-foot lots.

21:36:44 We have no problem with what is existing.

21:36:46 The problem we have is the fact that how this has all

21:36:50 taken place.

21:36:51 After living with this for self months, all of a

21:36:56 sudden, a domain home signs went up all over our

21:37:01 neighborhood.

21:37:01 Including those lots.

21:37:03 And look on the site, web site and saw a picture of our

21:37:10 street.

21:37:10 They still continue to use it in advertisements.

21:37:15 They don't use any property -- own any properties, but

21:37:19 they're using it on the advertisers.

21:37:21 I went to an address on one of their sign, and found

21:37:25 their trailer.

21:37:26 And introduced myself and asked if they could include




21:37:28 us in the planning.

21:37:30 And would they be part of our homeowners association.

21:37:34 They assured me they would.

21:37:35 Well, that was last June.

21:37:38 The first knowledge I had of this proceeding to be

21:37:44 taken place was one of the guys calling me and saying

21:37:48 some signs had come up saying there was going to be a

21:37:50 rezoning hearing.

21:37:52 I went to the sign, need some new crayons in the sign

21:37:55 department because it was completely obliterated.

21:37:59 But I found out about the thing.

21:38:00 And I went to them, they didn't come to me.

21:38:03 I went to them.

21:38:04 And asked them when they were going to talk to us about

21:38:07 this.

21:38:07 They said, oh, any time.

21:38:09 I said we have a meeting tomorrow night.

21:38:11 Why don't you come.

21:38:12 So we did finally meet with them at our invitation.

21:38:15 Our big objection, besides proposing alternatives that

21:38:19 we have never been included in this.

21:38:20 You know.




21:38:21 We are the people, this is our neighborhood.

21:38:23 We want to keep it a good neighborhood.

21:38:25 When people drive in that neighborhood for the first

21:38:27 time, they say my, I didn't know this was here.

21:38:31 We are the only neighborhood in port Tampa that I know

21:38:34 of that has underground utility.

21:38:36 We have a draining system it can rain cats and dogs and

21:38:39 five minutes later the street are clear.

21:38:41 We have no flooding.

21:38:42 We have a viable community.

21:38:44 We want to keep it that way.

21:38:46 When we asked how much these units, if they went to

21:38:49 40 feet instead of 50 feet, they said oh, they're going

21:38:52 to probably be 1500, 1800 square feet.

21:38:56 About the same time, size as our town homes.

21:38:59 And I looked the web site and one of their comparable

21:39:04 homes they're trying to push over in another

21:39:06 neighborhood.

21:39:07 And that house would probably sell for under $200,000.

21:39:12 Which is slightly under what the town homes sold for.

21:39:16 And that's what was their intention.

21:39:19 They want to be less expensive than the town homes,




21:39:21 more expensive than the single-family homes.

21:39:24 So they're trying to fit there's in between.

21:39:27 They have promised that they would make them look like

21:39:29 the houses that we have.

21:39:30 However, we have seen other things that they say are

21:39:33 accurate, numerous things within this proposal that's

21:39:36 inaccurate.

21:39:38 So, we would hike to be included.

21:39:41 That's what we're saying.

21:39:42 So, we request that you hold off approval until they

21:39:46 can work with us.

21:39:50 >> Sir, can I ask you a question?

21:39:53 Mr. Martin.

21:39:54 Do they have to be in your homeowners association?

21:39:57 >> It's a deed restricted community.

21:39:59 So, I would assume that they would have to be.

21:40:01 I have been told that they have to be.

21:40:05 The owners of the lots that are vacant will be paying

21:40:08 single-family unit dues right along.

21:40:12 So they haven't ever come to any of the meetings.

21:40:15 But they have been paying their homeowner association

21:40:17 dues.




21:40:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else like to speak?

21:40:21 Petitioner, you can come up for rebuttal.

21:40:27 >> Kevin Robles, 2107 Chestnut Drive.

21:40:35 I have been sworn in. Representing the petitioner.

21:40:37 I represent domain homes as well.

21:40:39 In response to Mr. Barton's request, yes, I did meet

21:40:44 with them in the evening hours at the Platt library.

21:40:50 At that time, I asked them to garner to me what their

21:40:54 concerns are.

21:40:54 They were also represented by Council at that --

21:40:57 counsel at that meeting.

21:40:58 Judith James.

21:41:00 Additionally on Monday, I phoned Mr. Barton prior to us

21:41:03 finalizing our meeting with Abbye Feeley to find out

21:41:06 from them if they had any other concerns.

21:41:08 And their response was that they would get back with

21:41:11 us.

21:41:12 So, I feel as good neighbor policy, I have reached out

21:41:16 to the association.

21:41:18 I wanted to make a couple of corrections.

21:41:21 There are two owners of the remaining 20 lots.

21:41:24 Five of them do not belong to the applicant.




21:41:27 They belong to somebody else and are not included in

21:41:31 this, into this rezoning.

21:41:34 As far as the product, yes, we'll belong to the

21:41:39 association.

21:41:39 We'll abide by the architectural guidelines and the

21:41:45 association guidelines.

21:41:46 We are more than willing to meet with them upon the

21:41:49 successful rezoning to single-family lots.

21:41:52 And take them through the entire process of sales,

21:41:55 marketing product and anything else they should so

21:41:58 desire.

21:41:58 Additionally, there was an incorrect statement on the

21:42:02 square footages.

21:42:03 The square footages will range between about 1500 and

21:42:10 2,000 square feet.

21:42:11 And the retail will be over $200,000.

21:42:14 They will not be under the price of the town homes.

21:42:16 So strategically placed into this very nice

21:42:25 neighborhood, town homes at the last point of the

21:42:28 market that they were being sold, at 175, up through

21:42:30 the last single-family homes that were gone probably

21:42:33 two or three years ago, sold out.




21:42:36 So, I respectfully request you grant us this petition

21:42:40 as well as I'll let the engineer answer any technical

21:42:44 questions you might have.

21:42:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from Councilmembers?

21:42:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One side said they haven't met.

21:43:01 One side says they have met.

21:43:04 I'm trying to gather all this information.

21:43:06 Somewhere along the line, telephone line didn't work

21:43:09 too well.

21:43:10 No, I'm just talking to the Councilmembers right now.

21:43:14 >> I apologize.

21:43:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No apology needed.

21:43:18 Believe me.

21:43:19 I'm trying to work this thing in my mind as to, did

21:43:23 they meet, did they not meet.

21:43:25 After it's done, we'll meet with them and explain to

21:43:28 them we'll be part of the association.

21:43:29 We have got to be part of the association, but dues

21:43:32 have been paid all along.

21:43:33 It's very confusing at this point, on this petition,

21:43:38 Madam Chair.

21:43:39 I don't know if a continuation would help.




21:43:41 I'm not trying to push it off or anything like that.

21:43:44 To one side, you got greater lots, to the east side,

21:43:48 you got, I guess townhouses that are on smaller lots.

21:43:52 So -- and then you have another transition on the other

21:43:57 side of Sparkman to 50 some foot lots, foot wide lots

21:44:01 if I recall.

21:44:02 I think the ones to the immediate west were 63, if I

21:44:06 remember the testimony.

21:44:07 So, what I'm looking for is, we want to do it right.

21:44:14 This was something we did in 2003.

21:44:18 And it's worked out very well.

21:44:22 At that time it had opposition to some degree if I

21:44:24 recall, that the traffic couldn't be, you know, the

21:44:27 streets were going to be full of traffic and you

21:44:30 couldn't come north.

21:44:31 I'm just saying what I recall.

21:44:32 And as you all see, something did work, even though

21:44:37 there was opposition at that time, if I recall again.

21:44:39 And so I'm trying to, trying to find a middle ground

21:44:46 here.

21:44:46 I don't know if I can.

21:44:55 >> I'm wondering, maybe Ms. Feeley could speak to this.




21:45:04 I mean, the single-family homes are across the street

21:45:10 are 60?

21:45:12 Yeah, they are.

21:45:13 Those are single-family homes, right?

21:45:17 To the west.

21:45:25 >> On your site plan, you have to platted width of all

21:45:29 the lots.

21:45:29 On your site plan, you'll see -- on this site plan.

21:45:40 Turn the other way.

21:45:41 You can see 63.34.

21:45:45 63.34.

21:45:47 Across the street from them, single-family in the same

21:45:50 development, 50-foot.

21:45:51 Okay?

21:45:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.

21:45:55 What is this, the alley?

21:45:57 >> 55-foot.

21:45:58 50-foot.

21:46:00 60-foot.

21:46:03 It's a mixture.

21:46:04 Under that PD, when they did it originally, they

21:46:07 didn't -- they hadn't platted yet.




21:46:09 Okay.

21:46:10 So, they set their PD at a minimum 50-foot for a

21:46:14 single-family residential.

21:46:15 So there's a mix of what you have.

21:46:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.

21:46:18 But that wasn't my question.

21:46:19 You did answer it though.

21:46:24 Well, here's what I don't understand.

21:46:26 It's just -- you know, maybe this is different in this

21:46:31 deed restricted planned development, but, those are

21:46:37 63-foot lots across the street.

21:46:41 And they're proposing to make -- some of these lots are

21:46:46 42 as a single-family home, what they're proposing.

21:46:50 42-foot lot.

21:46:51 That's the largest, the widest, right?

21:46:54 You said something like they were going to go from --

21:46:59 >> There's 48-foot lots.

21:47:00 You can see also on that site plan, the dark numbers.

21:47:04 Here are the nine lots that they're proposing.

21:47:12 This one would be 42.8 feet.

21:47:17 42.4 feet.

21:47:20 >>MARY MULHERN: So they're all about 42.




21:47:21 >> And then 48 feet down on this end.

21:47:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I misunderstood that.

21:47:27 Okay.

21:47:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Had Capin?

21:47:32 >> Thank you.

21:47:32 So the 63-foot lots are not across the street.

21:47:36 They're on the alley?

21:47:39 Correct?

21:47:39 >> 63 footers here.

21:47:41 >> That's the alley.

21:47:42 >> They're butt to butt.

21:47:44 >> Back-to-back.

21:47:45 >> Yes.

21:47:46 >> Not front to front.

21:47:47 >> Correct.

21:47:47 >> These lots are fronting 20 town houses, which are

21:47:52 20 -- how many?

21:47:54 >> 22 feet.

21:47:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN: 22 feet.

21:47:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The interface will be 42 to 22.

21:48:00 42 to 22.

21:48:01 It's a reduction in number of units.




21:48:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN: 42 to 22.

21:48:06 So they're not facing 63.

21:48:07 They're facing 22?

21:48:11 >> Correct.

21:48:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN: All right.

21:48:13 I wanted to understand that.

21:48:15 >>ABBYE FEELEY: These are the 63 footers here.

21:48:17 These would be the single-family here, with the garages

21:48:20 in back, would interface with the garages in back.

21:48:23 And then there would be three lots here, with three

21:48:26 garages in back facing the four garages of the town

21:48:29 homes here.

21:48:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Right.

21:48:31 And the last part there is owned by someone else?

21:48:37 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This here that is not in yellow for the

21:48:40 town homes yes, is owned by another property owner.

21:48:43 >>YVONNE CAPIN: But it's zoned, it's town homes?

21:48:46 Right?

21:48:47 Tell me.

21:48:50 >>ABBYE FEELEY: It's part of the original 85 lots PD,

21:48:54 allowed for both.

21:48:55 It allowed for both.




21:48:56 So if they came back with a 50-foot lot, it could

21:49:01 potentially be a single-family home.

21:49:03 Yes, that PD over all that area allowed for either/or.

21:49:09 In a number of different configurations.

21:49:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions from Councilmembers?

21:49:16 Miss Mulhern?

21:49:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask the petitioner if you'd be

21:49:21 willing to talk more with the homeowners association

21:49:26 and come to an agreement?

21:49:31 I moon, if they're going to be neighbors, you're going

21:49:34 to be in the association and you've got people who

21:49:36 don't seem to be happy with it.

21:49:39 >> Yes, at this particular juncture, there is an

21:49:42 economic reason for taking 15 lots into nine lots.

21:49:46 So the presentation from, from the opposition,

21:49:51 economically does not work.

21:49:52 I did meet with the homeowners at the library, upon

21:49:58 their request.

21:49:59 I spoke to them.

21:50:00 I asked them were there any other questions, from a

21:50:03 good neighbor standpoint.

21:50:04 Additionally on this Monday, as late as this Monday, I




21:50:08 called them on the phone and conferenced with

21:50:11 Mr. Barton and said, Mr. Barton, is there anything else

21:50:15 you guys are disturbed about that's troublesome to you?

21:50:18 Knowing that at 3:00 on Monday the engineer and

21:50:22 Mrs. Feeley were due to have a meeting.

21:50:25 So I wanted to bring any of those concerns they wanted

21:50:27 to change.

21:50:28 Now at the last moment, at this meeting, they're

21:50:31 opposing what I felt that I had really gone out and

21:50:35 extended to them all the opportunity to come bring

21:50:38 them, bring them the concerns that they had.

21:50:41 Additionally, they were somewhat confused about product

21:50:45 and that sort of thing.

21:50:46 Well, there's an order to this.

21:50:48 And if you don't have a rezoning, you really don't talk

21:50:51 about product.

21:50:51 So, absolutely.

21:50:53 If this rezoning will be -- it will be completed, we'll

21:50:57 work lock step with the HOA to present product that

21:51:01 they can approve harmonious to their neighborhoods.

21:51:05 And the other thing is, and I tried to stress to them.

21:51:09 >> Economically, the market is saturated with town




21:51:11 homes.

21:51:11 That's why, that's why there are 20 vacant town home

21:51:15 lots there right now.

21:51:18 I will tell you, that the single-family homes will

21:51:20 bring a higher market value than if they go to town

21:51:23 homes.

21:51:24 And then the only other thing was that they had some

21:51:27 concern about well, what kind of town homes would go in

21:51:30 there?

21:51:30 I don't think that the HOA really has a stake in what

21:51:34 the price of the town homes are going to be.

21:51:36 So, you know, when I said I'll be more than happy to

21:51:39 work with them, but I don't think a continuance is

21:51:42 necessarily going to change anything fundamentally when

21:51:46 I can't derive out of them what it is that they -- is

21:51:52 going to be acceptable or not acceptable.

21:51:53 There are 65 residents here.

21:51:55 And you know, Mr. One of the comment Mr. Barton made to

21:51:58 me that he was going to garner together a consensus out

21:52:03 of his homeowners.

21:52:05 I have people that work within that neighborhood.

21:52:06 I have a salesperson who sold all 65 of those houses




21:52:10 and she has gotten absolutely no resistance from the

21:52:13 residents that live in that neighborhood.

21:52:15 So, you know, I would take a continuance, but I don't

21:52:21 know what we would accomplish.

21:52:26 >> Close.

21:52:26 >> Second.

21:52:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second, close, all for the

21:52:31 motion say aye.

21:52:31 What's the pleasure of Council?

21:52:42 >> Can anyone else speak?

21:52:43 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

21:52:44 We have closed our public hearing --

21:52:48 >> An ordinance rezoning property in the general

21:52:50 vicinity of 7301-7303, 73-05, 7307, 7309, 7313, 7315,

21:53:00 7317, 7319, 7321, 7326, 7328, 7330, 7332, 7334 south

21:53:13 Trask Street in the City of Tampa, Florida, more

21:53:15 particularly described in section 1, from zoning

21:53:18 district classification, PD planned development,

21:53:21 residential single-family detached and single-family

21:53:24 attached, to PD planned development, residential

21:53:27 single-family detached, providing an effective date.

21:53:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there a second?




21:53:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll second it for discussion.

21:53:39 Let me tell you why.

21:53:40 First of all, they're back-to-back.

21:53:43 The single-family homes will face east to the

21:53:52 townhouses, which are, I guess, 20 or 22 or 24,

21:53:56 whatever, the width of each one.

21:53:58 If it was front to front, 63 versus 48 or 43, I would

21:54:06 not support it.

21:54:06 But it doesn't.

21:54:07 It faces back-to-back, not front to front.

21:54:10 And the dilemma that I was in earlier.

21:54:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions of councilmembers?

21:54:18 We have a motion on the floor.

21:54:19 All in favor of the motion say aye.

21:54:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That is what I brought out.

21:54:25 The proportion of the back-to-back, which is the 63 to

21:54:29 42, is back-to-back.

21:54:31 They are not facing each other.

21:54:33 The houses are facing 20 feet.

21:54:39 In this market, I believe that would be a very amenable

21:54:45 to the area.

21:54:45 To have new homes there.




21:54:48 So therefore, I will be supporting it.

21:54:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Commissioner Stokes?

21:54:57 >>CURTIS STOKES: I want to vote against the petition

21:54:59 and move forward.

21:54:59 I'd like to see there be some harmony in the community.

21:55:03 We can move for a continuance to allow the neighbors

21:55:05 and the developer to get together and work out any

21:55:09 kinks or issues they may have.

21:55:11 But I can't support moving forward without the

21:55:13 community being in favor of the request.

21:55:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

21:55:18 We have a motion and a second.

21:55:19 All in favor of the motion say aye.

21:55:21 Oppose nay?

21:55:23 >> Motion carried with Scott being absent at vote and

21:55:26 Stokes voting no.

21:55:27 Second reading and adoption will be on March 3rd at

21:55:31 9:30 a.m.

21:55:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 14.

21:55:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Council, item 14 on your agenda is a

21:55:48 continued public hearing from January 13th.

21:55:57 This is located at 2207 south Dale Mabry Highway.




21:56:02 This is at the intersection of Dale Mabry and Sam

21:56:07 Nicholas.

21:56:08 I do have a letter I received from the Palma Ceia west

21:56:12 neighborhood association.

21:56:13 That I'd like to provide.

21:56:16 What I'd like to do is take a moment like I did on the

21:56:30 first project this evening to show you the site plans

21:56:33 and what the changes were.

21:56:34 If you will remember, this was for restaurant with a

21:56:40 drive-in window.

21:56:41 And the main issue of contention was this full access

21:56:48 on Sam Nicholas, both in and out and what had been

21:56:56 proposed in the revised plan is a channelized drive.

21:57:00 It has been I guess pushed as far to the east as it

21:57:04 could, with a raised curb area there.

21:57:08 Also, a stop sign and a right turn only sign that would

21:57:11 be proposed to be located.

21:57:15 In addition, a six foot masonry wall is going to be

21:57:17 placed in between the two properties with a pier and

21:57:21 lintel over the tree systems.

21:57:24 So these were the revisions as well as a small storage

21:57:27 area was added next to the dumpster.




21:57:30 As you will remember, transportation was objecting to

21:57:34 the full access on Sam Nicholas.

21:57:36 They are here this evening, I believe their objection

21:57:39 still stands to that full access.

21:57:41 And access in is necessary and required for solid waste

21:57:44 in order to service the site.

21:57:47 So, solid waste has reviewed this.

21:57:49 They can maneuver in this.

21:57:51 That is fine with them.

21:57:53 If approval this evening, there would be no

21:57:57 modifications required in between first and second

21:57:59 reading.

21:58:00 Staff is available for any questions.

21:58:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

21:58:12 >> Good evening.

21:58:13 My name is Alex Dunser, representing the petitioner.

21:58:17 I have been sworn in.

21:58:20 As Ms. Feeley described, this was continued from

21:58:23 January 13th, specifically to provide the petitioner an

21:58:25 opportunity to meet with both staff and with the

21:58:28 neighborhood association.

21:58:29 And with individual neighbors to address the access




21:58:32 driveway from the site onto Sam Nicholas.

21:58:35 As you may recall, the neighbors expressed concern with

21:58:41 the full unrestricted access driveway that was

21:58:44 submitted as part of the original site plan.

21:58:46 This would have allowed customers to both enter from

21:58:50 Sam Nicholas, turning either coming east or west,

21:58:54 turning into the silent.

21:58:55 Would also have allowed customers leaving the site to

21:58:58 turn either left into the neighborhood on Sam Nicholas

21:59:02 or make a right hand turn back onto Dale Mabry.

21:59:05 The neighbors at the last meeting requested that there

21:59:11 be a restricted access only.

21:59:13 And specifically, their concern was that people should

21:59:16 not be able to take a left-hand turn out of the site

21:59:20 and into their neighborhood.

21:59:21 They were also concerned about traffic coming from

21:59:24 Church Street, which is a busy street, at the end of

21:59:27 Sam Nicholas.

21:59:28 And driving down Sam Nicholas in order to reach the

21:59:31 site and making a right hand turn into the site.

21:59:34 As Ms. Feeley described, the solid waste department

21:59:38 requires a left-hand turn into the site in order to




21:59:41 access the dumpsters.

21:59:42 They will be coming from Dale Mabry, onto Sam Nicholas

21:59:47 and then take a left into the site.

21:59:49 Petitioner requires a right hand turn out of the site

21:59:53 to allow traffic to exit back onto Dale Mabry Highway.

21:59:57 The proposal in the new site plan would prevent people

22:00:02 from making a left-hand turn out onto, onto Sam

22:00:06 Nicholas and back into the neighborhood.

22:00:07 It would also prevent people from making a right hand

22:00:10 turn if they're coming from Church Street down Sam

22:00:14 Nicholas.

22:00:15 This fully addresses the concerns that the residents

22:00:18 brought to us.

22:00:19 Since our January 13th meeting, the petitioner's

22:00:25 engineer met with both solid waste and traffic.

22:00:29 They have come up with what is the most restrictive

22:00:32 access driveway that's permissible.

22:00:35 That both allows solid waste the sufficient width to

22:00:38 enter into the site, without crossing over the exit

22:00:41 lane.

22:00:41 And still allows for the right hand turn out so the

22:00:45 traffic can get back to Dale Mabry.




22:00:47 It should be pointed out that the site plan, the

22:00:50 primary access point and the primary egress point is on

22:00:54 Dale Mabry Highway.

22:00:55 So the driveway is actually fed from the, what would be

22:01:01 the -- sorry, the east side of the property.

22:01:04 And the queue is along the northern side of the

22:01:06 building.

22:01:07 And it loops around the building and then exits people

22:01:10 back onto Dale Mabry.

22:01:11 So that is the primary point of ingress and egress.

22:01:15 However, it is important to still have the opportunity

22:01:18 to make a right hand turn out of the site, onto Sam

22:01:22 Nicholas, which is not a residential portion of Sam

22:01:24 Nicholas, and back out onto Dale Mabry.

22:01:27 As Ms. Feeley described, since our

22:01:35 January 13th meeting, we met both with the board, the

22:01:38 Palma Ceia west neighborhood association board.

22:01:41 I presented the revised plan, which shows the changes

22:01:44 that I just described.

22:01:47 And I'm pleased to say that in the letter that you have

22:01:49 in front of you, shows that the board has voted to

22:01:52 withdraw its opposition.




22:01:54 And they specifically stated in part, the developer has

22:01:58 successfully addressed the concerns, particularly the

22:02:03 traffic pattern concerns as offered, practical

22:02:05 alternatives to tissues that the neighborhood has

22:02:07 raised.

22:02:08 Mr. McNabb, the president of the association, continues

22:02:11 to say the association has no objections to the

22:02:14 rezoning application.

22:02:15 So, we have certainly made an effort to meet with

22:02:20 everyone involved.

22:02:20 I've also had the opportunity extended the invitation

22:02:23 to the neighbors individually.

22:02:25 We sent out notices to all of the affected neighbors

22:02:29 and invited them to come to our offices and view the

22:02:31 plan and two resident did in fact take us up on that

22:02:35 opportunity.

22:02:35 And we reviewed the site plan with them as well.

22:02:38 What I'd like to do is introduce both our engineer,

22:02:43 mark Sullivan and our traffic consultant, and just

22:02:46 allow them to describe to you how we arrived at the

22:02:49 current driveway revised driveway.

22:02:57 >> Good evening.




22:03:01 My name is Mark Sullivan with Florida Engineering and

22:03:04 Environmental Services.

22:03:06 I have been sworn.

22:03:06 If I can -- basically, the overall site plan, you'll

22:03:22 see the -- you'll see the angled driveway on to Sam

22:03:33 Nicholas that has come as a result of concerns by the

22:03:36 neighborhood.

22:03:36 It's important to remember that we can do everything we

22:03:39 can to discourage movements that would violate the

22:03:46 design.

22:03:47 And you can, really in three different ways.

22:03:51 You can do it with signage, which we have on the plan,

22:03:54 we have stop and right turn only sign.

22:03:56 For exiting vehicles to encourage them to go east on

22:04:01 Sam Nicholas towards Dale Mabry.

22:04:02 We have pavement markings as well with the arrows.

22:04:06 The biggest thing that you'll see different from the

22:04:10 last meeting is the concrete island.

22:04:13 The design vehicle that we're working with and coming

22:04:19 up with this design is the solid waste vehicle.

22:04:22 Solid waste has reviewed this and basically this is the

22:04:25 most restrictive design that we can use to accommodate




22:04:32 their vehicle while also discouraging the left turn

22:04:36 movement to the maximum extent possible.

22:04:40 You know, there will in fact be the potential for

22:04:45 somebody to violate that.

22:04:46 There's no denying that.

22:04:47 But, basically this is an as restrictive a design as

22:04:52 you can come up with.

22:04:55 Given the constraints.

22:04:57 Any questions.

22:05:04 >> Good evening.

22:05:05 My name is Robert Pergolizzi. I'm a traffic consultant

22:05:10 with Gulf Coast Consulting.

22:05:11 I have been sworn.

22:05:13 We were requested to do a traffic study for driveway

22:05:16 permit for access to Dale Mabry.

22:05:18 The trip generation of this particular restaurant would

22:05:20 be about 2,000 daily trips.

22:05:22 And during the evening peak hour, 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.,

22:05:26 we'd be looking at 71 additional trips to the roadways.

22:05:29 Traffic generation of this particular restaurant is

22:05:33 similar to uses that could occupy the site under the

22:05:36 current CG zoning.




22:05:38 The majority of our traffic would enter and exit onto

22:05:41 Dale Mabry.

22:05:42 We estimate about 70% of that.

22:05:43 We have a secondary low volume driveway to Sam Nicholas

22:05:46 street, which is just under two hundred feet west of

22:05:49 Dale Mabry.

22:05:50 Therefore, it is not directly abutting or across from

22:05:52 residential development.

22:05:54 Access is very important for successful businesses,

22:05:59 particularly restaurants.

22:06:00 And I did want to point out some of the benefits of

22:06:04 what we seek to do here, is the -- this is a picture of

22:06:11 Sam Nicholas street looking from Dale Mabry.

22:06:15 The current access situation involves head-in parking

22:06:18 along both Dale Mabry Highway and Sam Nicholas street,

22:06:22 with backing out of the driveways into the road.

22:06:25 In fact, if you look at this, this is the site here on

22:06:28 the southwest corner of Dale Mabry and Sam Nicholas.

22:06:31 Other than the different color pavement, you really

22:06:34 cannot tell where Sam Nicholas street ends and the

22:06:37 property begins.

22:06:38 This is an access management nightmare.




22:06:44 Some of the things that we'll be doing to make it

22:06:46 better and safer is, if you look at the site plan,

22:06:50 landscaping and sidewalks along both Sam Nicholas and

22:06:54 Dale Mabry Highway would end the controlled access,

22:06:59 would provide for a much safer operation and of course

22:07:02 something that's more aesthetically pleasing.

22:07:06 We believe with the reconfigured driveway, with the

22:07:09 signage that prohibit left turns out would be effective

22:07:13 in directing motorists back toward Dale Mabry and would

22:07:16 be an effective deterrent to drivers turning left out

22:07:20 of the site to, that would go through the neighborhood.

22:07:22 I'll be happy to answer any questions or I'll turn it

22:07:25 back to Mr. Dunser for summation.

22:07:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions?

22:07:35 >> Just show you one more illustration, which I think

22:07:38 will give you a better feel for the revised, should

22:07:50 give you a better feeling for the revised access.

22:07:53 What you're looking at here would be from the north,

22:07:57 the car that is turning in has come off of Dale Mabry.

22:08:03 Onto Sam Nicholas, is making a left-hand turn into the

22:08:06 site.

22:08:06 The car that you see in the background is making a




22:08:10 right hand turn out of the site.

22:08:11 You can also see the backside of the stop sign, the

22:08:15 right turn only sign.

22:08:17 And of course, perhaps most important, are both this

22:08:22 angle here, which our engineer Mr. Sullivan described

22:08:27 briefly, which is designed to have cars reach Sam

22:08:31 Nicholas in more of a parallel or angled to the,

22:08:35 towards Dale Mabry.

22:08:36 So that it would be more difficult for them to make an

22:08:39 illegal left-hand turn.

22:08:40 And also of course, this island here, the concrete

22:08:44 island, which is a six inch high concrete island, which

22:08:48 of course would prevent people from making a direct

22:08:50 left-hand turn.

22:08:51 One of the other items that I think is worthy of

22:08:56 mention is the proposed impact, or the impact of the

22:09:01 proposed development.

22:09:02 We touched upon this briefly in our last hearing.

22:09:06 And I think it's worth mentioning again.

22:09:10 The proposed project is of course a restaurant.

22:09:15 And it would replace the vacant Famous Tate's.

22:09:26 The site has been vacant for a little over 18 months




22:09:29 now.

22:09:29 It of course has no employees.

22:09:31 It has a marginal tax value right now and collect no

22:09:36 sales tax.

22:09:37 The proposed use would estimably employ at least 52

22:09:42 people.

22:09:42 Which would be a significant impact to the economy.

22:09:45 It would also create significant tax revenue, both in

22:09:48 terms of property taxes and sales taxes.

22:09:51 And of course, the construction of the site would also

22:09:55 create both employment as well as tax dollars.

22:09:58 I think there are some neighbors here that would like.

22:10:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to

22:10:05 speak on item 14?

22:10:16 >> Joanne McNabb.

22:10:25 Stella Calderoni and Buster Calderoni.

22:10:34 Thank you, sir.

22:10:35 And Mary Scaglione.

22:10:41 >> Good evening, Council.

22:10:44 It's been a long evening.

22:10:46 And I am grateful that you guys still have your

22:10:48 attention.




22:10:49 My name is Karen Aguero.

22:10:51 I'm a property owner residing at 3819 West Sam Nicholas

22:10:55 Street.

22:10:56 And I have been sworn in.

22:10:57 I share my concerns in allowing a change in zoning to

22:11:03 permit a drive-through restaurant on the corner of Sam

22:11:07 Nicholas and Dale Mabry with an exit on Sam Nicholas.

22:11:10 I will say that Captiva MVP has definitely made efforts

22:11:16 to accommodate our concerns, and I commend them.

22:11:19 I believe that they have agreed to change the vinyl

22:11:25 fencing to cinder block.

22:11:26 They've also addressed the concerns of writing.

22:11:29 However, I do not feel that their revised plan will

22:11:34 prevent traffic from exiting the facility and making

22:11:38 left-hand turn onto Sam Nicholas, therefore increasing

22:11:41 the amount of commercial traffic on a residential

22:11:43 street.

22:11:43 My opinion is that those people who want to go north on

22:11:51 Dale Mabry will be able to make a left onto Sam

22:11:55 Nicholas and will go through that in just one second.

22:11:59 And they won't go right and head to Dale Mabry because

22:12:02 the opposing traffic.




22:12:03 They'll go left on Sam Nicholas, go to church, make a

22:12:06 right on church, where they'll end up coming out at a

22:12:09 light eventually.

22:12:10 When we last met, we discussed adding a pork chop to

22:12:16 direct traffic.

22:12:17 When we extend outside to try to come up with a

22:12:22 resolution, I truly had hope that we could make this

22:12:25 work.

22:12:25 However, I think myself along with several others were

22:12:30 a bit confused about the pork chop.

22:12:32 The pork chop will not be like the one at CVS.

22:12:38 It won't even be like the one at the former Boston

22:12:41 market.

22:12:41 It won't be in the middle.

22:12:45 The pork chop won't even be on the plate.

22:12:48 It's all the way to the opposite side of the driveway,

22:12:52 which is 24 feet wide.

22:12:54 The average car or SUV is five to six feet wide.

22:13:02 If you're exiting the property and you're a foot away

22:13:06 from the curb, and you have an average width vehicle,

22:13:11 you still have a good 17 feet between you and the pork

22:13:16 chop.




22:13:16 I hardly think this will discourage people from making

22:13:21 a left.

22:13:21 Mr. McNabb from the neighborhood association will

22:13:27 contacted me on Monday night.

22:13:29 He let me know that a few members of the board had met

22:13:35 with MVP.

22:13:37 There were not enough board members present for a

22:13:41 quorum.

22:13:43 I also think it's interesting to note that none of the

22:13:45 board members live on the street.

22:13:49 Mr. McNabb stated that he felt that the members of the

22:13:52 association or the board members of the association

22:13:55 felt like really MVP was doing the best they could

22:13:59 within the limits the city was imposing upon them.

22:14:03 Which is true.

22:14:06 But it doesn't mean that it's still the best use for

22:14:08 the property.

22:14:09 Another item that we discussed when we last met was

22:14:15 that this project will bring 52 jobs to the area.

22:14:19 With the current economy and unemployment, we all want

22:14:24 more jobs in the area.

22:14:25 No question about that.




22:14:27 We have been reassured by many that if the zoning is

22:14:32 not approved and Captiva ends up moving to another

22:14:36 location, something even larger will probably end up in

22:14:39 this space.

22:14:39 It won't remain empty.

22:14:42 Not this prime property on Dale Mabry.

22:14:44 So I'm sure that would take care of the 52 jobs.

22:14:48 Again, please remember that the potential of the zoning

22:14:53 change will stay with us, whether PDQ does or not.

22:14:56 Their hours are quite reasonable.

22:15:00 But what if it's a 24 hour drive-through?

22:15:06 Because once the zoning is changed, it stays.

22:15:09 Just to get some perspective, because I don't do this

22:15:17 all the time.

22:15:18 Then I came out the exit.

22:15:47 And again, remember this is 12 feet wide and we are

22:15:50 talking 24 feet.

22:15:51 I had no problem making that left-hand turn and not

22:15:59 even coming close to that pork chop.

22:16:01 Now again, we can only encourage people.

22:16:06 We can't make them follow rules.

22:16:08 And we can try to deter them.




22:16:12 But I don't think that a pork chop being 24 feet away

22:16:18 is going to deter anybody from making a left-hand turn

22:16:21 onto that street.

22:16:22 So I would ask you that you vote against changing the

22:16:26 zoning to allow a drive-through restaurant with an

22:16:30 entrance and exit on Sam Nicholas.

22:16:32 Thank you.

22:16:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?

22:16:43 >> Hi, my name is Helene Miller.

22:16:45 I live 3815 Sam Nicholas Street and yes I was sworn in.

22:16:49 Thank you very much for listening to us this late.

22:16:52 I visually when I walked into this room, measured this

22:16:57 room.

22:16:58 I have a tape measure.

22:16:59 And it's 20 feet.

22:17:01 Okay.

22:17:01 They're proposing 24 feet, which is four feet beyond

22:17:05 with the pork chop on the outside.

22:17:07 Now, how does that hinder anybody from taking a left?

22:17:11 I don't know.

22:17:12 Sure, they may have little angles or whatever.

22:17:14 But if you're going to make a left, you're going to




22:17:17 make a left.

22:17:18 And anybody in this room knows you're going to avoid

22:17:20 Dale Mabry as much as possible and take the back roads.

22:17:23 The economic impact, that was another thing they

22:17:26 stressed.

22:17:27 They also said if it does not get approved with this

22:17:30 site, they will build somewhere else.

22:17:32 Those 52 jobs will still be there.

22:17:35 That tax revenue will still be there.

22:17:38 But our property taxes are what's going to hinder when

22:17:41 they do this incorrectly.

22:17:43 And we are the ones that are going to lose.

22:17:45 This city still wins request their plans to build any

22:17:50 what -- with their plans to build anyway.

22:17:53 And whatever goes into Famous Tate goes into Famous

22:17:57 Tate.

22:17:57 So it's a win-win for you guys.

22:18:00 We are the ones that lose with our property values.

22:18:02 But just look at this room.

22:18:04 It's 20 feet.

22:18:05 24 feet with pork chop, you can't make a left with your

22:18:10 car?




22:18:11 I'm sure you can.

22:18:12 Please, I'm hoping that you guys reject this and at

22:18:17 least try to get a better solution.

22:18:19 And make it one way.

22:18:21 Solid waste only needs 16 feet.

22:18:24 If this use is for solid waste, why are they making it

22:18:30 24 feet?

22:18:31 Why not just one way in for solid waste?

22:18:34 Thank you.

22:18:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?

22:18:41 Mr. Caetano?

22:18:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I wanted to ask the engineer a

22:18:44 question.

22:18:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Turn your mic on.

22:18:53 >> Yes, sir.

22:18:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is it feasible to put a no left

22:18:56 turn sign there?

22:19:00 When they're leaving?

22:19:01 >> We do have a right turn only you have a right turn

22:19:05 only.

22:19:06 But you have no left turn.

22:19:07 >> No, we don't.




22:19:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So that would subject somebody to

22:19:11 getting a traffic ticket?

22:19:15 >> I think it becomes an enforcement issue at that

22:19:17 point.

22:19:17 But a right turn only or a no left turn is, as far as

22:19:25 I'm concerned, either would be fine.

22:19:27 I'd be happy to defer to transportation if you would

22:19:30 like.

22:19:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can he answer that?

22:19:50 >> We're still here.

22:19:51 >> Don't be bashful.

22:19:53 >> Can we put a left hand -- no left-hand turn sign

22:19:56 there?

22:19:58 >> At the driveway?

22:20:00 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: At the pork chop.

22:20:01 >> Melanie Calloway, transportation.

22:20:03 They already proposing right touch only.

22:20:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: But that's not my question.

22:20:08 My question is, can you put a left hand -- no left hand

22:20:12 sign there?

22:20:13 >> Yes.

22:20:13 It's the same thing.




22:20:15 Right turn only or no left.

22:20:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Some people don't understand that.

22:20:20 They're saying here tonight that people are still going

22:20:22 to make a left-hand turn.

22:20:23 And the garage truck is only supposed to go to the

22:20:27 right.

22:20:27 He can make a left in and a right out.

22:20:29 >> No, no.

22:20:30 The solid waste vehicle, to academy is he is the site

22:20:33 needs a left in only.

22:20:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That's what I just said.

22:20:37 >> East not coming out of that driveway.

22:20:40 He's going into that site through that driveway, and

22:20:43 he'll be exiting on Dale Mabry.

22:20:45 He's not using this drive to exit.

22:20:48 This drive is only exited for the customers.

22:20:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.

22:20:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?

22:21:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: A pork chop right now sounds awfully

22:21:04 appetizing.

22:21:04 I think he's going to cook for us.

22:21:07 How about a Popsicle?




22:21:08 The Home Depot on Spruce, the road is no wider than

22:21:14 this.

22:21:15 And we certainly done something, I don't know if the

22:21:18 petitioner was willing to pay for that, because I know

22:21:20 it costs about ten grand to do it.

22:21:22 But we did it with those Popsicles and they cannot make

22:21:26 a left.

22:21:27 It is impossible to make a left unless you want to go

22:21:29 over them.

22:21:30 They're about two and a half foot tall.

22:21:33 And somebody did, because we had a repair them about

22:21:36 two weeks ago, we had to replace about 10 or 15 of

22:21:39 them.

22:21:40 But they also did some damage to whatever vehicle did

22:21:42 it.

22:21:43 >> Yes.

22:21:44 I'm completely aware of what you're speaking of over

22:21:46 there.

22:21:47 I this I the one issue here that is different is that

22:21:50 to service that place, that's one driveway off of

22:21:54 Spruce where the Home Depot is, or used to be, there's

22:21:59 also the other entrance, which is also a signalized




22:22:01 entrance, where the Dale Mabry intersects on the

22:22:05 opposite side is Walmart.

22:22:09 DOT has that intersection.

22:22:11 I believe solid waste uses that driveway to enter and

22:22:14 exit off the, into the complex.

22:22:17 And they don't use Spruce.

22:22:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm going to give you some Cuban

22:22:23 engineering.

22:22:24 If that driveway is tailored to go to the east, right?

22:22:29 To Dale Mabry.

22:22:30 And at the point of the pork chop back, in the center

22:22:35 line, you put down those Popsicles.

22:22:37 They can't make a left.

22:22:38 I call them Popsicles.

22:22:43 They look like a Popsicles.

22:22:46 >> We have a real big technical term for that.

22:22:50 They're called ducks.

22:22:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What?

22:22:52 >> Ducks.

22:22:53 They're called ducks.

22:22:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think they should call them

22:22:57 Popsicles.




22:22:59 >> I was like I really don't want to call him what they

22:23:02 are called.

22:23:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm trying to resolve a problem so I

22:23:07 can balance it out and come to a conclusion.

22:23:10 Right to your left, not there, because the truck won't

22:23:14 be able to come in.

22:23:15 Right about there.

22:23:16 Popsicles start.

22:23:18 >> Ducks.

22:23:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right. >>There's a couple things

22:23:27 about the vertical reflective material.

22:23:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Popsicles. >>As you know, we have

22:23:35 some installed, if you go on Kennedy right there by

22:23:38 Crosstown, we have some installed.

22:23:40 That DOT actually did them.

22:23:42 They were being hit all the time.

22:23:44 They looked a lot like the ones on Spruce.

22:23:47 They were being hit all the time because they are very

22:23:50 flexible.

22:23:50 They don't a lot of damage.

22:23:52 What DOT did, they put in a raised curb and then put

22:23:55 more substantial ducks.




22:23:57 You want to call them.

22:23:58 In that area.

22:23:59 And they're not being hit as often because the there

22:24:02 was that raised curb.

22:24:03 Now, a bit of my concern would be, is that, one, it

22:24:09 becomes a maintenance issue for public works and city.

22:24:13 The city would have to maintain these every time

22:24:15 they're being hit.

22:24:18 I hesitate because I don't, for a developer who is

22:24:24 wanting this, I'm not sure if truly the city that

22:24:28 should be paying to maintain these due to the need of a

22:24:34 developer.

22:24:34 I don't know if legal would allow this, but you can't

22:24:42 have it on the plan.

22:24:42 The developer would have to maintain them and they take

22:24:45 the liability of those type of things.

22:24:47 And that would have to be, see if that's available.

22:24:50 But that's my concern, should the city be maintaining

22:24:54 this due to a developer design?

22:24:58 That's my concern.

22:24:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I remember someone on City Council

22:25:03 Swann, just north on -- on south Boulevard, where the




22:25:10 developer wanted to rezone something.

22:25:12 They said not only will we approve it, if you put and

22:25:16 maintain and built the improvements to the roadway in

22:25:18 the center, you remember that?

22:25:20 Or you forgot?

22:25:22 The land now is owned by the school board.

22:25:28 But it wasn't owned by the school board before.

22:25:31 It's just east of Wilson junior, or middle school.

22:25:34 >> Right.

22:25:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Do you remember that one?

22:25:37 >> Yes.

22:25:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm bringing you back to reality.

22:25:40 >> I remember.

22:25:41 If you remember, I did object to that because I do know

22:25:44 that site.

22:25:45 Because I did not think again the city --

22:25:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What happens if you make these ducks

22:25:52 that eat Popsicles out of iron.

22:25:57 >> By code today, solid waste needs a left -- and can

22:26:00 get it today --

22:26:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not trying to be humorous.

22:26:05 In my mind, is it a good project? Yes.




22:26:08 Does it have problems?

22:26:09 Yes.

22:26:09 I think that the drive is really -- 24-foot is 24-foot.

22:26:14 I don't know what the radius of the truck needs for the

22:26:17 ingress in there to pick up the garbage.

22:26:19 >> They need actually 18-foot ingress only, a large

22:26:24 turn in only, 18 feet wide.

22:26:26 They don't need a right out.

22:26:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm just trying to come up with

22:26:34 something.

22:26:34 18-foot, you got the duck.

22:26:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Why can't you just cut it down to

22:26:39 18-foot?

22:26:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's what I'm asking.

22:26:43 >> For left in only?

22:26:44 Yes, they can do that today.

22:26:47 It's the petitioner that would wishes to have a right

22:26:51 out movement, but we're saying, right now, they have a

22:26:57 left in for the solid waste truck.

22:27:00 It's the petitioner wanting the right out.

22:27:03 That's not the city requesting that.

22:27:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It could be done, can it not be




22:27:08 reduced from 24 to 18?

22:27:11 >> For a left in only.

22:27:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right, left in only.

22:27:15 >> That's correct.

22:27:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It would be much more difficult to

22:27:17 make the left-hand turn.

22:27:19 >> For left in only.

22:27:21 Driveway.

22:27:22 Would you have no right turn out of that driveway.

22:27:24 The reason why -- I'll show you.

22:27:28 The reason why the solid waste truck does not want to

22:27:32 narrow this drive throat, call this a throat -- because

22:27:37 his, does not want to impede on the opposite side of

22:27:41 traffic to get into this, if it's narrowed, you'll be

22:27:45 going to the opposite flow of traffic to get to the

22:27:49 site.

22:27:50 You may want to speak with Mr. Rado.

22:28:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano? >>Mr. Miranda, I got a

22:28:06 solution.

22:28:06 Mr. Engineer, we got to get rid of the right turn only

22:28:10 sign and put a sign there that says no left turn.

22:28:14 That's all you need.




22:28:15 >> You got it.

22:28:17 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That's the salvation.

22:28:18 You don't need two signs.

22:28:20 Put one sign up between now and the second reading, we

22:28:23 got to make that change.

22:28:25 >> I'm checking off right turn only and make it no left

22:28:28 turn.

22:28:29 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Take the right turn sign out.

22:28:31 So if you have no left turn sign, they know they only

22:28:33 got to make a right turn to get out.

22:28:37 >> That's fine.

22:28:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Simple.

22:28:41 You're an engineer and I'm not, right?

22:28:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern?

22:28:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

22:28:46 Here's what I don't understand solid waste -- solid

22:28:51 waste, how often do they pick up?

22:28:53 From commercial?

22:28:54 Like twice a week?

22:29:02 >> It all depends.

22:29:08 We have one, one refuse dumpster and one recycling

22:29:13 dumpster.




22:29:15 So one dumpster could be picked up six times a week.

22:29:19 It depends.

22:29:20 Four or five.

22:29:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, so four or five.

22:29:24 You don't think you, they could make that one left turn

22:29:28 into a little narrower, like an 18 foot driveway?

22:29:32 >> No, it's a safety hazard.

22:29:34 Crossing opposite lanes of traffic.

22:29:38 >>MARY MULHERN: So I think what Ms. Calloway was

22:29:41 saying, then the only other option that, that would

22:29:44 just be an entrance, not an exit?

22:29:49 >> Right.

22:29:49 To reduce down to the 18 foot, you would need just a

22:29:54 left in only, no right out.

22:29:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Is that what the neighborhood wants?

22:30:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Capin?

22:30:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

22:30:08 It's the petitioner who want a right turn on, out from,

22:30:13 to Sam Nicholas.

22:30:15 Isn't there an exit on Dale Mabry?

22:30:18 >> There is the primary entrance and exit on Dale

22:30:20 Mabry.




22:30:22 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So 24 feet because of that right turn,

22:30:26 so that's, so that the truck can get in, come into the

22:30:31 property.

22:30:32 So therefore, it's 24 feet instead of 18.

22:30:36 >> Correct.

22:30:37 So they don't have to cross --

22:30:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Right?

22:30:41 You want to answer that?

22:30:44 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, it is 24 feet, so that when the

22:30:47 solid waste vehicle turns into the property, it does

22:30:51 not cross into the other lane of traffic.

22:30:54 That is one of their standards is, when they put their

22:30:57 template on there and that's why I was hoping Vince

22:31:01 could show you, when he put the template on there it

22:31:04 shows that line of movement when the trunk is making

22:31:06 the turn in.

22:31:07 If there were to be a car in the other lane, they could

22:31:10 not clearly make that.

22:31:11 So it has to be 24 feet in order to ensure that if

22:31:14 someone was sitting in that out lane, that lane leaving

22:31:18 the property, that when that truck swings in, that

22:31:20 truck does not smack the vehicle.




22:31:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I understand.

22:31:26 But is 24 feet because the petitioner wants a right

22:31:29 hand onto St. Nicholas?

22:31:31 >> That's correct.

22:31:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That's the only reason it is 24 feet,

22:31:34 correct?

22:31:34 >> Correct.

22:31:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

22:31:38 >> Just to clarify, councilmembers.

22:31:41 The left turn in only is currently permitted.

22:31:45 Staff has already said, that's permitted.

22:31:48 The petitioner requires a right turn out.

22:31:51 And that's why we have taken so much time to work with

22:31:54 the neighborhood, why we have met with the neighborhood

22:31:57 association and the individual neighbors.

22:31:58 Ms. Aguero made a very good point.

22:32:02 But frankly a damning point when she showed you

22:32:05 pictures of the Boston market pork chop.

22:32:08 She measured that and she said it was 12 feet wide.

22:32:12 And she showed you how she easily made an illegal

22:32:16 left-hand turn.

22:32:17 I won't turn you in.




22:32:18 However, what she pointed out to you is that even if we

22:32:24 reduce this to 18 feet, people can easily make a

22:32:27 left-hand turn, according to her logic.

22:32:30 So, the resident that are here, and I don't mean to in

22:32:35 any way demean or lessen their concerns.

22:32:39 But there are ten homes between this property and

22:32:43 Church Street.

22:32:44 Three of them are not occupied by their owners.

22:32:48 The others are.

22:32:49 And actually one is also for rent.

22:32:51 So.

22:32:54 The residents have come here.

22:32:56 We have worked with them diligently.

22:32:58 We have addressed the issues of noise.

22:33:00 Addressed the issue of lighting, addressed the issue of

22:33:03 drainage, which hasn't come up in evening.

22:33:06 They have a drainage problem.

22:33:08 The proposed development will improve the drainage

22:33:11 issue, because all the water which is currently running

22:33:14 from the silent, which is 99% impervious, is running

22:33:17 into Sam Nicholas and causing flooding.

22:33:20 That will no longer happen.




22:33:22 We have vaulted retention.

22:33:24 It would go back to Dale Mabry.

22:33:26 Also, there are 37 businesses between Neptune and San

22:33:29 Carlos on the west side of this Dale Mabry Highway

22:33:34 corridor.

22:33:36 Each and every one of those businesses today has either

22:33:39 full unrestricted access to the residential side

22:33:43 street, just as this site does today, or it has

22:33:46 restricted access, but it allows for access back to

22:33:49 Dale Mabry.

22:33:50 Just like the Boston market site.

22:33:52 And having access back to Dale Mabry is a requirement

22:33:55 for the petitioner.

22:33:57 Er will not move forward, they're in permanent

22:34:00 contingency now which was extended in order to allow

22:34:03 for this continuance.

22:34:04 But will not move forward without it.

22:34:06 Yes, sir?

22:34:08 >> Would you agree that a left hand, no left-hand turn

22:34:11 sign would cure your problems?

22:34:16 >> I think another left-hand turn sign is appropriate.

22:34:20 I will say, to take that point further, at the risk of




22:34:23 being dramatic, what the residents are here today are

22:34:28 arguing to you, the logic of their argument is that

22:34:32 someone can make, if they want to an illegal left-hand

22:34:35 turn.

22:34:36 Despite the fact that the city has acknowledged, we

22:34:40 have done everything that solid waste and

22:34:42 transportation will allow us to do, to prevent such a

22:34:45 left-hand turn, as well as it being illegal.

22:34:48 If you subscribe to that logic, then don't need stop

22:34:53 signs.

22:34:54 We don't need red lights any more.

22:34:56 Because the last time I got to a stop sign, there was

22:34:59 nothing preventing me from going through it but a line

22:35:01 and a sign.

22:35:02 So here we have a line, a sign, happy to put the no

22:35:06 left-hand turn sign and we have an island that is

22:35:11 designed to prevent that.

22:35:12 So, I think, and this is unlike some of the prior items

22:35:17 where there was significant, not only an impasse, but

22:35:22 there's a lack of discussion between the neighbors and

22:35:25 the petitioner.

22:35:26 We have the opposite here.




22:35:27 We have had numerous meetings.

22:35:30 We have offered meetings that were not taken advantage

22:35:33 of.

22:35:34 But we have had numerous meetings with the neighbors

22:35:37 and with the neighborhood association.

22:35:38 I know that the neighbors that are here today don't

22:35:40 agree with what their board voted.

22:35:43 But you should keep in mind that Palma Ceia west

22:35:46 represents over 560 households.

22:35:49 And they voted to support this.

22:35:52 And they were standing here on January 13th opposing

22:35:57 it.

22:35:58 I'm happy to answer any other questions.

22:36:02 >> Got a motion and a second to close.

22:36:04 All in favor of the motion say aye.

22:36:06 Opposed nay.

22:36:15 >> An ordinance rezoning property in the general

22:36:18 vicinity of 2207 South Dale Mabry Highway, in the City

22:36:21 of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in

22:36:24 section 1 from zoning district classifications CG

22:36:28 commercial general, and RS-75 residential single-family

22:36:33 to PD planned development, restaurant with drive-in




22:36:36 window.

22:36:37 Providing an effective date.

22:36:37 And between now and the next reading, we'll have the

22:36:43 sign changed -- does that have to be on there?

22:36:47 Okay.

22:36:47 No left turn.

22:36:48 Thank you.

22:36:50 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.

22:36:52 All in favor of the motion say aye.

22:36:54 Opposed nay.

22:36:56 >> Motion carried with Scott being absent at vote.

22:36:58 Second reading and adoption will be on March 3rd at

22:37:01 9:30 a.m.

22:37:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Any information from Councilmembers?

22:37:06 I need to retract my motion from this morning.

22:37:09 The women history month program I'm giving them a

22:37:12 commendation, have to do it in the regular meeting

22:37:15 instead of the CRA.

22:37:23 >> That was a motion to receive and file.

22:37:26 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye.

22:37:28 Opposed nay.

22:37:29 >> If you could just restate what your motion was this




22:37:32 morning.

22:37:32 >>GWEN MILLER: My motion was to give commendation to

22:37:35 Women's History Month.

22:37:37 February 17th.

22:37:38 At City Council -- at the function.

22:37:42 >> Oh, at the function.

22:37:43 Talking about pork chops, getting hungry.

22:37:49 >> Is that a second.

22:37:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Did I get a second?

22:37:53 Miranda second.

22:37:54 Carry the motion.

22:37:58 All in favor --

22:38:03 >>All those in favor indicate by saying aye.

22:38:06 Anybody opposed?

22:38:07 Motion carries.

22:38:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?

22:38:09 We stand adjourned.

22:38:10


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.