Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council

Thursday, October 10, 2013

6:00 p.m. session


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.

06:09:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Tampa City Council is called to order.

06:09:01 Roll call.

06:09:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

06:09:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.

06:09:07 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

06:09:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.

06:09:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

06:09:11 For the record I need a motion to receive and file memo from

06:09:14 Ms. Capin saying she will be unable to attend tonight's

06:09:17 session.

06:09:18 Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Suarez.

06:09:20 All in favor?

06:09:21 Opposed?

06:09:22 The ayes have it unanimously.

06:09:24 Okay.

06:09:24 This is the public hearing on items 1 through 13.

06:09:29 These are quasi-judicial hearings.

06:09:31 That means that those individuals -- and I see a lot of good

06:09:34 individuals out there -- in fact some of you are going to

06:09:36 leave here happy and some of you are going to leave here

06:09:39 happier.

06:09:39 Butt I want you all to be present.

06:09:42 So anyone who is going to think about speaking or is going

06:09:45 to speak, both petitioner and the audience, you have the

06:09:49 right to do that, and we have to swear you in first.

06:09:53 It's quasi-judicial.

06:09:54 So the clerk will swear in everyone who is thinking about

06:09:58 speaking or will speak this evening.

06:09:59 (Oath administered by Clerk)

06:10:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

06:10:09 We go to item number 1, a public hearing.

06:10:13 I need a motion to open items 1 through 13.

06:10:17 Motion by Mr. Suarez, second by Mr. Reddick.

06:10:20 All in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye.

06:10:22 Opposed nay.

06:10:23 The ayes have it unanimously.

06:10:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

06:10:31 The first case before you this evening is 2506 north Rocky

06:10:35 Point drive, and the request is from an RM-24 residential

06:10:38 multifamily to a CG commercial general zoning district.

06:10:42 >> Good evening, council members.

06:10:48 David Hay with your Planning Commission staff and I have

06:10:50 been sworn.

06:10:53 The first case tonight, we start over in the Westshore

06:10:56 planning district, more specifically the Rocky Point.

06:10:58 The Westshore planning district is one of the three target

06:11:04 areas for the City of Tampa and already contains the state's

06:11:06 largest office district.

06:11:08 You can see on this map the site is also located within the

06:11:11 Westshore business district.

06:11:13 These districts are defined by the comprehensive plan as

06:11:15 vital economic engines for the City of Tampa and are

06:11:19 essential to the city's continued success.

06:11:22 Next onto the aerial.

06:11:24 The subject site is on the southwestern tip of pill I can

06:11:27 island, AKA Rocky Point.

06:11:29 You can see the surrounding areas contain a mixture of

06:11:32 office, multifamily residential, hotels and other commercial

06:11:35 uses.

06:11:36 You can also see that the water views aren't bad either.

06:11:43 Finally, we have the future land use map.

06:11:45 The subject site and properties immediately surrounding the

06:11:48 subject site are all designated community mixed use 35.

06:11:52 The greenish color is some of the environmentally sensitive

06:11:54 areas.

06:11:55 You can also make out some of the parcels to the north,

06:11:59 designated urban mixed use 60.

06:12:02 This portion is planned for medium to the high intensity

06:12:05 uses.

06:12:06 Overall Planning Commission staff found the proposed

06:12:08 rezoning to allow for commercial intensive use as comparable

06:12:12 and compatible with surrounding development pattern.

06:12:15 Therefore based on those findings and the goals, objectives

06:12:17 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission

06:12:20 staff finds the rezoning request consistent with the

06:12:22 comprehensive plan.

06:12:23 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The rezoning request at 2506 north Rocky

06:12:36 Point drive is from RM-24 to CG, to recognize the existing

06:12:41 hotel condo as a conforming use.

06:12:52 The development on the property was developed in 1982, and

06:12:56 actually during zoning conformance in 1987 due to traffic

06:13:00 issues on the Courtney Campbell causeway, anything that was

06:13:03 being occupied in the residential use was made a residential

06:13:07 zoning district.

06:13:08 That's why this property was -- became RM-24.

06:13:12 It used to be C-2 under chapter 43 which would be an

06:13:16 equivalent to a CI today.

06:13:18 Which is a commercial intensive.

06:13:22 It has, at that time, and continuously been occupied as a

06:13:27 hotel condo, and the rezoning tonight would make it a

06:13:33 conforming use as the hotel condo is not a conform use in

06:13:38 the RM-24 district.

06:13:45 An aerial of the site.

06:13:50 David already showed you Rocky Point.

06:13:51 The RM-24 piece.

06:13:55 Property otherwise known as Sailport.

06:14:04 Photos of the site.

06:14:14 Looking back toward North Courtney Campbell causeway, homes

06:14:21 to the north, some office uses, The Point office to the

06:14:27 south, to the west, Rusty Pelican restaurant, toward the end

06:14:32 of Rocky Point.

06:14:37 As I mentioned, the Post Bay at Rocky Point just to the

06:14:42 north.

06:14:43 There are no waivers that may be requested through Euclidean

06:14:48 rezoning request, and that is what is before you this

06:14:50 evening.

06:14:51 Staff did find the request consistent.

06:14:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thanks very much.

06:14:55 Petitioner?

06:14:56 Any questions by council members at this time?

06:14:57 I see none.

06:14:58 Petitioner, you have 15 minutes.

06:15:00 >> Good evening.

06:15:02 My name is Richard Davis.

06:15:04 15310 Amber Lee drive, Tampa, Florida 33617, suite 250.

06:15:11 I am here tonight on behalf of Brent Howie, the president of

06:15:15 providence hotels and resort, the applicant to this

06:15:18 particular rezoning.

06:15:19 And as mentioned by staff, this is an intriguing factual

06:15:24 situation.

06:15:25 It is one that is unique to my practice after all these

06:15:29 years.

06:15:29 This particular property was initially constructed in 1982

06:15:34 as a resort hotel, condominium resort hotel, and has been in

06:15:40 use since 1982 as a condominium resort hotel.

06:15:45 It was through the zoning conformance in the late 80s that

06:15:49 I think it was concluded because of the look it projected

06:15:53 that it was a residential apartment use.

06:15:56 And as a result found its way into a residential apartment

06:16:00 zoning classification.

06:16:02 That was honestly not discovered by all involved until

06:16:06 earlier this year when there were discussions about looking

06:16:09 at the site and perhaps doing some modifications.

06:16:12 It was discovered at that time that this was in a zoning

06:16:16 classification which treats every one of the 237 hotel units

06:16:22 as nonconforming.

06:16:25 Tonight, I have here with us to speak to this Mr. Brent

06:16:30 Howie who I previously mentioned, and also Robert Moores,

06:16:34 the chairman of the board of Directors of the condominium

06:16:37 association, just to give you additional history into this

06:16:41 use.

06:16:44 The importance of this rezoning, council members, is

06:16:47 conforming use.

06:16:48 That way if, in the future, we have -- hopefully we never

06:16:53 will, but in the future a serious storm blow through and

06:16:56 created damage, this could be reconstructed, and it could be

06:17:01 rebuilt and the investment value that the condominium owners

06:17:03 have in the resort to be rebuilt and reutilized.

06:17:07 Right now, that cannot occur.

06:17:10 So what I would like to do at this point, you have heard

06:17:12 discussion about land use issues.

06:17:14 The Planning Commission has found the land use to be

06:17:16 consistent.

06:17:17 Staff has found the land use to be compatible with the local

06:17:21 Land Development Code.

06:17:24 You have seen pictures.

06:17:25 We have additional pictures F.later on tonight in rebuttal

06:17:28 they are necessary, identifying other uses in the area.

06:17:31 Bottom line, council members, this is a unique situation,

06:17:35 and I would like to now call upon Mr. Brent Howie to give

06:17:38 you some more information about the use of this parcel as a

06:17:41 hotel since 1982, which at this point is quite a number of

06:17:45 years ago.

06:17:46 Mr. Howie?

06:17:49 Mr. Howie has been sworn.

06:17:51 >> Good evening, council members.

06:17:54 My name is Brent Howie.

06:17:56 My office is 107 Hampton road, Clearwater, Florida.

06:17:59 I'm president of providence hotels and resorts, and we

06:18:03 operate hotels and resorts throughout the State of Florida

06:18:07 and those also include condominium hotels.

06:18:11 Provident was originally brought in on Rocky Point when it

06:18:16 was originally constructed.

06:18:18 We have been operating and managing as a licensed transient

06:18:24 public -- housing establishment since 1981 consistently.

06:18:30 For 31 years, it has been operating as a hotel, and we have

06:18:34 also during the majority of that time, we have been proud

06:18:37 members of the Chamber of Commerce, the Westshore Alliance,

06:18:41 Tampa Bay and company, Florida restaurant lodging

06:18:44 association, and of course the Tampa sports commission.

06:18:48 During that period of time, 31 years, we have accommodated

06:18:53 well over 2 million guests to stay at the property as hotel

06:18:58 accommodations, and we also generated well over $100 million

06:19:03 in taxable revenues.

06:19:06 That $100 million, that comes in obviously through our

06:19:10 management arrangement, and generates fees for our company

06:19:13 but substantially generates revenues for the individual unit

06:19:16 owners who purchase these units as an investment.

06:19:19 And those units, the rental program which is the vast

06:19:25 majority, many of them depend heavily on these including

06:19:29 some owners, possibly many owners, depend on the revenue

06:19:33 that they are generating.

06:19:35 Some are rental of their units as part of their retirement

06:19:37 income.

06:19:38 Our concern is that if there is a catastrophe, and the

06:19:42 property cannot continue to be operated as a transient

06:19:48 accommodation for a lot of the undue financial harm against

06:19:52 many -- basically many of our unit owners.

06:19:55 And the second issue, I think, maybe elaborated on later, my

06:19:59 understanding of the zoning code under the current code,

06:20:02 only approximately 109 units could be rebuilt.

06:20:08 It's 237 units that puts the property in a very precarious

06:20:12 position that if an event did occur whereas we would only be

06:20:16 able to allow 109 units when we actually have 237 individual

06:20:20 deeds to individual condominium properties.

06:20:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

06:20:29 >> I will now call on Robert Moores to approach the podium.

06:20:35 He has also been sworn.

06:20:37 He is chairman of the condominium association.

06:20:39 >> Thank you, council members.

06:20:44 My name is Bob Moores, presently president of HOA

06:20:52 association and so forth. I've held that position for 25

06:20:55 years.

06:20:57 At Sailport we had a vote on this through the Board of

06:21:00 Directors which was unanimous with the understanding that we

06:21:03 were trying to protect all of the owners to allow them to

06:21:08 rebuild every unit in case there was a problem, where I

06:21:14 understand we would only be able to build 109 as you already

06:21:17 heard, and also operate as a condo, so the idea where the

06:21:22 board stood on this with the ownership.

06:21:26 We also mailed out letters to all the owners and contacted

06:21:29 several of them.

06:21:29 The Board of Directors have talked to approximately 90% of

06:21:33 the owners, which represent approximately 200, and some of

06:21:39 them owners are nor multiple units.

06:21:42 Everyone we talked to has been in favor of it.

06:21:45 We have an understanding there's a small minority that are

06:21:48 not but the majority of people are strongly behind us for

06:21:51 that.

06:21:51 And our sole intention is protect the ownership of this

06:21:55 association.

06:21:57 Thank you very much.

06:21:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, sir.

06:21:59 >> Council members, I am also accompanied by Alan Murphy of

06:22:07 the Murphy LaRocca planning group that can speak to planning

06:22:11 and comprehensive planning issues should council have any

06:22:14 questions.

06:22:15 I will reserve my rebuttal time to respond to any issues

06:22:19 that come up and won clued our presentation at this point by

06:22:22 stepping back again to the very unique set of facts here.

06:22:27 1982, the use began as a resort hotel.

06:22:30 It has been a resort hotel since 1982.

06:22:33 Zoning conformance, and we trade to locate minutes of the

06:22:39 zoning conformance public hearings in the late 1980s and

06:22:44 we could not locate the minutes or I would have had that as

06:22:47 an exhibit, because there must have been an assumption that

06:22:52 this was an apartment complex.

06:22:54 That is the explanation that would perhaps support the

06:22:59 decision to put in the an RM-24 district.

06:23:01 But interestingly enough, council members, the point there

06:23:05 is, in the RM district you could only rebuild as we heard

06:23:13 over 100 units and it could not be used as a resort hotel.

06:23:17 That's why the requested zoning district is essential to

06:23:19 this use being able to continue as it has, if you do the

06:23:26 math, 30 some odd years, since 1982.

06:23:30 Continuously.

06:23:30 And as we heard from the testimony, it has been a viable and

06:23:35 productive number of the business community of the City of

06:23:37 Tampa throughout that time, and we simply want to recognize

06:23:42 that use and be able to continue with it and not be

06:23:44 threatened should some sort of weather or other adverse

06:23:48 consequences occur that damage the hotel.

06:23:52 So from that perspective, commissioners, I will reserve my

06:23:56 time to rebuttal.

06:23:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this.

06:23:59 I am not trying to cut you off but you have five minutes for

06:24:02 rebuttal I.can't add to have that.

06:24:05 Fountain you want to bring that gentleman up now you

06:24:07 certainly can just for us to hear it.

06:24:08 I'm not saying you should or should not.

06:24:11 But the rebuttal time is five minutes.

06:24:14 >> And five minutes is fine.

06:24:15 I was just noting --

06:24:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand.

06:24:19 Thank you very much.

06:24:19 This is a public hearing.

06:24:21 Anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item,

06:24:23 please come forward.

06:24:24 It's item number 1.

06:24:26 Z-13-56.

06:24:38 The chairman forgot to bring his cell phone and leave it

06:24:42 over there.

06:24:42 I apologize to all of you.

06:24:44 >> Good evening.

06:24:45 My name is Meliva, a member of the association.

06:24:50 My family and I own multiple units in Sailport for several

06:24:54 years, and we are in favor of the requested zoning because

06:24:58 it's in our best interest to protect our investment, and

06:25:02 also the investment of the other owners.

06:25:04 Thank you.

06:25:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

06:25:07 Anyone else care to speak on this item?

06:25:10 Yes, sir?

06:25:11 >> Charles McElfresh.

06:25:14 I'm sorry for my appearance.

06:25:15 I flew in just for this.

06:25:16 I do have three copies here that I would be happy to give

06:25:19 you of what the association sent out to the ownership.

06:25:27 First I would like to say that what the initial request is

06:25:39 to have this hearing postponed for the annual owners meeting

06:25:43 which is next month.

06:25:47 They just told you, the area is privately owned, hotels.

06:25:57 Ours are condominiums.

06:25:58 En of us -- many of us live there.

06:26:01 One would be how would this affect our homestead exemption?

06:26:04 How will it affect our taxes?

06:26:06 How will it affect the insurance?

06:26:08 How will it affect the resale or the value of our place?

06:26:13 The use and scare tactics are telling us should a disaster

06:26:16 hit, 50% of it, wipe out 60% of our units and we wouldn't be

06:26:23 able to rebuild.

06:26:24 Under the current zoning, we are classified as CMU 35.

06:26:32 We have 4.55 acres which will allow us to build 159.25

06:26:37 units.

06:26:38 60% of it was wiped out would only be 142 units.

06:26:43 It would take 67% to even reach the current density

06:26:49 classification that we are in.

06:26:52 None of this information has been put out.

06:26:53 If something were to happen, according to the zoning

06:26:56 commission -- I'm sorry, zoning department, if something

06:26:59 were to happen, we don't need to change our zoning, we need

06:27:03 to change our density classification which we could go to

06:27:06 what's called CMU 60 which would allow us to rebuild 273

06:27:12 units.

06:27:13 I'm not sure -- it says the attorney, the attorney, the

06:27:15 attorney, has researched this.

06:27:17 I don't know who our attorney is, but I'm assuming it's the

06:27:21 same attorney that represents both providence and the

06:27:23 association.

06:27:24 Now, Provident managers rent it program manage the HOA

06:27:31 affairs, and if we have an attorney that represents both

06:27:33 sides is a bit of a conflict of interest.

06:27:36 The underlying thing is you want to rezone this and build a

06:27:40 tiki bar on the western end site.

06:27:43 95% of the issues now are the result of alcohol.

06:27:47 This is not something unique.

06:27:59 They said they contacted over 200 owners.

06:28:02 I have several owners, there has to be at least six or eight

06:28:06 right now.

06:28:06 None of us have been contacted.

06:28:08 No one asked our opinion.

06:28:10 And you can see, if you agree with this, please send an

06:28:13 e-mail to zoning officer, zoning commission.

06:28:17 They never said anything about who to contact if you

06:28:19 disagree.

06:28:20 So my point is, I don't think there was fair information put

06:28:25 out.

06:28:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry, your three minutes are up.

06:28:28 >> Okay.

06:28:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

06:28:30 Anyone else care to speak to this item, Z-13-56?

06:28:33 Please come forward.

06:28:37 Mr. Suarez?

06:28:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'll wait till after.

06:28:41 >> My name is Robert Fulen, new member -- new owner, unit

06:28:53 216.

06:28:53 In my experience, I can see that there is a lack of

06:28:56 communication between the board and the owners.

06:29:01 Basically, this type of communication that we received is

06:29:07 through this form of mail and letters, not the information

06:29:16 required for us to get a firm understanding of what is

06:29:18 required if we vote for the rezoning so I do second the

06:29:25 motion to postpone this until after our yearly meeting so

06:29:29 the owners get a firm grasp and understanding of what is

06:29:32 going on.

06:29:33 I do appreciate the due diligence of the board and bringing

06:29:36 this hearing, but the owners do have lack of firm

06:29:42 understanding.

06:29:43 I also have not been contacted or spoken to personally.

06:29:47 And everyone I talked to has basically said the same.

06:29:53 They basically state that 200 owners have been contacted.

06:29:57 But that means they sent out 200 letters.

06:30:01 If they explained to the owners what's going on, it's in the

06:30:04 interest of Provident to of course push this towards a

06:30:08 commercial hotel residence, but it's in the interest of the

06:30:14 owners since it is their home.

06:30:18 So that's where the conflict was, and also an attorney

06:30:25 representing both sides, there is a conflict of interest.

06:30:27 We might well, after the meeting of the board, has a

06:30:33 reevaluation, and might want to -- that's all I have to say.

06:30:42 I appreciate your time.

06:30:43 Thank you.

06:30:44 >> Mr. Suarez and Ms. Mulhern.

06:30:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: One of the petitioner representatives can

06:30:48 answer this question for me.

06:30:50 I have a quick question.

06:30:52 What precipitated the looking at the zoning?

06:30:56 What was the thing you were trying to do?

06:30:59 Because obviously there's been several things that happened

06:31:01 over the course of 31 years.

06:31:03 What was it that you were trying to do?

06:31:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I need your name again.

06:31:12 Every time --

06:31:13 >> This is Brent Howie again with Provident hotels and

06:31:17 resorts.

06:31:17 What precipitated this was, you know, many business

06:31:21 ventures, and frankly municipalities themselves, we are

06:31:24 always trying to improve things.

06:31:25 And Sailport, even though it's been very successful

06:31:28 operating hotel for 31 years, we try to improve things.

06:31:30 One of our objectives was to increase the star rating or

06:31:34 diamond rating that we are all generally familiar with,

06:31:37 three star, four star, five star.

06:31:40 One of the things we needed to increase from our current

06:31:43 level to an additional star, because the property is very

06:31:46 nice, it's a beautiful location.

06:31:47 The one thing we were lacking was a food and search service.

06:31:51 So we went down the road to investigate whether we would be

06:31:54 able to construct a small food and beverage service referred

06:31:59 to earlier as the Tiki bar.

06:32:03 It's more of a poolside cabana.

06:32:05 But that would put us in an elevation we could elevate the

06:32:08 rating level. Facility to increase the rates and revenues

06:32:12 we would be able to generate for the unit owners and

06:32:14 hopefully property values as well.

06:32:16 >> So we are trying to figure out a way of making more money

06:32:21 on-site and to increase the star rating which would of

06:32:23 course help you make more money.

06:32:25 >> And basically just improve the development, improve the

06:32:28 property, make it a better place to stay.

06:32:31 >> Okay, terrific.

06:32:37 I was going to look for our attorney.

06:32:41 You.

06:32:43 [ Laughter ] Ernie.

06:32:50 I always want to call him Mr. Mueller but that's what

06:32:55 happens.

06:32:55 Mr. Mueller, I have got a question about ownership on two

06:32:59 sides.

06:32:59 And there were a couple of points that were brought up.

06:33:02 One is that a company that owns the building itself wants to

06:33:07 change the zoning in order to increase their star rating as

06:33:11 was mentioned by the petitioner, and they have we have condo

06:33:17 owners within that particular building.

06:33:21 How does that work legally for them in terms of who is

06:33:25 right -- whose rights are being -- obviously, the location

06:33:34 represents the condo owners themselves and then you have a

06:33:37 building owner, usually building manager, typically the

06:33:39 building is owned by the condo association itself.

06:33:41 It doesn't look like that's the case here because of the

06:33:43 nature of the way it was developed, if that's correct.

06:33:47 Am I right about that?

06:33:49 Based on my reading of it?

06:33:51 >> Well, I have to get a little better understanding of what

06:33:54 the ownerships are.

06:33:56 And if you want me to take a moment and do that.

06:33:59 I have the property owner, and then we are going to have

06:34:02 individual unit owners.

06:34:03 >> Right.

06:34:05 >>ERNEST MUELLER: And I think I am going to have to take a

06:34:08 minute --

06:34:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Howie will answer that H.before you

06:34:16 answer the question, Mr. Howie, in terms of zoning -- and

06:34:21 that's going to be his question -- in terms of zoning, where

06:34:24 does ownership in terms of the rezoning of something that

06:34:26 you already own, the building itself, if you are not the

06:34:31 condo association owner, okay, separate companies own them,

06:34:36 is my guess, how does that work in terms of relations to the

06:34:39 zoning portion of it?

06:34:41 >> It's a condominium like any other condominium.

06:34:46 Basically the individual owners own their individual units

06:34:49 and the balance of the property is common element.

06:34:53 And Mr. Morris who spoke earlier, he's the president of the

06:34:56 Board of Directors.

06:34:56 And the Board of Directors is elected by all of the

06:34:59 individual owners, with elections every year.

06:35:03 So the condominium association, the common elements, they

06:35:07 are the owner.

06:35:08 I am basically the applicant, identified as the authorized

06:35:11 representative because we are local, most of the owners are

06:35:14 out of town.

06:35:15 I want to clarify one other point as well.

06:35:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Let me stop you just a second.

06:35:19 So you are representing essentially the management company

06:35:23 in relation to this.

06:35:26 The reason I'm asking is because there was a lot of

06:35:29 confusion as to the way this thing was originally zoned,

06:35:31 what it actually means now, and I want to make sure that we

06:35:34 get this straight before we make any kind of decision.

06:35:36 So that's why I am asking these questions.

06:35:38 >> Yes.

06:35:39 Since we are not the owners of the building.

06:35:41 We have management contracts with the owners of the building

06:35:43 to manage the building basically on their behalf.

06:35:46 >> If I could make one other comment to clarify.

06:35:55 The objective of adding a food and beverage is really a

06:35:59 separate issue.

06:35:59 That's not the reason why we are standing here today.

06:36:02 The reason why we are here today is because that's what's

06:36:04 really triggering the event that made us realize there's a

06:36:07 much bigger problem here as opposed to just adding a food

06:36:10 and beverage.

06:36:10 >> I think we established that.

06:36:12 You answered the question the first time, which is what is

06:36:14 it that made you look at the rezoning.

06:36:17 Because it wasn't for what would happen in a store, because,

06:36:22 you know, a storm happened in 1985 that was right off the

06:36:26 coast and it was affecting your land.

06:36:28 You didn't look at that time and decide to rezone it.

06:36:31 At least I don't think you did.

06:36:34 So finance there was another precipitating event that made

06:36:37 you look at the zoning.

06:36:39 You answered the question.

06:36:40 >> Okay.

06:36:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Mueller?

06:36:43 I apologize, chair.

06:36:44 I want to get this straight in my head.

06:36:46 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Council mentioned impacting property.

06:36:54 A lot of people have interests.

06:36:56 We have the individual condominium owners trying right now

06:37:00 to determine who owns the property line, who the ownership

06:37:06 is.

06:37:06 I am looking into that when you called me up.

06:37:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.

06:37:11 Come to a microphone, please.

06:37:12 >> Council members, if you would like, I can call the

06:37:15 president of the association who can give you the

06:37:18 description of how that ownership relationship works.

06:37:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I just want to make sure, and I apologize

06:37:25 for belaboring this, I want to make sure it is a typical

06:37:29 condo association set-up.

06:37:30 The confusing part was, the way it was presented to us, and

06:37:33 the way that some of the public comments brought to us, was

06:37:36 that we have an entity, which is the condo association

06:37:40 owners, okay, are also represented by the same people, the

06:37:44 management company wants to change the operation in some way

06:37:48 for the condo association.

06:37:49 And that's something that typically, you know, we don't see

06:37:53 here, you know.

06:37:54 And that's why I wanted to make sure I was correct about

06:37:58 what my assumptions were.

06:37:59 >> And I believe at this juncture, the understanding is

06:38:03 there, the condominium association, the Board of Directors,

06:38:08 I believe voted twice to proceed with this effort against

06:38:13 the gravamen to protect the use.

06:38:19 It's very straightforward.

06:38:20 >> I understand your point.

06:38:23 Thank you, chair.

06:38:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have Mrs. Mulhern and Mrs. Montelione.

06:38:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Davis, I have a few questions.

06:38:31 You might be able to answer them.

06:38:36 The building was zoned as apartments, but it's known, and

06:38:45 you are referring to it tonight as conned object/hotel,

06:38:50 hotel/condo?

06:38:53 What do you call it?

06:38:54 >> It has been a resort condominium hotel since 1982, and it

06:38:57 was zoned in a zoning district in 1982 that permitted hotel.

06:39:03 >> Okay.

06:39:04 So my question is, in point of fact, all of the units are

06:39:11 condos, right?

06:39:12 Owned by individual owners?

06:39:13 >> Yes.

06:39:14 >> So they are condos.

06:39:16 But they are let out in the manner of hotels.

06:39:21 >> Yes.

06:39:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know if -- I'm wondering what the

06:39:25 real estate technology is, condo, resort hotel.

06:39:29 >> Condominium hotel.

06:39:31 >> Condominium hotel.

06:39:32 Okay.

06:39:32 How many of the units are owner occupied?

06:39:42 >> That changes again.

06:39:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Again I need your name for the record.

06:39:47 >> I'm sorry, Brent Howie.

06:39:49 That changes over the years, because owners are permitted

06:39:52 to -- actually, permanent residents are permitted, but over

06:39:59 the 31 years that we have been operating the property since

06:40:02 the beginning, the ratio has been approximately 85% to 95%

06:40:07 of the owners rented their units out as a transient

06:40:13 accommodation.

06:40:15 But it changes, and different people buying units, typical

06:40:21 condominium, Bub it's always been majority between 85 and

06:40:25 95%.

06:40:26 >>: Okay.

06:40:26 So maybe I would like to hear from the condo association

06:40:29 president again.

06:40:31 I have a question for him.

06:40:32 >> Scott Morris again.

06:40:40 >>MARY MULHERN: You voted, your executive board voted to

06:40:45 approve this?

06:40:47 >> Yes, we did.

06:40:49 >>MARY MULHERN: And how many people are on the executive

06:40:51 board?

06:40:52 >> Five.

06:40:52 >>MARY MULHERN: Out of how many owners?

06:40:54 >> 237 pieces of property.

06:40:57 Some owners own more than one piece.

06:40:59 Also there's approximately 200 owners.

06:41:02 >>MARY MULHERN: Did each of those owners have an

06:41:04 opportunity to vote on this, or weigh in on this?

06:41:06 >> The board voted on it.

06:41:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

06:41:11 I guess then my questions are for Mr. Mueller.

06:41:16 I can't see him.

06:41:17 >> And the question was the number of owners is probably

06:41:24 about ten owners that live there permanently.

06:41:27 Some of them also rent out by themselves as long-term rental

06:41:32 or whatever.

06:41:33 >>MARY MULHERN: So most people rent them out?

06:41:35 >> Yes.

06:41:37 With a small amount of permanent owners living there.

06:41:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

06:41:42 Mr. Mueller?

06:41:45 Oh, I guess actually -- I forgot to ask the condo

06:41:53 association.

06:41:54 I'm sorry, I forgot to ask you an important question.

06:41:58 The annual meeting, is that a meeting where all of the

06:42:01 owners are invited?

06:42:02 >> The owners are all invited to attend the annual meeting.

06:42:07 >>MARY MULHERN: When is that meeting coming up?

06:42:09 >> That meeting will come up November 4.

06:42:10 >>MARY MULHERN: All right.

06:42:12 Thank you.

06:42:13 Sorry to make you jump up and down.

06:42:15 >> That's okay.

06:42:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Mueller?

06:42:22 I'm concerned that we might have questions about hop is

06:42:27 making this petition, and if not all of the ownership is in

06:42:32 favor of it, so my feeling -- I don't not about council --

06:42:37 but it sound like it would make sense for us to continue

06:42:41 this until they have their November meeting.

06:42:43 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I understand.

06:42:47 I am looking at the ownership issue here with the two kinds

06:42:50 of ownership we have.

06:42:52 I don't have an answer just yet.

06:42:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Wouldn't it make sense then if we continue

06:42:56 this until we have a clearer picture?

06:43:00 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I can check with petitioner.

06:43:04 Council members, certainly, we want to work this out,

06:43:07 because that gives us the ability to protect the building.

06:43:10 And for 31 years.

06:43:13 The one point I have been advised, and council members, as

06:43:17 you know, I work in the land use.

06:43:19 I am not a condominium expert.

06:43:20 But I have been advised that the agenda for that meeting has

06:43:22 already been set, and has their condominium documents don't

06:43:28 favor changes to that agenda.

06:43:30 Now, we can call up Mr. Howie again to speak to that.

06:43:37 If he can come forward.

06:43:38 The point being, council member, I don't know if the matter

06:43:40 can come up the way you might be envisioning it would come

06:43:43 up.

06:43:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I would think that if there is enough

06:43:47 concern and interest by the owners, that they would find a

06:43:50 way to put it on their agenda.

06:43:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have got Mrs. Montelione and Mr. Cohen.

06:43:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

06:43:59 I was looking at the handout that we were given by one of

06:44:03 the owners who spoke, and attached to that is resort

06:44:11 condominiums on the bay association, Inc., Board of

06:44:13 Directors meeting, minutes from July 16th of 2013, and

06:44:19 it lists the order and determination of quorum and how many

06:44:24 and who was present at the meeting, and I counted the five

06:44:30 as was indicated there were five people on the Board of

06:44:32 Directors.

06:44:34 I am making the assumption that all five are owners of units

06:44:37 at the association, of the units of the condos, and then

06:44:43 there were three additional, actually four, one was a

06:44:47 married couple, Carolyn and Troy Harper, unit 478, Harold

06:44:49 Fowler, unit 322, and Jim Styles who owns two units, 451 and

06:44:57 411.

06:44:58 So it may have been off the top of your head, but if there

06:45:01 are ten approximate owners who live there, I'm wondering,

06:45:06 there were eight owners present at this July 16th

06:45:09 meeting.

06:45:10 So I am not sure if the eight live there, if they don't live

06:45:15 there, or what the ratio is, but it's item 7 under property

06:45:22 zoning, there was -- it was an agenda item on that meeting.

06:45:30 So I would -- this is typical of other civic associations,

06:45:37 homeowner associations.

06:45:43 There's regular notice to owners that these meetings are

06:45:46 going to be held.

06:45:47 It says that confirmation of notice of meeting, Greg

06:45:52 Chaccio -- if I am mispronouncing that I apologize -- notice

06:45:59 of meeting was posted 48 hours in accordance with Florida

06:46:01 statutes.

06:46:02 I would also say that that's probably in your condo

06:46:05 association documents when the meetings take place.

06:46:07 So, you know, there are lots of homeowner association

06:46:11 meetings, the condo association meetings that I go to in New

06:46:14 Tampa that are attended by a number of individuals who own

06:46:22 in the area, although they know the meetings take place.

06:46:25 My own civic association, we have got probably 1400

06:46:32 single-family residences in my neighborhood and about 30

06:46:36 people show up typically at an association meeting.

06:46:40 So it's not unusual for it to be sparsely attended.

06:46:47 You know, I understand that this is something that is quite

06:46:52 unusual for us and that this type of particular zoning and

06:46:58 this arrangement of units as a hotel, but I am not sure --

06:47:04 and Mr. Mueller, maybe you can address this as well, or Mr.

06:47:08 Shelby can -- what it is that we would consider as evidence.

06:47:12 Because one of the speakers who seemed to be in opposition,

06:47:16 or at least not necessarily in opposition but felt that they

06:47:19 didn't have all of the information to make a determination

06:47:23 if they can support or not as unit owners, is how it would

06:47:26 affect their homestead exemption.

06:47:28 But is that a salient point and is that relevant to us in a

06:47:33 rezoning application?

06:47:35 >> Again I am not in a position to respond to that.

06:47:42 But I have been advised but I don't have the documents in

06:47:47 front of me that the condominium association documents do

06:47:49 give the condo association the authority to go forward with

06:47:55 this application, and that was what an earlier

06:47:59 determination, that's why it's before you now.

06:48:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Understood, but maybe Mr. Shelby you can

06:48:06 clarify what it is we can take as evidence in a rezoning

06:48:09 hearing because monetary decisions whether it's a good

06:48:11 business decision or not typically is something we cannot

06:48:15 base our opinion on, or our determination is based on our

06:48:19 code of ordinances and fact pertaining to the rezoning

06:48:24 itself, not to business decisions.

06:48:26 >> Frankly, I'm also unprepared to be able to address this

06:48:38 because this is a very unique issue with regard to

06:48:41 ownership.

06:48:43 As a right of the individual unit owners.

06:48:46 And one of the questions that I had an opportunity to ask

06:48:51 Ms. Feeley, to make sure according to the file that the

06:48:57 people who did make the request had the authority to do so,

06:49:01 and she assured me that is the case, then it is ripe to go

06:49:06 forward.

06:49:07 As to the individual owners' right and liabilities, I cannot

06:49:11 speak unless we might be able to have these answered --

06:49:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, the question I am trying to get

06:49:19 answered --

06:49:20 >> Can you we the evidence.

06:49:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What is it we can consider evidence and

06:49:26 what is it we think can't?

06:49:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Normally, normally, speculation on

06:49:31 financial impact would not be competent substantial

06:49:34 evidence.

06:49:35 Normally.

06:49:35 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.

06:49:44 I want to go back to Councilwoman Mulhern's point of

06:49:47 questioning because I'm a little bit confused.

06:49:50 There are 200 some odd units, 236 units, on the property.

06:49:56 237.

06:49:58 I'm sorry.

06:50:00 Ms. Feeley?

06:50:01 Did you want to add in before I go on?

06:50:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: If I may.

06:50:06 Land development.

06:50:06 This property was originally developed in 1982 under a C2

06:50:12 commercial-2 zoning, okay?

06:50:14 It was developed as a hotel in compliance with zoning

06:50:18 regulations in 1982 under the C-2.

06:50:21 Okay?

06:50:22 C-2 would be equivalent to what we call today commercial

06:50:25 intensive.

06:50:27 Okay.

06:50:28 The number of units constructed understood the hotel condo

06:50:31 at that time was in compliance with zoning.

06:50:34 In 1987, the city had zoning conformance.

06:50:38 Chapter 27 came into effect.

06:50:40 There was no longer C-2.

06:50:42 It became C-I.

06:50:44 There were traffic issues at that time along the Courtney

06:50:47 Campbell causeway, and the city took the approach that if

06:50:51 there was residential types of uses during zoning

06:50:55 conformance, they were going to make them residential.

06:50:58 So the city made this property an RM-24.

06:51:01 It also made it nonconforming.

06:51:06 What is back before you tonight is to put this back to a CG,

06:51:10 which is not a CI, it's one division less than that, to make

06:51:14 this property conforming.

06:51:15 The statements that were made that if destroyed they could

06:51:20 not build back 237 units are accurate statements.

06:51:24 They have an RM-24.

06:51:27 24 units.

06:51:33 RM-24 allows for 24 units an acre and they have .55, that

06:51:38 would give them 109 units.

06:51:40 That was an accurate statement.

06:51:41 Okay?

06:51:43 Let me get to that.

06:51:45 CG, under CG, you can have an F.A.R. of 1.

06:51:51 Okay? They have 4.55 units times 43560 which is square feet

06:51:58 in an acre. They could have 198,000 square feet of

06:52:02 development under a CG.

06:52:04 Mr. Davis told me his units are 500 square feet a unit.

06:52:09 198,000 divided by 500 square feet would give them 396

06:52:13 units, or allow what they have at 237 to be conforming.

06:52:18 So that is the chain of how you got the application before

06:52:21 you tonight.

06:52:22 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.

06:52:25 I appreciate that.

06:52:25 But that wasn't actually what I was getting at.

06:52:29 I understand what the petition is about.

06:52:30 The question that has been raised tonight is one of due

06:52:33 process and one regarding whether or not the owners have

06:52:38 sufficient opportunity to weigh in on the decision to ask

06:52:43 for this application, not whether or not the application is

06:52:48 a good idea or not.

06:52:49 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Okay.

06:52:51 When the application was filed with our offices I reviewed

06:52:54 the application with Julia Mandell, and she informed me the

06:53:00 association had standing to file the application.

06:53:03 That is why it was processed further and was set for hearing

06:53:06 before you.

06:53:06 >>HARRY COHEN: Okay.

06:53:09 I appreciate that.

06:53:11 And what I assume you mean by that -- but I want to

06:53:14 confirm -- is when you say that the association has

06:53:18 standing, you are saying that according to the association's

06:53:21 bylaws, they were authorized by an efficient number of votes

06:53:27 of their board to come forward with the application.

06:53:31 Is that what you are saying?

06:53:33 >> I am not sure what the action was that gave them a

06:53:36 standing -- that is how I was advised through our legal

06:53:39 department that the application could be --

06:53:43 >>HARRY COHEN: Here is my concern.

06:53:44 I was the president -- I live in a condominium.

06:53:49 It is 119 units.

06:53:50 I was the president of the association.

06:53:52 I served on the board for a long time.

06:53:54 I will tell you that in my association, we have votes of all

06:54:00 the owners over what color to paint the building.

06:54:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's why I don't live there.

06:54:07 [ Laughter ]

06:54:08 >>HARRY COHEN: So to go for a change in zoning, albeit one

06:54:13 that makes a lot of sense, and it's perfectly reasonable,

06:54:16 and it's protecting the interest of the owners, it's still

06:54:19 the type of an action that requires, I think, a concurrence

06:54:25 of a reasonable number of the owners behind the request for

06:54:30 the action.

06:54:31 So what I am trying to figure out is what I was a little

06:54:34 confused about from the answers to Councilwoman Mulhern's

06:54:38 questions was, it sounded to me like only five members of

06:54:41 the Executive Committee actually voted, and I was surprised

06:54:48 at how many of the 250 separate interests, how many of them

06:54:53 had an opportunity to somehow be heard on this question.

06:54:58 That's all I am I really trying to figure out.

06:55:02 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Let me add to that in circumstances

06:55:05 throughout the city where we have nonconforming types of

06:55:07 situations, I have done these before, you can also do an

06:55:11 area-wide rezoning that does not require authorization by

06:55:16 the applicant -- by the property owner, but an area-wide

06:55:21 rezoning could either be city initiated because we say, oh,

06:55:24 back in '87 we did this, they are nonconform, there is a

06:55:28 problem.

06:55:28 If it is destroyed, and we can initiate an area wide

06:55:32 rezoning in which they would receive the same notice that

06:55:35 they received this evening as a property owner within the

06:55:37 area that's being rezoned, but those are not always city

06:55:41 initiated.

06:55:41 Those may be privately initiated also.

06:55:44 There's a little bit of difference in the public notice

06:55:46 process that goes with that.

06:55:47 But I have done those in the past where a nonconforming

06:55:51 situation is being created and the property owner cannot get

06:55:53 the adjoining property owner, or the other affected property

06:55:57 owner to participate in that rezoning application, we have

06:56:01 done an area wide rezoning where there's two 50-foot

06:56:04 parcels, we have done them several times.

06:56:06 So there is another option as far as that.

06:56:08 I see the questions you are raising in respect to the due

06:56:11 process of this action.

06:56:12 >>HARRY COHEN: That's the concern I raise.

06:56:15 It's not that anyone has gotten up here and said that they

06:56:19 are actually against it.

06:56:21 They are just saying they don't understand it.

06:56:24 To get a sense of what the process was that the building

06:56:27 went through.

06:56:28 That's really all that I am trying to figure out.

06:56:38 Sir, did you want to say something?

06:56:39 >> Yes.

06:56:45 Again, council members, obviously our goal and our intent

06:56:49 and the intent of the applicant has been to have a result

06:56:54 that benefits everyone.

06:56:56 And --

06:57:00 >>HARRY COHEN: Before I give up the floor I want to make

06:57:02 one last statement, and that is it does seem to me, given

06:57:05 that this is you are attempting to fix something that has

06:57:10 been, you know, inconsistent for some time, that it doesn't

06:57:22 seem to me like we need to be in a rush.

06:57:24 But I'm happy to hear what everyone else has to say about

06:57:27 it.

06:57:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

06:57:30 Can I ask you a question?

06:57:37 Staff has reviewed the application.

06:57:39 They have made a recommendation to us tonight.

06:57:42 Are we supposed to base our decision on whether the

06:57:46 ownership or the neighborhood group or the members voted --

06:57:53 if I look at the e-mails and the letters that I received,

06:57:57 there's more than eight.

06:57:58 I got a whole stack in the office.

06:58:00 So it means somebody -- I have a whole stack sitting on my

06:58:07 desk now from homeowners.

06:58:09 So I'm just trying to determine, is the decision-making

06:58:14 process based on what a notice, someone from out of town got

06:58:19 a chance to vote, or are we basing it on what the staff has

06:58:23 presented to us tonight, and that's what we need to decide

06:58:27 and move forward?

06:58:29 >>ERNEST MUELLER: As far as the notice aspect, you move

06:58:32 forward if notice has been proper.

06:58:37 The understanding is all of -- the notice was proper, that

06:58:41 all the surrounding properties were notified, and/or the

06:58:45 individual owners were provided notice pursuant to the our

06:58:48 requirement.

06:58:50 So that's the notice aspect of this.

06:58:53 So what it is, all the evidence that's presented here, you

06:58:56 know, competent, substantial evidence, and these what base

06:59:02 your decision on.

06:59:02 We have two different issues here, one being the notice, was

06:59:06 noticed properly.

06:59:07 If it's determined notice is proper, then surrounding

06:59:10 properties were probably noticed, and if all of the

06:59:13 individual owners on this particular parcel were provided

06:59:18 noticed properly.

06:59:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: And another question is to the petitioner.

06:59:32 Someone stated the next meeting would be November 4th.

06:59:35 Would that hinder your position or put you in a position

06:59:38 where you cannot move forward, if you laid your process,

06:59:43 then delaying this to November 4th they have a chance to

06:59:46 meet and then having this continue at another date?

06:59:48 >> Well, Councilman, there are two parts to my response.

06:59:52 One part I would like to make just so I can close this door

06:59:56 to a degree, is I have been advised in minutes of the

07:00:01 meeting of the board were distributed to all the property

07:00:05 owners.

07:00:06 So the property owners have been advised of this process.

07:00:11 Now, and that is consistent with what I have been advised.

07:00:16 The question about the November 4th meeting, I have been

07:00:20 advised by my client that they will have to have their

07:00:26 counsel that deals with condominium issues determine if a

07:00:29 vote can occur at the November 4th meeting on this issue

07:00:33 because notice has already gone out on it.

07:00:37 But certainly, council members, we will try to work to solve

07:00:42 this.

07:00:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: Even if notice has gone out, isn't there a

07:00:47 thing that you can amend your meeting notice?

07:00:50 It seems like you can amend it and just add on it that you

07:00:55 want to have this item placed on the agenda.

07:00:57 >> This is Brent Howie again.

07:01:00 Actually the issue was -- again I am not an attorney and I

07:01:03 don't want to represent mesas being an attorney -- but my

07:01:06 understanding is that for anything to be voted on at an

07:01:11 annual meeting of the ownership it needs to be included in

07:01:13 the agenda, and the agenda needs to be mailed out 30 days in

07:01:17 advance of that meeting.

07:01:18 That's Florida statute.

07:01:20 So it would be at this particular meeting, it would not be

07:01:25 feasible to vote on straw poll, but an actual vote, it would

07:01:30 not be feasible.

07:01:31 If it was we would not be in compliance with Florida

07:01:34 statutes.

07:01:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have Mrs. Mulhern, Mrs. Montelione,

07:01:38 then I am going to say a couple of words.

07:01:41 >>: Mr. Davis, are you the attorney for the --

07:01:45 >> I have been retained by Provident.

07:01:49 >>MARY MULHERN: And you just mentioned the other attorney.

07:01:50 >> They have condominium law experts.

07:01:54 >>MARY MULHERN: I know.

07:01:59 I understand that.

07:02:00 I think that raised that other question about there being a

07:02:06 conflict of having just one attorney representing both the

07:02:11 owners and the management, the hotel management.

07:02:14 >> Provident has a relationship with the condominium

07:02:19 ownership.

07:02:21 I have been retained by Provident to provide the assistance

07:02:25 I have provided trying to get this matter in front of you so

07:02:28 we can address this land use issue.

07:02:33 And there might be a way to move forward.

07:02:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I would suspect that we, as an

07:02:42 elected body, are able to amend our agenda, but I bet there

07:02:46 would be a lawyer that could help them with that.

07:02:49 I'm just guessing.

07:02:51 But Mr. Cohen probably knows better about that.

07:02:56 But I just want to repeat my suggestion that considering

07:03:00 that there is an annual meeting, Mr. Davis, when did this

07:03:10 petition, this decision to come and ask for this zoning

07:03:14 change?

07:03:15 Has it been over a year?

07:03:17 Is this the first time that there has been an annual owner's

07:03:22 meeting since --

07:03:24 >> The answer to that question is yes.

07:03:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I think it would look very good if

07:03:29 you were to consider, you know, at least make an attempt to

07:03:34 see if they could bring it up at their meeting.

07:03:36 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I will put this out to council.

07:03:43 There is one other option which is if you want to move

07:03:46 forward with first reading tonight, and second reading could

07:03:49 occur after the condo association's meeting, homeowners

07:03:56 meeting, which my understanding is that second reading could

07:03:58 be on November 7th.

07:03:59 >>MARY MULHERN: That's a good suggestion.

07:04:05 I just want to say, one other thing, I counted the letters

07:04:10 in support, and there were 38, which is a lot, but it's not

07:04:15 a majority.

07:04:16 So I think we still have some questions about it.

07:04:22 But I would be okay with going forward on first reading, if

07:04:27 we could hear the results of the ownership meeting in

07:04:31 between, or when we come back for second reading.

07:04:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I have a couple things I want to the

07:04:38 say.

07:04:39 First I want to ask, as we have in other hearings brought up

07:04:46 substantial and competent evidence.

07:04:48 We usually are reminded what this will entail, evidence is.

07:04:55 So, you know, a dispute between individuals, residents and

07:05:02 other property owners generally isn't for us considered

07:05:06 substantial and competent evidence for rezoning.

07:05:08 But I also want to read from the sail court breeze also in

07:05:15 that same handout that was given out, and this probably

07:05:19 references that reason that Julia Mandell was brought in to

07:05:23 make a determination whether or not the application can go

07:05:26 forward, and I'll tray to read this as quickly as possible.

07:05:32 To all port owners, want to continue to update owners with

07:05:37 regard to the rezoning situation recapping.

07:05:39 We are trying to restore original commercial zoning status

07:05:43 in the city along with several properties in 1987.

07:05:46 It goes on to explain about grandfathering and number of

07:05:48 unit and that sort of thing.

07:05:49 The last part of the first paragraph says, our efforts

07:05:53 achieved positive results in city zoning officials

07:05:56 supporting the corrective zoning to the City Council, and a

07:05:59 June 26th slot was created for us to gain final

07:06:04 approval.

07:06:04 So I am expecting that that meant that originally we were

07:06:08 supposed to hear that in June.

07:06:11 Unfortunately, due to an uninformed -- complaining to the

07:06:16 city we missed an opportunity, and the city suggested that

07:06:20 we regroup with our owners and reschedule.

07:06:23 So it's already been suggested by staff that they go back

07:06:26 and meet with the owners, which I'm assuming that they did

07:06:29 because we got 38 letters in support.

07:06:31 [Sounding gavel]

07:06:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The new City Council date for approval

07:06:39 is scheduled for October 10th.

07:06:40 It seems this has been going on for many months.

07:06:45 And I would love to go forward with this on first reading.

07:06:50 I think that we could not sit here and try and madate

07:06:54 between owners who are in favor and owners who are not in

07:06:58 favor.

07:06:59 It is not our job, and we are not charged with mediating the

07:07:04 situation of happy owners or unhappy owners and whether or

07:07:08 not they think it is a valid application.

07:07:11 What our decision here is to be based on is competent and

07:07:16 substantial evidence.

07:07:17 Do we have the code of ordinances that supports this

07:07:21 rezoning because of the zoning conformance, because it came

07:07:26 in 1987, and because of the city's own decision to make this

07:07:31 a nonconform property, that was something that a council

07:07:35 previous to us did.

07:07:37 So we need, in my opinion, we need to stick to the issue at

07:07:43 hand.

07:07:44 Do we or do we not rezone this property because of the code

07:07:48 of ordinances and because of the situation of their being a

07:07:53 nonconforming property?

07:07:56 Not whether or not we are going to mediate between happy

07:08:00 owners and unhappy owners.

07:08:01 That's something that, I'm sorry, unfortunately falls to Mr.

07:08:05 Howie, and to Mr. Morris to work out.

07:08:08 And I don't envy your position, sirs, but that's their job,

07:08:14 not ours.

07:08:16 Mr. Shelby, am I off base with that?

07:08:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, and with regard to --

07:08:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes, I am off?

07:08:24 [ Laughter ]

07:08:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, I'm sorry, I thought you said am I on

07:08:28 base with that?

07:08:29 I'm sorry.

07:08:30 Just one more thing with regard to competent substantial

07:08:32 evidence.

07:08:33 With regard to competent substantial evidence, you have the

07:08:36 staff report which finds it consistent and the Planning

07:08:40 Commission report, those acts competent substantial

07:08:46 evidence.

07:08:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me just say this.

07:08:49 Mrs. Feeley twice explained, twice she brought up 1982.

07:08:54 Twice she calculated everything that was said, 237 units, of

07:09:01 which I think 109 could be built, leaving a minus 128 under

07:09:05 the calculations, even if it was done another way four units

07:09:09 could be built but it didn't apply that way.

07:09:11 It applied under the Euclidean.

07:09:14 Please explain that so we understand what that means,

07:09:17 Euclidean.

07:09:20 Ms. Feeley, right?

07:09:24 You ought to sit here for a while.

07:09:26 You really get confused.

07:09:28 You stated earlier when we opened the meeting about applying

07:09:31 from RM-24 to CG Euclidean.

07:09:35 Explain that part.

07:09:36 >> The RM-24 allows 24 units to the acre, also does not

07:09:41 allow hotel use.

07:09:43 So what is there now could not be built back.

07:09:47 They have four and a half acres at 24 units to the acre, but

07:09:50 they have a use problem.

07:09:53 They would only get 109 unit.

07:09:56 When you go to the commercial general, which would allow for

07:09:59 the hotel condo use, you can use a floor area ratio versus a

07:10:07 unit per acre.

07:10:08 And when you take the four and a half acres times 435 0

07:10:12 which is the square feet in an acre, would you get a

07:10:15 potential for 198,000 square feet of development on that

07:10:18 property.

07:10:19 And then you can use that square footage per unit, which

07:10:22 bears on average of 500 square feet a unit, which could give

07:10:26 them potentially 396 units which quo cover the deficit of

07:10:31 128 that you mentioned that are out there nonconform right

07:10:35 now.

07:10:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

07:10:37 However there, was one little part that caused some

07:10:41 confusion, I think, when they said something in reference to

07:10:44 a Tiki bar or something, they said it's not a Tiki bar, it's

07:10:48 something else.

07:10:49 >> I'm not aware of that.

07:10:52 I'm sorry.

07:10:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

07:10:57 I'm in support of continuing.

07:11:01 But the motion -- not the motion but the statements that

07:11:04 were made by Mrs. Mulhern and Mrs. Montelione.

07:11:07 You have first reading and you have second reading.

07:11:09 So that means if something goes wrong between first and

07:11:12 second reading, there is where the action is taken.

07:11:16 But today, we have had a good conversation here with a lot

07:11:19 of good people, and earlier I said I want some of you to

07:11:22 leave here happy and I want some of you to leave here

07:11:25 happier.

07:11:26 Remember that statement?

07:11:27 I said but above all I want you to leave here friendly.

07:11:31 What does that mean?

07:11:32 I don't want 237 people or 200 owners being upset with each

07:11:37 other.

07:11:37 It's not good for you.

07:11:39 So I would like to continue, see this hearing continued

07:11:43 today.

07:11:43 I would like to take a vote on it up or down.

07:11:46 And I would like to see if it goes up at the second hearing,

07:11:52 from what my gathering was, there are some people here not

07:11:55 happy with whatever the problem is.

07:11:58 That's not my job.

07:11:59 You selected a board.

07:12:00 You selected officers of that board.

07:12:04 They took a vote.

07:12:05 And they voted, in this case, to proceed.

07:12:09 We are here today.

07:12:11 And you have heard testimony today and we heard from both

07:12:14 side.

07:12:14 This side hasn't spoken.

07:12:18 We received these letters.

07:12:19 The other side has spoken, and very well, and got the

07:12:22 attention of council members, and good questions were asked

07:12:27 to find out where the study was.

07:12:28 But very few, if any, spoke in opposition to the rezoning.

07:12:33 They spoke about doubt.

07:12:34 They spoke about change.

07:12:38 And this is between first and second reading, if it passes.

07:12:42 So that all the doubt and all the changes are cleared out

07:12:46 between the association, the management, the attorneys, and

07:12:50 the homeowners.

07:12:52 And that's how I feel.

07:12:53 Any other questions by council members?

07:12:55 >> Move to close.

07:12:59 >> Second.

07:12:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to make sure that anyone else who

07:13:01 has not spoken has a right to speak.

07:13:03 I don't want you to leave here saying you didn't have the

07:13:05 right to speak.

07:13:06 Anyone who has not spoken or would care to speak, please

07:13:09 come forward.

07:13:10 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

07:13:11 Yes, sir.

07:13:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to give Mr. Davis an opportunity if

07:13:15 he wishes.

07:13:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Davis, do you wish to have your

07:13:20 rebuttal now?

07:13:21 >> Council members, there's no rebuttal at this point other

07:13:26 than we would wholly support first reading tonight and work

07:13:29 between now and the next date to gain additional information

07:13:31 and perhaps find a way to be resolve some of these

07:13:35 questions.

07:13:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire of Mr. Davis if the date of

07:13:39 November 7th for second reading would be acceptable to

07:13:42 your clients?

07:13:43 >> It is.

07:13:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We have a motion to close the hearing.

07:13:46 Before I go to that --

07:13:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Davis, I would just like to ask that

07:13:50 you make an attempt to bring the question in front of those

07:13:55 annual homeowners meeting, if there's any way that can

07:13:57 happen.

07:13:58 >> What I will do is work with the condominium law experts

07:14:03 and we will tray and do the best I can.

07:14:05 >>MARY MULHERN: That you can.

07:14:07 >> I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick, seconded by Mrs.

07:14:10 Montelione.

07:14:10 Further discussion by council members?

07:14:12 All in favor of the motion?

07:14:14 Opposed?

07:14:14 The ayes have it unanimously.

07:14:15 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Chair, move for first reading

07:14:21 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

07:14:24 vicinity of 2506 --

07:14:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We haven't done anything yet.

07:14:32 Please listen to what's happening here.

07:14:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance for first reading

07:14:40 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

07:14:42 vicinity of 2506 north Rocky Point drive in the city of

07:14:46 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1

07:14:49 from zoning district classifications RM-24 residential

07:14:52 multifamily to CG commercial general, providing an effective

07:14:54 date.

07:14:55 >> Second.

07:14:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Reddick.

07:14:59 I have a second by Mrs. Montelione on a close vote with Mr.

07:15:02 Cohen.

07:15:02 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

07:15:04 Opposed nay.

07:15:06 Motion passes unanimously.

07:15:08 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.

07:15:10 Second reading and adoption will be on November 7th at

07:15:13 9:30 a.m.

07:15:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

07:15:16 Got that? Thank you all.

07:15:18 Be friendly going home.

07:15:19 Be friends.

07:15:20 All right.

07:15:20 Item number 2.

07:15:21 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

07:15:28 Item number 2 is located at 501 south Fremont Avenue, case

07:15:34 Z-13-60.

07:15:35 The request before you tonight is from PD planned

07:15:38 development to RM-16 residential multifamily.

07:15:41 >>David Hay: Planning Commission staff.

07:15:50 I have been sworn.

07:15:51 This next case is located within the central Tampa planning

07:15:55 district, another one of the city's three target growth

07:15:58 areas.

07:15:58 The subject site is located in the Courier City Oscawana

07:16:02 neighborhood just west of the Crosstown expressway.

07:16:06 Next, we have the aerial, the subject site is in the center

07:16:09 of the map.

07:16:10 To the east of the subject site we have the post Hyde Park

07:16:14 apartments, and the Crosstown expressway.

07:16:16 You can make out the Hyde Park Village in the lower right

07:16:19 down there.

07:16:20 A mixture of single-family detached, attached, and

07:16:24 multifamily uses surround the subject site.

07:16:27 Commercial and office uses can be found to the north along

07:16:30 Platt Street, to the west along South Howard, and to the

07:16:33 south along West Swann Avenue.

07:16:38 Three of those roadways also provide transit options.

07:16:45 Finally, we have the future land use map.

07:16:47 The subject site of the property to the north, south and

07:16:51 west are designated residential 35.

07:16:53 To the east, in the darker brown, is the residential 50.

07:16:57 The green areas are designated open space, and the pink at

07:17:02 the northwest corner of West Swann Avenue and south Fremont

07:17:05 Avenue is designated as community mixed use 35.

07:17:12 Planning Commission staff proposed rezoning to allow for an

07:17:14 RM-16 zoning district comparable to the surrounding

07:17:17 development pattern.

07:17:18 The rezoning would not create any negative impacts on

07:17:20 adjacent uses.

07:17:21 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals, objectives

07:17:24 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission

07:17:27 staff finds the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa

07:17:29 comprehensive plan.

07:17:30 >>ABBYE FEELEY: PD to RM-16, let me give you a little bit

07:17:39 of history on this one.

07:17:41 This was rezoned back in 2006 for town homes, and the town

07:17:47 homes were never constructed.

07:17:49 And the property owner in and out would like to make some

07:17:52 modifications to the existing single-family residence that

07:17:57 was there on the property but cannot do that because the

07:17:59 governing regulations are for a town home.

07:18:02 This was rezoned in 2006 from RM-16 to PD.

07:18:07 And what they would like to do this evening is put it back

07:18:09 to what it was originally zoned so they may maintain their

07:18:13 home and make modifications that would have been permitted

07:18:16 prior to it becoming a PD.

07:18:18 So that's the history on this.

07:18:22 It is located at the corner of Horatio and Fremont, and it

07:18:28 does meet all the minimum qualifications for the RM-16.

07:18:31 It's the 64 by 125 lot, or 8,000 square feet, and RM-16

07:18:38 requires 5,000.

07:18:40 So there is plenty of -- it does meet minimum standard.

07:18:45 Let me go ahead and show you the zoning atlas in the aerial.

07:18:50 And also provided in this staff report the use table for all

07:18:56 permissible uses within the RM-16.

07:19:01 The property is shown here in green.

07:19:05 Horatio to the north.

07:19:06 Fremont to the east.

07:19:08 There's Post Hyde Park apartments.

07:19:11 There is also a very large TECO transformer which takes up

07:19:17 these three lots that I will go ahead and show you as well.

07:19:21 Swann to the south.

07:19:22 The Crosstown expressway to the east.

07:19:25 The aerial of this site, you can see the existing structure.

07:19:28 There is an alley that runs behind the structure.

07:19:32 This is the TECO transfer station, substation here, and

07:19:37 there are some town homes that were constructed, and you

07:19:39 will see put in built there but these parcels were never

07:19:48 constructed under this PD.

07:19:53 Pictures of the property from Fremont, this is going west

07:19:57 along Horatio toward the alley.

07:20:01 Here is the alley.

07:20:06 Here is the alley immediately behind the property.

07:20:13 This is the northwest corner of Fremont and Horatio.

07:20:17 That's the southern facade of that same property.

07:20:31 That is behind the property on Horatio.

07:20:34 You know, I do my own stunts; I take all my own photos.

07:20:37 So this is on Horatio, moving towards Melville.

07:20:43 This is the property at the corner of Melville and Horatio.

07:20:55 These are a little out of order.

07:20:56 This is across Melville at Horatio on the west corner.

07:21:00 This is immediately south of the property.

07:21:02 The single-family residence.

07:21:04 This is moving south on Fremont.

07:21:06 The subject property.

07:21:07 Immediately to the north.

07:21:08 This is the south.

07:21:10 This is south of that property.

07:21:13 And then the TECO station.

07:21:17 And that is immediately to the east across the property.

07:21:22 From the property.

07:21:27 Based on Land Development Code of ordinances staff did find

07:21:30 the request consistent.

07:21:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

07:21:32 Any questions by council members?

07:21:33 Is petitioner here?

07:21:43 Is petitioner hear on this case?

07:21:45 >> 501 south Fremont.

07:21:48 We just requested to switch back from the PD to RM-16 so we

07:21:53 can add an addition to the rear of the property.

07:21:56 And as you heard, we were not able to do so because we

07:22:01 forgot that there was a PD on the property.

07:22:02 That's why we are here tonight.

07:22:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You have got to remember to forget.

07:22:06 I got it.

07:22:07 Anyone in the audience care to speak to this item number 2,

07:22:11 Z-13-60, for or against?

07:22:13 I see no one.

07:22:14 I have a motion to close by Mrs. Montelione.

07:22:16 Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

07:22:17 All in favor of the motion to close?

07:22:20 Opposed?

07:22:20 The ayes have it unanimously.

07:22:21 Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take number 2, please, Z-13-60?

07:22:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move an ordinance being presented for

07:22:28 first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property

07:22:30 in the general vicinity of 501 south Fremont Avenue in the

07:22:34 city of Tampa, Florida moral particular described in section

07:22:38 1 from zoning district classifications PD planned

07:22:41 development to RM-16 residential multifamily providing an

07:22:44 effective date.

07:22:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez for

07:22:47 approval, second by Mr. Cohen.

07:22:49 Further discussion by council members?

07:22:50 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

07:22:53 Opposed nay.

07:22:54 The ayes have it unanimously.

07:22:55 Thank you very much for attending.

07:22:56 >> Second reading and adoption will be on November 7 they at

07:23:01 9:30 a.m.

07:23:03 Motion carried with Capin being absent.

07:23:05 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 3 is Z13-63.

07:23:10 It is located at 3678, 3688 and 3698 West Gandy Boulevard.

07:23:16 The request before you this evening is from CG commercial

07:23:19 general to CI commercial intensive.

07:23:22 This is a Euclidean zoning request and no waivers are

07:23:26 permitted.

07:23:26 >>David Hay: Planning Commission staff.

07:23:32 I have been sworn.

07:23:33 Next we move down to the South Tampa planning district, one

07:23:37 of two districts that are predominantly residential in

07:23:40 character and with some commercial uses located along major

07:23:43 corridors.

07:23:44 The subject site is located at the intersection of Dale

07:23:47 Mabry Highway and Gandy Boulevard.

07:23:51 Both of those streets are identified on this vision map as

07:23:56 transient emphasis corridors, these are corridors within the

07:23:59 City of Tampa that are partially developed in a manner that

07:24:02 is supportive of traps it.

07:24:03 The site is near the southern end of the Crosstown

07:24:05 expressway.

07:24:08 Next we have the aerial.

07:24:10 The subject site is in the center of the map.

07:24:12 You can see the surrounding areas predominantly commercial

07:24:15 in character.

07:24:16 We have the target and the Publix to the north, commercial

07:24:19 uses lining Gandy to the east, and Dale Mabry Highway to the

07:24:23 south.

07:24:24 You can also see the Crosstown expressway interchange to the

07:24:27 west of the subject site.

07:24:31 Next we have the fought land use map, the subject site, and

07:24:36 properties to the north, south and east represented by the

07:24:39 light purple are all designated urban mixed use 60.

07:24:43 To the southeast we can see some single-family detached

07:24:46 residential, designated residential 10.

07:24:50 Overall Planning Commission staff finds the proposed

07:24:52 rezoning to CI would allow for redevelopment of the subject

07:24:57 site in a manner that is comparable to the type of

07:25:00 development that already exists along this portion of Gandy

07:25:02 Boulevard and Dale Mabry Highway.

07:25:05 The area around this intersection is envisioned as the area

07:25:09 with the highest intensity within the South Tampa planning

07:25:12 district and will become the commercial core of that

07:25:14 district.

07:25:15 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals, objectives

07:25:18 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission

07:25:21 staff find the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa

07:25:24 comprehensive plan.

07:25:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, sir.

07:25:26 >>ABBYE FEELEY: It's not nonconform.

07:25:35 There's a 7-Eleven on the corner.

07:25:36 Some old motels along this segment of Gandy.

07:25:39 The applicant is looking to redevelop that.

07:25:44 What's before you tonight is 300 fate by 391 feet minimum CI

07:25:51 lot is 100 by 100, so you can have the potential

07:25:56 redevelopment of three lots at this location, and I believe

07:25:58 that they will speak further to that.

07:26:01 I am going to go ahead and get the zonings atlas.

07:26:07 Before you tonight is from CI commercial general to CI.

07:26:15 As David stated, this is a major commercial node at gland

07:26:23 Boulevard, 50 years, Gandy ramp, the CG is the target, and

07:26:30 the small PD is actually the Starbuck's.

07:26:33 The CG here, this is a split zoning.

07:26:37 There is a strip commercial center there as well.

07:26:40 The underlying land use under consideration commercial

07:26:44 intensive, and here is the aerial of this site as well,

07:26:51 orientation, Gandy, Dale Mabry.

07:26:56 I will show you some pictures.

07:26:58 Went out earlier.

07:26:59 It's hard to get pictures through this intersection.

07:27:01 A lot of traffic.

07:27:03 The 7-Eleven and the gas station that was associated with

07:27:08 has been removed from the property.

07:27:09 I think maybe for about six months now.

07:27:12 Maybe a little bit longer than that.

07:27:18 This is the property moving east.

07:27:32 The southwest corner of the property, and the northwest

07:27:37 corner of the property.

07:27:40 Looks like I'm missing a few photos of the target and the

07:27:43 Mobil station at the northeast corner across from the

07:27:46 property.

07:27:47 I think you are all familiar with this intersection.

07:27:50 In the South Tampa area.

07:27:52 Staff did find the request consistent.

07:27:54 And we are available for any questions.

07:27:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

07:27:56 Any questions by council members?

07:27:58 Mrs. Mulhern?

07:27:58 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Feeley, can you give us if it's brief a

07:28:04 description of the difference between the commercial general

07:28:05 and commercial intensive, what additional uses?

07:28:12 >> Yes.

07:28:16 One of the main things we talked about when the applicant

07:28:19 came to us for counseling was the drive-in window.

07:28:24 You do a lot of drive-in windows as a special use.

07:28:27 CG, in the public hearing process, and CI is S-1

07:28:34 administrative so if they were looking to develop all three

07:28:36 as potentially a fast food restaurant and other things, this

07:28:39 CI will give them the opportunity to do that

07:28:42 administratively to make that process easier for the

07:28:44 potential of those three lot developments.

07:28:47 The other thing is development sales and leasing would be

07:28:50 one of the predominant uses.

07:28:52 I don't believe that's their intention.

07:28:54 We didn't discuss that.

07:28:55 But in relation to your question CI allows vehicle sales and

07:28:58 leasing.

07:28:59 CG does not.

07:29:00 CG does allow for gas stations, restaurants, bank, drive-in

07:29:05 windows, all those same uses.

07:29:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Suarez?

07:29:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'll wait.

07:29:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Is petitioner here?

07:29:15 >> Good evening.

07:29:17 Gina Grimes with Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 East Kennedy

07:29:20 Boulevard, and I have been sworn.

07:29:22 I do not have a book for you tonight.

07:29:25 We will go quickly through the presentation.

07:29:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm very happy that you don't.

07:29:29 >> I can here the trees singing now.

07:29:35 >> Did she identify herself as --

07:29:37 >> She's dressed all in black.

07:29:38 >> I'm not sure it's her if she doesn't have a book with

07:29:42 her.

07:29:44 >>GINA GRIMES: I knew you would enjoy that H.I represent

07:29:46 Encore real estate development.

07:29:49 They are in the process, they were in the process of

07:29:52 assembling the three parcels that comprise this corner.

07:29:56 I am going to put up the aerial that Abbye showed you.

07:30:03 She mentioned the 7-Eleven was on the corner.

07:30:06 The second parcel is the Crosstown, and the third parcel is

07:30:11 referred to as the motel.

07:30:16 When there are were assembling these parcels and evaluating

07:30:18 the zoning on the property they went down to the city and

07:30:21 were provided with a may, zoning map.

07:30:24 And that zoning map, put it up here also, that zoning map

07:30:27 showed this corner as CI.

07:30:32 So based on that, and the line on that, they introduced a

07:30:36 contract to purchase parcel number 1 which was the 7-Eleven

07:30:39 parcel, thinking it wags CI zoning.

07:30:42 After they entered into the contract and went through their

07:30:45 regular due diligence and requested a zoning clarification

07:30:47 letter, and the staff investigated, they found that it

07:30:51 really was not zoned CI, it was zoned CG.

07:30:55 So at that point they already entered into the contract and

07:30:57 they decided to move forward knowing that is correct they

07:30:59 would have to go through this process.

07:31:03 And by the way, the property appraiser's information still

07:31:06 shows it as CI zoning as well.

07:31:09 Why did they need the CI zoning?

07:31:12 As you know, this is one of the busiest and most visible

07:31:15 intersections in the city.

07:31:16 It has a potential for a wide variety of uses.

07:31:22 A lot of interest in the parcel.

07:31:23 And the CI allows a lot more uses or several more uses than

07:31:29 what the CI allows.

07:31:31 Abbye touched on another reason that the CI is important to

07:31:34 my client, and that has to do with the drive-through window.

07:31:38 One of the potenntial tenants is interested in this property

07:31:42 is a bank.

07:31:44 They have also had discussions with national retail chains

07:31:48 and also national restaurant chains including fast food

07:31:51 chains, and as we all know all the fast food restaurants

07:31:55 have the drive-through windows.

07:31:57 The drive-through window standard are the same in CI as they

07:32:00 are in CG, the same exact standards, but the process is

07:32:04 different.

07:32:04 The process for CI is administrative approval as an S-1, the

07:32:09 process for a drive-it through window in CG is City Council

07:32:12 approval.

07:32:15 I have handled a couple drive-through windows in recent

07:32:18 months, and even when they meet all the criteria, we still

07:32:21 have to go through the process.

07:32:22 And it's an expensive process.

07:32:24 It's the same as going through rezoning.

07:32:27 It takes several month and very time consuming and very

07:32:30 expensive.

07:32:31 So that's something they want to avoid.

07:32:33 They think that if they are CI, and they have a potential

07:32:37 tenant who wants to put in a drive-through window and they

07:32:41 don't have to go through a public hearing process that

07:32:45 that's going to facilitate that tenant signing the lease.

07:32:48 So that's a big issue for them and big issue for rezoning,

07:32:52 is CI.

07:32:55 There are a lot of -- there are several adjacent uses for

07:33:04 what is potentially planned for this site.

07:33:06 You have the motels that are sort of lining Gandy to the

07:33:10 east.

07:33:12 Abbye didn't have some of these pictures.

07:33:15 There's the Mobil station.

07:33:16 We have the interchange to the Crosstown.

07:33:18 To the south is the pan a ram a bowling alley.

07:33:25 There's another shot of that H.just to the south of that is

07:33:27 the mini warehouse which also would not be allowed in CG, CI

07:33:33 zoning.

07:33:34 Then to the east of the parcel is another hotel.

07:33:36 I think it's called the sunshine hotel.

07:33:40 Adjacent zoning.

07:33:43 The adjacent zoning.

07:33:45 I wanted to point out when you look at the larger map, it's

07:33:48 a little bigger, it has a wider view than the zoning map in

07:33:52 your staff report.

07:33:54 You can see there's CI zoning in close proximity to the

07:33:57 parcel.

07:33:58 Just down Dale Mabry, here is the subject parcel, just down

07:34:01 Dale Mabry, there's a big CI parcel.

07:34:03 That's the Home Depot.

07:34:05 CI zoning in order to have lawn and garden and outdoor, some

07:34:09 of the outdoor.

07:34:10 Further to the west is CI.

07:34:12 There's the radio station is hear.

07:34:14 The WalMart, I believe, is right here on the other side of

07:34:17 Lois.

07:34:18 There's all kind of warehouses and light manufacturing back

07:34:22 here.

07:34:22 And further to the south there's also a lot of warehouses.

07:34:27 So CI zoning is in close proximity to this.

07:34:30 It's not out of the norm.

07:34:32 There are some residential to the south of the parcel.

07:34:36 However, the residential backs up to Marlin.

07:34:41 That is to say that the backs of the homes back up to

07:34:45 Marlin.

07:34:45 This is looking east down Marlin.

07:34:49 Hear is the site over here looking east down Marlin.

07:34:52 There's the residential uses further to the east.

07:34:55 And this is actually better shot.

07:34:58 And you can see the backs of the homes back up to Marlin.

07:35:01 There's only one home along this whole stretch from Dale

07:35:06 Mabry all the way to Himes that has a driveway that goes out

07:35:10 onto Marlin.

07:35:11 And then the home closest in proximate is heavily

07:35:16 landscaped, so it has its own buffering.

07:35:22 If buffering is required, as a result of our site plan, of

07:35:27 course we are going to have to provide it.

07:35:29 This is Euclidean zoning so no waivers are allowed.

07:35:33 We spoke to the neighborhood association president, Mr. Al

07:35:36 Steenson, with Gandy Sun Bay South several times, and I

07:35:41 believe he's here, and I believe he will speak in support of

07:35:43 this application.

07:35:44 I think he's looking forward to some of the older hotels

07:35:47 being demolished and for there to be new development in this

07:35:50 area.

07:35:51 Staff reports are -- and we would request your approval.

07:35:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone in the audience care to come

07:36:01 forward?

07:36:02 And then petitioner will be allowed five minute for

07:36:05 rebuttal.

07:36:16 >> Good evening.

07:36:17 Al Steenson, 4100 west Leila Avenue, Tampa, Florida, tonight

07:36:24 representing the Gandy Sun Bay South civic association.

07:36:28 At our last meeting, we had a lengthy discussion about this.

07:36:33 And I am not going to go into the whole conversation that

07:36:35 went on between the motion and the second and all of that.

07:36:40 But we are in support of this petition.

07:36:43 A couple of remarks were made from before.

07:36:45 Good riddance to the hotel.

07:36:48 That has been a haven.

07:36:51 When we go back to all the panhandling ordinances, this

07:36:54 thing was a haven.

07:36:56 They stand out in the corner, they ran over to 7-Eleven, get

07:37:00 a beer, jump in the room.

07:37:02 Day.

07:37:03 Losing the 7-Eleven is no big loss.

07:37:06 We got more convenience stores down there than we can shake

07:37:09 a stick at.

07:37:11 So the one casualty is Gandy barbershop.

07:37:16 It's gone.

07:37:17 But fortunately for Steve and Tony, they moved up the street

07:37:21 into Briton plaza so it's no loss.

07:37:24 We know where they are at.

07:37:25 So we'll find them.

07:37:28 Mr. Chairman, I don't think you need to worry about that.

07:37:31 [ Laughter ]

07:37:36 We are in total support of this petition.

07:37:38 Thank you very much.

07:37:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

07:37:39 Anyone in the audience care to speak to this item, Z-13-63,

07:37:44 number 3 on the agenda?

07:37:45 Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal if you care.

07:37:50 >>GINA GRIMES: In a rebuttal.

07:37:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

07:37:52 We have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick, seconded by Mrs.

07:37:55 Montelione on a close vote with Mr. Cohen.

07:37:57 All in favor of the motion?

07:37:58 Opposed?

07:37:59 The ayes have it unanimously.

07:38:00 Ms. Mulhern, would you kindly take number 3, please?

07:38:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented for

07:38:08 first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property

07:38:10 in the general vicinity of 3678, 3688 and 3698 West Gandy

07:38:16 Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

07:38:19 particularly described in section 1 from zoning district

07:38:22 classifications CG commercial general to CI commercial

07:38:26 intensive, providing an effective date.

07:38:27 >> I have a motion by Mrs. Mulhern.

07:38:30 I have a second by Mr. Suarez.

07:38:32 Further discussion by council members?

07:38:33 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

07:38:35 Opposed nay.

07:38:36 The ayes have it unanimously.

07:38:37 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.

07:38:40 Second reading and adoption will be on November 7th at

07:38:42 9:30 a.m.

07:38:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much for attending.

07:38:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 4.

07:38:50 Abbye Feeley, land development.

07:38:52 Z-13-64 located at 6863 South Westshore Boulevard.

07:38:56 This is another Euclidean rezoning request from IG,

07:39:01 industrial general to RM-24, residential multifamily.

07:39:05 No site plan and no waivers may be requested through this

07:39:09 application.

07:39:09 >> David Hay with your Planning Commission staff.

07:39:16 I have been sworn.

07:39:18 We stay down in the South Tampa planning district for our

07:39:20 next case.

07:39:21 This time we go way down to Port Tampa city.

07:39:27 Next we have the aerial, the subject site at the center of

07:39:30 the map.

07:39:30 As you can see it is undeveloped and is adjacent to a large

07:39:33 area of undeveloped land located to the south of Prescott

07:39:36 street and west of South Westshore Boulevard.

07:39:39 To the south we can see the wide right-of-way associated

07:39:42 with the CSX railroad line from downtown Tampa down to Port

07:39:47 Tampa city.

07:39:49 You can also see the predominant single-family detached

07:39:51 residential pattern located to the southeast of the subject

07:39:54 site.

07:39:56 And right there is the Port Tampa city library.

07:40:01 Onto the future land use map, the subject site which

07:40:06 recently was involved in the plan amendment 1301, it changed

07:40:11 from the light industrial land use category that you see in

07:40:13 that future land use map to now the residential 35 land use

07:40:20 category.

07:40:21 The land use is now the same as what is located immediately

07:40:25 to the north of this subject site.

07:40:30 That's the 35.

07:40:33 Overall the plannings commission staff found the proposed

07:40:35 rezoning to RM-24 would allow for the redevelopment.

07:40:38 Subject site for residential uses, the RM zoning district

07:40:43 would provide the development pattern in keeping with the

07:40:44 emerging multifamily residential pattern within this portion

07:40:48 of the City of Tampa, and it would remove the potential of

07:40:51 light industrial uses on the subject site.

07:40:54 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals, objectives

07:40:57 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission

07:40:59 staff finds the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa

07:41:02 comprehensive plan.

07:41:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

07:41:10 The request is from again industrial general to residential

07:41:13 multifamily for the construction of multifamily apartments.

07:41:17 Subject property is triangular shape with a total lot area

07:41:21 of 220,000 square feet, so just over five acres.

07:41:25 Surrounding areas contains a mix of residential uses

07:41:28 including single-family detached, semi-detached and

07:41:32 multifamily, as well as some low intensity older commercial

07:41:35 uses and the Spanish American war memorial park that's just

07:41:38 to the east.

07:41:39 Minimum required for an RM-24 is 5,000 square feet with 5.11

07:41:44 acres, obviously meets the minimum requirements of the lot

07:41:48 area.

07:41:48 It will be subject to all setback regulations under the

07:41:54 RM-24.

07:41:55 As David showed you, recently, the property recently

07:41:58 underwent a comprehensive plan amendment, and the piece you

07:42:01 see there is the second property.

07:42:08 There is commercial general which interfaces across the

07:42:13 railroad into commercial intensive, IG and CG.

07:42:19 We have seen a transition with new development of

07:42:22 multifamily.

07:42:22 I'll see you a piece of a recently approved PD that's

07:42:26 understood construction near completion just up the road on

07:42:29 Westshore.

07:42:29 Also up the road on the western side is the Westshore Yacht

07:42:32 Club, which has newer development as far as residential.

07:42:37 I want to show you some pictures that will give you an idea

07:42:40 of this site and also some pictures along Prescott to the

07:42:45 north, and then a few of what the site interacts with on the

07:42:48 eastern side of South Westshore.

07:42:54 Picture of the subject property.

07:42:59 Another view.

07:43:04 Here is getting closer to the southern end along the CSX

07:43:08 there.

07:43:08 This is that northern, up here, northern pieces along

07:43:13 Prescott.

07:43:15 Which is not part of this subject property but also zoned

07:43:18 RM-24 undeveloped.

07:43:20 A view down Prescott.

07:43:22 It is the first street right there.

07:43:24 This is a body shop that's just to the north along

07:43:27 Westshore.

07:43:29 On the eastern side of Westshore moving back south towards

07:43:32 the subject site, convenience store, the park, post office.

07:43:42 And then down toward the apex, the library is a little bit

07:43:48 further down.

07:43:50 As I mentioned Jefferson apartments, did you approve a year

07:43:54 and a half ago.

07:43:55 They are nearing completion now.

07:43:57 Just up the road on the eastern side on Westshore.

07:44:02 Staff did find the request consistent, and we are available

07:44:04 for any questions.

07:44:05 >>HARRY COHEN: Petitioner.

07:44:09 >> Michael Horner, North Dale Mabry highway suite 200 Tampa

07:44:22 representing owner, the applicant.

07:44:25 I have been sworn.

07:44:26 We have just completed, you may recall this site coming

07:44:28 before you in July for the res 35 comp plan, before the

07:44:35 Planning Commission.

07:44:36 You approved this by unanimous vote at the end of July.

07:44:40 We subsequently failed for the RM-24 zoning as noted by

07:44:45 Abbye and David.

07:44:47 This was owned by unified ownership with the property to the

07:44:51 north which is already res 35 comp plan, RM zoning.

07:44:56 It notes 178 units in RM-24.

07:45:00 We would only be able to achieve less than 125.

07:45:04 So we would not fully achieve the density under the res 35.

07:45:08 We needed the res 35 to allow the RM-24 zoning.

07:45:13 All about consistency, compatibility.

07:45:15 This area is transitioning to residential, from industrial.

07:45:19 We have reached out to the Port Tampa city HOA.

07:45:24 They have been supportive.

07:45:25 We have had no objections to the plan amendment process.

07:45:27 I would be happy to answer any questions.

07:45:29 We appreciate your support.

07:45:30 >>HARRY COHEN: Any questions from council members?

07:45:33 I don't see any.

07:45:34 Is there anyone from the public who would like to address

07:45:37 council on this matter?

07:45:38 >> Tom Vento.

07:45:49 I'm very concerned about the traffic that this will

07:45:53 generate.

07:45:55 It's also adjacent to another RM-24 piece, I'm guessing they

07:46:02 are going to have room for, what, 300 to 400 units.

07:46:05 So it would be closer to 400, which is about the Jefferson

07:46:12 apartments which have just been built.

07:46:14 That traffic hasn't hit Westshore yet.

07:46:17 Westshore backs up continuously.

07:46:20 The traffic going to the base goes down Interbay now.

07:46:25 This morning it was backed up .7-mile from Westshore from

07:46:30 MacDill Air Force Base.

07:46:34 If that were your neighborhood, I don't know how much

07:46:36 traffic the area can stand.

07:46:38 We are geographically challenged being that we are at the

07:46:41 bottom of the peninsula.

07:46:44 And I wish would you take a look at what contained of

07:46:56 traffic those two lawns -- they are two-lane roads.

07:46:58 Westshore has a turn lane but it's actually two traffic

07:47:01 lanes.

07:47:02 And traffic backs up on Westshore in the morning all the way

07:47:06 down to be Tyson, and in the evening all the way down to

07:47:09 Tyson Avenue.

07:47:10 >>HARRY COHEN: Go ahead.

07:47:15 >> That's basically -- I'm in opposition to it.

07:47:20 I used to be president of the association in that area.

07:47:23 But I had a heart attack and had to quit.

07:47:25 Right now there's no active president.

07:47:27 And I don't really know that they have been notified.

07:47:30 You went to their last meeting and there was no mention of

07:47:34 this and I asked them if they were aware of it.

07:47:42 That's it.

07:47:42 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilman Reddick.

07:47:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, chair.

07:47:46 Transportation, could you come forward?

07:47:48 Have you had a chance to look at this barrier that we are

07:47:56 speaking of, correct?

07:47:57 >> Jonathan Scott, Transportation and planning.

07:48:00 I'm familiar with the area.

07:48:01 >> Did you all do an assessment as part of the staff report?

07:48:06 >> Not with rezoning.

07:48:10 We look at it when they come to us with an actual project.

07:48:12 If a traffic analysis was necessary, then that will be

07:48:20 addressed at that time.

07:48:21 And they would have to mitigate for their impacts to traffic

07:48:25 also.

07:48:28 That would be taken care of.

07:48:29 >> All right.

07:48:30 Thank you.

07:48:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone else in the public care to speak

07:48:39 at this time?

07:48:39 Please come forward.

07:48:41 Let me say this.

07:48:42 When you see council members get up and move once in a

07:48:45 while, we don't want to be discourteous or anything.

07:48:48 It's that we haven't eaten.

07:48:50 So there's a little room back there, a little room we

07:48:54 bought.

07:48:55 And we watch this on television so I am well aware of what

07:48:58 was said both by the petitioner and the gentleman who spoke

07:49:01 in the blue shirt.

07:49:03 Petitioner, you have rebuttal time.

07:49:06 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

07:49:09 Michael Horner for the record.

07:49:11 We appreciate the comments of Mr. Vento.

07:49:15 We have in fact reached out to be the association.

07:49:17 There has been a transition of the present membership.

07:49:22 In fact three of the current board members met before we

07:49:26 even filed the comp plan amendment.

07:49:28 At the second reading of that plan amendment, one of the

07:49:32 association members attended and spoke in favor.

07:49:34 It's not a question about the drainage.

07:49:39 We have applied for permitting.

07:49:42 We have worked through those issues on the engineering

07:49:45 front.

07:49:46 As mentioned by Mr. Scott, we have a whole litany of reviews

07:49:51 that we have to go through with the City of Tampa.

07:49:53 And we can't ask for any relief because we are asking for

07:49:56 Euclidean district, as Abbye pointed out.

07:49:59 This is only a five-acre subparcel to a larger tract to the

07:50:02 north.

07:50:03 We have to widen Prescott.

07:50:04 We have to meet transportation reviewing requirements.

07:50:07 We have to meet engineering.

07:50:08 We have to bring in water and sewer.

07:50:10 So we met that burden and we have to go through a lot more.

07:50:13 But we appreciate the comments and want to work with them.

07:50:15 And as an ad hoc member of that association want to reach

07:50:20 out to us we would be happy, show him the plans so he can be

07:50:24 informed.

07:50:24 Thank you.

07:50:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

07:50:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Horner, what about the traffic

07:50:30 estimates that he was talking about?

07:50:32 Do you have any idea of how much this rezoning would allow

07:50:36 as far as the number of vehicles?

07:50:41 As the Euclidean, Mrs. Mulhern, we shall not required to be

07:50:45 do a detailed traffic analysis.

07:50:47 I will say the institute of traffic engineers, assigned to,

07:50:53 attached units for town homes or single-family, the only

07:50:56 access to this site would be through Prescott, the

07:50:59 intersection, was allocated two driveways with turning lane

07:51:03 improvements.

07:51:05 Before we move the first spade of dirt we have to meet those

07:51:09 requirements of transportation.

07:51:10 So about 110 units to 115 units on this five acres, with the

07:51:15 other RM-24, res 35 comp plan to the north is already

07:51:19 granted and could be permitted today without rezoning.

07:51:22 >>MARY MULHERN: And since you heard about the EPC, when we

07:51:27 look at that overhead picture of all the green, and with the

07:51:34 snaking green in there, too, so you have gotten a permit

07:51:37 from the EPC, or not?

07:51:41 You are waiting?

07:51:42 >> We have had numerous discussions and meetings with EPC,

07:51:45 Scott Emory has sat down, engineering, we have a preliminary

07:51:50 mitigation plan approved, only encroaching a few wetlands.

07:51:54 So you can imagine the remainder accommodating for the

07:51:58 units.

07:51:59 The rest will be retention and maintaining those wetland

07:52:02 systems.

07:52:02 So yes.

07:52:03 >>MARY MULHERN: The wetland might limit the number of units

07:52:07 you can put in, wouldn't it?

07:52:10 >> He would do have those limitations on the wetland.

07:52:13 That's why using a 178.

07:52:18 Dropping that down to 125 based on the RM-24 and probably

07:52:22 105 to 108 units maximum.

07:52:24 And that includes parking as well.

07:52:26 >> Thank you.

07:52:29 >> Okay.

07:52:30 Any further comments by council?

07:52:32 Need a motion to close.

07:52:34 I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione to close the hearing,

07:52:36 second by Mr. Suarez.

07:52:39 Further discussion by council members?

07:52:40 All in favor?

07:52:41 Opposed?

07:52:42 The ayes have it unanimously.

07:52:44 Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take Z-13-64?

07:52:49 >>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance being presented for

07:52:51 first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property

07:52:54 in the general vicinity of 6863 South Westshore Boulevard in

07:52:58 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described

07:53:01 in section 1 from zoning district classification IG

07:53:05 industrial general to RM-24 residential multifamily

07:53:09 providing an effective date.

07:53:09 >> Second.

07:53:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Cohen for

07:53:13 approval.

07:53:14 I have a second by Mr. Suarez.

07:53:15 Further discussion by council members?

07:53:16 All in favor of the motion?

07:53:19 Opposed?

07:53:19 The ayes have it unanimously.

07:53:21 Thank you all very much for appearing.

07:53:22 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent and

07:53:25 Reddick absent at vote.

07:53:27 Second reading and adoption will be on November 7th at

07:53:29 9:30 a.m.

07:53:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Now to number 5 P.Z-13-72.

07:53:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

07:53:35 Item number 5, Z-13-72 is located at 8617 north 37th

07:53:41 street.

07:53:41 The request before you this evening is from an RS-60

07:53:45 residential single-family, 60 by 100 lot to RS-50

07:53:49 residential single-family, 50 by 100 lot.

07:53:52 There are no waivers being requested or permitted with this

07:53:54 application.

07:53:55 >>David Hay: Planning Commission staff.

07:54:01 I have been sworn.

07:54:03 Our next case we head up to the university planning

07:54:06 district.

07:54:07 Again the university planning district is one of the three

07:54:10 target areas for the City of Tampa.

07:54:13 The subject site is within proximity to the 40th Street

07:54:17 corridor which is also designated as a transit emphasis

07:54:21 corridor.

07:54:22 Onto the aerial, the subject site is in the center of the

07:54:26 map, and we can see the surrounding areas developed

07:54:30 primarily with single-family detached residential with some

07:54:33 duplexes scattered throughout.

07:54:35 The Temple Crest neighborhood, the Hillsborough River is

07:54:38 located in the southwest corner of the aerial.

07:54:42 Finally onto the future land use map, and you can see the

07:54:45 subject site and properties surrounding it are all

07:54:49 designated residential 10.

07:54:51 Along 40th Street is the community mixed using 5.

07:54:55 While the green in the lower left is the recreation open

07:54:58 space.

07:54:59 Overall planning City Commission staff found the proposed

07:55:02 rezoning to RS-50 would allow for an additional residential

07:55:05 unit and would be in keeping with the mixture of lot sizes

07:55:08 and housing types found within this area.

07:55:10 Therefore based on those findings and the goals, objectives

07:55:13 and policies of the comprehensive plan, planning commission

07:55:16 staff finds the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa

07:55:18 comprehensive plan.

07:55:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

07:55:21 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

07:55:31 I know you all love these maps.

07:55:35 Just to show you, the lots that we are talking about this

07:55:38 evening were part of the Temple Crest subdivision.

07:55:41 This was originally subdivided in August and the lots we are

07:55:47 talking about this evening are over here.

07:55:48 They are lots 4 and 5 of block 13.

07:55:58 Right in this location here.

07:55:59 They were platted as 50-foot lots.

07:56:02 And along the way, they have been developed, these different

07:56:08 configurations within this area.

07:56:13 Show you anything that's 60-foot or greater and the blues

07:56:15 show you anything that's been developed at the original

07:56:17 platted lot of 50 feet.

07:56:19 So you will see the subject is shown here in green.

07:56:25 There is city parks just to the west.

07:56:27 So those platted lots are included.

07:56:30 What is east of 39 is all zoned RM-24 so that's a

07:56:39 residential multifamily district.

07:56:40 So those are not included in my analysis.

07:56:42 So I included for you the blocks to the north, the blocks to

07:56:46 the south, what's most telling in this situation is the made

07:56:49 property to both the north and the south.

07:56:51 And these two lots that actually face north-south and those

07:56:56 are two lots, a total of three to the north, two to the

07:57:01 south along the black face that are developed at 50 feet.

07:57:04 So there is a large City of Tampa stormwater retention pond

07:57:07 here.

07:57:08 It actually is included in this lot as well.

07:57:10 So that's not in the analysis.

07:57:15 I will go ahead and show you pictures of the property.

07:57:19 Here is another aerial shot.

07:57:22 The map is in your packet, was provided in your staff

07:57:30 report.

07:57:31 You will see hear an RS-60 zoning district.

07:57:34 RM-24 once you cross 39th and CG once you come out to

07:57:40 40th Street.

07:57:44 I don't like to use Google earth.

07:57:47 I typically don't use it.

07:57:48 If you go out to the site, in this case it's telling us,

07:57:55 show you here is the subject property.

07:57:59 It used to be like this.

07:58:00 This is the Google earth shot.

07:58:03 There were two houses with the power pole.

07:58:05 This one to the north is still there.

07:58:07 That's on the blue lot.

07:58:08 This is the second property.

07:58:10 There is the tree hear.

07:58:12 Tree is here now.

07:58:14 A little bit of a different angle.

07:58:18 There's that power pole for you.

07:58:25 Moving south along 37th, there are single-family

07:58:30 residential.

07:58:31 Then you get to those southern three lots I showed you, the

07:58:35 stormwater pond, the city stormwater facility.

07:58:42 What I did in my photo analysis -- sorry, wrong one.

07:58:50 I started here.

07:58:51 I came down the street.

07:58:52 I went back up 39th.

07:58:54 Came around Yukon.

07:58:58 I took everything that's internal here first.

07:59:00 And then provided you with some of the park shops.

07:59:09 Here is that one lot at the corner at Steward and 39th.

07:59:14 That's on Seward looking back towards 40th Street.

07:59:18 This is the now coming up 39th, and the retention pond

07:59:22 is now on the west or on my left coming up the street.

07:59:28 There are single-family.

07:59:31 These are the red lots.

07:59:32 These are the red lots on the back of the subject block.

07:59:48 This is the blue lot.

07:59:50 Then the corner coming back around.

07:59:51 On the eastern side of 39th, there is multifamily

07:59:54 residential.

07:59:57 And then here some shots of the park looking south,

08:00:03 southwest, and then there is one more residence down on

08:00:10 that, the western side of 37th.

08:00:20 Based on the existing development pattern of the lots in the

08:00:24 red-blue map that I showed you staff did find that the

08:00:28 request put this back to the original 50-foot platted lot

08:00:31 was consistent with the overall development pattern of the

08:00:34 area, and we are available for any questions.

08:00:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

08:00:38 Any comments by council members at this time?

08:00:39 Petitioner?

08:00:40 >> David Clisset, president of design development, Florida

08:00:51 engineering firm, representing representative of the

08:00:54 property owner.

08:00:55 Good news is that there's a very minor error in Abbye's

08:01:00 presentation.

08:01:00 The house that is boarded up is actually existing on the

08:01:03 double wide lot, and it is being torn down.

08:01:07 What she showed you as the existing lot is actually the

08:01:10 other of the two originally platted lots, and those will be

08:01:16 new homes to new building code and will be a great

08:01:20 development for this neighborhood.

08:01:23 So we request ask you to approve the zoning request.

08:01:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone else to speak on this item number

08:01:28 5, Z-13-72?

08:01:30 I see no one.

08:01:32 I have a motion to close by Mrs. Montelione.

08:01:34 Seconded by Mr. Suarez on this item.

08:01:36 All in favor of the motion to close?

08:01:39 Opposed?

08:01:40 The ayes have it unanimously.

08:01:42 Mrs. Montelione, would you kindly read number 5, Z13-72?

08:01:47 >> Move an ordinance being presented for first reading

08:01:49 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

08:01:52 vicinity of 8617 north 37th street in the city of Tampa,

08:01:55 Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from

08:01:58 zoning district classifications RS-60 residential

08:02:01 single-family to RS-50 residential single-family providing

08:02:04 an effective date.

08:02:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione.

08:02:08 I have a second by Mr. Reddick.

08:02:09 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

08:02:12 Opposed nay.

08:02:13 The ayes have it unanimously.

08:02:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.

08:02:18 Second reading and adoption will be on November they at

08:02:21 9:30 a.m.

08:02:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 6 is V-13-97.

08:02:25 Yes, ma'am.

08:02:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

08:02:28 Item number 6, V-13-97, located at 2200 and 2102 north Gomez

08:02:37 and 3012 and 3008 west cherry street, for a place of

08:02:43 religion assembly, daycare and school.

08:02:45 This is St. Joseph's church and school.

08:02:48 It has been in existence since the 1930s.

08:02:51 And this is where you have a special use that's been

08:03:01 conforming because it's been in existence for so long.

08:03:05 They are looking to add an access to the street on the south

08:03:12 border.

08:03:12 This is one full block with MacDill to the west, cherry

08:03:16 to the north, Gomez to the east and Walnut to the south.

08:03:19 The addition of the access onto Walnut requires that this

08:03:23 property come in as a special use before you.

08:03:25 >>David Hay: Planning Commission staff.

08:03:34 I have been sworn.

08:03:35 We move back down to the central Tampa planning district,

08:03:39 the cultural and historic heart of the City of Tampa.

08:03:41 The subject site is located within the West Tampa urban

08:03:44 village.

08:03:46 Urban villages are recognized within the comprehensive plan

08:03:49 important to the city's overall livability goals, and as

08:03:52 such all have had some secondary planning process completed

08:03:56 to help further guide appropriate development within these

08:03:58 villages.

08:04:00 Next onto the aerial.

08:04:02 The subject site is always is in the scepter of the map.

08:04:06 The first thing we see are the many historic single-family

08:04:08 homes throughout this portion of West Tampa.

08:04:10 We have MacDill Avenue running north-south, and we can

08:04:14 also see the baseball field associated with the West Tampa

08:04:17 little league.

08:04:18 To the east -- actually to the west.

08:04:22 And to the west, we can just make out the campus of the West

08:04:26 Tampa elementary school.

08:04:28 In the lower left, we also have scarlet park.

08:04:33 Onto the future land use map, the subject site is designated

08:04:36 the public quasi-public add in recognition of the St.

08:04:40 Joseph's Catholic church and school.

08:04:42 The applicant is seeking a special use to add the daycare

08:04:45 use to the site and provide for another access point along

08:04:49 Walnut Street.

08:04:51 Overall the Planning Commission staff found the proposed

08:04:54 special use request would be consistent with the number of

08:04:56 policies regarding residential support usage, and overall

08:05:00 the daycare will be integrated into the overall church

08:05:03 campus and the new access point will provide for more

08:05:06 efficient system for school drop-off and pickup.

08:05:09 Therefore, Planning Commission staff found the proposed

08:05:11 special use request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive

08:05:14 plan.

08:05:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thanks, David.

08:05:24 Abbye Feeley, land development.

08:05:26 There are a couple of waivers being requested for this

08:05:28 special use and one of them shows up three times.

08:05:31 But that is because it's a requirement of the daycare, the

08:05:34 school, and the church.

08:05:35 So the access to local street, if it's a waiver on your

08:05:42 staff report three times.

08:05:43 But it is because this application is considering three

08:05:47 special uses.

08:05:49 The other is a place of religious assembly, the yards are

08:05:54 required to be 40 feet with exception of the front yard, so

08:05:57 there is a waiver to reduce the south side yard and the

08:06:03 north side yard from 40-foot to 27.8-foot and 20-foot to

08:06:08 29.6-foot based on existing conditions.

08:06:10 There is no new construction that's being proposed before

08:06:13 you this evening, no new square footage or buildings of any

08:06:17 sort on the property.

08:06:19 It's just to add the access and to acknowledge those uses

08:06:22 that have been operating on there that would require special

08:06:25 use application before you.

08:06:29 There is a parking waiver from 205 spaces to 44 spaces.

08:06:33 There is a reduction in the drive aisle width from 24 feet

08:06:38 to 22 feet.

08:06:39 And there is a waiver to allow for grass parking.

08:06:44 Jonathan Scott of transportation is here taint in relation

08:06:48 to the waiver being requested for the access to local

08:06:50 streets.

08:06:53 As I mentioned to you, this has been in existence since

08:06:58 1930, and therefore the addition of the access is what is

08:07:03 bringing the application before you tonight for special use

08:07:05 consideration.

08:07:07 It is boarded by cherry to the north, Gomez to the east,

08:07:11 walnut to the south and MacDill Avenue to the west.

08:07:13 There are six existing structures on the site with

08:07:16 approximately 31,000 square feet of development, and there

08:07:20 is 600 seat sanctuary.

08:07:23 The existing school has 330 students including daycare and

08:07:28 prekindergarten with.

08:07:29 Special use setbacks of 27.8-foot north, 29.6-foot south,

08:07:33 40-foot east and 40-foot west.

08:07:42 As David showed you, land use underneath this subject parcel

08:07:47 is public quasi-public, which acknowledges historical

08:07:53 existence of this campus in this location.

08:07:55 Here is an aerial of the site.

08:07:59 I am going to show you some pictures.

08:08:06 And there are some modifications that would need to be made

08:08:08 in between first and second reading should council approve

08:08:14 this application this evening.

08:08:15 Those revisions have been identified in your staff report as

08:08:17 well as the revision sheet on page 10 of your staff report

08:08:28 identifying modifications that would need to be made.

08:08:32 What I am going to do is, my photos started at this corner.

08:08:35 I went all the way around the property.

08:08:37 I am going to travel that way showing you the photos of the

08:08:40 property.

08:08:41 And I also have photos of the house.

08:08:47 Those are the photos I have for this site.

08:08:51 This is from MacDill looking east.

08:08:57 Traveling along cherry toward the main sanctuary building.

08:09:11 The site.

08:09:11 Now at the corner of Gomez and cherry headed south on Gomez,

08:09:15 the existing parking area that faces onto Gomez, traveling

08:09:18 south toward walnut, the northwest corner of walnut and

08:09:23 Gomez.

08:09:24 This is moving west toward MacDill along walnut.

08:09:29 I'll show you where the access is being requested.

08:09:32 It is right here a little bit closer to MacDill Avenue

08:09:38 for student drop-off and pickup.

08:09:41 On the north side is cherry.

08:09:43 Here are some of the single-family residences.

08:09:46 Again another brick street.

08:09:53 Around the property.

08:09:54 This is directly across the street at the northwest corner

08:09:56 of cherry and Gomez.

08:09:58 This is the northeast corner of cherry and Gomez, heading

08:10:02 south on Gomez.

08:10:03 Walnut and Gomez.

08:10:05 Then come back along walnut toward MacDill.

08:10:11 And then I have just a few shots.

08:10:13 This is at the southeast corner of Gomez -- southeast corner

08:10:18 of walnut and MacDill.

08:10:20 Then across MacDill on the western side.

08:10:26 With the modifications made in between first and second

08:10:29 reading staff would find the application consistent with

08:10:33 land development regulation in respect to the special use

08:10:35 with the exception of transportation that is finding it

08:10:38 inconsistent based on the request for the access to local

08:10:41 streets.

08:10:42 Staff is available for any questions.

08:10:43 >> Good evening.

08:10:54 I'm John LaRocca, Murphy LaRocca consulting, 101 East

08:10:59 Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, representing the petitioner,

08:11:03 Diocese of St. Petersburg.

08:11:04 I have been sworn in.

08:11:05 I will try to keep this as simple as possible.

08:11:08 I am going to show one aerial to show how the site operates.

08:11:12 For those of you who are familiar with the St. Joseph's

08:11:15 church and school property, this is a 6.44-acre campus that

08:11:20 has coexisted at this location in that neighborhood for

08:11:24 approximately 0 years as indicated by Abbye.

08:11:28 I would like to place an aerial photograph.

08:11:34 Abbye and David did a good job of describing the location,

08:11:38 land use and zoning in the area.

08:11:39 But what I would like to point out on this plan is the

08:11:44 campus as it exists, we are proposing no change, and in fact

08:11:49 a few minor improvements.

08:11:50 There is an existing driveway on mall nut today.

08:11:55 Abbye had indicated along the southern frontage of the

08:11:58 property a gate of what looks like a picket fence but is a

08:12:02 white gate that surrounds the property.

08:12:06 That driveway is going to be improved.

08:12:07 What I would like to show you on this aerial photo, the

08:12:10 whole reason why we are before you, and seek a special

08:12:15 exception, because that one driveway was to be improved to

08:12:21 create a better access.

08:12:22 The school didn't understand the nuances of the land use

08:12:26 designation and when presented to me for the first time I

08:12:30 clearly saw the indicator that because there had never been

08:12:34 special uses for the facilities that had existed here for

08:12:37 almost 80 years that adding an altered driveway or new

08:12:42 circulation pattern was going to create the need for

08:12:45 recognizing the current uses there.

08:12:48 Currently, if you can follow this aerial, the red line, is

08:12:52 how the parents were dropping their children off at school,

08:12:55 are currently queuing in the morning and in the afternoon to

08:12:59 drop off and pick up children.

08:13:02 There is an existing parking lot that congregates

08:13:08 approximately -- accommodates 31, 32 vehicles off-street at

08:13:12 this point.

08:13:15 No increase.

08:13:20 But as the school stabilized, the school brought some

08:13:22 students in the past, but this becomes some conflict with

08:13:28 the pickup and drop-off with the parking lot.

08:13:32 The school administration conducted some of its own study

08:13:37 and felt that with the construction of a covered pavilion

08:13:41 within the last five years, that by extending and altering

08:13:46 the drop-off and pickup around the corner and into the area

08:13:51 west of the cafeteria, and a circular pattern is going to

08:13:56 get more vehicles off the street and allow AP covered

08:14:00 drop-off and pick-up point for the children.

08:14:02 The blue line signifying the new circulation pattern.

08:14:06 The whole purpose of our request simply was to change the

08:14:11 pickup and drop-off pattern that exists off of Gomez to

08:14:15 relocate it in and out of walnut street, midway between

08:14:19 MacDill and Gomez.

08:14:22 There are some parking spaces along Gomez that have just

08:14:29 existed over the years with inadequate backing up, if you

08:14:33 will, into the right-of-way, thank as a condition of our

08:14:36 site plan is being removed.

08:14:37 We are agreeing to comply with all the conditions and

08:14:41 alterations that are being proposed.

08:14:44 The three uses that are being sought of special use are

08:14:48 simply the three uses that, there was reference made to the

08:14:53 addition of a daycare, the pre-K facilities, or uses that

08:14:58 exist on the property are considered daycare, and never

08:15:03 specifically recognized as such.

08:15:04 We have included them in the request for the special use.

08:15:08 We concur with all the changes.

08:15:10 We will be glad to make those changes between first and

08:15:13 second reading as suggested by staff.

08:15:15 The only inconsistency as indicated by transportation is

08:15:19 access onto the local street but what we are doing is

08:15:22 essentially moving the pickup and drop-off from one point to

08:15:26 another that hopefully will create better queuing, better

08:15:29 access off-site.

08:15:31 We respectfully request that you consider this for approval

08:15:34 this evening.

08:15:35 Brian Lafferty with the Diocese is here this evening, should

08:15:39 you have any operational questions.

08:15:40 Thank you.

08:15:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Suarez?

08:15:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

08:15:44 Mr. LaRocca, quick question.

08:15:47 What is the time for pickup and drop-off for the school to

08:15:52 daycare?

08:15:53 >> Drop-off is observed, a couple of signs, drop-off starts

08:15:58 around 7:30 to 8:00, and pickup, I believe, is between 2:30

08:16:02 and 3:00.

08:16:03 >> So it's about the same time as Macfarlane Park.

08:16:09 >> Right.

08:16:11 And we looked at a variety of configurations to make it

08:16:14 work.

08:16:14 And just based on the way the school operates and the

08:16:17 conditions that have existed with church facilities, and the

08:16:23 fact that there is a situation that this has coexisted with

08:16:26 the way traffic has circulated in the past, this is deemed

08:16:30 to be the best solution to what has been a bigger problem

08:16:33 recently with the stabilization of school.

08:16:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone else care to speak on this item,

08:16:42 V-13-97, item number 6?

08:16:44 Do you want to speak, Mr. Traffic Engineer?

08:16:48 Okay.

08:16:51 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

08:16:53 Second by Mrs. Mulhern.

08:16:55 All in favor of the motion to close?

08:16:57 Opposed nay?

08:16:58 The ayes have it unanimously.

08:17:00 Mr. Suarez -- before we take a vote let me say this.

08:17:03 I know the area pretty well.

08:17:05 I know 31, 32 parking space.

08:17:09 And if you can drive there in those times you deserve a

08:17:14 medal.

08:17:15 It's worse than a fire drill that you have never seen.

08:17:19 And something has to be done.

08:17:22 That's all I am going to say.

08:17:23 Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take number 6, please?

08:17:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: And I'll say that I know quite a bit about

08:17:29 it.

08:17:29 I flunked out of catechism three times at St. Joseph plus

08:17:33 the fact that two of my children went to Macfarlane Park

08:17:38 school.

08:17:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I first you flunked out of first grade

08:17:41 four times.

08:17:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No, only three times.

08:17:43 Thank you, chair.

08:17:45 I present an ordinance for first reading consideration, an

08:17:48 ordinance approving a special using permit S-2 approving a

08:17:51 place of religion assembly, daycare and school in an RS-50

08:17:55 residential single-family zoning district in the general

08:17:57 vicinity of 2102 and 2200 north Gomez street and 3008 and

08:18:05 3012 West Cherry Street in the city of Tampa, Florida as

08:18:09 more particularly described in section 1 hereof providing an

08:18:12 effective date.

08:18:15 And including the revisions as provided by staff.

08:18:18 124 I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

08:18:20 I have a second by Mr. Reddick.

08:18:21 Further discussion by council members?

08:18:22 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

08:18:25 Opposed nay.

08:18:26 The ayes have it unanimously.

08:18:27 Thank you very much for attending.

08:18:28 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent, Montelione absent

08:18:32 at vote.

08:18:33 Second reading and adoption will be held on November 7th

08:18:36 at 9:30 a.m.

08:18:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 7.

08:18:40 DZ-85-75.

08:18:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

08:18:44 Chairman Miranda, if we can, 7 and 8.

08:18:47 7 is an amendment to an existing DRI and 8 is the associated

08:18:51 rezoning which codifies that.

08:18:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No problem.

08:18:58 7 and 8.

08:18:59 And 7 is identified as DZ 85-75 and 8 is identified as

08:19:04 Z-13-52 for the record.

08:19:05 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

08:19:09 Council, what's before you tonight is a request for

08:19:11 rezoning, Z-13-52 at Tampa Palms area 3.

08:19:16 The area is east of Bruce B. Downs, north of the TECO

08:19:19 easement.

08:19:20 The request is from PDA planned development alternative,

08:19:23 community commercial with trade-off and residential to PDA

08:19:26 planned development alternative, commercial, with expanded

08:19:30 trade-off, and residential.

08:19:32 There are no waivers being requested.

08:19:36 If I may, this is roughly a 247-acre piece of a larger 7

08:19:43 5-acre piece known as Tampa Palms 3, was recently next

08:19:48 dollars to the city in 1985, and what's going on before you

08:19:52 is the commercial entitlements are being increased by

08:19:56 116,713.

08:20:02 Some additional uses are being added to the trade-off

08:20:05 mechanism including mini storage and hotel, and for the

08:20:08 community commercial, and -- and the DRI, which is your item

08:20:24 number 7, is being amended to reflect these changes as well.

08:20:27 There are no additional impacts being associated with that

08:20:36 increases to 116,713 square feet.

08:20:40 But I will hold any other comments till after.

08:20:47 >>David Hay: Planning Commission staff.

08:20:51 I have been sworn.

08:20:52 The next case moves up to the New Tampa planning district.

08:20:58 This district is one of two districts city-wide that plan to

08:21:01 remain Mostly suburban scale residential over the planned

08:21:05 horizon.

08:21:06 Portions of the subject site are adjacent to Bruce B. Downs

08:21:08 Boulevard which is identified as a transit emphasis corridor

08:21:12 on the planning district map.

08:21:14 Onto the aerial, the subject site is located in the

08:21:17 southeast corner of Bruce B. Downs and southwest corner,

08:21:21 sorry, of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and interstate 75.

08:21:25 The surrounding area can take the mixture of suburban scale

08:21:28 residential and commercial uses.

08:21:30 The area has some large environmentally sensitive areas and

08:21:34 open space.

08:21:37 Onto the future land use map, you can see that the subject

08:21:40 site is comprised of three future land use categories.

08:21:43 The bright red is the community commercial 35.

08:21:46 The CC 35 is the most dense category, intense category

08:21:51 within the entire new Tampa planning district.

08:21:54 And the interchange of Bruce B. Downs and unit state 75 is

08:21:58 envisioned as the commercial core of that district.

08:22:01 The white pink over the majority of the site is the suburban

08:22:04 mixed use 6, whale the light green areas are designated

08:22:09 environmentally sensitive areas and as up have it no

08:22:11 development potential.

08:22:12 Overall Planning Commission staff find the proposed planned

08:22:15 development would continue to provide for development in

08:22:18 keeping with the long range plan for this portion of the

08:22:21 City of Tampa.

08:22:22 The planned development would continue to provide for a

08:22:25 mixed use development.

08:22:26 It would not create any negative impacts on adjacent uses.

08:22:30 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals, objectives

08:22:33 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission

08:22:35 staff find the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa

08:22:38 comprehensive plan.

08:22:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

08:22:40 >> Thanks, David.

08:22:49 I'm sure Ms. Zelman will do a far more eloquent presentation

08:22:52 of this than I will for you up in the New Tampa area.

08:22:55 But let me briefly go through.

08:22:56 I mentioned to you this is increase of the commercial

08:23:00 entitlement.

08:23:01 And I'll show you, the community commercial pod that we are

08:23:08 talking about are along Bruce B. Downs and the residential

08:23:12 ones are behind the property on Compton and also down south

08:23:19 of that area here on 32-A-B.

08:23:25 I do have some photos of these parcels.

08:23:30 As David showed you an aerial, here is the zoning atlas.

08:23:34 Predominantly everything in the New Tampa, Tampa Palms area

08:23:37 1, 2, 3, 4 are PDA planned alternative, and those require

08:23:43 incremental site plans.

08:23:44 The subject parcel, the community commercial parcels that we

08:23:48 are talking about allowing the allocation, additional

08:23:52 entitlements, 31, 33, 36, and this is moving north on Bruce

08:23:59 B. Downs, 37, and the residential that I just showed you,

08:24:07 38-B, C, and D.

08:24:16 These are photos especially when it's undeveloped property.

08:24:20 What also travels with this PDA is a set of performance

08:24:24 standards.

08:24:24 Susan Johnson has been work being closely with the applicant

08:24:28 to update those performance standards including cluster

08:24:31 housing, opportunity which would be more of a neotraditional

08:24:35 type style development that could be located within the

08:24:38 residential structure.

08:24:41 I have a few items that I need to go over.

08:24:46 As I said the current request proposes to add 116,713 square

08:24:51 feet of commercial entitlements.

08:24:52 Those community commercial pods on Bruce B. Downs, that's

08:24:55 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, and 37-A on your site plan, span it is

08:25:01 trade-off mechanism to including mini warehouse, or what

08:25:07 typically now is storage type use and hotel and they would

08:25:12 trade off the 106.

08:25:14 The total commercial entitlement once they increase will be

08:25:18 558,213 square feet, and 3,000 dwelling units.

08:25:28 Also just to let you know that ALF and senior housing are

08:25:31 also allowed for development within the residential

08:25:33 entitlement.

08:25:35 Tampa Palms area 3 has historically been the multifamily

08:25:41 elements of the Tampa Palms area.

08:25:46 There are additional entitlements above the 558, I think

08:25:50 700,000, but they aren't doing an increase of this increment

08:25:55 at this time.

08:25:56 In the staff report you will see that there were comments

08:25:59 related to the performance standards.

08:26:02 Ms. Johnson works with Mrs. Zelman.

08:26:05 Those standards have been updated.

08:26:06 All those provisions have been made so we have that with the

08:26:10 site plan.

08:26:10 The site plan modifications identified in your staff report

08:26:14 needs to be made and would be made on the site plan in

08:26:17 between first and second reading.

08:26:19 Lastly, what came in this morning and I have a copy for you

08:26:22 is a notation, number 5 understood land development talks

08:26:28 about a revised note related to the Hart park and ride.

08:26:32 Mrs. Johnson works with Mrs. Zelman to come up with a new

08:26:36 notation.

08:26:36 I have that to provide that to you so that on the revision

08:26:40 sheet we would use this modified Hart note as the note we

08:26:43 would like on the site plan in between first and second

08:26:47 reading.

08:26:48 And other than that, I think everything has been addressed.

08:26:55 And the application would be found consistent if these

08:26:58 modifications are made between first and second reading.

08:27:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

08:27:02 Petitioner?

08:27:08 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Fowler White, 501 East Kennedy Boulevard.

08:27:11 Yes, I have been sworn.

08:27:12 First I would like to introduce my client, Warren Kinsler,

08:27:21 and Richard Stiles who is now who did the traffic study.

08:27:26 And I also want to thank staff as Abbye mentioned.

08:27:29 This took a lot of time with Abbye, with Susan Johnson, who

08:27:34 has an amazing ability to remember everything about Tampa

08:27:38 Palms.

08:27:43 The Tampa Palms DRI actually dates back to 1980, adopted in

08:27:48 Hillsborough County in 1985 and annexed into the City of

08:27:51 Tampa.

08:27:52 This will be the 25th amendment to that DRI.

08:27:57 And again Susan Johnson can tell you what every single one

08:28:00 of those amendments did, and recite them from memory.

08:28:04 Like many of the amendments, this one just applies to one

08:28:08 area, and that's area 3, which as Abbye mentioned is just

08:28:12 south of that impact Bruce B. Downs and I-75.

08:28:15 And just to orient you if you have been up there, it

08:28:18 includes the commercial shopping center where there's a

08:28:21 BJs, a Bed Bath & Beyond.

08:28:24 There's the YMCA.

08:28:25 There's the Beckingham subdivision.

08:28:29 There's Compton place apartments and others.

08:28:34 Really, this sound very involved, the changes that we

08:28:37 requested are really simple.

08:28:40 The reason that we had to go through the DRI, and the

08:28:46 process is because we are increasing commercial

08:28:48 entitlements, because although the overall DRI was approved

08:28:51 for 700,000 square feet of what we call community

08:28:55 commercial, there was a provision added during one of these

08:28:59 amendments that once you went above 441,500 square feet you

08:29:05 had to do a traffic study for each new incremental square

08:29:08 footage.

08:29:09 So in this case, we are adding 116,713 square feet of

08:29:15 community commercial, the traffic analysis was done, and it

08:29:19 showed that with the increase of roadways and intersections

08:29:24 in the area would still operate within the adopted level of

08:29:28 service.

08:29:28 I have had a lot of calls from people in the area asking,

08:29:31 well, where would this commercial go?

08:29:33 And as Abbye showed, on the site plan it would all be on

08:29:37 commercial parcels along Bruce B. Downs Boulevard.

08:29:40 So that was really the significant change that we are

08:29:43 making, because we had to go through this process.

08:29:48 We did a lot of housekeeping items, and updated some other

08:29:52 things.

08:29:53 So it was already an existing condition, and a development

08:29:56 order about the dedication to the city of a five-acre park.

08:30:01 We worked with the Parks Department.

08:30:03 There is actually going to be a parks agreement coming

08:30:07 before you at second reading, if we go forward tonight -- I

08:30:12 mean that you approve this tonight, so as it pertains to the

08:30:16 development order and a new park agreement coming to you

08:30:19 that spells out in more detail when the park has to be

08:30:22 improved, when access has to be provided.

08:30:26 Again, while we were making these changes, we created a new

08:30:30 land use equivalency matrix which is that mechanism that

08:30:34 allows trade-offs between the uses.

08:30:39 We again made some housekeeping changes to map from to clean

08:30:46 up the notes from that.

08:30:47 We also extended the buildout -- or are requesting an

08:30:50 extension of that expiration daylight for three years.

08:30:55 Because we are amending the DRI we also had to amend the PDA

08:30:59 zoning to incorporate the new community commercial square

08:31:03 footage that would be approved.

08:31:05 And as Abbye mentioned, in this case there were performance

08:31:10 standards which were sort of like design guidelines that

08:31:13 only apply in area 3, then go into setbacks and things like

08:31:18 that for area 3.

08:31:20 So we are seeking an amendment to or -- or amendments to

08:31:25 those to allow primarily for a new development what we are

08:31:29 calling cluster homes, and again this would apply only to

08:31:32 the residential that cluster homes would be like

08:31:35 neotraditional type development with alleys in the back and

08:31:39 garages in the back on smaller lots.

08:31:42 Again, we are not actually presenting a plan for those

08:31:46 tonight.

08:31:46 We are just adding those into the performance standards as a

08:31:49 possible use in the residential, because again the

08:31:54 performance standards include all the setback requirements

08:31:57 for the lots within this residential parcel.

08:32:01 As Abbye mentioned, we worked with Hart to clarify and

08:32:07 tighten up the condition that already existed about

08:32:11 providing a park and ride facility.

08:32:14 That actually the language that Abbye mentioned that was

08:32:17 agreed to today will be added to the PDA site plan

08:32:24 condition, and in fact Matt has already updated the PDA site

08:32:28 plan to include all of the changes that Abbye requested, and

08:32:32 that Abbye and Hart and the other members of the staff

08:32:35 requested.

08:32:37 So in any event, as Abbye mentioned, the staff found that

08:32:40 with these changes made, this application will be consistent

08:32:44 with city code.

08:32:46 As David mentioned, the Planning Commission made the finding

08:32:49 that this application is consistent with the comprehensive

08:32:52 plan.

08:32:54 Of course, in the DRI process, the application, the

08:32:59 application was reviewed and vetted by FDOT and all the

08:33:04 reviewing agencies and they have no objection.

08:33:06 Mr. Kinsler from New Tampa also reached out to all the

08:33:11 neighborhood groups in the area, and actually met with the

08:33:15 Tampa Palms owners association and representatives of the

08:33:19 Buckingham neighborhood and he also contacted the Tuscany

08:33:24 neighborhood and admiral point, and this was addressed to

08:33:27 Councilman Montelione and I asked it to be given to all the

08:33:32 council members Bub just in abundance of caution, I would

08:33:36 like to introduce into the record a letter from the Tampa

08:33:38 Palms owners association, if I may.

08:33:54 And that letter is from William Edward, the president of the

08:33:57 Tampa Palms homeowners association.

08:34:00 And rents over 2,000 single-family homes and over 1,000

08:34:04 apartment homes, and at a recent meeting attended by

08:34:08 representatives who represent 1871 owners, Mr. Kinsler

08:34:14 presented these plans and was welcomed with support from

08:34:17 that group, as you can see in Mr. Edward letter for approval

08:34:24 tonight.

08:34:24 So again with city staff and commission finding, the

08:34:28 application is consistent, and again the application was

08:34:32 reviewed by all the reviewing agencies, and they have no

08:34:35 objection.

08:34:36 We request that tonight you, too, vote for approval of them,

08:34:41 and I am glad to answer any questions that you have, and I

08:34:44 would like to reserve time for rebuttal if there's a need.

08:34:48 Thank you.

08:34:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any questions by council members?

08:34:50 Mrs. Montelione?

08:34:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, sir.

08:34:53 Just a couple of questions.

08:34:59 In the original -- not the original, but refers to the

08:35:05 development agreement, and there's one in our backup after

08:35:10 the ordinance, but it's not marked exhibit E, that

08:35:15 development agreement that was referred to?

08:35:17 Mrs. Kert is shaking her head.

08:35:19 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

08:35:20 I did look at that and that would be exhibit.

08:35:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So I don't think -- okay.

08:35:31 And the e-mail about the transit stop that was just handed,

08:35:38 so I just had a chance to read it just now, and I may be

08:35:42 misreading this, but the bottom sentence, first paragraph,

08:35:48 this may involve park and ride on parcel 36 and 36-A with

08:35:54 owners' consent.

08:35:56 So clarify for me.

08:35:57 Is this an additional park and ride?

08:35:59 Or is this just a relocation of the current park and ride?

08:36:03 >> Relocation.

08:36:04 The one at the Loews is apparently being operated by Hart

08:36:08 under a temporary agreement, with the owner of the Loews

08:36:13 property.

08:36:14 My client has the obligation to construct a permanent

08:36:18 facility.

08:36:19 So what this condition requires is that we work together

08:36:22 with Hart to find a permanent location and construct it.

08:36:27 So it may be relocated from where it is now and possibly

08:36:32 even relocate it from the other parcels, 36-A which is south

08:36:36 of the parcel, but it will be somewhere in that vicinity.

08:36:41 That's why it's limited to those certain parcels listed in

08:36:44 the agreement.

08:36:44 >> He's promoting transit, and the individuals within the

08:36:50 area are in dire need of some transit relief.

08:36:56 You know, I am looking to expand rather than contract.

08:37:01 >> This is going to give them a permanent park and ride

08:37:03 facility.

08:37:06 Fairly close by.

08:37:07 So it wouldn't be an inconvenience to those who are already

08:37:11 going to the area.

08:37:13 And it would be the same size, larger, smaller.

08:37:16 >> I know that Mr. Kinsler has already purchased a shelter

08:37:19 in compliance with what Hart requires.

08:37:21 I don't not how it compares to the one -- there isn't an

08:37:31 actual shelter there.

08:37:32 He has a shelter in storage when the parking lot facility is

08:37:38 constructed.

08:37:40 We have a Hart board member here.

08:37:44 I'm sure he will look out my constituents in district 7 who

08:37:48 are also his constituents as a city-wide City Councilman.

08:37:54 It will be an improvement over what they have now.

08:37:56 I think that's absolutely fair to say.

08:37:59 Thank you very much.

08:37:59 >> Any other comments at this time?

08:38:00 Okay.

08:38:01 This is a public hearing.

08:38:03 Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item 7 and 8?

08:38:06 Which would be D-Z-85-75, and Z-13-52.

08:38:13 Please come forward.

08:38:13 >> I am Rammohan Ramadoss of Buckingham subdivsion. Our

08:38:32 president of the Buckingham Homeowners Association Board of

08:38:35 Directors is not here. He's on an international tour

08:38:36 somewhere.

08:38:38 So I am representing him as part of the board. I'm the

08:38:40 secretary.

08:38:41 I go by the name Ram.

08:38:44 Okay.

08:38:45 Lots of factual errors in your reporting.

08:38:53 You got the Tampa Palms area 3.

08:39:03 The Tuscany and Buckingham.

08:39:06 This proposed development is planning to show up right in

08:39:09 the middle of single-family homes.

08:39:11 There are very few apartment homes there.

08:39:15 And all the people have cars.

08:39:18 And there are very few businesses in that immediate complex,

08:39:23 as people drive to the complex, they are not needing Hart.

08:39:29 People that need the Hart are people coming from Wesley

08:39:31 chapel.

08:39:34 We already have the widening of Bruce B. Downs, 8 lanes.

08:39:38 We hear a lot of noise, okay.

08:39:44 Maybe 15 years ago after it was approved.

08:39:49 As I said, we searched every single document, for item

08:39:55 number 7 and item number 8.

08:39:57 Okay?

08:39:57 This application should be rejected as face value, number

08:40:01 one.

08:40:11 A lot of -- some of the people I spoke to, they didn't

08:40:17 understand this.

08:40:17 And this picture, this picture, Buckingham subdivision.

08:40:27 And talking about three subdivisions.

08:40:33 They are talking about approximately 395 homes in

08:40:36 Buckingham, 31 homes, and the number of condominiums I am

08:40:42 not aware.

08:40:43 Tuscany.

08:40:45 We have people in Tuscany.

08:40:47 We have just recently released -- okay.

08:40:59 Okay.

08:41:09 Coming back.

08:41:13 Thanks to the legacy left over, there was supposed to be one

08:41:20 next to I-75, converted into -- and they are not --

08:41:27 (Bell sounds)

08:41:28 -- for the taking.

08:41:30 So -- can I have more time?

08:41:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry, your time is up.

08:41:36 >> Well, more people.

08:41:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that. Thank you very much.

08:41:40 Next, please.

08:41:41 >> My name is Pardha. I am a homeowner, a home in Tuscany.

08:41:58 And you probably already heard.

08:42:03 And so I had no idea about.

08:42:10 I believe there is a lot of traffic coming into the Tampa

08:42:12 Palms.

08:42:14 There is a stop sign at the intersection of Tampa Palms

08:42:17 Boulevard.

08:42:24 More traffic coming in.

08:42:26 There is a lot more accidents.

08:42:28 I am concerned about this development.

08:42:33 So I ask council members -- thank you.

08:42:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

08:42:40 Anyone else in the audience?

08:42:47 You can come up as he's speaking.

08:42:48 Yes, sir.

08:43:03 Not a lot of property in that area, and even though they are

08:43:19 building apartments now, I'm thinking that having more

08:43:24 apartments, and should be coming to the property, to the

08:43:34 homeowners in the area, I believe.

08:43:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone else in the audience please come

08:43:42 forward.

08:43:42 Anyone in the audience on this item number 7 and 8, please

08:43:45 come forward.

08:43:48 >> Kathleen Andrews.

08:43:54 And I also live in Tuscany.

08:43:56 And I found a lot of errors also in what they said.

08:44:01 One thing, I couldn't understand -- put them up, put them

08:44:06 down.

08:44:07 I couldn't tell what they were.

08:44:10 On Tampa Palms Boulevard there are signs there, and we can't

08:44:15 touch one thing in our backyard because it's environmental.

08:44:19 This is much or more environmental where they have those

08:44:22 signs.

08:44:23 If is -- is there going to be an access to some of this

08:44:27 stuff on Tampa Palms Boulevard?

08:44:29 I didn't understand that.

08:44:34 They said something about the commercial on Bruce B. Downs

08:44:37 Boulevard.

08:44:39 I think I am hearing two different things with these signs.

08:44:42 And what they are saying.

08:44:45 This is residential.

08:44:48 There is no place for commercial right in the middle.

08:44:55 Everything else is either town homes, or single homes.

08:45:00 And we are right across the street from what they are

08:45:03 proposing.

08:45:06 You have all this different stuff coming in.

08:45:09 There's also kids walking to school there.

08:45:10 There's people that ride their bikes.

08:45:15 We pay an extra amount of money on our taxes, $6700 a year,

08:45:20 to live in Tampa Palms, I believe.

08:45:22 And part of the quality of our life is those areas.

08:45:31 I don't not what they are proposing for palm Boulevard.

08:45:33 If they want to GOP on Bruce B. Downs that's another thing.

08:45:36 What about -- there's a nice area across the street from it.

08:45:44 And there's a Chase Bank on one place that's of course looks

08:45:48 horrible.

08:45:49 But I don't know just where on Bruce B. Downs you are

08:45:51 talking about and how much any access point to palms

08:46:00 Boulevard.

08:46:03 To commercial.

08:46:04 Because some of that land is gorgeous land.

08:46:06 And I couldn't even believe they didn't have signs there.

08:46:12 So are there access points?

08:46:16 Who knows that?

08:46:19 On Tampa Palms Boulevard.

08:46:20 I know where BJs is and I know where that land is from

08:46:24 BJs.

08:46:25 How far does that go back to Tampa Palms Boulevard?

08:46:36 Legitimate question.

08:46:38 Does anybody know?

08:46:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Bell, I am know not the petitioner.

08:46:41 Petitioner will answer that H.

08:46:46 >> Okay.

08:46:47 What about this drainage, too?

08:46:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, you better address the council.

08:46:52 We are the ones going to vote.

08:46:53 >> Okay.

08:46:55 The drainage issue.

08:46:57 You know, the main thing is we want to know how close Tampa

08:47:00 Palms Boulevard all this stuff comes.

08:47:01 (Bell sounds).

08:47:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

08:47:03 >> This is really going to upset thing.

08:47:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right.

08:47:06 Your time is up, ma'am.

08:47:07 Anyone else in the audience care to speak?

08:47:09 Please come forward.

08:47:11 >> Good evening.

08:47:15 My names is hammagrill, in the Buckingham subdivision.

08:47:23 There are a couple of things that I wanted to bring up

08:47:26 before I forget.

08:47:27 Buckingham actually reached out to New Tampa LLC.

08:47:30 It whats not the other way around.

08:47:32 I saw the master site plan to this on Tuesday.

08:47:36 Tuesday of this week.

08:47:38 I can guarantee you I have no background in land use or

08:47:41 topography.

08:47:42 So what I am going to tell you is a quick synopsis of what

08:47:45 we just came to you very quickly so we had two days to

08:47:49 evaluate what we saw on this master plan.

08:47:51 So the first thing I need to do is I need to explain the

08:47:53 history of what's happened in Buckingham just in the past

08:47:57 throw years.

08:47:57 The first thing that happened to us, not most recently but

08:48:02 what happened first, was that TECO gas came in behind our

08:48:04 property line, right off of I-75, and mowed down hundreds of

08:48:11 trees that separated our view from the highway and also

08:48:15 separated some of the noise that came from the highway back

08:48:17 into our property.

08:48:18 And we had absolutely nothing to say about this.

08:48:20 We could not stop it.

08:48:22 There was nothing we could do.

08:48:24 The second thing that happens, FDOT came in, and as part of

08:48:28 the widening of I-75 they started routing all the sludge

08:48:32 water that comes off of you 75 right into an area that is

08:48:36 behind our backyards.

08:48:40 My kids are about 30 feet from where a barn is going to go

08:48:43 into.

08:48:44 That holds all this sludge water.

08:48:46 And that represent it is third part of this, which is this

08:48:50 big barn that's going to be built, and it affects pretty

08:48:55 much the middle of Buckingham, the backyards that are facing

08:48:58 I-75.

08:49:00 Not 15 feet from their property line. They are going to

08:49:02 have a 20-foot berm to collect all this water coming off of

08:49:08 I-75.

08:49:10 So, in summary, we are missing hundreds if not a thousand

08:49:17 trees that used to buffer our community from the highway.

08:49:20 And as a result, it sounds like Charlotte Motor Speedway for

08:49:23 about two-thirds of our properties.

08:49:26 Now, what's happening to the north end of the property which

08:49:28 is what I want to address -- and I don't even live on the

08:49:31 north end.

08:49:32 I actually live on the south end so I am already taking

08:49:34 this.

08:49:35 But I really want to help my north end folks.

08:49:37 When we looked at that site map, it looks like there was a

08:49:41 huge spot.

08:49:42 More trees going down in that area up there.

08:49:47 It's going to eradicate any noise barrier that those folks

08:49:52 have already.

08:49:52 So the point earlier about our property values taking a

08:49:56 dive?

08:49:57 We understand than was an economic issue.

08:50:00 But a more measure usually issue is all the properties in

08:50:04 Tampa Palms, the property values increase almost 9.5%.

08:50:08 And Buckingham, 2.5.

08:50:11 And we have one whole section on cul-de-sac where literally

08:50:16 you can take a baseball back to the backyard and I can hit

08:50:19 every single car going down 75 south.

08:50:22 Those homes are vacant.

08:50:23 Buckingham is a disaster.

08:50:25 And this is going to add to our problem.

08:50:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry.

08:50:30 >> thank you for your consideration.

08:50:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We appreciate it.

08:50:33 Anyone else who has not spoken please come forward.

08:50:35 >> Calvin Ball.

08:50:41 I also live at Buckingham.

08:50:44 And I want to continue where any my neighbor left off.

08:50:49 Land developers didn't do it correctly.

08:50:50 They blocked off the access of water flowing out of the

08:50:54 water behind our houses, so all the trees died.

08:51:00 When we moved there the developer said this conservation is

08:51:03 going to be the same forever.

08:51:05 Well, the trees died because of being greedy, and then

08:51:10 brought more trees, and now we hear the developer wants to

08:51:14 rezone and cut down all of the trees that are north of us.

08:51:18 That's 400 feet of trees.

08:51:19 We have no protection against noise.

08:51:22 And it makes things less safe.

08:51:25 And then we have more people coming in.

08:51:27 Another reason that we don't want that there.

08:51:29 So what I think, in my opinion, ought to happen go down 75

08:51:38 when it's finished, and rezoning the property.

08:51:40 So when that happens all the trees are gone, we are all

08:51:45 going to be in trouble because we are going to lose property

08:51:47 value.

08:51:49 So I'm thinking the only solution is to not rezone.

08:51:59 Thank you very much.

08:52:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

08:52:00 Anyone else in the audience care to speak on this item who

08:52:02 has not spoken?

08:52:03 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

08:52:09 My name is Mary Margaret West Wilson. Don't even know my

08:52:12 own name.

08:52:16 I live on Sanctuary Drive in Tampa Palms. I wish we had a

08:52:19 map.

08:52:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Move it up just a little bit.

08:52:34 There you go.

08:52:34 >> Thank you again for letting me speak.

08:52:37 The master plan for Tampa Palms, which includes, is an

08:52:43 integral part of our community.

08:52:44 This particular department developed the master plan was re

08:52:50 drawn in 1995.

08:52:52 Susan Johnson can tell you about that.

08:52:54 And what it did is it moved all of the commercial into this

08:52:58 area here at the top, and right on down between Compton

08:53:02 drive and Bruce B. Downs.

08:53:04 And that's very gratifying.

08:53:07 And to increase the residential experience, Tampa Palms

08:53:14 Boulevard was reroute.

08:53:15 In the original plan, Tampa Palms Boulevard went right past

08:53:19 the villages of Chelsea and Buckingham and straight into the

08:53:24 mall.

08:53:28 So in 1995 this plan was adopted.

08:53:31 And we relied upon it and it is working and hope that you

08:53:37 approve the commercial in that very narrow corridor.

08:53:40 And let me say, I do have a stake in that game, because this

08:53:47 is Compton drive and that's my house.

08:53:50 I am less than a few hundred yards from the closest of that

08:53:54 commercial.

08:53:55 Tampa Palms, the Tampa Palms homeowners association, and we

08:54:02 are very pleased that that commercial has been isolated from

08:54:07 the residential portion.

08:54:09 Now, I heard some people talk at Buckingham and they have

08:54:15 had horrible time up and down 75, and it seems that they

08:54:19 don't understand where the commercial is.

08:54:21 And that needs to be shared a little bit more.

08:54:23 Thank you for listening to me.

08:54:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

08:54:27 I appreciate it.

08:54:27 >> We have a plan.

08:54:28 The plan is working and we hope you approve it.

08:54:31 Thank you.

08:54:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Leave the map up there.

08:54:37 I think it's easier.

08:54:38 Thank you.

08:54:39 We'll make sure you get it back.

08:54:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Maybe.

08:54:46 [ Laughter ]

08:54:47 Anyone else who has not spoken care to speak at this time?

08:54:51 I see no one.

08:54:52 Petitioner, you have five minutes rebuttal.

08:54:54 >> Yes, thank you.

08:54:57 And I think there's a lot --

08:55:01 >> Mrs. Montelione wants the floor.

08:55:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

08:55:04 And maybe it's good that you are there because you can point

08:55:08 out some of the things on the map or Mrs. Kert or Mr.

08:55:11 Mueller can.

08:55:13 Can you, just for our benefit, on that map, show us where

08:55:18 Buckingham is located?

08:55:20 >> Yes.

08:55:20 Buckingham is down here.

08:55:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: As a development that you are proposing

08:55:29 is where?

08:55:30 >> Let me explain.

08:55:31 The commercial parcels are all here.

08:55:35 And actually --

08:55:44 >> It's updated now?

08:55:50 >> I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding.

08:55:53 Let me make one thing perfectly clear.

08:55:55 Normally with a rezoning you have to put up maybe two signs.

08:55:59 Susan Johnson required us to put up signs in 12 locations.

08:56:04 That's because she wanted everyone in all areas to see them.

08:56:07 The signs don't mean if there's a sign there -- that is not

08:56:16 at all the case.

08:56:19 It is not commercial going into the location where the sign

08:56:22 is.

08:56:24 And the question on the aerial, these are the commercial

08:56:29 parcels all along Bruce B. Downs.

08:56:31 So the woman asking about how deep they go in, this is as

08:56:37 deep as they go, okay?

08:56:39 Sew so.

08:56:39 >> So any commercial that you are going to develop is going

08:56:41 to be within those areas.

08:56:45 That's already established commercial.

08:56:46 >> Yes.

08:56:48 And again Buckingham here.

08:56:49 This is all wetlands.

08:56:51 So we are not seeking permission to come in and mow down

08:56:55 trees.

08:56:55 I don't know where that perception came from.

08:56:58 This is wetland.

08:56:59 And that's not going to be developed.

08:57:02 And -- I just jumped ahead.

08:57:09 But if I could explain, there seems to be a perception that

08:57:12 there's new development coming in.

08:57:14 All the residential development that we are allowed to have

08:57:17 has already been approved.

08:57:18 Nothing is changing because of this.

08:57:22 This is the first of 3 that you dwelling units.

08:57:24 We didn't seek an increase at all.

08:57:26 So we are not seeking any new development.

08:57:29 The parcels that are zoned for multifamily -- and I will

08:57:33 just show you -- because it's so big it's hard to get it on

08:57:42 the Elmo.

08:57:44 But, for instance, here is a multifamily -- nothing changed.

08:57:49 These were already --

08:57:55 >> Put it on top of the Elmo.

08:57:56 >> You need to move the camera up a little bit.

08:57:59 >> Okay.

08:58:00 >> So again, here is the multifamily parcels.

08:58:04 That was already there.

08:58:06 We think didn't change that.

08:58:10 So just for clarification because I know it's like to not

08:58:14 understand land use and development.

08:58:20 The parcel is zoned for that.

08:58:23 But is there currently any building there now?

08:58:26 >> No.

08:58:28 >> Okay.

08:58:29 So what they are asking for is to go ahead and build there?

08:58:33 >> No.

08:58:34 I'm trying to put it -- we already have the right to this.

08:58:38 Nothing we are doing tonight changes that.

08:58:40 It doesn't add to it.

08:58:41 >> So then tell us what it is you are specifically asking

08:58:45 for with the map on the screen.

08:58:47 >> What this request is, is to be able to build an

08:58:50 additional 116,000 square feet of commercial along here.

08:58:58 Here, here, and here.

08:59:00 And --

08:59:04 >> Caught in the drive.

08:59:05 >> I'm not here to judge anything else other than what we

08:59:18 have to do.

08:59:18 I am going exactly by the rules, sir.

08:59:21 They were the petitioner.

08:59:23 They were allowed 15 minutes for the presentation.

08:59:26 The public had at least seven or eight speakers at three

08:59:30 minutes each.

08:59:31 And now we're at rebuttal time trying to answer the

08:59:34 questions that was brought up.

08:59:36 Now, if that doesn't add up to about the same, then I can't

08:59:40 count very well.

08:59:44 I understand that. Council members are asking questions not

08:59:47 only for your benefit but for mine.

08:59:48 >> I'm trying to orient everyone.

08:59:54 This here is BJ's shopping center.

08:59:56 Here is Compton drive.

08:59:59 This is where community commercial can go.

09:00:03 This is where community -- this is Lowes.

09:00:05 Community commercial can go here.

09:00:07 Can go here.

09:00:09 And can go here.

09:00:12 All right.

09:00:14 And that was already true.

09:00:19 Where the number 37 is currently the BJ shopping center.

09:00:22 Where the number 36-A is, that's currently the lows shopping

09:00:26 center.

09:00:28 You are asking to build tonight where?

09:00:33 Again, we are already allowed to put community commercial

09:00:36 uses on 36, 33, and 31.

09:00:42 We just had to get the square footage approved tonight.

09:00:46 So it's not the zoning you are looking to change.

09:00:52 It's the square footage of what you are going to build.

09:00:56 >> Correct.

09:00:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And you are only asking for the square

09:00:59 footage on the commercial.

09:01:01 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Correct.

09:01:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And it's only along Bruce B. Downs.

09:01:05 And then in the parcels that you just indicated.

09:01:09 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Correct.

09:01:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm not sure if that clears up anything

09:01:15 for anybody but you are not going anywhere near Buckingham.

09:01:18 >> Correct.

09:01:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So there's no commercial allowed over

09:01:22 here, or over here.

09:01:25 That's all residential.

09:01:28 So, again, all are asking for tonight, just to make sure

09:01:31 that we are all clear and that everybody is clear, is for

09:01:35 the number of square footage that you can build on the

09:01:39 commercial on Bruce B. Downs.

09:01:42 >> Correct.

09:01:44 But again, the zoning performance standards that dictate the

09:01:47 sizes of residential lots, we are seeking some changes to

09:01:51 those to allow for some neotraditional development.

09:01:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's where the easy part comes because

09:02:00 you are talking residential.

09:02:01 >> Right.

09:02:02 It's already zoned residential.

09:02:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Can you show us where that is?

09:02:06 >> Okay.

09:02:07 Hopefully you can still see this.

09:02:09 These are residential parcels.

09:02:16 This is a residential parcel.

09:02:17 This is a residential parcel.

09:02:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.

09:02:21 And which residential are vacant and which ones are already

09:02:25 built on?

09:02:26 >> The residential that are built out we didn't include in

09:02:28 the zoning.

09:02:30 39-B, 34-A, 38-A, those are already --

09:02:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Anything is already built on.

09:02:40 >> Right.

09:02:40 >> What you are looking to do is change the sizes of the

09:02:43 lot.

09:02:45 What you are looking to do is change the sizes of the lot.

09:02:47 >> Not necessarily.

09:02:50 The performance standards set out of the different size lots

09:02:55 we can have, we are just adding to potential lot sizes, a

09:03:00 new category which would be smaller neotraditional lots, you

09:03:03 know, again with the garages in back, the alleys in back,

09:03:08 but we haven't identified -- we are not tonight seeking

09:03:12 approval for a development such as that.

09:03:16 That would come in during incremental site plan review if

09:03:19 the builder were to decide to build on one of these lots.

09:03:22 >> And maybe it would be helpful if you took a pen, as Abbye

09:03:25 often does, and circle the areas, because I'm just trying to

09:03:31 be as crystal clear as I could possibly be for those in the

09:03:36 audience.

09:03:40 The large residential.

09:03:42 So it's 37 --

09:03:44 >> Yes, Abbye already marked.

09:03:45 >> 38.

09:03:46 Well, before she find out.

09:03:49 >> Parcels that today can have single-family or multifamily.

09:03:56 >> We don't even know whether neotraditional will happen.

09:04:03 We are just adding that as a possible development style, in

09:04:06 addition to the other ones that are already in the

09:04:09 performance --

09:04:12 >> Okay.

09:04:13 >> So it's just the style of the house, the size of the lot,

09:04:16 and the number of commercial footage on Bruce B. Downs.

09:04:18 >> Right.

09:04:20 >> Those are the three things you are asking for.

09:04:22 >> Right.

09:04:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And again, you have all the lots there.

09:04:28 >> I have all the ones affected by this rezoning.

09:04:31 Abbye Feeley, land development.

09:04:33 If you take a step back, planned development alternative up

09:04:36 in the New Tampa area is a faster set of entitlements.

09:04:40 Those entitlements are pulled down for the administrative

09:04:44 process.

09:04:45 When these large tracts of land came into the city, what we

09:04:48 are talking about here is 267 acres of land.

09:04:52 This isn't your typical South Tampa commercial lot.

09:04:55 These are large lots.

09:04:57 And what happens is, they get entitled, so to speak, with a

09:05:02 development potential, and then that development potential

09:05:06 is drawn down through an administrative process, when they

09:05:08 are ready to build a BJs or ready to build a Lowes, they

09:05:13 come in and they show that they are satisfying all of the

09:05:16 development standard that are on the property, and they get

09:05:18 administratively approved, and then move forward.

09:05:22 So what they are doing tonight is just changing some of

09:05:24 those entitlements, increasing those entity ultimate on the

09:05:27 pieces that were already slated for commercial to be built

09:05:30 commercial tonight, and then for residential they were add

09:05:36 something new types of residential into the performance

09:05:40 standards.

09:05:41 And the performance standard are the regulations of the

09:05:43 zoning.

09:05:44 >> So for the individuals who were speaking tonight who were

09:05:47 concerned with anything being built in the areas that are

09:05:51 now treed because they are vacant, we cannot stop anything

09:05:57 from being built there.

09:05:59 >> That's correct.

09:06:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And it has been entitled since when,

09:06:06 Mrs. Feeley?

09:06:07 >>ABBYE FEELEY: 82.

09:06:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So since 1982 they had the ability to

09:06:12 develop what, in 82, was approved.

09:06:18 So all they are doing now is asking to tweak, if you will --

09:06:23 >> The amount --

09:06:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The amount of what they can build.

09:06:27 It's not if they can, it's what they can.

09:06:31 >> Right.

09:06:38 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I tried to color code these again.

09:06:39 The ones I circled in yellow are the parcels where the

09:06:43 commercial can go.

09:06:44 The ones that are remaining as pink only are ones where

09:06:49 again residential already can go, not changing that.

09:06:54 But you can see a lot of the areas that we are talking about

09:06:57 is treed areas, had are wetland that are not developable

09:07:01 parcels.

09:07:02 That's why, you know, for instance, if you look at this 38-B

09:07:06 it's solid white.

09:07:07 That's a developable parcel.

09:07:09 All of this next to it between it and Buckingham is wetland.

09:07:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And that's -- point out for council

09:07:19 where Buckingham is, maybe just mark it with a "B" with your

09:07:24 pen.

09:07:24 >> Oh, I'm sorry, 39-B, right up here.

09:07:36 This is all wetlands.

09:07:38 Not developable.

09:07:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So you cannot build on anything with

09:07:44 polka dots.

09:07:44 Thank you.

09:07:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Mulhern?

09:07:47 >>MARY MULHERN: I think the concerns we heard, it sound

09:07:51 like you have addressed some of them.

09:07:53 But I guess the question from what I heard was whether there

09:07:59 was going to be increased density, therefore increased

09:08:03 intensity, and also whether you were going to be

09:08:08 impacting -- and it doesn't look like it from the map to me.

09:08:12 You are not going to be impacting any of the wetlands at

09:08:15 all, right? So they are protected.

09:08:18 So war about -- you are talking about this -- there are

09:08:22 additional entitlements with the new style of --

09:08:29 >> No, the residential -- it's just allowing a different

09:08:34 building style.

09:08:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.

09:08:39 Will that result in increase in density?

09:08:43 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: We can't go over the units --

09:08:45 (Talking over one another).

09:08:47 >> We built more houses --

09:08:49 >> To draw from -- the type of development we are talking

09:08:51 about tends to be more dense because the houses are closer

09:08:55 to together.

09:08:56 But we can only build a number of homes we are approved to

09:08:59 build today.

09:08:59 >>MARY MULHERN: And for instance 38-F already for

09:09:09 multifamily?

09:09:10 You are not asking for changes --

09:09:12 >> Correct.

09:09:13 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess when I look at the map -- it's

09:09:16 easier to see -- but all the changes you are proposing have

09:09:19 an asterick.

09:09:23 Is that right?

09:09:25 >> And indicates all the affected parcels.

09:09:32 >> So then the other question we heard this from several

09:09:35 people, and I don't know if any of this process can even

09:09:42 influence this, that they have their concerns about all the

09:09:46 trees that were cut down.

09:09:50 Is there any assurance that --

09:09:54 >> You know, as they mention, apparently, TECO gas or TECO

09:10:00 electric mowed down trees.

09:10:03 That wasn't us.

09:10:04 The widening of I-75 was FDOT.

09:10:09 You know, we have heard about that.

09:10:11 We understand the complaints that we heard that Kevin

09:10:18 Beckner, as commissioners, the neighborhood that applies for

09:10:24 the grants, and the noise, but again those are issues that

09:10:29 my client had nothing to do with.

09:10:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.

09:10:32 They are concerned they can't do anything about it now, the

09:10:35 ones -- their concern is that new development, and any

09:10:39 changes to the DRI might cause more trees to be taken down.

09:10:43 Is there any way you can --

09:10:47 >> Well, we have never sought a waiver from the tree and

09:10:50 landscape code.

09:10:51 This we haven't sought a waiver from it tonight.

09:10:54 So again, the R the developable parcels that we can develop,

09:11:00 that's not changing.

09:11:01 Again the only thing that's changing tonight is the increase

09:11:04 in the commercial entitlement, so that we can build on again

09:11:10 parcels that have already been approved through residential.

09:11:13 >> Okay.

09:11:14 So going back to the commercial, do you have a total for

09:11:20 each of those parcels and the increased number of square

09:11:25 footage?

09:11:25 Is there a way for people to have an idea of what that will

09:11:29 mean to give you square footage?

09:11:32 >> We don't know other than obviously each parcel will have

09:11:35 to comply with city code in terms of providing, you know,

09:11:37 stormwater, and setbacks and things like that.

09:11:40 So I'm sure some engineer could sit down and figure out

09:11:44 exactly how much square footage you could actually fit on

09:11:47 each parcel.

09:11:50 No, we don't nobody yet.

09:11:52 >>MARY MULHERN: So if this were to be approved, what is it

09:11:56 that we are approving?

09:11:58 >> What you are approving -- you are approving square

09:12:02 footage but we don't have a footprint of the buildings that

09:12:06 will go on these parcels yet because we don't have --

09:12:10 >> All right.

09:12:11 The numbers must be somewhere.

09:12:12 The increased number of square footage.

09:12:15 >> I'm sorry, 116,000 -- let me get it right because it's an

09:12:24 odd number -- 713.

09:12:27 116,713 additional commercial.

09:12:34 >> And added to how many square feet?

09:12:38 >> We are seeking approval for 441,500.

09:12:42 We have conceptual approval for 700,000.

09:12:45 But again, the way the DRI requires us to come in with a

09:12:49 traffic study --

09:12:51 >> There are 700 that you and you are asking for an

09:12:54 additional 100?

09:12:54 >> No, no, no.

09:12:56 We have specific approval for 441,500.

09:13:01 So we are trying to add 116,713 for that, which draws again

09:13:08 together, that draws against the 700 that you.

09:13:13 In other words, had it would get us to a total of 558,213.

09:13:18 So we have approximately 213,000 roughly --

09:13:23 >>MARY MULHERN: But your limit is already set at 700 and

09:13:26 you are asking for an additional 1700?

09:13:29 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Not over the 700.

09:13:30 Yeah, yeah.

09:13:30 >>MARY MULHERN: For the current 400 you are asking --

09:13:34 >> We are asking to go up to 558,213, which is less than

09:13:39 that 700.

09:13:41 >>MARY MULHERN: What so what you are doing is showing us

09:13:45 generally where you want this to go.

09:13:48 >> Those are the only parcels on which it's allowed to go,

09:13:53 and that's 200 current zoning and the mapping of the DRI and

09:13:56 would remain true after tonight.

09:13:58 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:14:00 >> Those parcels again marked in yellow on Bruce B. Downs.

09:14:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right.

09:14:07 Questions by council members.

09:14:08 You have five minutes rebuttal.

09:14:10 We have asked all these questions.

09:14:11 You still have your rebuttal time.

09:14:14 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Most of way wanted to cover in rebuttal, I

09:14:17 covered in answering your questions but again I want to

09:14:19 reiterate.

09:14:20 I apologize again the city told me where -- by the way, the

09:14:26 signs were put up 30 days in advance of tonight, as well as

09:14:30 over 400 letters mailed 30 days in advance of tonight, but

09:14:34 the signs, the location of the sign does not equal location

09:14:40 of development.

09:14:41 I just want to make sure everyone understands that.

09:14:44 I also want to make sure everyone understands that we are

09:14:46 not talking about something new going in, in the residential

09:14:52 area, again the parcels on the map are already zoned for

09:14:59 residential.

09:15:01 That's not changing tonight.

09:15:02 The parcels, Bruce B. Downs is in yellow, along Bruce B.

09:15:06 Downs are already zoned for commercial.

09:15:09 That's not changing tonight.

09:15:11 We are just asking again for that increase and the square

09:15:14 footage that will allow for what happened along I-75 and

09:15:20 Buckingham is obviously regrettable and not something

09:15:24 anyone -- anything that wasn't done by this developer can't

09:15:28 be controlled by this developer and really, you know, has

09:15:32 nothing to do -- more importantly has nothing to do with

09:15:36 what we are talking about tonight.

09:15:37 So we hope that council can appreciate that.

09:15:42 And that was all I wanted to cover.

09:15:45 I just wanted to reiterate again that your staff and the

09:15:48 Planning Commission and actual the reviewing agencies found

09:15:51 this I didn't with the plan, consistent with the code, and

09:15:53 we hope that you too will approve it tonight.

09:15:56 Thank you.

09:15:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

09:15:58 Any further comments by council members?

09:16:01 Mrs. Montelione?

09:16:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I just have one request.

09:16:04 Ms. Zellman, because this is very complicated, and very

09:16:09 difficult to understand, and so when you mention about the

09:16:14 400 letters, folks are shaking their heads.

09:16:17 They may be outside the notice area perhaps.

09:16:20 All of the individuals except for Mrs. Wilson seem to be all

09:16:24 from Buckingham.

09:16:27 I one request that you go out of your way to meet with

09:16:29 Buckingham and sit down with some of the owners and really

09:16:35 make sure they have a full understanding of what it is you

09:16:38 are trying to do, because are if we approve this on first

09:16:44 reading tonight, but between first and second.

09:16:46 >> And Mr. Kinsler met with about five of them the other

09:16:52 night.

09:16:52 >> There's more than five hear tonight.

09:16:53 So if you can get their contact information, that would be

09:16:56 great.

09:16:56 >> Absolutely.

09:16:57 >> And I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding, so we

09:17:01 would appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.

09:17:03 >> Thank you, Ms. Zellman.

09:17:04 >> Any other comment by council members?

09:17:07 I need a motion to close.

09:17:09 I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr. Suarez on a

09:17:12 close vote with Mrs. Mulhern to close the hearing.

09:17:15 All in favor of the motion to close?

09:17:17 Opposed?

09:17:18 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:17:21 Do you have an ordinance for number 7?

09:17:23 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, I provided it.

09:17:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Who wants to read this?

09:17:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Move an ordinance.

09:17:36 City of Tampa, Florida approving the 25th amendment to

09:17:38 the development order rendered pursuant to chapter 308

09:17:42 Florida statutes by new Tampa, Inc., of regional impact

09:17:47 providing an effective date.

09:17:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And that's item 7, DZ-85-75.

09:17:53 A motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Suarez.

09:17:56 Discussion, Mrs. Mulhern?

09:17:59 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess I am just going to be say this.

09:18:02 I just checked my notes and forgot to ask a question.

09:18:05 So between first and second reading, I would like to hear

09:18:08 the question of the --

09:18:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

09:18:19 I understand.

09:18:19 All in favor of the motion stated by Mrs. Montelione, second

09:18:22 by Mr. Suarez.

09:18:25 All in favor?

09:18:25 Opposed?

09:18:26 Motion passes unanimously.

09:18:27 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.

09:18:29 Second reading and adoption will be on November 7th at

09:18:32 9:30 a.m.

09:18:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 8.

09:18:34 Mrs. Montelione, would you care do take that, or Mr. Suarez

09:18:38 take that.

09:18:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.

09:18:39 I move an ordinance being presented for first reading

09:18:42 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

09:18:45 vicinity of east of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, west of

09:18:48 interstate 75, and north of the Florida power TECO easement,

09:18:53 Tampa Palms area 3, in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

09:18:56 particularly described in section 1 from zoning district

09:18:59 classification PD-A, planned development alternative,

09:19:03 community commercial with trade-off and residential, to

09:19:06 PD-A, planned development alternative, community commercial

09:19:09 with expanded trade-oaf and residential, providing an

09:19:11 effective date.

09:19:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

09:19:15 Seconded by Mrs. Mulhern.

09:19:16 Further discussion by council members?

09:19:18 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

09:19:21 Opposed nay.

09:19:22 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:19:24 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.

09:19:28 Second reading and adoption will be on November 7th at

09:19:31 9:30 a.m.

09:19:31 >> The clerk asked me for a three-minute recess.

09:19:34 We'll take one.

09:19:35 Be back please in three minute.

09:19:36 The clerk needs one.

09:19:38 And I think all of us do, too.

09:19:40 We'll be in recess for three minutes.

09:19:43 (City Council recess.)

09:19:47 >> (Tampa City Council resumes.)

09:26:17 [Sounding gavel]

09:28:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: City Council is called back to order.

09:28:43 Roll call.

09:28:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

09:28:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.

09:28:48 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

09:28:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

09:28:53 Okay.

09:28:53 We are now at item number 9, Z-13-66.

09:28:57 Yes, ma'am.

09:28:57 >> Item number 9.

09:28:59 Abbye Feeley, land development, Z-13-66 is it located at

09:29:03 1523 west Carmen street, 1501 west Fig Street and 502 north

09:29:11 Oregon street, from IG and PD planned development

09:29:15 multi-development to PD planned development multifamily.

09:29:19 If I may quickly show you, there's a PD we did back in 2012,

09:29:26 shown near green.

09:29:28 At that time there was an associated vacating of Gray

09:29:32 Street.

09:29:33 You may remember this.

09:29:34 Across the street.

09:29:39 There was a holdout right here and that actually is what we

09:29:43 are rezoning tonight to bring it into the development and

09:29:46 put four unit on it.

09:30:04 And everything here I am going to show you some pictures in

09:30:10 a little bit and it is to not add layers into a planned

09:30:14 development especially everything will be through the

09:30:16 planned development.

09:30:17 So what we are doing is bringing it all back in tonight to

09:30:20 take care of that.

09:30:20 >> Good evening, council members.

09:30:27 David Hay with Planning Commission staff.

09:30:29 I have been sworn.

09:30:29 I am going to take you back out a little bit, look at the

09:30:32 bigger picture.

09:30:33 We are in the central Tampa planning district.

09:30:36 And more specifically the north Hyde Park neighborhood.

09:30:38 The subject site is also located within the West Tampa urban

09:30:42 village.

09:30:43 They kind of merge over into North Hyde Park.

09:30:47 Next onto the aerial, the subject site is in the center of

09:30:51 the map, as we can see the surrounding areas, take

09:30:55 residential, commercial, office, and light industrial uses.

09:30:59 We can see West Kennedy Boulevard along the southern

09:31:02 portion, down here of the aerial and to the north.

09:31:06 You can see the vintage on the west end.

09:31:12 Next to the future land use map.

09:31:14 As you can see, we have a lot going on in this area.

09:31:17 The subject site like the surrounding parcels is composed of

09:31:21 a mixture of community mixed use 35, which is the light

09:31:24 purple.

09:31:26 General mixed use 24 which is the light blue.

09:31:29 And the residential 20 which is light brown.

09:31:32 Overall Planning Commission staff found the proposed planned

09:31:35 development would allow the development in keeping with the

09:31:37 continued intensification of the general area.

09:31:40 The applicant is rezoning to the inclusion of an adjacent

09:31:44 parcel which would permit an additional four units.

09:31:46 The planned development would not create any additional

09:31:48 negative impacts and would provide for improvement in the

09:31:52 overall project as it would now be able to develop a

09:31:54 complete block without any remnant parcels remaining

09:31:59 adjacent to it.

09:32:00 Therefore based on those findings and the goals objectives

09:32:02 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission

09:32:05 staff finds than the rezoning request consistent with the

09:32:09 comprehensive plan.

09:32:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: One question I did want to mention in the

09:32:17 staff report.

09:32:17 The staff report had in the a -- previously approved wagers,

09:32:21 and then it said no waives being requested for phase 2 which

09:32:25 is the 52 by 108.

09:32:26 There are two waivers that are going -- that are associated

09:32:30 with the inclusion of that piece of property, and that is to

09:32:34 reduce the vehicle use area green space by 20% to 11%, and

09:32:38 to reduce the multifamily green space from 350 a unit to

09:32:43 161.75 square feet a unit for a dolt of 753 square feet.

09:32:49 The lot we are talking about bringing into this PD tonight

09:32:52 is 52 by 108.

09:32:54 It will be for four finally units.

09:32:56 And seven parking spaces.

09:33:00 The setbacks on this property are zero, and that's

09:33:05 continuing what's been approved in the existing PD, and the

09:33:08 maximum building height is 55 feet.

09:33:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Mrs. Feeley, I think for one thing our maps

09:33:17 don't actually show the new piece but the whole rezoning.

09:33:23 It looks like it's left out.

09:33:40 Okay.

09:33:40 That one, the overhead map and the rezoning.

09:33:44 The zoning atlas.

09:33:47 You can see where it is.

09:33:48 But when we approved this, or whoever approved it,

09:33:52 originally, that lot was part of the green space.

09:33:55 >> No, it wasn't.

09:33:58 Wasn't part of the lot.

09:33:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, okay, it wasn't even in there.

09:34:04 So they just acquired in and out.

09:34:05 >> That's why we are rezoning it.

09:34:07 >>MARY MULHERN: So when you are talking about the waivers,

09:34:09 the waivers are just for that one lot that's being added?

09:34:12 >> The two I just read out are for that lot.

09:34:15 The ones I included in my staff report is for what was

09:34:18 already granted for those.

09:34:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

09:34:22 So can we see --

09:34:36 >> It will be on the last painful of your site plan is for

09:34:39 phase 2.

09:34:42 Everything that was previously in title, everything is

09:34:45 coming in under this application we referred to phase 2.

09:34:49 We didn't touch anything in phase 1.

09:34:52 Incorporated phase 2.

09:34:55 >>MARY MULHERN: And already green space for additional

09:34:59 waiver for green space?

09:35:03 >> Yes.

09:35:04 >>MARY MULHERN: That's where I am trying to figure out

09:35:05 where the original is.

09:35:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: They are required 20% adjacent use area.

09:35:17 They are providing 11% and they are required 350 square

09:35:21 foot.

09:35:22 Think about that.

09:35:23 350 square foot.

09:35:24 The lot is only 52 by 108 and they have four units.

09:35:27 That's almost as big as the lot is for the green space.

09:35:35 Let me go ahead and show you some photos.

09:35:44 This is the second piece.

09:35:45 52 by 108.

09:35:47 That last little piece.

09:35:48 >> Are they taking down that tree?

09:35:52 >> That I don't remember.

09:36:00 Yes, they are going to remove it.

09:36:07 You will see the site is currently under construction.

09:36:11 Obviously phase 1.

09:36:13 >> Right there is the tree.

09:36:17 >> This is the subject property.

09:36:25 52 by 108 in depth.

09:36:27 The depth is along Oregon.

09:36:29 52 is along Fig.

09:36:31 This is looking down Fig.

09:36:36 This is directly to the south of the 52 by 108 at the

09:36:42 southwest corner of Oregon, and it's going down Oregon.

09:36:49 North of the subject piece that's being included, going

09:36:53 northbound on Oregon.

09:36:57 This is still moving north on Oregon up past the vacated

09:37:01 Gray Street.

09:37:02 And if you will remember, this is the church that is to the

09:37:05 east across the property, across Oregon, and where the alley

09:37:14 there, I know that was part of our discussion in one of the

09:37:17 first three zonings.

09:37:19 The property was rezoned in 2006 and 2007, most recently by

09:37:24 Pollock Shores Development in 2012, and that's what was

09:37:28 under consideration before you today.

09:37:32 Mr. Everett was just telling me probably toward the end of

09:37:34 October. So soon have resident there.

09:37:35 So very exciting project.

09:37:40 This really speaks to incorporate that last piece and make

09:37:43 it a full block development on the south.

09:37:48 There are no site plan modifications in between first and

09:37:51 second reading.

09:37:51 The site plan is ready to go for your consideration tonight.

09:37:54 And staff did find the request consistent.

09:38:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Petitioner?

09:38:00 >> Good evening.

09:38:03 My name is David Mechanik, 305 South Boulevard, Tampa,

09:38:07 Florida here on behalf of the applicant, Pollack Hyde Park

09:38:12 LLC.

09:38:13 And I have with me this evening Mr. Anthony Everett, who is

09:38:17 with Pollack.

09:38:21 Abbye did a very thorough job of explaining the application,

09:38:24 so I won't go into a great detail of detail on the board.

09:38:30 On the easel on the upper right photograph it actually is an

09:38:33 aerial photograph showing three buildings understood

09:38:36 construction so it gives you an idea of what's happening.

09:38:41 That particular board that I'm showing you there is actually

09:38:45 the board we used when you approved this project last year

09:38:49 in 2012.

09:38:51 So we are essentially asking you to approve the exact same

09:38:54 project.

09:38:56 Simply with the addition of the 52 by 108 lot in order to

09:39:01 add the four additional units.

09:39:04 And I would like to just point out that those two waivers

09:39:07 that we are asking for are of the same degree of waiver that

09:39:13 you approved, consistent with the waivers that were approved

09:39:17 as part of the last building request.

09:39:21 So we are not increasing the degree of waiver request.

09:39:26 And Mr. Everett is here if you have any questions.

09:39:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any questions by council members?

09:39:36 Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item, item

09:39:39 number 9, Z-13-66?

09:39:42 Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item, Z-13-66?

09:39:47 I see no one.

09:39:48 >> Move to close.

09:39:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Want rebuttal, Mr. Petitioner?

09:39:53 >> I don't need any.

09:39:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:39:55 I just want to make sure you are on the right track, sir.

09:39:58 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by Mrs.

09:40:01 Mulhern.

09:40:02 Discussion by council members?

09:40:03 All in favor?

09:40:04 Opposed?

09:40:05 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:40:06 Mr. Reddick, would you kindly take number 9, Z-13-66,

09:40:11 please?

09:40:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

09:40:22 Move an ordinance being presented for first reading

09:40:25 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

09:40:27 vicinity of 1523 west Carmen street, 1505 west Fig Street,

09:40:35 502 north Oregon in the city of Tampa, Florida and described

09:40:38 from zoning district classification IG industrial general

09:40:43 and PD planned development residential multifamily to PD

09:40:46 planned development, residential multifamily, providing an

09:40:49 effective date.

09:40:49 >> Second.

09:40:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Reddick, a second

09:40:53 by Mr. Suarez on an extremely close vote with Mrs. Mulhern.

09:40:57 Further discussion by council members?

09:40:58 All in favor for approval?

09:41:02 Opposed?

09:41:02 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:41:03 >> Motion carried with Capin being be a send.

09:41:07 Second reading and adoption will be on November 7th at

09:41:10 9:30 a.m.

09:41:11 >> Number 10.

09:41:13 Z-13-67.

09:41:15 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

09:41:17 Located at 206, 208, and 212 south Audubon Avenue.

09:41:22 The request before you tonight is from RM-16 residential

09:41:25 multifamily and PD planned development, residential

09:41:30 single-family attached and semi-detached, to PD, planned

09:41:34 department, residential single-family attached and

09:41:36 semi-detached.

09:41:38 Residential single-family attached is what you typically

09:41:41 refer to in as town homes and semi-detached is what you

09:41:45 typically refer to as a duplex.

09:41:48 So just to give you that when you are thinking about the

09:41:51 request before you.

09:41:51 >> Good evening, council members.

09:41:56 David Hay with the Planning Commission staff and I have been

09:41:59 sworn.

09:42:00 We remain in the central Tampa planning district for the

09:42:02 next case, this tame we move westward over to the Palma Ceia

09:42:06 pines neighborhood.

09:42:10 We have the aerial.

09:42:11 You can see the surrounding area has become denser over the

09:42:16 past 30 years.

09:42:17 We can see Kennedy Boulevard to the north, with all of its

09:42:21 associated commercial uses.

09:42:22 We can also see in the lower left the Tampa Memorial

09:42:26 Hospital and the surrounding medical office uses.

09:42:30 We can also see South Howard Avenue along the right side of

09:42:33 the aerial.

09:42:34 And its associated commercial and multifamily uses.

09:42:40 Finally we have the land use map.

09:42:42 The subject site and surrounding parcels are all designated

09:42:46 residential 35, represented by that brownish color.

09:42:50 We can see some mixed use 60 and community mixed use 35

09:42:54 represented by the pink colors.

09:42:56 Over to the east along south Armenia Avenue.

09:43:01 Overall Planning Commission staff found the proposed planned

09:43:03 development would allow for development pattern in keeping

09:43:06 with the underlying land use and the long-term vision for

09:43:09 this portion of the City of Tampa.

09:43:11 Therefore, based on the findings and goals objectives and

09:43:15 policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission

09:43:17 staff find the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa

09:43:19 comprehensive plan.

09:43:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, sir.

09:43:35 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Just to give you a little history on this

09:43:37 site.

09:43:39 This south piece with a big red PD box around it was rezoned

09:43:43 in 2005 for ten town homes, currently under construction.

09:43:50 We'll go ahead and show you the picture.

09:43:52 This other piece to the north here is the RM-16 piece.

09:43:57 And what they are seeking to do is to integrate that into

09:44:00 the existing plan.

09:44:02 When you add land to a PD, you can't do that

09:44:05 administratively because then you have a PDA so it requires

09:44:10 they now come and November line to include that other piece

09:44:13 of land.

09:44:14 All access ingress-egress is going to be off the previously

09:44:18 approved PD so it really is inspiration of the land, and

09:44:20 into the existing property.

09:44:26 And what is being proposed is consistent with the allowable

09:44:30 densities on the property as well.

09:44:37 So they are asking for four additional units or two duplexes

09:44:41 which would be a total of four units on the north piece

09:44:43 which is currently the RM-16.

09:44:51 The proposed setbacks are north 7-foot, south 15-foot

09:44:55 adjacent to Platt Street, east 7-foot adjacent to

09:44:58 multifamily residential, and commercial, and west 15 feet

09:45:01 adjacent to the south Audubon Avenue.

09:45:04 Maximum building height is 35 feet.

09:45:08 And based on the proposed development, a total of 32 spaces

09:45:12 including the guests are required and 32 spaces are being

09:45:15 provided.

09:45:29 I showed you the zoning atlas that has several PDs in this

09:45:34 area of the city.

09:45:38 There are town homes immediately to the east of this site

09:45:43 along Platt.

09:45:45 I'll show you some pictures of that.

09:45:47 Single-family residential, and again another set of town

09:45:52 homes just to the southeast of this site.

09:45:55 This site, the RM-16, it's the fact that hits being coupled

09:46:02 with a PD that that requires that we go ahead and move the

09:46:05 boundary lines of the PD.

09:46:07 There is a duplex on the property now.

09:46:10 The I'll show you pictures of that.

09:46:12 Audubon, Cleveland to the north.

09:46:23 I am going to start down here and move my way up.

09:46:26 So this is the northeast corner of Audubon and Platt.

09:46:34 This is the part that's already approved for the PD under

09:46:37 construction.

09:46:39 This is the RM-16 piece that is going to be integrated into

09:46:43 that PD.

09:46:43 This is a duplex.

09:46:47 This to the north.

09:46:49 Moving toward Cleveland.

09:46:53 This is to the north moving toward Cleveland.

09:46:55 And this is at the corner of Cleveland and Audubon.

09:47:02 Town homes to the east of the property.

09:47:05 Moving east on Platt.

09:47:08 This is now coming up north on Tampania.

09:47:18 I wasn't sure what that was.

09:47:20 That's on Tampania between the residential and the Roselee

09:47:29 center.

09:47:30 And there's another house there as well.

09:47:33 This is at the corner of Cleveland and Tampania.

09:47:39 And then this is the west side of Audubon moving south

09:47:43 towards Platt.

09:47:46 This is actually the southwest corner.

09:47:54 And then moving down toward Platt by the other town home

09:48:02 style development.

09:48:03 That's in that area.

09:48:04 And this is directly south of the subject property at the

09:48:08 southeast corner of Platt and Audubon.

09:48:11 Again with multifamily south of that.

09:48:16 There is one modification, one waiver, and that is to reduce

09:48:19 the required building separation for residential structures

09:48:23 based on the site configuration, separation about 9.6 feet,

09:48:28 actually so that waiver needs to be added to the plan

09:48:32 between first and second reading.

09:48:34 Other than that staff found the request consistent.

09:48:36 >> Thank you very much.

09:48:38 Petitioner?

09:48:38 >> Good evening.

09:48:45 Gregory Roth, 40950 West Kennedy Boulevard.

09:48:49 I have been sworn.

09:48:51 I would like to thank you the council for your time this

09:48:54 evening for your consideration.

09:48:55 I would like to thank staff for their effort and time they

09:48:58 put in with us to put this together.

09:48:59 Obviously, as Abbye mentioned it's an existing site R.the

09:49:04 first portion in the south are town homes that are currently

09:49:07 being built, and to the north are duplex that are older and

09:49:17 going to be taken down and integrated in the same PD plan

09:49:20 that's already been approved in 2005, so as Abbye mentioned,

09:49:27 RM-16 would support the development we are looking to do on

09:49:30 the land, but in order to integrate it and not have

09:49:32 additional access points and to make something that is all

09:49:36 in one piece, it made more sense to provide that all

09:49:42 encompassing PD.

09:49:44 So at this time I will open it up to questions if there's

09:49:46 anything you want, I'm hear for you.

09:49:50 Appreciate your time.

09:49:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any questions by council members at this

09:49:52 time?

09:49:56 I see none.

09:49:56 Anyone in the audience care oh to speak on this item number

09:49:59 10, Z-13-67, please come forward.

09:50:02 >> Good evening.

09:50:11 I am very nervous.

09:50:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Don't get nervous.

09:50:14 Believe me.

09:50:14 Just take it easy.

09:50:15 >> Okay.

09:50:16 I happen to be living at 204 Audubon --

09:50:21 >> Give your name.

09:50:22 >> I'm sorry.

09:50:25 Jenny Minor.

09:50:26 I live at 204 South Audubon.

09:50:30 So I live at the property adjacent to the one that they are

09:50:34 requesting to be pulled into their PD.

09:50:38 I don't know all the terms but I am learning very quickly.

09:50:41 I brought just a little map so you can see.

09:50:46 I would like for you guys to get into my neighborhood rather

09:50:49 than look at all the big pictures we show, and the town

09:50:53 homes, down the block, and the dilapidated duplex.

09:50:59 This is my neighborhood.

09:51:01 So we have what used to be an empty lot.

09:51:06 It was a church.

09:51:08 So that was redeveloped.

09:51:16 Having babies or working very hard, but they approved that

09:51:20 for years.

09:51:21 Now they purchased 206 and they would like to put four more

09:51:26 units at 206.

09:51:28 What I would like to see happen is that to do what is

09:51:34 already permitted.

09:51:36 There are reasons for that.

09:51:39 I will show you some pictures again to bring into my

09:51:42 neighborhood so you can really see it.

09:51:51 You see anticipating higher lots and then here is a picture

09:52:00 from my house to the west with two town homes.

09:52:04 Lovely.

09:52:05 Two town homes.

09:52:08 Here is another picture of their construction again.

09:52:12 Better pictures showing the difference of what they are

09:52:15 building in the entire corner, what's there in the

09:52:19 neighborhood.

09:52:19 I will try to go quickly.

09:52:20 The other town homes they want to put up on the end, lovely,

09:52:29 other portion.

09:52:30 As it was being built, second story, and actually see the

09:52:38 development.

09:52:40 Right across the street.

09:52:45 Single-family home.

09:52:46 Again, across the other street, single-family homes.

09:52:50 And then here, yes, this is way down at the other end.

09:52:56 They are just two stories.

09:52:58 So I had to go quickly.

09:53:00 But I would just ask that you only allow them what is

09:53:04 currently allowed.

09:53:05 Some of these pictures were Sunday morning, taken Sunday

09:53:10 morning, and there's parking everywhere.

09:53:16 So add 14 more families, and that's not a good thing.

09:53:21 So I would like them to have what's already allowed and no

09:53:27 waivers.

09:53:27 >> Thank you very much.

09:53:30 Next, please.

09:53:31 >> Jim Blake, 201 south Audubon Tampa 33609.

09:53:39 And I'm opposed to the rezoning for the PD from 16, it's an

09:53:45 increasing density.

09:53:46 It's also going to relax setback standards, and the RM 16

09:53:53 zoning already is generous, and allows the development on

09:53:57 the property multifamily dwellings, but it's still in

09:54:02 keeping, in character with the neighborhood.

09:54:05 Thank you.

09:54:05 >> Thank you very much.

09:54:10 Next, please.

09:54:11 >> Good evening chairman, council.

09:54:16 John Minor, 204 south Audubon Avenue.

09:54:19 I have been sworn in.

09:54:21 I actually have a few pictures here as well.

09:54:29 I am putting into perspective what's going on here now.

09:54:44 This is all along the street here.

09:54:46 And that's currently at the end.

09:54:48 But keep in mind it also goes around the corner as well.

09:54:57 Again, if I knew this was going to happen, I would have been

09:55:01 here for that, because this is completely ludicrous to have

09:55:04 this on the street.

09:55:05 And this is what we are going to be developing.

09:55:09 This will get torn down and it will be this, continuous

09:55:16 right against my house.

09:55:18 Another picture again.

09:55:21 It's ridiculous.

09:55:22 And that's just building one.

09:55:25 This is where it goes around the corner, starts to go around

09:55:28 the corner.

09:55:33 And it continues on.

09:55:35 Now, on the other side of this are town homes that are two

09:55:37 story.

09:55:38 And they are fine.

09:55:39 And I believe at one point in time the same people that

09:55:41 developed that had this land as well that they are now

09:55:45 developing, but for whatever reason, they couldn't do it,

09:55:49 whatever.

09:55:50 So that got rezoned.

09:55:51 And now we have this monstrosity that's there now.

09:55:56 I mean, not to mention the fact, where is the green space

09:56:01 all the way right up to the sidewalk?

09:56:03 There's no setback whatsoever.

09:56:05 And now they are proposing to do the same thing right in the

09:56:09 park right next door.

09:56:11 I don't see how this happened.

09:56:13 And this is the proverbial slippery slope.

09:56:17 I had a gentleman over here comment about, you know, vision

09:56:22 for this area.

09:56:22 Is your vision to have town homes down both sides of the

09:56:28 street?

09:56:29 If it is I guess you need to approve it.

09:56:31 I don't understand it.

09:56:32 There's families living here.

09:56:33 I have to go outside and explain to my kids weapon they are

09:56:36 playing in my backyard where there's a 35-foot wall of

09:56:40 concrete there.

09:56:41 I mean, come on, guys.

09:56:45 How did this happen?

09:56:49 Thanks for your time.

09:56:51 I ask please just leave it zoned the way it is.

09:56:54 Don't add any more densities to neighborhood.

09:56:56 Don't make it any bigger than it already is.

09:56:59 Please.

09:57:00 Thank you.

09:57:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:57:01 Anyone else in the audience who has not spoken care to speak

09:57:04 at this time on this item number 10, Z-13-67?

09:57:08 Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal.

09:57:11 >> I have been sworn.

09:57:18 I would like to start by just saying, and correct me if I am

09:57:21 wrong, RM-16 does allow for the proposed height of the

09:57:27 building as well as the intensity of what we are looking to

09:57:30 put on the site.

09:57:32 The intent of rezoning to PD is to allow it to be pulled

09:57:37 into the overall that meets the ideal of what's already

09:57:42 going on.

09:57:42 You sea right now, right now there is one access point for

09:57:50 the existing town homes off of Audubon in order to develop

09:57:55 the RM-16 piece to the north, and provide the same or even

09:58:00 smaller -- there would be an access point, there would be a

09:58:06 lot more -- less green space, more impervious, there would

09:58:10 be a lot more adverse impact to the surrounding

09:58:14 neighborhoods, and up against the buffer line, all the green

09:58:19 space, even worked with natural resources to take care of

09:58:24 and not negatively impact the surrounding trees, large grand

09:58:31 yolks just off the property, which make sure we take care of

09:58:38 them.

09:58:39 It's understandable that the height of the building could be

09:58:42 a concern at the same time it is, and it matches the intent

09:58:47 of the PD that was proved in 2005, and hopefully is now

09:58:53 being constructed.

09:58:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Montelione?

09:58:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

09:58:59 You said that -- and Abbye, correct me if I am wrong -- what

09:59:07 if this were not pulled into the PD?

09:59:11 I understand you would have to provide access point.

09:59:13 It would have to be another driveway.

09:59:15 Maybe two.

09:59:17 But what could you build on that site without the rezoning

09:59:26 for the PD?

09:59:28 >> What do you mean by that?

09:59:30 >> How many square feet?

09:59:33 >> You could build up to 35 feet in height.

09:59:36 Because what the PD allows.

09:59:41 So from a height standpoint, matching --

09:59:45 >> Given without the PD.

09:59:46 So you would have to add driveways?

09:59:49 >> Correct.

09:59:50 >> And you would have to -- you would have to configure the

09:59:55 site so that each building or each unit had their own

10:00:01 parking --

10:00:03 >> Availability, correct.

10:00:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I -- how many units could be built?

10:00:10 35 feet in hate?

10:00:12 >> Correct.

10:00:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Would give you about -- ran the numbers.

10:00:20 How many units would you be able to put there without

10:00:22 pulling it into the PD?

10:00:23 >> It's based on density.

10:00:26 But I believe be able to get four.

10:00:32 >> And how many are you going to get now?

10:00:34 >> Four.

10:00:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So it's equal?

10:00:37 >> Correct.

10:00:41 That's being proposed.

10:00:42 >> And maybe the concern that I have is how did this happen?

10:00:49 It happened in 2005.

10:00:50 >> RM-16.

10:00:56 I mean, even without the PD to the south, we have the right

10:00:59 to develop with what we are putting forward.

10:01:03 The site plan that we have, we could come -- well, we could

10:01:06 go to PSC with four town homes on that parcel but in order

10:01:12 to integrate it into an existing PD, that came before

10:01:17 council in 2005, and keep the existing infrastructure, we

10:01:23 have to go this route.

10:01:24 >> And avoid doing another curb cut?

10:01:27 >> Correct.

10:01:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Abbye, is there anything you want to

10:01:38 clarify?

10:01:39 Was that pretty much correct in what he was saying?

10:01:41 >> No.

10:01:42 Actually, he can have three units under the RM-16.

10:01:45 Not four.

10:01:47 It's 141 by 58, which is 8200 square feet, so he could have

10:02:02 three units on that lot, but it will require like you said,

10:02:06 additional access point, up to 35 feet.

10:02:10 All of those.

10:02:11 >> So it would be --

10:02:13 >> 35.

10:02:15 >> So it would still be as massive as stated before, would

10:02:19 still be -- another 35 feet.

10:02:23 Units as opposed to four -- the compromise there is you are

10:02:27 adding a unit to make it four W.three you have to have a

10:02:31 driveway.

10:02:32 You have to have another curb cut.

10:02:33 >> Yes, it depends.

10:02:35 The ones to the north has two garage in the front so it has

10:02:38 two aprons sitting out there with potential of four cars

10:02:41 sitting out there.

10:02:42 This doesn't have any access out there.

10:02:44 The access is internal.

10:02:46 But let me just mention that.

10:02:47 The PD setbacks, the addition of that RM-16 it is meeting

10:02:51 the side yard set back required by the RM-16.

10:02:55 The front yard setback, which is in line with what was

10:02:59 previously approved is 15 fate, which under the RM it would

10:03:03 have to be 25 feet.

10:03:04 So the PD is allowing for the setback to fluctuate along

10:03:11 Audubon.

10:03:12 It is not allowing for a setback in between the property for

10:03:16 reduction of the required setback in between the properties.

10:03:18 So it is consistent with the RM-16 in that way.

10:03:23 But picking up the additional unit, because they are doing

10:03:27 the land area, the density overall for the entire property,

10:03:32 not just that lot.

10:03:33 So that lot in and of itself wouldn't be eligible for three.

10:03:37 It could be a 3-story, 35 feet with a vehicular drive that

10:03:42 went underneath it.

10:03:43 I mean, you could do a lot of variations.

10:03:45 I am not exactly sure.

10:03:47 >> And what about any screening or buffering requirements?

10:03:50 >> They are meeting all of the green space requirements for

10:03:54 vehicle use area and meeting all the green space

10:03:57 requirements for the multifamily.

10:03:58 I mean the single-family semi-detached.

10:04:04 Thank you.

10:04:05 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Feelly, I'm sorry.

10:04:07 It's getting late.

10:04:10 Can you reexplain that about the setbacks, the additional --

10:04:16 >> Yes, they are asking for reduction in the setback.

10:04:22 >> This is the RM-16 piece hear.

10:04:30 So the Ringling Museum 16, if this were to be developed

10:04:33 independent of this has a 25-foot front requirement, they

10:04:39 are asking for a 15.

10:04:43 So it would have a 7-foot hear.

10:04:46 They actually have eight to the other.

10:04:49 And then the rear setback.

10:04:50 >> So I'm just talking about Audubon, okay?

10:04:56 So currently, they would have a 25-foot setback.

10:05:00 Is that what you said?

10:05:05 With the PD they are asking for 15.

10:05:07 >> Uh-huh.

10:05:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

10:05:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any other questions by council members?

10:05:18 Okay.

10:05:20 We have had public comments.

10:05:21 We have the petitioner.

10:05:22 We have had the rebuttal.

10:05:24 Any other questions by council? Mrs. Feeley or anyone else?

10:05:27 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

10:05:29 Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

10:05:31 Further discussion by council members?

10:05:32 All in favor of the of the motion to close signify by saying

10:05:35 aye.

10:05:35 Opposed nay.

10:05:37 Motion to close is approved.

10:05:40 Okay.

10:05:42 What's the pleasure of council?

10:05:47 Mrs. Montelione, number 10, which is Z-13-67.

10:05:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance being presented for

10:05:57 first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property

10:05:59 in the general vicinity of 206, 208, and 212 south Audubon

10:06:08 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly

10:06:10 described in section 1 from zoning district classification

10:06:13 RM-16 residential me have and PD planned development

10:06:17 residential single-family attached and semi-detached to PD

10:06:20 planned development, residential single-family attached and

10:06:22 semi-detached, providing an effective date.

10:06:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: A motion by Mrs. Montelione.

10:06:28 Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

10:06:30 Further discussion by council members?

10:06:31 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

10:06:34 Opposed nay.

10:06:38 Motion passes 4-2.

10:06:39 >> Motion carried with Reddick and Mulhern voting no, and

10:06:43 Capin being absent.

10:06:45 Second reading --

10:06:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much for appearing.

10:06:47 >> Second reading will be November 7th at 9:30 a.m.

10:06:51 Thank you.

10:06:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Go to number 11.

10:06:53 Z-13-44.

10:06:56 Conned public hearing from August 8th.

10:06:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item 11, Z-13-44, located at 313 Oak

10:07:11 Avenue.

10:07:11 The request before you tonight is from PD planned

10:07:13 development, office, business, professional and medical,

10:07:16 residential and mixed use, to PD, planned development, bed

10:07:21 and breakfast and previously approved uses, which was

10:07:25 business, professional and medical, residential and mixed

10:07:28 use.

10:07:30 This case was not opened in August.

10:07:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It opened today when I opened the 1

10:07:39 through 13.

10:07:40 >> So we are going to give the full presentation.

10:07:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would imagine so.

10:07:43 >> Good evening.

10:07:45 David Hay with your Planning Commission staff.

10:07:47 I have been sworn.

10:07:50 We continue with our cases within the central planning

10:07:53 district.

10:07:54 This next case is located approximately a mile north of us

10:07:57 tonight, up in the Tampa Heights neighborhood.

10:07:59 It is also located within the boundaries of the Tampa

10:08:02 Heights urban village.

10:08:06 Onto the aerial, the subject site is always in the center of

10:08:10 the map.

10:08:11 The first thing ever notices is the interstate 275 running

10:08:14 northeast to southwest across the aerial.

10:08:17 This portion has seen most of the existing residence.

10:08:23 This portion of the Tampa height area has seen a large

10:08:28 percentage of its residential uses either torn down or

10:08:33 converted to office uses.

10:08:35 South of the site is a multi-park apartment.

10:08:38 We can also see the GTE credit building in the lower right

10:08:41 and the central YMCA necessary the intersection of North

10:08:44 Florida Avenue and east Palm Avenue.

10:08:48 Onto the future land use map.

10:08:50 The subject site and the surrounding area are all designated

10:08:53 residential 83.

10:08:55 Residential 83 is the most intensive residential land use

10:08:58 category within the City of Tampa, allowing consideration of

10:09:02 up to 83 units per acre.

10:09:04 The area has not developed as envisioned understood the comp

10:09:09 plan, and still way underutilized under that land use

10:09:13 category.

10:09:13 Overall Planning Commission staff found the proposed

10:09:15 rezoning to allow for bed and breakfast as defined by the

10:09:19 Land Development Code would be consistent with the intent of

10:09:21 the residential 83, future land use category.

10:09:24 It would also allow for the reuse of an existing historic

10:09:27 structure within the designated urban village.

10:09:30 The proposed bed and breakfast would be compatible with

10:09:33 existing office and residential uses found within the

10:09:35 surrounding area.

10:09:37 Therefore, based on those issues and the goals and

10:09:39 objectives and policies within the comprehensive plan, the

10:09:42 Planning Commission staff find the rezoning request

10:09:44 consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.

10:09:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

10:09:55 The applicant is proposing to rezone from PD to PD to

10:10:00 establish a bed and breakfast.

10:10:02 There is a section structure on the property, the structure

10:10:06 is a relocated structure, was relocated from 1710 north

10:10:11 central.

10:10:11 It was constructed prior to 1903.

10:10:15 And circa 1900 and it has both local and national

10:10:21 designation.

10:10:23 This application went to ARC this week.

10:10:26 I was there Monday night.

10:10:27 Monday night it resulted in a tie vote.

10:10:29 It went back last night, and last night the motion was --

10:10:50 maybe it went somewhere else.

10:10:51 They recommended, voted to recommend denial as presented at

10:10:55 the public hearing, based on the fact that the proposed PD

10:10:58 rezoning does not reserve historical integrity and

10:11:02 appearance of the Tampa hates historic district.

10:11:04 That vote was taken last night.

10:11:09 >> Ms. Feeley, can you explain to us the tie vote?

10:11:14 I mean, Monday was the tie vote and then they voted again?

10:11:19 >> Monday night there were four members there.

10:11:22 Not the same four that were there last night.

10:11:29 Two were in favor with Monday not were not there Monday

10:11:32 night and two that were there ended up being not in favor so

10:11:35 they ended up with four votes not in favor.

10:11:37 >> Okay.

10:11:39 Thank you.

10:11:42 The subject property is at the southwest corner of north Oak

10:11:45 Avenue and north Jefferson street.

10:11:47 Itself was originally rezoned in 1999 as part of the Tampa

10:11:51 Heights office complex, and I know I brought two copies.

10:12:07 Just so you know what was approved in '99 and the PD.

10:12:11 It was the full block of Morgan street all the way to

10:12:14 central with Jefferson down the middle.

10:12:15 The piece we are talking about tonight is right hear.

10:12:20 Okay?

10:12:20 As you can see in '99, there were structures.

10:12:26 The structures are still here and have been converted to

10:12:28 offices.

10:12:30 As well as here and here.

10:12:34 The PD plan appeared like this.

10:12:38 And it did have performance standard.

10:12:41 You have those original from 1999, much like what you saw

10:12:45 tonight up in Tampa Palms, performance standards for how

10:12:48 this was to be developed as an office village and be

10:12:51 operated.

10:12:52 What's before you tonight is to be remove this piece of the

10:12:55 office village to allow for this to be either a B&B, or any

10:13:01 of the uses that were originally approved in the original

10:13:05 rezoning.

10:13:07 So it's adding a use, but it's not adding that use for the

10:13:11 entire area.

10:13:15 It's only for separate application.

10:13:17 What's before you tonight is only for this piece hear.

10:13:25 There is one waiver associated with this.

10:13:27 And that is on the western side of the property.

10:13:31 The staff report is incorrect and I would like to correct

10:13:33 that now.

10:13:34 It says some 15-foot with a 6 fat masonry wall, 5-foot 10

10:13:38 inches.

10:13:39 It's actually two feet to the parking area.

10:13:42 And that was a discrepancy on my part, and I'll show you

10:13:47 where that is.

10:13:59 When I had originally dimensioned it, I dimensioned it to

10:14:02 the stairs, and then Mr. Hampton is in the audience tonight.

10:14:07 It should actually be two foot to the parking area here.

10:14:10 When we were talking through it, I caught myself in that

10:14:12 error.

10:14:13 I'm asking that that be corrected in between first and

10:14:16 second reading.

10:14:17 It was not correct the way it's stated on the current site

10:14:19 plan.

10:14:22 How I had it in the report is also not correct so we need to

10:14:24 make that correction.

10:14:35 Transportation also had modification to label the alley and

10:14:40 remove the ballards as they are shown, and stormwater also

10:14:42 had a site plan correction to correct the flood

10:14:45 classification from C to X.

10:14:52 I have received numerous correspondence from this both from

10:14:55 the applicant as well as from the neighbors.

10:14:57 I would like to submit those into the record so that they

10:14:59 will be received and filed with the clerk's office as part

10:15:03 of the record associated with this.

10:15:05 And I don't want to forget to do that.

10:15:10 Again, here is the zoning atlas.

10:15:13 Here is that one little sliver there.

10:15:15 So this PD that you are seeing to the north and to the south

10:15:18 is that office village that I just showed you.

10:15:20 Those aren't independent PDs with the exception of the

10:15:23 ones over to the west here that do their own PD,.

10:15:31 There's an aerial of the site.

10:15:33 You will see most everything is in current condition.

10:15:38 The structure is located there.

10:15:39 The parking area is there.

10:15:42 What is coming before you tonight is really a change of use

10:15:46 for the use of the existing structure.

10:15:52 I will go ahead and show you photos of the site.

10:16:02 This is from the corner of Oak and Jefferson looking

10:16:07 southwest.

10:16:09 This is from Oak.

10:16:13 This is moving west down Oak.

10:16:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just a second.

10:16:16 Mrs. Mulhern?

10:16:17 >>MARY MULHERN: What is the current use?

10:16:21 It's a change of use from what to what?

10:16:23 >> From office.

10:16:24 >>MARY MULHERN: From office to?

10:16:27 >> It would be -- yes.

10:16:32 This is moving further west.

10:16:36 From Oak.

10:16:39 This is the corner.

10:16:58 That is the southeast corner of Oak and Morgan.

10:17:03 This is north -- no, no, no.

10:17:05 I take that back.

10:17:06 This is directly north of the property.

10:17:08 It's the vacant piece directly north of the property at the

10:17:10 northwest corner of Jefferson and Oak.

10:17:14 Now I am moving west down the north side of Oak.

10:17:18 So these are -- these structures here on the north side of

10:17:28 Oak that are part of the PD, those are the structures I'm

10:17:32 showing you now.

10:17:36 These are office uses as per the PD.

10:17:42 I believe many of these owners are here this evening to

10:17:45 speak to you.

10:17:55 This is down at 7th and north Jefferson.

10:18:07 This is catty-corner to the property also within the office

10:18:12 village.

10:18:13 This is at the northeast corner of Jefferson and Oak.

10:18:22 Now moving towards central along the north side of Oak.

10:18:29 This is at the corner of central and Oak.

10:18:33 The northwest corner.

10:18:37 This is at the northeast corner of central and Oak.

10:18:42 This is directly east of the property.

10:18:46 Directly east, another piece of the PD.

10:18:51 That has offices and also has obstacle.

10:18:55 It has low intensity retail.

10:19:03 I think that's it.

10:19:14 I went over the changes that need to be made between first

10:19:23 and second reading.

10:19:24 If these changes are made, staff find the request for bed

10:19:27 and breakfast to be consistent with the comprehensive plan

10:19:30 and the land development regulation.

10:19:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Question by council members?

10:19:42 Thanks so much.

10:19:42 Petitioner?

10:19:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Feeley, did you want to submit things

10:19:55 into the record?

10:20:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Need a motion to receive and file the

10:20:19 documents.

10:20:20 We'll get the rest of them later.

10:20:22 I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.

10:20:23 Seconded by Mr. Reddick.

10:20:24 All in favor?

10:20:25 Opposed?

10:20:26 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:20:27 >> Good evening.

10:20:29 Anne Pollack with Mechanik Nuccio law firm, 305 South

10:20:34 Boulevard, representing owner of this property.

10:20:36 And I actually have some letters in support that hi would

10:20:39 like to submit for the record while you are doing them.

10:20:48 And I have been sworn.

10:21:10 The property here as Abbye went through is part of a

10:21:13 multi-use, multi-property PD.

10:21:16 The PD allows office residential mixed use professional and

10:21:21 medical.

10:21:23 And now there have been some commercial within it.

10:21:26 The rezoning is to be allow bed and breakfast for this

10:21:29 specific property in addition to R.

10:21:35 It a historic build Victorian building completely renovated

10:21:41 to the owner, something you might find in St. Augustine.

10:21:44 Six rooms allowing a maximum of eleven people, including the

10:21:48 manager, which is required by code to have somebody there

10:21:51 full time.

10:21:52 24 hours.

10:21:55 All the better to serve guests and to provide security at

10:21:57 the building.

10:21:59 He plans to serve breakfast, probably with a continental

10:22:03 breakfast or something that is catered by a local business.

10:22:07 As you may know, to prepare food for this type of business

10:22:12 requires a commercial kitchen, which he does not have at

10:22:14 this time, and hasn't gone through the permitting to do

10:22:18 that.

10:22:19 He will update his signage consistent with Tampa Heights

10:22:22 design guidelines, and as well as the landscaping.

10:22:26 And to improve the landscaping all in accordance with

10:22:33 environmental design standard.

10:22:35 We are asking for a single waiver.

10:22:37 The waiver is to reflect the fact that the parking lot is

10:22:41 there as well as a fire access and ADA access staircase,

10:22:47 which is required by the city.

10:22:50 Tampa wood fence that we are requesting be changed instead

10:22:54 of a masonry wall, really is something that's custom in the

10:22:57 area, and the Tampa Heights design guidelines suggest that

10:23:02 the fence should not fit with the type of building we have

10:23:06 which we have a wood building.

10:23:07 We are asking for two conditions that he work with Tampa

10:23:15 city's police department to implement further

10:23:19 recommendations on lighting, and on landscaping, and also

10:23:24 that the final design of the fence on the western side be

10:23:27 subject to historic preservation staff approval.

10:23:32 Just to ensure that are we meet the design guidelines.

10:23:35 The building was built around 1809 and as Abbye said was

10:23:39 moved from its original location on central.

10:23:40 And when it was moved, much of the building, the sides

10:23:45 collapsed on the east and south side.

10:23:51 And when Mr. Arodak purchased the property in 2000 he

10:23:59 extensively remodeled the building over the next three years

10:24:03 in accordance with the Tampa design guidelines.

10:24:06 And now the building looks like this.

10:24:09 So it's a considerable difference are from what it used to

10:24:12 look like.

10:24:17 The property was zoned in '99.

10:24:20 It was an effort by the city to purchase the land and sell

10:24:23 it and improve the area and create this grand plan of a

10:24:27 mixed use district to improve the community.

10:24:29 Unfortunately, the village language wished over the next 14

10:24:33 years.

10:24:33 Much of the village today remains vacant.

10:24:36 The city, we feel, really failed to keep its side of the

10:24:40 bargain.

10:24:41 It created this plan but then it never did anything to

10:24:43 enforce the deed restrictions or the other requirements to

10:24:46 ensure that the properties were built and developed and

10:24:49 actually created something sustainable and successful.

10:24:52 And then the economy turns, and of course people have a lot

10:24:55 of trouble keeping office tenants in these buildings.

10:25:00 And actually the owner for a while, he was renting it for

10:25:04 office for several years, and as the economy turned he began

10:25:09 posting listings for office rentals, and instead he got

10:25:12 calls for residential rentals.

10:25:14 And being that the PD approved residential use, he assumes

10:25:20 it is okay to rent to residentials so he began to rent to

10:25:24 residential.

10:25:25 But this really isn't what he wanted to do. He has an MBA

10:25:28 in marketing and finance.

10:25:30 He has a general contractors license.

10:25:32 He has years of commercial and residential real estate and

10:25:35 really wanted to find what would be the best use for this

10:25:38 property.

10:25:38 He took a close look.

10:25:42 He saw a historic Victorian building in a historic building

10:25:46 in a mix of commercial and office uses.

10:25:48 It's located on the outskirts of downtown.

10:25:51 It's very close to the Riverwalk, including the Riverwalk

10:25:55 including now where he's building his restaurant, only five

10:26:00 blocks away, very close to Ybor City as well.

10:26:02 He went online and saw that there really aren't very many

10:26:06 bed and breakfasts advertised in Tampa, for whatever reason

10:26:09 that is.

10:26:09 I really don't understand.

10:26:11 But there are a lot of VRBOs, if you are familiar with

10:26:14 those, Vacation Rentals By Owner, where people rent out

10:26:18 their homes for tourists to come.

10:26:21 And there are several of them in the historic district,

10:26:24 around Tampa and in Ybor City.

10:26:28 He got that as an indication that a lot of visitors coming

10:26:32 to Tampa do not necessarily want to stay in a big hotel,

10:26:35 they want to stay in something charming and cozy and in an

10:26:39 interesting location.

10:26:40 And the VRBOs advertise their proximity not just within

10:26:45 walking distance but all the amenities that Tampa has to

10:26:48 offer, and we are finding successful.

10:26:51 So given his international background and his experience,

10:26:57 some economic analyses, he decided that this would be a good

10:27:00 location for small quality establishments that was

10:27:05 compatible with the area.

10:27:10 He also had a lot of support from neighboring organizations

10:27:13 including the Hindu temple and Islamic center which has have

10:27:19 a lot of connections with foreign people coming to visit.

10:27:21 So he joined several organizations.

10:27:23 He attended conferences.

10:27:24 He visit ready St. Augustine to see what works for them.

10:27:27 And he spent thousands of dollars to renovate the building

10:27:30 to bring the parking to code, to improve drainage, to

10:27:33 convert to the a potential B&B.

10:27:36 He met with neighbors, and many of them were excited about

10:27:38 this opportunity to sort of reinvigorate what has become

10:27:44 something of kind of a stalled development plan.

10:27:48 Unfortunately, there was also concern by neighbors that

10:27:52 based on some of the difficulty this property may have had,

10:27:55 or appeared to have had, in the past, that what he's really

10:28:00 looking to do is just become a rooming house.

10:28:04 But I want to remind you -- and I know that some people are

10:28:08 here -- fears about an illegal future use of a property,

10:28:13 that's not competent, substantial evidence.

10:28:18 It is unappropriate for you to assume in any way that the

10:28:21 property is going to be violating the PD approval.

10:28:26 You have to assume that the owner will act lawfully, and he

10:28:29 will act lawfully.

10:28:31 He made guarantees to his neighbors, and ultimately there's

10:28:34 no economic benefit for him to run a rooming house in this

10:28:37 location.

10:28:40 He spent over $200 that you already on this property.

10:28:43 He has to spend more on fire sprinklers, on landscaping, on

10:28:48 marketing, signage, all the efforts that go into the B&B,

10:28:52 and to spend that kind of money, and ultimately open a

10:28:55 rooming house doesn't make economic common sense.

10:29:01 He will be subject to city enforcement and state enforcement

10:29:05 because he will have to have a B&B license through the

10:29:08 state, and the neighbors obviously will have a close eye on

10:29:11 him as well.

10:29:12 But nevertheless, he will not be going through a rooming

10:29:18 house use.

10:29:19 Still, that is not something that you should even be

10:29:22 considering.

10:29:23 You should be considering whether or not this B&B is

10:29:26 appropriate for this property.

10:29:28 It's also inappropriate to look at any past behavior or

10:29:35 appearance of past behavior in making your decision.

10:29:38 If we only looked at the made past for projects, what would

10:29:42 have happened with the Riverwalk, or Channelside, or the

10:29:46 resurgence of Seminole Heights, if we only looked to the

10:29:49 status of the property at the time and didn't have any

10:29:51 vision for the future.

10:29:54 And tonight, I'm asking you to have this vision to look at

10:30:00 the owner's vision and to not look at the past for some

10:30:05 hypothetical, negative feature that you might have heard

10:30:09 discussed tonight.

10:30:11 Also look at whether the B&B is appropriate.

10:30:14 And it is appropriate.

10:30:15 The neighborhood is already zoned for office, residential

10:30:18 and mixed use.

10:30:24 There are commercial retail uses within the district, and

10:30:27 the mix of uses having a B&B added to that million not

10:30:33 provide a negative effect on the area of the environment.

10:30:35 It totally compatible with the neighborhood, with the

10:30:37 location, and it will compliment the usage.

10:30:42 Furthermore, the external appearance of the building isn't

10:30:45 changing.

10:30:46 The site is not changing.

10:30:50 And it does not compromise the historical integrity or

10:30:55 appearance of the district, or the building, because nothing

10:30:58 is changing.

10:30:59 Rather it's going to promote the historical architectural

10:31:02 features of the building, and it promotes retention and

10:31:05 reuse of this building as are required, and when you approve

10:31:08 the PD.

10:31:10 I do want to just -- to have four members initially, and

10:31:18 then four members the second time, and having different

10:31:22 people there and voting differently.

10:31:25 Now the commissioners originally voted in support recognized

10:31:29 the historical integrity and appearance of the district and

10:31:33 the building wouldn't be affected especially given the fact

10:31:35 that the building and the site are not changing in any

10:31:38 manner, and is bringing in a use that's compatible with the

10:31:42 neighborhood.

10:31:42 But the other three voted that the use would compromise the

10:31:46 historical integrity.

10:31:47 But honestly, they provided no factual findings whatsoever

10:31:52 to be back up that decision.

10:31:54 And given the fact that there's no change to the building

10:31:58 that there's no change to the site, and that they are

10:32:02 putting this use into a district that is already zoned for

10:32:06 residential and office, commercial uses are there, there is

10:32:10 simply no competent substantial evidence to support a

10:32:14 decision that bringing the B&B into this area would be

10:32:19 incompatible with this historic district.

10:32:22 And so I would ask you to disregard the recommendation.

10:32:27 We believe this approval will help to bring new life to this

10:32:31 historic district.

10:32:33 It's an effort to reinvigorate something that has -- it will

10:32:39 allow the owner to pursue an economically sustainable

10:32:42 business, and one that also requires great attention to the

10:32:47 historical features of the building and the community,

10:32:50 because that's why tourists come to bed and breakfasts in

10:32:55 historical district, they want to be in that community and

10:32:58 in an interesting building that's well kept.

10:33:00 It really is a prime example of cultural assets as an

10:33:04 economic engine, using the historic building and historic

10:33:07 features, bringing in a use that is compatible, but slightly

10:33:13 different and making a go at it.

10:33:15 With your support of that owner's vision, I think the future

10:33:21 really will be brighter, and with the historic preservation

10:33:27 staff and zoning staff and Planning Commission staff all

10:33:30 find this consistent, we would respectfully request that you

10:33:33 approve this tonight.

10:33:35 Thank you.

10:33:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:33:40 Council members?

10:33:40 Mr. Suarez.

10:33:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: First, can I ask you a quick question, Ms.

10:33:46 Feeley?

10:33:47 In terms of -- well, one quick question.

10:33:50 I apologize.

10:33:55 In terms of the requirements for bed and breakfast, what do

10:33:58 we require under code currently?

10:34:08 I'll call you in a second.

10:34:10 Enjoy your water while you are sitting down.

10:34:12 >> the definition of bed and breakfast is a residential

10:34:15 building or group of buildings where transient lodging unit

10:34:19 accommodation without independent kitchen facilities are

10:34:23 offered for rent by the day or week and male services are

10:34:28 provided.

10:34:30 Such use shall contain no more than 11 transient lodging

10:34:33 units in addition to the resident manager's unit.

10:34:36 and then we now have a transient lodging, transient lodging

10:34:42 unit definition for the ordinance you most recently passed

10:34:47 that said a separate unit be used for living and sleeping,

10:34:51 with or without independent kitchen facilities, intended to

10:34:55 be occupied by transient.

10:34:56 It is presumed that the lodging unit is not full residence

10:35:01 of the occupant.

10:35:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: What it says in terms of meals provided,

10:35:08 what's the definition of meals in our ordinance, if there is

10:35:11 one?

10:35:11 >> I don't believe there is one.

10:35:13 >> So we don't have a definition as to what the actual --

10:35:16 >> No.

10:35:16 We would defer to Meriam Webster dictionary.

10:35:22 I can pull it up for knew a few minutes.

10:35:23 >> I have an idea.

10:35:25 Sometimes I get one when I am here.

10:35:31 And again, I think when we look at our code, and what we

10:35:35 intend sometimes can be skirted around for lots of different

10:35:38 reasons, and unintended consequences whenever we create the

10:35:41 code.

10:35:43 In terms of the particular using of what's being done now,

10:35:48 let's say in a hypothetical we have a place that is not a

10:35:52 bed and breakfast but doesn't provide any kind of meals -- I

10:35:58 mean, understood our code, they are not going to meet the

10:36:01 standard of being a bed and breakfast, correct?

10:36:03 >> Correct.

10:36:03 >> And understood our current code, do we require that they

10:36:06 have kitchen facilities or not?

10:36:11 >>ABBYE FEELEY: For the B&B?

10:36:13 >> Yes, that's correct.

10:36:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: No.

10:36:15 The current definition does not require that the meals are

10:36:18 prepared on-site.

10:36:21 It does say meal services, but --

10:36:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Does it require owner occupied in order to

10:36:28 meet the needs of the B&B?

10:36:31 >> No.

10:36:32 It requires that there is an on-site manager.

10:36:34 >> But not owner occupied?

10:36:36 >> No.

10:36:36 >> Okay.

10:36:38 All right.

10:36:39 Thank you.

10:36:40 Mrs. Pollack?