Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
February 10, 2005
Evening Public Hearings

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

>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
Tonight we are very happy to have do the invocation Mary
Alvarez's legislative aide, Desiree Valdez, always on time and
likes to do things for Council.
We really appreciate her.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and also
a moment of silence.
Our heavenly father, tonight we offer a prayer of gratitude.
We thank you for all the blessings of Tampa, our city.
We are thankful for Tampa's natural beauty, gentle climate,
strength of community, opportunities for work and play and
character.
Lord, we ask your favor on our hometown, its people and its
government.
We lift up these seven elected leaders before you tonight and

ask that you give them wisdom, grace and strength as they
contend with the matters before them.
Help them individually and collectively to offer wise and fair
solutions.
We pray for all the citizens who have business in these chambers
tonight, and we also ask your blessings and strength for
Mr. Manuel Alvarez and his family.
We also remember all those who risked their lives in the service
of democracy and freedom abroad and our safety here at home.
For it is in your name we pray, amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for your indulgence.
As public safety Chairman, I was asked to read this in.
Desiree, she is correct, we do appreciate everything you do.
This is a testimonial to Peter Walsh.
I would like to take a few minutes to honor the memory of
assistant attorney Peter Walsh whose passing Tuesday at the age
of 58 saddens all of us.
Express my deepest condolences and my sympathy to the family.
He worked as an assistant City Attorney since 1979 when Bill Poe
was Mayor.
I pursued the private practice of law but continued to work as
an assistant City Attorney on a part-time basis.
Peter was a successful litigator.
Most of the cases he handled for the city involved the defense

of the police department and its officers in difficult areas
such as civil right claims, false arrests, pursuit cases and
tort action.
His expertise in this difficult area of law is recognized by his
peers and the judges before whom he appeared.
The city was very fortunate in having Peter to represent its
interests.
Peter will be gravely missed by all of us who knew him.
His daughters, Megan and Heather, and his grandson Peter were
the joys of his life.
I ask you to join me in extending our deepest sympathies at this
time of loss and please take a moment of silence to honor his
life and death.
Thank you.
(Moment of Silence)
Madam Chairman, thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
Need to open item one.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Before we do that, I would like to introduce
an intern that will be joining us for the semester.

Terrence Royer from USF.
He's a junior marketing major.
Terrence, thank you for being here.
>> Thank you.
It's a pleasure to be here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Good luck.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we need to open item one.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Staff?
>> Justin Basky, Legal Department.
I'm here to answer any questions on this item.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, if anybody wants to speak, you can open
one and two together if you want.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone who will speak, will you please stand and
raise your hand.
(Oath administered by the Clerk)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: On items one or two.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
>> Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from Council members?
Ms. Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just a quick question of staff.
Could you just give us a real brief synopsis of what this
brownfield designation accomplishes?
>> Certainly.
My name is Dan Fahey.
I'm with the city's office of environmental coordination.
And basically, the brownfields designation, as stated in state
statutes, allows any property owners within the state to request
their local government designate their property, a brownfield by
local -- by their local governing body.
At which point the city or county identifies that property and
the person who is going to be remediating the property and
developing the property to the state department of environmental
protection who is the regulatory authority that oversees the
environmental cleanup of the property.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So it doesn't mean that the city assumes any
additional liability --
>> That's correct.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thanks for the clarification.
>> Move to close the public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to make sure nobody else wants to speak.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anybody else want to speak?
We have a motion to close the public hearing.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'll move items number one and two.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

[ MOTION CARRIED ]
We'll go into recess for 15 minutes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real quickly, Mr. Shelby, remember after the
last zoning meeting we decided that we're going to run things in
a smoother more organized way.
And I wondered if that's going to kick in tonight or if our
procedures will be any different at this zoning meeting.
If, for example, when petitions are presented, the staff is
going to tell us that they've had adequate time to review the
site plans.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I can't speak for staff.
I don't know whether it will take effect tonight.
>> I can certainly answer.
Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
In the past, whenever I have a case that they have not done
anything, I've told you right up front, they haven't done
anything.
There are a few that are being requested for continuance
tonight.
And those are cases that nothing has been done.
So you hopefully should move them right at 6:00.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to I guess the statement,
Ms. Saul-Sena, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but
one of the statements was, at a certain point in time it will
say clearly on the agenda whether the 13-day window had not been

met.
Have we instituted that yet or is everybody today --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: We actually planned to begin that I believe
in March, because the February cases have already kind of been
through the cycle.
The 13-day requirement for the 24th is tomorrow.
So as long as all the cases are in, you won't even see it on the
agenda.
But the March cases are actually not as far along in the
process.
So I was hoping to get the language cleared through Morris, how
it would read on the agenda for March cases.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions from Council members?
We stand in recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess)
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to order.
Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
Ms. Coyle, would you come up, please?
Are you ready to clean up our agenda?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Good evening, Council.
Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
Item number 4 has requested a continuance to April 14th, I
believe.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, April 14.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If we can, I just want to be clear. Is that
date acceptable to Council and the clerk?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, we have ten new scheduled and no
continuances.
So that would be one of the three.
>> Move to open and continue.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to open the public
hearing, all in favor, aye.
Opposed, nay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess we should ask if anybody is here on
number 4.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone here for item 4?
Go ahead, Ms. Coyle.
April the 14th is okay with you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It's fantastic.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.

[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 8, V04-80, the petitioner has
requested May 12th.
We only have six new cases that night.
It's not full.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 10 is a new case.
They are requesting to continue to the next available hearing.
I would suggest April 14th.
That would be the second continued case.
You would need to open and continue.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We should ask if anybody is here.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: There was a motion to open all public hearings.
For the evening.
We haven't sworn anybody yet.
Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on the continuance for
item 10?
>>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's to continue to the 14th.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 12, V04-83 is a continued public
hearing.
And they are asking for one month.
I believe they asked for March 10th.
I can tell Council that March 10th already -- you scheduled
six plan amendments.
You also have the block grant at 5:30.
There are 11 scheduled public hearings, nine of which are new,
two are continued, and I can tell you many of them are very
controversial.
The second would be -- the second choice would be April 14th.
That would be the third continued case, and then that one would
be cut off.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to
the continuance on item 12?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If you also could clarify that you're
continuing it to 6:00 at night as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 12 will be continued to April the 14th
at 6 p.m.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Okay.
We go back to item number 3.

It's already open.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Do I need to be sworn?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, I would like to ask the clerk to swear in
anybody.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anybody who will speak tonight, will you please
stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by the clerk).
>>MARTIN SHELBY: When you please state your name, for the
record, please reaffirm that you have, in fact, been sworn.
Thank you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
I have been sworn.
The petition before you was approved one year ago for a special
use for recycling of building materials and auto parts at 4102
Causeway Boulevard.
It's the ALTO construction site.
You gave a one-year conditional approval.
They are back before you tonight for a permanent approval of the
special use.
I did note the waivers on the staff report, which are the same
as last time except they are limiting the height of the stacks
in waiver number two.
They are increasing --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
Did you say -- would you repeat that?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, the code requires a six-foot high
outside storage stack, essentially.
The previous request was for 25 feet which was granted for a
year.
They actually reduced it to 12 feet.
And that's the waiver from 6 to 12 feet.
The additional waiver, number one is to reduce the wetland
setback from 200 feet to 39.28 feet which was approved in the
previous special use.
I can tell you that I've given you the aerials of the site.
I can tell you that the -- every other condition as far as the
special use criteria are concerned have been met.
And if you look at the history section on page 8, I note the
special use that was approved as a conditional use.
And under standards and enforcement, all violations have been
abated, all permanent work has been finaled.
They did construct the wall as they were supposed to, the screen
wall and the concrete masonry wall.
Originally in the rear portion of the property along the wetland
area, they had no wall proposed.
On this particular plan, the new plan, they are showing that
they are going to build an eight-foot wall.
So the entire perimeter of the property will be walled off.
I can show you some additional site photos.
I can tell you for recycling facility, it's a fairly clean site.

You would expect to see a lot more debris of building materials.
They keep it very clean.
The stacks are all fairly low and maintained.
Obviously, it's not going to be a beautiful site.
It's an industrial use.
This is the crushing machine.
This is a portion of the wall.
This is along causeway.
It's an eight-foot wall as required by code.
They did plant the new palms out front on the outside.
And then the final picture where the gate is.
Staff had no objections to the request.
We honestly didn't render an actual recommendation on this one
because it had been approved and the direction by Council
through the one-year conditional was that they actually clean up
the site and obtain their EPC and S.W.F.W.M.D. permits, and
those letters are attached to the staff report.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Coyle, I don't know if you have any other
staff here that could answer a tree question, but I noticed one
of your photographs showed one or two trees and then I'm looking
at the aerial and there are trees there.
Do they have any mechanism to protect the roots of those oaks?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: That all did go through site review and Greg
Yurcus did review that and the permits were finaled for that.
The protection of the trees was done through the permit review.

>> I was looking at about your fourth picture that showed the
tree, and it looked like there might have been some construction
material kind of close to it and just kind of caught my eye at a
glance.
It looks like they've done a real nice job on the overall site
and a vast improvement from a year ago.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: See, actually, I can show you an area where a
great cluster of trees are supposed to remain.
They actually entered in, they've installed the railroad ties
for the protection.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That wasn't the picture.
Is there another one that shows the trunk of an oak tree?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I see limbs.
I mean, there's the palm tree and that has a railroad tie
barrier around it.
That doesn't have any trees.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So they put railroad tie barriers --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yeah, you can see in this one, there's the
oak tree and the palm tree.
See the railroad ties at the bottom.
That is the barrier around them.
All the trees that are supposed to be protected have been
barriered with actual permanent physical structures rather than
just those orange barricades that get knocked down.
>> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff, yes, I've been sworn

in.
When we looked at this special use permit, the first time,
Planning Commission staff did find that the request consistent
with the comprehensive plan and did not object.
Went out to the site again this time, of course, knowing this
was conditionally approved by Council and basically have to echo
a lot of the comments that Ms. Coyle made.
It's a very clean site from what we had seen.
The location of the actual recycling location is away from the
residential area, which is farther to the East.
And they have complied with all the requirements by the city by
EPC and S.W.F.W.M.D. from what we know to date.
And if you looked at the walls, those are pretty significant
types of walls.
They are actually pieced in.
I think they actually create the walls themselves.
They actually create the concrete pieces and they piece them on.
They are actually able to create the walls themselves.
They are pretty significant piece, interlocking pieces.
So it's just not a normal run-of-the-mill type of wall that they
are putting there as far as a concrete wall.
They are pretty significant barricades.
That being said and really being pressed by the efforts that
they have made, I think, to comply with the request of the
residential -- adjacent residential people, the Planning

Commission will continue with their request that they had made a
year ago with consistency of the comprehensive plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Good evening.
I'm Blair Kurland with shift law group, 1211 North Westshore
Boulevard, suite 401.
I have been sworn in.
I'm here on behalf of the petitioner.
Ms. Coyle and Mr. Garcia gave an excellent summary of why we're
here.
A year ago you granted us the temporary special use approval for
the recycling use on the property for one year, and the approval
provided that before the expiration of the year, if we could
file an application and come before you to seek final approval.
And that's why we are here.
I have Stewart Smith with me tonight.
He is the owner of the property.
He is the owner and president of ALTO construction company which
is the operating business on the site.
Dick LAROSA is the engineer for the project, and he is here as
well.
Both Mr. Smith and Mr. LAROSA will be available to answer any
questions that you may have.
The conditional special use provided that petitioner meet
specific conditions and requirements that you asked him to meet.

And I'm just going to go through those quickly.
What I'm putting on the ELMO --
>>GWEN MILLER: If you don't mind, let me see if there's any
opposition.
>> That sounds great.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anybody in the audience like to speak on item
number three?
>> Good evening.
My name is Matt WILBER.
I have been sworn.
26th avenue South, Tampa, 33619.
I appeared before you a year ago, and I must admit that I'm in a
much better frame of mind tonight.
They have made a very worthwhile and very good attempt at trying
to allow coconcurrence, if you will, with the neighbors.
We realized this site will never be perfect.
They create dust.
But we can live with it as far as I'm concerned and as far as
most of the neighbors, Mr. LUTZ didn't make it tonight.
I can't speak for him.
But I can speak for the others.
Now, the wall that they explained is nice, but I believe -- and
you can correct me if I'm wrong, that wall is on three sites.
The wall facing the East is a steel, not as -- it's a 16-foot
wall, I believe, of steel laid horizontally.

It doesn't have quite the same soundproofing, but I guess it was
done -- the engineers can back it -- I guess it was done for
dust control.
Hence the height of 16 feet.
The only other issue and they seem to have addressed with the
trees and I think there were some people here very tree oriented
that night, and there was supposed to be somebody from parks,
city Parks Department come out and have input as to the trees.
It does appear that the trees -- some trees have been put in.
I don't know if they met all the criteria.
The barriers, there's no question that there's been an effort
made.
My main concern for being here tonight is one of the big issues
we had last time was when they repaved 22nd street, there was
some afterhours activity.
Because the repavement only took place between 10 at night and 6
in the morning.
I'm aware of the fact that they are going to four-lane 22nd
street between 41 and 301.
I'm going under the premise that this will again only take place
in the wee hours.
I would like to have -- and I've got Mr. Smith's reassurance
that we do not have the ten at night till four in the morning
operation.
That is beyond the realm -- of course, now, we did make an offer

to send on vacation for the duration.
We'd be happy to accept that.
I get to pick where I go, right?
[ LAUGHTER ]
But that being said, that's something I would like noted was
that would be unacceptable.
And also, that we maintain the working hours, hours of operation
so that we're not having trucks dumping at 7 in the morning on a
Sunday, for instance.
But other than that, I congratulate him on his efforts and
hopefully we can continue to live together in peace and harmony.
It's not the season, but it may work anyway.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
>> Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, did you want to answer?
>> Thank you.
I would like to address Mr. Wilber's question about the wall on
the eastern boundary, which is 16-foot height, sound barrier
wall that was per the request of EPC.
So what they determined would barrier -- the best barrier of the
sound to keep the decibel levels at the appropriate levels.
And I have a letter from general counsel from EPC, Rick
Tschantz, that I would like to submit into the record.
It says the facility is in compliance with the conditions of the

director's authorization, which was issued to permit the
recycling facility and the crushing of the concrete.
And it says, that EPC conducted an unannounced inspection of the
facility on February 7th, 2005, and noted significant
improvements made to the site over the last 12 months.
So if I could submit this into you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The issue that was raised about the
construction on 22nd and whether -- as an industrial use, I
don't believe you're allowed to work later than 6 in the evening
and not before 7 in the morning.
Can you comment on that?
And will you adhere to those hours?
>> The applicant will comply with the performance standards for
industrial manufacturing uses that are provided in the code.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can you speak to the question that was raised
by the neighbor about whether they were hauling things in the
middle of the night?
>> If I may bring up Mr. Smith for a minute.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, you may.
>> My name is Stewart Smith.
190 Blanca, Davis Island.
I've been sworn in.
We had done projects after that and we just rented property.
That was away from there and dumped it over there and then moved
it to our site in the daytime.

And that's how we handled that situation.
In the meantime so we wouldn't handle it any differently.
We wouldn't be dumping at night.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Tschantz seems to indicate your current
EPC permit allows six-foot debris piles.
When I was looking at your pictures, they looked to be about the
same height as the wall, maybe six or eight feet, something like
that, which seems reasonable.
But your request now is to go to 12 feet.
>> Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I'm just wondering if Mr. Smith and his
company have been able to operate successfully for the last year
with the six-foot piles and why are we going taller?
>> Well, the six-foot limitation isn't feasible with a -- they
tried it and to comply with the conditional permit.
But they are giving up about half of the site to comply with the
conditions that you asked them to do with the irrigation and the
stormwater and the landscaping.
And it's just so -- so they've limited the storage and the
processing of the materials to the far western site, a smaller
portion of the site.
And so we think that 12 feet is a reasonable limitation.
We have designed the site and increased the wall so that it
would minimize, if not eliminate any impact with the increased
height.

The city staff doesn't object to the increased height and
Planning Commission didn't object to the increased height and
EPC doesn't object to the increased height, we will have to
modify the director's authorization, but Mr. Tschantz has
indicated that would not be a problem.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other question I have is the hours you
refer to, what are the -- have the hours of operation been this
past year?
>> Seven to five.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And is that what you're proposing as a
special use condition?
>> Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't see that on the site plan.
But if that's a limitation that's acceptable.
>> The crushing part of the company is seven to five.
That means we don't let anybody go in and dump afterwards.
We have the construction part of the company which might drive a
truck in there or something so they are not making the noise
that the other company.
But the noise has been barricaded off anyways.
We don't start up the crusher until 7:00 and we shut it off at
5:00.
And then --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe we can specifically identify that.
Say crushing from 7 to 5 and other activity from 7 to 7?

>> When do you have trucks loading or unloading?
>> I think they might drive a truck in there and park it.
I don't do business.
A guy might come off a jobsite and pull in the gate and that's
the end of what he's doing.
>> What hours?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do they dump stuff when they get there?
>> No.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's a reasonable closing time?
>> I wouldn't say anything was a reasonable closing time.
>> So you would limit the crushing activities from seven to
five.
>> I'm saying if a truck comes in and he wants to pull in the
gate and he comes from out of town, we should be able to do
that.
I don't want to go and make noise to the neighbor.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It seems reasonable if it's not too frequent
or that sort of thing.
>> We don't typically work at night.
That isn't our deal.
Somebody might come in during the day or at night and come in
and park their truck.
We're not going to be doing construction work.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.

We have a motion and second to close the public hearing.
All in favor of the motion, say aye.
Mr. White, would you read --
>>KEVIN WHITE: I want to make a quick comment to Mr. Wilber.
I'm so glad to see that the coexistence between neighborhood and
petitioner has worked out because I was in contact with
Mr. Wilber on several occasions when this original petition came
up.
And he was strongly in opposition of this.
And I'm glad to see that the one-year conditional was able to
work out in this instance and a good corporate partner with the
citizenry.
And it's wonderful to see when things like this happen, because
we have those type incidents that come up quite often.
And sometimes when we just give a petitioner an opportunity to
prove themselves a good neighbor, that your conditional brings
about the results that we see tonight, the neighborhoods coming
back in saying, you know, it wasn't as bad as we really thought
it was, and the petitioner actually complied and went well
overboard to make their place a much better place.
With that, I move an ordinance approving a special use permit
S-II approving recycling building and auto parts in an IG zoning
district in the general vicinity of 4102 Causeway Boulevard in
the City of Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in
section 1 hereof waiving the 200 separation requirement from the

jurisdictional wetlands and allowing the open storage of raw
materials and chemicals in a flood zone A, 39.28 feet from the
jurisdictional wetlands waiving the six-foot limitations on the
height of the stacks outside -- sorry, of outdoor inventory to
allow an increase of said stacks to 12 feet, providing an
effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Any question on the motion?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I just saw Mr. Wilber getting up.
It looked like he had a quick question.
If we could waive the rule to just let him ask his question.
Mr. Wilber, I have a question for you.
Do you have a question for us?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to reopen the public hearing.
>> I appreciate that.
I just wanted to --
>>GWEN MILLER: We cannot open.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Request of Council is that if you have the
question or you want to do it during the public hearing and once
we close it, that we don't.
And that's not to say that Council is not precluded from asking
questions.
I just request that you do it by motion to reopen the public
hearing.
And then close it again.

It sounds like -- your discussion on the motion, sounds like
Council member Harrison had a question of a witness --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to reopen.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you have to read the ordinance again?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to reopen.
All in favor, aye.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Wilber, you had a question for us.
>> Thank you.
I didn't mean to cause that much confusion.
I was just hoping that the -- and I thank Mr. Dingfelder for the
hours of operation.
Not to include Sunday would be a very key point, because it's
the one day of the week in the neighborhood that those of us
that, like Mr. Smith and his people, work for a living, would
enjoy not being awoke at 0700 and we're being good neighbors.
It's not -- I don't think it's a picking point.
But I would appreciate if they could address Sundays maybe at
noon if they needed to.
>> Mr. Smith has confirmed that there will be no operations on
Sunday.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
All in favor, aye.
We have a motion on the floor for the audience.
All in favor, aye.

[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>GWEN MILLER: We're ready for item 5.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you.
Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
The petition before you is a rezoning to PD from RS-60 at 5101
Interbay boulevard to build a single-family residence on a lot
that measures 61.97 feet and contains 6,472 square feet.
The lot currently meets the RS-50 minimum lot standards.
The PD setbacks shown on the plan are as follows: 12-foot --
12-foot 6-inch front yard, which is where the porte-cochere is.
6-foot 8 side and corner yards and 15-foot rear.
The main structure setback maintains 25-foot front setback per
the RS-60 standards, however, the porte-cochere sits at the
above mentioned 12-foot 6.
The proposed structure will meet a maximum height of 39 feet
over three stories.
There is an elevation on the plan.
I just want to be clear with Council, because the objection from
Land Development is essentially a procedural objection.
It's based on process.
This lot measures 61.97 by a certain depth that grants -- that
allows or contains 6472 square feet.
It meets the current zoning standards.
The purpose for the rezoning for you tonight is to essentially
grant variances for the setbacks shown on the map and to allow

the increase in height from 35 to 39 feet.
It's not creating a lot that's too small for the standards.
It is simply for the variances that you see before you.
That's the objection from Land Development.
It's solely on procedure.
Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So, in other words, this petitioner could
have stated RS-60 and gone to the variance review board and got
the variances they were looking -- they are looking for that are
included in this PD.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Correct.
Well, he could have applied.
I can't say that he could have gotten them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right, no, no.
There's no presumptions there whatsoever.
But procedurally could have kept the RS-60 and I guess I need an
opinion from -- I'll ask Mr. Massy in this case, it's pretty
unusual situation, Mr. Shelby.
Has legal looked at this?
I've got a feeling our code probably doesn't preclude the
application.
Otherwise, he probably wouldn't have got than far.
Do we have an opinion on this?
>> Honestly, Mr. Dingfelder, I have not looked at the issue.
I don't think the code precludes this type.

You have to look at whether it's consistent for the purposes for
a PD rezoning which are set forth in Cathy's report.
I think Council needs to decide whether it is appropriate for
you to approve this petition for the purposes of a PD zoning.
If you don't believe it's consistent with that and that's on
page 2 of your report relative to promoting the efficient use of
land and infrastructure, allowing the integration of different
land uses and density, providing a procedure which can relate to
the type design that lay out residential, nonresidential
development to the particular site.
Those types of factors.
If you don't think it's appropriate, then you could certainly
deny it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me ask you this, would it be appropriate
for us to consider this issue on the -- on a procedural basis
before we get to the merits just based upon staff's objection,
recognition that there isn't an alternative process that might
be more appropriate process or from a procedural perspective do
we need to hear the entire merits, et cetera, et cetera, before
we get there?
>> I would encourage you to listen to the petitioner's case.
And for him to explain why he believes procedurally it makes
more sense for it to be heard by this body and not by the VRB.
So I would allow the petitioner to go forward with this case
here in order for you all to hear the merits of his -- why he is

doing this.
And I do also need to point out to Council, while I understand
Land Development's objections, it is not unusual, in fact, it's
one of the primary reasons why you get PDs, is because folks
are coming to you to seek variances of certain Land Development
regulations.
It is not unusual for you all to vary setback restrictions or
height limitations in a given PD either.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's usually a dimensional issue.
>> Yes, there are other issues usually associated.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is it possible we could bifurcate this then?
So before we get to the merits of the design and all that thing,
you know, that we could look at the procedural issue.
Have his presentation on the procedural issue before we go on
and listen to the merits of the case?
>> That's within Council's discretion.
I would encourage, I think, frankly, for Council for due process
reasons to allow latitude to the petitioner to make as much of a
case as possible, especially if it is, you know -- we're talking
now about very procedural legal issues, and you have a
petitioner who may not be as attuned to those issues as some of
us are.
So I would give the petitioner some latitude in that regard.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just for the record, I agree with you,

Mr. Massey.
I understand that the staff correctly objects to the proposal
because it could have been processed through the variance
application process rather than a rezoning.
But I think we would probably be wise to hear this and then make
our determinations.
I have some concerns about whether it should be here, whether it
should be at a VRB situation.
But I think it's probably were you get to go through the
process.
Prudent to go through the process.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: They certainly cannot preclude someone from
applying for a PD.
They could rezone a piece of property for any reason.
>> I understand what your objection is, Cathy.
I understand it's an extremely intensive development.
We're talking about lots of -- we can make our opinions based on
that concern.
I appreciate that concern from staff.
I think it's a valid one.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The second objection is from transportation
planning staff.
There was a walkway located on the west side of the property in
the right-of-way which needs to be removed.
It doesn't meet the corner clearance which is more of a

technical issue.
If you were to move to approve this, we would need to actually
strike that to meet the technical standards for transportation.
I would like to outline where this property is for you.
You can notice on your maps that you have before you, the
viewing public, this is Jules Verne court and this is Interbay.
Directly across the street from the property is a mid to
high-rise condominium that's on the water.
This is the property site currently.
There are two single-family homes immediately next door, two
stories.
And across Jules Verne court, there are two story, one-car
garage type single-family attached units.
And then behind it is a small one-story duplex.
And you also do have an aerial before you as well.
As you can see the overhead view.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you pass the photographs around?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Absolutely.
As Morris mentioned on page 2 of the report, I did outline the
purpose for a site plan controlled district for your
consideration.
And numbers one through four are simple findings of fact about
the properties adjacent to the site.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?
>> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

Yes, I have been sworn in.
I'm going to put a future land use map up on the elmo for you to
take a look at to provide some insight on the site.
Here is the proposed site.
Predominant land use category is residential 20.
Residential 35 to the North and to the northwest, farther to the
North, more dense category of residential 50.
As Ms. Coyle had said, the site does meet the physical
requirements for what the desired development would be for the
applicant.
Should take into consideration the variety of uses in the area.
And, of course, the intensity and scale.
If you recall, the photographs showed, you do have several large
homes directly to the East of this site, to the right of the
site and then, of course, on the other side of Jules Verne
court, you do have a row of town homes.
You could potentially put on this site instead of a large
single-family home, you could put three town homes.
The density would allow you to do that.
With the RES-20 and .15 acres, could you put three units?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What would your setbacks be on those town
homes?
>> That I wouldn't know.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would they be any closer to the lot line?
>> Are these the ones that are across Jules Verne court?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
Theoretically, he said that under the plan category, gentleman
could be doing town homes there.
I was wondering what the setbacks -- what would the setbacks be
under a a typical town home if that was the rezoning request?
>> PD setbacks are set by the plan that's before you.
We would -- we always generally look at the underlined zoning
district, the original zoning district and we use those as a
guideline.
The front off of Interbay would be 25 feet.
The corner would be seven.
The interior side would be seven and the rear would be 20.
We start with those and they essentially get whittled down as
the plan evolves.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that what it would be if it was an RM-16.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: RM-16 rear is 15 feet on a corner lot.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 25, 7, 7, 15.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Um-hum.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> I need to make one more technical point.
This is in the accident potential zone for MacDill Air Force
Base.
Your densities are reduced to res-10 standards.
Even though it's a res-20 category, the one dwelling unit is

applicable in this site and would be more proper.
My point was, .15 in a res-20 category would yield three units
in a normal condition, but since this is in the APC, the one
unit is applicable and would be according to the policies in the
comp plan.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Pete Tagliarini and I have been sworn in.
It wasn't my decision to make it -- request PD zoning.
It was a staff recommendation.
Because of the uniqueness of the site and the uniqueness of what
we were attempting to do on the site, I didn't have any
challenges to that request.
It's a very special site because of the angularity of one
facade.
The design is prepared by SCARFONE was a curved relationship.
Certainly didn't have any reason to believe that those
dimensions could not be accomplished.
We have no objection to removing the sidewalk from the -- that
issue.
All other staff comments we've met.
It's a nice building.
I met with a building -- the local homeowners associations.
They not only do not have an objection.
Jerry miller said he would actually like to see it built in the

area.
So I have -- I've done everything I can do.
You know, if I had been told that -- two or three months ago
that we would just ask for variances and then been accepted, we
would have certainly gone down that path, not the path of a site
plan controlled.
I think that does more to protect the local area and the
neighborhoods than just going to straight variances which can be
modified anytime something happens.
So in any case, we believe this is entirely in keeping with what
should happen in this area.
You've got a high-rise next door.
You've got a town home complex across the street.
You've got neighbors, and it's a triangular -- it's a
trapezoidal lot.
If there was ever a reason to do a justification for a PD
rezoning, this is one of those cases.
That's all I can say.
I wouldn't have gone down this path without directions from
staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone from the public like to speak on this
item?
Anyone in the public that wants to speak?
Council members.
Ms. Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
My questions, Mr. Tagliarini, it looks like -- it looks like a
very massive structure.
And my two questions are about the height, which is 39 feet,
most houses don't have higher than 10-foot ceilings which would
give you 30 feet and would be within the 35-foot code for
residential.
The houses across the street, the town houses are not higher
than 35 feet.
And the multistory -- multifamily high-rise across the street is
where my mother used to live.
And it's set far back from the road.
So the proposed structure just looked so massive and you're
asking for a four-foot height waiver and you're asking for
setback waivers on the front, the rear, and the sides.
And I just wondered if when you looked at this piece of property
you considered designing something that would fit within the
existing setbacks.
>> The height restriction or the height variance request was one
in relationship to purely a technical, where your eve heights
need to be.
And it's because it's a flat roof.
If you really went to exactly the way the code reads zoning
variances, zoning to be, you could, in fact, we wouldn't ask for
that variance.

We're trying to be very technical in that relationship.
10, 10, 10 certainly would be acceptable to us.
Because of the floodplain being where it is, we're just starting
up five feet higher than what -- you know.
So I have no problem of removing that as a variance request.
Period.
It may look massive, but you got to realize it's because it's a
curved -- if you look at -- this is 6'8".
We're only asking for four inches there.
The four-inch variance on this side, half of the building is
behind it.
It's behind the variance request.
It doesn't even need variance.
It's only some small amount -- really there.
The 25-foot on this side is only because I believe as the curve
sweeps to Ballast point, I'd rather have more -- again, I live
in the neighborhood.
I really want to have more front yard setbacks in the rear.
And this 15-foot setback becomes a nonissue because it's a
corner lot.
It may look massive, but I just -- I contend it's -- except for
the height variance --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you be willing to lower the height to
remove your request for a height variance?
>> I don't see that there would be a big problem with that at

all.
If that's the only thing we're dealing with right now.
This portion of the sidewalk from here to here is what staff is
objecting to.
The four-foot piece.
10-foot long.
We're doing everything we can to make it work within it.
I have certainly no problem in adjusting those dimensions and
removing the height variance request.
As opposed to changing a -- through process and going through a
variance review board where we thought we were doing right in
the first place.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm a little confused.
Ms. Coyle says that they are opposed to it because you've come
into this process.
And you said you were advised.
Were you advised by somebody within our staff?
>> Yes, sir.
Three months ago, when I started three or four months ago, when
I started the process, they suggested that we go to -- because
the uniqueness of the parcel, the uniqueness of what we were
trying to do.
So I said, well, if it makes no -- why would I suggest to my
client to pay additional monies to go through additional
processes to do something that I didn't need to do.

And so we wouldn't -- so at this point --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's fair enough.
>> That's all I can say.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from Council members?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just to Cathy Coyle.
Cathy, I'm confused as well.
Is that something that you think staff recommended?
In terms of instead of going to the VRB, come here?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
I can see on the application who counselled him.
I honestly didn't speak to him about why he was counselled this
way.
I can tell you when they came to the DRC meeting, the
application was already scheduled for hearing at that point.
We simply -- and I remember asking the petitioner why he didn't
go for variance at VRB.
I honestly don't remember his exact response.
It wasn't that he was counselled to come here.
That wasn't his response to me.
Other than that, I can't answer.
Other than telling you who counselled him.
We're just at this process now.
As I said, the objection I have is not to the concept of the
project.
It's not to the fact that he wants to build a house on the site.

And I certainly can't object to the architecture because that's
not in the purview.
It was simply the process itself.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm still confused.
Cathy, there are some standards that we have to follow in
determining whether or not the setback variances should be
granted here, right?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Um-hum.
>>ROSE FERLITA: In your estimation, has the petitioner met those
standards?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I believe that's for your determination.
Those five criteria for Council to consider.
They are outlined in the code that way.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Completely discretionary on our part at this
point.
>> That was something you brought up earlier this morning,
discussion whether or not to increase those considerations in
the code for PDs.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That brings me to another concern of mine.
In fact, if this is discretionary on the part of counsel, I'm
wondering if the actual proposal is compatible with the adjacent
development.
I'm not sure that fits the bill either.
I think that's -- I don't know if you want to weigh in on it, if
you would.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: I think that's where you lead in and start to
think about the things that Ms. Saul-Sena brought up as far as
the mass and the scale of the structure and whether or not it is
too large for the site or is incompatible with the surrounding
uses.
That's the reason we outlined for you what is surrounding the
property.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And we had certain standards that we imposed on
these single-family homeowners in terms of hardship criteria.
And so far, I'm not real, real sure that I see Mr. Tagliarini
has met that hardship criteria.
It takes me back to whether or not this really should be here or
it should go to the VRB.
I kind of think it should be through a normal VRB process.
I'm not asking you to make a comment on that.
I'm making my comments out loud so I can hear them.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That I think the petitioner, whether he was
counselled to do so or not, availed him of an avenue that he
had.
There is no opposition in the audience.
There's nothing in the record other than staff opposition.
And that is admittedly based simply on the process of how he got
here.
Not about anything that's substantive about this site plan.
I think that we sometimes can value process over substance.

And I don't want to do that.
I think that we're fine going.
This avenue was available to him, and I I think that we ought to
stick with it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Coyle, what would be the allowable
footprint under the current zoning of RS-60.
Squared footage --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It's actually hard to estimate without
honestly a calculator or a computer because it's an odd lot.
It's trapezoidal with a curve.
So it's not rectangular.
It is approximately the footprint you see in front of you, minus
four feet in depth.
The front setback is 25 feet.
Other than the porte-cochere which is open.
So if you were to -- it's hard for me to estimate because it's a
three-story house.
So I cannot give you that answer.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the carport side, the garage side, we
would -- you would move in how many feet?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: None.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nine feet?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: None.
Zero, zero.
Yes.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And then on the other side, directly opposite
from that.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Five.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Five feet.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: And then you would -- sorry, four inches on
either side.
So total of eight inches.
Which is the width of a wall.
So it's not that much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are you finished, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I'm confused, because I thought what
I'm seeing on the staff report says 13 feet or 12'6" on the
front.
It faces Jules Verne.
It's the side.
Legally we defined it as the side because of the corner
situation.
So on the Interbay side, isn't it -- aren't they asking for
12'6"?
>> Yes, to the porte-cochere.
You asked about the specific building footprint which is floor
area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm looking at the hard line.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, that's 25 feet.
That hits the livable area.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's the porte-cochere --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: That's at the 12'6".
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh that explains it better.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm ready to close the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close the public
hearing.
All in favor, aye.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would support this petition with the
understanding that the request for a waiver of the height -- so
it would be the 35-foot height.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner agreed to that.
He said he would remove -- Ms. Coyle, would you put that on the
site plan.
Done already.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the general vicinity of 5101 Interbay
boulevard in the City of Tampa, Florida, and -- [INAUDIBLE].
Single-family residence providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm not going to support the motion and just to
comment.
I have certainly supported a lot of Mr. Tagliarini's petitions
when he's come to us.
But I am concerned about the process, because this seems to me
that if we encourage anyone who wants to circumvent the VRB

process or hardship criteria, instead of going through the VRB,
they'll just apply for a rezoning, and I don't think that's the
message we need to send.
For that reason, I'm certainly not going to support this.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have one concern that wasn't addressed by
staff, but that is just a general concern.
That is, this area tends to be low.
It tends to flood.
The proposed structure has a lot of impervious surface.
I know that it says on the site plan that you will capture the
required stormwater on the site.
It's just not immediately evident to me how you're going to do
that.
But I'm hopeful -- [INAUDIBLE].
>> We did talk to staff.
They did suggest how we should do this.
And, frankly, we did accomplish that task on site.
Dennis waterson, who we did meet with him on site, and we did
talk about how we're going to do this.
And if there's one spot in the City of Tampa in this area that's
got -- there's a big catch basin right outside the property.
There's an unusual amount of stormwater retention right next to
the corner.
And because of the uniqueness of the design, we plan to put
stormwater under the ground with things -- because we don't want

it to fall 30 feet off the ground.
So as opposed to just dealing with it, we're dealing with it
plus.
So I don't think you're going to have any problem on this site.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a comment on the motion.
I agree with Mr. Harrison.
I don't like the fact that this is here as a PD.
Mr. Tagliarini said he was advised and I'm not going to question
that.
But I agree with Mr. Harrison, if our process allows it, you
know, if you're going down the road and you can go right or left
and both are legal ways to go, he took one way and that's -- I
don't think we can from a due process perspective, I don't think
we can penalize him for that.
>> Can I ask one more question?
And I appreciate that.
If there was ever a need for a PD rezoning on a special site, on
a special need, on a special, when you're not doing -- and I do
PD rezonings on town homes.
This doesn't remotely come up to the threshold of something that
you should be looking at for complexity.
This is marginally asking for variances.
It just was a unique property, unique stuff that should be

allowed.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
All in favor, say aye.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Nay.
>>CLERK: Ferlita no.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>GWEN MILLER: We're ready for item 6.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask a question before we go on?
Now that -- Mr. Tagliarini, we're good with you.
Now that we've had this discussion, I'm just wondering if we
shouldn't get a report back from staff in a month or so, you
know, about this issue.
Is this something that we expect to see more of and that we
should address in the code in some way or another and this would
be staff and legal should look at this as well as Mr. Shelby.
I think it's appropriate that we look at this so we don't start
seeing more and more of those.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Do you mean not allowing people to come
before you -- if there is a process set aside for just
variances.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: As he said, they were marginal.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In other words, if a PD application will be
allowed, you know, where the waiver sought could be granted by
the VRB, then you can't come for a PD.

I'm not saying that's where we should end up but I'm saying
that's what we should at least look at.
And then the other question is, would Alex in stormwater have
even been able to look at this if it was a straight rezoning but
were they able to look at it because it was a PD which would
weigh in favor of it being a PD.
That's another factor we should probably look at.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Just for a point of clarification, there is a
stormwater reviewer both in residential and commercial
Side of construction services, and they follow the same
technical manual and same code.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the PD wouldn't make a difference.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: No.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Make a motion that staff and legal come back
and look at that in a month.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Just a comment.
I think that it is a good -- it's a good idea.
I tend to think that the more PDs we have, the better.
Because it gives us the ability to review these things as well
had it been a VRB decision, it may have never reached our plate
here.
As you can see, there was really no one here in opposition.
I think it's a good idea.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Can I ask you a question on that, if you

don't mind?
I hate to expound on that.
It's one question that we've raised in our office as far as
PDs are concerned.
And we certainly don't mind processing them and taking in the
revenue and going through the process.
That's not a big deal.
I think if you want to think future -- and I can tell you how
difficult it is sometimes to look up planned developments that
were done ten years ago, think 30 years down the road, when you
look at our zoning Atlases in Courier City and right around
Kennedy Boulevard, you've got lot by lot PDs.
Record keeping of those PDs is a nightmare.
Enforcement is very difficult.
We put conditions on plans, and enforcing those requires more
manpower, more city time, more headaches for the neighborhoods
because they are not following standard conditions any longer.
That is something for you to consider as we do more and more
planned developments.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can just chime in.
My experience of this body is that it reviews a tremendous
number of planned developments and a great deal of its resources
both time and effort this Council spends with PDs.
And I think what the motion that Council member Dingfelder
raises is a very substantive policy decision of this Council,

which does warrant -- is worthy of discussion.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
This petition before you is to rezone the property at 500 West
Platt Street and 414 Magnolia Avenue to a PD zoning district.
It is the Hyde Park United Methodist Church.
It is to expand the existing church use.
They did purchase a building at the rear of their property, the
South side along the corner of Horatio and magnolia.
This is a picture of the building.
Once renovated, it will measure 4400 square feet.
They have also retained the option to remove the building.
It has been found to be a nonsignificant structure,
noncontributing structure, so they could rebuild on the exact
same footprint and potentially go two stories if the need
arises.
The Architectural Review Commission did review the petition and
made recommendations during the January 3rd, 2005 public
hearing.
Those are attached to the report in a memo form from del Acosta.
This petition was rezoned in '99.
The petition number was Z99-53.
It approved the church and day care use for the entire parcel as

shown with the exception of the new area.
On the site plan before you, you'll note that it says "area of
construction."
And it's outlined.
The original church buildings have been in existence since
approximately 1905, according to our records.
It is within the historic district.
Chapter 27 special use criteria for church uses does require a
20,000-square-foot land area.
This site contains 140,000 square feet.
It far exceeds the requirements.
I noted on page 2 under findings of fact, the same purpose and
conditions for reviewing and approving a site plan zone --
zoning district.
The recommendations from the Architectural Review Commission is
that there should be a pedestrian access maintained along
magnolia street, meaning a sidewalk.
City Council would grant the A.R.C. authority over additional
variances associated with the zoning rather than having to come
back and rezone every time they want to change the building
shape.
And maintain the historic offstreet parking along Magnolia.
That's the one sticking point.
You'll notice on the site plan, the historic parking with the
brick, the petitioner would like to remove that.

It does encroach almost up to the building.
On the site plan, you'll notice that they are redoing that,
resodding it, placing the sidewalk and putting in the new
granite curb.
Transportation does agree with that.
And there is a note placed on the plan that the bricks will be
returned to the city.
That is the only outlying condition from the A.R.C. that has not
been met.
And regular city staff is actually okay with that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't seem to have the site plan.
Do you have any other copies?
>> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
In relationship to the future land use map, predominant land use
categories, residential 50, residential 35 and community mixed
use 35 along Platt where you have mostly use of uses, low
intensity office uses and several neighborhood serving
commercial uses.
As Ms. Coyle has stated this is the site of the Hyde Park United
Methodist Church.
There are several other educational institutions in close
proximity to the site also.
Gory elementary and Wilson middle school.
Very few residential -- very small residential component in the

area primarily low density office uses in the area.
No significant impact to the surrounding uses in the area.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed request consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> My name is Karen Crawford.
I have been sworn.
1406 South moody avenue.
I'm here as a member of the Hyde Park United Methodist Church
Board of Trustees.
We also have Bruce TIGERT who chairs our task force and Greg
wheeling is our architect.
Unlike most matters before you, there is no developer or single
owner of this project.
We are here on the behalf of a 2,000-plus members of the
congregation to address any concerns and request your approval.
Before our architect presents the site plan, we felt it was
important to provide a brief history of Hyde Park church and its
relation to this property.
It's not every day the church buys a bar.
[ LAUGHTER ]
Hyde Park United Methodist Church opened our doors in 1899.
Congregations over the past hundred years have worked to
preserve our traditions while responding to the changes that
have shaped our city and impacted our church.

For the past 60 years, congregations had attempted to buy the
tavern, but with no success.
In 1995, we began development of a master plan that incorporated
our existing historic buildings with other newly acquired
property.
This changes the orientation of the property around a central
courtyard in order to address some of our security issues and
accessibility between the buildings.
By adhering to the architecture of our 1907 sanctuary, we
received approval of both the ARC and the City Council in 1999.
We completed all those renovations in 2003.
Unfortunately, we were still in negotiations with the owners of
the tavern, and, therefore, could not include this parcel in our
original PD.
The property and its noncontributing structure had no value to
anyone but the church, and in late 2002, we were finally able to
purchase the corner property.
This parcel is just a fraction over the cutoff for an
administrative rezoning, and we have received a favorable
recommendation from the A.R.C.
We're requesting to include this small parcel in our existing
PD, and because of the change in use from tavern, laundromat to
religious, our Methodist discipline doesn't allow us to operate
a tavern.
The property will be used for existing ministry, serving both

the church and the surrounding community.
Unlike many of the projects you've reviewed recently in this
area, this zoning change has no impact on density, traffic,
parking, or stormwater.
Your approval will help us transform this tavern into a place
where everyone knows God's name.
And I'll let Greg explain the site plan.
>> Good evening.
Greg wailing, 1771 East 9th avenue.
I have been sworn in.
Basically here is the site plan.
It's two full blocks within the Hyde Park district.
The area outlined by the green-dashed line is the current PD
zoning, which was approved in '99.
The area within the gold hatch line is the current CG zoning,
which we're including in this PD.
The building is an existing 4,000-square-foot single story
structure.
They want to add a 400-square-foot addition to the North side of
the building as well as a covered canopy along the East side
which would be the main entrance to the building from the
parking lot.
In addition, there is current offstreet parking.
It's basically parallel parking that cuts into the curb that is
approximately four spaces.

We wish to remove that and move it to on-street parking and
continue the landscaped edge in front of the building.
This is an enlarged area of the building here.
The current setback -- along the sidewalk, those will remain.
We would like to reserve the right to demolish the building and
build a two-story structure, and that would basically be due to
the cost implications of renovating the existing building.
The current building is a clay tile structural wall system, and
to be able to renovate it according to the guidelines of the
A.R.C., there are expenses that go into it.
And since it's a noncontributing structure, we would like to
reserve the right to be able to demolish.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that my comment on the building is
that if it proves the dictum just because something is old
doesn't mean it was ever nice.
And I think that sort of -- why don't we see if there's anyone
in opposition?
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
speak on item number 6?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 500 West Platt Street and 414 Magnolia
Avenue, in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly

described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD,
church and day care and RO-1 to PD, church and day care,
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
We have a question on the motion.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that I want to
compliment this church for creating one of the most attractive
urban church campuses in this community.
It's absolutely beautiful.
You've done things with sensitivity to the neighborhood.
I want to congratulate you on finally getting hold of the
magnolia tavern, making it into something better.
You've just been an excellent neighbor in the redevelopment of
that portion of Hyde Park.
And I look forward to whatever you do with this parcel.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
Opposed, nay.
We're ready for number 7.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
This rezoning is for the property at 3304 West Iowa Avenue to --
from RS-60 to RS-50.
It is to create three buildable zoning lots for single-family
detached structures.

The standard setbacks for RS-50 are 20 feet in the front.
20 feet in the rear and seven feet on the sides.
The homes along Iowa Avenue within block five appear to maintain
varying front yard setbacks according to the aerial that I
provided.
This request is for Euclidean zoning district.
This is no site plan required.
The proposed construction must also adhere to all applicable
City of Tampa development regulations.
I did note under the reasons for recommendation, the criteria
under the comp plan, policy B-3.3, where it specifically states
that we must find consistency on the physical development
pattern and character of the surrounding area.
I did provide you with a conforming/nonconforming map.
The one red lot here that's a slightly different color was just
the way it printed.
I apologize.
It's nothing different than another red lot.
You'll notice the green lot is the subject parcel.
There are 59 total zoning lots on these three blocks.
And I chose these three because of the way they were platted.
And there is a bisecting street here.
And these lots are platted at much larger sizes.
66.1% were found to be developed as nonconforming lots on
50-foot lots as they were plotted.

I did provide you with the aerial, and I can show you the
surrounding homes.
This home is actually across -- this house is across Sheridan.
This is the subject parcel.
It appears to be a duplex.
And these are the houses across Iowa.
Staff had no objections to the request.
By the way, I haven't mentioned on the other ones, this is
Council district four.
I actually wrote it down on that.
>> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.
I've been sworn in.
The predominant land use on the entire site is residential 10.
There is an existing structure on the site and the request is
for three residences.
The photo that Ms. Coyle showed you, I think the home is right
here from what we had seen.
Very simple case in the respect of the compatibility of the
physicality of the lots in the area.
She hit it right on the head.
Also policy 3.3 that's supporting policy in our recommendation
of finding this consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> My name is Brian Decosmo.

And I am the agent for the owner of the property.
He apologized for not being able to appear himself.
And I apologize.
I was a little late arriving this evening.
I was not sworn in.
(Oath administered by the Clerk)
>> Thank you.
As Cathy had said, on the staff recommendation, instead of doing
a PD, we were doing this on a motion to rezoning to three
50-foot lots.
And the benefit to the area surrounding community, we'll
actually be converting the existing property which Cathy
mentioned looked like multifamily.
It actually is currently multifamily duplex in the residential
60 zone with a rental usage only currently.
We would like to be able to develop it and put three
single-family homes roughly about 2300 to 2500 square feet on
each of the properties.
We did bring two different elevations that we would propose to
do on those properties.
They would be a 36-foot wide building, taking up a footprint of
about 2,000 square feet on the ground on each one of them.
One with a little -- one with more of a colonial feel that would
be consistent with what is built in that development in that
area.

The property itself right now, we would just propose to stay
within all the city guidelines for new construction for
single-family residences.
I think that's about it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is your frontage on Iowa?
>> It's 150 feet.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 150 even.
>> Yes, sir.
The actual parcel itself measures 150 by 150.
So you have 150 feet of frontage on Sheridan as well.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nice deep lots.
>> Yeah.
The square footage of each lot would be 7500 square feet, which
is actually more than the actual required square footage for the
RS-60 zoning that's currently there.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public like to speak on item 7?
>> Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 3304 West Iowa Avenue in the City of Tampa,
Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications RS-60 RS-50, providing an

effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
We're ready for item 9.
Thank you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I was guessing 8:30 and it's only 7:20.
Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
I have been sworn.
This petition before you is to rezone the property at 6410 South
MacDill avenue to convert the existing structure into a
photography studio and/or professional office.
1,949 square feet of building area the site contains, between
two structures that are connected by a structural canopy.
The site was originally developed in 1955 as a service gas
station.
And has been vacant for many years.
The plan shows the creation of a new landscape beds along the
perimeter of the property on all sides.
The introduction of hedges and two shade trees along MacDill
avenue.
The site is currently paved with a mixture of asphalt and
concrete, which extends past the property lines and blends with
the pavement of both MacDill and AVERILL avenue.
Petitioner also committed on the plan to restore grass and a

public sidewalk in the right-of-way to clearly define the edge
of the roadway.
I can show you with the site photo that Mr. Donnelly has
actually begun that work, and he has already cut the concrete to
restore the grass.
And to restore landscape beds within his property.
By code, since the site is 100% impervious, he's actually not
required to put any landscaping in per our landscape standards.
I don't know if Council recalls the bank we did on Gandy and
MacDill prior to my pregnancy and it was totally covered.
It was a floor -- floral shop turning into a bank.
The argument on the petitioner's side is he doesn't have to put
any landscaping in.
This petitioner has gone to great lengths to go above and beyond
what the code actually requires.
He does have new photos and would show landscaping that he has
actually planted as well.
This site has been blighted and an eyesore for the neighborhood
and we believe it would be a good use.
Staff had no objections.
>> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
MacDill avenue here on the elmo with the future land use
residential 10, residential 20 along MacDill.
There is no real significant existing nonresidential uses South

of Interbay.
There are maybe one or two uses as you go down toward MacDill
Air Force Base.
And I have to echo what Ms. Coyle has said about this particular
piece of property.
This property has been underutilized for a number of years, and
has been a blighting influence on the community in this area.
And find it very gratifying to see that significant improvement
will be made to this particular corner.
It is zoned -- the zoning would be to CN, which would allow a
variety of other commercial -- neighborhood commercial uses
should this be the case in the future.
That being said from a comp plan aspect, we do not have any
issue with that in regards to this particular area as we feel it
can only improve the area and serve the increasing residential
population in the area.
Planning Commission finds the proposed request consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Sean Donnelly.
I have been sworn.
3708 West Euclid avenue, Tampa, 33629.
Perhaps this will help show.
The top picture is coming up from AVRILL to MacDill.

It was a sea of concrete.
It merged in from the street all the way to the parking lot.
The bottom picture is the front of the building as it was also
concrete all the way out.
As Cathy indicated, we've committed, although we were not
required to, and have removed 3800 square feet of asphalt and
concrete.
We have stuccoed the concrete block building.
We have painted it so that it matches with the neighborhood and
the construction that's going on there.
This is what the building now looks like, looking at it from --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did it used to be a gas station?
>> It was a service station at one point.
This is what it looks like now from MacDill avenue.
You can see that we already installed the hedges there in the
front, the side and both sides.
We've put up a six-foot White PVC fence to cut off any cut-thru
traffic from AVRILL to MacDill avenue.
That's shown a little better on this picture here.
And again, like I say, the hedge when it grows in will
completely connect all the way from the front to the back.
And the final picture that I have, if you'll remember the
picture I showed earlier from the AVRILL side, this is what it
looks like now.
All of the dirt area will be sodded.

The sod arrives tomorrow and will be installed on Monday.
And the sidewalk will be installed next week.
The lining of the parking lot and the bumpers in the parking lot
also next week.
So I'm hopeful if you pass it today that by the second reading,
all of the requirements of this plan will have been met.
We started this as soon as we filed the application to show the
city our good faith that we were intending to do everything with
this.
I've spoken with Melanie Higgins, the president of the Ballast
point neighborhood Civic Association.
And fortunately she's very familiar with it.
She jogs by it every day and has been very impressed with what
has gone on there.
And has included us in her newsletter, et cetera.
The only concern that I've had raised from any of the neighbors
there is my neighbor directly to the East down AVRILL.
Mr. and Mrs. Phalen.
They were concerned that CN permits other uses within other
commercial uses and their two objections were to a restaurant or
a convenience store.
I indicated to them that I was seeking the photography studio
slash general office use and that if in the future it was ever
sold or anyone wanted to change it, they would have to do a
change of use within that zoning.

And Mr. Fallen is here tonight, but I wanted to make that clear,
that was the only objection that I heard from anyone so far.
I'll let him speak his mind on that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on item 9?
>> Max Phalen, 2921 point view drive, Tampa, Florida, 33611.
I have been sworn in.
I'm here on three capacities, and I'll make this as quickly as
possible.
One, I currently live with my wife and own 2921 point view drive
which is directly one block South in a town home community
called Bayshore point.
Also, we do own the two lots directly East of the current site
and third capacity is as the board member for the homeowners
association for Bayshore point.
We do not have any objection to this.
As long as it is just for photography studio.
Currently, right now, Bayshore point is in a battle with a
convenience store that is directly next to our neighborhood.
And we've had several experiences with violence, assaults,
bottles, rocks being thrown over the fence.
Neighbors have been assaulted, cars have been hit.
Windows to the houses have been broken.
All from people in the convenience store, loitering, vagrants,
and they've been sometimes drunk, throwing stuff over the fence.
Fence has been knocked down.

Our main concern is if this is in the future ever to be used as
a convenience store, we're vehemently opposed to it.
If this is just labeled and we can have maybe some sort of
recorded declaration or something that runs with the land saying
that there will never be or for one certain time, never be a
convenience store or a restaurant because of the back smells or
garbage, then we're not opposed to it.
>>GWEN MILLER: If there was going to be a convenience store, it
would have to come before City Council and we would have to
approve it.
They can't just put in a convenience store.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you saying a convenience store is not
within the CN?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Convenience sales is an allowable use in the
CN district.
I want to clarify for Council.
Three districts, RO, RO-1 and CN, which are standard Euclidean
districts, but they are also site-plan controlled in the code.
If a petitioner comes before us or they submit a plan at
permitting for an allowable use in a CN district, they have to
meet every aspect of the code.
If they need one variance to parking, landscaping, anything,
they automatically are sent to Council to rezoning the property.
This use is specifically for professional office slash
photography studio.

The parking on-site is 3.3 spaces per thousand square feet,
which is office.
If they switch to retail, that's four spaces per thousand square
feet.
They would be required to get a parking waiver, which only
Council can grant through a site-plan controlled rezoning.
So the answer to that change is, no, they couldn't do it without
coming back before you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One quick question for the petitioner.
Signage, I didn't see it on your site plan.
>> At this point, we don't have any sign.
There is an existing sign post there that if we were going to do
anything, we would utilize that.
It's just the two simple poles right out in front and it would
just be a White sign that ran across the front that said
"photography studio."
I haven't gotten that far in the process yet.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
6410 South MacDill avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida,
more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district

classifications RS-60 to CN, commercial neighborhood photography
studio professional office, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Item number 11.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land Development.
I have been sworn.
This petition is to rezone property at 7216 North Armenia Avenue
to demolish existing use and construct a medical office
according to the application.
Request for Euclidean zoning district therefore there is no site
plan for you to review.
The entire property contains approximately 22,000 square feet,
CG setbacks are as follows: 10-foot minimum on the front, sides
and rear yards.
Section 27130 also requires additional buffers between
commercial and residential uses including six-foot high masonry
walls, 15-foot wide buffers.
No waivers can be requested through this type of rezoning
request.
If variances are needed, the petitioner may apply for
administrative relief to the extent that the code permits, and
they also may be allowed to go before the variance review board,
which would be an additional public hearing.

The reasons for recommendation, you'll note on the zoning Atlas
that you have before you, future land use designation is
community mixed use 35, which permits zoning district
classifications up to CG for general commercial uses.
The zoning district extends to the depth proposed in the request
both on the blocks to the North and the South.
If you'll note to the North of Armenia court, there are
projections of CG back to the rear street and to the South, it
actually extends farther in some cases.
And then trickles down.
The site is currently in poor condition.
I do have photos for you.
This is another blighted site.
This is the rear yard.
This is the RS-60 portion.
There is a dead tree in the right-of-way.
A somewhat dilapidated fence.
They are parking more or less on the right-of-way.
Pulling off the right-of-way.
It is the El Primo grocery.
There are significant accumulations along the side of the
building.
Crates and broken pallets.
This is the front along Armenia, the parking area.
The concrete is broken up in many places.

There is no sidewalk.
There is a great deal of debris, which I took a closer shot of.
There is no clear defined driveway.
And these are the homes that -- that's one of the homes that
sits across the street.
I did provide the aerial as well.
Which shows the larger area and then a blowup of the particular
site.
The petitioners did explain to me that they have a purpose to
build the medical office.
They will be required to meet all applicable Land Development
code such as landscape, transportation, stormwater and signage
as if this were a brand-new commercial site coming in.
I would like to clarify for Council, they will not be given
vehicular access to any local street.
The code does not permit us to grant that administratively.
If for some reason they go to develop the site and show an
access to Armenia court or to St. Peter, they will have to come
back before you under a PD rezoning.
The petitioners are very well aware of what the buffer
requirements are, sidewalk requirements, stormwater and
everything else.
And they advised that they did intend to meet the requirements.
Staff had no objections.
>> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn in.
Got a future land use map up on the ELMO.
Give you a perspective of the area.
Here is Armenia.
This is North Armenia Avenue.
This is North of Sligh.
Once you get North of Sligh, the character of Armenia kind of
changes.
It narrows significantly and then starts curving.
And for those of you that are familiar with this area and that
are pretty intimate with it, you've got a variety of retail uses
and commercial uses.
It's kind of like a hodgepodge of a lot of different commercial
uses in the area.
So when you see redevelopment in this area, it's basically a
business closed down and a business will replace it, but you
really haven't seen any significant reconstruction in this
particular area.
There are two predominant land use categories, residential 10
and CMU 35.
This White area is because this particular part of town is in
close proximity to the county line.
So this is the Hillsborough County directly to the West of North
St. Peter avenue.
This site is CMU 35 all the way back to St. Peter's avenue.

We're all in favor of seeing reconstruction and redevelopment
for underutilized areas, especially this particular area in the
Armenia Gardens Neighborhood Association.
We looked at this carefully, and we're actually going to find
this inconsistent primarily because they are coming in for the
CG zoning district instead of coming in for a PD.
Because with the CG, you can potentially have a variety of other
uses in the area.
We think the development as it is proposed by the applicant is a
benefit to the community, so we are in a bit of a quandary
because we're looking at this as Ms. Coyle had objected to a
technical issue on that home we talked about a little earlier,
we're looking at this from a comp plan, long-range aspect and
we're objecting to it and finding it inconsistent primarily
because they are coming in with CG instead of a PD.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What if they wanted to go Euclidean, couldn't
they do like an office rezoning rather than -- CG, you can do
like car repair and things.
Isn't there a lesser zoning category other than a PD that they
could apply for that would allow a medical use that would be
appropriate?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The RO-1 classification is site-plan
controlled.
So it would be before you.
There's a glitch with the RO-1 that a medical office is also a

special use in the code, but it could come before you as an
RO-1.
The petitioner went simply with the CG because the community
mixed use allowed the CG zoning.
And it was such a small amount of property in the rear.
And the fact that they couldn't have vehicular access to it
without coming before you.
And they will have to meet the buffer and wall requirements that
any other petition would.
In my counselling them, I felt as well that the standards in the
code would prohibit any kind of odd or negative impact
development to the area, especially looking at what is there
now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Following on that line, though, from a
procedural perspective, Morris or Martin, could they -- since it
is a less intense use and it's already been advertised and we're
in this process, if we switched to the RO-1 --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: There is no site plan.
We can't switch it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't mean switch it like tonight.
Would they have to start over from scratch and advertise and
everything else?
Or could they at least continue on in this process --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: They would have to amend their petition and
pay the additional fee and renotice.

In the past, we have done it that way, yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's a less intense use.
So why would they have to?
I'm just looking for the option.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Understood.
It's a closer call.
I know in one case where we had a petition come before you for I
think a CI and we allowed that to be reduced to CG, but that was
in the Euclidean context.
Here we would be reverting to a site plan.
So I think that's a --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Notice to folks could look at the site plan.
Okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Hello.
My name is Veronica Perez.
3515 West SEVELLA street, Tampa, Florida.
I have not been sworn in.
(Oath administered by the Clerk)
I do.
We are basically -- I'm trying to develop this area and this
specific property for the purposes of either office -- medical
office space.
I spoke to Ms. Coyle at various times when we started the
petition, and it seems her requirements are the city

requirements of developing that particular property are pretty
restrictive.
And we know that the requirements of the access are strictly
from Armenia Avenue and no other streets.
Going -- no other streets going to be allowed.
Knowing that, we'll be compliant in all the requirements,
building on the site to make sure that everything gets within
code.
Our purpose is just to go in there and try to develop a property
in an area that has never seen development as long as we've
known.
And we would like to go ahead and maybe be the incentive for
other developers to come in in the area and start developing
that particular area.
I've spoken to several neighbors in the area, and there doesn't
seem to be any objections, at least the ones that have called
me.
They are very positive about us coming in and developing this
blighted property right now.
In closing, I would like to say, you know, I hope we can just go
ahead with the petition and have a CG instead of going through
the whole process again.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public who wants to speak
on item 11?
>> Thank you.

>> Raymond Schultz.
2606 West Crenshaw Street.
I have been sworn in.
My wife and I received a notice that they were planning to
change that zoning from what we understood was a commercial
zoning from what it was.
And believe me, living back behind that area in a residential
area, anything they can do to improve that, by all means, do it.
Before they put the fence that's kind of falling apart up there,
you know, that ran along the back of the property that goes into
the residential area, back down Armenia Court -- well,
St. Peter, Armenia court area, I live on Crenshaw. St. Peter
dead ends into Crenshaw, and you go around the corner there, all
they had was a chain-link fence and it was pretty unsightly.
We weren't able to get in touch with anybody despite calling
them to find out what exactly they wanted to do there.
We didn't know.
We went around as far as with the neighbors in the area.
Put in kind of a petition that we didn't want it changed to
commercial because we weren't sure what was going to happen.
As it is, the restaurant that's there and the club they kind of
run there at nighttime between the late music and the noise and
the increased traffic and the people that kind of hang out
around that area, we didn't care for it much any way.
But they still kind of left us alone.

They didn't come back down through that area.
If they were going to open that area up in the back, open that
fence up and then have traffic or any kind of trucks, we didn't
know what was going to be put in that area.
That was really mine and my wife's and the rest of the neighbors
contention to this is we didn't want that area back there which
despite everything around it is pretty well protected in this
quiet, the kids can play, don't have to worry about traffic,
nobody goes down there, it's a dead-end street and we want to
keep it that way.
If they are going to have the walls surrounding the area, not
going to increase the traffic into the neighborhood.
Only two ways in.
There's Kirby, which is further up and then Armenia court coming
in from Armenia.
And my only concern now, knowing they are going to put a medical
office building there is the traffic coming off of Armenia.
And being able to get in and out of that property.
As it is, it's a blind corner.
You can barely see across the street, there's like a car repair
place or a lawn mower repair shop.
They have their trucks parked on the street all the time.
You can't see anything coming out there.
You have a very hard time visualizing.
You have to pull out almost into on-coming traffic in order to

see if you can go out that corner.
It's only a two-lane road and it goes around a corner.
Unless they are going to figure out a way to make that easier,
I'm afraid that the increased traffic for the medical office,
have increased accidents that always happen there as it is.
That's my concern.
As far as getting in and out of that neighborhood, if you're
going to have the increased traffic on there from a medical
office building will make it more difficult, too, but that's --
you know, if they are going to clean up that lot, I'm all for
that.
I'm worried about the traffic and things coming off of Armenia
and getting into the neighborhood.
>>GWEN MILLER: The traffic will be coming which way?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I can speak to the fact as I said before,
that no access will be granted on St. Peter or Armenia Court
because they would have to come back before you through another
rezoning in order to get that.
In answer to your question about another lesser office zoning
district, there is one in the code.
And I'll admit my fault in this and I spoke with Ms. Perez about
that, generally when we see CMU-35, the first zoning district
that pops into your mind is CG.
It's the very first one.
The front piece was CG, so initially I thought expanding the CG.

They do have the option of doing an OP zoning, and I verified
with Mr. Massey that we could simply redo the ordinance.
You could direct to redo the ordinance and they wouldn't require
any notice.
Because an OP is a lesser zoning district.
The OP is office professional.
They would still be allowed to do their medical office use under
that zoning district.
What it essentially does is takes out those less desirable uses
such as retail, which generates a lot of traffic and potentially
more light and noise.
And also vehicle repair is not allowed in OP.
Uses like banks, credit unions, offices, medical offices are
allowed in OP.
So that is an option if you would rather use the OP instead of
the CG.
And Mr. Garcia is fine with that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I would move to amend this to OP and just
bring it back next Thursday morning for first reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The question was, if this is a petition by the
petitioner, does the petitioner have to agree to that?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Yes, they do.

I believe Ms. Coyle has spoken to the petitioner, and she has
agreed.
>> She can put it on the record.
>> I think that would be preferable as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Perez, could you come up to the podium as
well.
>> She says si.
>> That would be fine.
I mean, it will still go ahead.
It will be what we need anyway in order to go ahead and develop
it.
So that will be fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: We'll have it ready for you next week.
Is there anything to come before Council from the clerk?
>> Motion to receive and file all documents.
>> We have a motion and second.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
We stand adjourned.