Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, February 24, 2005
5:30 p.m. session

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


[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Tonight to give the invocation will be Shirley Foxx-Knowles, our esteemed city clerk.
So will we please stand up for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Let us pray.
Lord, give us a pure heart that we may see thee, a humble heart that we may hear thee, a love of heart -- heart of love that we may serve thee, a love of faith that we may live thee.
Father, thank you for this day in time.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here in Tampa.
Thank you for our council members who are servants of the people.
Give them the wisdom they need to make the best decisions for all of us.
Increase in them the gifts of faith, hope, charity, and compassion in the decisions they make this evening, and the gift of understanding to the individuals who will come before this council.
Continue to guide our council members and make them instruments of your will.
Lead them as they make the decisions that affects the lives of the citizens of our fair city.
Father, bless the City of Tampa, our state and our country.
Bless our citizens and keep us all in your care.
These blessings we ask and thanks we give, in your name.
Amen.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (No response)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response)
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
Before we start I would like to put on the record Ms. Ferlita will be a few minutes late and Mr. Harrison is out of town, he won't be here tonight.
We need to open our public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, would you like to have people sworn?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone who is going to speak on item 1, would you please stand and raise your right hand?
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please, for the record, when you state your name, please also reaffirm that you have been sworn.
Thank you.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
I have been sworn.
I'm here to explain to you the process of taking the expanded Ybor historic district into YC designations.
The historic district was expanded about two years ago to incorporate properties south towards Adamo, and property that sort of extends to about 28th.
That area has been reviewed by city staff with the cooperation of the Barrio Latino commission, the YCDC organization, the neighborhood groups, and participation in a few workshops with residents of the area to try to get an understanding of the development of the properties for transferring to a YC designation.
The YC districts were developed and are characteristic of the historic district.
They provide for the densities, intensities of the comprehensive plan that allows for development of the properties, given the future land use designations of properties, and also allows for a much more urban design to be provided for, and the Euclidean zoning districts that are typical in the rest of the city.
That's why it's important to bring these properties into those designations.
There are primarily what I consider three areas in the historic district, the expanded area.
The map of the current zoning districts shows the area on the north side, south of the interstate to 8th Avenue that are currently in residential areas.
They are in R-35 and R-20 land use classification, and that area is being proposed to go to the YC-2 district as well as the YC-8. The YC-8 was encouraged by the east Ybor historic and civic organization to try to provide for a concentration or an area where single-family detached housing was going to be possible and not allow for the townhouse development, the more intensive developments that are occurring in the YC-2 district.
What we did as a staff is we looked for areas that had a concentration of larger lots and in the CC-8, what I mean by larger lot is about 40 feet wide and about 4300 square feet.
So they are not extremely large parcels, but they are designed to be primarily a single-family district.
And we have placed that area close to the western boundary.
You can see that in the proposed map.
It's this area here and along if interstate as well.
The next area is between 8th Avenue to 7th Avenue west of -- excuse me, east of 22nd street.
>>GWEN MILLER: He has a question for you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have a handout for us that shows specifically like YC-2 equals blah-blah-blah?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I did print out -- I know there was going to be some discussion about the -- that shows the dimensional regulations related to the regular zoned areas, the R-16, and I also have... As the public starts discussing it there might be some questions as to that.
But the YC-2 is primarily residential.
It allows for special uses that are -- can be considered by City Council, if it is consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of locational criteria.
Now, as I was saying, the area between 8th and 2nd Avenue is primarily a commercial area.
We are recommending the YC-7 in that area, just because that provides for a residential development, as well as the lighter commercial development that is being characteristic of the Southern Area of the city. The area that is currently zoned industrial now are going to the YC-6 designations, district.
It's primarily a mixed use commercial district that also allows for light manufacturing uses.
And the YC-6 is being recommended on properties that are in industrial zoned areas -- excuse me, a light industrial land use classification, or currently carrying the IG zoning district.
That area is primarily south of -- or runs along Adamo and 2nd Avenue.
Since the advertisements for this public hearing have occurred, staff has received some input from the public related to concerns of the proposed zoning districts.
And I'd like to review those issues.
The first one that contacted me was magnum steel corporation, own property generally at 1603 north 24th street, and they were being proposed to be rezoned to the YC-6 designation.
They are manufacturing activities.
It's this area here where they own property.
I made the change to the YC-6 to allow for their uses to remain under the proposed zone.
And they felt very comfortable with that YC designation.
The next person that contacted me was pat Williams, and expressed substantial concern for property owners that are on either side of 3rd Avenue running the length of the Adamo district.
The feeling of that group was that since the YCDC is sponsoring the visioning plan for Ybor City that they felt that the rezoning of that area is premature, and we should wait till thing plan is over before it is followed through with a rezoning to a YC district.
And as you can see on my staff report, have no objection to the delay of the rezoning in that area, and I can modify the legal description to take out that entire area.
But I want council to understand that it's important since this is part of the historic district, YC districts ultimately need to extend through the whole area of the historic district.
Through that visioning plan, it may be necessary to make some modifications, or maybe add an additional YC district.
You can do that at that time.
But I'm hoping that -- and Mr. Pardo is here, maybe can explain, too, if he has some words of wisdom for us tonight -- the length of time it's going to take to get through the visioning plan so that we can finalize the area wide rezoning in the historic district.
The next modification that was asked was Selestio.
He actually owns a portion of this block in this area here, and has written a request that the designation go from the YC-6 that I originally had for him to a YC-7.
He just completed some comprehensive plan amendments to allow for the residential development that he's wanting.
And we have no objection with going ahead and putting the YC-7 on that property.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: From our report here, you say from the proposed YC-7 to YC-6 on Mr. Salario.
>> It's the other way around.
He wants the YC-7.
It allows for a higher density residential development.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that one okay to continue on with?
>>> No problem with it.
>> Okay.
So the other ones that you're talking about are the ones for Fran Williams and Eric Shower?
>>> Yes.
Mr. Shower owns property here and he's here tonight.
At the corner of -- what is that? -- 24th and 8th Avenue.
And he has concerns about any zoning change on his property.
And he's currently zoned RM-16.
Morris Massey and I met with Mr. Shuler last week to go over with him.
The difference between the YC-2 district versus the RM-16, we showed them the tables that showed that it allows for a higher density development.
It also allows for more variety of uses permitted on that property.
He still is very leery of any change in zoning for his property.
And I don't have a problem at this point, because we are pulling out these properties south, until the visioning plan is over.
But ultimately, council, it's very important that we do rezone his property to a YC designation and I do not see why -- where the YC-2 is taking away any of his rights he currently has under RM-16.
The next group that contacted me was the cigar city investment.
They own property here in the area that was going to be the YC-8.
And they have plans for townhouse development, and multifamily development and asked for the YC-2 designation.
That area is in an R-20 land use classification.
And by giving them the YC-2 they would be able to develop to that density.
We have no objection as staff to the placement of that property, the YC-2.
I got two other phone calls today.
Barry Cohen, who owns property at 2607 eleventh Avenue.
I didn't have a chance to change the map.
He owns property here.
It would be right in the middle of that YC-8 area.
He's asked for the YC-2.
And he has an existing duplex on that property and wants to be able to basically keep it as a conforming use.
I have no objection to the retention of the YC-2 on that property.
The other individual is named David Simmons, who represents Maria Hamel at 2710 east 11th Avenue.
He has two small lots here.
And they are wanting to develop a house on each lot.
But those lots are smaller than the YC-8 designation, minimum YC-8 requirement.
So he is asking for a YC-2 designation to allow for that development.
We have no objection with that requirement.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez has a question.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The magnum steel corporation you have on here was proposed YC-7 to YC-6, is that correct?
>>> That's correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: And I think the point that I have for all the people that are here tonight is, you know, my goal is if you have the correct land use classification to do the district, the YC designation that you are wanting, I have no problem with that change.
But you have to be on the right land use for the district you're wanting.
Otherwise give us the feedback tonight.
Did you not prepare the ordinance for first reading tonight.
We will hopefully bring it back to you at the second public hearing.
But I wanted to get more input in case there were additional changes that council would like to see made.
Do you have any questions?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The YC categories are a little confusing, because like a YC-2 is more dense than a YC-8, I guess.
It's sort of backwards.
So it's a little confusing.
But my question is in regard to -- it appears that when you got a phone call, somebody said I have a multifamily unit, and then you looked at it and you confirmed that, and then you went ahead and adjusted it, what I wonder about is, have we gone the extra step to identify all the multifamily units, and sort of grandfather them in with an appropriate YC density that would in the future at least allow them to be confirming?
>>> I can certainly pull out, if that's the direction that council would like to see, the multifamily or the duplexes that are in that YC-8 area if they are existing, to pull them out.
We were looking at the future land use information in our comp plan for the determination as to where the YC-8 districts were appropriate.
And we tried to find the concentration of single-family detached houses, and also parcels that had at least that 40-foot lot characteristic ownership pattern in that area.
That was what we used to guide us.
There are not very many duplexes in the YC-8.
Most of that land, I think, is vacant.
More single-family houses on it.
>> I guess if I were a property owner, and I had a multifamily unit there, that today is a conforming use, whatever zoning it might be.
And then after we get done with this process, if I didn't bother to come down here, call you or what have you, then a month from now I could find myself in a nonconform situation.
Typically, I don't think the city or government really likes to create nonconforming uses where we can avoid it.
So it's something worth discussing, I think.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Yeah, and there are not that many YC-8 parcels where I probably before the first reading could go and look at it and pull out the ones that are duplexes, if council is requesting that to be done.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I agree with Mr. Dingfelder up to a point, that his point, I think, that we are going to delay some of these for the visioning plan to be complete.
I think it's appropriate for us to continue the discussion on this.
And the thing about it, too, is that they have whoever has a part about this has a few weeks before the ordinance comes to us.
So if there's a possibility of these people wanting to come forward, then is the time to do it.
>> They can do it as far as the next public hearing, that's correct.
I do want to stress one thing, because I know that the area that is along Adamo are pretty intent on being excluded now.
There are many people in the residential area, the area that is east of 22nd street that are eager for this to be complete at the YC designations.
It does give them less.
They don't have to apply for variances for Seth setbacks.
They allow for higher density development that is they are looking for.
It really is, I think, important to move forward with the pieces that we can, and then pull out the ones that are wanting further study.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a side note on that, I think it's a really good idea to wait for the visioning plan, because I'm sure Mr. Hill has a lot of suggestions, and I hope that we will be able to use.
And this will only help the residents in that area.
This is a unique area that we're talking about.
And they cannot move forward unless they know what their designation is.
So I think it's appropriate that we either move forward on what we have and delay the ones that need to be delayed for the visioning plan.
That's a good idea.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to compliment the staff.
I work closely with the residents.
And I think the intention of council is clear, that we are interested in moving ahead where we can, but that ultimately all of the area needs to be in some sort of appropriate YC zoning.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Moreda, I just wanted to make sure that with all the proper noticing that went out, we have a lot of notices come back unable to catch?
Because what I don't want is an influx of people that come back and say, well, we weren't noticed.
And I know we noticed them at the address on record.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Through our public notice requirements you have to notice everyone within 250 feet.
I think we sent out well into the hundreds of notices.
I could count and see how many did come back.
We did get some back.
I would say 30, 40 came back.
But out of possibly 600 letters, you know, that's about how many came back.
I did not check to see whether they were properties within, or within that radius.
>> You understand my concern.
>>> Yes.
>> Just like the last rezoning we went through, saying I didn't get my notice after it's awl all done.
>>> Do realize I have been working on this probably for about seven months now.
With the amendment that is we did to chapter 27, putting in the YC-8 and YC-9 type amendments and the neighborhood meetings.
I think the word has gotten out to a lot of people.
But, yes, you're right, in terms of making people read their notices that they get, sometimes they're not.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
A few comments since we don't have an ordinance, there's not going to be any formal action taken.
Several comments being taken into consideration.
In reviewing the proposed rezoning changes, all the changes are consistent with the underlying land use categories in the area.
We have four predominant categories in this particular area.
And all of them, with the exception of the Adamo corridor, which we referred to the recently, which is that southern boundary, is all light industrial, with the exception of that bun, all the other land use categories allow some type of residential development consistent with all the YC categories that are being proposed.
The YC categories also, I guess, to add a little more as to what Ms. Moreda had spoken to, when you read what the density potentials are in the land use under the respective land use categories, by going into the YC categories, the property will be able to maximize their development potential.
They actually will be within a historic district, since it was expanded, which is the whole premise of creating the expanded historic district, and then doing the text changes as Gloria had alluded to.
So the opportunity that's provided to all the property owners in the area will be increased density potential, since they would all be then incorporated into some type of YC district.
Instead of going to, for example, residential 20, which would potentially only allow 18 units per acre they could potentially go up to 20 and the floor area ratio would be maximized also because they are in a YC district that is within the historic district.
We can take that into consideration.
The only other thing that I might bring up, we did meet with a lot of the property owners about a week and a half, two weeks ago to discuss a lot of their concerns along the Adamo corridor that. Is primarily light industrial with the exception of Mr. Solario's properties which came in for change a few months ago. The light industrial categories, I believe all the property owners are going to get back and decide exactly what they are going to want to do as far as their vision is concerned, whether they want to have some type of residential component considered for the future of that particular area along the Adamo corridor.
If that would be the case, it would probably have to come in in the future, either during the plan update or sometime within the near future, let's say next year, for a possible plan amendment change to allow consideration of some type of residential component.
So that's where I will leave it at this point in time.
We are pretty much consistent with everything but since there's not an action I won't give a formal recommendation, consistency or inconsistency, even though we have no issue at all and do find it within the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.
I'm here in case you have any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You must have read my mind, Tony.
It seems like we are putting the cart before the horse in regard to -- even if we delay a few months, finish the visioning plan and then rezone it to sort of -- and I'm talking about the Adamo corridor, rezone to the a residential use, don't we typically, you know, change the plan category before we change the zoning?
And that's to you, Gloria, or Tony, either one.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Our recommendation for that corridor that's in the light industrial land use is the YC-6 which is a consistent zoning district for it.
It allows for light manufacturing.
It allows also for residential, if you are in the correct land use classification.
We have YC-6 that is also in a heavy commercial land use classification.
In this area if they are given YC-6 they will not be able to develop residential.
At time of permitting when a zone comes in, we check to make sure that what they are proposing is consistent with the comp plan, designation.
I do think, though, that this area is going residential to a large degree and I have urged all the property owners to participate in the plan update, so that a good land use designation can be found for their properties.
And at that point once that comprehensive plan process is complete, then a reevaluation as to whether that YC-6 would be the appropriate time to do that.
>> So we wouldn't even really realistically be able to go to anything more dense than a residentially dense than a YC-6 with that land use category on there.
It would be inherently inconsistent.
>>> You could.
That's their one district option right now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number one?
Anyone in the public.
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the City Council.
My name is John Grandoff.
And my address is suite 3700 Bank of America plaza.
I've been sworn in already by the clerk.
Our firm represents Kimmins corporation, which is in the Adamo corridor, just north of Adamo Drive.
And north to the alley that's north of 3rd Avenue.
And they are currently operating there, their business there.
I sent a letter to Gloria on November 10th requesting we be excluded and we appreciate the graciousness of excluding us from the process at this point.
I believe the vision plan needs to come forward and see exactly what would be in store for the future of this property and I also ask that you all would give some consideration especially with the last few questions, some consideration of at least looking at maybe an area-wide plan amendment.
Because I think you're running into the issue of -- they are conforming right now with their underlying plan category.
And it's a "cart before the horse" analogy.
Maybe as part of the vision statement you evaluate, maybe on a separate sheet of paper, should we do an area-wide plan amendment for this area?
It's done frequently.
And kind of settle that issue.
And then we figure out what zoning category to assign to it or rewrite another category.
Just another suggestion.
Tran Williams and Joe Williams are principals of Kimmens corporation, and they are here this evening.
They participated very graciously also.
They hosted an open house last week at their corporate offices and Gloria and Tony came to that.
We had a very good discussion.
Fran would like to speak to you for a few moments.
He's prepared a statement.
Fran and Joe, would you please raise your hands?
Also, John Simon is with the Kimmins corporation.
John is here also.
I would like Fran to come up at this point.
We have several neighbors within the Adamo corridor that would like to speak to you as well.
We'll keep comments as brief as possible and nonrepetitive.
Thank you for your time.
>> Have you been sworn in?
>> Yes, I have been sworn in.
I'm not here today for Kimmins corporation property.
During this process, during this process of the vision statement and our involvement in it, it became obvious to us that the people that are present along the Adamo corridor by this were not involved as it would seem prudent for them to be.
So we got together, and are forming and association, we have incorporated.
And I'd like the folks that are here tonight just to stand up.
All of us involved.
We represent close to 95% of the property along the Adamo corridor proposed by the YC-6 designation.
We would like to thank you for supporting the vision plan project for Ybor.
Vision A and vision plan is long overdue and we commend all involved for it's implementation.
Spending the time to determine what the city, the barrio, YCDC want, to sit on -- see on each of our property, the value to each of us.
After the last public meeting on the visioning project, which was January 10th, I realize visioning activity if any had taken place below 4th Avenue.
More importantly it appeared there was a plan to thoroughly develop a vision for the Adamo corridor, as well as land use designations to complement the vision.
After the January 10th vision plan public meeting, I realized that our council, with respect to the Adamo corridor, was scheduled to proceed with rezoning dealing with our properties before the vision plan and an impact statement were completed.
With Mr. Pardo's help, we scheduled a meeting with the city and county staff and property owners in the Adamo corridor.
The meeting was held February 10th.
We received a terrific response from residents in the corridor.
We had 28 land owners and tenants.
Virtually all of the land owners from 15th to 20th on Adamo, 2nd and 3rd, attended and several from 21st to 25th.
We also had several people attend that were outside the area designated for our association.
The city and county staff are terrific.
Ms. Moreda walked us through the zoning proposal and answered dozens of questions with patients and grace.
(Bell sounds)
And Mr. Anthony Garcia from the Planning Commission spent the time to explain the intricacies of the planning and land use procedures.
We could not have asked for from the staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: You will have to wrap it up.
Your time is up.
>> I have a sheet of paper here.
>> You didn't give me a sheet of paper.
>> Could you give me just -- I'll give to the you.
>> Give me a sheet of paper.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to waive the rules.
>>GWEN MILLER: If he gives me a sheet of paper we don't have to waive the rules.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I'm saying if he doesn't find the paper.
Give it total attorney.
He's going to read your name.
Raise your hands, please.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
>> You have one more minute.
One more minute.
>> I'm done, that's all right.
>> You have another minute.
Go ahead.
>> You can read what I said.
I'll finish in a minute.
>> I would like -- the things Mr. Dingfelder was saying about the county master plan, the visioning statement and I would like us all to think about this.
We are in the process of zoning property, and zoning the density on property.
The number of people that are going to live in the neighborhood.
I think we should compute the number.
We spent tens of millions to have a successful community to do that, to make the 7th Avenue historic area successful.
We have to have enough people living there.
Today, we instituted a zoning legislation which dictates the number of people that are going to live there, and not adding up the numbers.
We are not trying to determine how many people we need, and proposing zoning legislation, and not taking that zoning legislation and extending the number of people that we are zoning to be residents.
I think when I looked through the whole thing, I hope you will delay a vote -- delay adding on our area until all those studies are done.
Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Williams, we're taking what Ms. Moreda said but we will delay the vote on that property and so on, because of the visioning statement.
We are not just jumping into this fire, you know.
We are looking at it very carefully and we are going to make the best decision property that we can for the district.
Believe me, we have the district at heart.
>>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
>> Fran Costantino, Fourth Avenue.
I have been sworn in.
I'm president of the East Ybor Historic and Civic Association.
I spoke with Mr. Kimmins on several issues on a person to person basis, and did not really have any hard feelings towards him but I did receive a letter from him thanking me for attending a meeting that I was not at.
And there are some things in here I have copies for all of council that bothered me a little bit.
In the letter he said they were legislated into the historic district.
He also says that the Adamo corridor that his attorneys advised him that he felt the city had overstepped the intent of the historic district designation and that we should petition the state for reversal and if that failed to litigate.
Then he goes on to say they did not pursue that, but the word litigate comes in throughout this letter over and over and over.
I feel like if he would have gone on board when the rest of us did, there was plenty ample time for him to decide what he wanted to do with this property.
The only thing that I have a real conflict with him is club owners have come to you all before to ask for permits but they won't let you know what kind of club they want to put, and you all are insisting to tell you if you are going to permit you need to tell us what kind of club it is.
Well, he tells me he doesn't have a problem being part of the historic district, but he has a problem with the height.
I said, how high do you want to go?
He said, well, I don't know.
So this is what has the civic association worried, is if they want to be part of the historic district and he's thanked me for making him a millionaire because now his property is worth a gazillion dollars but now don't like the height restrictions.
We are very worried by exempting them tonight and not letting this go through as we have planned that the next step will be to exclude him from the barrio, and then we are going to have downtown with Trump Tower, 52 stories, you have Channelside with a gazillion high stories, and now on the southern main gateway into Ybor City -- I'm not saying he will, but it's leading it open to have a 30, 40-foot story because they are worried about density and more and more money.
I don't know what that's going to do.
That's our concern.
When I had talked to him earlier, I sort of felt that we could go with them.
Last night we had our civic association meeting.
They were against it.
I do want to thank Gloria and the staff.
They have asked anybody that wants change, you come ahead of time and we'll give what you want.
But now at the eleventh hour we really feel that it should go forward.
In the letter -- can I approach Mr. Shelby and give a copy to everybody?
(off microphone)
I'm just worried if we don't proceed, we are going to have a mess and that's what the citizens are very much concerned about.
With all this information form and all that was done at the eleventh hour like today, we trade to work with them.
And Gloria trade to work with them.
YC 6 is going to be fine.
All the industrial and commercial and residential is all mixed our whole life.
Magnum steel, everybody is happy with it.
Now there's a corridor but what is important is the corridor.
From Channel District into Ybor, that is the main.
And if we don't control that, like I said, that T&A bar as I said before is on 17th and Adamo and if we don't rezone today --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This isn't a question for you, this is a question for Mr. Pardo about the visioning process.
Council, I think, is very interested, and I think wants to participate in the conversation about the visioning process.
I think it's appropriate that we do.
And I wonder if we need to schedule an opportunity for the consultant hired to do the vision, to come before council, either at a regular meeting or as part of the CRA meeting and discuss where we are and to give us the opportunity to provide some input.
>>VINCE PARDO: Ybor City Development Corporation.
I have not been sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> Workshop with council has always been part of the process.
Council person Alvarez represents you on the visioning committee.
We have a meeting scheduled probably I think in about three weeks, to deal with some things, Mark Huey and committee members, for the redraft to come back to council.
Several comments have come in.
And of course there's a process, I think last week if you remember you extended the contract for the visioning till the end of April.
Go forward and have this particular area coming in.
Right through the holidays, kept on track, at the eleventh hour we realize there were a couple of areas they needed to pay more attention to, this being one of them.
The Adamo corridor, the last couple of weeks as a result of the order.
And I was very pleased that they put that meeting together.
I think the action we take tonight is not to do anything in support of anybody being out of the historic district, about height requirement.
This corridor, but the property owners are asking to hold off making a decision strictly on that linear YC-6 tonight to give our consultant time to come back.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to make sure that council has an opportunity to participate.
>>VINCE PARDO: I spoke with Mr. Hill about a quarter of five before coming here tonight.
He will be in town on the afternoon we had that meeting.
And if we want to have a special session at some time we would be glad to do that. Our intent is once we get past this next draft, we'll meet -- if the committee feels comfortable with what's in there and we have covered everything then we will then set the workshop with administration and with council to go forward doing that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like you to invite us to participate.
>>VINCE PARDO: Let me say this, the visioning committee is a publicly noticed meeting and anyone can attend from the public as well as the council so there is notice.
All of you may attend if you want to attend.
I'll make sure you all get the e-mail about that meeting.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Please do.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mrs. Saul-Sena, you have to realize this is just a draft that's coming, that we can make any type of changes.
It's not set in stone.
So we have the opportunity to make whatever revisions we want.
It's just a matter of getting a plan together as a draft.
>>VINCE PARDO: And that meeting is scheduled for March 15th at 1:30.
I don't have a location here so it's either in Mark Huey 's office or my office.
It is a publicly noticed meeting.
>> Other questions by council members?
>> Move to close.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Question.
Is it appropriate to continue the public hearing, Mr. Massey?
I think it would be more appropriate to continue the public hearing.
The question is whether it should be to a date certain.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: There's already a second public hearing set for two weeks from now.
Nine?
So if you just continue it to when the public hearing is.
And we will have the ordinance ready at that time.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: 10:00?
>> Move to continue.
>> Motion and second to continue the public hearing.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to, I guess, address the direction we are giving staff specifically to go with the continuance.
I think what I heard council say, just so we put it on the record, is that we would be amenable to carving out the Adamo corridor at this point in time.
>> No, we didn't.
>> All we did was staff said they were going to still meet and work out with any residents in that area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But she's coming back with a draft of the ordinance.
So she needs to know what -- Gloria, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Tell us what you need.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Council does need to tell me whether or not I pull out the Adamo corridor for now, while the visioning plan is being done.
And what I mean by carving them out, they are not being carved out of the historic district.
They are still in the historic district.
They are still subject to the barrio review.
They have to meet all the code requirements as it relates to the historic district designation.
It simply will delay the change to the YC district until the visioning plan is done.
I do want to make one real fast point, in the sense that our code requires properties in the historic district to be YC designations.
And if it turns out that the vision plan is delayed a long period of time, I'm probably going to be recommend that a text amendment be made to allow for this Euclidean zoning to stay in place for awhile.
But from my understanding is it's moving rather fast, the visioning plan.
And in the next few months, it should be finished and we should be able to go forward with this process again.
I don't think it's appropriate to delay the change in these zoning districts until after a comprehensive plan amendment process is complete.
You're looking probably at about six to nine months, maybe a year.
And that is a long time.
If we are just talking about holding off until the visioning plan, then I'm fine.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So what you're saying is that you want a time limit on this thing.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I think the visioning plan needs to move quickly so that we can wrap up the YC designations in the historic district.
I see that being in the next six months.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So you want -- suppose we say six months from now, we give them six months from now, and then they come back and say, well, we're not ready yet.
>>> If it's not ready then, then I am probably going to come forward with the text amendment that allows for the underlying zoning to come forward.
If that is the direction of council.
My preference would be, I'm sorry, the YC-6 works.
It allows you to build twice as much building on your property than the IG district.
You know, for 15 feet of height, they are objecting to a more intensive district.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Staff is going to be recommending YC-6, six months, that's it.
That's what we feel is appropriate given the district it's in.
If council doesn't feel that way and wants to delay it even further, then I will be coming back with the text amendment to keep the underlining zoning.
Until that comp plan process is complete.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Gloria, you're pre-judging what your decision is going to be before the visioning process.
So I don't think that's really fair.
But anyway, putting that aside, all I was trying to do before was just clarify where we are headed two weeks from now, and with direction from this council, because that's what they need.
If we wanted to draft first reading ordinance.
And so all I'm suggesting is for purposes of two weeks from now she would have an ordinance that would carve out, and not change the zoning on the Adamo corridor properties.
That would be number one.
Number two, I would suggest that we accept the recommendation from staff on all the other changes that went into the staff report.
And number three, I would ask at least that perhaps you could give us both options when you come back in regard to those other duplexes or multi-families that might be hanging out there.
Let us come back.
Let us know how many there are.
If there's just a handful of them, maybe we should carve those out.
So those are the three things that I'm sucking.
That would be my motion for an ordinance on first reading.
>> I'll second that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Question on the motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Continuing --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: To bring back.
Were you also going to put the one that is had already requested to be carved out?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was part of the motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just appreciated your clarification that everything remains within the protection of the Barrio Latino.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think I would be upset with myself if I didn't make this comment, for whatever it's worth.
Gloria, sometimes it's tough to be staff, isn't it?
And I don't think you have ever pre-judged anything.
I think with the years of experience you have, the amount of time you have dedicated to your job, you often give us what your opinion is.
And I think that's what you were doing.
You were not pre-judging anything.
We have no idea where this council will go, individual council members or collectively.
But I've never known you in the five years, six years, seven years, whatever it is that I have been on here, to pre-judge anything or to put decisions in anybody's hands.
Simply the expertise that you have as staff.
And many times we have talked about the fact that staff has a great deal of experience and expertise in areas that I don't and some of my other colleagues do.
So although I know you are not trying to make my decisions for me, you are having me be able to use the experience you have to get to a decision that I may make.
So I would have had a hard time not saying that so I wanted to say that to you and I appreciate what you do.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 2.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Council will be in recess for five minutes.
(Recess)
[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: City Council is called back to order.
Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
Before we go to the next part of our agenda, we need to clean up our agenda with items that cannot be heard.
And looking at item 10, cannot be heard.
Clerk.
Have they paid their amendment fee?
>>THE CLERK: The amendment fee has been paid.
They are requesting to be rescheduled to April 28th.
At 6 p.m..
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on item 10 to continue to April 28th.
Petitioner, do you want to say something?
Come to the mike.
Your name, please.
>> Robert Alsten.
Continue to April 8th, please.
>> Is there anything available?
How many do we have for March 31st?
>> We have two land rezonings, three continued land rezonings.
We have a total of 13.
>>GWEN MILLER: 13 is overcrowded for March.
We have 13.
>>THE CLERK: There's also 13 on the April 14th at 6 p.m..
>>GWEN MILLER: So the earliest we can give you is April 28th.
We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean Aye.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You said Nay so many times.
>> Move to open number 2.
>> Everybody needs to stand and raise their right hand.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Everybody that will be testifying under items 2 through 13.
>>GWEN MILLER: Everybody in the public who is going to speak needs to stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Once again, I'm sorry to say, but please when you said your name just reaffirm tort record that you have in fact been sworn.
Thank you.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I have been sworn.
Angela Hurley, land development.
This is a request to rezone the property at 5101 north Habana Avenue from RS-50 to PD.
They would like to build a new 5080 square foot office with a maximum of 1760 square feet of medical office.
The remaining 3,250 square feet will be business professional office.
They are providing the required 23 parking spaces.
They are asking for a waiver of the six-foot PVC fence in lieu of a masonry wall and reduce the 15 foot landscape buffer to 6 feet adjacent to the dumpster only.
Land Development Coordination is objecting to the waiver request because we feel that it is not consistent with the intent of the buffer requirement, and we are asking that a wall be provided because this dumpster is on the side of a single-family home, and we feel that -- this is a pretty large lot.
The building could be moved south and the dumpster could be made -- when we open the site plan it will be easier to show you.
The dumpster at this point, when the solid waste truck comes in, we actually have to go to an angle.
If they move the building to the south, they could actually have a straight shot to the dumpster, and still have the 15 foot landscape buffer, and believes they have enough room to do this and provide a larger pond on the northern side.
And those are our objections.
Thank you.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I put a future land use map on the Elmo for your information.
Land use categories in this area, residential 10, land use 20.
The Habana corridor between the segment between Hillsborough Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, there is a policy in the comprehensive plan that does allow for medical office, in-fill, and development, redevelopment along this particular segment due to its close proximity of St. Joseph's hospital, as it is also for the medical district between San Isabel street and north to Dr. Martin Luther King.
This particular segment which is on the northern side, this particular piece of property is a vacant land.
There is one residential street that does act as a physical buffer between the existing single family detached to the east of the proposed site.
There are several other medical offices in close proximity to this proposed site, in addition to that, this site is in fairly close proximity to your commercial corridor to the north of Hillsborough Avenue and Habana, adjacent to this strip center right over here, which houses quite a few retail and commercial uses.
We do have concerns regarding adequate buffering to the north of any residential uses, because there are several residential uses to the north.
And there is a policy in the comprehensive plan that does speak to redevelopment must mitigate the adverse noise visual odor vibration caused by new development.
So we do have concerns regarding that.
But as far as the actual use itself, the consistency of pattern of development we do find it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I just wanted to add that I did get a letter from the residential property owner to the north claiming that they would prefer a 6-foot masonry wall under the PVC fence.
I would like to put it in the record.
>> Andrew Castilla, 1201 North Herbie Avenue.
I have no objection to changing the wall.
This is really the first time I hear about it.
But we can put in a block wall and move the building to the south.
So to accommodate a little more space so there's in a problem with that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if there's anyone in opposition.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 2?
Come up and speak, sir.
Come on up.
>> She can almost talk.
>> Let her give her name on the record.
>> My name is -- I live at 15109.
>> Put your name on the record, also, sir.
What's your name, sir?
>> My name is Escalante.
See, I say we, because I send a letter, and I will read what said over here.
My name Escalante --
>>ROSE FERLITA: Senior?
(Speaking Spanish)
What I said, Madam Chairman, I will be happy to read this.
It's a copy of what he's trying to read.
(Speaking Spanish)
My name is Daisy Escalante, my grievance is that the adjacent property there will be a commercial building.
I am the only residential non-commercial next to this new development.
A problem arises because while we both face Habana our properties are also closely side by side. The bedrooms on my property are next to the new commercial property.
I am concerned about the noise traffic getting in and off and parking and it will cause infringement on peaceful and private living.
I request that a cement block fence of maximum height be placed between us so they be consistent privacy.
My concern is infringement of privacy on residential living and was told it would be a plastic fence.
This is a great concern to me.
I request a more private and consistent fencing.
I oppose this plan in place now with the existing fence idea.
I consider it inadequate to maintain privacy especially the bedrooms.
My property is the only one next to this in terms of development.
I feel this is too much to request. I would like to request permission to attend any meetings necessary to express my concerns and rights.
Thanks for your consideration.
Daisy Escalante.
Senior?
(Speaking Spanish)
Madam Chairman, a question I have.
Any kind of landscaping buffer?
>>GWEN MILLER: Will you come up?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
Yes, we have asked if he moves the dumpster further south, and he would be able to have the 15 foot landscape buffer the entire length of the property.
Currently it is there.
But next to the dumpster he's asking it go to six feet.
And we don't want that.
We want the whole thing to be 15 feet.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Angela.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, are you agreeable with that?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want on the record, you have been sworn?
>> Petitioner: Yes.
I didn't quite catch what she was saying.
>>GWEN MILLER: Tell him again about the dumpster.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Here it's shown as reduced to six feet.
If they make the judgment they should be able to maintain the 15 feet.
See, this is 15 feet.
>>> Okay.
Yeah.
My concern would be the retention that's required, that's going to be required.
And I have no issue with that.
If we can move the building over and allows for retention, I will be fine with that.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: You can have retention in the landscape buffer.
>>> I wanted to add, also, the building design, we have tried to incorporate a design that would kind of fit in, somewhat residential.
>> Is that upside down?
>>> This is just a little architectural rendering of that.
I think it will fit in nicely with surrounding residential.
Not being intrusive commercial looking building.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I like the design of your building but why didn't you put the building closer to Habana instead of toward Rome, where you have the parking lot right in front facing Habana?
>> I'm sorry, you're suggesting moving the building forward and putting the parking behind the building?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what I would have done.
It seems -- because the two residences that are on the north side of you are right near the property line, or, you know, the sidewalk.
I was just wondering why you didn't continue that type of setback instead of going all the way to the end of Rome.
I think it would have looked a lot better.
I don't know why this wasn't picked up in VRC.
>>> I think if you would have done that you would have had traffic coming in from the two side streets, the one behind, and the one to the south along Wilder.
And we were trying to avoid having traffic come in from the residential side.
We had an egress from Habana.
>> I'm very familiar with that area.
And it seems to me like -- there's like a little apartment house, or maybe a duplexes on the south side of there, and it was just -- it was just -- it's not a real inhabited neighborhood, is what I'm saying.
And it seems to me like you could have had Rohn Avenue come in where your parking lot would have been in the back.
I think it would have looked a lot nicer if your building was set back from Habana, and not Rome.
You are just going to have a big old parking lot right there, right on Habana.
That was just my observation on this.
This is my district.
I kind of felt you should have protected it a little bit more.
Angela?
Were you in the DRC with this?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Yes, ma'am.
We can make those suggestions.
But those aren't requirements it.
It's just a suggestion.
>> Did you suggest that?
>> I don't recall at this point.
We may have suggested that because they talked about several areas of parking.
>>GWEN MILLER: See what transportation has to say.
Raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
I have been sworn.
The reason why that he didn't access any of the local streets is because this states all nine residential parking lots access arterial and collector streets.
Habana is the collector so that's why he accessed it.
The only way he would be able to have a driveway there is to ask for a waiver to that portion of the code.
And this way we told him, well, you know, you're right off of two front local streets.
The reason why they had that was to keep the traffic out of residential neighborhood.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But you're right next to two residences right there north of there, that they have driveways on Habana, but they are closer to the sidewalk than having a big old parking lot right in front of them.
That was my, you know, my observation on it.
I don't like the plan the way it is now.
But I'm only one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, across Wilder street, is there residential across the side of Wilder there so we wouldn't necessarily want traffic to come in and out on Wilder, or do we know?
>>> I don't remember exactly what was around this parcel.
I did go out to visit the site at the time.
I think there are residents on Rohn Avenue.
>> So I guess what Ms. Alvarez is saying is perhaps the traffic did come in for half a block on wilder, come in and park in the back and pull the building toward the front and that would be a better design?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think it would be a better design parallel -- Tony, did you want to say something?
Come on down:
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn.
A couple of things.
Mr. Dingfelder, with respect to bringing an entrance in off of neighborhood streets is really interest consistent with policies in the comprehensive plan, talking about protection of encroaching with commercial uses onto local residential --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's what I was trying to figure out, what was happening on that half a block of Wilder.
>>> On Wilder it's interesting that you say that because Wilder is to the south.
There was a house here.
There's actually -- yeah, there's going to be more commercial activity in that area.
Because if you look at this area, it has nothing to do with Wilder.
Nothing on Rohn?
>> I had someone call me today and had an inquiry on this piece of property here which is just south for office use.
So that's something in the future that you are probably going to have to talk about, whenever this potentially comes in.
But someone did call me up coincidentally today asking about this piece of property.
But even with that, you have to weigh consideration of -- you do have a policy in there that does talk about protection of local residential streets and potential encroachment into the residential neighborhood.
Even though you are talking about doing that.
I think Mr. Castilla could probably reorient this building to bring it up a little bit further, and not have to access either Ronh or Wilder.
Sure, that could be a logical alternative.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just think of this, Mr. Garcia.
You got two residences on the north side of there.
And they are going to have this huge parking lot right next to them, next to that lady's bedroom that she wanted, that she's talking about.
I would rather have that building come forward than have a parking lot right there.
>>> I'm in agreement with you, Ms. Alvarez.
My issue was the access onto Wilder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the one hand she's got a neighborhood issue.
On the other hand you're concerned about a different neighborhood issue.
>>TONY GARCIA: I think they can still access.
I think if he can orient the building, I think he can make the building a little bit narrower.
And lengthen it a little bit more further toward Rohn and have an access point off of.
I don't think that's going to be anything that takes any rocket science to see that we can reorient this building to where it could be a little more -- more than it is right now.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It would be more compatible to this neighborhood for one thing.
>>> It would be more in character.
As far as -- there's an allergist that's a little further to the north on the lest left-hand side oriented more to the street even though a variety of most of the medical offices that are there like tower diagnostic, they are a little bit further away from the street.
So we don't have any that are --.
>> You also don't have a neighborhood in there either.
>>> Right.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
Based on the changes that he would need to make to the dumpster, he would need to come back anyway.
And I believe the petitioner is willing to take a continuance to look at changing the orientation of the building closer to Habana.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue.
>>I just have a question.
This is a question for Ms. Hurley.
The way the property is requested, one for a medical use and the other two-thirds would be for other office uses, and I assume that's because of the parking that's available.
My question is, after it's built, does the city have any ability to know if it's actually used that way?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Through inspection is the only way that we would be able to know, if there were any code enforcement issues that came up and we actually inspected the site.
We don't have periodic checks on PDs.
So technically, no.
I mean, we wouldn't have a way of knowing.
>> If there were approved samples.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, so that the lady that had some concerns is informed, in what we're talking about, is bringing it back, an gel-a with the 15-foot buffer, also with the masonry wall.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And the considerations Mr. Garcia made about longer but thinner?
>>> Yes.
>> Is that what it is?
>>> He was looking at maybe bringing it closer to the southwest corner, the building, and actually keep the same drive, so that you can access around to the rear from Habana.
>> Less rectangular.
>> And we would need to know what date.
>> I just wanted to also make sure that the developer is sensitive about the air conditioning.
I didn't see any reference or anything to the air conditioning units.
And I just wanted to make sure that they didn't end up too close to any of the nearby residences.
>> Well, the air conditioning cannot be placed in the buffer.
It's going to have to meet the requirements.
Excuse me, the setbacks.
>> Never a --
>>> it's not allowed in the setbacks.
Per code.
So unless you were asking for a waiver to that.
>> And that's not being asked to waive?
>>> No, sir.
>> Okay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I believe April 28th.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved to April 28th at 6 p.m.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Senior ESCLANTE?
(Speaking Spanish)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This is a petition to rezone the petition at 6206 and 6208 Sanders drive from RS-60 to RS-50.
Currently there are two plotted lots both developed with homes in 1952 and each were recently renovated in 2002.
The rezoning would allow the two platted lots to be subdivided into three lots for future development of three homes.
This would require the demolition of the existing homes.
Land development is objecting because of the area of -- study area, 151 lots were studied and meeting the RS-60 requirements.
Making this request to RS-50 requirement inconsistent with the development pattern in the area.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
I'll work off Ms. Hurley's map for a second and put the future land use map.
Just point out one thing on her rezoning map.
This entire development here has a zoning district RS-60.
To the north you can see the parcelization significantly changed when you have an RS-50 zoning district. The request is to go from RS-60 to RS-50 for these two parcels.
It will significantly change the character of those particular lots because in essence you will be making three 50-foot lots.
If you look at the parcelization to the north would you see that that development would be significantly altered.
These would therefore become the smallest lots in the whole area.
It would be inconsistent with the overall development pattern in the area.
If you were to go ahead and approve it, it probably would set a precedent for potential other rezonings that could come in, follow suit to do the same thing in the area, and that would probably disrupt the overall development pattern for this area.
We have found it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
The land use designation, by the way, for the entire area is residential 10.
But in this instance it's not really something that can be viewed in making that determination.
We have to look at the overall character and potential disruption of the development pattern.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Hurley, there's an important typo, I think, on your pink map at the bottom it says all those properties are nonconforming.
But I think that they are all conforming, correct?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I apologize.
Yes, conforming.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for the record I wanted to make sure it's clarified.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Thank you.
>>> Scott Callahan.
I own the property at 6206 and 6208 Sanders.
I am the petitioner.
I have been sworn in.
I have some packets for each of you.
I have some packets for you.
As was stated, I have lived -- the two houses have been worked on in recent years.
I moved into 6206 four years ago, redid the house, and last year bought the house at 6208.
The house was mentioned also.
We did plan to build three single-family homes allowing us to retain one of the lots -- one of the homes for ourselves hoping to raise our family in.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Ballast Point area has apartment houses, townhouses, single-family homes.
From the north are zoned RS-50. The streets boarding to the south have a zoning of RS-60 but there is a specific PD granted in that area for less than RS-60.
That should be on Averil, which is where you see the PD there.
On her map.
That one is 45 feet, I believe frontage.
Not in the same bay hills State estate but in the bay hills estate addition.
Very close proximity.
Also, I would like to point out, if I could, there is actually homes a where I am showing on the map along the zonings, they actually have a roster here of sorts.
Signed.
You all got a copy of that as well.
But I would also like to mention that house on Switzer, which is in our zoning area, shows the block of houses that are RS-50.
If that's of any value to you.
One thing I would like you to know is that on the roster where everyone signed in support of the rezoning is that 6009, Mr. and Mrs. Scott signed last night, after these packets were made.
I'll just put it on here so you see it.
They signed in addition to the copy that you have there, just for the record.
Also, I have been out talking to people in the neighborhood trying to see what everybody thought about it.
Basically everyone I have talked to with the exception of one gentleman are in strong support of the rezoning.
This map, which is just a similar map, highlights the people I was able to talk to, and who are in agreement with the rezoning.
Three of those incidentally are people who lived there since their homes were built.
They expressed to me that their feeling was that knowing the way the area is going, there's townhouses and apartments and everything else being built, they feel that the area is due to be revitalized, that there was going to be development, and they are afraid that the development would one day become that of town homes rather than single-family neighborhood style.
So they are happy to see that we are looking to do something that stays within that meaning of a family neighborhood with individual residence lined up there.
Also, as far as the lot size, the overall lot size, all three of the lots would be actually larger -- or would be comparable and the other two would be larger than two lots on the same street located -- also, I guess it's on this map here, these are two homes here.
These two lots there.
I believe actually split out in the other direction.
At any rate, on the corner of Sanders, there's 6200 and 6202 Sanders.
That lot has been split.
And those lots, I believe, 60 by 105 making them just over 6,000 square feet which would be the approximate size of our smallest lot. The other two lots obviously being bigger, as the back of the property deepens.
The neighborhood association, the council itself, the land development board, or commission, are all in place to represent the community and represent the feelings of the citizens.
And just with the overwhelm majority of the people in the area, being in such support of it, I think it's only fair that they be heard.
In support of this, knowing that it is a difference from what was originally there fifty years ago, but there is obviously some change plan, some development plan with the R-10 rating, that eventually this area could be more densely populated.
It's already getting that way.
In the current neighborhoods.
And lastly, in your packet there, we just included that, there's three samples of homes.
That would give you an idea what the homes would look like.
These aren't going to be any kind of crazy designs.
Very traditional homes.
Probably between 2800, 3,000 square feet.
That would be also whoever the builder was because we were looking to live in one of them hours ourselves, we may have to leverage a deal to build those houses, and obviously they would be able to do as they pleas.
But if we are able to do it we would do it very much to that degree, and most likely, you know, anybody we sell to, we would sell with that in mind.
Other than that thank you for your time.
I just ask for your approval for the rezoning.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Callahan, I don't know if I have in all the material we have any sort of drawing of the footprint that your two homes occupy right now.
The reason I ask that is, does the footprint that you have right now exceed and go beyond the allowable setbacks for the district that you're in right now, the RS-60?
>> I'm not sure I understand.
Are they within compliance of the existing code?
Yes, sir.
>> So the reason I ask that is the home at 6208 according to our staff report says that's 1353 square feet.
And that's the footprint that you have right now.
And I assume it's a one-story home.
And the other one says 6206 shows 1725 square feet.
Again with a one-story.
>>> Yes, sir.
>> So if we knock those down but use the exact same footprint, double the size, assuming it's two stories, if my math serves me correctly, it looks like from 6208, you can get approximately 2700 square feet minus the garage, and on the 6206, it looks like you can get 3450 square feet.
>>> The size of the homes?
>> Take away the garage.
And then I looked at the blueprints that you showed us, and the size of these homes that you're proposing seemed to be consistent.
You're not proposing 5,000 square foot homes.
>>> No.
>> You're proposing 2300.
>>> No, the idea, the intention was to show more of an elevation of the home, to show the style of the home.
>> Right.
But generally speaking it's this square footage that you are proposing?
>>> Generally speaking -- and we are willing to do whatever it takes to be allowable.
But the general idea would be to build a home that is, I would say, 25, 2800, 3,000 square feet.
And if it needed to be bigger it can be bigger.
It might be smaller.
>> My point is you could build two of these type of homes on the two lots that you have, and fit those two homes on those two lots today?
>>> Sure.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 3?
If you want to speak, please line up and speak.
If you are going to speak, please get up and come and speak.
>>> My name is Norman Jonlon, I have been sworn, I live at 2813 West Foster, a native of Tampa.
I was born here in 1959.
I've seen how it is -- it has he involved in good ways, not so good ways.
First of all good evening to you.
Is this your regular agenda nightly?
God help you.
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone else for letting me go first.
My son has a baseball game and I missed an hour 15 minutes of it.
Mr. Dingfelder, first thank you for coming to the troop 22 code of honor for our eagle scout.
Appreciate it.
My son is in that troop.
It great.
Our gentleman here stated a concern of setting a precedence, dividing these lots.
I've seen south Tampa grow drastically in 13 years.
I've been in this residence or in that area for 13 years.
First house was on Sanders.
My ex-wife got that one.
We get along.
Hey, fur going to make a marriage work, make a divorce work, you know.
And I moved to foster.
And I didn't think I would like in the South Tampa.
I love it.
I mean, after Desert Storm, they were coming over, but now I know them by name.
Taking off, landing, whatever.
My concern is overcrowding our area, subdividing these lots and everything.
Our housing -- I forget what it is.
We met down at the church, Ballast Point community, whatever, we get together and talk about this.
Our concern was town homes mainly.
Going into residential areas.
Well, we've agreed -- and I believe it was brought before the council, that it would only be built on thoroughfares, larger roads and everything like that.
I feel it will set a precedence if we start dividing these lots.
My property adjoins or abuts Mr. Callahans.
I'm the guy who disagreed.
And he definitely came up to my house and was nice enough to come forward and explain what he wanted to do, unlike some developers or builders, you know.
He was nice enough to do that.
I truly appreciate that.
I just don't like to see this area grow in the neighborhood area as much.
I've got a son that's 12.
My neighbor Blair is here.
He lives next to me, or his neighbor rob.
You know, we know each other by name.
I know just about everyone in my area, on my street, and half of the people on Sanders.
And this is what I love.
It's, you know, family oriented.
It's real Tampa.
And that's about all I've got to say, other than enjoy your schedule.
And good night.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
>> Len Harnet, 2811 West Foster Avenue.
I just have a few things to say here.
I wrote them down real quick.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, have you been sworn?
>>> Yes, Ivan sworn.
I am against the rezoning.
I feel it will cause added traffic, increased flooding, less green space, overall crowding of the neighborhood.
Allowing this to pass will open the flood gates and cause a Domino effect for future construction in the area.
The quality of life in the neighborhood was established for RS-60 and should remain as such.
I'm all for improving the neighborhood with new construction and would be pleased to see two houses go down and a single house built in its place.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak, please come up and speak so we can move faster.
>> I wasn't going to speak.
I've changed my mind.
I decided -- I am for it.
Oh, Debra coffee.
I live at 6204 Sanders drive.
I live right next door to the Callahans that are proposing to take down the two --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
>>> Yes, I have.
Not even a smaller home.
I live in one of the smaller homes, the 52 -- from 52 which we plan to continue to live there. But I see no problem, because our street is just a regular street here, with like seven homes in that area right there.
And on one side of us, there are two brand new homes that are built there.
And across the street there's another brand new, two-story home built there.
So then it's my house, which is a smaller house.
And then they are proposing to build two more, you know, I mean three more homes to the other side of me, which I have no problem with at all.
They are going to fill in the ditches and add sidewalks.
And the neighborhood already is -- and right across the street from me again there's another house.
They're all new houses.
There are only three homes in that area that are not new in that area where we live.
It's our home and the two homes next to us that Scott Callahan, our neighbor, is planning to tear down and build three.
But they are going to fill in the ditches and they are going to put sidewalks right there.
And I do think that they will make it a better-looking place for us.
Now, don't plan on leaving my house.
I plan on staying in my small home.
But I see no problem with improvement at all.
None.
I have no objection.
And I live right next to them.
And I think that as far as precedent, I think that every neighborhood should be able to decide, you know, when that time comes, you can't base this on everybody's neighborhood, because everybody's neighborhood is different.
Our neighborhood is just like a street.
It's like a street of seven homes.
And they are all new except for my house, and those two homes right there.
And then like if you go further down there's a couple older ones.
Know what I mean?
So I think you should do it individually, you know, base your decision on that area that you're looking at.
And as far as the characteristic of the neighborhood, I don't see how, you know, building a nice home is going to, you know, ruin your neighborhood.
And it's just one extra home they are asking in that neighborhood.
And I live in a small home so it's not like I have anything to gain from it.
I don't know them personally.
I don't associate with anybody or anything.
But I just feel like I would stand up and say this.
And I don't even know why I'm saying this.
But that's all I have to say and I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Do you have to ask me anything?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for transportation and question for stormwater.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can we hear from the public first?
All right, next.
>>> Carlton Copton.
I have been sworn in.
I live at 6114 South Adkins around the corner from them.
I'm also a native of Tampa.
I've seen Tampa grow in our areas and seen a lot of new townhome constructions.
And one thing I'm concerned about is you talk about some density and the traffic flow.
You know, we are only a few streets away from Bayshore and only a few streets away from MacDill, and they continue to go up.
For them to improve in the neighborhood right around the corner from me improves my neighborhood.
I'm living on a 50-by-100 lot myself on Elkins.
The greenery is wonderful in that area.
And I haven't seen any problem with there being anything around their neighborhood, no offense to the individuals that take care of their homes.
But there's not a lot of greenery.
There's a lot of dirt and weeds in a lot of the grass, and a lot of maintained yards.
So as far as the greenery goes, and the looks and the beautification, I think those they're should be no problem.
And I'm for what they are trying to accomplish.
Thanks.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is Mark Canuty, 2820 Sanders Drive, and I own a couple other pieces of property within 200 feet of Mr. Callahan.
I have been sworn in.
I just want to echo what a couple other people have said up here regarding the revitalization of the neighborhood.
This neighborhood is in serious need of a revital.
The drainage system is outdated.
There are no sidewalks.
As far as greenery goes, might as well -- there's very few people in the neighborhood that actually take pride in their lawn, or the appearance of their home.
I feel this will stimulate growth in that neighborhood.
Much needed growth.
Much needed change.
These homes were built in the early 50s, none of which are flood proof.
The floodplain down there is an A-10 flood zone which is eleven feet, if I'm not mistaken.
These lots are approximately three feet below that floodplain. This would provide the opportunity to actually flood proof these homes.
Increase the property taxes which will, therefore, allow us to get better amenities down there.
We have very little lighting in the neighborhood.
The trees are not maintained by the city.
The drainage has not been maintained.
I feel new construction will bring higher taxes, unfortunately, but we will benefit from that.
I am not opposed to it in any way.
And somebody mentioned the fact that it will set a precedent.
That's not a bad thing, if you have actually been down in the neighborhood and walked around.
It's actually not a bad thing.
And that's exactly what this community needs.
It's a beautiful little street.
The road's a mess.
But great trees.
And I think if we get new construction in there, it will actually fulfill the potential of the neighborhood.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Melanie Higgins, 2916 West Pearl Avenue.
I have been sworn in.
I'm president of Ballast Point neighborhood association.
Mr. Callahan came to our meeting on September 10th and presented his plan for this property.
And we had discussion afterwards.
And we had a lot of discussion.
Discussion about PDs, rezonings.
We had not opposed one over on Ellis, and later on it went through, and trees were coming down.
And as a result of that, we decided to oppose all PD rezonings that increased density on residential zoned land in our neighborhood.
When we talked about this rezoning, we looked at it as if it was a PD zoning.
It's not.
Because it's not site controlled.
They can now, if they go to an RS-50 zoning district, they can go to RS-50 setbacks, which brings houses 20 feet front yard setback.
But what we were looking at is the increase in density.
It's a 33% increase in density from two houses to three houses.
They can keep moving that on down the street.
I don't think a lot of people understand what they'll be looking at when they look at two houses being replaced with three on down the line.
We don't believe it serves a public purpose.
And the owners shouldn't have had the expectation that co-replace two houses with three houses.
He can build two beautiful single-family homes on the current lots that he has.
There's no hardship here.
It doesn't conform with the intent of our neighborhood plan.
We passed a neighborhood plan six months, nine months ago.
It's going to come before City Council for approval soon.
One of the number one things that's mentioned in that plan over and over is low density.
We realize that we can't restrict the density along MacDill and Bayshore.
Now it's kind of gone the way of the town homes.
But we are zealously guarding the density and hoping to not increase any density between those two streets, MacDill and Bayshore.
It will change the character of the street.
And don't think we realize how much it will change the character of the street until it done.
Scott mentioned a PD zoning that went to 45 feet, somewhere in the neighborhood.
I don't remember that.
And I have been around for a long time.
So I don't know when that happened.
And the two houses that are on the -- on 6 oh by 105 foot lots, that didn't require rezoning in the last five years that I know of.
I saw them go up and I didn't see it.
So if it had, we would have opposed it.
Because that was turning one lot into two.
So, in closing, the Ballast Point neighborhood association is opposed to this rezoning.
We said over and over again we like what's being done with many of these lots where one house is being replaced with another larger home that is improving the character of the neighborhood.
And to replace two houses with three larger homes just is not appropriate.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena, do you still have a question of transportation?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question of Ms. Higgins.
I think you do live pretty close to the to this property.
I just want to get a general sense of the increase in property value for the vacant lots. Let's say there was nothing on these lots at all over the last couple of years because some of these people spoke very articulately about they want to encourage redevelopment.
My sense is that redevelopment is going to occur and is occurring anyway.
So how much of these lots appreciated in value, just the lot value, period?
For knock-downs.
>> I don't know about that.
>> Do you have a sense of two or three times or five times?
>> I would say two or three times in the last couple of years.
Yes.
>> Thanks for your service.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two questions of transportation.
If whether one house is built here or two or three, is any new construction required to put in a sidewalk?
>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
Yes, I have been sworn.
Yes, they are required to place a sidewalk.
That's a PD.
If they knock down a new house, increase over 50% of the existing home, does require them to put in sidewalk.
>> My second question is, the petitioner gave us some images which you have not had a chance to see but we have seen.
This is not a site plan zoning is requested.
Of the three images that they presented us with have any parking.
The garage, the driveways.
Is new construction required to provide some off-street parking?
>>> Yes, the RS-50 districts as well as RS-60 and all other zoning districts have to comply when they go through for permitting, so they would have to provide that.
>> Because the images they gave us -- there are none there, are they they're?
>> No, don't see any on the aerial.
>> So the petitioner would have to provide off-street parking?
>>> Yes.
>> Petitioner, would you like to say anything else?
And I would love for petitioner to address exactly where the residents' cars would go.
>>> Callahan: These are all around 30 feet in width.
I want to show you that so the 7 foot setback, it leaves rooms to have a driveway going up the side of the lot and have parking in the rear.
>> Parking in the rear?
>>> Behind the house.
Or if there wasn't room, the houses would be built with the garage in the front but having a 50-foot lot if the house is 30-feet wide, at least 20 feet, seven on one side and 13 on the other would be ample room to drive up beside.
In the area on, I believe, it's first street, are 50 foot lots that have a garage.
One specifically has a garage built in the back, has a driveway going up the right-hand side I'm aware of.
But most likely, that was basically our plan, if it please it is council, for us to make the garages attached to the house, and change things, it would be fine.
But the basic idea is that we are flexible.
We are just looking to rezone the lots.
If there's something stated that we are willing to adjust things to make it fit, necessities, we are happy to do that.
We are happy to do whatever it takes for us to be able to build our home and continue living there.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have another question.
Oftentimes between houses, there is vegetation.
And I wondered, if you are taking two lots and putting three houses on it, you are probably going to lose vegetation, because it would be the middle of the third house.
And you didn't have to provide us with the tree survey what's there.
So what is there?
>>> There's a fence.
There's a mulberry tree.
There's a couple of palm trees.
And a row of gardenia bushes between the two existing houses.
I believe there is a smaller tree toward the back of the lot, and right on the line.
There are citrus trees all over the back of both lots.
And then there's a large oak tree on the south edge, which it's actually, I believe, on my neighbor's property.
But on the south edge of the southern lot.
Also I wanted to say that we are willing to put in new drainage.
I didn't say that before.
Sidewalks, new drainage system in the front of all three homes is definitely in our plan.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The comment that based on what Ms. Saul-Sena said about can't put a driveway in there, I don't think that you can, from what you're showing us now, one is 32 foot wide house, the other is 35.
And the other is I think 29 feet.
>>> Right.
As I say, those aren't set in stone.
Those are mainly just for elevation to give you an idea.
I think two of them are below 36 feet.
It's just a representation.
You know, like I say, if there's a need to adhere to any kind of lot lines or setbacks of any sort, I'm more than willing to do that.
Obviously have to do that in building a house by code.
So we are going to abide by that.
>> I think you're trying to put too many houses in a 100 foot lot myself.
I mean, it's going to look like tenement houses to me.
>>> It will actual be about 150 feet of frontage.
And again, just to the north, you know, that neighborhood is 50 foot.
It's a very warm neighborhood.
There's new homes being built on 50 foot lots there.
It's a beautification to the neighborhood rather than a detriment.
>> Well, from what our staff and what the Planning Commission says, it's just not consistent.
So I don't know if anybody else has anything else.
Ting dung we need to close.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to close the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other comments from council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have a question for Alex Awad.
>>GWEN MILLER: He's coming from the back.
Other questions from council members while we are waiting for Alex?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question for our legal council.
The staff report attached on page 2 -- well, I think Marty is looking it up.
The staff report on page 2 identifies section 27-321 and talks about what are the standards.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
I was referencing this because I was referring to the fact that, yes, they did a PD.
-- if council did a PD council could put conditions on it that with an RS-50, they are going to go straight to permitting and as long as they meet RS-50 requirements they can build.
So I was suggesting that perhaps --
>> That makes sense why you put that.
My question is, what are the legal standards?
You can help us if you know it off the top of your head, points to tell Marty where to go.
What are the legal standards for the Euclidean change?
Because that's what we are faced with today.
>>> Julie Cole, legal department.
Typically in the Euclidean zoning there is no opportunity to place any kind of conditions on that rezoning.
And from what I --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In terms of what are the hurdles that a petitioner overcomes.
What is the burden, et cetera, et cetera?
>>> Initially the burden on the petitioner is to show that they comply with the criteria in the code.
And since Euclidean rezoning district, other than showing the compatible issues and those kinds of issues, they would need to show them.
>> So that would be a criteria, consistency and compatibility?
>>> The first question is whether or not the rezoning petition is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
And in this instance you have testimony from the Planning Commission indicating that they are objecting because it's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
And that would be the first hurdle of this petitioner.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Awad, we have a question for you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the staff report it says stormwater reservations.
Would you elaborate on that?
>>> Alex Awad, water department.
I have not been sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> Yes, I do.
My reservation is the increase of impervious area that may cause more of a damage problem on the area in general.
We are looking right now.
That neighborhood has sparse stormwater capacity, and the ditch system has been filled in through time, and it's not going to be very helpful that people build three houses in place of two.
Now, we can, by council, we can require these folks to provide more retention on-site for the purposes that they are going to provide.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In Euclidean?
No.
>>> Well, that's why I had reservations.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank you for being clear about that because I have been very concerned.
We are looking at more impervious surface on a small lot, and no ability to specifically site drainage retention features and exactly how it could be accommodated.
So thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Angela, isn't this a way of getting around the 80% rule?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Angela Hurley, land development.
Yes, it is, in a lot of ways it is.
And we do not recommend if somebody comes to LDC and asks us up front what they should do in a situation like this, we would not have recommended going from RS-60 to RS-50 because the development pattern in the area would not support that.
In some cases there are areas where there is RS-60 zoning. But the platted lots are 50-foot lots, and most of the homes are developed on those 50-foot lots.
And there is a possibility for them to try to go to RS-50 and the development pattern would support it.
But in this case it does not support that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
After hearing the testimony and the comments from people in attendance, listening to what Ms. Cole said the burden is on the petitioner to prove it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and I don't believe in any way or fashion he has proven that.
We have talked about what Mrs. Higgins talked about in terms of conformance issue, density issue.
Mr. Awad is certainly right on target when he talks about the increased impervious area.
And it's -- Mrs. Alvarez, we are talking about an 80% rule, we aren't talking about an 80% rule.
I guess looking at what he's proposing and looking at what he's proposing to do if that's not suitable, there's just not enough room.
It's not consistent with what subpoena in that neighborhood.
And I know that some of the residents are supportive of it because they are fearful that perhaps something else might come in that is not going to please them either.
But this is certainly going to be more dense than I think that neighborhood needs, and perhaps some don't realize that now.
Based on those comments, I would move to deny.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question on the motion.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to chime in and say that a picture speaks a thousand words.
And if you could go back to the picture that's on the overhead, that's what it's all about right there.
And the folks from the neighborhood who are supporting this gentleman -- and they seem like a nice young couple and we are sympathetic with the fact they want to build three nice houses.
But the fact is, right off the bat, the gentleman said co-build two nice houses.
And the picture speaks a thousand words.
That's an RS-60 neighborhood.
You should value that.
And you should be really proud and happy that it's an RS-60 neighborhood because at the end of the day you're going to have a lot of -- you already have a lot of nice houses in that area, and any new houses that are going to be built are going to be really nice houses on larger lots.
And at the end of the day, it makes your property that much more valuable to be in the RS-60 as opposed to letting this be the chink in the armor setting a precedent allowing the slippery slope to happen which would allow this entire neighborhood to go to RS-50.
I think within four or five years, you will be really happy that this council is willing to protect your RS-60 neighborhood and your property values will be far higher.
So, anyway, I'll support the motion, second it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: After discussion I would like the opportunity to read the ordinance prior to the vote.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are reading to deny it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6206 to 6208 Sanders drive in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential single-family to RS-50 residential single family, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to deny it.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Motion failed.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Motion passes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion passes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 4.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on item number 4.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Do you realize all the time that Mr. Shelby saves us by doing this?
He takes that time back every time he reads something so we can deny something that he read.
I might like to point that out to my colleagues.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: We noticed that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'll have a consultation with council about my understanding and other places that I have been is that either the clerk reads it or it read somehow, but prior to action taken on the ordinance that it be read.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's why we have you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I was just being funny until we start the next petition.
You like to read the ordinance.
It's fine, Mr. Shelby.
We would still hire you.
Not to worry.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This is a petition to rezone the property at 6402 south Adelia Avenue from RM-16 to PD.
This is one single platted lot.
It was platted at 49 by 116.
It is one foot smaller than the requirement in RM-16 which requires 50 feet of width at a minimum.
So, therefore, they needed to do the PD in order to construct the single-family semi detached structure that would have two units.
They are asking for a waiver for the requirement.
It requires that one of the parking spaces, at least one be provided in a garage or carport.
They are providing the parking spaces in the shared area, in the side yard.
Land development and DRC have reviewed this petition and have no objections to the request.
The property must rezone, I stated before, because of the one-foot difference in their width.
And this is consistent with other developments in the area.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wouldn't it have been eligible for administrative act?
>>> No.
Because there is no variance to lot size.
If a lot is smaller in size, there's no way to administer, or approve that.
>> So if down the road we thought that perhaps there should be, we just would change the code to give you guys a little bit of leeway to grant administrative variance of one foot so they wouldn't have to be here?
>>> I believe so, unless there's any other legal ramification that would prevent that.
>>> Julie Cole, legal department.
Again that would be in City Council's purview to change.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll discuss that maybe at the end of this hearing.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
The sign is on the northwest corner of Adelia.
The land use categories in this area are basically three.
Residential 35.
Residential 20.
Residential 10.
The site is in fairly close proximity to MacDill Air Force Base within the boundaries of the Gandy south neighborhood associations.
The area has seen a modest redevelopment of residential units in the area, really basically replacing aged housing stock.
It does accommodate quite a few of the people that do work and live in the MacDill area.
The request, there is a variety of housing styles and an increased residential demand in the area.
We have seen a significant trend in residential redevelopment in this area.
This particular area does have a lot of similar type of development that is being requested by the applicant.
In looking at that, we think it is consistent with the residentially redevelopment.
Residential -- staff did find it consistent with the plan.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In looking at this map it appears to me it's more to the west.
And west is single-family homes, RS-50.
It appears to the south and to the east, the zoning is multifamily.
But I can't tell from the picture whether the actual land uses are single family or multifamily.
And that's my question.
I don't know if the question is for you, but the question is, we were talking about consistency?
Or are we talking about land use or the realities of what's neighboring?
>>> When we review that, Mrs. Saul-Sena, we do look at the existing uses, of course, in the neighborhood.
That's one of the cruxes of determining the compatibility.
Going down Adelia, most of these are multifamily units.
So the request is with what's going on in this general area over here.
I understand what you're saying as far as a single-family.
There is a logical pattern where it departs from the RS-50 traditional and then becomes a little more intense.
So it will actually reflective of what the land use is, is more characteristic of what the intention of the R-20 category is supposed to be for that area.
Going south on Adelia.
Does that answer your question?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, immediately to the south and immediately to the east of this parcel, are the homes single-family or multifamily?
>>> Adelia or to the next block over?
>> On Adelia and then the other house.
I can't tell whether it's fronting.
It's lot 21.
>>> You're looking -- I think you're looking at the zoning map?
>> Correct.
>>> Okay.
I'm looking at the aerial.
When I drove down the street -- most of what you have down here are duplexes on Adelia.
And then you have some vacant parcels, some larger underutilized parcels east of that.
So you could potentially have more intense development east of that.
There are, if you look at the aerial, you will see there's quite a few undeveloped parcels in the area.
So there is opportunity for more intense development in this area.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because it appears that immediately to the east of the parcel, the area is undeveloped.
>>> That's correct.
>> So it looks to me as if the realities to the east it developed, to the north single-family and to the west single-family.
So the only issue as to the south on Adelia is multi-family.
And I just was wondering less from you and really from Angela Hurley how she came to weigh it this way.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
South.
You look at the zoning.
You are in an RM-16 zoning district.
These are all plotted 49 by 116.
They are one-foot smaller.
Most of these were built at a time when they could build on 116 and they are duplexes.
So along this street.
And so this would have been able to do that if you had one more foot.
>> To the west it looks like single family.
>>> There are two multifamily that are still RM-16 and single family are grandfathered in nonconform, two units.
Some of them are single family.
And then these are all single family.
So this treat is actually a mixture of single family and multi-family.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's sort of a transition street.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> Good evening.
My name is James Varga and I have been sworn in.
I want to thank the City Council for the opportunity to speak tonight.
I also want to thank Gloria Moreda and Angela Hurley and Cathy Coyle for this help in this.
My wife --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a procedure issue.
I want to disclose that petitioner approached me last night, very cordially and told me his zoning was coming up tonight.
I told him in particular I would drive by the corner and I did last night.
That's all.
>>> We went to a town meeting.
>> Yeah, it was a town hall.
>>> Pam Iorio.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>> Anyway, my wife and I have owned this property for the last 35 years or so.
And my wife and I petitioned to rezone the petition, all five lots, in 1982, from R-1 to R-2 and got it approved.
I kind of liked Mr. Dingfelder's initial comment in the beginning of this, that I wish we could have done this in an administrative thing instead of going through this whole procedure.
But this is the last lot that my wife and I want to develop as a single-family detached house.
I also talked to Al Steenson who is in charge of the South Tampa homeowners association.
He brought his people in a town meeting with homeowners.
And they have no problem with me developing this last lot.
I was asked to, because it was one foot shy of the 50th foot rule, it's a 49-foot wide lot, I was asked to rezone this property to PD.
In doing this, I'm still conforming it to the neighborhood.
I brought elevations of what the property will look like.
And I also brought pictures of the existing apartments that I have built in the past.
I would like to submit that for review.
I also intend on including sidewalks and conform to the drainage, if there's any issues with drainage, and retention ponds according to my site plan that I have submitted.
I also have approximately eight support letters from the neighbors of single-family houses directly across from my property, and on the other side of Elrod.
I have letters from the neighbors.
All single family houses that I would like to submit, also.
I only made one copy.
Not thinking --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We'll all read it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thought there would just be one of us here.
>>> I also have -- I was asked to -- it was suggested that I draw up like a little street map of the houses, the single-family houses that do support me, and my wife's endeavor here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if there's anyone in the audience in opposition to you.
I'm seeing how many people.
>>> I didn't think it was going to be that easy.
My question is, I would like to expand a little further about what Mr. Dingfelder had said originally of why that I had to go through the rezoning to PD.
If I have already rezoned it from R-1 to R-2, 20-some years ago, I was told because I was -- so that is a standing city of Tampa rule.
>>> That's what we have to go on.
That's why we are here.
>> That's all I have.
I have support people with me.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let us hear from them and see what they have to say.
Would anyone from the public like to speak on item 4?
>>> Good evening.
My name is Julio Mabarrera.
Sorry for my English.
I live at 6414 South Adelia.
I met him a few years back.
I see him keeps the place clean.
He works to try to help everybody else.
Okay. In this area.
I see him and everything.
And keeps it nice and clean, like I do with mine.
And to people down the street, and the way I feel, he tried to upgrade the area.
And anything I can do to help him I would be more than happy to.
Thank you.
>> And you have been sworn, sir?
>> Yes, I have been sworn.
>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> My name is Lou Harris.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
I live at 3902 west Elrod.
I am just to the east of that, which also was unimproved.
And a little resentment.
I have a nice house there. It's very much improved.
>> It must be underneath the trees.
>>> It's underneath the trees, yes.
>> That's why we couldn't see it from the aerial.
>>> I am opposed to this on a density issue, on an infrastructure issue.
The lot is 49 feet wide, said something about building a retaining pond on it.
I don't see how could you build a retention pond.
I don't see how could you do that.
The flooding that we have with the stormwaters, Elrod is where a lot of the water collects.
Unfortunately the property that we have, church was supposed to drain down to Everett and the property that we have behind us stopped that.
So I have a nice moat around my house when it rains.
With the hurricanes that we had this summer, there was more issues with toilets.
We couldn't flush our toilets for a couple days because the lift station did not have power.
And I guess they took their time getting a generator in there getting power back to it.
So issues with density.
Issues with stormwater.
I'm opposed to it.
There are single-family homes around it.
Mr. Bartley does have duplexes here, across the street, all sides are single-family homes.
So I stand opposed.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
>>> James Riley.
I have been sworn in.
I live at 6323 Adelia Avenue.
And I have a list of 51 people who signed a petition that live on the lots around there.
Opposed to it.
Okay.
The main issue is, he owns six duplexes already.
We don't need another duplex.
Elrod is real small.
If you go in that neighborhood and you look, if he has a duplex it will be right on Elrod.
All the people that signed that, we have enough.
He has had the police there numerous times.
I have pictures of the duplexes around here.
You can see the mold all around.
Okay.
He's had nothing but shady people.
He doesn't do a background check on them.
Now the people that own the homes are trying to make it a nice neighborhood.
We are talking about density on the last person.
Well, you're doing density there.
If he wants to build a house and live in the house, I got no problems with that.
He wants to put a house, with one family in it.
But the duplexes have to stop.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
Petitioner, come up for rebuttal.
>>> Name is Charles Maskee, Adelia Avenue.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, have you been sworn?
>>> Yes, sir, I have been sworn.
I lived at my house about 25 years.
When these duplexes were being built I never received a notice that they were being built.
If I would have known I would have been against it.
The duplexes alone have destroyed our neighborhood.
And like he said, another duplex over there would be very, very discouraging.
And it would be facing our way.
But I have noticed in the time that I have lived there, and these duplexes have been there, the traffic has been going down Adelia Avenue at a considerable amount of speed.
And they are coming from the other side where the duplexes are.
They had prostitution in the duplexes.
Prostitutes have stopped in front of my house and walked across to that part of the neighborhood.
Drug addicts stop me right in the middle of the highway, the road on Elrod, stopping traffic and making drug deals.
They were all coming from that part of the duplexes.
There were fights.
I received threats in front of my home from people walking down the street and driving, stopping, giving me dirty looks, threatening looks, for no reason at all.
Besides the duplexes, they are business.
I don't consider it a home.
It's a commercial property.
And it's something to make a profit out of.
We don't need that.
We need a house.
Where people live, families.
We have very nice people in our neighborhood.
And everybody is out against the duplexes.
Neighborhood association.
Of all the time I lived there, I have never heard of a neighborhood association.
The greenery there on that property was cut down over the weekend.
And I am very much against another duplex.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
Sir, where is your house as related to the subject property?
>>> I'm on the north side.
>> And how far?
>>> Right across from Elrod.
I'm four houses over.
To the north.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, sir.
>>> Anyone else like to speak?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Sir, you said that they had cut the greenery down.
What kind of greenery was it?
Was it trees?
>>> They cut trees down.
>> What kind of trees?
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Sir.
Rebuttal.
>> James Varga.
I have been sworn in again.
I don't want to argue back and forth, with all due respect.
Some of his comments are general comments.
I brought that up last night with officer Hogue.
And I was commending him about investigating prostitution on Dale Mabry from inner bay north.
Of course, some of them come down Elrod but they are not coming to my apartments.
Now, I have had some issues with some tenants just like any other landlord.
And let me tell you, I'm an active landlord.
I have called the police on my own tenants numerous times.
And I have had one or two problems.
The police have been called to single-family houses, as well as to dual-family, duplexes, triplexes.
So, I mean, these are general statements that I don't feel are true, totally true.
I feel that this compliments the neighborhood instead of an empty lot where it is on the corner of Adelia and Elrod.
And I ask for your agreement.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Varga, what kind of trees were cut down?
>> Pine trees.
There was an oak tree that was struck by lightning.
A small oak tree on the corner of Elrod, right on Elrod.
>> Talk to me, talk to me.
>>> And it was struck and it was dead.
And I took it down.
But, I mean, it was totally dead for like two years.
And I took pictures of it.
I didn't bring the pictures with me but I took pictures.
>> There were complaints you weren't keeping your properties up especially the painting and mold?
>>> There may be a little bit of mold around the air conditioning, things possibly.
I think I submitted the property.
And you can see --
>> talk to us, don't talk to the audience.
>>> I didn't know if he had something to say.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What are we looking at here?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Those are two of the duplexes and the one you want to develop is to the left?
>>> Correct.
And I will not be taking down that tree.
That tree is going to stay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: This picture, that I don't know if you can see it or not, do you want to show me?
Is that mildew on that or mold on that?
On that side there?
And does that go inside the house?
>>> No.
Yes.
>> Are you keeping your other properties maintained pretty well?
>>> Yes.
The picture does have some mold on it and my wife has been after me to rent a pressure cleaner.
>> Listen to your wife.
>>> Yes.
I have no excuse.
I mean, other than the mold, I feel like I do take care of my properties in some instances better than some houses.
Other houses are taken -- my opposition has very nice houses.
I can't complain about their houses.
>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems to me that what we're seeing in virtually all of the community is redevelopment, and that I believe redevelopment would occur here without supporting this rezoning.
And based on the strong opposition evidenced by the number of petitioners who site stormwater and transportation issues, I would move to deny this proposal.
>> Second.
>>ROSE FERLITA: No question, just support of the motion.
Since I seconded it.
And I don't think that this is anything directly attacking Mr. Varga or what he does as a landlord.
And I think the gentleman that spoke before Mr. Varga spoke about some prostitution and issues like that.
I for one don't intend to assume that that is wholly the responsibility or the fault of Mr. Varga.
But the issues have been the same whether it's Mr. Varga's development or something else.
I think it was clearly said they don't need any more duplexes and I happen to agree with them.
Again nothing to do with this petitioner.
I know each stands on its own.
But the guy in the back from the undeveloped area, Mr. Harris, he said basically the same thing awhile back, that you had some problems in your neighborhood.
And when you were up here to oppose another project totally divorced from this one, you had the same concerns.
And I think although it doesn't sound like a lot, duplex with two families versus one is going to, in and of itself, exacerbate a problem that is not his fault but it adds to it.
So I strongly support Ms. Saul-Sena's motion to deny.
You can't speak anymore.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You already spoke.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a tough one.
Because this is sort of a transition lot, you know.
Because to the south, down Adelia to the south, there's multifamily already.
To the north, there's single family.
This is like a transition lot.
Elrod seems to be the transition point.
My problem with this is -- and I don't think we should lose sight of this -- this property is zoned RM-16, today.
The problem is it's one foot short, which by my calculation says that it's 2% short of where it needs to be.
So it's not like getting around an 80% rule.
This would be a 98% rule by my calculations.
And from a property rights perspective, I kind of have a hard time supporting the motion.
But, you know, it's not an easy one.
I mean, this is probably going to be one of the tough ones.
I can't support the motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm not going to support the motion either.
If there wasn't duplexes all the way down it would be a different story.
I don't think anybody is going to come up and try to build a home right next to duplexes and he's got to finish this project up.
And it seems to me like the neighbors around there, they have valid points, and I'm not going to say they don't.
But most of the complaints are police enforcement and code enforcement issues.
And I can't -- I just can't support the motion.
And I will support approval.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6402 south Adelia Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily to PD, single-family, semi detached, providing an effective date.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we vote yes, that means for denial.
>>GWEN MILLER: Right.
Does everybody understand the vote?
All in favor of the motion to deny, say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
It's 3-2.
>> Alvarez, Dingfelder --.
>>GWEN MILLER: 3-2.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 2 in favor of the motion.
Three opposed.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have to carry over to next week.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Simple majority?
>>GWEN MILLER: Four.
Can this be done in the morning?
We carry it over.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can this be carried to a morning meeting?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The motion failed.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can we do it in a morning meeting?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: County be in a morning meeting?
Does Vermont to be the next time?
Does it have to be the next time?
>>GWEN MILLER: I'm saying two weeks from now --.
>>GWEN MILLER: It hasn't passed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know.
I was just saying it's already --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I would recommend that it go to a night meeting, because it still will be contested.
Although my understanding it is closed.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Doesn't --
>> It has to come back because there hasn't been a sufficient number of votes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's not true.
I respectfully disagree.
Right now that motion failed.
Period.
That motion failed.
So I think procedurally the proper thing would be to have a motion to deny.
We don't have a motion to deny.
The motion to deny, then assumedly, would be 3-2, and that's the motion that should actually carry on.
So that motion failed.
I am going to now move to deny.
It splitting hairs.
You're right, you're right.
I'm going to vote to approve.
>> Second.
He already read it.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor to approve item number 4 say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>> Saul-Sena, Ferlita, no.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To our next regular meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thursday morning.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Time certain?
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's say 10 a.m.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so there's clarity, when is it continued?
>>THE CLERK: (off microphone)
>>GWEN MILLER: Next Thursday morning.
10 a.m.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The hearing is already closed.
We are just going to vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Just going to vote.
We need to open item number 5.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open item number 5.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: See your reports and you will see your council reports.
You're welcome.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The council members who are not able to attend this meeting who will be voting next week will have an opportunity to review the tapes, so that they are up to speed.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This is a petition to rezone the property to add 308 and 310 west Warren street from RM-16 to PD.
This is two platted lots within an existing multifamily that is stacked duplex on a 96 by 90 platted lot.
And the petitioner would like to split off the additional lot to build a new single-family home.
They are not asking for any waivers in this PD.
The development review economist committee reviewed it and we have no objection to the request.
The subject property lies within an RM-16 district and includes a mixture of single-family attached, semi detached, and single-family attached scenarios as well as a church and a school in the area.
This is the existing building that will be redeveloped.
Just renovated.
And the building next to it.
The lot next to the will be a new single-family home.
And in the area even though it is RM-16, there aren't many single-family homes because it's on the edge of the single-family district, and it is consistent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Manning commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a question for Ms. Hurley.
Is this located within the Tampa Heights architectural review district?
>>> Yes, ma'am, it is.
>> And have they already weighed in on this or does it come to us first?
>>> This came before us -- actually this petition started awhile ago and he was not required to go before architectural review.
At the time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Doesn't architectural review on things?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: It's not official through the city.
That's not through our architectural review.
They have their own neighborhood.
And it's outside of the historic district.
It's in the Tampa Heights.
I'm sorry.
This property is in the Tampa Heights.
It's not in the New Tampa Heights historic district so it's not subject to the historic district requirements.
No, there's no Tampa Heights overlay district in our zoning code.
>>GWEN MILLER: We got it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, there is.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You guys are starting to sound like you're married
>>ROSE FERLITA: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: I know there is a Tampa Heights overlay district of Old Seminole Heights.
They have a land use committee.
And these people for the most part, just so all the council members know, we do advise them at the very out set, you need to go see the land use committee, need to talk to the president of the Seminole Heights association, you need to go by those residential guidelines.
It normally is, and in most of the PD site plans, will conform to the Tampa Bay heights -- Tampa Heights.
Well, you're right.
She's right.
I'm confusing Tampa Heights with Seminole Heights.
There is no Tampa Heights.
There is a Seminole Heights residential overlay district.
Not a Tampa Heights.
So we got the Heights confused.
Sorry.
Okay.
The land use categories.
The land use categories for the area, residential -- this is in a residential 20 land use.
Residential 20.
Residential 10.
There was an issue on this site, as Ms. Hurley has stated.
This was brought in quite a long time ago because there was some issue as far as the existing structure, being a multifamily unit, which was something that would have brought the unit over the proposed density for the site which would have been an issue for the comp plan issue.
The issue has been resolved, ultimately recognizing the structure is a single family residence.
It does have the density under the residential 20 to allow the proposed request.
It is consistent with the development in the area.
Planning Commission has no objections and finds it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
Is the petitioner here?
You need to come up, sir.
>> I have been sworn in.
Joseph Del Castillo.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
Thank you, council.
>> Make your presentation.
>> No, I didn't.
I'm going to build a single-family home.
Renovated -- properties next door.
I had originally purchased the whole parcel as one.
As far as the splitting of the lots, all the lots on that block are 48 by 90.
They were all subdivided back in the 20s, or whenever.
I'm not infringing on anybody's changing lot size or anything like that.
There was three or four actual lots at the end of the block not developed.
They are all the same.
So this is encouraging development in this area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if there's anyone in opposition.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item 5?
Anyone in the audience to speak on item 5?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
For the existing building, how many units are in there?
>>> It's a duplex.
It's top and bottom.
Stacked.
And I have sold that.
So it's no longer mine.
>> What do they do for parking?
>>> They have a driveway around the back and they have street parking.
Have sidewalk and a driveway and one-car garage.
>> There are allies in this block?
>>> The alley there is closed.
It's not being used anymore.
Actually that's a good point.
We are trying to see what we could do to claim that property because it's not used.
It's being used as a dump site.
So I'm encouraging the city to give up the property because of waste picked up in the front.
They don't use it.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
Just for clarification.
The alley is not vacated.
It's just not improved.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What the proposal is for new single family house and to recognize the existing duplex next door.
>>> Right.
>> And so my question is, how will you provide for parking for your proposed single family home?
>>> It will have its own driveway in the front, in front of the one-car garage, the easement.
It will have its own driveway, put it that way.
>> Okay.
Do you have any rendering of what the proposed single family home is going to look like?
>>> On the lot?
Yes, I do.
>> That's a plan.
>>> The actual plans for the house?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: This is the home.
He will have a one-car garage.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think she's looking for elevations.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: This is all we were given in terms of elevation.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is my concern:
I'm positive -- I'm absolutely positive that there's a Tampa Heights historic district because we just had a meeting yesterday about the revolving fund impacting things in the district.
And trying to ensure that what you're proposing to build here will be compatible.
>>> Yes.
All the other houses around are brick homes.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
As stated before, this property is not within that new Tampa Heights historic district.
And there is no overlay either.
>> Okay.
So there's no design overlay, there's no consideration about the possibility -- there's no concern that the house --
>>> he's not within the historic district.
So we can't force him to go to AFC unless he's in --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before second reading Angela is going to double check and make sure that's right.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Great.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Linda has hesitation.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
Okay, Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: On the site plan, proposed plan, it says the proposed plan, proposed house will have a one-car garage with one space.
>>> Right.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I've seen what those tandem spaces become.
And what I've seen is that when they don't park behind the garage like that, they park on the grass.
>>> Right.
>> I hope you're not going to do that.
>>> No, ma'am.
Actually on that block there's not a driveway, there's not a sidewalk, and nobody parks on the street.
They all park in the front of their houses.
>> They park in front of their houses, and not on the grass, not on the sidewalk?
>>> Well, they don't have grass either, actually.
>> Do you have grass?
>>> I have grass.
I have concrete.
I have sidewalks.
I'll be the most improvement on that block.
Put it that way.
I'm going to be the first step to revitalize that whole block.
>> Will you promise me that you won't --
>>> yes, ma'am.
You can come by anytime.
Yes, ma'am.
No, this is actually going to be a good -- everybody is wishing and hoping for me to do this.
Right behind the Boys and Girls Club.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 308 and 310 west Warren Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily single family residential to multifamily providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want -- I want Annie Hart -- I need reassurance about this not being protected by historic covenants.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: It's east of Florida and this property is well west of Florida.
The Tampa Heights historic district has not come west of Florida.
They are still working on doing an inventory of the historic properties in that area.
That's why they didn't include it in the Tampa Heights.
But I can certainly have Annie Hart come back at second reading, if that would make you more comfortable.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: You're okay.
It passed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't think we voted.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we voted.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 6.
>> So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a second.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ANGELA HURLEY:
I have been sworn.
This is a request to rezone the property at 302 and 304 South Bungalow Avenue.
This is from RM-16 to PD and they are asking for single family attached.
They are asking to go from RM-16 to single family attached for PD with six single-family attached units with two oh-car garages.
They are asking to waive chapter 27 section 27-137 C-1, the development alternatives for single family attached dwellings for townhouses, developments in which each individual unit is located on an individual lot on a public or private street with all parking spaces and all green space provided on the lot, where three or more unit lots are proposed, subdivision regulations must be met.
The internal units are not fronting a private street because the internal drive does not meet the City of Tampa standards for private right-of-way.
They are also asking to reduce the required green space from units lot 2 and lot 5 from 350 square feet per unit required to 220 square feet, and 260 square feet per unit respectively.
LDC staff objects to the 6 foot high -- I'm sorry.
The LDC had regarding the 6 foot high PVC fence because adding that the 6 foot high fence will not be allowed on Platt or Bungalow.
They also addressed their objections from transportation.
Transportation was objecting to the gated entrance, which is no longer -- they have put a note on the site plan negating the private entrance and transportation was also objecting to the six foot fence which was a typo.
Solid waste asked that the curbside collection for solid waste be more clearly addressed on the site plan.
This has been done with notes, showing that three units adjacent to the alley, the service will be on Platt Street and for the three units adjacent to Bungalow Avenue.
Their service will be picked up on Bungalow Avenue.
In addition to the above site plan will need to be noted and this has been added.
Refuge will be stored in a place not available to right-of-way on noncollection days within the property site.
They have asked that they be allowed to show two alternatives, either to provide a 4 by 4 enclosure or to put in a 5-foot walkway.
This addressed on the site plan.
They have also added a note that all units will have automatic fire sprinklers.
I will need to update legal's copy so that they have these additional notes on there.
And, therefore, they have addressed all of the objections that were included in the staff's report.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Angela, under the current RM-16 zoning that's on the property right now, how many units could be built?
On this lot?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: The land area is 1330.
13338.
Does anybody have a calculator?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What math would you like us to do?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I believe the answer was four units?
>>> You can have four units under RM-16.
And he's asking for a total six units based on the R-20 land use.
>> My next question is awhile back, we had a discussion about -- I believe about six-plexes and eight-plexes in terms of parking.
Guest parking.
And right now we are showing, I think, two cars per unit, which I guess is the requirement.
And no guest parking.
No pizza delivery parking.
No nothing.
So I'm wondering.
I know we haven't changed our code yet.
But this was taken into consideration.
That's the second question.
The third question is, Ms. Ferlita and I saw some examples of some very bad garbage cans being left out on the street in these type of six-plexes and eight-plexes.
Your provision says that won't happen.
But, you know, who is going to enforce that down the road?
So, in other words, why isn't this a dumpster, a small dumpster instead of being a bunch of cans that typically are just going to be left out on the curb?
>>> I'm not sure that everyone from solid waste is here.
But I do know that it used to be that we could put curbside collection.
And that would be enough.
They have started to ask them to put what type of enclosure and making sure that it will be compatible with the building, or ensuring that there is some type of walkway so they can be stored in the garages and be walked in and out.
So if what you are saying is that's not enough to ensure this is actually going to happen then perhaps solid waste to need to ask at the development review committee that they provide more specific information regarding solid waste or perhaps require a dumpster.
They did not require a dumpster because they felt that the curbside, as long as it was more clearly addressed, would work.
>> But a little while ago somebody said, how do you enforce PDs?
And you said we don't have PD enforcement officers.
>>> Exactly.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Did you answer the second question about guest parking?
There is no guest parking.
We don't require it right now?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: There is no guest parking.
And it is difficult for us to object based on guest parking.
Transportation can maybe speak to that more clearly.
But it's not a requirement.
Our code, it's not a requirement in their code.
>> So we are going from four units to six units.
But we are losing -- we don't have any guest parking.
And we have got a garbage problem, in my opinion.
>>> Right.
And the purpose of a PD is to allow them to go to a maximum density per the land use.
>> Excuse me?
>>> One of the purposes of the PD is to allow them to go to maximum density per the land use.
>> I think I respectfully disagree.
And ask the lawyer on that.
The density is there as a maximum.
But there's no --
>>> right.
But all I'm saying is that allows them to ask council.
If council feels that adding the density is inappropriate, because of no guest parking, because of inadequate solid waste, then that's something -- that's why we come to a public hearing before council, is what I'm saying.
That's all I'm saying.
That does allow them to ask for maximum density.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
Some more orientation.
Azeele to the south.
Bungalow parking, Mitchell elementary to the northwest of the site.
Driving through the site, there are a variety of residential 20 in the area residential 35 to the south.
Going through the area -- and I know many of you are familiar with this area, there are quite a few examples of multifamily uses in the area.
The request is consistent.
There are two existing structures on the site.
There is a smattering of some single-family detached units in the area, but that's more of the exception than it is the rule for this particular location.
The request is consistent with the residential 20 land use category and the character of the area.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I just would like to clarify that there is an existing five acres on the property which is nonconform and over density.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have any photographs of the existing site?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: These are the apartments.
There's the side.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I have not been sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
I do. Steve Michelini here on behalf of Dennis Morris who is the petitioner for this project.
As Angela stated we are requesting to redevelop the site.
I did receive a number of phone calls from the area property owners who indicated that they were so happy that the multifamily, the duplexes were coming down, and that a new townhouse style condominium project was going up, they were extremely happy with that.
I didn't receive any calls whatsoever regarding any concerns about this project.
In terms of an internal driveway, this particular design is designed to internalize traffic, not to put it out on the street.
Some of the other developments in the area do not have any off-street parking whatsoever.
We are providing two off-street enclosed parking garages, which is the code.
We moved the buildings back to accommodate a 40-inch oak along the rear property line.
We adjusted some of the property lines to accommodate other off-site trees to ensure that they would be there, to protect the canopy that was in the area.
And we believe that was very compatible in-fill type development project.
There are condominiums, apartments, throughout this area.
This is not typically single family development area.
In addition to that we are providing the garbage pickup.
This actually has a frontage on two rights-of-way that are predominantly rights-of-way plus an alley so there's three principal rights rights-of-way and one secondary right-of-way.
We complied with the solid waste department's request to provide for the garbage pickup, and the specific location that they have requested, and we have also provided what I believe is an attractive design, which really meets with your design standards.
In terms of the off-street guest parking, there is no code provision for that.
But we understand if it's possible we could certainly try to do that.
There simply isn't space to provide for that without removing green space in the rear, or by potentially encroaching on the oak trees, and also to the rear.
The prey dominant pattern in the area again as I mentioned is a multifamily style of townhouse and condominium project.
I think I notified at least three different associations, condominium associations within the notice area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if anyone in the public -- we have some questions for you first.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, then Mrs. Alvarez.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It says maximum height 40 feet, three stories.
I didn't see a request for a height waiver or did I miss it?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: It's a PD plan so you can ask for that.
>> Did you really mean 40 feet?
>>> That's the architectural elements at the top.
We can certainly adjust those if necessary.
The living space area doesn't exceed the 35 feet.
But the tower elements and things like that that you see here where you're providing some facade, some breaks in the facade, that's with what's causing that height.
If you will hold one second I can ask the owner if they have any question.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My more -- the question that strikes me more is the overall density.
In looking at the context of this proposal, it appears to be a greater density than the surrounding uses and I'm curious.
Did you consider possibly going with a four unit rather than six unit density, which would then preclude you from having to ask for a green space waiver?
It would mean that you have -- just have a little more breathing room on the site in terms of all your dimensions.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Well, one of the things that we considered on this particular project was to provide a little bit larger unit.
And certainly if you are indicating we should reduce the size of the units, we can look at that.
And that's really what is what drives the green space in this particular case.
Normally you would have 22, maybe 23-foot wide unit.
And we are providing 26-foot wide units.
That's really to ensure that the garages are effectively utilized and provide you with some space on the side so you can get out of the garage, get out of the car, use it and not become a storage space.
But we can look at that, certainly.
The five units that are there now are over the RM-16 density.
They are not over the 20-unit density that's allowed by the land use.
And even if the six units per acre were not developing at the maximum of 20 -- to units per acre.
I don't know what the math is but I'm pretty sure we are below that.
Also I want to make sure that you understood we are not asking typically on PD plans to go to the maximum.
It provides flexibility.
But I don't think we have ever brought a project before you that asked for the maximum density of a land use.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, what bothers me about this plan is that there is no guest parking.
And I think going with what Mrs. Saul-Sena said, instead of going with, say, four, why don't you make it five units, and then use one of the spaces there to make it like -- make it like a patio or something where they can have guest parking there.
You could have a little patio there for them so they can go, you know, recreation, something that can be landscaped.
It's just too dense, the way I see it.
I think you could do better than this.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Can we see if there's any objections -- objections from any neighbors and then perhaps continue the hearing to a point where we can revise the site plan?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, that would be -- and trying to figure out too if you go with the six units, and they do have guests, I mean, everybody has guests.
Where would you park?
Would you park them right behind their two-car garage?
The people on the other side, would they have a place to get out if they needed to get out?
It's just not -- you can do better than this.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Right now, they are parking it on the street.
And we certainly are not trying to enforce on-street parking.
If I could ask a question.
On some of the plans, we have been providing parallel spaces on the street as an improvement, and then donating it back to the city.
Is that something you would like us to start looking at?
When we can't possibly provide them on the property.
As long as we are meeting the dimensional requirements of the setbacks and things like that.
>> I think it's too dense myself.
I think either a four or five would be a lot better and using it, some office space parking.
And you can make your units a little bigger.
I don't know.
I'm just not happy with it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Hurley, and I apologize for my outburst before.
Maybe I'm just getting tired.
Have you received calls from folks that live in this area about Mitchell elementary and the parking related to Mitchell elementary?
Well, I have.
Madam Chair, I've received numerous comments from folks who live in the area and single-family homes that complain about the parking around Mitchell elementary.
Because there is, unlike a lot of our schools, these schools in South Tampa like Gloria said, they don't have room for parents and guests.
So any time there's any event there's massive parking problems and they end up calling. And call me in the district, and Linda, I'll bet they used to call you.
But anyway, on-street parking is a serious problem within about three or four blocks in every direction of Mitchell elementary.
And I can assure you of that.
>>> I wasn't arguing that it wasn't.
>> I'm sorry?
>>> I certainly wasn't arguing that it wasn't.
>> I just wanted to see if your department was aware of that.
>>> No, we have not received any phone calls.
And we didn't receive any phone calls from any community members regarding this.
>> I understand.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if anyone in the public would like to speak on item number 6.
Does anyone in the audience want to speak on item number 6?
>>> My name is Dennis Morris.
I'm petitioner.
>> Have you been sworn in?
>>> Yes, I have been.
In reference to Mitchell elementary, I have owned the property for four years.
I purchased it when this neighborhood was in really rough shape.
I mean, there was a lot of bad things going on.
And I think in the last few years, there's been multifamily.
There's been really, you know, good development.
The property is surrounded by condominiums right now.
And all those condominiums basically park on Bungalow and Platt.
If anything, Mitchell comes in, and all of a sudden they show up at 2:00.
And they create a problem in the neighborhood.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Absolutely.
>>> Whereas I feel they have two, three cars parking on Bungalow, wherever, and it has not been a problem.
You know, I have been a property owner there for three, four years.
As far as the density, we wouldn't be able to do that project if it was five units.
Just because of the land costs and everything else.
It just wouldn't work.
It just wouldn't work for us.
That's why --
>> You own the land right now?
>>> Yes.
>> So you bought it?
>>> Yes.
>> You have got to do something with it?
>>> Right.
And that would be to just split it out, sell it, you know, as is, or try to renovate it.
But it's in pretty bad shape, these homes.
>> The five units that are on there right now, Mr. Morris, how big are each of those units?
Are they a thousand square feet each?
Or one bedroom?
I'm trying to get a feel for it because I'm looking at this picture.
It looks like a nice little small house.
>>> This really isn't in the photo. I don't know how this got in the file, actually.
>> What is it then?
>>> I don't really recognize it, to be honest.
>> Well, just tell me.
>>> One is a triplex, an old bungalow --
>> How many square feet are these people renting?
>>> 600 in one.
Maybe 700 in another.
And maybe 750 in another.
So they are pretty small.
The house that sits on the corner of Platt and Bungalow is no one living in it.
It's empty.
It's in very bad shape.
>> Is that split in two?
>>> It had an efficiency there that the gentleman I purchased it from, he rented it out.
So he had his main I home, the efficiency, then the --.
>> What's the total square foot of that house?
>>> Maybe a thousand square feet.
Pretty bad.
>> My point is, Ms. Hurley said it's five units.
It's five units, and I understand that.
Ms. Hurley, I'm not questioning it.
But those are five -- extremely small units.
Anywhere from 500 to -- now we are talking about five units that are probably going to be how many square feet each?
2000?
Thank you, sir.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are there any other questions of the petitioner? Council, do you have any more questions?
Need to close.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: So my understanding is you were referencing earlier to downsize it but that's not an option that --.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: From what I understand from the owner the project doesn't make sense with less than six units.
We could look at reducing the size of the units, which would provide some of the amenities that you have been talking about.
I prefer a continuance to come back and rework the plan.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I do not feel comfortable supporting the proposal.
I think it is too much mass for this parcel.
If you would like a continuance that's fine.
I can tell you I will not support the petition as it sits before us.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mrs. Saul-Sena, that's why --
>> (sirens)
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'll wait for the sirens to pass.
I think the owners concurs that a continuance probably would be in order so we can examine all the options available and come back with a revised plans.
>>GWEN MILLER: Rescind the motion on closing the public hearing?
>> Did we close it?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we closed it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just move to reopen.
>> Move to reopen.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: I need a motion to for continuance.
>> Move to continue.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to speak on the continuance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't have a problem with the continuance.
Don't have a problem with redeveloping this property.
I have a problem with the density.
I think five units would be adequate.
And I think if we go to five units then you can address the parking, the guest parking issues, the green space issues that Ms. Alvarez pointed out, if garbage cans issues that perhaps might be bet we are a small dumpster, did I say the guest parking?
And the trees.
Don't think we ever heard about the trees.
Are there any tree issues that we are talking about, staff?
I mean, looking at the picture we see trees.
Then we find out that's not the right picture.
It is the right picture?
Those look like protected trees.
>>> Greg Yurcus
Regarding the trees, I know they already moved the building forward to accommodate the 48-inch oak, the grand trees.
I have been in contact with Parks Department on it.
Some of the trees on the site are citrus trees and palm trees which will be not really -- citrus trees aren't protected.
But you have a 14-inch pine.
And a small four-inch oak.
So the impact to the trees is not real severe in this case.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I can support the motion to continue if the density is addressed, if the parking and the green space issues is addressed.
But if that's not the intent that the developer, the intent of the developer is to wait until we have two more votes, then I can't support the continuance.
What's your intent?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: The intent is to come back.
I made a commitment to you to revisit the issues, examine the options.
That's my commitment.
I'm not trying to play a trick here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue.
What date?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We have in a opposition.
Certainly it's going to take us a couple of weeks.
Probably three or four weeks anyway.
>>GWEN MILLER: What's three weeks out, clerk?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: What about Ms. Owens schedule?
>>> She's leaving.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I'm sure that Cathy Coyle or Gloria Moreda will be at the continuance.
>>THE CLERK: Three weeks from now, March 17th.
>>GWEN MILLER: At 10 a.m., March 17th.
Can we get a motion?
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue to March 17th at 10 a.m.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Michelini, I think you have the sense of what our concerns were.
And I think -- I heard you loud and clear refer to trying to alleviate those concerns as opposed to waiting for two more council members to come.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: When we make commitments I make them in a genuine manner.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's way was reconfirm.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to recess for five minutes.
We'll be back in five minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Downfall is called back to order.
Roll call.
[Roll Call]
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just before we start our next petition, I just want to make one quick comment.
And had I known, I would have prepared for it even to make more comments.
But we oftentimes our staff knows much more than we do in certain areas and certain arenas.
So I want to thank Angela Hurley for everything she's done.
It's my understanding that she's got another opportunity she's accepting, and we certainly appreciate all the help you have given us.
And it's not your last day here but from what I understand your last evening hearing with us.
So thank you for everything you have done and good luck to you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 7.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This is a petition to rezone the property at 3110 west Horatio street from RM 24 to PD, to single family attached.
The petitioner is proposing to build 7 single family attached units with two-car garages.
He is requesting waivers.
The waivers are to the chapter 27-137-C-1 regarding the development standards for internal townhouse units facing the rear -- his intern internal townhouse units are facing the rear and not facing a private right-of-way that meets City of Tampa standards.
As you can see on the site plan, there's an existing 12-foot drive.
They are proposing to add eight feet of their property to this drive to make it 20 feet.
However, our standards state that a private right-of-way has to be 40 feet --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have copies of the site plan?
>>> I thought I had given them.
>> And do you have a photograph of the property?
>>GWEN MILLER: You don't have to be nice.
You can say what you want to say.
(Laughter)
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I apologize.
>>GWEN MILLER: I said you don't have to be nice.
>>> It's in my nature.
This is the existing structure.
I believe it has -- let me look at this application.
It currently has seven apparently tiny units internal to this building.
This is another picture that shows the existing multifamily on this side.
Another on this one.
This is a picture that transportation took.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So there's a bungalow that has six units in it?
>>> I'm sorry.
That's my fault.
There are seven units entire.
So within two buildings.
And I'm not sure how many exist in the bungalow.
And the application just states that there's a total of seven units.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does a unit necessarily include a kitchen?
Separate kitchen?
>>> Yes.
It has to have a separate kitchen to are considered a unit.
The petitioner, we have requested a recorded access easement and he did get an access easement agreement.
However, it has not been recorded.
He has agreed to have it recorded prior to the second reading, and that would be up to council.
We wanted to be recorded prior to the first reading.
Also, land development is objecting based on the fact that these new units will be -- if you look at this from Horatio, the new units will be facing the rear of this existing development.
When you look at the site plan, you can see the drive.
LDC objects to this, because we don't think it meets the intent of the single family attached standards in our code.
And being that there's no recorded access easement, that we feel that it should have been recorded prior to the second reading.
And there were other solid waste, also asks for the access agreement.
He is saying that the access agreement can be recorded after the second reading.
Transportation also asks for the recorded access agreement, and also wanted clarification on the site plan regarding the driveways, all driveways, and sidewalks that they will have the same grade when paved, and paved to City of Tampa standards.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question before Mr. Garcia or after Mr. Garcia comes up about drainage.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's have all the reports first.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I'm sorry, I forgot that the petitioner had come to our office with a note that they wanted to add to the site plan.
However, it does depict a graphical change.
And because the code specifically stated no graphical changes after the 13-day, I believe that it would have to be up to council to accept this, to go onto the site plan.
The petitioner is stating that it does meet one of the objections of solid waste regarding the location of the dumpster.
If you look at the site plan that you have before you, the dumpster is at an angle.
And this put it straight.
The petitioner states this meets the requirement for solid waste but I'm not sure if anybody from solid waste is here to address that.
So I believe that it would, even if council asks that it go on the site plan, unless there's someone from solid waste that can verify that is accessible, I'm not sure council is comfortable going forward without that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Awad.
>>> Alex Awad.
I have been sworn in.
>> My question is in the note on the site plan, it says two things that are solid waste questions.
I mean stormwater questions.
One is that relative to stormwater's attention to be provided, and the other is developer to provide a half inch retention on-site for the entire property if project exceeds 50% impervious surface.
It's really evident from the site plan, like 95% impervious surface.
So my question is, in your experience where and how can the stormwater detention be provided?
>>> Well, that was the idea is put it in the vault.
I don't see any other place to put it.
>> Where would you put the vault?
>>> Under the parking.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Where is the parking?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You mean over the parking?
>>> Under the parking.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Under the buildings?
Under the residences?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I guess my question is, is this a real estate solution to the stormwater that would be generated on this site?
>>> Is it realistic?
No.
But I can't tell them that they can't cannot do it.
If they want to put a vault under the building, then they can.
We have had parking lots with a vault, you know.
There's a vault, a pond, under the parking lot so we have vaults that are under buildings, under parking lots.
It could be done.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are they under residences?
>>> No.
Not that I have seen.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have never seen this on a residential site plan before.
And that's why.
>>> Our standard is that if it is 100% impervious, which it is, or 95% impervious, which it is today, our code today says they don't have to do anything with stormwater but because it came in as a PD I have at least requested that they provide something.
And that something is the -- I would like to see it in a green space.
But I don't know where.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I wanted to put on the Elmo because she showed you in the aerial.
I put this building up which kind of reflects really what the structures are there.
There's the structure in front. The structure in the rear is also part of it.
So I guess it gives you a clear understanding of what's up.
Mr. Dingfelder, you had asked if that was the only one.
It's this structure and this structure which constitutes the seven units.
>> Thank you.
>>TONY GARCIA: You're welcome.
Let me put a future land use map up for you.
This area is -- actually just a little bit west of the last project that we talked about where Mitchell elementary is at, just on the other side of MacDill.
If you go down Azeele.
This is predominantly residential 35 and we have some residential 50 down here.
Excuse me, 35 along the MacDill corridor.
Most of this area, it is reflective of the residential 35.
Couple of points.
The area surrounding the apartment complex here.
Quite a bit of density in the area that is supported by the residential 35 land use category.
This is a relatively new apartment development that was built here, too.
From a comp plan aspect, I understand the ingress and egress issues they had and from a comp plan aspect what they are asking for is a net zero as far as density is concerned.
They are going to seven units.
That's okay, there's not going to be impact to the area.
But the other issue that I feel, we will have new development in this area.
This is underutilized and if we were to drive by the signed site kind of an unsightly area.
So we do feel that it will contribute to the housing stock in the area.
So from those standpoint, from a comp plan aspect, we do find it consistent with the comprehensive plan as far as the intent.
As far as the specific design request, we know that there are a variety of issues that still have to be addressed in accordance with land development.
So I'll leave that to staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Just very quickly, I want to address a couple things.
Normally, on very tight sites, you have vaulting for stormwater.
>> Put your name on the record.
>>> Steve Michelini here on behalf of Bernard Arenas.
You normally have drive aisles so you get the maximum efficiency out of the property that you own.
This is a very intensely developed area.
It's immediately adjacent to a very large apartment complex on one side and a significantly sized condominium project on the other side and other condominiums across the street.
I think there's some confusion about the units facing the back of another unit, of another apartment building.
That's actual think rear access.
And we have not correctly graphically shown the entry.
The building actually face it is condominiums to the east.
We also have a graphic change, that in discussion with the city attorney's office, we are inside the 13 days, and the graphic change could not be reviewed by solid waste.
So we are going to be in a continuance here.
So I don't want to go too much further.
If we have opposition, obviously we continue to a night meeting.
If we don't I'd prefer we go to a day meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak on item 7?
You may come up and speak.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to the continuance.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's no motion to continue yet.
>>GWEN MILLER: He asked to be continued.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: If he doesn't object to a continuance, then it gives us an opportunity to address whatever issues she might have.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can.
If I can.
Just for a minute.
Mr. Michelini, just for the purposes of the record, if you could just say if you have been sworn.
>>> I have been sworn.
>> On this issue.
Now --
>>> Might want to call the city attorney about the graphic change.
I think we are in automatic continuance.
>> Julie Cole, legal department.
I have been sworn.
By making the change, that's going to be a really graphical change even though it will be a Stica under your rules, it would be required to be continued unless the council saw fit to go forward with the new change to the site plan.
Plus I'm a little concerned that the ordinance states a site plan, a specific date, and specific site plan.
I'm not sure about changing it pursuant to a Stica, if you require the ordinance to be amended as well.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My recommendation would be if council wishes to entertain a continuance, it does so by motion, and then anybody that wishes to speak for or against it be given that opportunity.
Unless council wishes to go forward with the hearing tonight.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Procedural question.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, question.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The neighbor sat here all night long waiting to speak on this issue.
I think we should hear -- there's no motion right now for continuance, period.
We have heard from staff.
We have heard from petitioner.
I think that we should give her an opportunity to speak on the substantive basis.
If after we have heard, and then there's other reasons we want to continue it, we can continue it.
If we do that, then she can come back and she could speak one other time, period, anyway.
Or we could wave the rules and give her that right anyway.
I think we should hear what she has to say so if we do continue it and we can incorporate some of her comment into the continuance.
>> I agree.
>> Along that line, anyone else.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know if there's anybody else.
>>GWEN MILLER: How many persons in the audience want to speak against it?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Would you please stand up?
>>GWEN MILLER: We have to wait to waive the rules.
If they speak tonight they cannot --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't know that we'll continue it.
>>GWEN MILLER: If we continue it what do we do?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we change the site plan they could speak again because we are changing the site plan.
>> I have been sworn in.
My name is Beatrice O'Brien, Horatio, number 17.
We are the condominiums.
There's 16 units next to the property.
We have had a very tenuous relationship with the people whose properties you can see the house that was there has had numerous people living in and out of it.
Weep were a little happy at the thought they were going to knock that down and put another house in its place.
Now that we find that there's going to be all these townhouses, we are concerned for safety and for density.
I don't know if you realize, but Horatio has 94 townhouses going up.
Within our little block there.
There are 94, three-story, two-car garage townhouses going up, with five more -- well, six more duplexes.
If I can hand this to you.
I'm not an artist as my forte.
Six more down the street.
Six more duplexes.
For every duplex they put up about 8 to 13 townhouses.
Now, with this coming up right next door to us, we have a lot of concerns, because we are going through a horrendous year with what's going on down the street.
We are the short block.
We are the 3100 block.
The other block where all these townhouses are going on is 3200.
The contractors, the developers park on both sides of the street.
I have called your offices a couple times.
We can't even use our own street to go down.
If they were to put this up right next to us the way our driveways and all are, if they parked on both sides of the street, like they are down the street there, we have no way to get out, in and out of our own property.
Not counting the fact that the way that driveway is right next to our property, when the dump truck goes down to try to get their garbage, half our fence goes almost every time.
And talking about what he wants to do as far as a driveway goes, my mom is downstairs.
One wrong move and she ends up with a cement truck as her roommate.
It's been a horrendous situation.
And we are asking you to consider our safety, and just the environmental.
From up the street -- and I've called the stormwater people about what's going on.
By the time they finish draining up there, we have a whole weekend of under water there, because they kept telling us, well, they are trying to drain to the -- there was a block and a half down.
The whole street was under water.
Now we have got sinkholes.
So for every bit of money the developers making, we as taxpayers are having to cover the damage that they are doing, of the water situation.
Right now, once all those are sold and then next door, we don't have any pressure.
I mean, you're talking about 94.
That's counting two-car garages, probably another 100 cars.
We can't get out on MacDill now.
And if these people start building right next to us, that amount, there's no way we are going to be able to safely get in and out of our own driveway.
So if they want to build a house there, great.
But when you're talking about this, the idea of what goes into building it, the construction, the trucks.
I mean, today, when they drop trusses off down the street, they put them right in the middle of the street.
Couldn't go down.
We have call the police.
They said to us, you know, we've done everything we can.
(Bell sounds)
Two weeks ago -- and I know I'm through -- they had a big old bulldozer.
They put it in the middle of the street and a sign, street closed.
So it's a little neighborhood street.
There's no way we can handle all this.
And we are just asking for your help.
Because it's been horrible.
It really has.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to ask you, what do you think the width of the street is there?
>>> Well, I'll tell you, if two cars are parked you can't get a third one through.
So what we wanted to ask, if you are going to go with this, off-street parking and if they put a cement wall between us and them because someone is going to get killed.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mrs. O'Brien, I would like to ask you a question, were you living at the condo?
>>> Yes.
I'm the president of the association.
>> Do you have guest parking?
>>> Yes.
All our parking is right there.
We have guest parking and we have parking for each of our residents.
And that was one of our concerns.
If someone decides to have a party on this block, we're in trouble.
Because our condo, the condo across the street has parking.
All the apartments have parking.
But none of these new places seem to have any parking.
So, you know, that's the main concern as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>> Good evening.
My name is Jenny Masasanoi.
I have been sworn in.
I reside at 3102 West Horatio Street.
I am one of the newest neighbors and moved there about a year ago.
What I can tell you is that I can see every day how traffic gets to be worse and worse to get out of Horatio.
It would be trying to cross over MacDill or take the back way, where all the construction is going on, if the barricades allow you to go through.
When they were building townhouses a block west of where we are.
I ended up not having water.
Not that there wasn't any pressure.
I just didn't have any water in my house.
I don't know for how long.
All I know is that I couldn't bathe.
So any construction that goes on, more so, next to our property, will cause disruption in traffic, disruption in our daily activities.
And as mentioned, we have our own parking, and we have sometimes issues, when there are parties, sometimes people think that our parking is their parking and they use our private property for their own vehicles.
And there are a couple of commercial properties on MacDill.
And when they have events, our street fills up, and then we have to maneuver in order to be able to drive safely.
So we don't scratch any automobiles, or hit any pedestrians, because there are no sidewalks where we live.
And in all honesty, I don't know if all the seven units are being used right now.
So I truly believe that although the planning members say that there wouldn't be any impact on the density, I do feel that there will be.
Because I truly do not believe that all the units are being occupied at this moment.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
What is the height of the structure that you're in?
>>> It's two stories.
>> Yeah, it was built back in 1984, whatever the codes are.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ma'am, you said you noticed the increase, the impact of traffic.
You have been there for a year.
Is it the same condominiums Mrs. O'Brien lives in?
>>> Correct.
>> For my own information, later, Mrs. O'Brien, how long have you been there?
Thank you.
>>> Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Ferlita has a question.
You have to come up to the mike.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You can't come up and speak again unless I ask you to.
So I'm asking you to speak again.
>> The only person who received a notice was myself.
Nobody else received notice.
>> Because you're the president?
>>> Nobody -- I don't know hop would know that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Hurley, since she's the president of her condominium association would she be the only one that would have to be noticed?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: It goes to the registered agent.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: It goes to the registered agent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>> My name is John Abrahamson.
I have been sworn in.
My concern is the traffic.
And I would like to -- I would like to see the city do a study of impacts, with gnaw construction, because this last year, this past year, we had a lot of problems with the hurricanes and the rain system, it was filled up to the top.
And I think it will be an issue with construction.
They don't take good measurements if there is a problem with the water.
Also, many times during the year, we have to -- our parking lot, you know, for people that come from other areas.
And increasing the density of the amount of people living in the street, it will really impacted us, you know.
And so I believe that any new construction, any new condominiums, because as I was saying before, there are a lot of condominiums in this area.
So if we want to keep the quality of life that we have right now, you know, we should limit the amount of space, the amount of living space that is provided for this new construction, because there is no point of being like in sardine cans when we are trying to live with the quality of life.
That's one of the reasons why I moved to this area of Tampa, that it's very beautiful.
So I would be very happy if the city really, really making sure the environmental impact, the quality of life of the area will not be affected.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.
City Council has -- the petitioner on the petition before us asked for significant green space waivers.
City Council has the right, do we not, to just say, we do not accept these waivers?
>>> In the chapter 27 code it states for townhouse units, the green space should be per unit.
So if you have shared parking area, it should be 350 square feet of green space per unit on the lot.
Or 750 feet of green space per unit of the deeded lot.
In these cases, when these were reviewed it was looked at that the internal units are not meeting that intent, because they don't have that -- those numbers on their individual lots.
Even though the two end units have much more green space.
So the way we have done it, it is a waiver, because the person buy booing number, say, number 6, has about 230 square feet of green space.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
The petitioner has asked for a continuance.
What's the pleasure of council?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It seems like the trend seems to be like they find a small little space, and let's put as many units as we can in there.
And it just makes it look terrible for a neighborhood.
I mean, Ms. O'Brien gave us a statement here, we have got 95 new townhouses, mainly two-car garages, all kind of -- where are we going to stop?
You know?
I mean, just because you have got a 50-foot lot that goes 200 feet doesn't mean we have to stick ten more units in there.
It just started to aggravate me here.
We have come up with so many of these things now, that it's just -- it just doesn't make a good neighborhood.
Steve?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: If I could answer your question.
There were seven units there.
And they are replacing.
They weren't increasing the density.
We could -- you know, we can examine issues.
You have to understand that we are dealing with high density development land use designations in this area.
It's not something that you can just pick and choose.
This is not a single family residential area.
But we have -- let me just go back to what we have asked for.
I certainly can address the issues that the neighbors have talked about.
Most of what they talk about, 98% of what they talk about were construction projects in a neighborhood that are ongoing caused by contractors.
The one thing that they specifically mentioned was a masonry wall.
That's the one thing they mentioned.
Certainly we can add a masonry wall.
But the driveway that we are talking about is not on their side of the alley.
It's on the other side of the alley.
But we can put the masonry wall up.
That's not a big deal.
Water pressure, water mains, we have to improve the water mains in order to get the building permits.
We have to size the mains correctly.
If it means we have to extend the main, we have to extend the main.
And that's done at our cost, not at the city's cost.
If we have to pave the alley, the to City of Tampa standards, that's our cost, not something that comes out of somebody else's pocket.
But what I have asked for, we have made a graphical change, by your rules, we are not supposed to be going forward.
We are in a continuance situation.
We have some issues that we obviously need to address.
We are respectfully requesting they come back to you, since we have neighborhood concerns, continue it to a night meeting, and not a day meeting.
So that they have an opportunity to come back and address them.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What about your maximum height, 45 feet?
What is the maximum height on the condo that's next door?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: It's somewhere between 37, maybe 40 feet.
I don't know.
But I can get that for you.
And we can examine the height issue on our condos, too, or our townhouses.
But there are issues here we need to address that are technical, and they are substantive.
So we need to come back to you.
It's just a matter, can we come back at a night -- in one month or two months, whenever you have an availability?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My issues with this are beyond tweaking.
I have a real philosophical question about the appropriate density for this area.
Council has been increasingly uncomfortable with the request before us for uses.
And now we have seen a lot of this multifamily buildout we recognize the streets are very narrow.
The infrastructure systems are inadequate to meet the request, the demands being made on them.
And I don't feel comfortable going forward with -- frankly with any additional requests like this until we hear back from our staff that our infrastructure can support it.
The response from our staff is that our infrastructure can't support it.
So I would either want to do a six-month continuance to give us time to hear back from our staff, or just flat-out deny this.
I'm just completely uncomfortable based on our staff's response in transportation, in stormwater, in garbage, in green space, requests for green space waivers.
I don't think that this proposal before us is supportable.
So I would like to make a motion for denial, frankly, based on the staff recommendations.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to second your motion for denial.
And --.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: The only issue that we have -- I haven't completed my presentation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me.
Excuse me.
I have the floor.
There's a motion and a second on the floor.
And I have a question of legal council.
I'm sorry, Steve.
Thank you.
If we deny, okay, under our rules, as you best understand -- I know you haven't been here too long -- but as you best understand -- Marty, you can chime in.
If they come back with a significantly different plan, they can resubmit, and they don't have to wait the entire whatever it is, six months or a year.
>>> To be honest with you, I don't know the answer to that question.
I would have to look at your code.
But I have to admit that I didn't hear -- was the motion to deny?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion is to deny.
>>> I think you do need to give the applicant to make a -- opportunity to make a full application if that is the way to go, to in fact move forward with the plan as submitted, not with the graphical change, unless you vote to include that, and move forward, allow him to make his application.
But let me find out the application to that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We didn't close the hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let me hear from Mrs. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Who is Ms. Mandell?
I thought her name was "Cole."
>>GWEN MILLER: We are trying to find out your real name.
Would the real Ms. Mandell stand up?
>>ROSE FERLITA: We need to correct it, Julie.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If we can, for the sake of clarity, because the hearing isn't closed if we could withdraw that motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was using it more in a philosophical manner.
I'm sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to withdraw the motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just withdraw it.
There is no motion on the floor.
Now I believe what we have is an issue -- let me clarify and I hope I'm not muddying up the waters.
With regard to the site plan, the site plan that is presently before City Council is the site plan that was submitted before the 13 days.
And Mr. Michelini has offered a graphical revision.
Now, let me just, for the purposes of clarity, if you don't mind, take a second to read the provision of the public hearing process, PDs.
The City Council upon receipt of the recommendation of the development review committee shall hold a public hearing with due process in accordance with article 16.
The City Council shall make a determination with regard to the acceptability of the site development plan and the appropriateness of the site plan zoning district for the particular site involved.
The final site development plan shall be on file with the Land Development Coordination office and dated no later than 12 p.m. on the 13 calendar day prior to the scheduled hearing.
No further graphical revision to the site development plan will be accepted following that date, unless specifically allowed by City Council during a public hearing.
The site plan deadline note of hearing does not preclude the applicant from placing additional language or conditions on the site plan to satisfy concerns entered by the city staff.
Any member of the public, or City Council, prior to or during the scheduled public hearing.
If the site plan -- excuse me, if the site development plan and the location are deemed to be acceptable and appropriate, the City Council may approve by ordinance the petition for a site plan zoning district.
The chair of the City Council and city clerk shall date and endorse the appropriate plan and the plan shall be incorporated by reference as the ordinance and filed with the City of Tampa.
So that was the procedure.
In other words, if council wishes to go with the site plan as it is now, it can choose to do so, because that is the plan that has been filed prior to the 13 days, or it can choose by motion during this public hearing to accept the graphical revision as offered by the petitioner.
The matter of continuance is not a matter of right under this ordinance.
It's up to the council.
It's within council's discretion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So the alternative is to deny?
>>GWEN MILLER: No.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The alternative at this point in time for due process is to allow Mr. Mick lien toy complete his presentation.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I believe he did.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I never made a presentation.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You never did?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I don't want to belabor this point.
It's obvious there are issues that have to be addressed.
I'm requesting a continuance for not less than 60 days.
If you have another date in mind, if it's 90 days, or as Mrs. Saul-Sena indicated, it's 180 days, then I would respectfully request that so that we can make the alterations, revisit the site plan, meet with these neighbors and assure them and show them graphically what we plan to do with the to address their concerns.
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, did you not talk to the neighbors about this?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I talked to Ms. O'Brien on the phone.
And I talked to some other people in the area.
Their concerns that they continued to repeat to me were contractor concerns about contractors parking on the street, blocking their rights-of-way, cutting off their water without warning, cutting off their electricity without warning, and a tree that was falling down, which we had removed.
Those were the issues that were discussed with me.
And the same things were raised this evening.
They were contractor issues regarding people not being sensitive to the neighbors.
With the exception of the masonry wall.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem I have is -- and this is not you, Mr. Michelini.
You don't own this.
Whatever developer this is or whatever, this is about greed.
Pure and simple.
This is about maximizing the number of units.
You can say it's the same density.
And in terms of the, you know, taking probably a little 300 square foot apartment, and now turning it into a 2,000 or 3,000 square foot town home you are going to say it's the same density but it's not.
Because the density of buildings on this lot is maximized.
And that's what every single person on this council, I think, has recognized.
And so it's like computers.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I don't understand why we want to continue with this process.
It's not about tweaking.
Even if these neighbors didn't show up, this council seems to have a big, big problem with this type of development, because you're planning so much stuff out here, you have got parking problems.
You've got obviously a wall problem.
You've got a height problem.
You've got density problems.
Procedurally, do you want to have a continuance?
Fine.
You can have a continuance.
You need to back off on some of these units so you can accommodate and deal with some of these real issues.
Don't just throw up a cinder block wall and say you fixed the problem.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Michelini, I know that some of the problems we heard tonight you're trying to resolve.
And I appreciate that.
But, at the same time, my sense is that you're going to have to do so much scaling back.
I don't know if you can do it.
I truthfully don't know if you can do it.
I mean, over the period of time, say when Ms. O'Brien began 15 years ago, maybe this is in keeping with -- I'm not trying to be funny.
But if you didn't down size it from seven to one, I don't know how I could support it.
There's too much issues.
And all of those issues are not your petitioner's problem.
I know that and you know that.
But it just seems, like Mary said, and I was not laughing at Mary, I was smiling at Mary when she was showing her frustration, because I think enough is enough is enough.
And Ms. O'Brien didn't think she was a very good artist.
I think she's an incredible artist and showed us a very good picture about what's going on.
And maybe if it's a townhouse area it was okay for this one and this one and this one.
But at the point that it's super saturated, it just can't survive.
I'm trying to give you a fair -- not a pre-judged decision if you came back with something.
To be quite frank, if I were in your shoes, I don't know what you could come up with that would tell me it's a workable deal and doable deal regardless of how many times you meet with that neighborhood.
I think you're trying to be fair to come back with us and try to tell us you're going to try to do this and do that.
But frankly there's too many things for you to do for us to --
>>> I prefer to have the opportunity and not be successful at it than not have it at all.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And Mr. Michelini, it's not at all directed towards you.
It's our collective frustration.
It's analogous to -- a house is required to be set back 20 feet from the front, seven feet from the sides, and 20 feet from the back, let's say.
When we came up with the setbacks we didn't assume that every other square inch would be taken up.
And I think that's an appropriate analogy to this neighborhood.
I don't think this council, which, by the way, didn't do the underlying land use densities, didn't believe that every single parcel would be built out to the absolute maximum allowed.
I don't think that was the intention of the council who did it.
And I don't think that anyone understood the implications of what it would be.
So my move to get this off the dime is to move to continue this for six months, with no expectation to be looked upon favorably when it comes back, unless the density were severely, severely limited.
That's my motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a second?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, we need to close the public hearing first.
We are not continuing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we are.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I said to continue it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you get a second?
Mr. Michelini, with all due respect --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just can't support this.
I can't support a continuance.
Because I don't -- unless you come back and you say I'm going to put five units in here.
Here we go again.
Three units, whatever.
You're asking us to reduce the green space from 700 square feet to 230 square feet.
It's just a plain old --
>>> I don't want to continue this plan.
I want to come back with a new plan.
>> And that's what I'm getting at.
If this is what you are expecting --
>>> I'm not expecting to do anything with that plan.
>> Then you shouldn't have come to us with this.
Because you know what you're going to get.
And do you this all the time.
You ask for a continuance.
In the meantime, you frustrate us.
Because this is not a good plan.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can.
Not to interject.
And before the public hearing is closed.
From a due process standpoint, granting a six-month continuance defeats the notice requirements to the people in the community and the people in opposition.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I withdraw my motion.
>>> We'll renotice.
Make it part of the motion.
I'll be happy to renotice.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I withdraw my --
>>> the owner of this project is not in town.
I don't have any latitude to discuss anything with him for at least another couple of weeks.
And that's why I was asking for an opportunity to go back to the owner, go back to the designer, let me rework this plan, and six months is plenty of time to address any issue that we might have.
I certainly would be happy to renotice the neighbors.
That's not an issue either.
So I'm not trying to subvert the due process by not noticing it.
But I do respectfully request the opportunity to come back.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I'm going back to what Mr. Dingfelder said earlier.
Regarding if you deny it, there is a 12-month waiting period.
But, in effect, from what Mr. Shelby is bringing up, it may be better that you deny it with the conditions that council will allow him to come back in six months instead of waiting 12 months with a new petition, and you have to renotice.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other thing I believe is in that rule says unless there's significant -- significant changes, and that's what we are saying, make significant changes.
Downtown have to wait at all.
>>> Well, in a, it states if there are significant changes they can request a waiver.
A waiver of the 12 months.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Okay.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think that Ms. Hurley poses a good suggestion.
So again if we denied it, but we allowed him to come back with another motion, a way he can come back in six months, certainly our expectation from what we have heard, we are really talking about another totally different petition.
And if it was reduced enough that was suitable to the neighborhood and we could get something on that property that satisfies him, then everybody would be happy.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: One of the things -- we are getting a lot of different recommendations on what to do.
And they are coming from people other than myself requesting it of you.
And I need to request from you, first, a continuance.
We have some issues that I have represented to you that I believe we can address, including the density issues, including the design issues, including the infrastructure issues, given the appropriate amount of time.
We have people involved -- I don't want to get into contractual obligations regarding designing of engineering and stuff.
If we stop this process on this petition, I have to go back and reengage all those other design professionals, and do a who the other series of things, plus I have to repay all of the submission fees and start all over again.
I'm asking to save me from having to go back and renegotiate contracts, that allow me to go forward.
It's the same issue.
We are going to come back to you with a revised plan.
I would prefer not having to start from zero.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would suggest a three-month --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Six months.
>> I would suggest a three month continue answer.
I think in three months he can come back with plans, he can talk to the neighborhood, he can work with staff in three months.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can we get a second?
Is anybody going to second three months?
>>ROSE FERLITA: He said he was okay with it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I made a motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you second?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
Mrs. Alvarez?
One other thing.
Another thing addressing here is that the units are not fronting a public or private street.
Are you going to be able to change that?
That they are facing the rear of an existing multifamily development.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: They don't.
That's a misunderstanding which I said I was going to clarify -- clarify with the elevations.
It's not graphically drawn correctly.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
That was one of the issues brought up at DRC.
And the appropriateness.
I believe that what needs to be addressed here is this site really appropriate for town homes?
It's not -- it not necessarily a number of units issued.
It's town homes.
Town homes are really single family attached.
This S this really a large enough site for town homes?
LDC when we reviewed this, DRC made that suggestion to Michelini, and his petitioner, that this wasn't really an appropriate site for town homes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the issues just brought up are the key issues, and that's what we need to bring back.
And perhaps professionals engaged previously aren't the right professionals to engage.
Maybe you think somebody who thinks more creatively about the site.
Because obviously all of the council members are unhappy with this site plan and this proposal.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's my assumption and my hope.
And Steve, this is certainly not meant to be threatening.
It's just advising you that if it comes back even remotely similar to a townhouse type project, I'm not going to support it.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I understand.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini, you understood quite well what the council said.
Now what they want.
>>> I heard you loud and clearly.
>> You know what the neighbors don't want and what they want.
And I think giving you three months, I think you can come back with something that will please the neighborhood, the council, and everybody else.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, just one thing, if that's what T way we decide it, to the audience.
Obviously it's going to come back with a brand new petition and you can certainly come back again and voice your opinion.
I'm sorry?
Yes, you will be notified.
And as I said --.
>>GWEN MILLER: They ever going to meet with you.
>>> The disadvantage is you sat here a long time and we are going to do it again.
But the advantage might be that when he comes back with the petitioner he understands that the drawing you gave us tells us that the density is serious.
So maybe it will be something everybody can endorse so put up with the process of having to come back.
And come up with something much better hopefully.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the sake of clarifying the record.
That Mr. Michelini, my understanding is that you have agreed and suggested that you will renotice?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I will renotice.
That should be part of your motion, that we post the signs and we renotice according to your notice provisions in the code.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I incorporate that into my motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do we have a date certain?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: This should be an evening meeting.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Sandy, an evening meeting?
>>GWEN MILLER: May 26th at 6:00.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
We are going to go to item number 8.
>> Move to open item number 8.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
Move to open number 8.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I have been sworn.
It's a petition to rezone property at 3105 West Granada Street from RM-16 to PD professional office.
This is an existing nonconforming photo studio which has an accessory retail component to the photo shop, and also a residential unit.
This property was zoned C-2 under the old code, and during zoning conformance, the land use was changed from a commercial land use to residential land use, and the zoning was brought into compliance with the land use from C-2 to RM-16.
>> Gee oh graphic clarification.
This across the street from the rezoning we saw a couple weeks ago?
>>> Yes.
Yes, it is.
>> You all remember that?
The Granada would you knows that we talked about so long that we eventually denied, I think.
>> This is unrelated.
>> It's unrelated but across the street.
>> It is a current nonconforming: Way was trying to explain is during the zoning conformance, the land use was changed from a commercial land use to a residential land use.
Therefore, the city had to put RM-16 making it consistent with the land use, and that's when the nonconformity was created.
The petitioner is asking that through this PD, the nonconformity be recognized.
However, because there are so many issues on the site plan and we have been negotiating to the last minute with notes added, which you can see, we did ask that a note be added that any redevelopment of this site would have to be built to comply with the code in the site at the time of redevelopment.
Because there's so many issues in terms of zero lot line, commercial tandem parking, which is not supported by our code.
So we did ask that that note be put on there.
And I also placed a note on the site plan that states it will comply with chapter 27, section 27-325, which makes it comply with RO, RO-1 and CN, which are residential and commercial neighborhood districts.
So the redevelopment we also have to comply to that.
There are many other conditions that have been placed on this site.
We limited the permitted uses, with the accessory retail, photo studio, or if the photo studio because it is a business office and operates by appointment only, if the photo studio goes away they could have business professional.
They can't have the photo studio and add an additional business office to this.
And there is currently one residential unit.
So we did have many objections.
At the last minute we were able to address a concern, a major concern of LDC and transportation concerning an existing wall.
And if you look at the picture, you will see this wall goes straight to the sidewalk, six feet high.
Our concern was for pedestrian safety.
So we have a note placed on the site plan that states that this wall will be reduced to three feet for at least a ten-foot setback, and the wall on this side must meet site distance when it goes to permitting.
Also, we have limited it to no more than three employees, whether it's the photo shop or the business office and the photo shop has to remain by appointment only.
Transportation, because it's an existing six tandem parking space was changes to the wall for the safety issues, land development and transportation are not objecting to the waiver to request council to allow them to keep the six tandem spaces as long as it's understood that they redevelop the site to code standards.
With that said, we currently don't have any outstanding objections.
There are, I believe, some neighborhood people here who came to us.
I asked them before the meeting.
They explained to me that they did have some concerns about the commercial use here about the tandem spaces, and about just the upkeep of the site in general, and they are here to address that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a basic question.
This use exists as an existing nonconform use, correct?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And what are we supposed to be doing?
Making it -- what's the request, to legitimate what's the existing nonconforming use?
>>> I believe Mr. Michelini can address that better.
But it was told to me in our meetings that there's a finance issue.
And so the current owner has come to council asking for the PD.
However, because of the major design issues with the site, we were not willing to support the recognition that if it redevelops it really needs to be redeveloped to code standards.
So I think what the petitioner is attempting to do is have a PD that will allow him to go to construction services when he wants to redevelop, and meet the code, and have a commercial -- how do you recognize commercial uses on the site because it historically has been commercial, for over 20 years.
And the nonconformity wasp passed through zoning compliance.
Does that make sense?
>> It does.
I have to say, I was around then, and it was a very erratic time in terms of quality of decision making.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: And he is willing to make that change if it went into redevelopment.
If they decided to redevelop it would meet the code, and they thought that was fair, and we removed our objections.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the definition of redevelopment?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Major renovations.
Change.
If he attempted to do any use other than what's recognized here he obviously would have to come back before council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One other question.
Excuse me.
I'm looking at the site plan.
There does not appear to be any green space.
>>> It's currently 96 or 94% impervious.
Currently is.
>> How come there's no request for a waiver?
>>> We are asking to recognize it, as it is, recognizing it's nonconforming as it is.
And asking that any redevelopment would be built to comply.
>> Built to comply, does that mean with existing -- with current requirement?
Because if it is, then there should be a request for waiver.
>>> I think he could address that more clearly because it's a chapter 13 waiver-f there is a waiver requirement.
Because the waivers for buffers for chapter 27 buffers are on here.
>>> Greg Yurcus construction services.
I have been sworn.
Regarding green space requirements coming into effect when we have a nonresidential parcel, when we do an increase floor area, increase of new parking, this isn't proposing either at the time.
So it's kind of exempt from the landscape code.
Granted if they come back to do a remodel or retrofit it, they rebuild this, they will have to come into full compliance.
But at this time, there's nothing in the landscape code that triggers them to add green space or create green space.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks, Greg.
Ms. Saul-Sena, are you through with Greg?
I know I probably misunderstood you but in your first presentation, did you say that there would be a requirement of no more than three people there at a time?
How?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Three employees.
They have limited it to three employees.
Because apparently the photo studio that's currently being ran out of the property, he does have two assistants.
We actually wanted it to be limited to less than three.
But he claims that he has two assistants already, and that would limit his ability to continue his current business.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
Future land use map, I have for you on the Elmo basically shows here along South MacDill heavy commercial 24 and residential 20, as you go away to the west, from MacDill.
Here's the subject site right here.
We did have to pull out some old maps to see exactly how far the C-2 went back.
The C-2 actually went back father than what this parcel was at.
But it is definitely was within the C-2 zoning, and that does make it consistent with policy B-5.8 in the comprehensive plan which states that neighborhood commercial offices built prior to the plan in 1989 shall continue to be -- based on that, I think a recognition from what I'm understanding to go from the RM-16 to the PD, when you have a conveyance of property in trying to finance, I believe when we have done plan amendment we have brought plan amendments to you in the past.
It's basically to recognize, you know, a land use that is existing there, but doesn't conform to whatever the existing zoning is or the land use.
We have found that people have had a variety of kinds of impediments in terms of financing or insurability which is why they haven't come in with the zoning for the land use for lending institutions.
Relative to where it's at and relative to the areas to the uses in the surrounding area, it would be restricted to whatever the existing uses are within the PD.
Of course, if there's going to be any changes whatsoever, as Mr. Yurcus has alluded to and what Ms. Hurley has alluded to, you have to come in for a PD and bring in any specific changes or requirements that you would want to see along with that PD.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was just talking to Mr. Shelby.
And we cannot figure out why you either conform or you ask for a waiver in terms of landscaping.
And it seems like because they are not providing it, there should be a waiver request noted on here.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: We can put a waiver on there --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because it reflect the reality which is if we approve this PD it is in fact waiving all landscaping except for a few palms.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Well, but it's not waiving.
Because if he redevelops, he would have --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What it's asking for now is what he has, which is waiving -- they are not complying, and therefore they are waiving the landscape requirements.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: But what I am trying to say is that is why we asked him to put a note on here that he will meet the code, if he redevelops.
Redevelopment can also mean that if he goes to construction services and does a change of use to go to the business office, he has to meet the code for his business office parking requirement.
That is going to trigger him to change his parking.
Then he has to actually begin to redevelop the site, and have to meet the code, because --
>> but it impossible for him to meet the parking requirements and the landscape code on this little tiny site.
It's impossible.
>>> The point is he has to.
Otherwise he would have to come back before council.
I'm sorry.
We don't want him to put the waiver on there.
Because the waiver is saying that it's okay.
Not having the waiver and saying he must meet the code means that he will have to come back to council if he can't meet the code.
That's why I didn't want a waiver.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Got it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'll try to explain why we are in this process.
Steve Michelini here on behalf of George Alvarez.
This is the site of Alvarez photography.
He's been there.
He built this building as under the old C-2 guideline which is now CI.
That's why you have zero lot line construction.
That's why you have minimal buffers.
That's why you have a six-foot masonry wall on the west side.
And that's what was -- they are huddling.
Do you want a recess?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When did he build it?
>>> Around 1981, '82.
Under conformancy starting in '87.
And Mrs. Saul-Sena is correct.
It was a mess.
Jorge Alvarez was not in town.
Weighs in Miami doing photographic shoots for an extended period of time.
If he had returned one of these little postcards and said, I want my property to remain as is, we wouldn't be here tonight.
He would have had what he needed.
At this point he's trying to best a nonconforming use.
He's not trying to expand it.
If he does any expansions whatsoever, he will have to be the trigger full site compliance.
I talked to the staff about how would we put in protective measures to insure that it isn't some method of allowing issues to expand?
And so that's what we came back and said, okay, fine.
Any redevelopment of this site has to comply with the new codes.
Now, I had intended for that redevelopment to comply with RM-16 guidelines, not RO-1.
And I don't know if it's more restrictive or the same but that was our intent, was to comply with the underlining -- underlying zoning that exists there now.
We also had included in here that we are cutting the masonry wall back, that it's limited to business and professional uses that are existing there with a maximum of three employees, and limited by appointment only.
So what we were talking about here was that this shouldn't become an Olan Mills or J.C. Penney's thing where we have kids and parents lining out the door.
This is a photographic studio.
They do very high end advertisements for national publications.
And international publications.
In discussing with the neighbors, we also had agreed that there would be hours limiting the operation for the photo studio 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and no Sunday operations.
And in the retail 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no Sunday operations.
Just to provide an extra level of protection, so that nothing was going to happen, where at least we could control.
And I also advise them if they could think of a reasonable condition that would make them feel comfortable we would be happy to put it on there.
In the redevelopment scenario, the owner of the property to come in but they would have to redevelop an RM-16, development guidelines, whatever they are.
So that -- and I've also been told you can't change that.
This is a planned development.
Someone else couldn't come in, tear the building down and build back in the same location.
It's not possible to do that under this scenario.
And I guess if any changes to the site plan would require City Council approval.
Our difficulty comes in with two areas, refinancing, and financing for purchase.
If you refinance a piece of property and the bank requests you to provide letters of certification because it's a commercial property, not the residential side, typically, when you have nonconforming uses they require letters, certifying that it's either a legal nonconforming use or it's an illegal nonconforming use and all those things trigger difficulties in financing.
He's currently trying to build a new studio, and would like to continue his use here.
And when it's redeveloped it would redevelop at RM-16 character.
And that's really I guess the summary and the short of what's being asked here.
We are not trying to expand the use.
Not trying to increase the intensity.
When you raise the question about where is the landscaping, when they develop the site, that was the C-2 guidelines that he developed on.
If you start tearing part of that up, then he no longer can meet any of the parking requirements access.
We would have to change all of these things around, which is an incentive to leave the incidental property the way it is.
It's also his residence.
And it has a professional office studio upstairs, and incidental retail is downstairs on the first level.
There are plenty of incentives in here not to expand and there's lots of controls to prevent that from happening, besides the fact that neighbors are vigilant, and if someone attempted to convert this to a straight retail instead of incidental retail we would be in violation of -- that would immediately stop that kind of activity.
They don't have any intention of doing that.
They simply want to continue the use they have.
That's to allow them the flexibility to obtain financing either for themselves or in a purchasing arrangement.
And that's what we are trying to accomplish.
But I did agree to add the additional notes in a redevelopment scenario to develop to RM-16 guidelines.
And notes regarding hours of operation 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday, no Sunday, incidental retail the same hours, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, no Sunday.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
After discussing Mrs. Saul-Sena's point with legal, and CSC, Greg Yurcus, I do understand what Mrs. Saul-Sena was saying, that if it is not meeting the current code there should always be a waiver.
From a procedural standpoint, Greg has always looked at it that if there was an existing use, and they weren't making certain changes that triggered chapter 13, he didn't make them put a waiver on there.
We certainly can go back and dop that.
And perhaps it would be more clear.
In that sense.
And Greg is stating that they have no problem making that change on PDs always showing a waiver.
However, we would request that we could go back and do that on this one because it would require probably about seven waivers.
If we actually listed them all out.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel after Mr. Michelini's explanation the waiver were included on here as the future they would have a waiver and in fact if anything would happen in the future I would want them to comply and I wouldn't want them to have a waiver.
I just wanted some kind of recognition that what's there now doesn't at all meet the intent of the code.
I think number 8 which says project development shall comply with chapter 13 that addresses it adequately.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I think we need to clarify then on the site plan more clearly that we are only recognizing these waivers as they exist, because we are asking that he redevelop to the code.
So perhaps we need to clarify that.
I have to be honest with you, these notes were added today.
So it's been very difficult trying to negotiate these issues with transportation, and going back and forth with the petitioner.
So the language might not be as great as we would all like.
And that makes me uncomfortable then, because I want it to be clear that we're recognizing this now, to allow this to be conforming, but, however, in any chance of redevelopment, the waivers would not be recognized.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, put that picture back up for a minute.
Which wall are you talking about?
The one on the left side?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: This building here.
>> Oh, that one there?
Okay.
What's the building on the -- the big building?
Is that the Salvation Army?
>>> No, the Salvation Army is a block away.
>> What's there?
>>> To tell you the truth, I don't remember.
It's a whole string of little shops.
>> There's a car parked.
And then there seems to be -- is that a house there?
>>> In the back?
>> Yes.
Keep going.
See where the car is?
Right there.
Right there.
Put your finger on it.
Is that the house there?
>>> No.
This is the wall for the commercial building that we're talking about.
>> That's it.
Because I can't tell.
It looks like --
>>> where you see the purple wall, that's the western boundary of the property we're talking about.
Snoop okay.
Now the eastern boundary --
>>> The eastern boundary is right behind the telephone pole.
>> What is that?
>>> That's a masonry wall.
>> Okay.
When Mr. Alvarez decides to do whatever he's going to do there, is he planning to clean up the landscaping that's there?
>>> That's in the right-of-way.
>> What about behind it?
>>> That's a masonry wall.
>> There's nothing behind there?
Okay.
>>> This is all plants, looks like palm trees in the right-of-way.
>> And what about looks like palm trees behind it?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Hurley, correct me if I am wrong.
If did you not see that area that is a concern to Mrs. Alvarez?
That had to go back as far as necessary to clean the site obstruction.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what I'm getting at.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: On both sides?
On this side they already agreed to go back ten feet.
Three feet, no higher than three feet, at least ten feet.
Here, what they have agreed to with transportation is that it will meet the site distance requirements.
So they will have to do whatever adjustments that need to be done to this site plan to make it meet the --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what I was getting at.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to item number 8?
If you want to speak, please come up and line up and speak.
Anyone that's going to speak, please get up and line up on the side.
All right.
Let's come on.
Let's start speaking.
>>> There's been a group that wasn't sworn in.
That includes myself.
>>GWEN MILLER: All who haven't been sworn in please raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> My name is Brent Farris, the vice-president of Palma Ceia neighborhood association.
I live at 3405 west Barcelona street.
We had a meeting with the neighborhood association members and other concerned citizens.
Of the about 25 people that attended, there was a large majority of people in opposition to this project.
The opposition focuses mainly on Sunday.
The current use of the property has not been too intrusive on our neighborhood.
The problem is that the future use by speculator is wide open.
And I believe the waivers that are requested for the -- that are requested right now are demonstrative of the issues and problems that can be attenuated by a use besides what is currently being used there.
Those waivers are waiver parking spaces.
I haven't seen a site plan on the big screen yet.
I want to show you how this parking really works here.
So we have a appreciation for what parking is.
We have six spaces right here.
And then farther down we have a handicapped space. Let's say we have a business here, park there.
Now this is business and it doubles the amount of customers.
In order for this customer to park, we believe, he's going to have to back in.
And we're just talking two customers and one employee.
They want three employees to be able to park here.
That's how many commerce we have at that time, too.
We have got a real nightmare of people backing in, backing out of this particular project.
The next waiver requested is a waiver for office traffic on the local streets.
This project is two blocks north of the intersection of Bay to Bay and MacDill.
Both Bay to Bay and MacDill are busy streets.
A cut-off for people coming south on MacDill that get stuck at the light.
They take a right, down Granada, make a left on Ferdinand, Concordia, and back out to Bay to Bay without waiting for the traffic light and Bay to Bay.
Minimum 20-foot driveway width versus 30 foot required with 10-foot flares for a total of 40 feet versus 50 feet required.
Okay.
So we are going to bottleneck these cars backing in and out onto a busy street.
We want to create more of a bottleneck.
Don't let us have the freedom the code provides by having a space required.
Let's bottleneck these cars backing in and out of a busy residential street.
Waive landscape buffer requirement due to existing development.
94% impervious area on this project.
And they want to waive more landscaping requirements.
The hardship that the buyer has here is they can't get financing.
That is generated by greed.
If banks will loan --.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Finish your sentence, sir.
>>> Banks will loan residential money on residential lots.
Commercial of course is more valuable than residential.
They can be financing on this because there is already residential.
Banks throw money at South Tampa dirt.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Robert Frost.
I live at 3117 West Granada, four lots from this development.
I have been sworn in.
Mr. Alvarez has been a great neighbor.
We haven't had any issues with his parking or his business.
I'm not here to fight that.
My only concern, I'm not a banker and I don't understand how the financing works.
My only concern is why is this even going through rezoning?
Except for we have been told it's for financing.
It's the nonconforming use, an existing building.
We're okay with that.
Can we just leave it at RM-16 as a nonconforming use?
And let them deal with their financing issues.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>> Good evening.
Lori Gennis, Barcelona street.
I just want to add to council's perspective.
This is a 50 by 100 foot lot.
It is an existing street that's mostly residential.
With the exception of the corner of MacDill and Granada street.
And our issues that were brought before us were residents clearly parking.
They have the traffic on Granada street because of this.
The issues which the site plan has with respect to the waivers that have already been mentioned are one thing.
There's also a feature in there about height restrictions.
And I'm not sure if that's the current height to what could be proposed.
But you have bungalows, very small bungalows next door.
So one thing that something from the future aspect when we are concerned about this PD.
We are concerned not with the current users.
He's been a wonderful neighbor.
And we have enjoyed his company on our street.
But it's what could happen in the future.
It's what could happen if this PD is accepted and what could happen to our parking problems and what could change.
What happened in the 1980s was unfortunate but we need to look at this time in the year 2000 and make sure we don't make another mistake that we are going to have to look at for the next 20 years.
So I respectfully request that you consider all of the implications that this change and use would allow this property owner, and would affect the neighborhood.
Thank you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Ma'am, have you been sworn, for the record?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> My name is Tom Gordon.
I live at 3411 west Granada Street.
I have been sworn.
What I would like to speak to you, given that I drive down Granada all the time, I drive past this place every day on my way to work.
As everyone else has spoken to you, I have no problem with Mr. Alvarez and his current use of this facility.
But if you change it from RM-16 to the PD -- I'm learning the definitions and everything now -- especially with the parking, as soon as I looked at it, I was alarmed, bus because what would happen, whoever moved in, we don't know.
It's the uncertainty of what will go in there.
Because certainly those six tandem parking spaces would be ignored and we would end up with people parking on Granada street.
You don't know how familiar you are with Granada but it is a very narrow street, much more narrow between Himes and MacDill than it is between Himes and Kennedy.
Significantly more narrow.
And on more than one indication as I drive down that street I have been blocked in by cars that park next to each other. In one occasion there was a party going on.
I was blocked in.
As I was looking around, trying to get the person to move, I thought I'll just back out and go around.
More people pulled up and blocked me in.
I had to go into the party and say, somebody has got to move.
These are the issues that we worry about, should someone else move in there, and if you make this change.
Ideally, the goal is to keep it RM-16.
There's really no reason to change that.
Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is Tom Watkey, Palmira.
I'm sure you are aware as Mrs. Alvarez stated earlier, the density problems, particularly in South Tampa, are just becoming overwhelming.
And of course our neighborhood is under attack by the condo monster, also.
And these issues are a real problem for those of us who live in the primarily residential neighborhood.
And I'm opposed to this petition simply because I'm opposed to any type of changing an existing zoning or existing use which allows for either greater density today or in the future, or would allow for any kind of commercial development that even further encroaches into the neighborhood.
I understand this gentleman's situation had come about, almost by accident.
But again I am strictly opposed to this because of all the dynamics of our neighborhood at the present time.
Our issue is not with the petitioner but it's with the total neighborhood condition that we have at this present time.
Thank you for your time.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And were you sworn?
>>> Yes, I was sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> Good evening.
My name is Richard Edgeworth.
I have been sworn.
I live at 3109 Granada street.
I am the next door neighbor of the subject property and have been for over 20 years.
I have had absolutely no problems with the operation of that office/residence for all of these years.
There's been no traffic problems whatsoever.
The building has been kept in -- it's in excellent condition.
Excellent.
Mr. Alvarez's family built that building, some 25 years ago.
They are general contractors, and you probably heard of Alvarez homes.
It's his brother and their family that built that building.
As for the reason we're here to go from RM-16 to PD, it's strictly to do with brewing it into the use that it is, that it's been used for, that has been for all these years.
I'm completely in agreement with all of the waivers that you request of that property.
And I agree with it.
I don't want a high traffic business there.
I don't want anything to change as far as the amount of activity that goes on next door.
In our neighborhood.
We have enough, quite enough, actually.
And I see that that's a good use for that building.
It could not support anything other than what it is.
And that is a low-use office space.
With the residence upstairs.
As for the parking, the way they built it, I wouldn't agree with that.
I wouldn't do it that way.
But that's the way it was done.
And I don't think that that would be an issue with any kind of a low profile professional business.
So I'm in favor of it.
Of the zoning change.
And I ask City Council to give it -- I know you will give it good consideration.
And I don't see that as being any kind of a problem there.
I thank you.
I thank you all for all of your work.
I have been sitting here for -- all of us have been sitting hear for over four and a half hours, five hours here.
I have my hat off to you all.
Thank you.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Whether you do anything with the site, if they did anything at all now, they would trying are full site compliance.
To make any changes.
If they went to commercial site plan, they would be required to make whatever it takes for the code to meet the code, which means it could meet the code.
There's no plan for them to demolish the building and then come back and say, okay, we have accepted waivers.
Those waivers stay with this plan, existing conditions.
That's all it does.
Any redevelopment of this site has to comply with RM-16.
Has to.
We put it on the plan.
We also restricted the hours.
The waivers that we requested are waivers that reflect what the existing conditions are.
We didn't ask for any additional waivers.
We didn't add things on, say, oh, let's get a little of this, a little of that.
We didn't do that.
We have an office there.
We have a small retail that's incidental.
We have a studio, photographic shop in the back.
And we have a residence on the second level.
If you don't allow this to happen, and what you are saying, the city made a mistake, staff said they made a mistake, they said so, they came up and said, we're sorry, we can't do anything about it, you have to apply for rezoning.
He built it under C-2.
By rights it should remain CI under zoning conformance and land use on the concurrency.
But it didn't.
He lost his rights.
It inflicted damage, financial damage and harm to him.
He has a significant hardship.
The plans are to allow the same low-level intensive use to remain to operate in a normal capacity with little or no impact on the neighborhood.
You heard them all say, existing neighborhood, no impact.
And that's what we are trying to do.
As I said to you earlier, if you can think of a reasonable -- some other language that you want on the site plan that says, you know, this is going to remain low intensive until it's redeveloped we'll put the language on there. We are very open about that.
They have asked me earlier, they asked me, would you agree to these three or four things?
I said yes.
There was no argument about it.
And there isn't any attempt here to try to expand the use.
With respect to the tandem parking, that's just the way the site functions now.
Employees and residents park in the back.
They are going to be there. They're stuck.
Anybody that comes in will have to come in and park behind them.
But those are existing conditions.
Ideally when you design it that -- would you design that the way?
Of course not.
Of course not.
You could never build this this way now.
All the development regulations changed.
They've changed twice since this was originally built.
So, anyway, he does have a hardship.
He has a significant hardship.
We're asking for some relief.
We're asking for some relief that was less than what he was entitled to before.
And it's a fair and reasonable request.
And we respectfully request your approval.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Michelini, according to the request here it says there is a request to utilize the business professional offices before the studio closes.
That seems to be the problem that the neighborhood in that area are concerned about.
Can you give us some assurances that that won't happen, that they won't become a professional office?
Will that have to come back to us?
I'm not sure.
I'm asking.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: It has to be incidental.
And we have outlined the areas.
They are minimal areas.
It can't become a principal use as an office.
First of all you wouldn't have the room to do that.
But if there's something -- these are all identified on the waivers -- on the permitted uses as incidental.
They're not -- that's why we added this note that says business and professional office, limited to three employees, photo studio limited by appointment only, and it's the same, three employees.
It couldn't become a large office.
>> So if it became a business professional office --
>>> it's still restricted.
>> Three employees and only by appointment?
>>> Yes.
Restricted.
>> I understand.
And I'm satisfied with the way it is.
I like the idea that you told us what the hours were, and that the Monday through Saturday and noon Sundays.
>>> We need to add those hours to the site plan because those were items that I discussed in the hallway after we already had these notes on there.
But we certainly are willing to add them.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question for staff.
Signage.
There's currently no signage.
Would any signage be placed on there?
>>> Any signage must comply with chapter 27-325 regarding the RAO-1.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's the kind of thing that makes the neighborhood crazy, I think.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Signs that are existing -- we are not trying to do anything extra.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I'm not sure --.
>>GWEN MILLER: I believe what I heard from the neighborhood is they are fine with what is, and what is exists with this zoning, and they are concerned that if this PD is allowed that something can change.
And so --.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn in.
When we reviewed this site, staff looked at the history of the site.
And the history is that this site was commercially zoned.
And it was built under commercial zoning, C-2, chapter 43.
It was changed in 1987.
So we had to look at those issues as well.
And we looked at the fact that it has historically been commercial.
>> It's been a combination, if you look at the proposal before us, the majority, there's residential and commercial use, and the zoning is RM-16, which is residential.
>>> Right.
The zoning was changed in 1987.
But what I'm trying to say is that the reason our recommendation was what it is is because we had to look at the totality and the history and the fact that the city created the nonconformity through zoning compliance.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Ms. Saul-Sena, if you wanted to restrict any new signage to a certain dimension, I mean, we have done this before, where we have incidental signs that are very small, or the existing signage that's there.
We are not trying to expand that.
So if you want to recognize existing signs, I don't know what it is.
But if you had something in mind, like a 2 by 3 or 1 by 2 or something like that, we should put that on the plan now and restrict it.
So again that was not our intention to expand the positive -- potential accessory use.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Michelini, I understand what you're saying.
But I think to echo what Mrs. Saul-Sena's concerns are if we go from where ware to where you want us to go there's always that opportunity in terms of signs.
You can't say that nothing different is going to happen.
>>> You just don't allow any more signage than what's existing on the sign.
Prohibit any additional signage.
And we'll put it on the site plan.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not enthused about this.
>>> You could change the face but you couldn't change the amount.
So you don't have any additional signage.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Bottom line on this one is that it's a legal nonconforming use and we have those all over the city.
And just because they are legal nonconforming uses doesn't mean just because you have a financial issue that you can come along and say, you know, I want to change the zoning and try and make it, you know, make it legally conforming.
I don't think it works that way.
You know, the PD process on your chapter 27-326 has certain requirement.
Requirements include that the property shall ensure complete compatibility with themselves and with adjacent and future land uses.
The adjacent uses in this property is incompatible and inconsistent with the adjacent land uses as it's being proposed here tonight.
The vice-president of the neighborhood association, Brent, said as follows: Banks are throwing money at South Tampa dirt.
And that is so true.
So bottom line is this is a good, normal size piece of property in South Tampa.
It's zoned higher than most areas.
It's zoned RM-16 instead of RS-50.
So he can go to the bank, and maximize the -- pull all the money he wants to pull out of that property which is what he apparently wants to do with refinancing, which is right.
But he can do it on an RM-16 basis.
It might be a little less money than if you get on a commercial basis.
For that reason there's no hardship whatsoever on this property.
And I'll move to deny.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to deny.
Any questions on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Do you read it?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3105 west Granada street in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RM-16 residential multifamily to PD professional office providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to deny.
(Motion carried)
Number 9.
>> Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
There was a typo on the staff report.
It said RS-60 to PD.
Actually it should have said PD to PD.
The original zoning was RS-60 but it was changed to PD a couple years ago.
The petitioner is coming back before you to rezone this property because he would like to add a fireplace and an exterior spiral staircase.
The fireplace and both the exterior spiral staircase are attached to the principal structure and therefore are considered a change in the setbacks.
So he had to come back before council.
He also had to go to A.R.C. because this is in the Hyde Park historic district.
The objection here, A.R.C. has in a problem with the fireplace shown on the site plan.
However, they do not support the spiral staircase, the exterior spiral staircase as it is not a feature found in the district.
The petitioner is aware of this objection, and I believe would like to address with council the availability to go back and redesign a staircase that the historic district would be okay with.
Thank you.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Planning Commission has no objection to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Ken Walters.
I am agent owner of 2109 West Dekle Avenue which I intend to be my residence and I have not been sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
I'm aware that the A.R.C. is not supporting the spiral staircase, but I would like it approved by council so that I can go back to the A.R.C. and perhaps work with them to get something designed that they would like.
I also have two letters which I think should be in the file from the -- my west neighbors, Bill Thumm and Mel Abrams supporting my request.
And that should be in the file.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this the house started under construction and then the construction stopped, and now --
>>> Yes.
>> It's on a slab but nothing has gone on for like a year or two?
>>> That's correct.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if there are any questions by council members.
Any questions by council members?
We go to the public.
Anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 9.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Procedurally I'm a little confused in terms of this thing bouncing back and forth, A.R.C., us.
What is the impact of our approving the modification of a PD on the A.R.C.?
>>> Julie: I have been sworn.
If the applicant wants to redesign the staircase and have that reviewed, then I would recommend a continuance to allow him the opportunity to do that.
Otherwise, you would have to act upon -- act upon what's in front of you, which is an application with a recommendation that the staircase part of that application not be approved from A.R.C..
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't have a picture of the stairway and that's like not our job.
That's like the A.R.C.'s job.
>>> I understand.
>> So I would be comfortable supporting the fireplace which everybody seems to be happy about.
And the PD.
And just saying that the decision about the staircase should rest squarely in the A.R.C..
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But if he goes to the A.R.C. and they design a different type of software case then you might want to have this PD rezoning still opened.
Right?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My impression would be that once this council approves this site plan, this site plan is controlling.
So the question that I would raise would be that if it's something that has to be -- that the site plan has to be graphically amended as a result of something, that the A.R.C. recommends, then my recommendation -- my recommendation would be that the site plan that has to be presented to council is the one that would actually be --.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
However, with the A.R.C. he has to go back to A.R.C..
And if they decide they don't want any staircase, and he's reducing the setback, I believe that would not be considered a substantial change to the PD.
If they are just worried about the design of the staircase and it's not increasing -- or decreasing the setback, then it wouldn't be a substantial change either.
So I believe it most likely won't be a substantial change because the issue is, will they approve the staircase, or does he just have to design it differently and not be spiral?
And it won't change the setback.
So, in other words, the objection is an objection that I'm not -- the way I understood it from A.R.C. is that he could work this out at permitting, through the A.R.C. because he has to go back to them through permitting.
>>> It's my understanding perhaps council could approve the actual setback.
If nothing can be done until the A.R.C. approves and has correct site plan and all the aspects thereof.
It's my understanding -- I really don't know anything.
It's that if we can get the setback approved, then I can go to the A.R.C. and have them approve a staircase, if they would like or not like or not approve one at all.
>>MARY ALVAREZ:
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
Wouldn't it be safer just to leave this petition open?
Because the minute that we close the petition and we approve it, the A.R.C. says, now what?
The staircase would really be better off, like over here.
And over is slightly outside, you know, in the balance of the footprint.
Then he has to start the whole process over.
>> If A.R.C. isn't happy about where it is, I don't really -- I won't really want it.
But it's something I would like where it is, and I understand A.R.C. wants to look a certain way.
>> We -- you don't want a continuance?
You would rather leave the staircase alone, not consider the staircase?
>>> I'd like the setback approved, contingent upon the A.R.C. approving its design.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I understand.
Maybe they would like something --
>>> it's my understanding that you approve the setback, but they don't approve the design of it until they are happy with it, I can't build the staircase and I would be fine with that.
>> Where is the setback?
>>> It is on the wet side of the property, adjacent to the neighbors that wrote the letters of support, and --
>> how big a setback?
>>> What is it, two feet?
I'm sorry.
On the west side?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: They are objecting to the spiral -- the exterior spiral staircase because it not founded in the historic district
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You will never get a spiral staircase, but you will likely get an okay of a stair square case because there are a lot of square staircases leading from --
>>> that's what I originally wanted.
And I was encouraged to the spiral staircase but I was actually looking for the setback to have the staircase go up the side of the house.
They would like --
>> Isn't that what we are really addressing, is the setback?
>>> Setback, yes.
>> So we can address the staircase, not spiral setback two feet from the side.
>> You already have --
>>> Actually, on the petition, I think I actually addressed with the site, what the size is.
The setback request.
West setback to three feet for stairs.
So I believe that is -- it's going from seven to four feet, if I'm correct.
It's a four-foot setback.
>> Will you modify that and say subject to A.R.C. approval?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
>> Move to support the petition subject to the A.R.C. approval.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2109, Tampa, Florida -- 2109 West Dekle Avenue from PD to PD providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This is a rezoning request for the property at 7502 and 7420 South Kissimmee Street and also 7609 South Westshore Boulevard.
The property is currently zoned IG industrial general and IH industrial heavy.
They are requesting to change the zoning from those zoning districts to RS-50 to make them consistent about the current land use which was recently changed from an industrial land use to residential land use.
It includes the entire block 225 and 226 of the Tampa city subdivision.
You can see that from the rezoning map.
These are two entire blocks that were originally platted with 32 lots 50 feet by 95 feet with a 10-foot alley.
The alley, the two platted alleys were vacated as a result of -- this request is for Euclidean zoning district for single family detached as a principal permitted use and some special uses including but not limited to a church, daycare and home occupation.
As a Euclidean district, the petitioner must adhere to all land development regulations including article 10, off-street parking at the time of permitting.
A land use designation amendment was recently approved by City Council changing the land use from light and heavy industrial to residential 10.
The property is surrounded by residential land uses, except to the south.
There continues to be light and heavy land use categories.
LDC staff finds that based upon the existing surrounding uses and the land use designation of the subject property, the rezoning is consistent.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
Just very quickly.
As Ms. Hurley stated the properties have come in.
If you all recall these two blocks came in and were rezoned from heavy industrial to residential 10.
This piece, this is an old map I have got.
But this piece is the old junk yard site has always been changed to residential 10.
What we do have now is existing down here, this one block here, which is dual ownership, to the best of my knowledge, may be coming in in the future for res 10 and these lots probably will be coming in subsequently to also go to probably to R-10 so it is consistent with the development.
The request of petitioner is that they will adhere to the existing platting in the area under R-10 standards, under RS-50 standards.
MacDill Air Force Base also did not have any objection, I believe, to the proposed request.
Planning Commission staff finds the proposed request consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We don't have a run way issue, do we, in regard to this?
Because I know we have been a wading the runways.
>>> APC is much further to the east.
We are always in close coordination with the liaison from MacDill Air Force Base regarding that issue, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Representing Raymond and Barbara Sheldon.
We initiated a land use amendment to take the industrial land use away, and met with Port Tampa and various homeowners associations.
We had very strong support from them to convert this to single family residential as well as MacDill.
Planning Commission staff, and it went before them back in June, this past year, and that you adopted it, in I think August, this past year adopted the R-10.
This is the -- or September.
This is the zoning that has to be a companion to that land use amendment.
Now we have industrial zoning, and a residential land use designation.
And we are respectfully requesting you approve the RS-50 for both blocks to be redeveloped as single-family homes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to item number 11?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: It would be my pleasure to read.
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 7502 South Kissimmee Street, 7420 South Kissimmee Street and 7609 South Westshore Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications IG industrial general and industrial heavy to RS-50 providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>> Move to open number 12.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This is a rezoning for the property at 2811 West Marlin Avenue to go from RS 75 to PD to build on two platted lots 75 feet by 218 feet.
The site plan shows maximum height as 35 feet and lot 12 will have a 3-car garage while 11 will have a 2-car garage.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We are getting goofy up here.
>>> That's okay.
It's getting late.
LDC staff reviewed 117 zoning lots within the area.
And 98 of those or 84% are nonconforming.
All that you see here -- and this time it says nonconforming.
They are all 70 feet wide.
They were platted that way.
You can see the majority of them were developed that way.
These lots, we are not objecting to this request, because these lots are very large, and they are 218 feet deep, and they have -- they are not through lots.
There's no rear right-of-way.
So there's no future chance of splitting them.
And creating four lots.
And we believe that it is consistent with the development pattern in the area.
As you can see on the site plan, the petitioner worked very closely with Parks Department to ensure that all of the trees -- all of the grand trees are being protected.
And most of the trees on the site are actually being protected.
So parks had no objection as well.
Thank you.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
The land use in the area is residential 10.
We have residential 20.
CU 35.
The proposed request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
As Ms. Hurley said this will definitely contribute to the housing stock in the area.
We think it will be a very good -- will be a very good addition to the area.
As she said there's more than -- they can do much more than what's existing there based on the existing acreage of the site.
There's one existing home there.
They will be putting two homes, the existing home will be demolished.
It is consistent with the pattern development.
Planning Commission staff has no objections.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did anyone ever photograph the site?
I guess our request would be just whenever we have -- that we get a copy of it.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: We have several photographs.
>> That would be great.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Philip Dobson, and I have been sworn in.
I have an additional site plan showing the green space underutilizing the property.
What I'm doing is proposing to use two platted lots as two platted lots, single-family lots.
As Ms. Hurley mentioned, most of the street is built on 70 foot lots. The entire street was platted as 70 foot lots.
But the zoning is RS-75.
Both of these projects will have more than 200% of the area that's required by RS-75.
It just that I don't have the missing five feet on the curb.
Talking with the neighbors I believe everyone supports it.
Also, I'm leaving the majority of the trees on the property.
I'm not touching the majority.
And I'm not harming any grand trees.
I've also maintained a larger than -- larger setbacks, house setbacks than is required for RS-75.
The fronts of those garages are in line with the houses along the street, to maintain the continuity of the street.
Also, the massing, because they are one story and one and a half stories.
They are not large, imposing facades, right in line with the rest of the houses.
The houses themselves are set back.
And then there's also huge rear setbacks.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said you thought there was no opposition?
>>> I don't think there is.
There's some owners here that I think are going to speak on it but speak in favor of it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
We'll go to the public.
Anyone in the public that wants to speak on item 12?
>>> I'm sorry, I have this.
That is the house on lot 11.
This is the house for lot 12.
These are renderings of what I am going to build there. This is the house to be built on lot 11.
And the one below is the house to be built on lot 12.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see what he has to say.
>>> My name is Hank Ginnis and I have not been sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
My address is 2808 Norman Avenue which is right across the street.
And I am not opposed to the development.
We do think, when we moved in that house we currently live in, there -- we knew there would be two houses there eventually.
What we do have a concern with is something that is a minor issue, and it's important.
A sidewalk is being proposed for this development.
And as you can see hear, here's a sidewalk.
The two lots.
There's a major oak tree, a 48 inch oak tree, directly south of the sidewalk, between the road and the sidewalk.
Here is a picture of that oak tree.
That tree will be impacted greatly with that sidewalk.
Also, the sidewalk goes nowhere.
There's no sidewalk to the east.
There's no sidewalk to the west.
The sidewalk is not enroute to a school.
There's probably no chance that the sidewalk will be continued from MacDill Avenue to Bayshore Boulevard.
It serves no purpose.
This is a planned development.
You can tweak the plan as you see necessary.
And I think I heard earlier someone defined that when the conditions of a planned development, that it must be completely compatible with the adjacent uses.
And a sidewalk that goes nowhere that's going to impact a grand tree in that manner is not compatible with the neighborhood.
And I know everyone loves sidewalks.
But in this case, we don't want the sidewalk there.
And I think you have the chance to ask the developer to waive that requirement, and donate the money towards a fund that can be used when the sidewalk is necessary.
And --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to get confirmation.
As long as we add that condition that we would waive -- not waive the sidewalk, but move the sidewalk constructed as it is shown here.
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Yes, you can.
You can waive that and say that they can pay the in-lieu fee instead of putting in a sidewalk.
>> We don't want to waive the sidewalk totally.
>>> I don't think you can waive it totally.
However, there was a concern.
We talked to Parks Department extensively about this.
And there is no additional impact to this tree, because apparently this tree was adversely impacted by public works, in work that had been done.
Parks Department had no problem with the sidewalk going in.
And the provision is there to ensure that as new development comes in, neighbors will get sidewalks.
And the in-lieu fee doesn't guarantee that it will go in this neighborhood.
So I think council should keep that in mind.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, on the other hand, we are becoming a community, walkable communities forum about four blocks from here, at the beginning of April, and one of the questions is how to create a safer walking environment.
And I'm sure that if we put the money, and a way to spend it in that close proximity, is the intersection of Dale Mabry and -- Gandy and Bayshore is such a dangerous and active intersection.
I mean, it's just the thought that we could use money this way.
>> My name is William Higgins.
I live at 2807 marlin Avenue.
And I'm in favor of what he wants to build there.
But I also would like to not have the sidewalk, because all along there, I'm right next door to the east.
I've got a big oak tree right near there.
There's oak trees all up and down that road.
I would like for you to say in a sidewalk.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
>>> No, I wasn't.
I'm sorry.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, everything you said to this point has been the truth, correct?
>>> That's correct.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Sir, there's in a sidewalk anywhere around your house?
>>> In a where on either side of the street or anywhere up and down that whole line.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Angela, can I ask you a question?
Can we request the petitioner to do that or does he need to tell us?
>>ANGELA HURLEY: I believe he's willing to do whatever makes his neighborhood happy.
And council -- we can put it as a note on the site plan tonight that he can pay the in-lieu fee that you are allowing him to pay the in-lieu fee.
Instead of putting in a sidewalk.
>> But now does he request that or do we just --
>>> you can do it.
Council can impose it.
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you have any rebuttal?
>>>, I just wanted to say that's fine about the sidewalk.
>>ROSE FERLITA:
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2811 West Marlin Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida -- wait a minute.
Did we request putting that in-lieu fee in?
>> He's going to write it on now.
>> City of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-75 residential single family to PD single family providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dobson, now that you have gotten this done, congratulations and good luck.
I just have a question.
We finally put Mrs. Saul-Sena to the test, the tree or the sidewalk.
She did well with that.
Were you pushing your luck by doing this and catching her attention more?
Why do you have these chopped tree branches here?
>>> It isn't my picture.
>> I thought, wait a minute.
>>> I didn't cut any limbs.
And I don't think the homeowner did.
Can I see the picture?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Squirrels.
Move to open 13.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How old is that house?
Anybody know?
In the 20s?
>>> I think they had a hard time determine the age of that house.
I never saw that picture.
I don't know what he was doing, fire wad or what.
>> I didn't want to point that out earlier.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open 13.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This is a petition for the property at 6506 south Himes Avenue to rezone the property from RS-60 to PD for a residential single family.
The petitioner proposes to rezone the property to build on two public lots measuring 50 by 120. The proposed homes are two-story with two-car garages accessed from Himes Avenue.
The setbacks and height shown on the site plan are consistent with the RS-60 zoning districts.
LDC staff reviewed the area, and 165 zoning lots within the subject area that are reviewed -- that are zoned RS-60.
113 of those or 68% are considered nonconforming to today's standards.
You can see from the map these are the subject properties.
Throughout the entire area.
There are many lots throughout this area that are nonconforming to today's standards.
You can also see from the pictures that there's a bad need for this property to be redeveloped, and enhanced.
LDC is not objecting to this request.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Remember when we had that pipe break?
This is right where it was.
Right on this block.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
The site is just south of the intersection Interbay and Himes basically single family detached residential homes in the area.
As you can see as illustrated by the graphic, the photograph that Mrs. Hurley had, it's pretty underutilized property presently, and driving through the area, having this area benefit by two additional newer homes will definitely contribute to the housing stock in the area.
It's all residential 10.
And definitely something would be beneficial to provide more housing opportunities for these people that live in close proximity to MacDill Air Force Base.
By the way, before you ask me, Mr. Dingfelder, it's not --
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> I have been sworn in.
My name is Edward Castillo with Castillo housing and I'm here to ask for your approval on this rezoning.
We are lag to build two single-family homes on this property that currently is being underutilized and we feel this would be a great use of this property.
We are meeting all the setbacks that are required by the RS-60 zoning.
And we have had a lot of interest.
We have also talked to some of the neighbors in the area.
No one seems to object.
So we feel like it's a good use for this property.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 13?
A.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You are the first one up and last one up.
About a 20 hour break in between.
Sorry about that.
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6506 south Himes Avenue from zoning district classifications RS-60, residential single family to PD residential single family, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
We need to go back to item number 4.
Mr. Shelby?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In view of rule 5-A, policies which controls Robert's Rules of Order, states that a majority vote of the entire council shall be required for action on all matters coming before the council.
When a matter considered is considered by council and a majority vote of the entire council is not obtained, either in support, or in opposition to the matter, the matter shall automatically be brought before the council at the next regular council meeting as unfinished business.
In case of item 4 the first motion was to deny.
That failed to get a majority vote.
That's according to deputy clerk Marshall is still on the agenda as unfinished business.
Therefore the second motion is really out of order at this point.
So I would be respectfully asking the council to remedy this, through a motion to reconsider --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to reconsider the second vote.
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It has been -- has to be voted on.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For the sake of bringing back just one motion on the table I would ask the maker of that motion to restate the motion whoever made it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I made the first motion.
Do you want the first one?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The second motion is now the motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to rescind my former motion that was made to approve solely for the purposes of allowing this to go to a full council.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Exactly.
Who was the seconder of the second motion?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Me.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask you to rescind your second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Therefore, there is no second to the motion now on the floor.
And therefore the motion coming before the council under unfinished business is the first motion, the motion to deny.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Now what?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 2 to 3 vote.
I'm sorry, Marty.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I am going to inform council members Harrison and white of the necessity to review the record.
The public hearing has been closed.
And when it comes back to council next Thursday, there will be a vote on that motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pending vote was a 2-3 vote which was a motion to deny.
That's the vote that we voted on.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But it was two for the denial and two for approval.
Got you.
>> Regardless of what the action is it requires a vote of four.
And if not --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything from the clerk?
We need a motion to receive and file.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two other things.
Otherwise Cindy will be mad at me.
March 3rd, I would like ablated commendation to Sam Gibbons, somebody to accept the commendation.
It's a long time coming.
March 3rd, 9 a.m.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Secondly, Jay Capitano is going to accept his commendation on March 17th.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Briefly, we have two follow-up meetings on the calendar for proposed Kennedy Boulevard corridor overlay.
One is Tuesday evening at 6:00 at the Tampa Tribune auditorium.
And the other is Wednesday morning at 9:00.
At the Tampa Tribune auditorium.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else coming before council?
We stand adjourned.
(Meeting adjourned)