Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council

Thursday, May 12, 2005

6:00 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.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm pleased this evening to welcome Father

Villagrosa, if we could stand and remain standing for the

pledge.

>> Let us pray.

Heavenly father, in your word you have given us a vision of that

holy city, to which nations of the world bring their glory.

Behold and visit, we pray, especially we pray for the City of

Tampa and this council.

Renew the ties of mutual regard which form our city life. Send

us, enable us to eliminate poverty, prejudice and oppression

that peace may prevail with righteousness and justice with order
and that men and women from different cultures and with

different talents and treasures may find the fulfillment of

their humanity.

Amen.

(Pledge of Allegiance)



>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.

>>GWEN MILLER: Here.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.

>>GWEN MILLER: Before we begin the agenda Mr. David Smith has

something -- is Mr. Massey going to bring it?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: City Council passed a resolution this morning

dealing with a proposed hearing relative to designating babes

Zaharias golf course as a historic landmark. The resolution

this morning, the notice of the proposed ordinance was attached

as an exhibit, has had an incorrect date attached to the.

We have given a substitute resolution to the clerk.

And we would ask that you rescind your motion from this morning

and adopt the resolution this evening.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion to rescind.

(Motion carried)
We need to make a new one.

>> Move the resolution.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Before we begin our agenda we have some items

that are not going to be heard tonight.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

I believe Mr. Michelini sent reference to item number 1 and 2,

withdrawn in both cases, if would you make a motion.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 4.

The petitioner Michael Goetz did send fax correspondence

requesting June 23rd to be continued, had some engineering

issues.

He has switched engineers.

June 23rd has five new and three continued.

There are five slots open that night.

>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item 12, Z 05-11, Mr. Bentley had originally

sent correspondence requesting May 26th.

I have been in e-mail correspondence with his assistant Wendy.
And we have moved that date also to June 23rd.

He has a scheduling conflict.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Wait a minute.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think counsel is reminding us that

Mrs. Saul-Sena and I have to recuse ourselves from anything in

this interest.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have appropriate forms.

I have an interest in real property adjacent to the subject

property.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do, too.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Across the street, across the street.

(Laughter)

(Motion carried)

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Motion passes with four.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Moved and seconded to open item number 3.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: I have not been sworn.

Neither has any of the audience.

>>GWEN MILLER: If anyone in the audience is going to speak on

item 3 through 11, would you please stand and raise your right

hand?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And before you begin, we have opened all the

public hearings, correct?

>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

We opened number 1.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Opened number 1.

Okay.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, what I would like at this time is I

would request that if City Council has received any written

communication regarding any of the petitions that are on

tonight's agenda that you now move to file such written

communication into the record, and also for the record, and so

the public knows, all the communication subsequently written

communication is filed upon request of the City Council's

receptionist and are open to public inspection during City

Council's office hours.

So I would ask that the item be received and filed.

>>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion to receive and file.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>MARTIN SHELBY: And number 2, in addition, if any City Council

member has had any verbal communications with any of the

petitioners, his or her representatives or any members of the

public in connection with any of the petitions to be heard
tonight, that that member should disclose the following

information before the vote, that the petitioner may have

discussed the identity of the person with whom the verbal

communication occurred, and the substance of the communication.

I would just ask the council remain mindful of that, to disclose

that before the vote.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development. I have been sworn.

This petition before you is to rezone a property generally

located on Cross Creek Boulevard east of Bruce B. Downs west of

Morris bridge and also typically known as the star annexation

property.

You do have a map before you as well.

This is to change it again to PDA zoning district, to increase

the allowable commercial square footage and to propose

construction of a mini air condition self storage facility. The

previous allowable square footage was 150,000 square feet.

They are bumping it up to 181.

They have done traffic analysis to justify the increased trips.

The first page of the site plan is a modified copy of the

previously approved PDA which was done under ordinance 2001-56

with all of the approved access points.

The second page depicts the currently proposed development of

the storage facility.

The facility consists of four buildings which access east
meadows road, adjacent to the TECO site behind the Publix,

generally.

By count it appears there are 40 parking spaces proposed

on-site.

No building elevations were provided as part of the site plan.

Originally, there were two pages of objections, mainly for

errors that were on the site plan.

If you notice the site plan before you has many corrections and

stickies, and that was all done after the 13 days.

They couldn't physically change the graphic of the site plan.

However, they did come in and modify every note that was an

objection in the staff report.

It was basically clean-up items.

It is very clear now that it's approximately a 70,000 square

foot facility, all the parking matches up with their

calculations.

Staff has no objections.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is any of this residential,?

>> No.

It's all been commercial so far.

There are residential entitlementments there.

>> Are the residential entitlements within the bounds of this

PDA?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.

The school and the TECO substation site do count towards the
residential entitlements as well.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Coyle, I seem to recall that we had

already rezoned this parcel.

4-A self storage facility last year.

>> You did a special use petition for the self-storage facility.

That's correct.

The site plan, if you notice, the site plan, it came through for

a substantial change review.

The square footage, they had us look at it administratively.

One of the corrections in the staff report was that some of the

square footages were a little hard to understand.

If you look under the parking calculation, where there is a

strike, it says proposed building space, 54,000 square feet.

And the site coverage originally said building area of 46,848.

But next to it, it said 70,000.

It was really hard to interpret when we actually went through

the site plan review what they actually intended to build.

So we had them go through and corrected this.

And they bumped up the square footage slightly.

That's why they are back before you through the PDA.

>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn in.

To follow up on what Ms. Coyle had said, Mr. Harrison, that was

a request done in 2003, 3-55.

As Ms. Coyle also stated, this is part of the star annexation
which Tampa City Council approved and subsequently changed

several years ago.

The site is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as most of

the objections Ms. Coyle talked about.

Planning Commission staff has no objections.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

>>> For the record my name is sue Murphy, 401 East Jackson

Street, Rubin McCluskey.

I want to explain a little more thoroughly what we are asking to

do.

On the site plan, this is the overall approved site plan.

There is 150,000 square feet of commercial approved in this.

Cross street.

This area also where the self storage is going was already

approved for commercial.

What they want to build in there, to give you a good feel, this

is the site itself right here.

This is the TECO substation.

It's got lots of infrastructure in it.

This is the school, the school bus parking lot.

This is the Publix.

And the back of the Publix.

This is the master retention system for the whole area.

So it's got the best buffered site for anything I've ever seen

for something like. This and once you go out a little further
-- and I can give you a much bigger aerial -- you start getting

all the multifamily that's out there can that can really be

served by this.

So we think this is like a great place to put it.

Additionally, this is what the front would look like.

It looks more like an office building.

You can see the front office building and a storage facility.

And that back there would be some air conditioning, storage

base.

The other thing I wanted to just mention is even though we are

increasing the square footage from 150 to 181, since we are

building 70,000 in ten square feet of storage facility the trip

generation actually goes down from what's approved today.

So with approval of this we will be reducing trips out there

rather than increasing them even though the square footage goes

up but that's because self storage generates an extremely low

trip generation, and more than compensates for the additional

square footage.

We are taking some of our existing CG and using it for this.

So that's why trips go down.

Other than that, I would be happy to answer any questions.

I would think it's consistent with comp plan and consistent with

the area.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to

speak on item number 3?
>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance providing for an area

rezoning in the general location of which is 10910 Cross Creek

Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly

described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD-A

mixed uses to PD-A mixed use mini warehouse and commercial

storage, providing an effective date.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 5.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

I have been sworn.

This petition is to rezone the property at 11302 north organ

Avenue to create two buildable zoning lots from single family

detached dwellings.

It measures approximately 90 feet in width. The northern 65

feet of the lot will be used to construct.

The standard setbacks for RS-50 are as follows, 20 foot rear, 7

foot sides which are identical to the RS 100 district.

This request is for Euclidean zoning district.

There is no site plan required for this request.
Proposed construction must also adhere to all City of Tampa land

development regulations.

As you know, this is in this area.

This area is interesting because this is the bottom of the

RS-100.

It touches the RS-75 and RS-60 to the south.

When I looked at these lots --.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is blue conforming or nonconforming?

>>> It's on the right-hand side.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA:-o it's in words.

Sorry.

(Laughter)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.

It's been a long day.

Hopefully a short night.

As you will note there are 101 zoning lots, 70 to be

nonconforming, measuring less than 100 feet width.

They all measure between 50 and 80 feet.

That calculates out to 77.23%.

As you know in the past what we look for is majority

nonconforming lots to find consistency with the requirements of

the code.

And this staff has no objections.

>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn in.
Several other things to add as it relates to the comprehensive

plan.

The proposed single-family detached home will meet all the

requirements in the RS-60 zoning district.

The applicant is not requesting any waivers.

It does meet the city's desire for compatible integrated

development.

As Ms. Coyle has stated this piece is right on the edge of three

residential zoning districts, it is consistent with the

residential pattern of development in the area, reflective of

the variety of houses, styles and development in the

neighborhood.

Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning staff

meets the comprehensive plan.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.

>> Good evening.

Steve SAMAGE from design group, Tampa, Florida.

I am representing Mr. Jimmy Jordan.

For the record, I'd like to add 17 letters of support.

Oh staff has pretty much said everything that I was going to

cover.

I have some supporting documents if you would like to see them.

>> Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on

item number 5?

>> Move to close.
>> I have a motion and second to close.

(Motion carried)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the

general advice interest of 11302 north Oregon Avenue in the city

of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1

from zoning district classifications RS-50 -- RS-100,

residential single family to RS-50 residential single family

providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 6.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

There is a landscape plan that's tucked inside of the zoning

site plan as well.

They did add -- they brought in some -- petitioner brought in

some stickies as we affectionately call them.

He brought them to me tonight.

Only one of the plans you have before you has the stickies added

but the clerk's official copy does have them on.

This petition is to rezone property at 509 south Hyde Park

Avenue to a PD zoning district to construct one single family

detached unit, two single family semi detached units which are

duplex style townhouses and 8 single family attached units, 48
multifamily condominium units, and a larger structure.

It is on the southeast corner of the property.

The property lies generally to the east of cedar Avenue, to the

west of Hyde Park Avenue, to the north of DeLeon, and to the

south of Azeele street.

A private drive is proposed to run east-west, connecting cedar

to Hyde Park.

They also do plan to put decorative pavers along that private

drive and within the right-of-way, as you can see where the two

driveways come out, that is one of the notes that was added to

the plan.

Yule note on page 4, transportation asked for hold harmless

agreement to be added to the site plan, a hold harmless

agreement for the waivers in the right-of-way that. Is one of

the notes that was added.

The accepting single family detached units front cedar, the

eight townhouse,, they front Hyde Park Avenue along with the

multifamily.

Multifamily units are located within one structure which stands

eight stories high, maximum 110 feet.

Five visitor parking spaces are located adjacent to the pool

area and in the center of the project.

No elevations have been attached to the site plan.

The reason being is because this is a historic district and they

do have to go to the A.R.C..
Typically on these type of rezonings they'll show you on boards

what they plan to.

But we do not adopt those elevations along with the PD because

the A.R.C. has ultimate control over historic guidelines.

We did note the consistency on page 2, with the single family

semi attached design standards, and in note 2 about the attached

design standards.

Under findings of fact I noted the purpose for site plan control

district.

If you go to the zoning atlas before you, this has a point of

reference.

It's located internal on DeLeon, Hyde Park.

Many of you know, this is the structure here.

This is straight on at the buildings.

>> Excuse me, I'm trying to figure out exactly where this is.

>> There's the church right across the street.

>> So single one-story professional offices where this is being

proposed?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.

However, on the north side there is a five-story multi-story

construction.

And one thing the A.R.C. discussed as well is that the church

across the street has a large mass as well of height.

The A.R.C. recommendations were attached in a separate copy.

They did note recommendation for approval, with a condition, and
that condition is a second note that's added to the site plan as

of tonight.

That all encroachments for awnings and decorative balconies and

window boxes and the like will be subject to the A.R.C.

approval. The footprints may shift a little because certain

things may jut out from the buildings but they don't put that

kind of note on the PD plan.

They are held very tightly to the set back on the plan so that

will allow the A.R.C. to maneuver some of the buildings if

needed.

Staff has no objections.

>> How tall is that building that you showed us that's there

already?

Five stories?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: This one?

I would estimate these are 12 foot floors, 60 feet, but it's

probably more like 55.

>> Five stories?

>>> Yes.

>> Could you keep that picture up there for a second?

>> And they were going to eight stories?

>> Correct.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Isn't that a little too dense for that area?

>>> Well, the land use, which Mr. Garcia will bring out, is R-50

which is 50 units per acre and it does call for a mid to
high-rise developments.

The A.R.C. found it consistent with the guidelines as well.

And N their recommendation.

And if you go back to the zoning atlas, that's something else we

looked at.

You have office structures and other high-rises, about 18

stories.

And I believe this one is probably 10 to 12.

You have thath that is coming up in another hearing which is

approved at 16, and I think 8 or 9, potentially 24 depending on

which way it goes with council.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many stories did we hear today?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: That wasn't my case.

I'm sorry, I don't know.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: It was seven stories.

>> It was over 100 feet, Mr. Garcia said, which is on Boulevard,

which is right here.

I believe it's up here somewhere.

Which is very close.

They are just a couple blocks apart.

You also have a hotel as well, which is eight stories as well,

about 120 feet or so.

Then you have the Bayshore 1 project.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The thing we have to be careful on this

aerial, to keep the high-rises on Bayshore and keep the mid
rises internal.

So this will not qualifier, it's sort of a mid rise.

>> By definition it's a high-rise.

Anything eight stories or over is high-rise.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you go back to the photo of the street

with the high-rises?

Move it up.

Thank you.

If I'm reading my site plan correctly it shows that all those

along south Hyde Park Avenue have X'es through them, which means

proposed to be removed.

Tell me I'm reading it wrong.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, they are only showing two.

And I see three in the picture.

I believe one of them may be in the right-of-way that you're not

seeing.

Because there's a -- the site plan I'm looking at says like

20-inch oak, and there's an X.

And I don't know if it means it's history or --

>>> oh, down to the south.

Because this is on the northern end.

See if I have another picture. This is what you're looking at

here.

>> These ar long the eastern border of property.

>> Correct.
Yes.

>> And my question for you is, are all of these trees proposed

to be removed?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA:

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Do you have the landscapescape plan in front

of you?

>> I do. And it says live oak 4-inch caliper.

But these have been there for 20 years.

So the question is, are all these trees planned for removal?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: It appears that they are, yes.

And the ones on the landscape plan are new.

>> And they said -- it says landscape.

They were planning to remove 80% of the trees?

>>> I believe it was 89.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 89%?

Why didn't we object to that?

>>> That would be a question for Mr. Yurcus.

>> Is Mr. Yurcus here?

>>> I don't know.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I haven't seen him.

>>GWEN MILLER: Let's hear from Planning Commission.

>>> I would actually recommend that council hear from their

petitioner and landscape architect to hear some B some of those

concerns.

>>KEVIN WHITE: This is once, Ms. Saul-Sena, I'm truly agreeing
with you, 89%.

And it seems like they are close enough to the road that

something could be reconfigured in order to save a great

majority of these beautiful trees over there.

>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn in.

As Ms. Coyle stated proposed request for development of 59 units

in a mixture of condominiums, town homes and single family

detached, which is supported and desired by the city, Hyde Park

is recognized in the comprehensive plan as an urban village.

As it states within the definition of that characterized by an

urban fabric unique to the city which can support mixed use

development but is consistent with several policies in the

comprehensive plan. Just to give you an idea of the general

character in addition to what Ms. Coyle stated, we know this

area is predominantly office use.

She did state by definition 8 stories and higher is considered

high-rise.

This is more along the edge, only one block off of Bayshore, and

there's another development in it's initial stages the that is

similar in height to what's proposed in this area.

The residential that does exist in the area, there's a nice

transitional mixture of uses.

The predominant category is residential 50.

And then you have residential 35 directly to the west.
Residential 50 over here.

This applicant is maybe taining a privately created drive and

will T site will satisfy all retention requirements through

underground vault. The site does show additional landscaping

from what we had seen.

There is some -- I think as Ms. Coyle stated the applicant is

going to probably be showing you a landscaping plan in that

respect.

Planning Commission does not object to the request.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does the comprehensive plan speak to removal

of trees?

>>> Comprehensive plan does speak to trees as far as providing

trees along sidewalks where new development will occur.

So there is according to the site plan trees provided.

Now as far as the degree of trees that are going to be removed,

I think it's going to be basically up to -- we look to the Parks

Department, also.

And we didn't see any objections from the Parks Department on

that so they are really the professionals as relates to that.

The comp plan speaks generally to the provision of providing

trees in the area.

>>JIM SHIMBERG: Holland and Knight, 100 North Tampa Street here

in Tampa representing Bayfield Holdings, LLC.

Yes, I have been sworn.

We'll address the issues you have raised.
I won't go over the specifics of the project that Ms. Coyle just

mentioned to you.

I have Dave Taylor from land design to go through the site plan

for you in a minute.

We want to just state a little about -- we initially started

this project object Davis Island and bayfront and did a lot of

outreach, meeting with groups, calling a lot of adjacent

property owners, met with everybody that called back that he was

able to meet with, and we feel that the reception to the project

has been very positive.

We worked very closely with A.R.C. if N developing the project,

and Mr. Steinberg had numerous meetings with A.R.C. staff and

with their design review group and they actually helped shape

the proposal that's before you today.

When we went before A.R.C. for the recommendations, they

unanimously recommended this project to council.

As Ms. Coyle mentioned, her staff and the city agencies reviewed

the project and we have no objections.

Planning Commission has found it to be consistent with the comp

plan.

As you heard the designation in this area is a residential ooh

designation allowing up to 50 units per acre.

With me today as part of our project team are Mac Morris and

Dave sidenberg.

I'll turn it over to Mike Morris in a second for brief comments.
We have Stephani Ferrell, architect, Dave Terrell, land design,

and John LaRocca round out our team.

At this point let me ask Mike Morris to come up and give some

comments and then Dave Taylor will walk you through the site

plan.

>>> Good evening.

I'm Mike Morris.

My address is 3717 West North "B" Street, and I was sworn in.

I'm employed by Bayfair Properties, proposed developer of this

property.

Our company next week will celebrate its 17th year of building

in South Tampa.

And Jim is putting up some pictures that you will see.

Can you see those?

The pictures are all pictures of communities or homes that we

have built in South Tampa.

They are all sort of unique in that they are all winners of the

Planning Commission's grand award for in-fill housing over the

years, which we have won five separate times.

Of course it would be our hope this project tonight would become

our sixth winner.

We have been working on this project with an excellent staff,

team of architects, planners and engineers, for the better part

of a year.

We have received the approval of the A.R.C. and have worked
closely with all the staffs of the city, and they have received

their approval.

I'm a long resident of South Tampa and I believe this location

is perfect for what we have proposed and that the architecture

will prove to be a significant landmark at this location.

And we're available for questions later.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

>> Mr. Shimberg, will you pass those around?

>>> My name is David Taylor.

With land design.

We are the site planners, landscape architects and civil

engineers for the project, 302 night's run Avenue in Tampa.

I think everybody is pretty well oriented to the exact site

location.

And I think you do have a site plan diagram in the handouts that

Jim passed a round.

Actually on the last page.

The site, just to reiterate, is boarded by south Hyde Park

Avenue on the east, west DeLeon on the south, and it does extend

over to south cedar Avenue to the west.

The site does not occupy the southwest corner which is currently

occupied by four condominiums and one single-family residence.

Currently, as you know, there is a long single-story office

building that fronts onto south Hyde Park Avenue. It has

parking in between the street and the building.
And what we are proposing is to position a residential mid-rise

building, or high-rise, I guess as it's officially classified,

on the southeast corner of the property, close to the street

representing or characterizing an urban residential

neighborhood.

We are proposing 5-foot setbacks a around the perimeter of the

property along all street rights-of-way.

And the answer to the building will address Hyde Park Avenue,

and the entrance will be pulled forward to embrace the side lot.

The building incorporates two levels of parking on levels 1 and

2, and six levels of residential units up to level 8 with a

total of 48 units.

And traffic circulates onto and off the site onto three

different streets which enables us to very positively diffuse

traffic into the neighborhood.

Parking level one, the building is accessed from west DeLeon,

and parking level 2 will be accessed from the internal street,

which again allows us to diffuse traffic in two different

directions out of the building.

We're able to do this because we have a slight grade change

across the site.

The other positive aspect of that, it allows us to depress

parking level one below grade, which minimizes the amount of

parking deck that's actually exposed above grade.

We are introducing a private brick street connecting south Hyde
Park Avenue and south cedar, runs east to west.

And as we go north of that street we are transitioning down to

town homes and single family units.

I think a total of eleven units are proposed for which front

onto Hyde Park Avenue, three which front onto south cedar, and

four are internalized which look onto a small amenity and pool

area internal to the project.

And this creates a plan that I think very positively addresses

the street with basically all 540 feet of our frontage,

addressed with residential facade.

We are asking for one waiver request, and I think this issue was

already brought up in terms of tree removal.

We're asking to increase tree removal from 50% to 89%.

The bulk of the trees on the site have been determined to be a

very mediocre quality and most of them are not a very adequate

size.

The trees that I think were questioned along south Hyde Park

Avenue vary in size.

There's some 15 inch, some 18 inch, and there is one that gets

up as large as 28 inch.

But they vary in size.

They vary very much in quality and our approach is to replace

those trees with significantly size trees to create a more

uniform tree canopy along south cedar.

We are proposing to plant oaks back in along the right-of-way at
14 to 16 inch caliper.

So we think that will create in the end a much better-looking

streetscape than what the one or two OK trees provide now.

So we think that will address the streetscape question in terms

of tree removal.

Otherwise on the site we are saving, I think, two or three trees

which we have determined to be the best quality trees on the

property.

We are meeting all of our tree replacement requirements as well

as our standard tree requirements and are providing all 6,000

square feet of green space or open space that is provided, or

that is required on the plan.

Our parking is addressed and we are meeting the minimum

requirements within the condominium building itself.

All will have two car spaces with incorporated garages, and we

are providing 13 guest spaces both inside and outside of the

deck.

With that, I guess I would be happy to answer any questions

relative to the site plan or to the trees specifically.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was looking at your tree table and at your

landscape plan.

And I'm a little confused, but it appears that you're putting in

these oak trees -- and you mentioned you're putting them in the

right-of-way.

And we have discussions about that periodically between staff
and petitioners and that sort of thing.

Is there a special note?

Or is there a note in the PD that's going to accommodate that,

if that's sufficient to staff?

>>> What we are generally permitted to do is plant required

trees within the right-of-way, replacement trees do need to be

planted within the site boundaries.

So we are allocating our required tree inches in the

right-of-way.

And upsizing those well beyond actually what are required.

Trees which are a total of 18 caliper inches.

We will be meeting that with a minimum of two trees.

So we will be greatly exceeding our minimum.

>> I just want to make sure that we're consistent because I know

there's other times, we have had this discussion with other

petitioners about trees, and putting required trees in the

right-of-way, et cetera.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Is he offering them in the right-of-way?

I apologize.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's what he's saying.

I don't know that I necessarily have a problem with that because

it will create a nice little barrier along the street and

buffer.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: What we typically do, parks has a standard

note that we add to the plan that there has to be a maintenance
agreement that requires that the petitioner forever more and

whatever homeowners association is formed, maintains those

trees.

Parks at the present time doesn't want to maintain them or

accept liability.

>> Is it safe to assume there's no power lines along that

stretch?

Because if there are power lines and you're talking about live

oaks, and we unfortunately immediately have a conflict as TECO

gets upset about planting live oaks under power lines.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, there are power lines.

But.

>> But the trees are there already with power lines.

>>> Yes, they are.

They don't look like they have been too badly butchered.

I hate to use that word.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's an issue we have to address

between Pico -- between TECO, parks.

Since there are power lines there, we might have to visit the

species.

>>> In chapter 13 there is a recommended list for shade trees.

Then there is a second recommended list for power line trees.

They could be required to take a tree from that list at a

certain caliber per to make the grade one specifications and

accepted for Parks Department.
We could craft that language if you need to have it done.

>>> Yes, that would work fine.

I know the separate list that Cathy is referring to, if the

powers lines we could select from the list and upsize their

power to actually maximize our impact within the limit of

constraints of our species.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel much better after you saying you will

put in substantial trees and they will be uniform, and I know --

4 gallons doesn't sound like much.

>>> I said 14 to 16 inches.

It's a large tree.

>> If you put in trees that are that size, then it will

immediately look good.

I think when I saw 4 gallons, my eyes aren't so Goode good and

maybe I saw -- maybe I interpreted that as 4 inches.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 4-inch caliper.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But he's saying 14 inches.

>>> Actually, that rendering was prepared by another firm, and I

think they were -- it's supposed to be 14, not 4.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because 14 is a whole different story.

14 you have something substantial there.

>>JIM SHIMBERG: We have Stephani Ferrell to make a couple

comments about architectural issues on the project.

>> Stephani Ferrell, a consulting architect on this project, and

will be working with the developer on the actual architectural
design for the buildings that will go on the site.

The property is in the local historic district, as you all know,

the local Hyde Park historic district which was survived by the

preservation board in 1984 whenies was the director.

And then also it was located just just outside of the Hyde Park

national register district.

The boundaries are slightly different.

And so dusty, the developer has asked asked me to participate in

the design of this project.

And asked me to look at the project in terms of site planning at

this stage of the project.

And I think there are just a couple of good points I would like

to make.

And one of them is that the office use will be replaced with

residential, which I think is a very good use for this part of

Hyde Park.

The scale is compatible with nearby buildings on the edge of the

historic district.

Close or zero lot line setbacks, don't think there are any zero

lot line setbacks to this project but setbacks that are very

tight to the street are consistent with non-single family

dwellings in the historic district and I find that to be very

compatible, very much come pattible with historic district

in-fill design.

And then I would also like to note that they have done an
excellent job of concealing parking, so that when you see this

site, you see buildings and trees, and the parking is concealed

either internal within the site or within the buildings

themselves.

So I think the design approach is very appropriate at this

point.

And I expect to be participating in the architectural

articulation of it throughout the project and request your

support of it.

Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to

speak on item number 6?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to close.

(Motion carried)

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move an ordinance rezoning

property in the general vicinity of 509 south Hyde Park Avenue

in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in

section 1 from zoning district classifications R 0-1 to PD semi

attached, attached multifamily, providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.

All in favor of the motion say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that I think this

really is designed sensitively to fit in, and I like the private

driveway, now that I'm sure the trees will be up.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want clarification on the note.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Mr. Shimberg just nodded to the.

I took the landscape plan and where it was 4 inch, I added all

proposed perimeter an right-of-way trees to be 14 inch calipers,

all right-of-way trees subject to planting subject to parks

approval, and to maintain planting and standard in perpetuity.

>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 7.

I have a motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

This petition before you is to rezone the property at 212 south

Audubon Avenue to construct ten single family attached units

which contain two-car garages and stand 37 feet maximum height.

A stair tower feature which leads to an optional reef terrace

reaches a height of 41 feet.

One driveway on Audubon, three parking spaces, one dumpster, an

optional pool area are located in the eastern portion of the

property.

Their elevation is attached to the site plan as well.

You will note that there are objections on the staff report.

The original -- I'm sorry, the very first one.

It's from the fire prevention bureau.
That has been lifted.

I did receive an e-mail from Steve hodge today.

The fire marshal that had removed his objection.

There have been some additional notes added to the site plan.

Not drawn to scale regarding the garage areas.

When you measure them they didn't measure properly.

They did add a note that stated specifically that some are

one-car garage, but have double doors.

So it's really a two-car garage.

So there is a very specific note on there that talks about

measurements of doors.

Finally, transportation planning staff had two objections, which

also have been removed with the notes added to the site plan.

I did note under findings of fact, the criteria and design

standards for single-family attached dwellings, of which the

plan meets.

I will show you some photos.

This property is at the corner of Platt and Audubon.

For those of you who frequent that area, there's a church there,

old church, vacant.

If you recall, about a year and a half, two years ago, council

approved this PD.

Mr. Bentley was the petitioner, petitioner's agent on that, if I

recall.

If you remember, staff had objections to that one because there
were single family houses, one story all the way down Audubon.

And we objected because it was out of scale and character.

And this is what was built.

So there you go.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Council approved it earlier?

>>> Yes.

Unanimously, if I recall.

However, I did receive -- Desiree Valdez sent, just to disclose,

I was copied on it.

It says: Phone call from Andy Scaglione: I own the property at

302, 30 south Audubon, wants to make clear that ten units on the

property is too many, the design of anything more than eight

units on the property is just too intensive, also that the

design of the unit not having a rear wall facing the

right-of-way, which they don't.

He has also stated that even though the address is 212, this is

located directly across from his property on Audubon.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have any photographs of the property

catter-corner and across the street?

>>> This is particularly across the street, single family

houses.

The church faces --

>> that's a plat address?

>>> No, Audubon.

I do not have the pictures of the plat address.
If you look at this piece right here to the south, it's a

two-story apartment complex.

Basic block.

Fairly old.

>> How about behind to the west?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Town homes?

I can't remember.

I believe it's town homes.

There have been several PDs for town homes in the area too but

this particular section is still very single-family, with the

exception of the one that was approved.

Oh.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So are you objecting or not objecting?

>>> I'm not objecting to at least technical standards and given

the ones that have been approved facing it and behind it and

around it.

There are no objections.

Plus the elevations aren't quite as stark as the one that was

built across the street.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the height of that?

>>> 37 feet.

Allowable highlight is 35.

I didn't see that.

I'll let him address that.

>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

Yes, I have been sworn in.

The site is located on the northeast corner of Platt and

Audubon, as Ms. Coyle stated.

Drove the area several times.

There's an aerial to give you a little better perspective.

Shth is the proposed site.

This is currently under development for five town home units,

approximately 40 feet in height.

Duplex here.

There's a club beyond here, I think.

This is the green thing she talked about.

There is single family over here.

Do you have some integration of uses.

Planning Commission staff looked at the number of units.

It is allowed -- the density for the ten units as far as what

Mr. Scaglione had said about the eight units, whether it would

be council's ultimate pleasure, if ten units in the density

requirements of the comprehensive plan.

As you can see, again, we are looking at three predominant land

use categories in the area.

You can see from a consistent standpoint, talking about --

talking about urban mixed use 60, right up here along Armenia,

then you have CME 35 right there.

And then you have the predominant use which is residential 20 in
the entire area over here.

You do have some PDs already scheduled for multifamily

development in the future.

So there still will be a continuing transition in the area.

I think based on what we saw with the site plan, based on the

location whereof this site is at, there's a larger transition of

uses, being that it's on the corner over here.

Probably would be more of a compatible issue with the single

family residences that still occur right on this corner over

here just north of Platt.

As you can see with the interest configuration of our plat, it

goes along this section, along this area.

It a little bit different.

So it is a nice transition between what you have here, and as

you leave this segment of Platt going along to the east you will

see a higher intensity of usage as you go closer to Armenia

Avenue.

So I don't think this would be a particular point to partiture.

You do have town home development abutting this site.

Do you have other higher structures that are compatible as far

as massing and scale to the proposed site over here.

Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the

comprehensive plan.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Garcia?
Before you go.

Excuse me, Ms. Zelman.

Looking at the drawing, I have some problems with the mass.

It's just a one big mass of building and to me it looks like an

office building.

It doesn't look like a series of eight or ten, and I have a

problem with that in terms of transitioning into the

neighborhood.

Is that something that's come up in any of the discussions?

Also I don't see a whole lot of interface with the street and

the sidewalk.

>>> I understand what you're saying.

When we saw the site plan, the site plan showed a better

relationship to the street.

This is the first time I have seen this rendering.

When you see something on a one dimension basis like this it's

sort of hard to give it any credence whatsoever.

We did meet at A.R.C. and they were amenable to a lot of

recommendations we made as far as internalization within the

site.

There was something I was going to say about. This we felt it

established a logical orientation of the road.

We do have established pedestrian connections.

There was a solid waste issue that I think they did a very good

job trying to address with the solid waste department as far as
compatibility.

And they also made significant changes, I think, providing guest

parking in the area.

If you were to look at a site plan, the first site plan was

proposed, and then what they ultimately came out with.

So they have been working with staff in that.

So I think you have two as I recall from memory in the site plan

that are internal to the project, then you have the internalized

Parkway, and then the integration within that.

So the dumpster is internal within the project so you are not

going to have a direct impact.

But as far as what's going to be adjacent to it, the key is the

property directly to the west is going to be of the same bulk

and massing.

I'm looking to the south A at this corner seeing it's a logical

departure point, from what you have on the west side.

As you go to the east from this corner, of the changes in the

characteristic differ.

I drove it about three times to get an idea.

>> I guess I'm more concerned about people living across the

street in single families and wondering what they are going to

wake up to.

>> On the west side.

>> On the west side.

>> I can UBS that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The site plan does not appear to have --

there's a green space but it doesn't have any trees.

Is there a sheet that I'm missing?

>>GWEN MILLER: Let's hear from petitioner.

>>ANDREA ZELMAN: Fowler White, 501 East Kennedy.

I have been sworn in.

I'm representing the applicant.

And Isle I'll answer Ms. Saul-Sena first.

There's only one tree on-site at this time.

I don't know if you have seen the photographs Cathy had but

there's kind of a big old church which is what the single-family

homes are looking at now.

And I believe like a schoolhouse.

And there's only one tree on the site.

And it was identified by the surveyor as of unknown species.

It looks like it's an exotic.

So that's the only tree on-site.

>> My question is, aren't you planning to put some on?

>>> We have committed to provide with the landscape code and are

providing --.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where will the trees go?

>>> I'll ask Jo Tau the urban planner that's here tonight.

The only thing I want to point out as he walks up, this is .6 of

an acre and under the comp plan we could have asked for 12 units

and the developer originally wanted to put 12.
We and Joe kind of convinced him to go back to ten because it

was just a better design.

So did design it to put all of the garages in the back of the

unit which we know is a sensitive issue.

Every unit has two-car garages.

One of them has single garages but plus three guest spaces.

As Connie mentioned there is a well shielded dumpster, cannot be

seen from the street.

As Cathy said we met all staff requirements.

But I would like Joe to sort of walk you through some of the

design issues.

>>> Joe TAU, and I have been sworn.

Yeah, we do not have a landscape plan as part of the package

presented.

Certainly we will exceed the requirements of the tree and

landscape code.

We just didn't put trees on here but I am a serious advocate of

landscaping and trees.

And I will guarantee you, we will talk this developer into doing

a significant landscape package on this project.

And the attention to the building -- and I understand your

concerns.

This is such a transitional neighborhood and it really is kind

of an interesting mix on this same block of commercial and

residential.
And this is definitely where it transitions from the heavier

commercial towards the residential as we move west.

What kind of generated this particular approach you see is, we

don't get in gray corners like this very often where we have

that nice big swooping turn, and an architect getting a corner

like that is really a nice thing for us to have.

It's like, ooh, you really want to get on that and do something,

architecturally address that corner.

So that's where the attention came from.

Plus, just kind of a general goal of designing a building,

current architecture.

I think there is a good interface between the sidewalk and the

building.

And I apologize for that kind of hand drawn site plan.

We kind of got caught with it and get didn't it drawn.

I did the old-fashioned hand drawing and I apologize.

The intention is to have almost like little individual private

areas.

There are little 24 inch high walls that will have somebody

little usuals and that kind of thing to define everybody's front

stoop area if you will.

Given that the garages are in the rear on this, what that

creates in terms of a product type is the garage in the rear,

and that eats up so much at the footprint that you end up really

with just one bedroom and bath downstairs, and then the living
and the dining and that sort of thing that's on the second.

And then the master become the third floor.

And then the architectural attempt was to really create that

second floor being the primary floor, which is where that big

kind of tall arch, you know, columns and things on the second

and third floor.

Those are -- the intention is to have an attention street

setting, like the British roll walls, that define everybody's

area in the front.

The initial drive was to certainly get all those cars parking in

the rear, get that off the street, and we do not have any

garages facing the front, although you will notice that unit

number five on the site plan which is the unit that is that

great corner where it neurons there was no back to unit 5.

So unit 5 has two single car garages which faces one plat, one

Audubon.

We broke that into individual garage doors, so we can minimize

the auto impact on the streetscapescape.

>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item

number 7?

>>KEVIN WHITE: Is this the final rendition?

>>> Well, nothing is really final until we leave.

It's a serious qualify you, yes.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I'm not a frequent flier of that area, but I
know exactly where this proposed project is.

I'm just having problems seeing it.

Maybe somebody else can clarify something for me.

But it just doesn't look like the typical South Tampa -- and I

saw what Ms. Coyle put up earlier and neither does that.

But this just look like the South Tampa typical project.

It looks like one big contiguous mass.

There's no -- from the rendering doesn't look like there's any

differentiation between the units.

It looks more like a mausoleum or museum, if you will, from the

rendering I'm looking at.

Maybe I'm just totally off base.

But that's what I'm seeing.

>>> There's no urban canopy.

And I think there's going to be some pretty good dimension

there.

There's two-story kind of voids in there, where there's arches.

That's going to create a lot of animation to that.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we are all thinking the same thing.

When we look at it, it's just -- it's just so shockingly out of

character from anything that we have seen down in that area,

it's just hard to sort of get your mind around it.

It looks like something that you would find up in Washington,

D.C., like the site of a Capitol building like that.

And you're an architect.
That's great.

Artistic license is rare, like you said, when you have a

particular corner like this.

But I think it's a bit severe myself.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what we have seen a lot of are

driveways and duplexes or quad plexes, and I don't think we like

the way those are turning out.

Or even worse than those, those two lines of multifamily with a

row of parking in between.

What this does is it gets rid of the cars and driveways, which

is an unattractive part of development, and it gives us

something interesting to look at.

And when you go on Davis Islands, there's a building sort of

similar to this on the corner, with structure on the sides.

I think it pretty appropriate.

And I think it's much better than anything else that's been

built in this neighborhood.

Council has approved a lot of multifamily in this neighborhood,

most of which is architecturally mediocre.

This is really interesting and I think it would be a landmark.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree with Mr. -- I'm sorry.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think it was my turn.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Go ahead.

I always defer to you, Mary.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: It reminded me of something I saw in Rome or
somewhere in Europe.

And it's just too big.

I think it's something that is just not compatible with this

neighborhood.

For one thing, it's massive.

And I think you need to soften it up a little bit.

I don't know how you do it.

I'm not an architect.

But I think it needs to be softened up and maybe not be as

massive as it is.

I don't know how you do that.

But to me it's out of character for the neighborhood.

Now you can talk.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm so glad to hear my fellow councilmen say

these things.

Then I don't have to say them, because that's what jumps out at

me, is the mass.

It's the continuous mass of it.

Without really any break at all.

And to me, there's an office building that's not far from there,

a couple blocks over.

I don't know if it's Cleveland or Platt.

It's the law firm that's along there.

But, you know, that's the kind of mass that I'm sort of

visualizing here.
And yet it's deeper into the neighborhood.

And if we look at the aerial, you know, I know this neighborhood

is in transition.

But if we look at the aerial, there's still a lot of

single-family homes directly across the street on Audubon.

This is what they are going to be looking at.

I'm not looking to be critical because I think there are a lot

of places in town where this might fit better but that's a bunch

of sweet little small families that would be looking at. This

it might be a function of density.

Because you have got ten units here.

Not to disagree too much with Ms. Zelman but there is no

entitlement to 10 or 12 units.

That's what the comp plan might allow for, a maximum of 10 or 12

units but there's no entitlement to it.

So maybe if we backed off on one or two of the units that face

Platt Street and Audubon, then could you get some break in

there.

Because I think this building with a little bit of break or

something might work better.

It's very, very urban.

And don't think this neighborhood is necessarily urban yet.

>>> That thing, referred to it across the street, is indeed a

thing.

>> The one that was shown earlier?
>>> Yes.

It is.

But I'm afraid the scale of that thing is the future of this

neighborhood.

And I don't know that niece a negative.

I think in the scheme of things it's positive that we are going

to have more in-fill, more development, and more redevelopment

in these areas.

And I don't want to use that as any kind of an example.

But the scale, this is certainly not consistent with the scale

of that thing.

And Mr. Harrison, you're corrected, it was kind of an intention

here to create more of a additional building and not little

individual narrow houses.

And that was a conscious effort to do that, to create more of a

proper, dignified building and not separate, you know, row

houses, if you will.

And I don't know at 7 foot or 8 foot or 10 foot separation would

really mach any significant difference.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was just going to say, I had asked

originally about landscaping.

Truthfully, the density that we have very close to here behind

whaley's -- I know you are all familiar with those apartment

complexes -- are about the scale and depth of as these are but

they have trees behind them.
I know he's committed to landscaping but it doesn't show on the

plan and perhaps if it were there, council members would see

that softenening.

What we are seeing is all building.

>>> Philosophically, don't like hiding you from -- putting trees

in front of the building is really kind of a trick to make you

think that something is not what it is necessarily.

So our intention is leaving the trees off.

>> But I think it would appear softer to us --

>>> it certainly would.

>> And if we even had a site plan with the green space colored

in green, you know,.

AH!

>>GWEN MILLER: Council members, any more questions?

We'll hear from the public.

>> Joe Scalione.

We own actually the house directly to the south of this.

And also we own the apartment building to the south of that.

So single-family house.

The problem here is the amount of units.

And landscaping is not going to cure that, okay?

We made a very serious mistake of not opposing the project

across the street.

And I just don't want to see it happen again with the intensity.

We have cars parking all in our apartment complex.
We have cars parking all down the street now.

You have visitors. And what's going to happen is the same thing

here.

Also, it's not a great transition to the neighborhood because

you still do have single-family to the south of you, to the west

of you.

And mainly here it's a density issue.

This was like an 8-unit -- it would just go a lot better in the

neighborhood so we strongly oppose this.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, for the record, were you sworn in?

Were you sworn in?

>>> No, I was not.

>>GWEN MILLER: Raise your right hand to be sworn in.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

>>> I do.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Your testimony up to this point was all true,

correct?

>>> Correct.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a question for you.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Scaglione, you said you think ten units is

too dense for this property.

And I agree with you.

Would it help to take away two of the units that -- I think it's

eight and nine back there?

Which units do you think is just too much?
>>> Just having ten units on the size of this property is too

intensive.

Whether they take it off -- two units from wherever but the

bottom line having ten units from this neighborhood, and I have

seen it happen across the street, and firsthand, and I have got

to look at this not so much the way this thing looks, but

because of the intensity, the problems it's creating in the

neighborhood.

We had us a nice quiet neighborhood there and I understand it's

going multifamily, and I'm for that.

But it needs to be controlled.

And what's happened is everybody is trying to squeeze the

maximum amount of units they get and after they develop it, they

get their money down the street and we have got to live with it

the next 20 years looking at it.

>> And you mentioned, too, that you were experiencing parking in

the streets and so on because of this problem?

>>> Correct.

Correct.

>> Did we allow a parking area in there?

I'm sure you did.

>>> Yes, we did.

It's just too many units for the size of property.

>> Too many units for the size of property.

>>> The same thing is happening here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I was going to address Mr. Tau for a second.

We were talking about maybe breaking up the units.

Maybe one way to break it up is remove unit number 5.

J why 5?

>> Well, you would actually break up the transition of the two

buildings, and it would give you an opportunity to do two

separate architectural designs on each segment of the buildings.

You do what you want to do.

I'm just -- just an observation.

I'm not an architect.

I'm just looking -- not from this one, but from the previous

rendition that was up there.

And that would give you a wonderful area for green space that

would give you some architectural features for each one.

That's just one of my things.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do they want to ask for a continuance?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anyone else that wants to speak.

>>GWEN MILLER: No, nobody else wanted to speak.

Ms. Zelman, are you going to do rebuttal?

>>ANDREA ZELMAN: I think what we would like to do is ask for a

continuance to give Joanne opportunity to maybe flesh a few

things out for you.

I don't know how long.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Depends on whether you want to go day or

night.
May 26th and June 9th are horrible.

To say the least.

You have six plan amendments scheduled.

The waterwise awards.

13 zone changes on the 26th.

You also scheduled the Palma Ceia plan amendment and the yacht

basin on the 9th as well as 12 other zoning changes.

>> Which one is yours?

>> Any morning is fine.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I would rather have this at night.

If we have Mr. Scaglione -- I don't know who else may be

objecting but I'm sure if the plan is significant then maybe

more people in the neighborhood may want to come out.

I'm not sure.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that we also need to flush out, if we

object to ten units.

Because I don't think what Mr. Scaglione I is saying, it's not

the architectural features that he disagrees with, it's the

density.

And if we are going to just continue this, I think that we need

to give some direction to the petitioner, whether we think ten

units is appropriate for the site or not.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: If I may from a staff perspective, if you do

decide to direct him to remove units I would recommend that they

are removed from the front.
The rear units really are not the ones that are seen, and the

comments from council is that the mass is too large, and

breaking them up if you remove them from the front, you put

space between the buildings and he couldn't accept his

architecture.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Scaglione, you listened to our conversation

about breaking them up, having less units.

Will you come to the mike?

How do you feel about that?

>>> Again, I'm not an architect.

And the main thing here is ten units, whether it comes from the

south boundary, the north boundary, the west boundary, just it

need to be reduced to eight units.

And I'm not wanting to restrict them saying it needs to be

separated.

Just the amount of people living there and the amount of units

has to be less for the neighborhood.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is not in a historic district.

It's not in a district with any kind of design review.

And I think we should address the number of units and let the

petitioner come back to us.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem with that, it's a PD.

And I think there are many, many times including this time when

we want to get involved and try and avoid some of the horrendous

things that we saw earlier.
>>KEVIN WHITE: My reservation is not more with the density,

mine is more with the design.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And mine is a combination of both.

>>GWEN MILLER: We need to make a motion.

They want to continue.

Oh.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Mr. Scaglione said co-come morning and

night. The first night would be available that is my hearing is

not until July 21st, because you have vacation in the beginning

of July.

>>GWEN MILLER: Right.

Let's waive the rules.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Morning.

>> Move to waive the rules.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Which morning would we like to have it on?

>>> If they are revising the site plan we would like to the meet

the 13-day deadline because it will be different, I believe.

Where are we, the 12th?

>>GWEN MILLER: Za da is the 12th.

>>> I would say June 9th.

10 a.m.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue to June

9th.
10 a.m.

10 a.m., June 9th.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: In the morning.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You heard the kind of directions.

>>ANDREA ZELMAN: Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.

We need to to open number 8.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>> A petition that we had approved maybe four months ago where

we decided to save a grand tree on Kennedy and Hyde Park is

under construction now.

And there's a design that we posted on the site and it looks

like it's going to be absolutely terrific and I'm so proud.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the U.T..

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

I'm so proud of council.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The same tree.

Remember?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's under construction and looks good.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Enough with that nonsense.

Number 8.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Really quickly.

I know you guys have seen that project on Kennedy.
That is the perfect example of a wonderful tree barricade, that

they put a chain link fence around it rather than the orange

pliable material.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion to open number 8.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, land development. This

petition is to rezone property at 207 north New Jersey Avenue.

I have been sworn.

To PD zoning district to remove the existing duplex structure

and construct five single family attached dwelling units with

one-car garages.

The units will span a maximum of 30 feet 4 inches tall which is

under the maximum 35 feet.

A large 42 inch grand tree sits centrally in the front yard and

is preserved through this rezoning.

The site provides,426 square feet of green space and nine

additional trees will be planted on-site.

There are elevations attached to the site plan as well.

I did note the single family attached design standards.

They meet all those standards with the exception of the two-car

garage.

They do have a one-car garage with a one-space tandem which is a

typical waiver for a lot of these townhouse developments in this
area.

This is the location.

There's a PD to the north.

Across Cleveland.

Several on the other side of MacDill.

Mostly for anywhere between offices and townhouse developments.

This is the site currently.

That's the tree.

They do show additional plantings on the site plan.

You have before you much more tropical, lush plant ago round the

base of the grand tree.

There was a note added to the plan, handwritten on the plan that

the landscaping around the tree is subject to Parks Department

approval.

They don't want anything with a great root system that could

eventually strangle the tree over time.

Directly across the street is a very large mass multifamily

apartment complex.

This is what it will face.

We have in a objections to the request.

>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn in.

Approximate predominant land use category for the proposed

rezoning is residential 20 as you can see.

Most of this area along New Jersey, abuts several commercial
uses, daycare sent area long South MacDill, just off of Kennedy

Boulevard.

A PD to the north.

We have some condos.

Off multifamily, Harrison town development.

There's a duplex to the south, pretty much surrounded by

multifamily use.

It is on the periphery, as it is right off of MacDill which is

supportive of policies in the comprehensive plan.

It is consistent as far as similarity of like uses in the area.

Planning Commission staff find the proposed request consistent

with the proposed plan.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you. Petitioner.

>> Steve SMODGE, Tampa design group.

I have been sworn.

I'm representing Dan Craven.

The present lot size is approximately 108 by 135 deep.

As Cathy stated we are trying to preserve that oak in front

through means of impervious pavement and requesting a waiver for

single covered garage, single carport garage. And that's pretty

much it.

Cathy and Tony pretty much went through it.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the waivers, number 1 says reduce

number of enclosed parking spaces from 2 to 1 for single-family
attached units.

And your justification for that is what?

>>> To preserve the tree.

>> But looking at your drawing, it shows five garage doors and

five units.

I don't know where you would put those extra parking spaces

anyway.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: DUH.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: My point is maybe there's too many units.

I mean, because that area has some parking issues, some street

parking issues in terms of Mitchell elementary, and I'm seeing

some nodding head over there.

So maybe we are going to get some folks speaking about this.

But I don't know.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: You're right.

This is exactly what I was looking at.

I mean, is it a two-bedroom?

>>> I believe so, yes.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Two bedrooms.

So there's two adults.

So were you going to have one person in the garage and one

tandem?

>>> We had placed residences back further to accommodate

additional vehicles.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Say again?
>>> We had pushed the buildings back an additional nine feet to

accommodate additional vehicles within the driveway.

>> Stacked up.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's exactly the issue.

You would have them sitting on top of the roots of the tree.

>> Also stacked which in a lot of cases, I'm going to park on

the street so I don't have to stack up behind my wife or

husband.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what I'm thinking, too.

That's where they are going to park.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Other council members?

See if there's anyone in the public.

Would anyone in the public like to speak on item number 8?

Come on up to the podium.

>>> I have not been sworn in.

I'm sorry.

I've never been.

I didn't know what to expect.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anybody else?

Is there anyone else?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: If there's anyone else in the audience that

is going to testify that has not been sworn in, let's go ahead

and take care of it.

Stand up.

(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> I live at 211 south New Jersey Avenue.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is that in relationship to the

property?

>>> It's two pieces of property south of the property in

question.

I wrote it down because I was very nervous about it.

I brought some photographs.

And I should have thought to have brought every one of you one.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Please pass them around.

>>> We were the fifth house in the neighborhood so I lived there

a very long time.

I am against changing the zoning at 211 south New Jersey because

there is not enough parking for the residents now.

I am sure that the building that will be built will add beauty

to our street.

People who live in the block are very nice neighbors and it's

not fair to crowd them in when they don't have a place to park.

There have been many times when I have had family guests,

delivery and repair people who did not have the convenience of

parking in front of my house nor close around.

They would have to park on the corner on Platt Street.

However strangers be so far that have parked there have been

very courteous and have not parked on my yard.

They parked in the street.

But then this causes another problem.
Because a lot of times when I go to work in the morning and when

I come home in the afternoon there are cars parked on the

street, and only one car can get by.

The other one has to wait.

And if there's five or six cars you might sit there for five or

ten minutes.

Also, there are "no parking" signs already erected and have been

for a long time from the corner of south New Jersey and

Cleveland to the middle of the block on the west side.

There's also a "no parking" sign at the corner of south New

Jersey and Cleveland on the east side of the street.

But yet cars still park there.

And some of those pictures were showing you where cars are

parked and how they are parked on the street there.

So parking is already a problem.

Thank you all for listening to me.

I appreciate it.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was getting her attention to tell you had

a question, Mary, and then I'm next.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: The street that you're on, is that two-lane

street?

The street that you live on, is it two-lane street from way see

on here?

Does it have curbing and stuff like that?
>>> No, no curbing.

No sidewalks either.

>> No sidewalks either?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Do you want the pictures?

>>> You can have them if you want.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When I go in to Bank of America at the

corner of MacDill and Kennedy, which is my bank, and I go

through a drive-through, and I leave drive-through and I want to

head back over to the south, which is where I live, I drive down

New Jersey as does everybody else.

Correct?

>>> Yes.

That's right.

>> And a lot of times, if there's any activity going on, it's

just like you say.

If somebody parks on the street, and there's a UPS truck or

whatever, it's like everything stops, and it all --

>>> the UPS truck came the other day and he could not -- I

happened to be coming home from work.

And I was going to the south, headed to my home.

And then the UPS truck came.

There were two cars on the side.
Co-not get in there.

And he had trouble.

Well, he didn't have trouble backing up.

But I could not have backed up that much because he could not

get between the two cars on the street.

And the people, talking about Mitchell, I have been teaching

there 31 years.

And Mr. RENABAY, the people that live over in the square on

Cleveland, they park cars up there.

And then sometimes, I usually drive, because I have so many bags

to carry and everything.

But then, I need to walk to get that parking place to somebody

else.

So it makes it very congested around there.

>> I appreciate your efforts as a teacher, too.

Thank you.

>>> Oh, thank you.

I enjoy it.

>>GWEN MILLER: Next.

>>> Daniel, I have been sworn in, and I own the property at the

corner of southwest corner of Cleveland and New Jersey.

It is a townhouse, one-story townhouse.

And it is rental.

I have a small section of city property that I'm responsible for

that everybody in the neighborhood parks on.
If we allow Mr. Craven to reduce the parking to one space

outside, then we are going to increase the number of people who

are parking in my space that I'm responsible for for the city.

I object to this allowing him to have the one space parking.

And I hope that you will disapprove it.

>> Would you give me your name for the record, please?

>> Daniel F. Moore.

I am the owner of the property at 3014 Cleveland, which is

townhouse on the southwest corner of Cleveland and New Jersey.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.

I appreciate that.

Next.

>>> I'm Carol Stelhut, 212 South New Jersey.

And I also have some pictures here that -- I live next door to

the house that Craven built a year and a half, two years ago.

And they had to add parking out in the front, the people who

bought the place, because they didn't have enough room to park.

They also had to widen their section of the driveway, because it

was a two-unit.

And it's kitty corner across from where they want to build this

new.

And the parking out there is so bad.

I have had them parking in front of my house.

In fact, I have one here right now where they parked in front of

my house.
This is the parking in front of the duplex next door.

And this is across the street.

There are six cars parked there every night.

There are six cars parked out there every night.

And they can't have company come because then they are in front

of all of our other houses, around the street.

And sometimes people come and they are staying all night.

So it's just a problem with the parking.

And if they are going to have that many units, and single

one-car parking for a family, most families have got more than

one car.

So it just a problem with the parking.

As much as I hate to see the single-family homes leaving the

neighborhood, besides.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?

Come up and speak.

>> My name is Lisa Hudson.

I live at 3002 west Cleveland street, which is the complex

directly across from the street where they are proposing their

buildings.

I had a neighborhood neighbor with me that had to leave earlier

and we disagree also with the single garage that they are asking

for.

As our other neighbors have admitted there are quite a few
people that park on the street at night, a lot more than there's

space for.

Even pulling out of our complex.

It's very dangerous.

It's gotten to the point where it's very dangerous.

Mallory square is exempt because it's before the law actually

put into effect that you had to have two spaces per unit.

I think that's basically it.

So I basically agree with our neighbors.

And we have a very nice area, too.

So we would like to keep it safe.

I'm sorry?

Yes, I have been sworn in.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?

Petitioner want to rebuttal?

>>> I think this is the best way and for aesthetics, I think

this is the best way for that to happen.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The RM-16 that is on the property right now?

>>> Right.

Through the PD we are allowed 20 units and we are only getting

16 dwelling units.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know what you mean through the PD

you're allowed 20.
>>> Well, for the PD, the zoning RM-16, that's the extent we can

use.

We are allowed to get 20.

>> 20 units to the ache er?

>>> Correct.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I want to finish. The RM-16, how many

acres do you have on this property?

What portion of an acre is this?

>>> Well, the property is 108 by 135.

>> My guess is you are probably saying it's a quarter acre so

you can get 40 units on it.

I don't know if anybody has a problem with three or four units.

>>> Three.

>> Three probably.

But I think you have to figure out the parking issue and figure

it out site with --.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Single-family homes.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pursuant to the standard.

>>> And we confirmed the property does have the possibility of

losing more trees.

Reconfiguring the property.

Does have the chance of losing more trees.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, that's an issue -- it's an important

issue, and it's important to this council.
But I think you can figure it out and probably reduce the number

of units to about three and it will work.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Or two.

I have a questionment

And that is, do you understand that when you ask for waivers

that it's not a given thing.

>>> Well, of course.

Yes.

Upon the council, you, to grant that.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Interested in a continuance?

>>> Yes, sir.

>>GWEN MILLER: Would you say it then.

>>> We would like to continue.

>>GWEN MILLER: Council members, would you make a motion?

Mrs. Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am very familiar with this area.

And it is very dense.

And it has major parking problems.

And that road, if it's 18 feet with edges that's about it.

And I honestly don't see how you could fit more than -- I don't

see how you could fit three units on here.

I think two is about it.

I think if you built two nice units and have them designed by an

architect and have them look nice you sell them for a lot of

money and make the rest of the neighbors happier because it
would fit.

What you are planning there now does not fit.

And and just because you request a waiver doesn't mean that

council is under any obligation to grant it.

And the waiver of the parking is significant.

And the waiver of the tree removal is significant.

And I wouldn't support it either, particularly the parking,

particularly in this context.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena.

And what I would suggest is putting two nice single-family homes

in there, because this is what that area seems to be look for.

And even if you put three units, you are still going to have the

same problem with the parking.

You have family, or you have kids, or you have got people that

are wanting to come over, they are going to be parking in the

street.

And that street just is not big enough to have all this parking.

So two beautiful single-family homes would work a lot bet heer

for me.

And I won't support a continuance.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Obviously I would move for denial.

I don't know what a continuance means here.

What are we talking about, two units, one unit, single family,

multifamily?

Petitioner hasn't given us any direction what he wants to do.
I move for denial.

>> Second.

Second.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: For your own reference for the denial, the

RM-16 the size of this property would allow four units.

So if you deny he can still build four.

If you move to continue to have him remove a unit that's still

four.

So the RM-16 --.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: He can do four units but he's got to do them

within code, which is two parking garages, and save the trees.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Correct.

>> So if he can do that, that's fine.

If not he can bring back a PD that might work.

I'm a little bit concerned about being so harsh to just deny

outright and not give him a chance to be go back to the drawing

board and come up with something that's more compatible, you

know.

But just because they have to go through the fee and the notice

and process and everything else.

>>GWEN MILLER: I agree with Mr. Dingfelder.

I think we need to give the petitioner an opportunity to go back

and come back and see if he can satisfy the neighbors and see if

they are going to agree with it.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When this developer, Mr. Craven, when you
bought that property, Mr. Craven, when you bought that property,

you knew the tree was there and you knew you had to deal with

it, too.

I'm not asking a question.

I'm just making a comment, that when developers buy these

properties and they have got a big tree in the middle you know

you have to deal with it so it's an issue.

And I'm not asking a question.

>>> That's why I pushed it so far back to avoid the tree.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor for denial.

Did we get a second?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Now have a motion to deny.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

Motion passes.

Open number 9.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

This is the structure here.

With a proposed sign.
It's on the corner.

This is the driveway coming in.

Proposed driveway.

The handicapped space here.

The aisle.

Due to the limited size of the property and the area for parking

spaces, what they have done is they have tandem spaces here,

two.

They are turf block to keep on-site in the rear.

Retention area.

This is an area for backout and entrance into the property.

Transportation originally had objected.

The code requires a paved surface for ADA space at the front

door.

They wanted to see a walkway on the site plan.

The building is elevated and has steps in the front as well.

It is probably about 18 to 24 inches off above grade.

ADA requires that there is a ramp.

However, under typical situations for new structures, the ADA

compliances that you have that connection and some sort of ramp.

Structures are exempt from that.

It's not typical you have a large ramp put in front of these

structures.

Through the A.R.C. recommendations and working with Del Acosta

he did acknowledge the need potentially to have some way to get
handicapped people inside the building at some point.

Usually what happens in these situations is they don't put a

ramp out front, they have some sort of platform or lift that's

usually located in the rear or sides of some other access door.

And that's probably what's going to happen here.

What we did was add a note to the site plan, which I will give

to the clerk.

The site will comply with ADA and federal regulations which

calls for the exemption, any structures or mechanisms to be

constructed shall be subject to the design review and approval

by the A.R.C..

That way it matches the building and historic guidelines as they

stand now.

However, the final objection from transportation does stand.

It is a waiver to have tandem commercial parking.

And they do have some buffer reductions which were granted

previously by the zoning administrator.

But transportation is objecting to the reduction of parking.

I believe it's from 12 to 5 spaces.

For this size structure which is note odd on the site plan.

They believe the size of the building and the size of the use is

going to be too intense for the size of the property that it

sits on.

It's probably 65 to 70% reduction in parking, which they find

too extreme so they have not lifted that objection.
Melanie is --.

>>TONY GARCIA: I can fill her time before Melanie gets here.

Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

Most of the majority of this area is residential 50, as we can

see, CMU 35.

Pretty much surrounded by residential office use.

So it's very consistent in that respect.

Regarding commercial uses adjacent to commercial uses,

consistent with the policy the site will not be -- it will

basically be retaining what we have here since this is within

the historic district and it is a contributing structure.

It is limited to the amount of parking that can be accommodated

on the site.

Regarding compatibility with surrounding uses in planned

residential development, the policy that talks about it being

developed in accordance with applicable development regulations.

We have to find it inconsistent W this policy because the issue

brought up with the parking talking about five spaces versus 12.

So as far as that particular policy it's inconsistent.

As far as new commercial development, major commercial

renovations providing sidewalks in the area, as far as providing

shade trees along the walk, practical and feasible for those

policies, sidewalks are already provided along the Avenue and --

south Plant Avenue.

If you were to balance this with all the pros and cons, will
weigh in favor of what's actually existing on-site.

Planning Commission finds the proposed request consistent with

the comprehensive plan.

>>GWEN MILLER: Melanie?

>> Melanie, transportation.

I have not been sworn.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

>> Melanie Higgins: I felt it was excessive.

I actually went out to the site.

And I do have pictures.

As you can see right here, they already have four cars parked

there.

And they have a fifth where the ADA space would be.

This is a picture down the street.

That's where the red truck was.

And you can see parking spacing all around here, full.

The street right behind it on Beach Place has no parking on this

side of the street, and parking on this side of the street.

However, it's very narrow.

It was even hard to get my car.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Melanie, my question is, it's an existing

historic building.

If they converted it, or they are using it for office space,

they have improved it tremendously in terms of aesthetics and

use and everything else.
With the stormwater retention that's there, and with the 52-inch

oak that's there, they are maximizing the dirt that they have

with their number of spaces.

So what's the issue?

I mean, are you saying they should put some more spaces on

there?

If so, where do they put them?

>> I'm saying maybe the use is too intense for this area.

I'm saying that they can't provide parking for this use.

So maybe they should consider something else.

>> Considering residential?

>> Considering the issue of parking along the street, they can't

provide the amount of parking they need on-site, and Beach

Place, which is behind it, also doesn't have adequate parking.

So where are you going to park?

>> What use is less intense for parking purposes?

>>> Residential.

You need two parking spaces.

For specialty retail is one per thousand.

I mean, maybe -- I'm just saying, it's a huge reduction.

And there's no other parking around.

I mean, if there was other parking available, I could see it.

It's just my observation.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> My name is Jim Stetsman.

I have been sworn.

My address is 3314 Henderson Boulevard in Tampa.

Staff has given a very thorough overview.

It seems like the only issue really is the parking.

I'll make a few comments about that.

Also with me is the architect and the owner.

His real estate business is actually the occupant of the

structure.

A couple of things about parking, why we think the parking

situation is going to work, is that they are the only business

that's going to be in this structure.

And their real estate business is not the typical residential

high-volume business.

They do a lot of site acquisition for large corporations

including Outback steakhouse.

So they are out on the road most of the time.

And very low employees.

And so they are very comfortable with the parking situation.

And the original site plan, we actually did try to squeeze

another space in, where you see the retention pond north of the

tandem spaces.

But that was pushing it a little bit, having three stacked.

And we have shown a sign on the site plan showing the two

northern spaces are employee only. The on the factor with the
parking situation is they contacted the church across the

street, and they did get a letter saying that the church would

be willing to lease them up to eight spaces so if they ever had

a problem they can go to the church.

Now neither party was willing to get into a 50-year lease, which

would make them in compliance then with the code.

But that wasn't determined to be practical.

We feel it's an appropriate use on the site.

We have run it through the A.R.C. and they have recommended

approval.

So with that we would be happy to answer any questions.

>> Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on

item 9?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that this is one of the

most attractive renovations in Hyde Park, and this building was

in terrible shape before it was bought and now looks like a

million bucks.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order. It just dawned on me that

petitioner -- one of the petitioners in real estate worked for

me in the past on a personal basis so I am going to recuse

myself out of an abundance of caution.

Marty, if you could write that up tomorrow.
>> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

of 332 south Plant Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

particularly described in section 1 zoning district

classification RO 1 office PD professional office, providing an

effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

(Motion carried)

Thank you.

Item number 10.

>> Move to open.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open.

(Motion carried)

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development. I have been sworn.

This is rezoning of the property at 305 north Himes Avenue, to

construct 2-story professional office building.

There are elevations attached.

To the site plan, second page.

The proposed building has 4680 square feet.

Vehicular access is located on Himes and Braddock street.

Plan shows 16 parking spaces as required by code.

The eastern and southern buffers will be screened with 6 foot

decorative masonry wall to match the building and floor plans,

elevations again are attached to the site plan.

There is only one objection, is from me, LDC.

The reason I say it is a re-rezoning is because there was a
previous rezoning on this site.

You will note on page 4, done in 1982.

It is a fairly old style structure, not very attractive.

However, directly across the street is the Bucs and Yankees

area.

That's what it faces.

Here's Tampa Bay Boulevard.

There are several other rezonings, north.

The issue that I had, you will note the buffer wall on the

eastern side.

I want to show you this specifically because I recommended

something.

There is a zero buffer on that side.

In the past, council had given a buffer waiver along the sides

for the office. However, it is my recommendation at this point

since this is still a single family house to note on the plan

that they would be willing five feet on center, to Po tensionly

remove this parking space which doesn't have a backout other

than straight back, but they could remove this parking and do a

landscape island and plant a tree in the corner which could

eventually provide shade over the wall as well.

This is wide enough for that.

It would be a waiver of one parking space which I think is a

good compromise for the area.

If petitioner is willing to do that, my objection will be
waived.

>>KEVIN WHITE: This may be for Mr. Garcia more so than you, but

did your office have no concerns about this particular petition,

being that everything along Himes Avenue from Columbus drive

north up to this point is all single family residential?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: I was not only because it was previously

rezoned as an office.

It is held in rezoning as an office since '82 so this is

actually just following along, and potentially giving a new

building that is actually much more attractive.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I tend to totally agree with you on the

attractiveness.

But at least the old building was the one-story style that kept

things T character along that entire block.

As a matter of fact, even the next block where the crew shop

used to be is still a one-story kind of continuous thing until

you get up to 28 is when you start going to the high-rises, and

bank of St. Petersburg.

I guess what is proposed, I'm sure is going to be much more

attractive, but just may be somewhat of concern.

I'm just wondering if it was a concern of yours.

>> Not so much only because the regulations even for the single

family around it, and we have seen it over time in South Tampa

and west Tampa, the height limitations are 35 feet, even in the

residential district.
And some of these older structures, once they are rehabbed, they

are torn downed and rebuilt, people do two stories typically to

get more bang for their buck.

I'm not saying that's happening around here because a lot of

houses are single family.

But we also found -- and I believe tone I would agree -- they

kept the same similar footprints for the building.

I understand they went two stories but they kept a very urban

design by keeping the building up at the corner, away from the

single family on either side as well.

So I didn't mind necessarily having a two-story.

If it were back here on top of looking over the back yards of

the single family, I probably would have had an issue.

>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

Yes, I have been sworn in.

I think I want to be address your comment first, Mr. White,

since you had some concerns about that.

Transitional intensity, this is basically a parking lot.

And down over here, this piece, approved a plan amendment to CMU

35 to this, I think was proposed as a bank so you are going to

have some significant density here.

But of course transition of intensity of course also you're

familiar with, I agree with you as far as the uses along this

particular segment.

This is residential 10, predominant in the area.
If it did not have the zoning that it's had since 1982, probably

couldn't apply for this because of the location.

So what really allows me to go ahead and do this is the PD that

we currently have for office use.

That being said, I didn't have any major heartburn with it also

because they have made every effort to retain the original

footprint of the building.

I too agree with Ms. Coyle that if it had gone any further I

probably would have objected also but they have made every

effort to keep in the a very urban environment.

The relationship is directly to Himes as are all the other

nonresidential distances along this particular segment of Himes.

We feel it it is in character as far as if you look at the

renderings, providing windows on the side as well as the front,

there's a logical orientation, not going to be just a blank wall

facing residences.

Also what's important is they have provided a sidewalk along

Braddock, in addition to the sidewalk along Himes, so I think

there's pretty significant things, also in the DRC the applicant

did make statements, you are not going to see it, I think, on

the site plan, because they did make concessions that they will

be providing a significant amount of landscaping on the site.

There is some now, but they have committed to providing even

more significant amount of landscaping on the site.

Due to its orientation, in a very urban setting.
The other issue, the original site had access onto Braddock.

This one does have access onto Braddock.

They have made a commitment to direct all the traffic directly

to the west back onto Himes.

I think since they have made that commitment, I believe it is on

the site plan, we are not going to have any major heartburn with

that.

If I can refer back to a couple of hearings ago when we talked

about the office, we felt to refresh your memories it was an

office development that we recently approved on north Habana.

And Ms. Alvarez wanted to reorient the building more to the

front.

Right off of Rome.

Rome was in the back.

And one of the recommendations was -- one of the design

proposals was to even be able to have access on to wilder, which

I think you all were amenable.

So there are circumstances where that could be the case, if you

see it to be a viable option.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I just want to make sure that -- like I said, I

was concerned, because as you come north, you know, on Columbus

drive "-I'm sorry, north on Himes, Columbus after you pass the

shell station or the old shell station --

>>> I guarantee you if this was on Ivy or Cordelia I would be

having problems with it.
But the only reason they were able to do this is because they

got the zoning for it.

I see they haven't asked for any reduction in parking space.

To accommodate all the Bucs parking.

(Laughter)

>>> And with that I will leave you. Planning Commission finds

the proposed request consistent with the comprehensive plan.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.

>>> Keith Goan, 3705.

I am one of the the owners of the property, it's myself and my

partners, Anthony Prieto Sr. and Anthony Prieto, Jr. also own

the property.

As Cathy said, along the proposal as far as to address that

first, regarding the buffer on the east side, where she talked

about, the block wall, we will be committed to putting the Ivy

there, and I guess I would have to -- or we would note on the

site plan that we would be asking for a variance on that corner

parking spot to put some trees there.

Our original site plan originally had some trees there but

because of the issue and having to commit to the 15 spaces, we

had to take that out and make that a parking spot.

So we had no problems with making that commitment anywhere for

that buffer.

As far as Tony said, we have already made traffic.

We are going to be committed to making the exit on Braddock.
And directing the traffic.

Originally we didn't think that was going to be an issue as far

as if we didn't have it on Braddock but the issue is as you go

down Himes in order to get into our property, as you're headed

southbound, we actually have to make a U-turn to come into our

property.

So actually by leaving Braddock, I think it makes it a little

safer for transportation to get in and out of the property.

So we are committed to making that a turn left only, put a sign

for whatever we need to do, to comply with that.

The building is in the same footprint, where it was now.

We have trade to stay committed.

And actually, Mr. ROSSI, the engineer on the project, him and I

went back and forth on the architectural design, because we

tried to stay committed to maintaining the residential look, per

se.

Difficult to do with the design.

But we wanted to stay more Mediterranean.

But you see the elevations.

I think you all have copy of the elevations.

It's going to stay more as residential as we can to be a

commercial parcel.

It is a two-story building.

However, we don't believe that.

We changed the architectural design exterior to try to maintain
some residential look.

And that is with the windows and things of that nature.

As far as landscaping, I know the site plan doesn't show.

We are very committed to keeping -- to putting a lot on

landscaping.

We personally like a lot of more of the tropical landscaping.

The southwest corner will be probably oak, small oak.

And some landscaping around that.

And then the frontage that's facing Himes would be a significant

amount of landscaping as well as the buffer on the south side.

That's going to be all some type of hedge.

That's going to then grow up to buffer against the wall.

I think with that being said -- I guess I need to address some

of the -- there's a waiver that we are requesting we are going

to sign.

And I'm not sure.

I apologize for the procedure.

I think what we're asking for is just because of the location of

where the building sits in the property, we're asking to be able

to put the sign five feet to the property line instead of ten

feet.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I didn't have a problem with it being five

feet because of the building being there and I think that's

better.

But I think there's a qualitative difference between four feet,
which is like here on me, and six feet which is here.

You said that you're trying to keep a residential feel.

The building looks very attractive.

I think a four-foot sign is enough.

Six feet on that corner, I think, might create a blind spot for

people turning right or turning left.

But I just think that in keeping with the fact that it's

adjacent to residential neighborhood, that a four-foot sign

would adequately meet your needs and be more in keeping and you

wouldn't have to ask for a waiver for it.

>>> If I can address that, the only reason we were, I guess,

asking for that height waiver is because the property is -- the

property is going to be where our law firm is going to be.

And we also have a floor plan.

I think it has eight offices.

There's going to be six of the offices are for us and there's

going to be two or three that will be sublet to other attorneys

that sublease from us now and the only reason we wanted that is

because the design itself will kind of mirror the building and

then have enough Sipeage to put our law office and who we

sublease to. Obviously if that's an issue we'll make do.

That's why we are requesting the two two feet.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: So you are not asking for a ground sign?

Because it says a hand marquee, and you scratched it off and

have ground.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

He mistakingly called it a marquee sign.

Code requires it be a ground sign.

That's my handwriting.

I corrected the verbiage on the plan.

It's a monument.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: A monument sign.

>>> It's going to be basically with columns and nature that go

along with what the building has and then the cap on the top

from the ground up.

That's why we were asking for that variance.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't have a problem with this.

I would hear from the neighbors.

I see three ladies that are here I think that are neighbors.

>>GWEN MILLER: Let's go to the public.

Anyone in the public like to speak on item 10?

Do you want to speak on 10?

Come up now.

>>> I have been sworn in.

My name is Velma VELDE.

This is my mother Angelica.

And we both live there at 3423 Ybor street.

We are on the south side of the property.

Nothing has been said about the south side.

For over 20 years, the neighbors, the previous neighbors, never
claimed the 5-foot portion of the alley that we have claimed.

My mother, about nine years ago, pushed her fence back to meet

the neighbor's wooden fence back at Zayre, because neither of

the neighbors had ever claimed their five feet.

So when Tony bought the property, he just came to us and said,

you know, you're encroaching on my property five feet.

And we have a nice brick fence that has been erected over that.

It about four feet.

Because one foot is actually on their side.

So, you know, here he's telling us he's going to cut off our

fence.

He said he'sling with to do the repairs but he's going to put

his in columned where my column is.

This is what he's telling us.

So a third portion of my fence, which is -- which consists of

brick and wrought iron, a very nice fence, and it has improved

our property value tremendously, and we have gotten so many

compliment.

Now he's going to cut off a third of that brick fence.

And, you know, we were just a little upset about that, because

-- I understand where he's coming from.

He's telling us he needs every inch to meet the parking codes or

else he's not going to be able to build there.

To build there.

So, I mean, we understand his problem.
But, you know, I want to make sure that if we do give him that

portion, that he does -- if my fence needs to be redesigned,

because now it's going to be all out of proportion.

I have two sections with three columns.

And the wrought iron is between.

So now he's -- now he's going to cut off a portion of the one

section of brick and wrought iron, which is going to take our

fence way out of proportion.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: So when you took over your five feet portion,

did you have the alley closed?

Or you all just did it?

>>> The alley was open there.

>> I know.

But did you come back to vacate the alley?

>>> Yes.

Well, she came and took, you know, pushed her fence back five

more feet.

>> Did you come and --

>>> you came before City Council and we granted, gave the

vacation, to vacate that alley?

>>> I don't quite understand what you mean.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: When we have an alley and you take over --

>>> five feet.

>> There's a vacation of an alley that you have to do, did you

do that?
Did you all come to City Council and ask --

>>> oh, no.

Now I know.

No, we didn't.

My mother just assumed, you know, she didn't even know because

the other neighbor -- and she had told him that she was moving

her fence back even with his.

No objection.

The neighbor that they purchased the property from never had any

objection.

So we thought --.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, the problem was you had to come to the

city to do that.

>>> Right.

Well, my mom, she, you know, didn't know.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Excuse me.

They're asking me to talk.

I just want to show you on the map.

Whenever there is an alley or right-of-way with the stripes

through it, it is vacated.

It appears that this 12-block radius, these 12 blocks -- I'm

sorry, 14 blocks are all vacated.

I would assume at this point they were vacated by the city at

some point, usually when they are all vacated like that, it was

initiated by the city for some reason but the alley they live on
right here --.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's vacated.

So then Mr. Prieto can take over his five feet, but not her

portion.

>>> What it sounds like to me, and I'll let Mr. Prieto get into

this, but it sounds like there's a property dispute, that her

fence is on what he's saying is his property, and that is

something that when they have surveys, it's a private matter,

it's not something the city gets involved in.

It winds up eventually in mediation or court at some point

depending on how far they go with it.

>> Would you like to address that, please?

>>> Just so we understand this.

There was a ten-foot alley that was vacated by the city.

And what happened was obviously the previous owner didn't mind.

But the neighbor to the south placed a chain link fence on what

she believed was her property line, never had it surveyed.

And then when we purchased the property, we purchased it and we

look at the legal description, and we had it surveyed, and the

survey looks, and we go to our four corners and the survey is

five feet of their fence is encroaching five feet into the

property line, our property line.

She basically took up the whole alley.

>> Oh, she took up the whole alley?

>> Right.
So what we did was, in an effort -- we didn't want to come in

and be bad neighbors.

So in an effort we said what we would do is, because actually

the neighbor -- there's actually two parcels.

Their house and the house behind it.

And they have a shed.

And one of them has a shed and a structure that was built.

And I proposed for both of them to say, listen, I understand

that you believe that this was your property.

However, it's not.

I'm proposing to move this for you to whatever cost to move this

stuff, theoretically we don't have to, we are going to move it

over for you.

And then on the brick wall that she's talking about, it goes

right into the property line five feet, I propose to cut it,

repair it, actually get an iron worker to come redo the iron at

our cost, at our expense.

>> So you're willing to do that for her?

>> And we have told them that.

And they didn't agree with us.

So they went and retained counsel.

We have spoken with their counsel.

And we paid for them to have it surveyed from a separate

surveying company, different from mine, after I had it surveyed

twice to make sure.
Their independent surveyor came back that the four corners are

exactly where we say they are.

So that's where we are at now.

I don't believe -- and -- I don't believe it's going to be a

civil matter.

We don't actually have to go because her attorney advised her

that we have the right to that alley.

Now it's just a matter of us to decide what we are going to do.

We are still willing, everyone though the attorneys got

involved, we are still willing to repair that fence at our

expense.

To put the block wall where it goes.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think that's a fair proposition right there.

And I don't have any problem with the building.

It's going to be a really nice building.

Unfortunately, my bank or our bank is going to be losing some

tenants there.

Tenants there.

>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone else want to speak on item 10?

>> Move to close.

>> Motion and second to close.

(Motion carried)

>> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

of 3705 north Himes Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and

more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
classifications PD professional office to PD professional office

providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.

(Motion carried)

That was a continued public hearing.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Council, I'll be brief.

I was hoping to get out of here at eight.

Just kidding.

If you recall, Catherine Coyle, land development.

I have been sworn.

This property is on MacDill.

There were some objections with transportation.

They were minor.

Some other issues of circulation.

They did correct that.

All the units do face where they are supposed to face.

There is circulation through.

All the staff objections have been lifted.

>>> Jeff sheer, east Jackson.

I have been sworn.

We were instructed last time we were here to go meet with the

Ballast Point homeowners association who had some minor

objections.

We did go to their meeting.

They no longer have objections.
And they are not here.

And so we have nothing further to add unless you guys have

questions.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone out there wants to speak?

>> Move to close the public hearing.

>> Motion and second to close.

(Motion carried)

>> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

of 5224 South MacDill Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida more

particularly described in section 1 from zoning district

classification CG to PD single family attached, providing an

effective date.

>> I have a motion and second.

All in favor of the motion say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

>> Move to receive and file all document.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else from the clerk?

That's it.

We stand adjourned.

(Meeting adjourned)