Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, May 26, 2005
5:01 p.m. session

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.
It is my honor this afternoon to introduce city employees.
First the invocation.
And remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
Finally, God, we ask your help through this simple prayer that we may see with integrity what's right, what's good, what's fair.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
Ms. Rose Ferlita might come late.
She had an accident with one of her family members.
She's taking them to the hospital.
If everything is okay, she'll join us later.
At this time we'll do a commendation from Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our water department has asked me as a public works chairman to give out this year's awards for our 2004 Community Waterwise Awards.
We give these out annually.
It's a good time of year to be doing it because it is a dry time of year, and everybody needs to remember that even though we live in Florida and we are surrounded by water all over the place that we really don't have a whole lot, and we need to be careful on our irrigation, especially in these times of -- I don't know if we can call it a drought but it definitely getting dry.
We also have a city staff person.
We also have Sandra Anderson to help with these awards.
So this is Laura.
What did you do to earn this?
>> LAURA GOLD: I planted everything in my yard with drought resistant native plants, propagated in my yard and just transplanted to fill up my yard.
>> And what was your motivation?
>> I don't like to do yard work.
Very low maintenance.
Low grass.
>> It's xeriscape and zero work, right?
Well, we sure appreciate that and on behalf of Tampa City Council we would like to give you this commendation for the non-irrigated landscape showcase award in recognition of receiving the non-irrigated landscape showcase award in the 2004 community waterwise awards program for creating an attractive water efficient landscape that conserves and enhances water quality.
Tampa City Council appreciates your efforts to protect the City of Tampa's valuable water resources for future generations.
City Council, this 26th day of May 2005.
That was the non-irrigated category.
Did you have something you wanted to do?
>> Actually, yes.
We also give them a bag of water conservation fixtures, we give them some water conservation T-shirts, some water containers, and other odds and end things that we give to the award winners, to let them know we really appreciate them participating.
This year we did have seven people in our service area in which there were two winners, so that's really good.
In addition, we had the waterwise award.
We would like to present this to you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You have to make sure that aims toward the street so everybody can see it.
And I assume this is lind anman.
And Robert and Lindaman won this same award, and they are getting commendation for the irrigated category, irrigating landscape showcase award and I'll read this briefly, in recognition of receiving the irrigated landscape showcase award 2004, community waterwise awards program, creating an attractive water efficient landscape that conserves and enhances water quality.
Once again, we appreciate your efforts to protect the City of Tampa's valuable water resources for all future generations.
And congratulations.
Tell us a little about your yard and what motivates you.
I know it's got to be a lot of hard work.
>> I have microjet irrigation in the irrigated parts of the yard.
I grow vegetables in the backyard.
And in the front I have a ground cover of wondering Jew which seems to make out with the irrigation.
But I just think it's terribly wasteful to put water and more water and more water.
We need the water for other things.
>> And I agree with you wholeheartedly.
We see these large huge spans of yards and people could be putting in other things and using the microjets.
Let's hope that they follow your lead.
>> And the two people who need it the least, but anyhow, you can share it with another friend.
And she accepted her second which is I thought was a nice touch.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have some unfinished business to take care of from this morning.
Mr. Shelby.
We have a motion to rescind item number 34.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is Mr. Harrison --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: He just walked in.
He should be back in just a moment.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
>>DAVID SMITH: I think both Sarah and I are here to speak on that.
David Smith, city attorney.
One thing I would like to mention to you.
The first group included within the study happens to be my staff, as well as several other categories.
It is constantly an effort to make sure we keep the quality of people we need to advise the city, particularly you as well as the other departments, of all the legal issues with which we are constantly being confronted.
I would encourage you to favorably consider having a study completed which we are essentially pigging backing on a contract that Hillsborough County has already let. This is one of those situations in which we are going to gain some economies of scale and considerable efficiency.
We will have the information fairly quickly.
It will allow us to know where we stand.
My presupposition which I believe will be supported by the study but I will have to wait to see is that we are low compared to the market, and if that's accurate, I would like to be able to address that so that we can keep the people we have who are very good, and perhaps attract some more stellar people to the city.
So I would like to recommend your favorable consideration of that study.
It's the only issue I'm speaking to tonight.
Thank you very much.
>>> I'm really here to answer any questions or provide any clarification to you all.
So if that's the case, just let me know.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
We need a motion to rescind.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to make a motion to reconsider.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions on the motion?
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the resolution.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to support the resolution.
(Motion carried)
Motion passed.
All right.
We go into our 5:01.
We got another one?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I have two resolutions actually.
For council's consideration I prepared two resolutions.
The first one is the simpler of the two.
What it does, it's a resolution in support of the salary increase for council members effective April 1st, 2007.
And in preparation, it came to my attention that there's a resolution in effect, 9-1477.
And that resolution provides for council an annual across the board increase in salaries equal to what the city employees get provided however it does not exceed 3% a year.
That presently is in effect.
I believe it was -- my understanding that it wasn't council's intention to supersede that.
So the second resolution that you have actually incorporates a reference to that resolution 98.377, and specifically states that it does not supersede that, and that the resolution remains in effect.
So there are actually two for council's consideration, one is a motion and the other might be it's true intent.
I don't know whether it was or not.
But whichever one council wishes me to provide to the clerk, I will do so.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Shelby, you're absolutely right.
The intent was not to supersede what we had, but to keep exactly what it is that we did have, but just change the base.
I want to say the second, or the longer of the two resolutions is the one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would you renumber the resolution?
Essentially section 1, section 2, section 3.
Fix the number.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we -- will you read the motion, Mrs. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm not going to support the April 1st, 2007.
Like I stated before, I think the council at that time wants to fight for their increase let them fight it.
I'm not going to support it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move the resolution.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think precisely because what we're doing is not affecting the council members who are sitting here now, but it directed toward whatever council will be seated in 2007, that it's appropriate for us to take this motion and that's what I'm supporting.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The T reason I will not support the motion is because -- not that I don't think that a raise will be needed and appropriate at that time.
I just don't think at this point in the game we necessarily need to be picking that number, given the fact that it's two years away.
So that's my reason.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
All in favor say Aye.
>>THE CLERK: Harrison and Alvarez, no.
Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
We need to open item number 3.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Rose Petrucha, Planning Commission staff.
I just want to give you a little bit of an overview of the plan amendments that are on your agenda tonight.
There are a total of six plan amendments scheduled for tonight.
The Planning Commission held the hearings on May 9th, but continued the hearing for one of the agenda items, would be agenda item June 13th to provide additional time to meet with the neighborhood and at that time we will ask you to continue that public hearing.
3, 4 and 5 are being considered for transmittal to the department of community a fair for their review. This is not an adoption hearing tonight.
In addition, we have two plan amendments scheduled for June 9th at 5:01 p.m. that are part of this cycle.
The state has indicated to us that these amendments need to be transmitted as a unit.
So we will be asking that at the end of your public hearings for items 3, 4 and 5 that you will, after hearing those, opening and hearing them, that you would close those hearings and continue the actual vote to June 9th at 5:01 p.m., or at least reaffirm that vote at that public hearing time.
I need to put on the record that the state statute provides the opportunity for interested citizens to receive a courtesy information statement regarding the Department of Community Affairs notice of intent, that notice of intent is the final action.
The Department of Community Affairs after the amendments proceed completely through the process.
Any citizen who wishes to receive this information statement from the DCA should provide their name and address on the sign-in sheet that I have here.
And then those amendments we would expect to come back to you in October for final vote.
Item 6, 7 and 9 are map amendments that meet the definition for small scale amendment.
And these amendments will not require state and regional review before consideration of adoption.
However, five affirmative votes by Tampa City Council will be needed to adopt any small scale amendments.
So I'm going to have Tony Stefan speak to you to plan amendment 05-01.
>> Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff. The first of the transmittal plan amendments you will be hearing this evening is one that was initiated by counsel at the request of council.
I am going to go ahead and put up a map of the area.
I'll put up the area in question first.
I think you all remember that we had a rezoning that came in front of you in the fall of last year, with proposed Euclidean zoning to RS-60 for a particular piece of property that lies in the middle of all of these properties that we are looking at today, which is about 20 acres.
There was a lot of opposition that came out from the residential area, from the neighborhood association, subsequently proposed rezoning request was denied, which prompted a motion by Tampa City Council to look into this area for a proposed down planning from residential 20 to residential 10, which is what you will be determining tonight.
So let me go ahead and give you the succinct points regarding this particular area that we're looking at.
As I said, the motion on October 21st, 2004 was made regarding this particular area.
It encompasses about 15 parcels of land, approximately 20 acres in size.
Most of the properties, as you can see on the aerial, the study area starts at Powhattan.
The properties that are -- there's a bunch of residential properties on Powhattan, but basically it would start with the northern edge of the back yards of all these residential homes on Powhattan as the southern terminus of the study area that goes along Rome Avenue, carves out a piece of property here which I will show you subsequently on the future land use map, goes back up around, ends up and goes across, and of course the Hillsborough River will be the eastern boundary for this particular area.
Let me go ahead now and show you the future land use map.
>> What's in the carve out?
>>> I'm going to -- to show you the carveout now and the future land use map.
The reason we brought this out, the facility has a land use designation residential 50.
And it already has an RM-25 zoning category so it basically legally has the right to develop at that and that's why it's carved out and why it's agreed on to carve it out.
The remainder of the properties, based on the boundaries that have been given by council, all of these properties here will be down planned from residential 20 to residential 10.
So if this is the current land use category, the proposal will make it look as such.
Basically, the underlining zoning districts for all of these lots is RS-50.
So they will all still retain their conformity.
They will all be consistent within their zoning district that lies underneath the residential total land use category.
So no nonconformities would be created as a result of this change, which is important. The other important thing is there would be no residential 20 along the east side of Rome so can they're cannot be any future consideration brought to you for possible nonresidential uses along this segment of Rome Avenue.
Also as you can probably see on this map a little better, you do have a series of flag lots that shows most of the actual occupied residences over here which are basically single family residential uses.
You still have the potential under the residential 10 for people to come in and apply for several segments of property over here.
There's about a 3.5 acre segment which did come in on that rezoning, a 5 acre segment owned by the German club which could theoretically come in in the future and ask for town home development.
Residential 10 allows for town home development.
It would have to come to you for rezoning.
Based on the requests that you had made to down plan from residential 20 to residential 10 we find it would be consistent with development in the area, we feel it would protect the neighbors in the area, do feel that it will not create nonconformities.
So with that, I will leave with you the Planning Commission's recommendation which was unanimously approved by Planning Commission -- Planning Commissioners, find the proposed request consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Garcia, according to your report, it said that the potential uses for the residential 10 includes single-family detached, semi detached and attached residential uses, neighborhood commercial, and low intensity office uses.
>>> Only if they meet locational criteria.
Locational criteria basically means residential 10.
50% of the lots are already have to be rezoned commercial which they are not.
They are all zoned RS-50 so they henceforth do not meet residential criteria for residential.
Nonresidential use on that side is not a possibility at all because it does not meet the location criteria.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 3?
You may come up and speak.
>> My name is Edith Hooten, 1408 Alicia, which is just north of the property in question.
I'm also the vice-president of river bend neighborhood association.
We were very pleased when we came to council in the fall that you listened to us.
We want to thank you for that.
And we also want to thank you for asking the Planning Commission to look at changing the zoning from R-20 to R-10.
We are heartily in favor of this.
We are a quiet residential neighborhood.
We don't want a lot of commercial or townhouses or whatever in our quiet place.
We thank you very much.
And we urge you to keep us that way.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion to continue to June 9th.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Transmittal?
>> What's the date on that?
June 9th?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's for the second hearing but not a second reading.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
The Department of Community Affairs has indicated to my office that in order for the regular map amendment and the text amendment to be considered in the same planning cycle, they must be approved by council on the same date.
Although I don't read the Florida statutes to require such a restrictive interpretation, that is what they are telling me now.
Because we have got two map amendments scheduled on June 9th.
We would ask that you continue for the first three plan amendments to continue the vote to June 9th so we are consistent with DCA's interpretation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do it at night or during the day on the 9th?
Because we have -- I'll say it again, we are going to be here until 1:00 in the morning at night on the 9th.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I think as long as the public hearing was held at night, but the vote can occur during the day.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I would move it.
For the daytime meeting on the 9th.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I second that.
I just wanted to ask staff a question.
This is so logical.
I just was curious, Mr. Garcia.
Why was this ever made multifamily in the first place?
>>TONY GARCIA: Historically, looking back at the active part of the 1989, it was -- way back then it was actually thought that it was actually going to increase at that intensity so it was not changed even when we accepted the comprehensive plan back in 1989.
We looked back into it so it was designated that far back.
>> It just strikes me there were a number of areas that were considered.
I guess nothing was happening.
And somebody thought, well, great, let's increase the density, and that will increase investment.
But it has nothing to do with the actual uses that are there and the character.
>>TONY GARCIA: That's correct.
We'll be taking a much closer look at that in our plan updates.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we need a motion to continue to June 9th in the morning.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: 10:00.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 4.
>> Move to open.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
This is plan amendment 05-07.
It's in the vicinity of 7than and Nebraska Avenues.
To give you an orientation, this is the site commonly referred to as the GTE federal credit union site.
You have seen it many times in the last few years through the rezoning process.
We have Nebraska Avenue here, Central Avenue -- Central Park Village here, and this is Scott street.
The Morgan street jail downtown is here.
The interstate.
And this is part of what's known as the Tampa Heights area.
The request is for a land use change from residential 83 to community mixed use 35.
The GTE federal credit union has made a decision to further invest in the area and to bring all of it's operations to this site.
To do that, they will need to change to community mixed use 35 because they are no longer by any stretch of the imagination residential in use.
The area as we have described is very mixed, with the residential to the south, and several African-American institutions that have historic significance.
These include the original St. Peter Claver church, the St. James Episcopal church, new Salem church, and there's a Boys and Girls Club in the area.
The Planning Commission reviewed the trends in the area.
It's adjacent to downtown, to the Ybor City area, to Tampa Heights, and thus we believe this is an appropriate request.
Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation of approval to the community mixed use 35 planned category for your consideration.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 4?
>> Good evening.
My name is Ethel Hammer.
I'm here this evening representing the GTE Federal Credit Union.
With me is Mr. Sebastian, who is the president of the Federal Credit Union.
We are very excited about the decision that GTE has made to basically consolidate all of their corporate operations at this location.
And Michelle has made most of my points in that the residential planned category that's presently on the site would not really allow the type of development.
Because what it permit in the plan says small scale office.
Well, what we are hoping to achieve ultimately is to eventually have approximately 2500 people at this location.
Right now, the rezoning that was approved by you several years ago really only anticipated a maximum of 1400 people.
So we're looking to almost double the utilization of this property.
We believe that this is going to be a benefit to this area, that it will hopefully serve as a catalyst for additional redevelopment in that particular part of the city.
We believe it's consistent with some of the other corporate headquarters that have gone in in the near vicinity.
And, of course, by giving us the planned amendment category to CMU 35 it would allow for the expansion and consolidation for all of their operations into one operation, which we believe is more efficient.
So I'm available for questions.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm supportive of this change.
I think that it's great that you're going to create more jobs there.
I was very disappointed in the original design done for the office and the parking.
It's just a very typical suburban layout and right next to our historic district, it's in our urban core, and it's a very unurban kind of design.
So I'm hopeful when you come back in with a new plan and new use, it will be much more compatible to the urban context in which it sits.
So I will tell you.
>> I will tell you of course we will have to go through another rezoning, and that I have reviewed the transcript from the previous hearing and I'm aware of your concerns.
So we are going to try to address those when we come back again.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion to continue.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to continue.
>>GWEN MILLER: In the morning, 10 a.m.
Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
We need to open number 5.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Open number 5.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MICHELE OGILVIE: You're moving so quickly.
>>GWEN MILLER: You have to keep up.
>>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
Plan amendment 05-08 is in the vicinity of 40th street and Bougainvillea.
And I will put this up to give you some context.
This is the site that's being requested from a heavy industrial to community mixed use 35.
This is Busch Gardens.
This is the University of South Florida.
This is 30th street, 40th street, and USF sun dome, the university square mall, the residential development, the site of 30th as well as over here off of 46th and just a little further out of our view is Temple Terrace.
The acreage of the plan amendment area is approximately 28 acres.
The site is currently a vacant industrial building, which was placed during the 1960s.
It is within an industrial park that's located between residential communities to the east and west.
The surrounding area as I showed you is surrounded by and developed with many economy generators that the University of South Florida and Busch Gardens just as highlights.
The appropriateness of maintaining heavy industrial designations in close proximity to what we have described is questionable.
And the Planning Commission was supportive of the idea that the long-range trends in the area are more towards medical and technology research and office intensity uses.
There is one use in there that can be described as heavy industrial.
And that's the brewery which is on 30th street.
The Planning Commission reviewed the trends and conditions of the area when they made this recommendation to you of consistency with the comprehensive plan.
And we are bringing that recommendation to you this evening for your consideration.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question from council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's interesting.
While they are coming up, you can see the old air field on there.
That was a military field, I think.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. English?
>>MICHAEL ENGLISH: I'm Michael English.
I work at the 1101 Channelside Drive in Tampa.
I'm representing property owners tonight.
Michelle and the Planning Commission did a nice job of evaluating the property.
We think this area will be much better served in the future as a mixed use, support neighborhood for the University of South Florida's expansion and medical school and medical research facilities.
You all know how dynamic the area has become.
And really this industrial park is when Busch Gardens was first built and the brewery was first constructed.
The uses of the time also supported the heavy industrial production of massive amounts of beer.
So other than the union brewery, which frankly is a low-key inside, so I'm not sure you could even consider that a heavy industrial use, everything in the area is very quiet and contained, could easily be considered research or corporate park or other uses so we think this is a reasonable request.
I would like to submit for the record a letter of representatives of Tampa General Hospital who own about 25 acres just to the north of this property who are in support of our request.
>> Since this was a brewery before, are there any environmental impacts?
>>> This property was not a brewery.
Actually, the company that purchased the property specializes in buying properties with some environmental contamination and cleaning them up.
So it's a very positive step forward for this property.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else in the audience like to speak?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to speak.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Move to continue?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>> To the 19th.
(Motion carried)
>> Need to open number 6.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>> Rose Petrucha, Planning Commission staff.
Plan amendment 05-03 was continued by the Planning Commission to June 13th to provide additional time for the applicant to meet with the neighborhood.
We will respectfully request that you continue tonight's public hearing to June 23rd at 5:30 p.m. so that we can then present the Planning Commission's recommendation to you.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 7.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They are requesting a continuance.
>>TONY GARCIA: On this?
>>> Good evening.
Christopher Torres, for the applicant.
I work with Vincent Marchetti on this plan amendment.
On April 26th he requested continuance to June 9th.
He's out of the state.
This request was made more than 21 days before the date of this hearing as noted on the agenda.
Mr. Marchetti also e-mailed the Gandy civic association.
They were the only persons who spoke in opposition to the plan amendment before the Planning Commission.
I spoke with them oaf the phone yesterday.
They don't oppose a continuance.
Also received an e-mail response from the Gandy sun base civic association stating that I had no objections to the requested continuance.
Accordingly, I'm asking that we continue to June 9th.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since June 9th is going to be, as Mr. Harrison indicated earlier, going to be a rough day, why don't we go ahead and get the staff report out of the way so at least we have a sense of what this plan amendment is about.
And then consider the continuance after that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I would, I would advise against that because if Mr. Marchetti is not here then something in the staff report would warrant his --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can we do it in the morning?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If we continue maybe.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: One thing I would be concerned about hearing the staff report this morning, if we had members of the public that are not here tonight because of the e-mails that they received, I just think it's easier, more beneficial if the entire public hearing is held together.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: It would have to be heard in the evening.
The public hearing has to be heard in the evening.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is the 23rd okay?
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: We continued the previous one to the 23rd so I'm not aware of any problems.
My one concern about June 9th, it my understanding that a couple of council members won't be here.
Of course small scale amendment has to be approved by five members.
So it might work to petitioner's benefit.
It's a small scale plan amendment so it's not included in the transmittals.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to comment on the 23rd?
>>> The 23rd is fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: 23rd at 6 p.m.?
Or at 5:00?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You said number 6 at 5:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: We'll do it at 5:30.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Need to open number 8.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 8.
>>GWEN MILLER: We did.
>>> Oh, sorry.
>> Phyllis Fleming, Planning Commission staff.
The amendment before you tonight is 05-06.
It is located on the northwest corner of Habana and Haya.
It is located on the northwest corner of Haya and Habana between Hillsborough and Martin Luther King --
Martin Luther king, from residential 10 to residential 35 to allow consideration of the townhouse development.
The land use map shows the area to be predominantly residential 35 along the Habana Avenue and transitioning toward the entirety of the block.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you point to the subject property?
>>> The property is right here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's that lighter color around it?
>>> The lighter color around it is residential 10.
So as you notice, the neighborhood is transitioning from residential 35 -- I mean from residential 10 to residential 35, beginning on the black facing Habana, interior to the block toward Gomez.
>> I guess I don't see that.
It looks like it's --
>>> residential 35.
>> I'm on Habana.
>>> That's correct. This is residential 35 that goes from Habana to Gomez.
This is residential 35 along the block facing Habana.
And it transitions depends on what block you are further in toward the west, from Habana toward Gomez.
The entirety of the block to the south are residential 35.
The Planning Commission staff heard this request on May 9th and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
And we submit this this evening for your review.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 8?
>> Move to close.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question of staff.
I guess if you could go to the first map.
That's the aerial, I guess.
Because Ms. Alvarez, I'm not specifically familiar with it.
But up and down these streets, what's the next street from Haya to the north?
Is this abutting single-family detached on either side, on wilder, around --
>>> It does abut single-family detached to its rear, yes.
>> So why wouldn't that be intrusive into the single-family detached area?
If I have a single family detached home on Crest and now in my backyard I'm going to have R-35 --
>>> that's a good point.
Rather than it be commercial or higher intensity use such as commercial multifamily or townhouse development, it would be less intrusive.
>> What's the zoning right now?
>>> It's a tran development, I believe.
And this is a -- two of those follow owes are already residential 35.
This would just be the remainder parcel which fronts toward Habana.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Alvarez, any input on this for me?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was going to ask her if there's a residential in front of it now?
I can't --
>>> no, ma'am.
If I look at the site from Habana, and I look west toward Gomez, it's all vacant.
The parcel to its west is residential single-family.
>> What about to the east?
What's on Habana?
>>> To the east, on Habana, is residential.
There are some offices that have some residential uses that have transitioned to office uses.
>> That's what I know, that there's a lot of residential offices in there.
And this area is really transitioning, councilman Dingfelder.
And it really doesn't matter, because the way it's developing in there, you're going to have a lot of -- a lot of these homes are going to be changed fairly soon.
And I don't think that this development --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It looks like we're attacking this piecemeal, parcel by parcel, just when they're coming in and asking them.
Maybe at some point, if that entire area is transitioning, maybe we should just recognize that.
>> That's what's happening.
>>> And look at it on an aerial wide basis.
But it bothers me a little bit because this is now sort of a singer jutting into an otherwise sea of probably RS-50 or something.
So that's what bothers me.
But I'll take Ms. Alvarez -- you know, this is her district and I'll accept her region it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance future land use element, future land use map, for property located in the general vicinity of Hillsborough Avenue West of Habana Avenue and north of haya street from residential 10 to residential 35, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, before we do that.
Was there opportunity for public comment?
We had closed.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: There was nobody.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: While we are on that subject, when you do the comp plan update in the next two years, when we do the comp plan update, would you all take a look at considering a map amendment for that?
Not in a cycle but just in the update.
I think we can do an amendment.
Since we will be doing site amendments in the update and maybe look at that entire area.
I don't know where to look.
>>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
We would be working with the City Council over the next six months about the concept for the plan update.
We are hoping to take you to a more livable city one that is based with some rationale rather than following zoning lines than it has in the past, something a little more holistic.
Certainly we will have that opportunity in the next six month.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's specifically remember this little pocket here.
>> I'll take it down.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to open number 9.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 9 is going to require witnesses to be sworn.
I think you should just do that for the 5:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone in the public going to speak on item number 9?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
Item number 9, speaking on item 9.
>> Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>> Justin Vaske, legal department.
This is regards to item 9 on the agenda.
It's the second final hearing for designation for the former Glidden company, just south of Ybor City.
Staff has no objections to this proposed designation.
And at the conclusion of this public hearing, City Council has the opportunity to pass a resolution designating this site as a brownsfield area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 9?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to move the resolution.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We will be in recess until 6:00 p.m.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Three minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to order.
Roll call.
[Roll Call]
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time we have a commendation.
Mrs. Alvarez would like to make an announcement.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just want to thank senator Miller, your husband, and Representative Ricas, because the
We have 658,000 plus dollars for that stormwater.
>> Now the kids can walk.
>> I think that's another plus for west Tampa.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mary, you have two judges out there. You better behave.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Those two judges are friends.
No problems.
Come, sister.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, Tony, too?
This is a fun school.
Mary, I was wondering if you were going to have to swear in the nuns.
>> No.
I'll give you a little history of our little St. Joseph's school in west Tampa.
In 1886, the sisters of the Holy Named open the doors to St. Joseph's Catholic school at its original location at the corner of Albany and Spruce Street, and they purchased that property from Mr. Hugh McFarland.
In 1898 they were advised that the school building had been selected by a group of American government officials as an interim hospital for wounded soldiers of the Spanish American war which started earlier that year in Cuba.
Some 45 wounded soldiers were housed in the quarters on a daily basis.
The sisters were very active with the war effort, besides caring for the wounded, they assisted in other ways such as cooking and feeding as many as 800 soldiers in one day.
After the war ended the school was returned to the sisters and was up and running again.
By 1926, St. Joseph's parish in west Tampa was turned over to the Salesian sisters.
New facilities were built for St. Joseph's that included a convent, school and church.
Today, it is still run by the Salesian sisters. The teachers and sisters of St. Joseph's Catholic school long contributed to the history of west Tampa.
And it is my pleasure today to present to you a commendation for all those contributions to west Tampa and our city.
This year of course has been over 100 years that these sisters have been at the school.
And it is our honor and in grateful recognition of over 100 years of generous service in fostering the establishment of life-long values and the spirit of worship to students and parishioners, the Tampa City Council does hereby commend your contributions in providing quality education, faith and compassion for all the citizens of west Tampa.
Thank you so much, sisters.
As you can see, these are just a few of the alumnae that were here.
Desiree, of course, and Kathy, and of course we have two judges here, E.J. Salsino, and Dennis, chief judge at one time, and still is in my heart.
But we have a wonderful tradition in west Tampa that we do contribute not only to west Tampa but to the City of Tampa.
And I want to thank everybody that's here today for being so honorable and so -- just because you have that compassion and that passion for that school that it's still there.
And I want to thank you so much, and just do the thing that you're doing.
Thank you so much.
Do you want to say a few words?
>>> Our hearts are overflowing with gratitude for all you have done for us.
To be recognized this way.
We are really very appreciative.
May God and the Blessed Mother bless each and every one of you.
>> On behalf of all of the alumnae, I speak their behalf to thank you for this recognition.
These sisters have given more than 75 years of dedicated service here in west Tampa, and they continue to help the rich, the poor, the smart, the not-too-smart.
But they have helped many succeed.
And I must tell you that the best legacy that these Salesian sisters have given to the City of Tampa, all you have to do is pick up the yellow pages and you will see under every profession representatives of the product of these Salesian sisters, the number that have come from this school is incredible.
In fact I'm sorry that Sammy -- the late Sammy Rambello, member and elected member of the school board could not be with us but a school not far from here will soon be dedicated.
He was a proud product of the Salesian sisters.
So on behalf of all alumni, we thank you for this recognition.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
To go over the continued cases.
There is one, item number 13, ZO 5-63, the petitioners requested to be continued and there is availability on the June 23rd.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anybody who wishes to speak to the continuance?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anybody to speak on number 13?
Need a motion to continue till June 23rd.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: That's all, Ms. Moreda?
Everybody knows the item number 11 and 14 were withdrawn.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 10.
A motion to accept the withdrawal.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to withdraw number 10.
A motion and second on 14.
That's it?
We go to item number 11.
It's a continued public hearing.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: The petitioner has asked that this one be delayed for a few more minutes.
If we could go to item 12.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have another continuance, item number 12.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: They will be here in a few minutes.
Don't think everyone has gotten here.
Item 12 is a continued --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to ask everyone who is here to speak on items 12 through 21 to please stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: First of all, I would ask that when you get up to speak here, if you would remember to reaffirm in fact you have been sworn.
Please do so for the record.
Also, if --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone have any items to put in the record?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Written e-mails.
Written communications.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I have something that says was copied and distributed to all council members.
Now I'm assuming that our staff, when there's something like that --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Through the clerk's office, yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They are automatically putting it into the record.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's the procedure.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Once we give them now we are officially submitting it into the record so that's why we are doing this.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record so the public knows, all of those documents as they are received to the receptionist are available to the public, in the council chambers office, prior to the hearing.
>> Easier to access at the clerk's office, I think.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe they are available at council.
And they print them out.
They are in the public record box of the reception area.
And I believe they are delivered to the clerk's office at this time.
And that's per resolution of the council.
I discussed that.
That's a prior resolution.
Also at this time, council members, please, if any member of the City Council has any verbal communications with any petitioners tonight or their representatives, or any members of the public in connection with any of the petitions that are going to be heard tonight, that that member of the council should please disclose the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the verbal communication occurred, and the substance of that communication.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any councilmen have verbal?
Okay, Ms. Moreda, you may continue.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
This property is located at 305 north Armenia Avenue.
It is to convert the existing structure.
They are going to be remodeling it to 1300 square feet.
The site plan was revised yesterday to indicate that they have removed the request to do the addition, the 400 square foot addition and with that we are removing our objection to the petition.
They are satisfying the dimensional requirements for the off-street parking, and we have no further objections.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have our plan on this?
>>GWEN MILLER: She has one.
She has one.
>> And my apologies.
I don't believe there is a record of a -- or a vote of receive and file.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to receive and file.
(Motion carried)
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Let me show you a future land use map very quickly that shows the category in this area.
Along Armenia Avenue.
Here's Armenia.
Armory is here and Kennedy Boulevard is just to the south here.
The proposed site is oriented -- there will not be any on street parking toward Fay.
As Gloria stated they have met all of the objections that we had, also.
We have as a result of that removed our objection and do find it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
They will be accessing parking due to the alley and there will not be any impacts along Figure street.
This is also still something that we can live with because it's still on the periphery of the neighborhood.
Your comprehensive plan allows to you take into consideration nonresidential uses along the major thoroughfares.
So along Howard and Armenia that would be very good but just to take into consideration for future development.
We would highly recommend that's about as far into the neighborhoods we would want to see uses such as low density offices, right on the perimeter of the residential streets.
So that being said, Planning Commission finds the proposed request consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: While they are coming up, question of staff if I could.
On the cover page of the report it says the petitioner's name is -- on the agenda it says Cristina Diaz.
I want to make sure for the record.
>>> It's Cristina Diaz.
I'm not sure where I got that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Moreda, before you go, this is in the west Tampa overlay district?
I believe they were.
Were they consulted?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: We did forward it to the overlay.
We didn't get any comments back.
This is an existing structure.
And they are remodeling it to meet the requirements of the code.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But they didn't respond?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I did not receive any input from the organization, no.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did anybody contact them?
We forwarded the petition to them.
>> I know you forwarded it to them, but did you have any contact with them?
>>> No, Ray Horner did not communicate with me.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It says under "waivers," to reduce the landscape buffer on the east from 15 feet to 3 feet.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I received a letter of support from the adjacent property owner.
They indicated they have no objection to the proposed buffer waiver.
>> And it says that there's a food fence.
Isn't there a rule that if you have a commercial use adjacent to a residential use, you're required to put up a masonry wall rather than a food fence?
>>> That's true. The adjacent property owner, though, is supportive of the waiver requested.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
Is petitioner not here?
Ms. Moreda, you don't know the petitioner?
So what do we do?
Would anyone in the public like to speak on item 12?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I do know that they are planning to be here tonight.
I spoke with them.
They did the revisions to the site plan.
So it might be a delay as well.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion to close.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I prefer -- there's some things I want to ask about on this and I would rather continue this if we could.
>>GWEN MILLER: Just hold it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not voting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 11.
Is petitioner ready to proceed with number 11?
Ms. Moreda, we'll go with number 11.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to number 11, don't believe those people were necessarily sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: There's a lot that have to be sworn.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: They may have to be for number 11.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
This petition is a continued public hearing as well.
Revisions were made to the site plan at I think the direction of council.
The petition is for property at 319 west Bayshore -- excuse me, Bayshore Boulevard.
They are proposing to construct a 24-story building, 295 feet tall.
The structure would be on the north side of the lot and 8-story 104 foot mid rise structure will be on the southern lot.
Petitioners are here to explain the revisions to the site plan at the direction of council.
Staff has no objections to this petition.
They did make a revision to the site plan related to solid waste.
And I do want to substitute the ordinance site plan if you are going to be inclined to approve the project.
>>GWEN MILLER: Before we start number 11, we had quite a few people that came in that was not sworn in so would you please stand and raise your right hand, everybody that just came in lately.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Again for the record please reaffirm that you have been sworn.
Thank you.
>> 101 south Franklin Street.
I have been sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want your PowerPoint to go now?
>> I am not going to use it.
I'm not that technically savvy but we are going to be using one.
>> When do you want to start?
>>> It's me and then one other speaker and then the PowerPoint presentation after that.
Good evening.
We were last in front of you all with this case on January 13th.
And since it's been so long I thought it would be a good idea to quickly review the project of where we were up until the 13th, what the direction was of council, and where we have gone from there.
And the past couple of days reviewing the record and pulling some things from that which I think will be beneficial for this exercise.
Initially buff even saw the project, we had submitted with two separate twin story buildings, spanning Beach Place in the middle, consisting of a total of 168 units, along with that, we were proposing to vacate Beach Place as well as the alleys behind.
And then afterward but before the 13th date we met to try to preserve their views when we came up with the idea of spanning the beach, narrowing the two structures down, and that was the presentation before you on January 13th.
After listening to your thoughts and observations, as well as the objectors, we have drastically redesigned the project, and I think you will be impressed with where we are now.
Also, just in reviewing the record and just from going from memory and through discussion was my client and our experts, I thought it was important to point out the magnitude of support that was at that hearing, not only do we hear from various people, some of whom have been initially opposed to one Bayshore, but crescent resources was such a good corporate citizen that there are also others that spoke about the positives of density close to the downtown core, and that this would be providing, and so on and so forth.
Since then, we have also -- which I would like to submit into the record -- obtained two additional letters of support.
I know there were some concerns for the lower section behind Bayshore along beach.
Both of these come from neighbors in that vicinity.
And if it's okay, I would like to submit these for the record.
Now to the fun stuff.
After hearing there was a lot of discussion and confusion about the vacating, it was true that not only were we vacating beach and the alleys behind, but for what we are vacating we are going to gain the density off of those, which netted an additional almost 20 units.
At that hearing we dropped that vacating request in a show of good faith, dropping those units.
We've continued to do that.
Additionally, there was a lot of confusion about the traffic methodology used.
And some of it was clarified at the hearing before on January 13th.
But George deacon is here tonight, who has actually had to replace Randy Cohen who is out of the country, and will be our traffic expert to discuss that further.
Then generally, there were discussions and concerns raised about the vacating itself, the scale of the monolithic structure, the lack of open space and traffic.
Specifically on reviewing the record, councilman Dingfelder suggested that we look into reducing the size of the structure closest to 345, while feeling comfortable with the height towards downtown.
Councilwoman Saul-Sena requested a 3-D study of the area which we thought was a good idea.
We have since done that, we'll be presenting that tonight.
And also want one suggested we increase open space and reduce the maximum of the buildings.
Councilwoman Ferlita suggested that we reduce the massing of the buildings.
And that arrives with where we are now.
So after listening to your concerns, we are coming back with a radically different project tonight, and we strive to answer all your points and concerns raised.
We have substantially reduced the number of units.
We have lessened the height of the structure close toast 345 by 12 stories while only adding 4 stories to the structure closest to downtown.
We drastically reduced the amount of open space by over 60%, which will also include a part you will see tonight that will flow, even though there's an alley in between, we are trying to make some sort of causal connection between the park which classic just redid and the park that we'll be regenerating through the zoning of this project.
All the while we have continued with our promises to the city on the site plan.
We are going to onto to rebrick Beach Place behind, increase the rear alley from 15 to 20 feet to make it more functional, provide money for the intersection of Bayshore and Verne which we all know has some issues in and of itself even though we diverted traffic away from it, and wanted to point out there were a couple of objections from staff before.
Those have all been removed.
Planning Commission all the while has found the project to be consistent and compatible.
And there are no objections from on the civic departments including traffic, zoning and stormwater.
At this point I would like to introduce the team and then turn it over to them.
George deacon, a traffic consultant, is going to discuss the methodology, the flow of traffic, which is another point on how crescent's various projects the traffic will be handled and moved in and out.
And then also he's going to discuss the traffic impact specifically generated from this project.
Next will be Dave Taylor and Richard Zongoli to discuss the project from a micro as well as macro perspective.
Lastly is Jim Smith of crescent resources.
He's here to answer any questions.
I know stormwater was an issue before.
He's also an engineer, looked at the design and will answer any questions you have there.
So with that, I would like to turn things over to George deacon.
I thank you for your time.
If we could, we would like to direct the PowerPoint presentation to go ahead.
We are going to go into recess for five or six minutes.
>> I think we already have it.
>> He said he needs five to six minutes to connect it.
We are ready for the PowerPoint, if you can come out.
Would you go knock on that door, please?
He's coming.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We're seeing it.
>>GWEN MILLER: He told me I had to take a break.
It's okay?
Go ahead, sir.
>>> I'm George Deacon with Kimly Horn, a registered professional engineer, and I've been sworn.
As was noted earlier on the Randy Cohen stand-in, he's out of the country.
But I have reviewed his studies and talked with him before he left in regard to what he did in his studies, and analysis.
And I briefly wanted to touch on a couple of issues.
One is in regard to the methodology that was used for the study.
He looked at all the nearby intersections where there may be significant impact and did actual counts, and trees and also looked at the traffic patterns in the area, and this is -- this is what the slide shows.
And it's the blue patterns from the project.
They are condensed in a small area.
They use Beach Place, or Plant and Platt and Bayshore.
There's very little traffic on Verne.
In fact, there's the circulation is set up to discourage and inhibit travel on Verne.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
Do you have a handout of this?
It's kind of hard to see.
Do you have like a handout?
Thank you.
One of the most important things was a trip generation.
We know there are existing structures, in all the existing apartments.
So the project is not going to be all totally new traffic.
And that change in traffic is small.
In the a.m. period, to a.m. peak period there is an additional 39 vehicles.
That's total two-way.
And in the p.m. peak there's a total additional of -- there's 25 additional inbound and ten outbound.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you just give me, how many -- I mean, there are people living there now.
What is the number of residents there now, and how many would be projected in your new development.
So what is the difference in the number of residents on the site?
>>> There's 77 now.
And in the proposed, it would be 149.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>> So the important factor is the net increase in traffic is very small.
In fact, in the p.m. peak with the largest direction inbound is 25 vehicles in an hour.
You would have to, if one vehicle, new vehicle went by, one additional vehicle went by you would have to wait almost two and a half minutes for another one.
You have to wait 2 minutes 24 seconds to be exact for another new vehicle to come by.
And then you have to wait another 2 minutes 24 seconds for another new vehicle to come by.
So that would get you 24 new vehicles during the p.m. peak hour in the inbound direction.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have a transportation study or something?
>>> It was submitted before.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is it part of that notebook?
>>> Yes.
>>> These are numbers right out of the traffic study, the actual number of vehicles.
At the last hearing there was also a lot of discussion about methodology, and in particular the background traffic.
What other projects should have been included or were not included or should have been added.
And I think the important thing to remember is regardless of background traffic, even if it was doubled or tripled or quadrupled, it doesn't change the fact this project is only generating 39 additional trips -- I'm sorry, 35 additional trips during the p.m. peak hour.
It's not a significant number of trips.
And it doesn't lower the level of service at any of the nearby intersections.
That's regardless of the background traffic.
If all the projects included or not included or if you double or triple the background traffic it still doesn't change, that there is not a significant impact.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have an extra copy of the transportation study?
It didn't seem to make into my packet.
I had a question on transportation.
The blue arrows, which are directly -- when anybody is heading north on Bayshore toward downtown, anytime there's a left turn movement for really for any of these streets or any of these new projects, it creates somewhat of a dangerous situation.
And I'm just wondering what you or the city have -- are there any plans whatsoever to have a dedicated turn lane, and to change this so it's not "I'm turning left out of the fast lane"?
>>> I think the graphics have been changed since that one has been shown.
There is no northbound or eastbound Bayshore left into the project.
That's prohibited.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's still here.
>>> To further that, on the site plan we have two notes that kind of speak to that.
One is that whatever the direction of the Bayshore task force is, we will pursue and do on our own.
But we need direction from the task force.
And secondly, there's another note dealing with the traffic light at the intersection of Bayshore and Verne, if it's deemed warranted, crescent will bear the costs of putting that in themselves.
It's something we agreed to, or actually volunteered to do.
But again we need the direction of the Bayshore task force.
So we're willing to do whatever it is the task force tells us to do.
But what you have in front of you was where we are as far as talking with the traffic department now and what they wanted to see.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In other words, if there's a dedicated turn lane from the northbound sound of Bayshore at Verne, then that commitment is that you all would built that?
>>> Correct.
>> Or a light.
But I don't know if there's --
>>> that was in one of the initial studies.
I'm not sure where that is now.
But the note is there, just in the case of scenario.
>> And you're saying, you're committing on the record that there would be no left-hand turn directly into beach?
>>> That's what transportation directed us to do, so that's what we have committed to do on the site plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay. The next speaker.
>> I'm David Taylor with land design, 302 knight's run Avenue.
I'm going to speak to the site plan.
Where did the PowerPoint go?
Although there haven't been significant changes to the site plan it's more with height and building mass.
The changes that have been made we think are very positive to the overall project.
The rear yard setback on the site plan is to increase from 8 feet to 15 feet with a minimum 10-foot landscape strip along the rear alleyway.
We have increased our open space on the project by over 60% from the previous plan, up to 16,000-plus square feet which is about 10,000 square feet in our minimum requirement.
And we have accomplished this by minimizing the building footprint on the north side of the project.
And we have done that strategically to align it contiguous to the aids memorial park which was just finished by our client on this project as well.
It allows us to assemble roughly an acre of aggregate green space now on the north side of our building, when you combine it with aids memorial park and the green space that is provided as part of the one Bayshore park-side project.
Additionally, along our Bayshore frontage beginning at Platt, the first 400 linear feet of our frontage will now be accommodated by publicly accessible green space.
So we think that's a real positive aspect as well.
All of our tree planting and replacement requirements have been met.
We have removed any waiver requests as far as tree planting is concerned.
And we also feel the plan introduces a very pedestrian friendly streetscape with all 600 feet of our frontage presenting residential facades, common space uses, or green space along Bayshore Boulevard.
And we think that's a very positive thing as well.
We studied to address some of the concerns that were presented last time in terms of building massing.
We created a 3-D modeling of the project in conjunction with the other buildings in the neighborhood.
This is an aerial view sort of taken from what would be just over Davis Islands.
To give you a sense of the color coding, the bright yellow is the proposed project.
The pale yellow are approved but not yet constructed buildings in the neighborhood.
The tan color buildings are existing.
And the purple colored buildings are also existing more on the peripheral edges.
This gives you a strong idea of more from the ground plain, more of a straight-on elevation from what would be taken from across the water at the Tampa General Hospital.
You can see how the building on the left has been significantly reduced in height.
We have reduced the building mass by about 2 million cubic feet which greatly opens up the views, in particular from 345 building.
And we have increased the separation from the 345 tower to our taller tower to now 400 feet.
That's a very positive thing.
Just another perspective.
And this gives you a sense of the composition of buildings in looking at it from more of a downtown view.
We think that the said on place building and the two 1 Bayshore buildings already approved are skag erred in where they are set back from Bayshore, they very nicely frame the green space which I was thinking of which in aggregate is about one acre.
Include that -- again that includes the aids memorial park, the green space, and the groan space that now we are proposing on the north side of Seddon Place.
So we think those buildings very nicely frame the green space and present themselves to the Bayshore very nicely and avoid that wall of buildings that we might otherwise see if those buildings were pulled up to the road and to the waterfront as we often see along waterfronts.
Also preserves really better views for each of the buildings which is certainly a good thing for the residents.
And this just shows the staggered height's of the building which we think is more appealing when we can stagger the heights of buildings in an area and we think helps make drown the massing of the buildings as well.
As you can see, this is a 3-D model which doesn't really study the detailed detail of the building more.
Richards and deli is going to come up now and speak to the detailing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have a view from the north of the building looking toward the north side of the building?
In other words, have you -- the views that we have been looking at are from the south, and shall we say the Tampa General side looking north.
So we have seen what you are seeing.
But do you have any idea what we would sigh from the neighborhood looking toward the back of the building?
>> We actually have a motion clip we can bring up in a few minutes.
We can't introduce it until we do the PowerPoint.
It will do it in sort of slow motion, we can stop it at any point and look at it.
So I hope that will address your question.
>> Richard Gonzolli.
We went back to the board, and listened to council, and reduced the height of the one side on beach to eight stories.
It's actually seven stories of parking.
And we begin with the brick podium it's actually two stories of townhouses that are set 20 feet back off the Bayshore with green space in front of them and stairs and porches.
The balance of those five floors are single, condominiums.
And on the top floor, which is the 8th floor of that 8-story building is just a one-width condominium that steps out onto the amenity deck.
So actually that building is isn't 8 stories all the way through, steps down on the back with the amenities.
The other structure headed towards downtown, the taller of the two, 24 stories, has the same brick podium, and rises then 24 floors, the top three floors being penthouses.
Again, there was an effort made to break the elevation down between glass openings, balconies, railings, adding green space where we could at corners and at terraces, especially on the amenity deck but also on the second story podium on the north corner as it steps back where the curve is so we are introducing green to separate the green that's been opened up on the corner over there.
This is a graphic that demonstrates the change that we have made.
The dashed line represents the structure prior to the new design.
So we were on par, about the same height as 345 with a 20-story structure.
David has already mentioned that the 24 structure is 400-plus feet away from 345 and our 8-story structure, is 200 -- I think 230 feet away.
And as the massing suggests and it did from the aerial there was a modulation from 345 height down to a lower structure, coupling the lower structures plan and into downtown.
This was the old rear elevation of the structure.
Again a brick podium being proposed for the parking garage.
And some significant screening.
A lesson learned from our preliminary presentations with the A.R.C. on the adjoining structure.
I think there's a lot more work to do on the screening on the back side especially in terms of lighting, keep the light level low enough so there is not any hot spots and keeping it glowing through the scene so we went on a pretty massive search for light fixtures. The rear demonstrates the fact the parking deck is only seven stories actually from this elevation.
You can see where it steps up on the front side to the -- and the tower itself has gotten a lot more dimensional in terms of the wings that project on either side.
Again, on that 7th floor, 8th floor actually, there's another small garden deck, so there's green up there as well.
I think now is where we want ton segue back into the aerial.
Is there any question about what we have just gone through?
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: While you are going to set up, I have a transportation question but you can set up.
>> We need to take just a minute and hook up the laptop.
>> Oh, this is supposed to be the time we are supposed to take the recess.
This is the recess.
They have to come in and change all the equipment.
If the people in cable will come up.
How long do we need to take a break for, sir?
Ten minutes?
We'll do a five-minute break.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No pressure.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
[Roll Call]
>> Is the make on?
Thank you.
What we have of the 3-D model is a couple of motion clips.
One that sorts of takes you from an aerial perspective 360 degrees around the composition buildings.
We can slow it down.
We can stop it.
If you want to go back and forth, we can do that.
And then the second is a shade study which shows you from 6:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the evening how the shadows move across the area from all of the buildings.
And I think we've done that at the spring solstice in April or March or something.
So we'll start it now.
I'll just let you watch.
We didn't bring popcorn.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I feel dizzy.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to ask a question.
The buildings on the west that are appeal yellow are already approved?
>>> Yes.
Those buildings are approved as part of the one Bayshore master plan.
The beige one is the one that's just been completed and the other two are proposed as part of that master plan.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are the existing homes on the smaller streets on there on here?
Are those kind of whitish things that we see?
>> Yeah. The 3-D model is superimposed over an aerial photograph.
So you're seeing those in black and white in an aerial photograph image.
We have accentuated the buildings which really exceed like three stories in the purple.
So those are the taller buildings that exist in the neighborhood now.
I have a question.
There's a concern I have.
And I don't know if you are going to be able to keep this up here.
So I don't know if I should ask it now or whether the computer will be up here for me to refer to it later.
>> As far as I know, I think week keep this up and go back and forth.
>> Okay.
Why don't I ask now?
My concern is, if we go back to halfway back looking at the existing fabric on the streets looks like -- looks like nothing.
It looks so -- so --
>>> I might take it around to the back side and I can stop it.
>> Keep going a little bit more.
This is the concern that I have.
I really, really appreciate you creating this model.
And that is, for all council members, you see the small white ones which are existing houses.
Some of houses, some are residences, some are offices but you can see from the scale they are smaller.
You know, residential scale neighborhood.
And the already approved -- I guess it's off the table, the construction on the light, which is one Bayshore project, coupled with this proposal.
I just want you all to look at how the scale of that, and the -- the scale of it, the height, the breadth, the existing residential uses in the foreground.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The purple thing-s that the Hillsborough County facility?
>>> Yes, I believe that's correct.
Women's facility.
>> Or the youth facility or something?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, those look purple but they are actually Victorian houses, the two purple ones in the near foreground.
Those are my questions.
Thank you.
>>> Keep in mind as you are looking at the 3-D model, that they don't exhibit any architectural demonstration.
You have to keep that in mind that you're not going to see a lot of aesthetics in this.
It's more simply about the building for size.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You were going to show us the shadow?
>> Yes.
We'll go back to that.
It runs kind of quickly from 6 in the morning till 6 p.m.
We can go back and start again.
There's 6:00 in the morning right there.
Again, this is, I think, April.
Where it cleared the neighborhood, it probably about 11:00 in the morning.
From about that time on there's really no more impact on the neighborhood from any of the composition of buildings with Seddon Place and one Bayshore.
It's really a morning impact.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is an amazing program.
Any other questions?
Or would you like to go back and review anything else?
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Another presentation?
>>> That concludes our presentation.
We would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
At this time we are going to go to our public.
Would anyone in the audience like to speak on item number 11?
Sell she will again please state for the record if you have been sworn.
If not, just state that, too.
>> Good evening.
I have been sworn.
My name is Elizabeth deConti, and I'm the president of 345 Condominium Association.
Several of my neighbors are also here tonight.
Would you all mind just standing or raising your hand if you're already standing?
And the reason that we have returned to you this evening is because we really feel that this building's massive size is still too large.
When we were here in front of you the last time, we understood your directive to the petitioner to be that this building had to be more consistent with the scale of the existing zoning and the existing neighborhood, and frankly just needed to be downsized and although some changes have been made, we still think that the changes that have been made are not consistent with your prior directive.
The technology that we've seen tonight is indeed wonderful.
But as we have been sitting in the back watching it, we have been impressed by these photographs at how clearly they show how big this building is going to be and how it dwarfs almost everything in that neighborhood that Ms. Saul-Sena was talking about, especially with the proximity to that other project that has already been approved.
This evening, we have professional speakers who are going to address the council again, Richard Diaz and Linda Pearson, and we also have six homeowners who will be addressing the following issues.
The lack of a comprehensive plan, the negative impact on Verne Street, the lack of green space, and the project density issues, and the overall stylistic inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood.
I don't want to take the time of these speakers, so I'm going to end and start with Mr. Diaz.
But before I do, I would like to enter two petitions into the record from homeowners who couldn't be there tonight.
May I approach and do that?
Thank you.
With that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Diaz.
>> Good evening, council members.
My name is Richard Diaz.
I wasn't exactly sworn in.
I was walking in the door during your ceremony so I'm happy to be --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone else need to be sworn in?
Please raise your right hand.
Raise your right hand.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>>> I do.
Once again good evening.
My name is Richard Diaz.
My firm is Diaz Pearson and associates.
We were retained to evaluate the proposal that's before you.
We have done that.
We have reviewed and conducted some analysis on the traffic study that was submitted, and the revised traffic study that has been discussed this evening.
We've also looked at the site plan and variety of other issues.
We've dealt with the access, the circulation, and some of the concerns that we have.
I'm going to share with you tonight.
We do have a packet that I wanted to present to you.
We have copies for each of the council members.
Linda has placed the packet on the Elmo.
If I could please invite your attention to tab number 4.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
I just received this.
Is this you, Mr. Diaz?
>>> Yes.
>> There are seven names, Madam Chair.
>>GWEN MILLER: You have seven?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could stand up, please, raise your hand.
There are seven names.
Is it Judy Begner?
Thank you.
Edward Stonis.
Tella Gundy and Martha Gundy.
That's five.
That's four people actually.
Lynn Andrew.
And Mary McCarthy.
That's seven names.
>>> Thank you.
If I could invite your attention, please, to tab number 4 in the booklet that we have prepared for you, this booklet represents our comprehensive evaluation of the petition that identifies a number of issues that are of concern to us, and it also includes some recommendations that we have prepared that will mitigate these concerns.
And we submit those for your consideration as well.
The item described in tab number 4 that's before you, I have it on the Elmo, it deals with the existing alley.
As indicated by the petitioner, the existing alley that's west of Bayshore will be improved.
It's a 15-foot alley presently.
It will be improved to a 20-foot wide street.
That needs to be done for a variety of reasons. The new traffic that's going to be placed on the alley, accessed by commercial vehicles, and these are the representations that the developer and the petitioner has made to us in the past.
I would submit to you that under item number 1, the work that would be done on the alley must conform to Florida statute 336.045.
What is that?
That's simply a document that states minimum uniform standards for streets and highway design.
It's a publication that's been in existence for about 25 years throughout Florida.
It was mandated by the Florida legislature.
It's a design document to give cities and counties guidance for the establishment of accepted design principles regarding streets.
In that document, it suggests as a minimum requirement that a street be 50 feet wide, that the right-of-way width of a street be 50 feet wide, that the minimum pavement width indeed be 20 feet wide, that adequate provisions for curb and gutters be employed for drainage improvements, and that sidewalks be considered either on one side or both, and finally streetlights are required in terms of the adequate design and construction of the street.
None of that is a part of this proposal.
The developer plans to widen the existing alley by adding five feet of pavement, and nothing more is going to be undertaken.
Regarding Beach Place access, we believe that that is an inadequate entrance growth configuration to mitigate the traffic.
As Mr. Deacon has indicated to you earlier, there's approximately 35 trips that are projected in the p.m. peak.
And given the proposed improvements along Bayshore, I think it's reasonable that that 35 value would be the experience for southbound Bayshore traffic to enter the site of Beach Place.
So you're driving southbound from plat.
You're going to make a right turn into the site.
You'll be making a right turn from the outside travel lane.
The way the site plan is configured right now it only allows for storage of four vehicles in Beach Place before a decision needs to be made to either go into the right or into the left for one of the entrances into the parking garage.
So that's not an adequate queuing volume to keep the traffic backing up onto Bayshore.
Our concern is that traffic backup is indeed going to occur into the travel lane, and that's going to impact the capacity of the outside travel lane.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask you a question?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How do you know?
How do you know that four cars queuing isn't enough?
I'm serious.
When 342 was built, or whatever, 345 was built, I had voted against it because I was so concerned that getting off of Davis Island, the traffic would be backed up with people trying to get out of there.
And the good news is it's been less bad than I anticipated.
And I rarely see more than one car trying to, you know, make a left in or do something that stops everyone dead in their tracks.
So how can you project that you're going to need room for more than four cars?
>>> I do have a graphic that will address that in just a couple of seconds, or couple of minutes.
When I get to that I'll be happy to explain that in a little different detail.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Similar question but I'll wait.
>>> So we believe the entrance to this particular project justifies a right turn lane constructed southbound on Bayshore, to facilitate the traffic to get off of the outside travel lane where the traffic can indeed queue up before they get into the entrance.
Regarding the Bayshore task force, the goals of the task force go to -- are to exam all of the ins and outs movements on Bayshore. The goals are to analyze and manage traffic volume, reduce crashes, and analyze the vehicle, pedestrian and recreational use interaction.
We do have an element of recommendation in the task force for a bicycle lane, on the outside, or the west side, or the southbound lane for Bayshore.
If indeed that is added, that's going to be another element of vehicular interaction with bicycles that's going to aid in convection, the right turn lanes will mitigate that.
Also, we want to maintain a park corridor along Bayshore.
That's just extracted from the Bayshore task force.
The 319 Bayshore proposal that will indeed increase the Beach Place access, we believe new congestion will give rise to that.
The increased alley access off of Bayshore will also occur.
And that's the alley just north of the project.
The petitioner has indicated to us that that existing alley will be used for large delivery vehicle access, moving advance, and the day-to-day delivery vehicles that will be occurring here at the facility.
In part, that alley will be 8 feet wide and that's going to be totally inadequate for the large size delivery vehicles.
The last item, item number 4, we're concerned that the city has not conducted a comprehensive traffic analysis of this project in addition to or superimposed for the other two crescent resource projects.
These are significant high-rise projects.
And we don't see anywhere where the traffic effect has been superimposed or accumulated and analyzed.
It may indeed be no significant impacts.
But I submit to you we have asked the staff to show us where these three individual significant projects have been analyzed from a traffic perspective, and there has been none.
If we could flip over real quick to tab 5, I just provided to you a quick summary of the Bayshore task force recommendations as they apply to this particular petition.
Recommendation number 4 is along the west side of Bayshore to place a bicycle lane.
If that is done we are going to have conflict with the entrance on Beach Place.
Recommendation number 51 list -- is listed at Verne in number 3, create widened mediums.
If a median is placed in the middle of Bayshore that will eliminate the left turns in at Beach Place or the left turns in at Verne. If a signal is provided at Verne that's certainly going to mitigate the existing Verne conditions.
However, the conditioner has disclosed to us that Verne will not be used as an access.
It's going to be used as a means of egress.
Residents will leave the building from Verne through their garage onto Verne.
Or residents will leave the building onto the alley just north of the project, and then go to Verne.
So the recommendations outlined in number 5 for the task force we don't see are going to mitigate any of the inbound traffic concerns at Beach Place that are going to result from this project.
Finally, number 10:
Beach Place and Hyde Park place install a medium.
That's pretty much consistent with recommendation number 5.
Moving on quickly to tab number 6.
At present, council members, the alley is a 15 foot wide facility.
It has very limited traffic.
It does have pedestrian traffic.
It is used today as an alley.
That's all it is.
It's a direct access to the park that's to the north.
This petitioner proposes to convert it to a street.
If that is done, as the petitioner indicates, then the function of classification of this alley will deed will change.
It will be a for-real street.
The pavement will be widened from 15 to 20 feet.
There will be increased vehicular traffic.
The Seddon Place residents will use it to come in and out and they had use it -- the alley will certainly be used for delivery vehicles.
There will be no pedestrian walkway along the alley.
There is none that's planned.
There will be no green space.
And there's no conscious indications for provision for adequate drainage.
Indeed, the drainage may be handled, but it's not going to be performed in a conventional way that a street would.
When you create a new street, the green book standards prevail, and that's simply a matter of Florida statute.
That's not my choice.
But that is by statute and it is adopted into the city regulations.
The applicants adding five feet to the existing 15 foot alley for making the street.
In essence, if it's going to function like a street, it's going to carry more traffic and new vehicles as a street, if it's going to look like a street, then it needs to be a street.
And you have regulations which governing the design and construction of streets.
Your minimum right-of-way width is 50 feet.
And we are suggesting that if it's going to be a street, then it's appropriate that the developer provide additional right-of-way to meet new minimum standards of 50 feet.
That's all.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Diaz, Beach Place is pretty small in width.
There's hardly any room in there for two cars to go through now, if I remember correctly.
Is that right?
Were they planning to use the access going to Beach Place?
And then it goes on out to Plant Avenue?
>>> It's my understanding that Beach Place will indeed be the access point for the high-rise.
And there will be an access to the north side of Beach Place into one of the towers.
And on the south side much Beach Place into the other tower.
And the Beach Place access will indeed -- my understanding -- provide access to both towers.
Beach Place is narrow.
We have driven by there.
The current parking situation allows parking on one side, and yes, indeed, with parking on one side, I don't believe there's adequate width to allow two way traffic.
>> So it would really create some congestion if you were to allow all the access coming out of these new buildings toward Beach Place?
>>> I believe it would, yes.
>> Yes.
And there's no way to, and Beach Place.
I mean, it looks like an alley now, really, because it's very small.
>>> Indeed it is.
>> Thank you.
>>> If I could ask you to flip over to tab number 8, we can skip tab 7.
It's simply a site plan.
The relevance of tab 7, if you do want to take a minute to take a peek at that, shows the access points along Bayshore with this particular project highlighted over it.
And with regard to the alley just north of the proposed project, that is indeed shown as an access.
That will be the service access for large delivery vehicles, moving advance, whatever.
And that's -- vans, and that's not consistent with the task force for utilizing that alley for that intense use, nor is that alley adequately wide enough to accommodate those large size vehicles, and the turning radius that they are required.
(Bell sounds)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You have 30 second to wrap up.
>>> Our recommendation is the right turn lane.
If I could flip you over to the background graphic right behind sheet number 8, tab 8.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, you asked about the congestion.
I've got two elements of guidance, the right turn lane.
Anytime a right turn lane exceeds 40 vehicles per hour that guidance recommends a right turn lane. The traffic study recommends 35.
We are right on the cusp of that recommendation.
And in so doing, whenever you have internal site design -- and I'm suggesting that residents are going to turn right and then they are going to have a decision to get into the security elements of this building -- that is going to cause congestion and backup.
That's going to be a greater delay time than normal shopping on Beach Place.
So these two elements, I believe, are the guidance that really warrant a good choice.
And I think that a conservative approach would be appropriate here.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In tab 2, you're showing perhaps your wish, your desire.
I imagine somebody else will be getting to this in a minute.
But you're saying eliminate those top six stories of this proposed building.
It also looks like you're going to ask them to eliminate the top eight stories of a building that's already been approved that I don't think is really relevant -- I mean, it might be relevant to tonight's hearing but it not really on the table, even though it is the same developer.
But you're asking to eliminate those top six stories?
>>> No.
>> Tell me then.
>>> Linda Diaz Pearson.
I have been sworn.
The graphic you're seeing as number 2 on the overhead indicates to you which basically the petitioner has provided you.
If you will notice to the left side is the 345 Bayshore building which is 18 stories.
The new crescent building which is almost completed is also 18 stories.
They have reduced the southernmost building from its original proposed height down to 8 stories, and the northern-most building, they have eliminated, I think two stories, started out at 26, is now at 24.
And then the residents which is approved for -- zoned for 312 units is the zoning approval for 26 stories.
And the purpose of this graphic was just to show you the mass and the bulk that is occurring within a very short distance between Platt and Verne.
You are correct, the Davis Island traffic is all coming off and behind --
>> I just want to focus on those words, eliminate six-thirds.
Why are those words there?
>> Well, we are talking about the fact that in about a six-acre land area, with the existing residences, the existing apartments that are on Beach Park place, the units that are there, and that historic district, as well as what is being proposed, and what is existing, you have or are going to have almost 1,000 units within about five or six acres of land.
And I think that is what the 345 residents were concerned about.
The developer has worked with us.
We have gained some ground.
He has created more open space.
But we still feel like the 83 units per acre, which is the maximum allowed by the comprehensive plan on this site, is being maxed out by the proposal.
And if you will look at tab number 1 which you have seen before when we were here, I believe, in January --.
>> I never really heard what eliminate six stories meant.
>> Well, eliminating six stories if you maintain the same height, the existing 345, and the existing park one building here.
>> And that's what your clients would be happy with?
>> Some of them would be happy with us.
Others would like to see it back to 16, which is what it's currently zoned for now.
And just showing you that line of site, that if six stories were eliminated from the proposed building tonight that is what that height would become as opposed to what it is proposed.
The tab number 1, if you can flip very briefly back to that, and this verifies the information that we've provided to you previously, the top three condominium projects on all the crescent projects with the 312 zoning, the 149, which is proposed at said on place and the 104 at the park side, you have 465 units, four acres, and the average density is about 139 acre.
Of course the land use changes with the corner there at Platt and Bayshore.
We wanted to just present this to you to say that, yes, we still have concerns about the density.
The setbacks along Verne are 8 feet. The northeast corner of the building is still 4 foot setbacks on the alley.
And while they have increased their open space, it's now 20.7% open space.
We really feel that the Verne Avenue setbacks are not, as proposed, are not consistent with the existing residences along Verne, between Bayshore and Plant, which is established generally at 20 feet.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
>>> Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Dana Heston.
I have been sworn in.
I live at 345 Bayshore.
The building does not impact my view at all.
This is our third time here.
I know a lot of people are impatient.
They sit here a long time.
And I want to stress that this is as important to me and the people in my building and this community as all the other issues that are on the docket tonight, as people patiently wait.
So I want to thank them for taking the time.
And I want to thank them for taking the interest in this project.
Bayshore Boulevard is the jewel of Tampa, and many new high-rise buildings are being erected with thoughtful planning that harmoniously blend with the architecture and the impact that it will have on Tampa's exclusive Bayshore Boulevard.
The Bellamy and the Ellagon would be two examples of that.
With the project -- with this project as proposed as well as the 26-story structure that's already been approved, and one Bayshore, three separate projects all owned by the same developer are being piecemealed, rather than providing thoughtful master planning and aesthetically harmonious structures befitting Bayshore Boulevard. The impact of these projects will have on traffic, sewers, ponding of water, and our roads should be on the shoulder of the developer and not left to the residents of Tampa to remediate after the fact, and in many cases face impact fees that the developer should be responsible for.
Under the guise of being good guys, this developer has continually met with the city, as well as the residents in this area, but has yet to follow your guidelines specifically requested by you at our last meeting.
They did not scale back the buildings to the guidelines the City Council set for the existing zoning of a 16-story and a 4-story building.
They have not provided a bird's eye overview of the entire scope of all three of their projects.
The architecture does not blend in or consider that it backs up to an historic neighborhood.
This city allowed one Bayshore a zero lot line set back.
This should be offset with substantial setbacks with a new project, particularly as it's entryway to the exclusive Bayshore Boulevard.
Still, there's no master plan, in a comprehensive traffic study.
At least nothing that's been given to us.
Not enough green space.
No widening of alleys being used as major accesses.
No adequate access lanes or egress lanes or stacking lanes or right and left-hand turn lanes planned for safety.
Resident and Bayshore traffic.
Mr. Thornton's idea of a comprehensive traffic assessment seems totally inadequate, and remains a mystery.
More comprehensive studies need to be completed.
And we have concern that even more traffic accidents, flooding and deaths will result from lack of detailed studies.
In closing, I would like to emphasize these important points.
Still no comprehensive plan for three projects.
Still no comprehensive traffic analysis by our city for these three projects.
>>GWEN MILLER: You need to wrap it up.
Time is up.
>>> Nothing that shows the relationship for how residents access these new developments either by car or on foot.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would thank you for your consideration.
And I would like to say and hope that you will reject this project until such a time that the developer can produce a master plan of all three of thinks projects that will enhance, not impede, our beautiful jewel of Tampa.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> My name is John Kelly, 345 Bayshore.
And I've been sworn in.
I'm a City of Tampa employee but I'm here on a private matter.
I think the key to this development is Verne Street.
With all due respect to the gentleman that spoke before, and with all due respect to the council people, there is a lot of traffic on Verne Street.
And this is not just the two buildings but the entire plan will have to turn left on Verne Street if they are traveling northbound on Bayshore.
There is no access in this development and all the development other than Verne Street.
If you ever tried to get onto Verne Street at that time, it's a pain.
If you ever try to turn left out of 345 Bayshore with the traffic out of Davis Island, that is also very difficult.
So I think you need to reconsider this in light of let's address the problem at Verne before we continue development.
I don't think a terrific light at Bayshore is the answer.
I think -- why does Bayshore take away from parking? I think -- what to do with Verne Street is a very narrow street, to consider widening would exacerbate the problem.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question of staff but directly related to the point that you just brought up.
I understand that you guys have made a request that they have a no left turn into beach when you're coming north onto Bayshore toward downtown.
On the surface that sounds like a pretty good idea.
But the more everybody is talking about Verne, and I've been hearing from this building about the existing problems on Verne that clearly will be exacerbated to a certain extent, I think folks that work in MacDill who clearly are going to be coming north toward downtown and 345 already have some MacDill folks and will probably have some MacDill folks in this next building too, probably. But anyway, regardless, there's going to be some trying to go north on Bayshore and left into this project so if we are not telling them to do it on beach, then they are probably going to do it on Verne and probably going to exacerbate.
So my question is, A, what's the logic?
Why do we tell them not to do it on Beach?
Is it possible we could reconsider that logic if they can improve Bayshore, and frankly improve Bayshore and make dedicated lanes for left turn onto Verne and dedicated left turn into Beach for safety sake?
>> Melanie: Transportation.
Your first question about putting a left turn into the project from Bayshore to Beach.
That is actually -- I didn't review the analysis but I think the reason why they did that is because the vehicles that are coming is the close proximity to Platt Street.
It just gets that much closer to it.
And the vehicles turning -- actually Verne Street is an intersection.
B street is a smaller type of street.
I don't know if everyone considers that a street.
It just a narrow street when Verne is a little bit larger.
>> But I think they are widening Beach for this project.
Aren't you?
>>> I don't think so.
>> Is that wider? Or is it already 30?
>>> Jim Smith with Crescent Resource, and I have been sworn in. In addition to widening it somewhat, the way it will be designed is there will be no parking on it anymore.
And there is parking existing on it today.
>> So go ahead.
>> I do have an aerial.
There's Beach Place right there. Verne Street right here.
You can see that it is wider than Beach Place, though that's existing.
That's existing.
Reconsideration of it, I think the reason why they are doing it is that we wanted them going on Verne Street because we wanted the Bayshore task force, recommendations were to have some type of improvement there.
And they have contributed $20,000 to any type of improvement in that intersection, or surrounding that may be required, and we also have, if warranted, is signal possibly going up orange street.
>> The mayor hasn't been too thrilled about any consideration of additional lights on Bayshore.
>>> Right.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The previous speakers questioned whether the city had done a really thorough look at all three of the -- the impact of all three of these projects already approved in one proposed, taken in total, given what the transportation situation here.
Have you done that?
>> We have included the traffic from one Bayshore.
We have already included 345 as background.
As part of the background traffic.
We added this background traffic to it.
We did look at intersection surrounding it.
We did look at the effect of the traffic around the entire site.
I know Calvin reviewed the traffic analysis. I did not feel that he thought there was a large impact due to the fact that the trip generation, the 149 that they are proposing in the a.m. peak and p.m. peak is in the single digits, and 12 in the a.m. peak, inbound.
It's just not a lot of traffic for these more residential units.
According to trip generation, which averages the statistics that they use to generate the traffic.
It's just not one, two-car per unit.
So looking at that, the petitioner -- we do have mitigation money to help.
We have Bayshore task force put into place.
We have $200,000 the mayor has allotted to that.
You've already seen the speeding signs that direct the speeding signs that tell you how fast you're really going, in lieu of the speed limit.
I'm sure if you have driven Bayshore you have seen that.
We do have planned things for Bayshore as far as the money.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> My name is Patricia Donick, 345 Bayshore and I have been sworn in.
A lot of what I was going to say tonight has already been said so I'm not going to repeat it.
But just backing up to this overall traffic study, we have asked for it.
And we have never received it.
Comprehensive traffic study.
And you might add to that now the 1400 car garage that's been approved for Tampa General.
So we are talking about probably at least another 2,000 cars coming off and on Davis Island.
There's only one way off Davis Island and that's through Verne Street, I think it's Hyde Park or plant.
So there's another impact of in that study.
You know, I was at the last hearing for this project.
And I heard Mr. Dingfelder and Ms. Saul-Sena and Ms. Ferlita instruct the developer to go back to the drawing board and devise something that's been a little bit more reasonable.
Or right now the 16 story and 4 story.
Probably Don has taken the two 20-story towers, chopped off some and put it on top of the other.
And only reduced the density by approximately 19 units.
And I don't see, Mrs. Saul-Sena, where they have addressed the backing up right to the historic district with the buildings, and how this is going to make a nice blend.
So I really don't think that this project is reasonable as the way it stands.
And I would like to see it revised even further.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Brian Crosby, a resident of 345 Bayshore.
I have a few handouts.
I'll preference it by saying I'm not a graphs person or photographer so bear with me.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
>>> Yes, I have.
Just to rehash, that you have already seen, we have gone from 24 stories and 8 stories.
They have only reduce add grand total of 8 levels and about 20 residential units.
The massive glass, concrete, steel, looks even more out of scale with the taller tower.
In addition, this proposed project looks like nothing on Bayshore or the historic district.
With the catwalk and contemporary design it looks like a commercial building for downtown.
With this project, crescent will have a 17 story tower, 26 story tower, 24 story tower, 8 story tower, and a 20-story tower with 345 next door, all sitting next to each other with no space in between.
The mass of density is unprecedented.
Even more so, the historic district will be wrapped in shadows if this happens not to mention widening the only alleyway into a major street for deliveries and parking garages.
There's no space to step down into the district.
The alley parallels Bayshore as you have seen, and behind that lies 100-year-old homes stretching back to plant street.
The 26 story tower has an even smaller ten foot alley separating from the historic district.
What's even more damaging is Beach Place, the small brick street with parking on each side as one of the major Avenues for their developments.
The street runs right through the historic district with large oaks and Victorian homes.
The result will decimate one of the oldest portions of the city.
And I do have some photos here.
This will kind of show you the homes that are there.
I think I gave you a photograph of what Beach Street actually looks like.
The residence was all the Crescent developments, add to that the Tampa General expansion, we are looking at 2500 to 3,000 vehicles in this small block.
If you look to the last page you see how I arrived at that number.
This project does not work.
When I bike or drive down Bayshore, I notice the mix of residences and high-rises with green space.
That's what this site needs.
That piece of the mix using residences such as town homes.
(Bell sounds)
Tampa is growing very rapidly.
There are many high-rise developments going up.
We as a community must always remember to be good stewards of protecting the treasured areas.
I ask you to please not add a concrete jungle in our Bayshore.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> I'm Joyce Hartman, 345 Bayshore.
And I have been sworn in.
I know you all know that in twine we are getting the Super Bowl.
I don't know anything about the teams.
But I do know that everybody in Tampa is excited.
But there may be something about this that you don't know.
And that is that they are -- the testosterone heavy organization is as concerned about green spaces as they are about Astro turf.
In fact, they have hired a conservation and environmental expert.
His name is Jack growl of Detroit.
And I spoke with him at length.
His job is to go wherever they are having a Super Bowl, and plant trees.
The reason is, the Super Bowl generates so much pollution from vehicular traffic that trees have to be planted around the venue.
Now, that's -- obviously the trees that are planted will remain.
And I say to you, we have as much traffic going back and forth in front of Bayshore all the time, not just sometime, as the Super Bowl has once in a while.
And we think we need more green space, not less.
Now I want to tell you something.
I want to congratulate the architect.
Now, that park place they constructed is gorgeous.
Looks like something in Greece.
However, it's not green.
It's concrete.
With little strips of green around it.
But that's okay, let's keep that.
Let's just lower the density of the other buildings yet to be constructed, and use more green space, more trees, to suck up the pollution from all the cars that are coming in our neighborhood.
People like to bicycle, and do all kinds of recreational activities, including pushing baby strollers down the Bayshore.
Now, I ask you as a grandmother or mother, during the peak traffic times, would you dare to take an infant down the Bayshore, with the amount of traffic and the lack of trees?
Now, they have proposed a 20-foot set back of their building on Bayshore.
But only 8 on Verne.
The upshot of this whole thing is the mayor is putting out welcoming signs, greeting everybody to a parkland area.
What kind of a parkland area is it when in one big site you have four high-rises?
I would plead with you to, at a minimum, ask them to go back as you did last time we met, and have it put back down at least to the original 16 and 4.
I'm 18 stories up.
I look down.
And it's lush greenery all over the Hyde Park historic area.
And then all of a sudden there's this bear, concrete area.
(Bell sounds)
I ask you this not for me.
I'm already a historic article.
I'm asking for your grandchildren and for Tampa.
Let's keep the Bayshore lower density and greener.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Was there anybody else?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Petitioner, rebuttal?
They spoke.
They were on the sheet.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anyone who wants to speak whose name was not on the sheet previously submitted, whose name wasn't called?
If you want to inquire.
I see a hand but I don't know.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, you may rebuttal.
>>> My name is Jim Smith of crescent.
And I have been sworn.
I'll see in a minute if I have that on there in the right direction or not.
City Council in the past and this evening has opposed some very good questions and concerns, and we have listened.
We feel we have addressed a lack of concerns.
I would note that Hillsborough County has no objections.
The density issue is -- and I want to correct a few misstatements that were made.
We have a total of 5.76 acres, if you want to start talking about the other development next door.
Not four as was stated earlier.
The density that we are requesting is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is that density?
>> 83 units per acre.
And it's consistent with the adjacent sites with the exception of the existing parkside building that was always approved at 100 units per acre.
And that side just as an example is 1.11 acres, 104 units.
Relative to the alley, I don't know of any street in Hyde Park that is 150 feet let alone an alley.
We are going to use it for proper use and that is deliveries.
Existing developments within the entire subarea of Bayshore, Verne, plant, and all the way up to the Crosstown, use the city streets for delivery.
They use the city streets for stacking cars, and they use the city streets for parking.
This petition does not rely on any of the streets for deliveries.
We do not rely on any of the streets for stacking.
And I think there's a misinterpretation, and we may need to clarify that in the petition, that our executor gates are not at the entrance to Beach.
We have an entire length of the site both north and south that stacks cars before we enter a security gate.
So we do have stacking within the building, not on Beach Place.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How much stacking in the building?
>>> How long is that?
I would say reasonably 8 cars and we can confirm that plus a security gate so we have 16 cars to be able to stack.
In addition they can stack 8 coming out until they can get out onto Beach Place.
We do owe the City Council an apology.
And I discussed this issue with you Del Acosta.
We are not happy with the lighting that we committed to you in our garage at the existing building that we just put up.
We're working on a correction on that.
We are committing on this petition to not pollute the adjacent historic area with light coming out of the garage.
We'll screen that with louvers and so forth.
We are not happy with that lighting.
I don't know if you have driven by.
It does not look good.
And I'm working with Del on that.
As I had mentioned earlier, Beach Place will not have any parking on it in the future, the way the petition is presented to you.
We have provided adequate green space and open space.
I think we have more than adequately addressed the concern of green space.
And I don't know if you have had the experience of entering Bayshore Boulevard now from the city.
But the corner is well improved with their landscaping and that landscaping is going to continue on down Bayshore Boulevard all the way in front of our properties.
The current buildings, which have served their time, are set back 15 feet from Bayshore.
Setting them back 20.
And we'll have an extra five feet to put some nice trees on Bayshore Boulevard. The redevelopment of the site will dramatically improve stormwater management.
We will be required when we submit our development plan to adequately drain all the T streets and the alleyways surrounding the neighborhood.
We'll build a stormwater vault. The water will be filtered and treated before it enters the bay.
We have already sized the pipe onto Bayshore Boulevard to take additional stormwater from the site when we develop the adjacent property.
I would like to point out to you that the surrounding historic neighborhood that's bounded by Bayshore Boulevard, Verne to the south, Plant street and then the Crosstown to the north, although lovely and historic and needs to be preserved, that use has changed.
And there are only four single-family uses in the neighborhood today.
There's one single-family home on Beach.
All other buildings have been converted to either office or multifamily.
So I feel that this use is not as consistent as it may have been 50 years ago.
The traffic study as transportation has noted, we completed two traffic studies.
We gave both of them to some of the folks who said that they didn't have access to, and we gave them hard copies, that I'm at a loss of what to do with that issue.
But that we have given them to them.
And as a last point the master planning question, I think we have worked very well.
And, you know, fortunately we are the only sizable property in this little subarea that has had this opportunity to master plan.
And I think that the visuals that you saw tonight, we have taken the city park that we improved for the city, and got some density bonus credits for that.
But now we're adding some contiguous space on this development, and as a citizen of Tampa, when you go out and experience that park, you won't know if you're on public or private property.
Because we are not putting up any barriers.
Everyone will have full access to it they can wear their dog, sit in the park, they can relax.
That whole entire green space will feel like it's theirs.
As I mentioned the existing property in its current state has served its time with solid buildings and paved parking lot.
It doesn't have a lot of green space.
We are not decreasing green space.
With this new development.
Lastly, you heard from our neighbors in the neighborhood at the last hearing who are in support of this, I didn't ask them to come back tonight because you heard from them and you received some letters from them last time.
And I might add that, you know, some of the existing problems in the neighborhood, although we can't solve them all, we have covered in this petition to help.
We have offered money to improve Verne Street.
I'd love to study the suggestion that councilman Dingfelder made about putting a left-hand turn lane in on Bayshore Boulevard.
One of the problems with Bayshore Boulevard is you can't see the striping.
So we all have to talk about that.
You just get lost when you drive down the street.
And we've offered the traffic light.
We are paying our impact fees.
We are going to do the bike lane.
We're going to rebrick streets.
We're willing to help.
And I hope that you would not deny approval of this, because I think you are going to get another quality development, but don't deny it because there have been some problems in the past, let's work together to solve them.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
Need to close the public hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One quick little question.
I'm looking at the site plan and I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly.
Between the northern part of the building, it appears that there's some space.
I'm assuming it's green, and trees on although you don't see it, and then the sidewalk and the 20 foot alley.
Or is it just structures, alley?
Is there a sidewalk?
And how do pedestrians go north from the building?
>>> Alongside the alley?
>> On Beach Place.
Alongside the alley or -- is there a sidewalk?
>>> Are you speaking of this area right here?
>> No, actually between the two buildings where it says resident entrance.
>>> Yes, there is a sidewalk on both sides of Beach Place.
>> And then it continues around the back.
Is there any green space?
Or is the it building and then sidewalk?
>>> We have ten feet of green space between the building and the widened alley.
But there is, to clarify something, there is not a sidewalk back there.
Sidewalk back there and at least five feet of green space.
>> So there's a sidewalk heading north and then there's a sidewalk across the street on Beach Place?
>>> Correct.
>> Are there curb cuts?
If you were pushing a baby carriage and you wanted to go north on Beach Place, is there a way to get to the sidewalk out at the resident entrance to head north?
>>> I'm going to answer that by saying \AI\I don't know, but we will make a commitment to put curb cuts in both on our side of the street and then getting over to the sidewalk across the alley.
I think we would need to have both for handicapped accessibility as well as baby strollers.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I definitely have some transportation concerns.
Not only just specifically related to this building, but can you put this up?
Or something similar?
Like I said, I not only have concerns about folks that are going up Bayshore, in terms of getting into this project.
But now that I look at it, I have a little concern about folks going up this project and getting into the next building that you're building, which on this one is called "future building."
Just because I'm thinking to myself, okay, how are they going to get to that building if they are coming up from south Bayshore?
Again I think a logical answer probably is Verne.
And they go Verne to Plant, Plant to Platt and around your building.
Otherwise they are going to do downtown, back over the bridges.
>> When I access it from the south I turn in by the bank of Tampa building, which is right south on the little site plan.
>> You come up Swann?
>>> Yes.
And just go down plant.
Platt, I'm sorry.
I keep getting those confused.
Platt, P-l-a, the, the.
>> I guess what I would like is a bigger commitment.
You guys are having a huge impact on the entire Bayshore from Platt Street bridge to Davis Island bridge.
I mean, in terms of the fact that you're putting in, what, almost 500 units?
>>> Correct.
>> 550 units it looks like if this is approved.
And you're going to be the major -- you're the major presence on that part of Bayshore.
What I would like to see is a major commitment to working with city transportation and the mayor and us to literally rebuilding that entire section of Bayshore, so it functions better, so that there are two legitimate left turns, one into Beach and one into Verne.
I don't know how you guys at 345 feel about it.
But I think that I've got to think it's pretty scary to be going left, you know, across there.
I don't do it often.
But I've observed it.
And, you know, since your traffic is going to be contributing both to Beach and to Verne, I think you need to build a -- I think there's room to build a small medium in that section of Bayshore and improve their whole section of Bayshore so we can make two left turn lanes into that area.
I know that doesn't answer all the problems that have been raised tonight.
But that would make me feel a little better about the safety of that area.
And I don't know what kind of money that involves.
>>> I guess that's my hesitation in responding.
We would be more than happy to help out and work on that with the city.
I don't know how we can quantify that.
One of my concerns is, I drive that area as the supports for the bridge over to Davis Island -- I guess that would be the one coming -- going over.
Coming off.
Are fairly close to the entrance to Verne so I don't know how much stacking you can do.
But if we can do it.
>> You have the whole frontage in front of 345 to stack before you get to the bridge, as I look at it on here.
So I don't know that that's a huge factor.
Obviously I wouldn't expect you to go under the bridge with stacking.
>> We would be willing to make that commitment to work with city staff on it.
>>> John, in a way, we have already worked on the site plan, but to do what the Bayshore task force recommends.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know FHP that's consistent with the Bayshore task force recommendation and I was on the Bayshore task force.
>>> Exactly.
What we are saying, we don't know the directive of Bayshore task force and what's been approved by the mayor, by you.
But we are willing to do whatever comes out of that.
So if it's something that if we could strengthen that, we would be more than happy to do it but that was our intent at the time we put that note there.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: How much are you paying in impact fees?
>>> 672 a unit for the additional units.
And I didn't calculate that.
But --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 70 "something units.
>>> 700 times 70 units.
I'm not good a math when I'm up here sweating in front of you.
>> $50,000?
>>> That seems low lo.
Transportation impact fees only $50,000?
>> I think because the existing 72 units would not pay.
That's 77 times 672 is the inner bay district fees.
>> You might be using the CBD.
>>> I used Interbay.
>> It is what it is.
>>> I guess if we all agree to work together on it.
I mean, I would be a proponent of putting in the left-hand turn lanes.
I think it makes perfect sense.
And I think it can be done.
Just looking -- I'm a layman.
But looking at it, it looks like there's enough width there to do this.
>> It's one of the widest portions of Bayshore.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, none of us are engineers so obviously that's going to be at the direction of the city transportation department.
But your commitment on the record is that if they determine that that's an appropriate mitigation idea for Bayshore that you will -- You'll do that.
>>> Correct.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that's what we need to hear.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the -- is the petitioner done?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that while I applaud the new drawings before us, and the reworking of the site and the additional open space, that if we look at this proposal, it's still too much mass for this site.
And I have to say, I must have been asleep at the switch.
I don't know how else to reconcile the fact that the towers of Bayshore are so enormous, and I swear, I don't remember saying yes to that mass of building.
But that's a given.
One Bayshore is a given.
And I must admit, I'm in the Publix right across the street all the time and I'm constantly approached by citizens who say, how could you have let them build that very large building at Platt and Bayshore?
And I think, oh, my God, they haven't seen anything yet.
Wait till the building behind it that's 26 stories gets built, wait till the other mid rises get built, and those are things we have already approved.
So I think it's important to look at this proposal in the context of the other -- in the context of the other approved rezonings.
I think that the landscaping you have done in front of one Bayshore -- and Bayshore is very attractive, the park is very nice.
But when one considers all the approvals that have occurred in this context as a whole, I think the proposal before us tonight is still too large.
I'd love to see like four stories and six stories.
But if it has to go to 16 on the other side, that is the maximum it should be.
And I'm very, very concerned, not that there's single-family residences behind this, but the historic district has a certain scale and flavor and quality.
And the mass of the proposal is just not in -- it's just overwhelming to this historic fabric.
And I cannot support this proposal.
Although it is an improvement, it's still not as -- it's too big.
Therefore I move to --.
>>GWEN MILLER: No, no, you can't.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The first time I saw this mass, I said, oh, my God, what have we done to Bayshore?
And when I keep looking at these pictures, I keep thinking, well, it seems to me you all are saying let's build one building higher than the other.
Let's see how far we can go.
I'm like Mrs. Saul-Sena.
I don't remember doing anything with this 26-story building because you have got 18 stories at the 345.
You've got 18 stories of Parkside 1.
And now you want to build a 24-story for said on place.
And I don't remember -- Seddon Place and don't remember doing anything with parkside 1 with 26 stories.
I think either you eliminate -- maybe come down to 18 stories, like the Bayshore, and parkside, and -- it's just too big.
All I keep thinking is, what are we doing to Bayshore?
Because it's just too, too big.
You're impacting the neighborhood.
With these tiny little streets that's in there.
Verne Street is very small.
Beach Place is very small.
And even though you're saying you're not going to allow parking on both sides, that's not your decision.
That's part of transportation's decision not to put parking on both sides of the street, you know.
So you're impacting it.
And it's in a historic neighborhood.
And I won't support it.
It's just too big.
You either come down, make it 18 stories, or -- I'm just not going to do it.
It just too big.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think when the petitioner was here the first time they had two buildings that were 20 stories each?
>>> Correct.
>> And what we asked them to do was to reduce -- in fact I think it was councilman Dingfelder that asked, reduce the high on one because it was impacting -- I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth but I seem to recall saying reduce the height of the one building, and we have sort of left the question open as to the other building.
And the petitioner has done what we have asked them to do.
If we are going to stick at 16 stories, if we are going to ask them to come down to 16 stories on the one building, why wouldn't we say you can go back up to 16 stories on the other one?
Because if everybody else is at 16, it seems -- it seems that precedent has already been set.
What's 345?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So we have set the precedent already at 18 stories along this stretch of Bayshore.
And if we are going to ask them to come down from 24 to 18 or 16 or whatever it is on that one building, it would seem -- I'm not sure why we would require them to stay at 8 or 6 or whatever they are at on the other building.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of council?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move for denial.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second for denial.
Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a remind theory council's decision has to be supported by substantial, competent evidence.
And I would just ask -- I did hear some bases in the discussion.
But I would just ask for a reiteration of the basis for the council's decision, just so the record is clear.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion for denial is based on the scale and mass of the proposed development, which would have, in my opinion, a very negative effect on the historic district located immediately adjacent to it.
The increased density would negatively effect the transportation patterns.
The massing would create a hardship in terms of the character of Verne and the other street that goes up -- Beach Place.
I think that's it.
And the concerns voiced by the neighborhood residents at this and previous hearings that the traffic created from this would have a negative impact on the local neighborhood streets.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Question on the motion.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since I was the one who made the suggestion the last time that they do what I think they did, you know, it does -- it is a little difficult for me to now say, you know, you didn't get it right.
Because in many ways it looks like they did what we asked.
As Mr. Harrison said.
But I also hear what Mrs. Saul-Sena and Mrs. Alvarez said in terms of their concern about what are we doing to the Bayshore?
I think that's very valid, too.
The last time when we looked at this table, the density of the proposed project is 3, and 345 Bayshore, and 7.
So we are not that far off. The height of 345 Bayshore is 228 -- 229 feet.
And the height of this project is about 70 feet taller, 295 feet.
So I know there's a motion on the floor.
And in fact, I'm not going to support the motion to deny, because I think that's unfair, it's unreasonable based upon the existing zoning that they have here, which is for a significant project.
The alternative that I'm going to -- going to toss out, and when the motion doesn't get enough votes, which it doesn't look like you would, if Mr. Harrison votes where he was, I'm going to suggest that they drop this building down to the same height as 345 Bayshore which is 229 feet and they do not exceed 78 units per acre, which is the same density as 345 Bayshore, but frankly that they leave everything tells way it is.
Because I think it's a pretty good looking project.
I think the fact that it tapers, when you're looking at it from 345 Bayshore, I think that they have given the -- they have given 345 Bayshore kind of the skinny view which helps the views of 345 Bayshore, which frankly was a big issue the last time, that kept coming up over and over again.
But I really want to see that improvement to Bayshore Boulevard.
And I want to see that improvement funded by this developer both on Verne and Beach.
Both on Verne and Beach.
And if and when I get a chance to a motion that that would be included on the site plan, that they would fully fund left turn lanes on Verne and Beach with the satisfaction and approval of the city transportation and the mayor.
So anyway, I can't support the motion but that's my follow-up motion if your motion doesn't pass.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to follow up with what council member Dingfelder has raised.
If there is a motion on the floor, and it does not get its requisite four votes, council rules state that it shall automatically be continued to the next --
>> she's doing a motion to deny.
>> That's true.
But regardless, my understanding is -- and I'll read the rule -- a majority vote of the entire council shall be required for action on all matters coming before the council.
When a matter is considered by the council at a majority vote of the entire council is not obtained either in support or in opposition to the matter, the matter shall automatically be brought before the council at the next regular council meeting as unfinished business.
And that is the rule.
Unless of course council -- let me just see.
I believe, though.
>> I don't know how that motion seemed to fail 2 to 3 but you're saying it doesn't.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm saying regardless of the action taken by council it does not effect a vote of four.
Four votes requires the official action of the City Council.
So if somebody wishes to make motions to amend the Mann motion.
>> That's about what I was going to do.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me hear what his amendment would be.
>>> Is it an amendment to the motion?
>> It's a motion --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: No versus yes.
That's not really an amendment.
>> The truth of the matter is you can't amend the motion to deny.
It would be a substitute motion.
I don't believe a substitute motion would be appropriate, because it would be totally contrary to the initial motion.
The other thing is, council member Dingfelder can make the proposal of what he proposes and then the maker of the motion can decide whether the maker of the motion wishes to either withdraw or amend the motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think they just heard what my motion would be, what my suggestion of your motion might be.
It not flat out denying this, that we recognize that some buildings are going to be built on this property one way or the other.
They have done a good job of designing this.
They have scaled it down on the part that's closest to 345.
If we limit them to the same height and same density as 345, then I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander and they can improve Bayshore and go from there.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, I agree with you, it's a better design than it was.
It's actually a very nice design.
But I voted against 345.
I think that these things are just too big.
And I think that this is too big on this site.
And I would support it if it were four stories on one side and 16 on the other, even though that's still awfully big, it's not a lot smaller than what's before us today so my motion stands.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to carry the motion and see how it goes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: But what Mr. Shelby is about to tell us if it does not pass we are going to carry it over until next week and we will only have five council members next week.
So just before we vote on that.
That's where we are going to be.
>> Two different council members here.
>> For two weeks we will be down to five -- at a minimum -- at a maximum five council members.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The way the rule states, it shall automatically be brought to the next.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Or we could continue it.
Move to reopen the public hearing and continue it to three weeks hence.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's a possibility as well.
The motion on the floor can be withdrawn.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not withdrawn.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, the motion could be made to reopen the public hearing and a motion made to continue.
I don't know if council wishes to hear if the applicant wishes to address --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cole.
>>COLE: I understand you're making a motion and second on it.
That being said given the fact it appears for future hearings you may not have a full board you may want to hear the applicant to see if something Mr. Dingfelder suggested, something the applicant would even agree to because if the applicant is not going to agree to that, that applicant has a right to have a thumbs up or down on the application before you.
You have to reopen the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: They have a motion and second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I withdraw the motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I withdraw the second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now to Lee he -- reopen the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> A little bit of confusion.
John said we would -- would we be willing to go to the same things at 345.
They were, while they built the 78 units per acre they are approved at 83 units per ache are so they could right now build the additional five units per acre on their property.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They are not building any more units.
They built it at 78 units.
>>> I'm just making a distinction of built versus zoned.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mrs. Ferlita said she should be doing the earlier jogging.
I had to run up the steps.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wait, wait.
You were saying about the 78 units to the same height.
I think there's possibly an offer to consider that by some council folks.
Obviously not speaking for all council.
>>> What I hear you saying is 78 units per acre, same density as 345, same height, I think I heard you say --
>> that's what yours says.
>> And we would commit to working with city in resolving hopefully left turn lane issues into Verne and Beach.
>> Funding.
>>> Well, yeah.
Good clarification.
And, yes, we would work with city and council on that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would you accept that as alternative.
>>> And could you clarify the height of the smaller building, the smaller side, the south side?
>> The same height as 345 there?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since the hearing is open, where do your units start?
Where does your parking garage stop?
Fourth floor?
Fifth floor?
At 345.
FROM THE FLOOR: Third floor.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If we could have her come forward and put her name on the record just so it's clear.
>>> I'm sorry.
Elizabeth, the president of the 345 Bayshore condominium association.
>> Do you understand the question?
>>> I think I do.
>> The units that are facing this, now 8-story building, you know, from ground level, where are they?
>>> I think what I didn't explain accurately when I was standing back there is our building is set back -- it not like right at ground level.
I don't know how -- I don't know if Richard does.
I was not expecting the question unfortunately.
But we're not right there at the street like this proposed building is.
We have that nice sort of a hill and lawn and landscaping in the front and there's a big semi cyclar driveway, you drive up so the lobby level is actually above ground level as it was.
Now that I'm here --.
>>GWEN MILLER: No, you cannot speak.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a clarification.
If the people are looking -- the people on the lowest floor which you say is the third floor, if their looking out at this new proposed structure -- I need you to just be as honest as possible -- where do you think they would be looking at on this new proposed structure?
On the fourth floor?
The fifth floor?
What floor?
>>> Truthfully, Mr. Dingfelder, I have no idea.
With the way I have no idea what it would look like.
What does it mean?
78 acres, same height as 345 Bayshore.
What does that mean? I don't know.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, the level of the building hasn't changed in my mind.
>>> Okay.
I heard them say they don't know that.
I want to make sure we understand what we are all talking about because they asked if they can put the big building where the little building is now.
>>> Linda Pearson.
The parking garage at 345 is two floors.
The first floor residential units are the first floor residential units on the third floor.
So you would be with the elevation of the 345 side versus the elevation of your side.
About somewhere between the third and fourth floor is what you would be looking at.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I need to ask, how many stores of parking is this one, the 24 story building that you have now?
>>> As proposed, 7 stories.
>> 7 stories?
>>> Correct.
>> 7-story parking?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Because you have the 149 units?
>>> Yes.
I can't say for certain.
Some of that would go down.
>> I would think so.
Maybe two or three floors?
>>> I think only a floor.
I think realistically.
>> If the other one has got 78 units, and it's got two floors, and you come down to, say, 18, why wouldn't you have less parking, and you could have more units?
>>> Are you referring to 345?
Their garage is like it covers the whole site.
And their site is much larger than ours.
>> I see.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Their garage is spread across.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I want to make sure what you agree to and what I think Mr. Dingfelder has asked.
What we are talking about is taking the tall building from where you are now down to 18 stories.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or 200 and -- 229.
>> And that will mean a reduction in all of those units that were going to be on those floors.
Now, are you saying right now that you're just going to take those out, and then the building, the small building is going to remain as it is?
>>> That's my understanding.
Mr. Dingfelder proposed the smaller building as is, reduce the height of the lane and have a row ducks in quantity --
>> to watch whatever the existing density per acre for 345 is.
>>> 1.8 which again I can't do in my head.
I'm not good with numbers.
>> So that means, would you still be able to add more units to the small building because you are reducing some parking or just leave the small building as is, and the building just comes down by six stories?
>>> I think a good architectural practice, we should restudy the whole massing, and the architect and myself discussed earlier that we would be happy to discuss with Del and the architecture as well even though it's not in the district and we got a good relationship with him, and don't want to go abuse the district.
But I think, Mr. Harrison, we should probably restudy that, and if we could shift over to the taller building, we will.
I don't know that I can answer that.
>> Well, are we going to be able to resolve this tonight?
>>> If we put on the agreement we are going to T hold the size of the is that righter -- shorter building and cut the density to 78 units per acre and we are going to hold the taller portion to 229 feet, or 18 stories, and make the commitments to improvements, and pay for improvements on Bayshore, we can resolve it tonight.
>>> Correct.
>> That's a lot to put on a site plan.
Is it even possible to do?
Cole: We are going to have to bring the site plan and ordinance back to you for first reading.
I don't know how much time that will take.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the key, are there four votes up here?
The idea that that is.
Because we can't send them back to the drawing board and then bring them back.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: What is the pleasure of the council?
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move for denial.
>>GWEN MILLER: Lies dies for lack of second.
We need another motion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I will move for approval based on everything that Mr. Dingfelder asked before.
I don't know what.
We need to get this off the dime somehow.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Mr. Harrison, the site plan has to be revised.
You need to refer it back to the legal department under these conditions that the site plan be revised.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it needs a motion to do that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can confer with counsel.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I think it would be appropriate, the hearing has been closed, the appropriate motion would be to direct legal to bring back the appropriate documents, now that the public hearing has been closed, at a later date for approval at first reading.
And then schedule the second.
Am I correct?
Cole: That would be the appropriate motion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's my motion, with this, though, that we bring it back when we think we are going to have a full council.
I don't want to the come back next week.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to vote on it now.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I know, but it's going to have to come back.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually what happens --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Waive our rules for three weeks so people don't have to keep coming back and coming back.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It has to be back from legal.
It could be back in three weeks, for a day meeting at first reading.
The record has been closed.
Cole: Absolutely.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we come up short.
Then my suggestion we waive the rules.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: My motion is send to the legal with these record admissions by the petitioner, and come back to the council three weeks from today during a day meeting.
Or do we have to waive the rules for the day meeting?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: No, don't believe so because the hearing has been closed.
And you're just asking it to be brought back for first reading.
And it will be scheduled again subsequent for second reading at public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena, Alvarez, no.
Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is the petitioner here for item 12?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I might suggest if the neighborhood wants to work with the developer between now and the actual first reading, there's still an opportunity to work on the site plan and make some of the improvements that you asked for.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Number 12.
Do we have to open that one again?
12347 no.
Petitioner, have you been sworn?
Petitioner, have you been sworn in?
>>> Yes.
I have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>> My name is Reg Alfred, 4900 east 98th Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33617.
I represent the petitioner Diaz.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like tock speak on item 12?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 305 north Armenia Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily to PD office providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The Reg, you never had it so good.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to open 19.
>> Second.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Those are for council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
I'm sorry.
We just dealt with number 12.
>>GWEN MILLER: 13 is continued.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For number 12 did we have a presentation?
Petitioner wasn't here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: From Planning Commission staff?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: That was the petition that Mrs. Alvarez and Mrs. Saul-Sena did have questions for the applicant.
They are still here if you want to go back to that case.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really do.
We have a negative recommendation by the Planning Commission.
That was removed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You should have run faster.
Reg: Yes?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: My question was, and I believe staff answered, if this had gone to the west Tampa overlay.
And they said yes, but that they hadn't heard back.
>>> And I did not hear anything either.
And I also spoke to the Hyde Park association.
And I believe Mr. Robert Allen is the gentleman in charge of that.
And he had no opposition to this request, also.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question was, say you're putting up a wooden fence.
And normally when there is residential next to commercial, you're supposed to put up a masonry wall.
Why aren't you putting up a masonry wall?
>>> First of all we went to the adjacent property owner and we got his permission to put up a wooden fence.
And plus immediately north if you recall about four months ago I was here, I we did a wooden fence.
And then the property immediately north of that is also a wooden fence so I weren't want to keep it consistent all the way through with the wooden fence.
>>GWEN MILLER: You better run.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And Ms. Saul-Sena, in the west Tampa overlay guidelines, we don't -- we didn't put anything in there.
It was no chain links, that type of fencing.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right, Ms. Moreda.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development. The proposal is for a planned development district at 5123 north 44th street.
Two single-family houses.
The property includes two platted lots, approximately 49 feet by 114 feet.
There is an existing house on the property.
And they are proposing to build a new house.
I have an aerial of the area.
There is one objection from the transportation division.
And maybe the applicant can address it.
(item number 15)
The site plan does not adequately address the two parking spaces per unit.
I think the F the applicant can address the -- that parking issue, that we would have no objection.
On the Elmo is the existing house on the property.
It a residential area since they are planning to build something very similar to the house on the north side.
Staff has no objection to the intent to build a single family on this property.
We are just concerned about the number of off-street parking spaces.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
The existing land use you can see on the future land use map is residential 35.
Heavy -- commercial -- light industrial to the east.
The existing uses in the area are a mix of single-family.
Most of the housing stock in the area is utilized and there have been several single family detached residences in the area in the last few years similar in design to what the petitioner is proposing this evening.
It's also within the boundaries of the CRA and consistent with the goals and objectives of the CRA in this area.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the zoning request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> My name is Willie Snell.
I have been sworn.
We are in the process of submitting our plans.
We were told the existing house was too close to the property line.
I believe we were required by staff to put a five-foot easement -- or give a five-foot easement so that existing house would have -- would have room just to get around the small portion of the house.
The transportation issue, this house sits on a corner.
The existing house does not sit immediately on the corner.
But the proposed house sits on the corner.
Mentioned off-site parking.
I'm not totally familiar with that -- I'm a letter bit lost on that.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: This just needs to be widened to the parking spaces.
It's really a simple Z adjustment to the site plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 15?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance in the general vicinity of 5123 north 44th street in the City of Tampa more particularly described from zoning district classification RS-50 to PD single family detached dwellings, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 16.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The proposal is for land development district.
The property is located at 3334 West Heiter street for two new single family detached structures.
There is an existing -- this is an old planned development district that was approved for the same intensity development.
However, when that was approved many years ago, there is wetlands in the back.
They are having to shift the new two-unit duplex to the front, which requires review by City Council.
Of the site plan, there is one minor adjustment to the site plan that the petitioner has agreed to, on the site plan that I will give to the clerk's office. This is a photograph showing the existing duplex on the property.
They are wanting to build something very similar to the vacant lot.
There are, as I said, wetlands in the area.
This project will be reviewed and approved through EPC.
Staff has no objection with this development.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Very briefly, just a few additional points to what Ms. Moreda had already stated.
Locationally, Tampa Bay Boulevard to the south.
Himes is right over here.
Of course Raymond James stadium to the west.
Old Tampa Bay center up two streets further to the north.
Recessed in an area that pretty much already has a bit of density.
As she said this is part of an old PD.
There's an existing duplex adjacent as part of this project.
This technically has to be relocated because of the wetland situation.
It is consistent with the residential 10 land use category.
Staff has no objections to the request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> My name is Tom Diaz and I have been sworn in.
I'm representing my brother Del Diaz, and it's just for a matter of expediency.
Basically, this is a very old project that my father had started to undertake.
My brother has taken over on it.
There's some wetland issues and upland issues.
And I think we've mitigated those.
One of the issues was we got a patio slab that was on the upland area.
And now we have elevated to the make it wooden rather than a concrete slab to not impact that.
So I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 16?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Diaz, you look very familiar.
Are you a client of my law firm?
>>> No, I am not.
>> I was wondering where I had seen you before and I wasn't going to move this ordinance.
>>> Let me move this to clear it up.
I also represent AMR, American Medical Response, and I'm before you sometimes with issues with EMS, and I'm also on the EMS task force.
>> I'm sorry.
My fault.
Madam Chair, move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3334 west Heiter street in Tampa, Florida more particularly from classifications PD 4 unit single family semi detached to PD four unit semi detached providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Move to open number 17.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The proposal is for a special use for off-street parking in a residential district.
The requested waivers include access on a local street.
They are requesting to reduce the landscape buffer required along the northern property line from 15 feet to 8 feet.
The site plan, there is some, I guess, Tera cot parking spaces that I did not count as parking spaces and the petitioner indicated she does show the number of parking spaces so I need to eliminate that requested waiver for the ability to go to the variance review board for this petition.
It will require that the ordinance be redrafted, so if council is inclined to approve this request, if you could, just refer back to the legal department for that correction.
The petition before you is concerning 5404 north Forest Hills.
They are wanting off-street parking to serve the commercial retail use.
Currently at 1505 west Hillsborough Avenue.
The proposed building is -- building is 2,993 square feet.
And this is to provide parking.
This area of Hillsborough was widened.
They are improving the commercial property along Hillsborough, which is a very old commercial building right now.
They are going to be putting the parking either designing residential.
Given the lack of space on the existing commercial parcel on Hillsborough, I believe this is an appropriate use for that lot to make that commercial building on Hillsborough Avenue functional.
Staff has no objection with this request.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
We have two land use designations for this site, CMU 35 facing Hillsborough, and to the north of it residential 10.
As you know, this is a special use requesting accessory parking for a primary use located along Hillsborough Avenue. The site is located in the river bend neighborhood association.
It is a Euclidean parcel, primarily CG zoning along Hillsborough Avenue.
It is consistent with several policies in the plan as it deals with providing landscape buffer in the fence, and planting and landscaping adjacent to the residential property to the north.
It is consistent with policies -- two policies in the future land use element that deal with providing of sidewalks.
What's nice about this, let me put an aerial up.
They will be providing a sidewalk along the residential street over here.
It will be kind of nice if this thing ever develops that we can have sidewalk on this because this is basically just a sea of concrete on the right-hand side.
But it will be going down along Forest Hills drive.
There is already an existing drive along Hillsborough Avenue.
So regarding sidewalks, regarding buffering, basically the creation of pieces along Hillsborough.
The request will provide parking, increase pedestrian safety along the periphery of Hillsborough Avenue by relocating the parking for the existing parking to the rear.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
And find it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>> Petitioner?
>>> Michael horner, 14502 Dale Mabry Highway representing the owner and applicant.
Madam Chairman, I had a four or five page presentation.
I think I'm going to give you the Readers Digest the way it sits here.
This is a request where we are trying to relocate the parking spaces.
Hillsborough Avenue when it widened all the parking is taken.
Two choices, try to rehabilitate, remodel, raise curbing, landscaping, buffering walls, or board it up and let it be blighted.
We have worked with D.O.T.
They are asking us to raise the entire curb on the Hillsborough side, increase the curbing all the way around.
So now instead of drop curve along Forest Hills, we will actually have raised curb all the way around to our driveway.
We are decreasing impervious surface by about 400 square feet.
Ware providing for additional landscaping in the rear.
We have talked to the neighbor to the north.
She has signed a letter on the record.
Staff has it.
Constructing a 6-foot concrete wall.
We have support of the associations.
A couple of them called me personally and said, Mr. Treadway has been a good neighbor, we appreciate the improvement that is he's proposing.
Also, we are channelizing out of the driveway in the rear so all those movements go back to Hillsborough to the residential neighborhood.
So landscaping.
Reduce traffic impacts.
Buffer wall in place.
Plus a retention pond.
There's no pond there right now.
We think it's a win-win situation.
Appreciate your support.
>> Have you been sworn?
>>> I have been sworn.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you speak with the neighborhood association?
Did you contact them or just speak with them?
>>> Yes, we did.
Contacted them and they responded.
In fact got a personal phone call and they indicated they had no objection, Wellswood.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Horner, since you said that the FDOT took your parking lot, why are you adding an addition to the building?
>>> Well, it frees up -- we had a site photograph on.
We are removing an entire structure in the back, Mrs. Alvarez, which is a radiator shop.
We have a picture of it.
It been condemned by the city.
My client has completely raised that structure.
So removing that entire structure in place, remodeling the front, just asking for a small 900 square foot addition.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 18?
You may come up and speak.
17, I'm sorry.
>>> My name is Frank Greco, the president of river bend civic association.
I have been sworn in.
I'm going to read my comments here.
Members of the City Council, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the river bend and civic association.
This petition for special use by A-1 was brought to the attention of the neighborhood association, that is river bend neighborhood association.
We met and discussed the petition, and collected the names of resident who are opposed to the use change for the following reasons.
I have a copy of the petition if you would like to see that.
I believe all of you have been faxed copies of that. The use of residential property for commercial parking would not only be detrimental to the neighborhood.
It also would slow down a redevelopment of that part of Hillsborough Avenue.
And increase or potential increase of transfer of stolen property, if this property is to be used for a pawn shop.
The theory is supported by the City of Tampa police, if this property is to be used for a pawn shop.
There are already seven other pawn shops in the immediate vicinity within a mile and a half of this particular property.
One of those pawn shops is two blocks to the east of it, directly to the east.
This special use will affect two neighborhoods, Wellswood and river bend association.
And also it would ultimately effect Seminole Heights to the east.
I would also like to bring to your attention that redevelopment of the area has been going on, and there has been some development going on in a positive direction.
New shops are opening up into the area.
And we feel that if you were to allow this special use rezoning of residential property for commercial parking that the neighborhood would probably not be able to -- not be able to move forward, because of the detrimental effect of having an extra pawn shop.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on item 17?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You mentioned that you talked to the Wellswood neighborhood association, Mr. Horner?
>>> The gentleman called me three weeks allege personally.
>> What about the river bend?
>>> We thought we sent letters out.
I thought I left a message.
Apparently we did not correspond back and forth so that comment surprises me.
If I could just point out, as we were talking, this business closes and it goes away and nothing can be developed and it becomes condemned.
No redevelopment opportunity.
>> Was the A-1 pawn shop there before?
>>> It sure was.
My client recently acquired it.
Right after the DOT acquired the front parking and spent the last three years coming up with plans.
We have elevations, landscape plans.
We have a storage yard to the northwest.
DOT is making us preclude parking opportunities everywhere but one drive way location and the Wellswood association said we are not crazy about the nurse but it has not created a problem for us and we look forward to the improvement in the redevelopment of the site as opposed to leaving it as it is.
>> Let me show you, Mrs. Alvarez.
Parking used to be on the front.
Now we have a sidewalk of about 16 inches to the front.
So we cannot redevelop this property at all.
DOT said you're done, you're out of business.
My client said maybe there's hope to redevelop this, improve it, new facade, new landscaping, buffered wall.
Plus his operating hours close at 6:30 in the evening. This is not a 10:00 at night, 11:00 at night, no issues in the Sheriff's Department, police department.
>> So the pawn shop was there, and we had a problem with the FDOT.
And so now what you're trying to do is expand it and redo the parking lot?
>>> That's correct.
Actually, relocating --
>> relocating the parking lot.
>>> What was lost to the rear.
Instead of having open curb and curbing along this entire section, Mrs. Alvarez, this is looking towards Hillsborough and looking north to south. This is Forest Hills drive.
Here's a radiator shop.
It's now been removed.
This entire area along the frontage.
In fact, this entire section is all drop curb.
People just park wherever.
We are the first parcel coming in curbing the entire section allowing one turning movement for the driveway and that turning movement will be oriented back toward Hillsborough, to encourage traffic from the neighborhood.
Mrs. Forsyth lives here.
She's sign the plan and is in complete support.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Horner, are you aware of the fact that there are some 73 people that have signed if petition in opposition to this?
>>> It's news to me, Mr. Harrison.
I had one call, one phone call, one litter.
We offered to meet with them.
The Wellswood association contacted me.
So not one phone call.
Did anyone call my office?
So I did call?
And I think we had a discussion?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's fine.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did the Department of Transportation pay your client for the property they took?
>>> My client purchased this after that acquisition so my client is the new property owner.
>> So your client bought his property knowing that it didn't have adequate parking, but thinking maybe he could rezone it to allow this parking?
>>> The use was already permitted.
The use existed.
My client thought he could purchase this property and then allow the parking to go in the rear and follow the S-2 application.
>> My concern is this: The neighborhood is burdened.
Hillsborough is this paved wasteland.
And if we allow this to happen the paved wasteland is going to inch its way into the neighborhood and I don't think that's fair to the neighborhood.
And I'm very concerned, because what I see, for example, on this site plan is the parking is going into the neighborhood, which has a tree canopy, which is really nice.
And I'm sorry that this is ugly and paved over.
But your client bought it knowing what it was.
It was a paved, limited site.
So my sympathy is very limited.
My question is, it says proposed stormwater treatment area.
Are you proposing to remove all the concrete that surrounds this building?
>>> All the impervious surface gets removed.
My client is building the only pond on this site.
It has never existed before.
Plus we are decreasing the amount of impervious surface.
So you're increasing retention that has never been there and decreasing --.
>> But your proposal is to go north into a residential area that is currently green.
>>> I understand that.
I guess the trade-off is we are relocating the parking to the north.
There are just 13 spaces.
We still have the 8 foot landscape buffer.
We still have a concrete wall being proposed.
And we are increasing the number of trees back there.
>> Isn't the required buffer between our commercial and residential use 15 feet?
>>> It is 15 feet unless the neighbor responds favorably and you agree to the concrete wall.
That was Miss Forsyth's request.
That wasn't ours.
>> I'm done.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In South Tampa, in my district, there's a lot of vaulting going on for stormwater, Mr. Horner.
So I don't understand why you couldn't build your parking on top of the stormwater treatment area.
>>> First we have the proximity issue to Hillsborough Avenue for turning radius, and queuing.
>> No, I'm talking about using the entryway that you have shown here.
But instead of putting the parking in the back, which the neighbors are saying is intrusive, to turn your parking right on top of that proposed stormwater treatment area.
>>> We can only goat three spaces here.
We couldn't get a turning radius.
We would only get four spaces.
Still need a 26-foot driveway to make the landscape buffer.
Plus DOT is requiring to us make curbs all the way around.
We would have to ask for a waiver of nine, 13 spaces.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, no, no.
I'm talking about putting it on top of the stormwater area.
>>> Mr. Dingfelder, in order to do that you have to have a curb cut here, and bring this parking in here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, no, no.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying you can have the cars come in.
And then they could pull out.
And then go back out.
>>> You're saying --
>> come in there.
Not loop out.
Come in there and it's a dead-end.
It's a closed parking end.
It's a closed something or other.
>>> I guess I'm trying to explain.
We do not have --
>> what is your distance there?
It says 43 feet.
>>> It's 38.
>> Why minus 8?
8 for what?
>>> 8 for landscape buffer.
>> That could be waived.
It's a PD, isn't it?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: No, special use.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cot still be waived.
Eight site plan, C.O.D..
>>> 26 feet as a backup drive up, 26 feet.
Minus 5 feet for the sidewalk along the side of the building.
>> Put the compact cars as it gets tighter and put the bigger cars back.
I'm looking to suggest it as a compromise because I'm not going to support the intrusion into the neighborhood.
Because I haven't heard justification for the intrusion.
Especially if there's an alternative and I think that's a reasonable alternative that you could look at.
>>> If we could continue than the case to look at that parking option, it could work.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see what Ms. Moreda has to say.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
This is the special use petition.
The area that's being reviewed is the area within the residential.
He is illustrating the use that's in the commercial.
The changes and waivers of the tree and landscape code related to any parking in that CG area is not something that City Council can waive through this process.
Petitioner can -- if council were to agree to allow him to amend to a planned development district, that might give him a little bit more flexibility in the design, but that would be up to petitioner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have the ability to allow him to amend to a PD.
>> It's the same graphic.
The legal description would change in terms of office area entirely.
We would be happy to consider that.
I don't know if he'll meet the parking unless you are to address some additional parking waiver.
Unless we would be happy to look at it, council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sure she would be glad to.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You know, if this pawn shop wasn't there before, and they didn't have any problems with it, I may have a problem with it now.
But they have been a pretty good neighbor with them.
And they had a problem with the Hillsborough Avenue coming in, because of their widening.
And it wasn't their fault that they had to give up their land for this.
So I don't see anything wrong with it.
And another fact, Mr. Harrison, you were mentioning about the petitioners, the petition.
I was looking over these names here.
And most of them don't even live in the neighborhood.
They are not even 250 feet.
There are some on Alicia Avenue which is way out there near Sligh Avenue.
Some in Moltock.
So, you know -- I just don't see the reason to deny this.
Because it been a good project.
And it wasn't their fault that they had to --.
>>GWEN MILLER: You already spoke.
The other man can speak, though.
>>> My name is Frank Fernandez.
I'm a resident of the river bend area.
And a member of the river bend neighborhood association.
Have you been sworn?
>>> And I have been sworn in.
Mrs. Alvarez, I would like to address part of what the gentleman said, Mr. Horner said there was a pawn shop there.
And you live in that neighborhood.
And there's not been a pawn shop there.
It's a gun shop.
And the pawn shop is down the street.
And they are proposing to bring it back.
The problem that we have with it is that it going to encourage -- and we have talked to the police department -- it's going to encourage crime in the neighborhood.
And that is why we are fighting parking and we are fighting them bringing the pawn shop into our neighborhood.
So as a resident, I thought you would know.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And I do know that.
But the problem is this is on Hillsborough Avenue and it's a commercial street.
It's not inside a residential.
Residential is behind it, not in front of it.
And beside, the pawn shop that's down the street off of Lincoln and Hillsborough Avenue, I haven't heard of any big problems with that one either.
So, you know.
>> Maybe we need to have the police department representative here.
Because we've heard of it.
And I thought that maybe the City Council would have heard of it by now.
But the other thing is that you said that they were in that property.
That gentleman admitted, they bought the property after the land had been taken away.
>> He told me the pawn shop was there before.
That's way heard.
>> Not prior to.
He told Ms. Saul-Sena that they purchased that property after.
At that location?
I live in the neighborhood.
And have lived there.
And I know that Mr. Greco has lived there longer than I have.
And Edith Newton has lived there in excess of 25 years.
There's not been a pawn shop in that location.
>>GWEN MILLER: Sir, talk to the council members.
Talk to us.
>>> Well, he was addressing me so that's a problem I have with it.
But nevertheless, they are saying that something existed there that did not exist.
They are coming before you for an approval on something that is not there.
So that's what my problem is.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Pawn shop, gun shop, that's not before us.
What's before us is a parking lot.
So address the parking lot, if you would.
Is there an objection, if it were a use that you did not find objectionable, would you have any objection to the parking situation as proposed?
>>> Again, losing the residential area, and N Lou of a parking lot, that is something that I would object to.
And it not that they lost -- again, it's not that the city or the county came in or the road department came in and took the property away from them.
This gentleman bought the property after the fact.
>> And where is your house in relation to this?
>>> I'm on River Shore Drive, and --
>> I see it on the map.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for staff.
And that is, the petitioner said that their client tore an old building down and built a new one.
How did they pull the permits for that without having adequate parking?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: No, they have not torn anything down.
>> I could have sworn Mr. Horner said, he showed me a yucky picture and said we tore this thing down, we built --
>>> they haven't pulled any permits for new construction.
>> Oh, they haven't?
>>> No.
>> It's the existing building.
>>> Oh, this is all speculative?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: There is an existing structure there.
I'm not clear on this.
>>> Look at the drawing.
In the front towards Hillsborough, existing.
This has now been razed entirely.
My client is going to remodel and rehab all of this, 900 square feet, closing off all of this, putting in parking here.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: This is a photograph of the remaining portion of the building.
Right there.
So there is a portion of the building that remains.
It is not been approved for new construction, though.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But it would have to have adequate parking and that's why they are coming to us today?
>>> The reality is they could seal this building up, then the portion that's left, and not provide any new parking.
And they could put a retail store in this spot, with no parking.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we were to deny this special use, so that the residential remained residential, they could still have a viable use, and just put the parking on their existing site?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: They wouldn't even have to provide the parking.
This has been a taking through DOT.
They have been compensated.
The building can be used for retail.
There is no real, viable parking.
There's some dropped pavement there where people could back in, into and out of the spaces into the right-of-way.
But it doesn't function to today's standards.
But because of the taking aspect of this, they could operate a retail building out of what's left of this building.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So what's this, the addition?
>>> They are wanting the addition.
They are wanting to provide adequate parking for their use.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Put that aerial up again.
That one.
Where is the residential in there?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: This is the lot that they have acquired.
>> Where is residential?
>>> This is all commercial that extends past.
>> Right.
>>> There's commercial way in the back.
>> Where is residential?
>>> Here is residential.
And this is the individual that I think has signed off saying that they are satisfied with what's being proposed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is the house?
Stuck in those trees?
>>GWEN MILLER: That's a house?
Any more questions from council members?
We need to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move for denial.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second for denial.
Question on the motion?
All in favor say Aye. Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Miller and Alvarez no.
Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: No, didn't carry.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: This will automatically be continued to the next regular meeting.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Guess. What we aren't going to be here.
Move to open number 18.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I do want to read the second sentence, by the way.
Anytime there is a need for reconsideration by council, which must be held at the next regular meeting and there is not a full council, the council may delay reconsideration to the next regular meeting when there is a full council present.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This is not a motion for reconsideration, though.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's true.
You're right.
You raise a good point.
>>GWEN MILLER: Carry over till next week.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The proposal is for a planned development district.
The petitioner is proposing to develop the property at 5918 south 6th street to develop two single-family houses.
The proposed lots are 57 feet wide by 149.
And they will follow the RS-16 development standards.
There is a commitment on the site plan that they will be limited to 3500 square foot floor area.
The property is located in an area that is being redeveloped.
And staff has no objection to this proposal.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, hold on for a second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What does it take to get rid of this?
Swastika subdivision.
We asked staff to get rid of it two years ago.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
The land use category is residential 10.
The site is located in the neighborhood association, in T future land use element.
It is very similar to developments that have, there have been at least three similar rezoning requests in the area in the last two yourself for similar type of development.
It is consistent with the city's Zayre for integrated development.
It is developed in this particular segment with single-family detached usage.
Proposed use is consistent with the planned category and shows that the intensity all permitted intensity ranges.
Planning Commission staff has no objection.
Finds the proposed comprehensive plan.
>> Petitioner.
>>> Good evening.
Scott Brown.
100 South Ashley Drive, suite 2200.
I have been sworn.
Ms. Saul-Sena, my site plan has south side subdivision on it.
>> Mine says Swastika.
Look underneath where it says lot 15.
>> Is it a site plan?
I was looking at the legal.
Drop-down in the middle.
It south side.
We got it right on the legal.
That was just an oversight.
The old plat, page 9 -- I'm very familiar with it.
We use south side everywhere.
That was just an oversight.
We brought it up from the bottom.
I'll try and look for that.
I've actually got the plat in my office where the ordinance was approved.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can start your time now.
>>> The lots are 57 by 149.
8,493 foot square feet.
They are pretty much in excess of 6,000 square foot minimum for the RS-60 lots.
There are just three feet shy of the width.
We are going to observe all other RS-60 criteria.
I've got -- Gloria showed on one of her exhibits it's in the plan, the neighborhood pattern varies widely from 50-foot lots to -- you can see just the size of the lots vary in the neighborhood.
And we think we are consistent with the neighborhood pattern.
We got a photo of an existing home that's going to be raised and reconstructed.
I can show that.
I e-mailed the president of sun bay south and didn't get a south back.
I spoke to Stinson, the former president of sun bay south, didn't have any objections.
I called and spoke with Tony Rodriguez from MacDill.
He didn't have an objection.
I and I received no phone calls from any of the neighbors in the notice area.
I'll answer any questions if you have any.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It appears -- it appears that when it says a tree and there's an X through it that it's being eliminated.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> It appears that you are eliminating all the trees.
Don't see a tree table on this and I want to know how you are doing with it.
I want to know specifically why you are eliminating the 28-inch oak in the lower right-hand corner, and there's a 15 inch oak on the property line.
It appears that you have got a bunch of trees on the property line and you are eliminating them.
>> Those are being taken out.
All the oaks are staying.
All we have eliminated is that 12-inch citrus, a 10 inch citrus which are orange trees, a 14-inch orange tree and 10-inch pecan tree. The rest is staying.
>> Even the 15-inch oak on the south side of parcel B?
>>> Yes.
We are working around that.
>> Well, the site plan is very -- the site plan indicates that those are being eliminated.
They have got X's through them.
>>> That's the symbol for the oak tree.
They are not being taken out.
>> Those are staying?
>>> Yes, they sure are.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Even I knew that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to be speak on item 18?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Dingfelder, would you like to read it?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5918 south 6th street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RS-6 to residential single family to PD residential single family, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Motion to open number 19.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
I believe this is a continued public hearing.
The staff report has not been given. The proposal is for a planned development district involving 512 south Melville Avenue to construct four single-family attached units with two-car garages.
The units are oriented towards DeLeon street and one oriented towards Melville Avenue.
One unit has a garage accessing the alleyway in the rear.
Three on-street parallel parking spaces are shown on the site plan.
The structures stand three stories tall, maximum height of 35 feet.
There is a tower element at 40-foot height and elevations are submitted.
There is objections from the transportation division related to those guest parking spaces as shown on the right-of-way.
City of Tampa, transportation division is objecting to that.
Other than that, the staff has no objection to the proposed development.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of staff.
Gloria, did you or anybody in your staff drive up and down and look at this project as related to the rest of the homes?
On Melville.
Because I think I pointed out to staff and I was very concerned about the mass of this proposed project as compared to the rest of Melville.
I pointed that out a month or two ago.
Cathy Coyle did review this project.
And is familiar with the area.
And feels comfortable with the recommendation, no objection.
It has directly across the street is this proposed development.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have photographs of the homes that are next up and up and down the street?
>>> This is the site.
Don't have any other forecasts photographs, no, in the file.
But the history of this area has been for these size developments.
>> The history of this block is really different.
All right.
Let's hear the rest.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Yes, I have been sworn in.
The site is located, the proposed request is for units on the northeast corner of the intersection of DeLeon and Melville Avenue.
The predominant land use category is residential 35 which permits consideration of the request.
You have a categories goer of residential to the east and to the southeast you have CMU 35.
I live in the area also and are aware of your concerns, Mr. Dingfelder.
There is a town home development directly across the street from the area.
There's another town home development currently in construction directly across the street, also.
There's a single family residence directly adjacent to the site.
And there's also multi-family development directly to the east across.
And I believe there's also another multifamily development in the middle of Melville.
Everything else on this side is single family.
I think three single-family homes mobile homes.
I just pointed out there's one, two, and I think a town home development on this side.
There's a town home development on this site in the middle of the block.
>> There's at least two or three bungalows.
>>> Two on the east side, as I recall.
There is town home here.
Town home here.
Town home here.
So it's pretty integrated from what I have seen in the area.
This has been the trend for the last four or five years in the neighborhood.
As far as the request and what is in the area, it does have adequate public facilities to support the proposal.
It does provide sidewalks along Melville, and you do have side access with the rear alley facing Melville Avenue.
Planning Commission staff feels that it is an integrating neighborhood, and the proposed request is consistent with the general character of the area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of Andy Weinbrenner.
Let me start with -- you asked a question about the development and it's consistency with the area.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the record --.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I've been sworn.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
What you see, it's showing up I guess sort of green but that's a yellow highlighter.
That's post Hyde Park is here.
This is a TECO substation here.
This is the subject parcel here.
This is an office building here.
There are two townhouse projects directly across the street here.
The property owners of the property immediately to the north have provided me with letters which I am entering into the record with support and they are also here this evening to speak on our behalf.
In addition to that, you see the rest of this is all townhouse developments within that area.
Those are the ones I can confirm.
There may be on the ones.
If you remember, I know that all of you weren't on the City Council 15 years ago, but there was no development in career city.
One of the things that it was characterized was by crime, prostitution, drug arrests, and deteriorated neighborhood with no infrastructure improvements whatsoever.
Originally the structure that was put in the 20s and 30s is the same one that was servicing the area.
The streets and the alleys were not paved.
And many of the services were collapsing in the street.
Ten years ago the townhouse project development started, and they started with the removal of triplexes, quad plexes, six plexes and duplexs and introduce add new design element which was characterized by a higher-end homeowner occupied residence.
And to that end, the tax base has been improved.
You have residents who are now living there in those town homes.
And they own them.
And they reside there.
At the same time, there was a great deal of difficulty obtaining loans for anyone purchasing a town home in this district whatsoever.
It was red lined, and the crime stats were off the charts.
At that point we initiated a study with the historic preservation people.
We drove the streets up and down with Annie Hart.
We identified in the local district areas that should and could be preserved, so that bungalows that were viable, that could be restored, and safely restored, were restored.
And different development companies that I've represented before you came before you and said, we weren't going to approach or go after any project or any structure that in any way related to the historic character of the neighborhood.
And we haven't done that.
Eight years ago, you initiated one of the first of many studies requesting that the land use be studied, that the historic preservation be studied, and that's happened again.
Three times since then.
And each time Planning Commission and the preservation board came back and said the areas we have designated are appropriate for preservation. The ones that we don't, we have some, we were satisfied with.
And the last time that happened Annie Hart came in with a map and just prior to the hearing we went through and identified all those structures.
And I got up before you and said, these are clearly structures that deserve to be preserved.
In this case, this is a ranch-style -- this is a ranch style cinder block home, which has been operating.
It's a duplex that we are proposing to remove, and to replace it with this.
>> How tall is that?
>>> It's 35 feet.
That's to the top of the tower.
The same as a single-family house.
The question that related to the rest of the property, I'll show you pictures here.
This is the project that's directly across the street.
That's one of two developments.
There's another one immediately to the north of this.
That's the same height and same basic scale as the one that we're proposing.
This one may be agent bit higher.
But the proposing was for the subject site was to go to 35 feet.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Your plan says 40 on the architectural --.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: That's to the tower.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just reading.
>>> I understand but I'm answering yo question.
That's an architectural feature.
>> It's the height of the building, I mean, there's no point arguing.
>>> I understand.
>> If it's 40, it's 40.
If it's 30, it's 35.
Right now year asking for 40.
I'm reading your writing.
That's all.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: This is a have you looking westward.
This is at the corner of Melville and DeLeon.
There's a lot of right-of-way in here in between the edge of the curb and the property line.
And that's why we proposed putting parallel nonexclusive parking spaces in there.
If you want us to take them off, we certainly will take them off.
But in addition to that, immediately to the east of our subject parcel, are ten guest parking spaces that back up to the TECO power station which is right immediately behind the subject property.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Moreda, or legal, is it appropriate to be describing anything that's beyond the boundaries of the property itself?
I mean, in regard to any thoughts of mitigation?
Cole: It would be included, and whatever they need to show that they have as requirements they need to show on their site plan.
>> Within the bounds --
>>> within the bounds of what they own and what the property is.
I mean, I don't know what Mr. Michelini is saying, that they are going to have some kind of easement or agreement with TECO to use that for extra parking or not.
I don't know if that's what his testimony is.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I wasn't going there.
But I would like to at least go through and finish my presentation.
I was just pointing out that that there are existing guest parking spaces that someone else developed that don't meet code.
They back into the right-of-way.
They are immediately adjacent to the subject parcel.
They are not shown on our site plan as being condition.
They were shown here just indicating that they exist.
What we had proposed was that there would be additional guest parking spaces on the right-of-way as legal spaces.
In fact, on Melville and also on DeLeon.
And again, those are not big issues for us.
If you don't want them there, we can easily take them off.
We still have space for two cars inside a garage.
And two cars as guest spaces before it touches the right-of-way.
On the other parcel.
This is the CG property that I pointed out to you which is diagonally across the street from the subject property where they have covered parking that backs into the right-of-way.
So I was just talking about the character of what's occurring in this area.
This is a close-up view of those non-designated -- they are not labeled in any way.
Anyone that parks there, I guess, is free to do so.
They are not identified.
It's not a tow zone.
Again this is within probably -- across the alley so it's 15 feet from the subject property.
Again just to orient you again real quick, the area that I just showed you, the TECO substation is right here. The subject property is right here.
This commercial site that I just showed you, back in the right-of-way is right here.
Those are three-story buildings.
The other three-story buildings are right here at this corner.
You have three letters to enter into the record.
And again, I will paraphrase -- from them but enter into the record.
One is an apology for not being able to be at the last meeting.
And this is the property immediately to the north of our subject parcel.
We live at the property adjoining the property in question immediately to the north.
We have lived there over 20 years and plan to do so for the next 20.
We have seen many changes to the neighborhood in that time and would have considered a crack neighborhood at that time but nobody knew about the drug that many years ago.
We have seen many improvements over the years.
Fabric King Warehouse is now a Kash N' Karry, Whaley's house torn down and a new shop going in. The owners of the building at 512 have addressed all of our concerns and with the new structure watershed from the roof will not come onto our property.
We won't lose the winter sun.
We were worried about more mold and mildew from the shed.
They have agreed to put up a block wall between the two properties because it would be hard at times to get along with four neighbors as we have seen in the past.
Many palace tuck fences blow down. We have dogs.
And two car garages.
And more parking than most.
In closing we are in favor of the new structure and the progress of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your valuable time.
The second letter was a follow-up letter where the owners went back to the same individuals to make sure that they hadn't changed their mind, and this letter is dated today.
And they waited around as long as they could, and they had waited this evening to speak to you.
And again I'll paraphrase but I'll give you the copies.
We are in favor of the new construction for the following reasons.
Property owners have kept us informed of any and all changes to the plans, the City Council meetings and date.
They have agreed to construct the concrete wall fence between the properties instead of wood or plastic.
Sometimes it's hard to get the same kind of things, double car garages in each unit.
I feel that the residents, the roof drainage isn't a problem, new construction will fit better in the neighborhood than the existing structure and most of the homes were built in the 20s.
And this is one built later in the 50s so the new style better conforms to the neighborhood than the old.
We have lived in the area for 20 years.
There was a neighborhood meeting, association meeting on March the 5th.
And it took place and discussed development plans in the area.
The neighborhood people that I -- it's a neighborhood that has seen significant improvements with townhouses, crime is basically nonexistant in an area where it was fairly prevalent a few years ago.
Although two couples at the meeting were against continued development at the neighborhood the vast majority of the people attending the meeting were for continued development.
The people in favor for the neighborhood were property owners and business owners in the neighborhood.
In closing the majority of the property and business owners in the neighborhood are for continued development and the townhouse at 512 Melville.
I have these copies of letters to enter into the record.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does the president of that neighborhood association still live in Westshore?
>>> I don't know.
>> You don't know him?
>>> No, I don't know where he lives.
>> Is the president of the neighborhood association still Mr. King?
>>> Yes.
>> To the best of your knowledge does he still live in the Westshore area?
>>> I already answered the question.
I don't know where he lives.
He is the president.
We can't pick and choose who the presidents of the associations are.
FROM THE FLOOR: That's true.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ladies and gentlemen, pleas don't speak until your time to come up here.
Anyway, Ms. Alvarez has a question for you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did transportation have an objection?
>>> We either have to approve the space that is are there or we have to remove them.
We are not opposed to removing them if you want us to remove them.
And if we remove them, they remove their objections.
>> It looks like you have got ten --
>>> there are plenty of spaces.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
They don't meet your technical standards because they are too close to the corner.
It very easy to X them out.
In meetings with the staff, we agreed before this evening to just remove them if that's what you wanted us to do.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think so.
>> We'll be happy to remove them.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Cole: I just want to clarify the issue as relates to this ten guest parking spaces.
I don't understand that Mr. Michelini provided any kind of cross access agreement or cross parking agreement but he does show them on the plan.
I don't think that you can rely that those will remain available parking spaces apart from an approval process.
I believe what Mr. Michelini is stating is in the existing -- the way the neighborhood currently exists, there is parking spaces along that.
But that isn't something that can be relied upon unless there's an agreement.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Can you do off-street parking in that area?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: First of all, we weren't relying on those parking spaces.
I was just pointing out that they existed in the immediate proximity.
And that they don't meet the code.
They clearly back directly into the right-of-way.
They don't meet the 26-foot backup requirement.
And that's why I was telling you these parallel spaces don't meet the code either.
But in addition to that we have met the code with the two-car garages and we have enough space for two cars to park behind those in the driveway.
>> Tandem parking?
>>> Not tandem.
There's enough room between the garage.
There's 18 feet.
And the right-of-way.
That will allow for guest parking.
So they weren't relying on any of that.
It was an issue that you council had brought up before, was show us where the guest parking is, show us where people, you know, parties and things like that, where they park.
And so to that end, I drove around, and identified where those parking spaces occur.
>> Is there any on-street parking in that area?
>>> There's on-street parking wherever throughout Courier City.
>> Because it's --
>>> it's a residential area.
And most of the older developments don't have garages.
Some do.
It's probably a mixed bag.
Half and half.
Some do, some don't.
And they all park on the street.
What we've done is to take this particular house doesn't have any off-street parking.
Everything is on the street.
The duplex was built when I guess no parking was required.
They will be housed on the property, on the subject property.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini, did you say you did a study in that area?
>>> Well, the City Council had asked the Planning Commission to study land use densities and development trends and patterns.
And we have done that two or three times.
And also council has requested the historic preservation board to study the appropriateness of development and adjacent bungalows and things like that.
And what happened was Annie Hart came back to you with a map identifying the homes that she clearly identified should be preserved.
And none of these projects that we have brought to you have interfered with any of those.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to -- let's hear from the neighborhood.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone from the neighborhood that would like to speak on item 19?
You may come up and speak now.
>> Helen Gary, I have been sworn in, south Melville Avenue three houses down and across the street from the proposed project.
I have a ton of notes here but I have to just tell you, Tay serious offense to the comment about the "neighborhood association" meeting that was held on March whatever it was.
Watts not sponsored by the neighborhood association.
It was called by myself, a relatively new resident, and my neighbor across the street, as we became concerned as relative new residents about development in the neighborhood.
Now, we invited everybody we could.
We walked the neighborhood.
I had that meeting two weeks after I gave birth.
I mean, that's my concern about this neighborhood.
The president of the apparent existing neighborhood association did attend the meeting.
We didn't know how to get in touch with them.
We had no idea one existed.
That's obviously why we moved forward.
Because this neighborhood is at a tipping point.
It really is.
So I think that summarization of the meeting is just incorrect.
And I take offense to that.
I do have some comments here.
I understand I have three minutes.
I just want you to be aware of that.
>> Are you aware of the speaker waiver form?
>>> I am not.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder --
>>> But I'll make my comments quick.
My husband and I and our 14 week old child, we live on south Melville, we moved here from San Francisco about 15 months ago.
We chose South Tampa and we chose specifically the Courier City neighborhood because of the dynamics in the neighborhood.
It's historic.
It's multifamily.
It's single family.
You can walk to everything.
I don't ever get in my car except to go to work which is downtown.
We love the character of the neighborhood.
When we've relooked around and we said, Oh, my gosh, all of these townhouses.
Now my husband and I don't object to multifamily development generally.
There needs to be a balance, though.
And this neighborhood is falling out of balance.
And in addition to balance, this project specifically, it's enormous.
It is just way too big for the area.
And frankly, I think the design is just wrong.
It doesn't fit in with the current design, current housing stock and how that's designed.
Yes, there's this enormous project across the street that was permitted before we moved there.
It's huge.
I don't know what single-family home in the neighborhood is 40 feet, as the previous speaker stated.
I would like to see it.
But there's not one.
There's a townhouse across the street.
So I object to the size.
I don't object necessarily to the multifamily.
I just want them to consider the character of the neighborhood, and appropriate size.
We want to main tain some green space. The current structure on the property is approximately 1500 square feet.
The proposed development based on notations of the rendering and the property will exceed 10,000 square feet of livable space.
It's just a huge difference.
And it's not an appropriate structure for that space.
Really historic cities do this well.
San Francisco, lived there for more than three years, in the city.
I saw it work.
It can.
But not when developers are coming in and just maxing out every bit of square footage to make the most money that they can.
I don't object to making money.
But I think in the long run, a suitable development, that possibly has a front porch, that puts parking in the back, but maintains the trees, that maintains the green space, ultimately will benefit the neighborhood, the tax base, when this neighborhood is thriving in 20 years, and developers are long gone.
So that's all I have.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you or anybody in the neighborhood have any pictures?
>>> Yes, we do.
On Melville specifically.
>> Okay.
We can see those sooner than later.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>> My name is -- I live across the street from Kelly.
At the end of my remarks I am also going to address the question of the neighborhood meeting because I'm one of the people that worked with Kelly to have that --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is that property?
>>> About two houses.
This is -- actually, I am going to shop.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have you been sworn in?
>>> I have.
This is the tree.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Back it off.
>>> This is the tree on the property slated to be cut down.
And I moved here from Boston less than a year ago.
I specifically chose Tampa.
We could have moved anywhere in the south.
My husband works a national job.
He travels extensively.
And we could have chosen anywhere.
I specifically chose Tampa because it's one of the few cities in the country with both palm trees and oak trees thrive together.
And so for me to see the tree canopy being cut down is like a knife in the heart.
I'm not opposed to density.
I'm not opposed to development.
I applaud what the developers have done with this neighborhood.
We chose this neighborhood because it has an urban feel.
I lived in downtown Boston for many years before we moved here.
What I'm concerned about is the size of this building compared to what currently exists.
This is one side of Melville.
This is what is across the street from the proposed development.
And you can see, I don't know if you can see here, there isn't an -- there is an apartment building here. This is Kelly's house.
This is an apartment building two stories.
It fits in nicely with the neighborhood.
This is the house immediately next door to the proposed development.
This is our neighborhood.
Actual this is my house.
Here is another building that's two stories, building fits right in.
They don't have parking.
They park on the street, which I have to say I don't mind parking on a street.
I have a two-year-old.
It provides a buffer between the sidewalk and the cars.
So I'm happy to have street parking.
And I'll leave this with you guys.
Here are the immediate houses.
This is the house immediately next door.
This is a letter that you heard these folks are not opposed to development.
This is the house directly across the street.
Across DeLeon.
They are opposed.
This is the house directly across -- diagonally across.
Also on Melville.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Slide it up a bit.
>>> They had a family emergency and are not able to be here tonight.
This is the building directly across the street.
So these are some of the four corners and it doesn't fit. This is so huge.
They have landscaped this nicely now.
I took this picture last month for the hearing.
So it doesn't show the landscaping.
But this is the apartments.
This is next door hasn't started to be developed but we understand it's going to be two stories.
I don't know how big it will be.
But it goes from the very corner to the very corner to the very corner to the very corner.
And this is what they are proposing will do the same thing.
And so that's my concern, is whether the scale is such that it doesn't --
(Bell sounds)
Is my time up?
I'm sorry. The scale doesn't fit in.
And -- that just threw me off.
I had something else I wanted to say.
It doesn't fit into scale, although we are not opposed to development generally.
We could keep it down to maybe two stories, make it fit in, make it a little smaller, make it fit in, have a little more green space.
So I guess I'll have to stop since my time is up.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>> Jeff black, 306 south Melville and I have been sworn.
My wife and I bought our house 29 years ago.
The neighborhood was a little rough.
We were the youngest people on the block at the time.
Now we are the oldest people on the block.
I love my house.
I bought my house because it was a bungalow.
We had been looking for a bungalow A low in Seminole Heights or South Tampa the entire time I have been here.
I raised my daughter in that house.
She went to all the schools in the neighborhood.
Yes, the neighborhood was a little rough.
The prostitution that Mr. Michelini was talking about didn't happen on my block, didn't happen in the 500 block.
It was going on Kennedy Boulevard, which is three blocks away from my house, and that's been cleaned up for 20 years.
Now talking about our neighborhood association.
It's been taken over by business owners and property owners in my neighborhood.
It's not homeowners association.
We have started the process of putting together a homeowners association, because our neighborhood association doesn't even bother to tell us when they have a meeting.
And as Mr. Dingfelder pointed out, the president owns property in the neighborhood.
But he happens to live in Westshore.
What does he care what happens in my neighborhood?
What I care about happening in my neighborhood is three-story monolithic structures being built next to my one-story bungalow, next to somebody else's one-story bungalow. Yes, 15 years ago, there wasn't much happening in my neighborhood.
But you know what?
My house has always been easy to sell.
I never sold it.
But all you have to do, and any one of these houses, put a for-sale sign up and it sells within a week.
So I don't want to hear how bad it was in my neighborhood and you couldn't get a loan, because many, many people have tried and succeeded.
So I just wanted to say, please, let's keep the height down.
Keep the size smaller.
Worry about that green space.
And thank you very much for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> My name is April Block.
I live at 306 South Albany.
And I'm a Tampa native.
And I've lived in my home on Albany Street since 1976, just after the Crosstown displaced a lot of people so at that time the neighborhood did get a little bit rough but it was due to the change with the Crosstown.
We have seen a lot of changes.
Some of them good.
Some of them very bad.
The size of the structure, that's not good. The traffic.
The parking problems and the density.
And things like four-story and three-story apartment buildings, they are not going to make things better.
We'd like the water pressure to get better, the green space to get better, the ability to drive down our streets, the ability to have the fire department be able to drive down our streets.
Right now, on a Thursday or Friday night, it would be tough.
It would be really tough for the fire department to get down the street.
If you're going to allow them to park on the street, that's not going to be a good thing.
If you're going to allow four families in a spot that used to have two families you are going to add a lot more cars.
A lot more cars.
So we appreciate your giving us the time.
It's past my bedtime.
I'm going to sit.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> I'm Paula Hoffner, I have been sworn in and I live at 308 South Albany Avenue.
In 1990, Tampa became my home.
Serendipity landed me in the greater Hyde Park area.
Choice has kept me there. You see, when I came to town, I was first working at the Tampa Tribune, and then for the city magazines.
Writing about this city gave me a unique perspective.
Driving up north Dale Mabry, past Carrollwood to interview developers, gave me a bird's eye view of what commuting hell was going to become like on that road.
Compelling stories about the schools made me aware that I wanted my son to attend Gorrie and Wilson and Plant.
I have stayed in this area for a number of reasons, including the fact that I have what some consider cerebral insanity in that I love old homes.
With all of those idiosyncrasies including no water pressure on some days.
When Ybor burned we couldn't take a shower.
I'm serious.
Among the many reasons that I moved into my home 16 years ago and why my husband and I stay, the most important is the single-family, single-story homes, detached homes, with a mix of older, two-story apartment buildings.
There's a diversity, a nice flavor to our neighborhood.
We have a lot of trees.
We have yards we can grow things in.
Traffic and parking have never been much of a problem, except on Gasparilla day, and on Gasparilla day we didn't care because we just walked.
Unfortunately, the explosive growth of business and town homes has permanently changed that.
Traffic is now a constant nightmare, trying to get down Swann Avenue and getting into and out of our neighborhood is a nightmare anytime of day.
Street parking is a persistent headache, particularly on weekend nights, as a result of the restaurants and bars.
Westland Avenue, Albany Avenue, Melville, Azeele, DeLeon, and Horatio, have become parking lots for the businesses that surround our homes.
It normal that a number of cars remain overnight or all weekend, often parked very close to our driveways.
Our streets are narrow, and our driveways are very narrow.
It becomes a serious problem attempting to pull into a driveway, or back out of one, without hitting a parked car.
Worse, cars traveling in opposite directions down these streets have no place to pull aside to allow someone else to pass because there's only a single lane of traffic available. The greatest peril is that large vehicles such as the UPS truck, but most important, ambulances and fire trucks, cannot get down our street.
Or turn corners.
The parking problem extends beyond the South Howard party nights.
It's true that garages are included in the new town home construction but it's not true that residents actually use them for their cars, or that the garages are large enough for all of the cars that are owned.
Too often, parking is done on a short apron between the sidewalk and the garages.
Walkers with strollers and dogs are forced into the street traffic in order to navigate the street.
What we ask is not that development be stopped but that it be contained within the proportions of the neighborhood.
We are not providence, Rhode Island where three story homes are the norm.
We ask you to keep it in scale.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> I'm Duane Wendell, I'm the property immediately adjacent and I haven't been sworn in.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you raise your right hand, please?
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>> I do.
Um, I'll only address the issues that seem to be the issues.
The property right across the street from it, which is now a four-plex, going to be a four plex, it all sold and everything, the best thing about it is it's two-car garages which means two driveways, so people can park side by side.
There's other four-plexes that have been built in the neighborhood that only have the one-car garage, and supposedly we are supposed to park in the front, and then you park the other vehicle behind them.
That just doesn't happen.
Because it never fails, the one in front is always the one that wants to pull out.
So it's, no, honey, you park on the street.
So at least they have alleviated that problem by addressing the issue of two driveways and a double car garage.
And I'm very happy for that.
As far as the height usual you, I think it's only a matter of five feet, which is the roof on the bell tower that makes the difference.
Aesthetically if they take that off then there's no height issue there.
Aesthetically, I think it looks prettier with a tower -- roof on it instead of the one across the street doesn't have that decoration, and I think it does look much bet we are the roof tower on it, if you have the site plans there.
The builder is not a developer as far as I know. It's not a big developer as other developers are in there developing one property right after another.
It's just a piece of investment property that he's purchased.
And is developing as a private thing.
Just as if I want to develop my piece of property.
I really don't think that the -- I'm going to miss some shade from the winter sun.
But progress happens.
It's happened in that neighborhood and there over 20 years.
Progress does go forward.
I don't see where this is a huge mammoth structure, as everybody else has been describing it.
The one across the street, on pictures it may look like huge and mammoth but the one across the street, now that it's built, it's not that huge and mammoth.
The developer has agreed to put up a concrete block wall between our properties, because that was a big issue with me.
And watching all these little plastic fence blow down and everything else, if you've got four people living back there, or I think three people are permitted back there, if they built just three, by having three people back there with a wooden fence, I'd much rather have four with a concrete block wall.
That way we are not intruding on their space and they are not intruding on our space should something happen to the fence.
It's a little more structurally there for them and for us.
So that's why we are in favor of this, because they have been done everything in trying to make this go ahead.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have -- we have a question for you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The current zoning allows two units on the subject parcel.
Would you rather have two units or four units?
>>> I really don't see where it's that much difference.
The whole neighborhood, there's four, there's six, you know.
There's a row of three single-family houses. If this becomes a four-plex, then there's a row of three single houses.
And then there is like a six or eight-unit apartment house.
And then there's another single house.
Then throws another four unit.
And there's another four unit.
And there's another eight-unit.
So that's all on that side of the property as you go down Melville Avenue.
And I think the biggest issue is the parking issue, which they have alleviated by giving two-car garages, and double driveways.
So whether you're living next door to two or four, don't think it really matters that much and it does conform to the whole neighborhood and does give the neighborhood its charm and everything else.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate your coming down here, waiting this long to speak.
And my question is, the very first speaker we heard from in opposition to this, she said we have a mixed neighborhood right now, but you're sort of at a tipping point in terms of the fact that one by one, you have got one across the street.
So now because you have one across the street, then the one on your corner doesn't look so bad anymore because you have -- I'll just finish -- up with across the street, I'll accept one next to me.
My question to you is, pretty soon, there's a very strong likelihood that one by one, you want to stay there 20 more years and I respect that and I believe you 100%.
I know from your store.
But what if eventually one by one every single neighbor around you converts over to these, because that is what is happening in Courier City?
So pretty soon not only are you losing your summer sun on that side, but basically you're surrounded on every single possible corner of your property by these same quads, and across the street, and up and down.
Because you're next to a neighbor might sell to the same type of property and it might happen again.
I'm not trying to convince you that you care or you don't care.
But I think that's what you're hearing your neighbors say, is they do care.
And they don't want to live in a neighborhood that is wall to wall these quads, for numerous reasons that they said, including mass and scale and parking, et cetera.
But I am curious, not trying to -- I'm curious, would that concern you if your house was surrounded on all four sides by the same exact project?
>>> No, because progress happens.
What the house was surrounded by back when I bought it was incredible.
Had this property already gotten approval across the street, because I plan on coming to that meeting, too, because I am not for a single-car garage, single driveway.
I know that's what list is planning on putting up right across the street.
But I haven't seen any sign going up saying there's going to be a city meeting on it.
That bothers me more than adequate parking and off-street parking to where the neighborhood is a little safer for the children and stuff to walk the sidewalks.
It's a type of neighborhood that can grow into that.
And I don't see any reason why it shouldn't.
The houses have been taken away.
I'm sure the reason why there was no opposition on the house across the street is because it was a drug dealer house.
I mean, I called the police on it many, many times.
Because drug dealers were living in there.
And there was prostitution going on in that house, and on the corner.
>>> The one across the street was owned by a little old lady when our dog ran away it ran over to her house, and she passed away, and that house was a little duplex that hadn't been kept up well.
So I would like to see a new piece of property in there.
I wouldn't even mind to see a single family or duplex go in there.
But I don't see where this is a real big issue on these corner lots.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me just clarify a couple things on the record.
We are not asking for any parking waivers.
We are not asking for any green space waivers.
We've agreed to plant four-inch trees.
It's on the site plan, instead of two-inch trees to help again jump start the green space and allow those trees to get a better foothold and have the greater survival rate.
We're not proposing any on-street parking.
We have met the parking requirement.
We're willing to remove those spaces if you want us to. They are simply an amenity.
They are not exclusive to the use of this townhouse.
Anyone that drove up could park there.
There's no special reserved sign or anything like that.
We trade to provide a design that was sensitive, and provided some architectural articulation.
Instead of having a massive box of some kind, we provided some architectural relief.
The tower element is a non-air conditioned space.
It's simply an open tower.
If you have a problem with that tower we can certainly move it which brings the height of all the living areas already at 35 feet.
If you remove the tower, again it's an architectural feature.
There's no benefit except it makes it a bit more attractive.
You have already heard the testimony that indicated that.
The Planning Commission was asked I don't know how many times to go out and review this particular site, this street, drive the area, go have a second look.
They came back with the same recommendation.
It is consistent.
It is also consistent with what's hang in the area.
The predominant development pattern is not single-family residential.
It is less than 50% of the makeup now.
It was less five years ago than 50%.
It was less eight years ago than 50%.
And that was documented and submitted to City Council at various times.
And each time you asked me to go back out and say look at it again, look at it again, it comes back with the development pattern, the land use is res 35, which is 35 units to the acre.
This is what the plan called for.
Historically, there were apartment buildings in here.
There were some bungalows, but they were interspersed with apartment buildings.
It is a typical normal pattern.
Immediately to the east you have Hyde Park which is a massive apartment complex. This project backs up to a TECO substation.
The gentleman lives directly to the north has said they don't have a problem.
They encourage development.
They told you basically, they think it's consistent.
They are the ones who are most effected.
Everyone else is either one block away, two blocks away, or two or three house as way.
They won't even be able to see this project from their front doors.
I showed you that the alley is going to be improved.
Some of you have been out to see what happens when you landscape the alleys and they become living, working, occupied space.
They become a more livable neighborhood.
We reclaimed the alleys for people to use.
Wove done the best that we can do with this.
And certainly if you have some suggestions on the height issue or removing the parking spaces, we would be happy to address it.
Again we can remove the tower, or we can remove the parking spaces or we can do both.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think, Mr. Michelini makes a really gad point on this.
This is another transitional area that we are having.
If we didn't have the Post apartments on the east side of this, and they were interspersed with town homes I would have a problem with that.
Planning Commission has found it consistent.
Staff has had in a objection except for transportation, which we can have them removed.
But let's be consistent, colleagues.
I can remember just a few weeks ago, we were talking about on south Boulevard that we had a 7-story building right next to the school that we approved.
So, you know, this is a 35-foot with a five-foot higher tower.
So I don't see anything wrong with this thing.
So I think that I would support this.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I am really keenly aware of this neighborhood.
When we first did the survey 30 years ago to make Hyde Park a historic area, this area was also surveyed.
But it wasn't protected.
The Crosstown expressway cut this off.
And the reason you have those post Hyde Park apartment is because nobody wanted to build anything but apartments next to the cross -- Crosstown and they actually provide a buffer between that and the rest of this neighborhood.
The key phrase I think we have heard today is the question of this being a tipping point.
This council and I have approved many multifamily quads in this area and the other day I took a walk, while I was waiting for food to be fixed I took a walk around the neighborhood.
We, I think, responsibly, have reached a point where wave to start consistently saying no, it's too much.
Rate now, there's a balance, if we keep saying yes, we will lose the very fine quality of bungalows that are on par with the bungalows in Hyde Park. The quads are just very, very dense.
The older apartment houses, that were the traditional historic apartment houses, are smaller scale, they are lower, there's green space in front.
These are very, very intense.
And the report says two units would be allowed on the subject parcel.
But I would say to the property owner is if they don't want to build a single family home which if I don't think they would sell then build two units, but not more than that.
And so with concerns for density in the neighborhood, the negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood and on the transportation system, I will move to deny this petition.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you close?
>>GWEN MILLER: We closed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When I came on council I was extremely concerned about this area.
I think Courier City, where is Courier City?
Oh, okay, at this time area sort of near Whaley's and near Kash N' Karry, so you start driving up and down these streets because a lot of the list projects, Mr. Michelini's projects, various clients projects are were coming in here.
So when he says we have a lot of new stuff going in here, yes, we have.
Because Mr. Michelini brought it in and it's been approved one by one by one, in various sections of this neighborhood.
The other thing I kept saying is where are the people that actually live here?
Where are these neighbors?
Because I felt like I was sort of a lone voice out there, you know, objecting to these projects.
And after awhile I just quit objecting to them because I figured, okay, if nobody lives in that neighborhood and if nobody cares, then I'm going to quit carrying, too.
We'll just let the whole thing tip over and become these quads.
So I just stopped saying it.
Well, all of a sudden these folks came out of the woodwork.
And Mary, this is your district.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I understand.
>> I didn't know that.
Frankly, I thought it was my district.
>>> You can have it if you want it.
>> You're always giving me pieces.
>>> I know, I'm trying.
>> But when these people called my office a couple of months ago and says we want to form a neighborhood association, we want to find out what we can do to start stopping these quads, specifically, that's what they are doing.
They weren't talking about this particular parcel.
There wasn't any ex parte communication.
But they said what can we do?
We need to organize.
I said, well, you have a neighborhood association.
But by the way your neighborhood president doesn't even live in your neighborhood.
He lives in Westshore.
That's why there's never been any real organization to oppose this because there's a sham of a neighborhood association.
But they are going to organize anyway, because they live there, and they care, and they have stayed here until 10:30 at night to tell us how much they care, and they don't live blocks away.
Raise your hand if you live on that street.
Throws at least four people that live right there on that street.
So there's a misrepresentation by the petitioner to say they don't live there.
They live there.
They care.
If you look at this map, You'll see that up and down this street, on the same exact block, there's one, two, three, four -- looks like five single-family bungalows.
She showed us the pictures.
A nice, small, short, single-family bungalows.
And they don't deserve to have this big monstrosity next to all of them.
And because what will happen -- and I respect Mr. Stokes and Mr. Wendell don't open object.
That's their prerogative.
But the bottom line is once you let one goes, it goes and goes and is a domino effect.
I feel very passionate, wave got to start saying no in this neighborhood.
Otherwise write it all off and you might as well start knocking down all the bungalows because they are not going to stay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I felt the same way about that place on 112 South Boulevard when we put a 7-story building on south Boulevard, right next to a school.
I felt the same way.
But it happened.
And it's a historic neighborhood in there.
And we have -- it's all residential offices all around.
You got beautiful homes.
But yet we stuck a 7-story building right there.
Is that right?
I don't think so.
>> I wasn't here for first reading.
I voted for it on second reading, I admit that.
However, Boulevard is a much busier four-lane road.
>> It may be so.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a tiny little tree lined street with bungalows on it.
>> So was south Boulevard on Horatio.
I saw them, Linda.
I saw those houses on both sides of that street.
And you have got gory right next to it.
You put this huge thing there.
You know?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just because we made one mistake doesn't mean --
>> but the thing about it if we didn't have those Post apartments in there and got PDs all over the place it would be a different story. This place is transitional, you know.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe we could do a continuance and drive it because you can't see Post apartments from the street.
You cannot see it because I drove it and I'm sitting there saying, I know Post apartments is oaf there but it's two blocks over and you can't tell those apartments are over there.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that what has been proposed here tonight is too intense for what is right.
If we didn't already have what was right across the street I would say all right, you know, this is sort of a typical reuse, and these sorts of uses are a trend.
But because of what's right across the street, if you have almost the exact same mass of building across -- across, you're dragging into this cavern, and I don't know that that would be appropriate.
Now having said that, I do think that wave heard from some of the neighbors who have said that multifamily here, if done in a way that is a little more sensitive to what they would like to see, might not be something that's going to be objectionable to them.
The petitioner can do two on there right now with no rezoning, and sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil that you don't know.
So what I would suggest that we do is let everyone take a breather, go back and see if we can work out something that might -- maybe we split the difference, maybe the height gets reduced.
Maybe we do something that everyone can live with as opposed to just a straight up or down.
I have to vote in favor of the motion that's on the table now for denial.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini, Mr. Harrison had something on the table.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We can look at it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With look at what?
>>> What I was asked was -- what I understood was the height and the massing of the structure.
If I'm incorrect, please correct me.
But that's what I thought he asked.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just wanted clarification.
>>GWEN MILLER: If we take off the steeple --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let me clarify what I'm thinking about, Mr. Michelini.
The steeple is not going to do it.
This thing needs to look different.
I don't know that you can ultimately get four units on here.
Maybe you just can't do it.
But bring something back.
You know who the folks are in the neighborhood now.
You're good at this.
Go out and meet with them.
Take their suggestions and see if there's something you can come back with.
Other than just a flat-out denial.
Because a flat-out denial means they can come back and put two units there, and you have no say over it.
And I think that you want a say over what might happen here.
So procedurally, I don't know that it's necessarily a continuance.
Because it's going to be a very different project that we are going to come back with.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The hearing has been closed and there is a motion and a second on the floor.
So in order for anybody to contemplate it, it would require a withdrawal of the motion and a second, and then a motion to reopen the hearing and then a motion --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not willing to withdraw my motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I did hear the neighborhood say that they could live with multifamily on that corner.
There's already a duplex on that corn because somebody filled in a garage and made it into a duplex.
But there's already duplex on that corner.
I think that if your architect, who I'm sure is very talented, can figure out a way to bring that down to two stories, and still have two-car garages perhaps for three units instead of four, then maybe that's a compromise that everybody can live with.
On that corner.
We have to start getting away from these standard cookie cutter quads on 50 by 100 foot lots.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was going to make a substitute motion to have Mr. Michelini go back and see if he can reduce the size and the hate of the structure.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know whether -- who was the maker of the motion?
Who was the seconder of the motion?
I don't believe a substitute motion is appropriate at this point.
I believe what would be appropriate if the seconder of the motion were to withdraw, if that's the prerogative of the seconder of the motion, then it still has to be a second.
And if not it going to die for lack of a second, and then another motion would be appropriate.
But a motion to deny, I don't know whether a substitute motion --.
I don't believe so.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to take a leap of faith.
Mr. Michelini and I have known each other a long time.
I'm going to take a leap of faith and see if you can get a bunch of phone numbers from these people and reduce to the an entire unit or two units, whatever it is.
With that I'll withdraw my second and ask to continue.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to continue.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have to open the public hearing again.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to reopen.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for purposes of clarification the second is being withdrawn.
Is there a second to Ms. Saul-Sena's motion?
>>GWEN MILLER: No, dies for lack of a second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Seeing none, then it dies for lack of a second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to be very clear on why I supported that seven-story building.
And it was because -- 123450.
>> It's a different --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, I'm seguing back to the.
It was excellent architecture. The materials were appropriate. The setbacks were appropriate.
It was sensitively done.
Itself was context sensitive.
What we had before us was not at all well done.
So way would say to you, Mr. Michelini, is don't think in terms of the other quads in Courier City.
Think in terms of the bungalows, and come up with some better architecture than we have seen, either play off of the existing bungalows, or the existing small scale apartment structures, and if you bring something like that back, I could support it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to reopen the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have another motion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To continue for, I'd say, August 11th.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In the evening, I would hope.
In the evening.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I second.
6 p.m.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to open number 20.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open item number 20.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The proposal is to rezone the property at 9207 north 27th Street to the RS-50 district, involves two parcels, 50 by 125.
The Elmo shows the character of the area.
The property is in an R-20 land use classification.
It's the width of the loft that is deficient.
Staff has no objection with this proposal.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
The site does have two land use categories, Busch Boulevard to the north on 7th street as a land use category of residential 10, as one progresses north from Busch Boulevard.
The request is consistent with residential development projects being minimally disrupted to the surrounding area, as it is in close proximity to east Busch Boulevard and will be developed on the periphery.
It will be integrated with adjacent uses as it is consistent with the surrounding uses in the area, complimentary to the existing residential uses in the area.
It is consistent with the intent of permitted intensities of the land use category.
Planning commission staff has no objection to the proposed request.
>>> Ethel Hamel, 5444 bay scepter drive suite 22 Tampa 33609.
I will make a very short presentation.
As Gloria said this parcel is in res 20 land use planned category, which was put down.
I'd like to show you.
How that relates to Busch Boulevard.
We are only 50 feet away from the commercial corridor along Busch Boulevard.
And this area is heavily influenced by the commercial uses that are in very close proximity.
And that res 20 plan category was placed on the end of properties here to service a transition back into the residential neighborhood.
This shows the relationship of the property.
And if you notice many, many of the lots on that block are the exact same size.
There are some that are a little larger, but a lot of those are 50 foot lots.
They got rezoned to RS 60 when this was done in zoning conformance so many, many of those lots have been left nonconforming.
This is two plotted lots.
There's a house on one. The other is vacant.
As Ms. Moreda said, they are 6250 square feet.
So they are much larger than what would normally be contemplated in the RS-50 zoning district.
I have six petitions in support that I'd like to enter into the record.
This rezoning would make the existing house conforming because of the lot size variation.
So the fact I'll close and ask for your support.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the audience to speak on item 20?
>>> My name is Beverly Tribble.
I live at 9213 north 27th Street and I have been sworn.
I am against this being built, because it will be right on my fence.
And we don't want that.
Our lots are very big.
Most of them on our street.
And there's one house there.
And if they put another one there, it will be right on my -- right on my property line.
And I think that's too close.
So I'm against it.
I oppose this change.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask her a question?
Ma'am, how big is your lot?
>>> It's -- oh, Jesus.
Well, I don't know.
Mine is big enough to have another house put on there, also.
>> What about the people across the street?
>>> The one across the street is big enough to have another house put on it too.
>> So is what you're saying is most people's houses 2004 lots?
>>> Except for the one right on the opposite side of me.
They built it right there.
And it was built there when I moved in.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak on item 20?
Petitioner, rebuttal?
Hammer: Yes, thank you.
It is not true that most of the houses are built on two lots.
If you look at the lot pattern you will see that some of the lots are bigger but there are many, many lots especially right in that small neighbor area there that the lots are the exact same size and if you look at the aerial which I have, there are houses on each one of those 50 foot lots which were left nonconform as a result of zoning conformance.
So, yes, the house to the north of us is on a larger lot.
But the majority of lots are the same size.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did she say the house is going to be right up to hers?
>>> On the green.
It is true her house or her lot looks like a double lot.
And it's shown as one parcel.
But the other lots in that immediate area, each have one house on them.
And the house -- well, the unit that we back up to is a multifamily unit.
It's zoned RM-16.
So it's a mixed neighborhood.
The house to the immediate south is on a 50 foot lot.
>> How many feet are you between your property and her property?
>> Her lot is 80 contiguous on the north.
Another difference is, she is in res 10.
These lots are in res 20.
So she is in a different planned category than these lots are.
>> I believe she's the lot to the immediate north.
And if you look at --
>> These are the two lots in question.
This would be her lot.
Her lot appears to be a double lot.
But in this block there's only one other of those double lots.
And it's facing on 28th street to the north.
Everything else is built on smaller lots especially as you get down closer to Busch Boulevard.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
Maybe the colors are messed up in my map.
This is the map I have.
But in looking at my map, it appears that on the west side of 27th Street, everything is conforming.
And on the east side where the petitioner is, some things are conforming and some things aren't.
But it says that hers isn't conforming but she's saying that it is.
So it appears if we were to do one of those percentage things that oftentimes our staff does that the majority of the lots are --.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I think it's wrong, given what Ethel has in her in terms of ownership, is that the parcel is directly north.
There are two lots that should be colored in blue.
>> So in other words there's more blue?
>>> There's more blue.
>> But Gloria, if you were to characterize a percentage of conforming lots versus nonconform, there's more larger lots?
>>> There's more conforming lots.
In terms of lot width there are more lot widths that are 60.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: But looking at the map on the Elmo now, that's not true the closer you get to Busch Boulevard.
If you just draw a line out east and west from the northern section of these two lots, you'll see that everything appears, pretty much everything appears to be on the smaller lots.
>>> Correct.
And those are in the res 20 planned category.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: My point is as you get close to Busch, a highly dense commercial corridor, that the lot sizes get smaller.
As you go north, away from, and more towards residential, they get a little bit bigger which would make sense based on the land use categories that you're talking about.
>>> Correct.
>> That's an observation.
>>> Thank you. The ultimate goal of this rezoning is to be able to build one single-family house on the northern-most lot, and there is already an existing house on the southern lot.
So this is something that fits in with the development pattern of the neighborhood.
The house now is totally on the southern lot so the northern lot would have to remain vacant because it doesn't meet the minimum width requirement.
>> How short is it to the minimum width requirements?
>> It's ten feet because it's a 50 foot lot.
All of these lots that are nonconforming, all 50 foot lots because that's how they were plotted.
Some of the bigger lots, there are minimal numbers, have been combined, two lots were combined into one.
>> What's the setback requirements for this?
>>> Seven feet.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: And a second?
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I will support the ordinance because I truly believe as you get closer to Busch we see the smaller lot sizes, and we want to encourage residential development along this corridor here.
And this -- I kind of liken it to the 80% rule.
And I said that I certainly have no problem with 80% rule issues up in areas that I think are needing some revitalization.
So with that, I move an ordinance providing for area rezoning, the general location of which is 9207 north 27th Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential single-family to RS 60, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Who seconded it?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anybody?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I stopped reading halfway through.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For lack of a second I move for denial based on the fact if a majority, if one analyzes the majority of lots in proximity, and the majority are conforming in this petitioner's lot size.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second for denial.
I hesitate to do that because all it means is it comes back.
But Nay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to explain the procedure?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe Mr. Shelby should.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 21.
Need to open the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 7610 South Westshore Boulevard to the RS-50 district to create buildable lots in single-family detached structures.
They require setbacks in the RS-50, with 20 in the rear, 7 on the side.
This property will have to be replatted.
We have no objection with this proposal.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
I brought you the old land use of this, South Tampa, very close to MacDill Air Force Base.
Used to be a junkyard. This was heavy industrial.
The plan amendment to change this to residential 10.
So basically, this is all the surrounding color.
And this now is residential 10.
The request is for semi detached residential units.
It will have to be built to RS-50 standard.
It is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and density in the area.
And does support the concept of putting houses which are within the residential category of residential 10 and does not exceed the density of 10 units between the City of Tampa and MacDill Air Force Base.
MacDill Air Force Base when we initially did this for the plan amendment had no objections to the plan amendment it.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Wake up.
Just because we were asleep.
>> Scott Williams, sweet 2600 one Tampa City Center.
I have been sworn and I'm here to answer any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
Anyone in the public like to speak on item 21?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do have a question.
You may do straight Euclidean zones.
Are you going to continue the streets where they never existed?
>>> Actually, they were platted originally. This is one of the first plats in Hillsborough County.
The intent is to put the grid system back in place.
>> That's what I'm saying.
So Fitzgerald would continue down, and goes across right where it is, there's no vacating?
>>> Actually, some were vacated years ago so after this there's going to be discussions with city to put the roads back.
It's basically to put the old ones back in place.
>> Is there stormwater still here?
>> No.
>> Did everybody go home but us?
>> Actually the whole area --
>> That's pretty low area.
>> There's discussions, I think, not only with this project but some others that are looking at one so the stormwater is looking at the whole area to see what needs to be done.
It's not just -- there's other developments similar occurring on both sides of what we are doing.
So I know before we do anything that that area is going to be looked at, as an area of stormwater road system.
>> What's the logic?
>>> The reality is we are just putting the plat back in place and we're putting the system where it was 100 years ago.
That's how it's all developed.
And it's straightforward.
Everybody in the neighborhood supports putting Humpty Dumpty back together again basically.
>> Which neighborhood association did you work with on this?
>> I know David spoke to the neighbors.
We also spoke to the base.
And we went through the comp plan amendment.
You may recall last year.
A lot of this was discussed last year.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This is not within the area of the MacDill?
Remember we just passed the moratorium?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is further west.
>>> That's further east.
We are further west.
>> The Dale Mabry area is the area of concern.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 7610 South Westshore Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described as section 1 in zoning district classifications IH, industrial heavy, IG, industrial general, and CN, commercial neighborhood, to RS-50 residential single-family, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and a second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to receive and file.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
THE CLERK: We need to receive and file special discussion meeting notes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and a second.
(Motion carried)
Anything else?
We stand adjourned.
(Meeting adjourned)