Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, June 23, 2005
5:30 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.
The chair will yield to John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I apologize for being late.
It my honor to introduce reverend Randy HEHR of St. John's Episcopal church, served there since January 2003, Pinellas County, St. Petersburg, and earned a masters of arts in divinity from Yale, served four congregations in the bay area.
Reverend, please lead us in the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance.
>> Reverend HEHR: Let us pray.
Almighty God, thank you for all the blessings you pour upon us, for family and friends and colleagues, for the privilege of living together in this community, for life itself.
We pray this afternoon for the members of this council.
Give them wisdom as they face challenging decisions.
Give them courage to seek your justice and peace.
Give them compassion as they respond to the needs of our citizens, in every walk of life, especially the poor, the homeless, and the rejected.
In the time, O Lord, when it is so easy for us to look at each other and see our differences, help us to look at one another and see our common bonds and listen to one another with mutual respect.
Mindful of your great mercy, love and grace, in your holy name we pray, amen.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)
At this time we go to item number 1, a continued public hearing.
We go to the Planning Commission staff.
>>Rose Petrucha: Planning Commission staff.
Just for your information, items 1 and 2 are amendments to the future land use plan of the Tampa comprehensive plan and they meet the definition for small scale amendments.
In accordance with adoption procedures, five affirmative votes by Tampa City Council will be needed to adopt either of these two small scale amendments.
The first amendment on agenda item 1 is plan amendment 05-03.
And this plan amendment is located in the vicinity of the southwest corner of Commerce Street, south Kissimmee street, about one quarter mile south of the inner bay Boulevard in Port Tampa city.
I'll go to the Elmo.
The total acreage of the petition site is approximately .63 acres.
The site is currently occupied by a light commercial use on the north side, and vacant land on the south side of the site.
The city block certainly has some residential land uses.
And as you can see, the orange and yellow are residential land uses.
The site is located approximately a block from the Port Tampa city library, and approximately three blocks from an elementary school.
The amendment proposes to change the current land use designation from light industrial to community mixed use 35.
The changes to the plan would facilitate redevelopment of the site for mixed use project which would include commercial as well as residential land uses.
The current plan designation of light industrial does not allow for residential land uses.
The Planning Commission did hold a hearing on May 9th but continued the hearing till June 13th to try time for the applicant to meet with the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission on that night heard testimony, and at the conclusion of the hearing found the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan.
That concludes my presentation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This parcel is approximately a half acre?
>> It's a little over a half acre.
>> A little over a half acre.
I notice -- and I don't know if the civic association is here tonight but I notice they did express some objections on June 1st with a letter from Joe Beuford saying that if it's CMU 35, it should have some mixed use.
I guess they are questioning whether or not there's realistic mixed use available to develop that parcel.
I mean, is the CMU 35 just basically a way to get 35 units to the acre?
>>Rose Petrucha: The intent of the applicant was to do commercial plus some residential.
The intent of doing any type of residential on that site currently is prohibited under the light industrial plan classification.
As I showed from the land use map, there are existing residential land uses on that site.
>> What sort of density is adjacent to the south there or to the east or west?
>>> To the east, those densities are probably in the 20 to 30 range.
Because there are multifamily uses to the east.
And there are then some single-family developments further to the east and total south, and single-family is probably closer to nine or twelve dwelling units to the acre but they are all existing community mixed use 35 planned designations to the east.
>> Can you point to those?
>>> Okay.
>> Those are all CMU 35?
>>> CMU 35 to the south.
>> Have any of those redeveloped yet?
>>> No.
On the immediate site, there is some vacant land, and has been vacant for awhile.
>> How about to the east?
Have those redeveloped?
>>Rose Petrucha: It currently multifamily in that area.
And there is some say can't land in that area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to item 1?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena, are you ready to read number one, please?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element, future land use map for the property located in the general vicinity of 4930 west Commerce Street in the Port Tampa city area, from light industrial to community mixed use 35, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to say, I'm going to respect the civic association on this in regard to -- I think she makes some pretty good points.
It says the parcel -- this parcel of increased density will pave the way for future residential encouragement into our light commercial area.
We are, in South Tampa, and especially in the working, sort of the working part of South Tampa, more of the blue collar part of South Tampa, we are losing our industrial parcels piece by piece by piece, and I think this is a classic example.
That's where area where we have auto shops and boat shops and other types of uses like that.
And pretty soon, when we don't have them, I don't know where the people who live around there are going to work.
If we keep losing them to residential.
So, you know, I'm not going to support the motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, I appreciate what you're saying.
But there is a -- there's a significant amount of land zoned industrial further to the south, and east from here.
And this is on one of the main streets.
And it would strike me that it would be -- you know, it's walkable to the library, to the elementary school, would be an attractive place -- convenient place for folks to live.
So I'm going to support this.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Item 3.
2, I'm sorry.
Mr. Dingfelder messed me up.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena, can you control him down there?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: He's his own person.
>> Two plan amendments, located in the vicinity of Tyson Westshore.
The request is to change the use from heavy industrial.
I have got the future land use map on the Elmo for your information.
It located basically right off the intersection of the northwest corner of South Westshore and Tyson Avenue, an area known to all of us over the last several years has seen significant transition of development along the west side of Westshore Boulevard.
The request is changing an approximately 3.03 acre site which is a predominant land use category in this entire quadrant.
At this particular section of South Westshore and Gandy, stretching from Gandy all the way down to Tyson Avenue, from Westshore to the bay,.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I have a point of order?
Excuse me.
This parcel, I think I read in the paper, is part of the larger rezoning.
Is that correct?
>>> I'm getting to that.
>> But my question is, is that larger rezoning here with us tonight?
>>> Yes.
>> And do we sometimes track the plan amendments with the rezonings?
>>> No, sir.
>> Not necessarily?
>>> Plan amendments and rezonings cannot run on a parallel line as far as the -- the land use has to be done, still has to be approved and go through a small scale, so you will have this reading, a second reading, and there will be a contestability period, and then it will be adopted formally.
And then once that's done, then this will at some time in the future be submitted for a rezoning request, and most probably be folded into the property that you're talking about in question that will be coming to you at a future date.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for the clarification.
>>> As I was stating most of the mixed use categories with the exception of heavy industrial, which is still on the point over here, this is again CMU 35 to the south, the WCI development has been moving right along for the last two to three years.
Then of course as you all know, the yacht basin project which was recently adopted for rezoning here, and the shipyards property which will be coming to you at some future date for rezoning.
So there's a significant amount of mixed use development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
This is one of two waterfront development areas that's been outlined and identified in your comprehensive plan.
It is an area that has been highly underutilized for uses in the -- maritime uses in the past and have had a number of uses that have gone by the wayside, and the trend has been very supportive for this type of use.
As I said, this is only going to be a 3-point piece you are looking at into the evening and will be in front of you in the future.
Planning Commission staff has no objections and it was voted for recommendation, found consistent by the Planning Commission at our May 9th meeting along with the prior plan amendment that Ms. Petrucha had brought to you this evening.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 2?
>>> Marchetti, 100 North Tampa Street, suite 2700 representing ecogroup, the property owner in question.
Let me have Randy Cohen present a couple of documents for your consideration of this application.
I think the he mentioned a 3-acre parcel which is a small plan amendment.
The current land use is heavy industrial.
We are going to go to urban mixed use 60 with this proposal.
The site is currently zoned commercial intensive, which is important to note.
And we are proposing essentially residential, some other uses associated with residential, potentially on the site, as part of the integrated project ultimately, which will come before City Council.
Unfortunately, and Mr. Dingfelder, you mentioned rezoning.
We are going to be submitting an application.
Actually we have already done so in the rezoning petition.
Cannot run concurrent in the sense of the city council reviewing and sending to the same hearing because of this 30 day window that states state statute provides for plan amendments.
But it will be coming before you at the rezoning.
In addition you will be seeing another large rezoning in the future, and ultimately want to have one unified plan for the entire project, which is called New Port Tampa Bay.
The purpose is for residential uses on the subject property.
I think you were provided an aerial.
But one of the documents that you have before you, you can see the subject property is outlined in yellow, also a copy which I provided to you, and you will also note if you have driven the site recently, you will see that the uses out there are becoming obsolete.
We want to revitalize the area and bring the waterfront back, if you will, to the public.
Ultimately, through this rezoning petition, others through rezoning petition and others in the future.
So we are excited about the opportunity to do so.
I think Randy also pointed out and handed out to you three letters of support.
One was for viper ventures LLC.
The other is Westshore Yacht Club which is south of our site.
And also the C.J. marina LLC as well.
Again, it was a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission for this petition.
And I'll request your support.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Marchetti, interesting choice of words.
You said bring the waterfront back to the public.
And I noticed that some of the relevant component provisions that were attached says specifically that nonindustrial uses within the waterfront land use adjacent to Tampa Bay would be encouraged, and interconnected with adjacent nonindustrial land uses where feasible.
I know this is just one small part of the bigger component.
I night not going to have public launches or anything like that.
I wouldn't be that optimistic.
But is the bigger component going to have restaurants on the water, and that sort of thing, where the public, you know, to a certain extent, semi private-public, will have an opportunity to use that?
>> Exactly.
In fact invite the public to the waterfront, and we'll show you how it's going to work.
It's going to be an exciting project, and one that Mr. OSHleg has worked on rather intently.
This is just one step in the process.
>> Look forward to it.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on item 2?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, will you read the ordinance, please?
The bottom of the agenda.
>> Move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element, future land use map for property located in the general vicinity of 5001 west Tyson Avenue in the Sun Bay South area from heavy industrial to urban mixed use 60 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 3.
We are going to take item 3 through 15.
Anyone that's going to speak, please stand and raise your right hand.
Items 3 through 15.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Moreda.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: If I could just go through the list.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Item number 3, we did discover that there are problems related to tree and landscape code.
The petitioner is working with the Parks Department and the construction services to resolve these issues, and we are requesting that the petition be scheduled, actually to 5:45 on July 21st.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on item number 3?
All right.
Is there a reason why you don't want to continue it? If you speak tonight you will not be able to speak on the 21st.
We need a motion to continue.
>> So moved.
Motion to continue to July 21st at 5:45.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: We actually had two misnotices today on that hearing.
That's why this will be number 11.
>> So moved.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anything else scheduled?
>>> It's my case, and Cathy said I'll let you come to my night if I do it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
5:45, July 21st.
>>ROSE FERLITA: What cooperation.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Item number 5.
That was a misnotice hearing.
And I would like council to waive the rule about the payment of the fee.
With our new Doc agenda system, I inadvertently set it to be scheduled.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Item number 6.
The petitioner is requesting a continuance.
And there is still another slot available on the 21st.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to continue to the 21st.
>>GWEN MILLER: Wait, don't we need to open it first?
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second to open item number 6.
(Motion carried)
Is there anyone here that came to speak on item number 6?
Now we can make a motion to continue.
21st, 6 p.m.
July 21st at 6 p.m.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: That was item number 10, right?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Item 10 is asking for a continuance and they are asking for the 25th of August.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Did anyone from the public come to speak on item number 10?
You may come and speak on the continuance.
We are going to continue it now.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue to August 25th at 6 p.m.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Item number 11.
This petition has been around since December.
It's been continued a number of times.
We have not received any site plans on this petition since December.
I spoke with the applicant, and he said he's requesting another continuance.
I'm reluctant to recommend that council do that.
However, he may be here and explain his reasons why he's wanting it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is the petitioner here for item number 11?
You may come up and explain to us, please.
>>> My partner and I -- Jeffrey Zwirn.
My partner and I might Goetz are just having problems with the site plan today.
We hired and engineer Joseph CORALSKI at the cost of $5,000, just trying to have it rezoned to rebuild the property.
We have owned it for a few years.
We tore down the property and have just been problems with funding.
So we really just request one more continuance.
We had a long meeting today with the civil engineer.
He assured us that he can get the site plan ready.
Probably going to need -- he will have it probably ready in July.
Two weeks to go through any additional problems.
So we are hoping for a continuance till September 5th.
And again it's not knowing what's really going on with the process and trying to spend as much money as we can hiring people who are charging us as much as they can.
So we just request one more continuance.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: It would be September 8th.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue.
6 p.m.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: This would be the first concontinuance on that night.
>>GWEN MILLER: The petitioner.
How many has he asked for?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I think it's his third.
>>GWEN MILLER: This will be your last one.
>>> Again we spent the money on civil engineering.
In the process of making it work.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: May I suggest doing it in the morning if nobody is here?
Looks like we could do it in the morning.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Excuse me, council, but I frankly, I mean, this was filed in December '04.
I think to continue it one more time to September, there probably should be requirement for new notice to be given.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Wasn't your recommendation at the very beginning that we do not grant a continuance --.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I don't see any progress.
>>KEVIN WHITE: From December of 04.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: The last site plan we have in the file, November 21st day.
And it's been around a long time.
Maybe it's time that new notice be given if council is inclined.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's only six months.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you have any comment on the morning or evening issue?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: No, I don't really have a problem with the morning or the evening.
What's the motion?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to set it for September 8th at 6 p.m.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we require the petitioner to renotice, so if somebody missed it -- somebody might have moved into the neighborhood in all the time that this has been going on, and have a new site plan for them to take a look at.
So in fairness to his neighborhood, I think we should have him renotice.
He's got plenty of time.
That's September.
And it's now June.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Any problem with that?
>>> I don't have any problem with that at all.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: As a condition of the continuance, he will offer to renotice.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Renotice.
September 8th, 6 p.m.
>> Do it in the morning?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Let's do it in the evening.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: And the last one, item 12.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need to recuse myself.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to August 11th.
How many does that make for them?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 3 for them, too.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: That will be number 13 on the agenda.
>>ROSE FERLITA: How many continuances?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Oh, this will be number 3.
This is the second request for continuance.
>> Motion to continue to August 11th, 6 p.m.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
And second.
(Motion carried)
Okay, Ms. Moreda.
We go back to item number 4.
It's a continued public hearing.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: The proposed rezoning involves property at 610 West North Bay Street, a planned development district to construct seven single family attached townhouses.
The property lies in the Seminole Heights residential overlay.
Vehicular access is gained via north bay street.
And the plan shows an entrance gate.
Each unit has one-car garage, an additional ten spaces that are being shared.
The units are two stories with a maximum height of 38 feet.
The site plan indicates that they will comply with the decorative fencing and it will meet CPTED standards.
Staff has reviewed the request and has no objection with the petition.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
As you can see in the site plan, this is just outside of the river bends neighborhood association boundaries.
That's the new CVS they built about two years ago.
At the intersection of North Boulevard and Martin St. Louis.
It is within the south Seminole Heights neighborhood association.
We find the request consistent with the comprehensive plan, as they are using the urban in-fill development concept.
The plan amendment category for the site, of course it's all CMU, and land use category here is residential 10.
We do not see any adverse impacts to the immediate area in the way of transportation, or similarity of like uses in the area.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
Michael Horner, 13502.
We finally made it here. This is continued from January 23rd, March 23rd, June 23rd.
First to work out staff issues with landscaping and drainage.
We have done so and received their blessing tonight.
We are appreciative.
Second continuance was a contract purchase issue regarding the church board, selling the project and parcel to my client, Mr. Sierra.
That has been worked out as well.
As Gloria and Tony mentioned, we are asking for seven single-family attached town homes in two clusters.
I should mention to you, council, that this has already been approved for approximately 8300 square feet.
Approximately 8300 square feet of a two-story office building.
This will be North Bay to the north.
North Boulevard to the west.
CVS would be to the south.
34 parking spaces.
Not very sensitive to trees.
Approximately 30% additional impervious surface.
We are removing that PD plan and asking for these two buildings of seven units, a 4-unit building, three internal court yards, one access off north bay, staff wanted us to slide the building closer to the street.
However, we have a beautiful cluster of about three oak trees there that we would like to preserve.
We have come up with elevations that are creative and unique that allow for dual or reverse orientation, for both a front and rear that have a front orientation, the courtyards will have the front door was the garage doors, but we oriented the front of the units as well to the rights-of-way of North Boulevard.
That's the three-unit elevation.
We have had meetings with the neighbors, the gentleman to the east wants us to work with him on taking his chain link fence down.
We agreed to do a decorative fencing all the way through.
We have a CVS to the south that has a drive-through window and voice box and lights.
We think is ath is a nice transition, supported by staff, and also save a large canopy of trees.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question for staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Moreda, we have a question for you from Mr. Dingfelder.
She doesn't want to answer, Mr. Dingfelder.
Gloria, there's a note from a neighbor in the back of the documents that I have that indicates that Ms. Hurley, prior to leaving the city, and that she had objections to it.
And now that she's no longer on the case that there's objections.
Do you have any knowledge of what Ms. Hurley's objections might have been and what might have changed staff's mind?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Well, Ms. Hurley, I think, based her objection on feeling that this was more of a single-family neighborhood and it should be single-family detached in character.
I think she was concerned about the townhouse development itself.
The site plan also has been revised substantially since she evaluated it, I should say, too.
The elevations, I think show a real attractive development.
And I base my recommendation on the fact that this is an existing PD, for a nonresidential use.
It was for an office use with a standard surface parking lot along -- what is that, North Boulevard?
And I felt that this really was more residential in character, than what was approved through the PD.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To the west?
To the east?
If we are away from the Boulevard, the parcel -- I guess it's to the east.
Is there an existing use there?
Is there single-family use there?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: My recollection, it is residential along that street.
>> So what kind of buffering are we looking at between the multifamily and that single-family?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: The site plan shows -- I believe it's going to have a decorative fence along that property line.
And just basically the trees and landscaping.
The only thing that the code requires residential is the landscaped buffer.
There is not really a requirement for any kind of solid buffering along that property line.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't even know if anybody is here, but I guess it doesn't really matter.
My concern is you have got at least what looks to be at least a dozen car spaces or something like that?
And I guess I would have a little concern about that, if there's no fence.
Or at least even a 4-foot fence.
>>> Well, there are fences.
You can see the trees that line the property.
I think those are existing trees.
There are quite a few trees on the property.
And that is the proposed buffering.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Hunter, any ideas about fencing, something to protect the abutting neighbor?
>>> Our intent is is to blend into the neighborhood and not have an institutional type appearance. The office that was approved and proposed would have had a 6 foot high concrete wall.
We talked about -- a neighbor even approached us to see if we were interested in buying his property, there might be an opportunity in the future.
He asked us to do something of high quality, decorative fence, maintain the trees with drainage and we said we certainly would.
>> What is meant by decorative?
That's all I'm wondering about.
>>> It could be aluminum.
Wrought iron, essentially replicating wrought iron appearance.
We could also do landscape hedging as well as decorative fence.
Did he not want a wall, made that very clear to us.
>> That's on the site plan?
>>> It is.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, for your information, I took a look at this property here, and believe me, this is a dumping site.
And whatever we put there is going to be better than what they have got now.
>>> I'm glad it's not a commercial development.
>>> No, it's not.
It's going to be a good project for that.
And they are saving some of the trees.
And according to what the report shows here is that they are going to put in a 6 foot high decorative fence along the entire property to conform to CPTED standards, which, you know, it will -- designed so that persons can see through the fence which discourages crime.
So I think whatever they put there is going to be better than what they have got now.
So I think this project is a good one.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Certainly it's going to be an improvement, Ms. Alvarez.
But I think Mr. Dingfelder's concern is appropriate.
It is multifamily as opposed to single-member -- or single-family residences.
And Mr. Horner's response about institutional, I don't think asking about appropriate buffer is something that refers to the project as institutional.
I support the project.
But I think there needs to be some sort of buffer between what this is and what's there.
And giving you credit, certainly this is going to be better than what's there.
But as we go in with multifamily, we need to make sure we buffer that from the single-family dwellings.
>> At least they add some decorative fencing in there.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to item number 4?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: He doesn't have to.
Just wanted to give the opportunity.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Will you read the ordinance?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please excuse me but there's one item I didn't take care of at the outset, and that's that ski all written communications for tonight's hearings that have been available to the public at council's office be received and filed into the record at this time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Like to move that?
>> So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 610 West North Bay Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD school office to PD single-family attached, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
We need to open number 7.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The petition before you is for a plan development district for adult congregate living facility.
The property is at the southeast corner of Habana Avenue and Wilder Avenue.
They are asking for a number of waivers, waivers to access a local street.
West Wilder is a local street.
Reduction of the drive aisles from 26 to 24 feet, and reduction of landscape buffer from 3 feet to 5 feet.
The facility is for a 24 bed ACLL.
There are three existing buildings on the PD with a total of 4405 square feet in floor area.
The plan development district does indicate that the maximum square footage is 5500 square feet.
There are 11 off-street parking spaces shown.
And the petitioner did give elevation, proposed elevations of the structures, which is an improved site and they are just converting the structures.
I think if you can look at the elevations that were submitted around, you can see that it is going to be a very attractive renovations to these buildings.
Staff has no objections.
Since these were the latest elevations I do want to give it to the clerk to add to the site plan before adoption.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Just to add on to Ms. Moreda's comments, I'll give you a little more context.
This is about a quarter mail south of the intersection of Habana and Hillsborough Avenue just where the supermarket is located.
You not too long ago approved this particular corner over here wilder at Habana.
We have continued that.
We have repositioned the office over here to orient it at the request of Ms. Alvarez.
This site, as Ms. Moreda stated, does consist of three existing buildings, to modify to accommodate the site, for assisted living facility.
The request is for 24 pedestrians.
I'll put a future land use map up here for your consideration.
Predominant land use area is residential 20 along the what ha ban a corridor.
There are policies in the comprehensive plan as we have stated in the past that this area can be used for medical office use.
So it's pretty much a medical office corridor.
But I think what's significant, this is going to be a facility for the elderly.
But it is in close proximity to a lot of related facilities in the N a close proximity to a residential facility which is St. Joseph hospital.
We think it a very convenient location and serve it is community well.
As far as talking about modifying existing structures, there will be no impacts regarding water, transportation.
We did talk to them about the three units that abut.
I think that has been done.
I believe the applicant has accommodated that request.
Planning Commission has no objections to the request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Garcia, I don't know if this question is for you or Ms. Moreda.
But how did we arrive at eleven parking spaces and ensured that's an adequate number?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: They are not asking for a waiver of parking.
It's based on the staffing requirements.
I believe it's one per staff.
Plus I think 1.7 per bed.
Asking for a waiver of the parking requirements.
>>> Garner, 101 south Franklin Street.
We canvassed the neighborhood.
I know, Mrs. Alvarez, this is your district.
And we talked to the neighborhood association as well as adjacent property owners and had three letters of support.
Basically the abutting property owners on this property.
As you all know, Habana is a busy street, leads directly to St. Joes.
I just want to flash a picture.
It's a pretty run-down apartment complex.
That was taken today between the morning hearing and tonight.
That's the existing condition.
I think you all have in your packet, this is the proposed -- which I hope you will find as a substantial improvement. With that I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to be speak on item 7?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm going to read this.
There's this bully next to me grabbing it.
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2730 West Wilder Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential single-family to PD adult congregate living facility, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Mr. White, we'll give you number 8.
>> Motion to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The proposed petition is for a planned development district at 4409 West Gray Street.
They are proposing to develop five single family dwellings, three units, single family attached and two units single family attached.
They are indicating a PD elevation that shows the two southern units will be oriented towards Gray Street.
The internal units will have front entries.
They are etching having two-car garages.
Proposed building set back is 20 feet from gray, eleven feet from the side, property line eleven feet from the rear, and the rear and side properties have decorative vinyl fence.
Staff indicated that there are some objections to this report.
The petitioner has clarified the site plan by adding notes to address these issues.
In fact, we just got our revision to -- related to the tree and landscape code issue.
So I do want to substitute that site plan to the city clerk's office.
Otherwise, staff has no objection with this petition.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Again adding a few more comments to what Ms. Moreda stated.
This is located in the Westshore Palms area, just south of the interstate, just west of Lois Avenue.
This area has a much different feel than the predominant single family detached character on the east side of Lois Avenue which is pretty much residential 10.
On this side you have pretty much a mix.
It's integrated between single family attached uses, town home uses, you have a variety of different land use categories.
The future land use map is up hear for your consideration.
As you can see by the parcelization, I'm sure this is a pretty mature area, as you all can recall.
For those of you who have liven along the northern streets of Carmen, you have residential 20, much different than what you have got in the neighborhood association on the east side of Lois.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: At the top of the interstate --.
>>TONY GARCIA: This block face will be gone.
As a matter of fact, further on down as I recall, don't quote me on this, but I recall seeing the FDOT plans, and there would be a significant retention pond that's going to be placed somewhere in this area to the west of this site.
So it will impact a little bit more than just lemon street itself, to face lemon street a little further to the west.
Where that interchange is at, when you come up on Dale Mabry, there's a juncture off of Dale Mabry as you get onto the interstate right there, on the south side.
I think they are talking about putting a retention pond in that area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tap both houses all the way to Carmen?
>>> I believe just the northern facing this particular section.
Farther on down, I think it does go a little farther.
But again, I do believe it does definitely get rid of lemon.
Going back to the issue, here's Manhattan.
If I put the aerial back up, you will see there has been a significant transition of intensity.
Most of this area, and we have seen at least in the last nine months that I can recall, probably three to four rezonings that have already been approved for development in DeSoto.
So it is a consistent pattern, a consistent trend to see found home development in this area.
You can see town homes right over here.
And there are two signs, as we go, there are at least two other locations in proximity to this site that are also being converted and developed.
For town home development.
It is a definite pattern, especially as you go west of Manhattan.
Still, for the most part, this north part, closer to Carmen, and on this side of Manhattan, still a lot of single-family detached in that area, even though we have been getting inquiries in my office as to the potential of being able to develop some pockets, and therefore the town home development.
Just a little premature at this time.
But the trend does support the request, we believe.
Staff does not have any objection regarding the request by the applicant to get a develop in the area and they have addressed the majority of our concerns regarding specific site plan requirements.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> Michael Horner, 14502 North Dale Mabry representing petitioner.
This area included big impact by the interstate condemnation proceedings.
This is character rides by a number of multifamily attached type developments.
To the west approximately a block away, approximately a block and a half.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Bring it down a little bit.
>>> I'm sorry.
These are relatively 100 feet to the west, further to the east.
So a block, block and a half, the number of attached unit developments already under way and certainly others being planned.
Also, council, to the immediate east, this is the drive to the subject site.
You can see this drawing that shows the existing structure.
This is a TECO station directly east of that property, which has dual landscaping, dual screening.
There are a few trees.
Although still zoned RS-50, of course.
We are proposing a two-story structure, two-car garage, we have worked with the north Hyde Park area as well as the western property owner association.
We have come up with exciting elevations.
I would like to share these with you at this time.
Staff did request that we have an orientation to the south two units being turned for pedestrian connectivity.
First the larger size elevation.
This is not the exact color scheme but you get a feel for the paver brick, architectural design considerations, not a high pitched roof, 35 feet maximum.
Internal courtyard so we have balconies as well and don't have side impact for parking.
We also have guest parking provided.
Now this does not show the doorways.
Staff expressed objections.
And balconies, coming out of the sidewalk connection.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On the plan in front of us, it says on your drawing, you indicated red brick pavers.
What is that?
>>> Thought you'd like that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clearly to the east you have TECO substation, to the east you have TECO substation.
The concern I have is, there's in a doubt that across the street there's multifamily.
Looking at the aerial it looks like we have a lot of what appear to be, you know, larger, newer homes with three swimming pools I'm seeing on the same block.
What are you doing to address this, especially the home immediately to the west, looks like a very large home, possibly with a swimming pool.
What are we doing to address the sensitivity to that particular family residential that abuts you on three sides?
>>> Of course, we have contacted them and showed the elevations and the plan and the site plans as well.
We have a setback on that side of eleven feet.
We proposed decorative fencing, maintained the landscaping.
Out of 22 trees, Mr. Dingfelder, we are saving 60%, including a 44 inch grand oak.
And that shade is at that northwest section abutting that property.
So that would be in place and preserved.
Isolated the turn movements.
We have one driveway and not two.
It like a daycare for a drop-off and maintained just one connection.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You say you're saving all these trees?
>>> Saving 60%.
>> Are they on here?
Where are they, on the west side?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I only see one.
>>> If you look at the revised tree table in plan 1 that Gloria submitted to you, we went out and located them by hand and reflected the tree code to reflect, this is the 44-inch plan.
We just revised them.
Greg Yurcus, two days ago, and then amended the tree code, Mr. Dingfelder, to pick up.
I think we're saving 12 out of 22.
>> Not naturally shown?
>>> They are not on that graphic there, if no.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Horner just brought me that tree table.
So your drawings actually do not have that revision.
I gave it to the clerk's office.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead, Mr. Horner.
>>> I'll conclude by saying this mirrors the pattern being proposed.
These will all be single-family town homes, be platted, maintain a height cap of 35 feet, price range approximately 300 to $325,000.
And also we are offering to commit to the brick pavers on this property.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a question for staff.
Do you want to just strike through where it says proposed asphalt and write in brick?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Yes, that's what I can do.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 8?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
Mr. White, would you read that, please.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance in the general vicinity of had 409 West Gray Street in the city of Tampa, Florida from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential single family to PD, 3 unit single family attached, detached, and two units semi detached providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
We need to open number 9.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The proposal is for a special use.
The petitioner is requesting for drive-through bank window.
The property is located at the northeast corner of Dale Mabry and Swann Avenue.
The special use shows the development of the property to access Dale Mabry Highway, as well as Swann Avenue.
They are proposing a one-story bank, 3300 square feet with three drive-through lanes on the north side of the bank.
24 off-street parking spaces are shown.
They are also showing that they are complying with the buffering requirement of the 6 foot high wall and landscaped area.
They are asking for no waivers of the special use conditions.
And staff has no objections.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
I would like to give you a little bit of context regarding the subject site.
Here is the subject site on the east side of Dale Mabry.
Just about, I would guesstimate, a little less than half a mile.
Tahitian in here.
Chick Fil-A.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You know all the eating places?
>>> Pretty much.
Palm bank over here.
So it is going to be adjacent actually to a bank.
The request of two land use categories.
You have land use category of CMU 35.
And residential 20.
Residential 20 pretty much along Swann, which is at least east of Dale Mabry become a low density office type of corridor.
It is pretty much consistent, adjacent to another bank.
Primarily CMU uses along Columbus and Dale Mabry.
The proposed bank has successfully connected a building with sidewalks along the right-of-way, is consistent with the transportation element, with sidewalks.
Planning Commission staff has no objections of the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Good Henning.
My name is John Grandoff, suite 3700 Bank of America plaza. I represent two friends of mine, the huntDouglas group.
Also joining me this evening is Michael containy, a registered engineer with the hunt Douglas group.
They propose to develop this project on the northeast corner of Dale Mabry and Swann Avenue.
As Tony and Gloria have explained to you.
I have the site plan on the reduced copy.
On the Elmo.
I also have a scale site plan on the board if you would like to review that.
This is a special use application in a CG district because there are three criteria that must be met for you to grant the application.
Number one, you must have direct access on arterial and we have that on Swann and also Dale Mabry.
Number two, there should be adequate space for within the lot for vehicles to queue before they reach the drive-in.
We have that criteria as found by Ms. Moreda's report.
Finally, number three, the queuing lane and the drive-in window shall be at least 50 feet from any property on which a residential use is located.
We have also met that criteria as well, and I further added the existing wall that is on the north and east of the property will continue to remain.
We respectfully request your approval this evening.
I'll answer any questions you may have.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Are you meeting all the setbacks?
>>> No waivers at all.
A lot of setbacks are being met.
A lot of the convenience stores will be replaced by the bank so there will be under ground storage tanks removed and you will have a package sales of alcoholic beverages will dry up.
So you have a higher and greater use come into the neighborhood.
That's all we have to add.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are there other questions from council members?
>> Does the bank have a name?
>>> It is a regionally respected national bank.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Grandoff, first of all I'm supportive of this.
But everybody has a different style of presentation.
And I always appreciate the personalizing that you come up with.
They raise their hands.
This petitioner is your friend.
Somebody else is not your friend.
But you're still representing them.
I think that's nice.
It kind of breaks the monotony.
But you won't tell us the bank's name.
>> As soon as my friend will let me I'll let you know.
I have one thing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You don't have to answer this but it does not have an ugly sign, right?
Because I have a sign committee.
That wouldn't be that sign.
>> No, no, it's not that sign.
We're now down to four.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to be speak to item 9?
>> Motion to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say how refreshing it is, how fabulous it is, to hear of a drive-through facility that doesn't want any waivers.
You're meeting all your setbacks.
You're not asking for any waivers.
This is good.
Thank you.
The no-waiver bank.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving a bank with drive-in window in the Jess general vicinity of 614 south Dale Mabry Highway and 3719 Swann Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and is more particularly described in section 1 hereof providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: You're happy.
We're happy.
Mr. Capitano is happy.
Everybody is happy.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 13 is a continued public hearing.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development. The proposal is for rezoning.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Gloria, would you hold one second?
Just flipping the pages here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: This proposal is for rezoning to a planned development district. The property is at 6515 south Bayshore.
And they are proposing to do 19 townhouse units.
The site plan shows the development with a 25 foot front setback off of Bayshore, 30 feet from the southern property line, 7 feet from the northern property line, and 15 feet from the rear property line.
Units will have a maximum height of 35 feet.
And each unit will have two off-street parking spaces, as well as there are four guest parking spaces on-site.
The site plan was revised to address transportation's concerns.
And staff wants the petitioner to go into a little detail about the layout because it is an innovate I've townhouse project in the sense that they are asking for waivers of certain townhouse requirements.
They are using cross easements, and shared arrangement, and I would like the applicant to go through that site plan aspect with you.
But there is an existing old apartment building on this site.
It is 26-unit apartment building.
They are down-zoning in the sense that they are asking for 19 residential units on this property.
They are currently a nonconforming use on the property.
In terms of green space, they are asking for -- they are providing over the minimum requirement of 821 square feet of green space on-site.
Also, I just want to let council know this is not in the accident potential zone as it relates to the MacDill Air Force Base.
MacDill Air Force Base was involved in the review of this petition, had no objection to the request.
Staff has no objections.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
As she has stated, it is not in the 1 zone which is closest to it but it's still well out of the APZ zone.
It is a net reduction in density of approximately five units from 24 to 19.
You have two land use categories.
Like a little island of residential 20 it's been down here for a long time.
Everything else is pretty much residential 10.
You have a split youth use land category to the rear.
Also, as Ms. Moreda stated, you do have an underutilized apartment complex that's been there for years, is in disrepair, and I too encourage the applicant to go into a little more detail in the site plan because as we have seen it is rather unique and innovative and I think lends to the actual -- much higher quality of residential unit in the area.
There are some residential units to the south.
So we will ask them to be sensitive to buffering.
I'm sure they will go into that with the site plan.
Of course we have natural buffering relative to the landscaping directly to the north of the site.
We also have this as a natural barrier to the residential use further to the north.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the request, finds it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> Jay Garro, I was sworn in.
I do represent the applicant.
We are asking for 19 townhouse units.
There are 25 units.
This is the site plan that we are proposing.
I hope you can see that.
I understand we do have staff approval on this.
We had a comment from transportation earlier this month and we a decreesed -- addressed her comments.
As far as the buffering goes, along the south, we have extensive trees along here that we are going to be preserving.
We are going to be planting additional trees.
It's a really innovative design.
At this time, I'll bring the architect up and he can explain some of these things to you.
>>> Andrew haze, architect.
I have not been sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
This development as you currently see is the existing property that we are electing to replace.
In trying to work with the site, we originally were trying to meet the waivers in terms of the lot fronting on a public or private street.
Here's the Bayshore elevation that we proposed.
The concept here is townhouse as round a central green or central courtyard area to create a pedestrian area that opens and spills out onto the street so you get vista and view across the fountain into the courtyard.
Initially, we started out with vehicular access, down through the center of the site which met the waiver criteria by fronting onto a private street.
But what you had was a central space that was exclusively for vehicles.
And there were a lot of conflict between pedestrians and people when you tried to get them in and out.
So we struggled with this issue and decided to make this more people friendly.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It shows a dumpster fronting on Bayshore and I'm not seeing it on your drawing.
>>> This concept sketch was prepared and went to city staff before comments.
We originally proposed dumpster on the right-hand side as you see in the sketch.
The outside of the elevation, as you're looking at it.
The issue became trash refuse vehicle to pull in there but in having to exit the property was going to have to partially back into the road.
Well, it's a much better aesthetic solution than what we originally proposed in order to satisfy city staff comments.
We moved it to the south along the entry.
It is a compromise.
But it was the only solution that we could come up with, where the trash refuge vehicle would not be backing into or partially backing into the street.
>> Is that landscape up by the road existing?
Is that meant to buffer the view of the dutch sister?
>>> Yes.
That's exactly what it's meant.
So it would simply be reversed and mirrored on the other side.
If it's necessary.
I personally thin it's a better aesthetic decision, unfortunately.
It's a situation where the trash vehicle can pull in within the right-of-way, do what it has to do to dump.
But as it comes back out to make its turn, as it does come in I believe about eight or nine feet into the right-of-way, which city staff objected.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What you're planning on doing --
>>> The site plan introduced by the engineer that introduced the project is what city staff agreed to and what will be built, unless you choose.
>>GWEN MILLER: You may continue.
>>> Thank you.
This site plan is a little bit more graphic and illustrates the concept of the project a little more accurately.
What you see in the front is the fountain that you saw on the sketch, a central green area, vehicular access along the south and comes in.
In this area we have a raised concrete deck that comes under the structures.
These places in the rear of the property don't have any vista view.
So we chose to create an entity in the central.
This steps down.
This is broken in this area for emergency vehicle access and turn-around.
Widens out to a central core.
And again here.
The waivers are for these buildings which don't front on public or private street.
The green space, as you can see while not directly adjacent to the individual units, exceeds the 850 square feet significantly.
And these two units as well as these two, their parking occurs over, underneath of these two buildings.
So these folks would park here, walk to this unit.
These folks would park here, walk to this.
You can see that these two vehicles are parking for this unit and these two vehicles are parking for that unit.
That's the deviation for the required parking.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is an extremely innovative site plan.
I'm just curious, are you going to do like a condo Doc or something so people can get --
>>> yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And did you say that the parking will be underneath on this side, too?
>>> In this area right here, you will come underneath that is raised ten feet.
This will be vehicular access between the units.
And the individual parking will actually be on the lower level of the unit, which will pull under the deck and into your --
>> What about on the --
>>> in these areas?
That's all integrated.
It's only in the back.
Because this is such a deep lot, there was no view.
We tried to get those folks in between those units up about ten feet so they would have vista throughout the project, as well as deal with the vehicles.
Again it was part of this concept of keeping the central spaces for people and folding the vehicles.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So if it rains or anything like that, they won't get wet getting to their car or vice versa?
>>> No, they will have interior access.
They will go down to the lowest level and have interior access to their ground.
>> And these are three-story units?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Are there elevators and so on?
>>> An elevator is an option.
>> Oh.
It's not there now?
>>> We have designed it to accommodate it.
It's a price cost issue.
The stairs wrap around the elevator but you have the ability to install one.
>> Oh, it's up to the individual owner?
>>> We will provide that as an option, upon sale.
They can elect that as additional.
>> So the one on the third floor has the option of putting an elevator in?
>>> Each unit is three stories stacked.
There is no unit that's all the way exclusively up on the third floor.
Every unit has a first level.
They are townhouses.
>> I got you.
Thank you.
>>> This drawing may help you understand the core area.
This is standing in the mid core, the center of the site looking back towards the property.
And you can see the raised deck in between the two buildings.
These are the two buildings to the rear of the site.
This is the raised deck.
And the parking occurs under here.
Down here in this front edge you see the swimming pool.
>> Very, very nice.
Looks good.
>>> Thank you.
I'd like to go back to this.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Can I buy one?
>>> The developer is here.
He would be happy to take a reservation.
I just wanted to put up, this is the south elevation that faces the single-family units to the south.
We tried to break this up with different colors and a little bit of facade relief to bring the individual elements down to single-family nature.
On the courtyard side the central deck side is where the larger windows are, so we're trying to focus the views interior, because we have got a masonry wall that will be constructed along the whole southern edge of the property but in townhouse living on the second and third floor, we are trying to buffer that by keeping the view channels out of the unit small, and introducing landscaping to augment the existing trees some of which are 30 or 40 feet tall.
This is another view which will help you visualize what's happening.
And this is a typical plan arrangement, which may answer some of the earlier questions.
Parking down at the first level coming -- coming up to kitchen, dining, living, and then three bedrooms on the top floor.
At this time, I would like to introduce Russell, who will talk about the specific issues of the land use, unless there are any other questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if anyone in the audience is not happy with you.
Is there anyone in the property that would like to be speak on item number 13?
You may come up and speak.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With a chance for rebuttal.
>>> Nancy Fisher.
And I have not been sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> I am a neighbor on the south side of that proposed project.
And I just had -- I think it's a great thing.
I'm happy to see the apartment built.
I had two concerns.
One is the drainage.
And I did speak to someone.
I was here a month ago.
And it was postponed.
There is a real drainage problem at the front of that property.
And I happen to have kind of a drainage problem in my area from. What is there now it drains into my backyard.
And I have a serious flood problem.
It actually has run through the bottom part of my house out through my garage.
That's one issue that I hope is going to be addressed.
And the second issue is the barrier between -- I'm going to feel like I have a street running on both sides of my house because all of the drive-through will be basically through my backyard.
As well as bay haven drive, which is on the south side, which is heavily traveled, with the traffic from the base, kind of a cut-through street and I'm just a little concerned about a tree as a barrier, cars pulling in and out, being the main drive, and the parking area.
Those are my only concerns.
Other than that I think it looks like a great project.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak on item 13?
Petitioner, would you come in rebuttal and answer the questions?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
Concerning drainage, I will say that we have been working on the drainage design.
And I'll tell you what.
I have a larger view here.
What we've done is we have addressed the drainage in this area.
And what I'd like to say is one thing that we're going to do is, of course, completely contain all the stormwater that runs off of our project inside.
And we are going to actually be handling the 50-year pre-post difference on the site so up to 50 year will be completely contained.
Regarding the other issue, can I have one second?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are you handling the drainage by having swales, or underground pipes?
>> Actually, yes, it's going to be -- they are pretty innovative.
They are like infiltrators, actually underground, so we'll have completely contained system where you have water flowing into inlets, and those discharge directly into the surface, that's under the pavement.
And you won't have any discharge at all, up to the 50 year storm.
That's our plan.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Very innovative.
>>> I'm sorry.
When she was talking to my architect about an issue I was speaking.
Concerning buffer, what I'd like to do is say that we would certainly like to help her out in any way that we can.
Along this south property line here, we are going to maintain trees that do offer some buffering.
As you can see the architect has shown a buffer wall along here, along his plan.
A masonry wall.
Actually, a little bit of retaining wall anyway so extending that to a buffer wall wouldn't be a problem, but if it's something the council would like to see.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Can you show us where her house is?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How far off of MacDill are you?
>>> A little south of us here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Her backyard abuts to this?
>>> I believe her property is in about this area right here.
Whatever you choose.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems to me that a masonry wall would afford her the privacy and sound quieting, whatever.
Noise attenuation.
So like an 8-foot masonry wall.
>>> Would 6 foot suffice?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: About the stormwater, I apologize.
She seems to indicate that the natural flow is to the south toward her.
>>> Okay.
And if that's the case, that's actually a good thing.
Because we would be containing all the water that would have flown to her to the south.
>> But you have a legal right to allow for the flow to continue, but I think she's hoping that you might be stopping that.
>>> Indeed we are.
We are actually going to contain every flow that's coming away from our site on our site.
>> So this wall that we're talking about is not going to have leak holes or anything like that.
>>> No.
Up to 50 years it stays on our site.
>> And the other question is about fill.
Is there a significant fill that you anticipate?
>>> Yes, we are on the flood zone up to elevation 11.
So elevation 8.5 so there will be a couple feet of fill.
In some areas to the north will be able to just do that with just natural slopes.
When we get to this street here, I mentioned a retaining wall so it will be a couple feet high retaining wall but if you include that with a buffer wall they'll never see it.
They'll just look up at the facade.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other question by council members?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6515 south Bayshore Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-12 residential multifamily to PD residential single-family attached town homes, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
We need to open N item number 14.
>> Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The proposed rezoning is to planned development district.
It's for property at 1103 west Cleveland street.
They are proposing to construct 64,024 square feet of rest shore office space, 23 off parking spaces provided, 8 feet from Cleveland street, actually have a 3-foot entry feature, for both Cleveland and Delaware, 2 feet from the west property line, building elevations are shown, as part of the document.
They are asking for a waiver of the requirement for the drive-aisle from 26 feet to 24 feet with back-out area providing four feet rather than the required 7 feet.
They are asking for access on Delaware Avenue.
And they are asking for a waiver of the buffer from the 6 foot high masonry wall and 15 feet of landscaping to just the landscape requirement.
Also, the buffering along the area from the alley from 8 feet to 8 feet.
We did receive a letter from the adjacent property owner on the north indicating support of this petition and had no objection to the waiver of the requirement.
Staff has no objection to this petition.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
The future land use map here, and give you a point of reference.
As we all know, Cleveland street travels one way, westerly out of downtown Tampa.
Quite a few people do use this as an exit corridor.
If you all have recalled, we did have recently a proposed -- and I think it got continuedo -- office here on the corner of Willow and Cleveland and you all will be revisiting that.
There are other nonresidential uses in the area.
This of course has been slowly transitioning to a low-density office type of district.
Regarding the waivers, and Ms. Moreda had alluded to access onto Delaware, the uses over here in a nonresidential, of course, there's quite a bit of on-street parking for those of you who have commercial use along Kennedy Boulevard, quite a bit of on-street parking already at Delaware, as well as Willow.
The site plan does show that the request is urban in nature and the building is to Cleveland as well as an adjacent office project in close proximity to this particular development.
Oh adjacent to it to the east.
It will be very similar in nature as far as orientation to Cleveland.
Land use category is residential 20 which does allow consideration, urban mixed use 6 along Kennedy Boulevard.
Pretty consistent with the vision we have for the Kennedy Boulevard and close proximity along the periphery of Kennedy Boulevard.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
Yes, ma'am.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It a question for city staff.
It appears that the petitioner is proposing removal of 50 percent of the trees, some of which are pretty darn significant.
Was there any conversation about taking the same basic design, but reorienting it so that some of the trees could be saved?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I don't recall that -- there is no requirement.
You threw me when you said the 50%.
The site is less than an acre.
They are not required to retain 50% of the trees.
There is not a requirement.
They are in compliance.
The only waiver of the tree and landscape code relates to the width along the alley for that buffer.
>> Because I'm just looking at it.
And there's a cluster of trees in one point if they just kind of move things around a little bit.
They could avoid losing all those significant trees.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Jeff sheer, rood and McCluskey law firm, 401 east Jackson, representing Gaspar residential in this petition.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, I'll address your question first,.
And I actually have an e-mail from Greg Yurcus who came out to the site.
The trees, although they look like they are significant trees, are not in good health.
I do have an e-mail from him saying he has no objection to removal of them.
Do you all have an elevation?
>>> Let me put an elevation up.
As Gloria and Tony said we are asking for rezoning from RM-24 to PD, single-use office building.
We have a contract right now with a law firm who already wants to purchase the building.
We think we are very consistent with the development pattern there on Cleveland.
We have got similar office buildings with similar setbacks on either side of us.
We did send out notices, we did speak to one of our neighbors, the Frank and Gramlin law firm.
We went over to the their office and met with them.
And I have a letter from them.
They are in complete support of the project.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Sheer, you said they had a couple of concerns.
Can you address what those concerns were?
Have they been resolved?
>>> Absolutely. The particular concerns concern was the air conditioning units were on their side of the building, between our building and their building there's an alley.
And on the other side they have their parking right from the alley, and then their building.
They were concerned, if they would hear our air conditioning units, truthfully, we didn't necessarily agree considering that Cleveland is right there and it's a pretty good distance away but we agreed to put the air conditioning on the roof so they wouldn't have any noise from the air conditioning.
The other concern they had, our original site plan showed that our parking lot would also have access to the alley, in between our property and Frank enGraham law firm.
They asked we not have access to that alley.
We again didn't necessarily agree with that, because they have their parking on the alley, and they said, well, we don't want any more cars on the alley.
Our point was it is a public alley, and they are not the only ones that can use it.
But again we spoke to the transportation people at the city, they did feel it was a fairly narrow alley, and it would be perhaps difficult to access that alley, make the turn out of our site.
So we agreed to block that off.
And the only access to our parking lot would be from Delaware.
And those are the two issues they had and we agreed to it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Your ingress and egress would only be on Delaware.
>>> That's right.
>> You didn't have any objection to the alley so long as you didn't use that as an access.
>>> That's right.
>> And you're committing to do that?
>>> We are.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Other questions from council members?
Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to item 14?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I noticed on your rendering -- I didn't see the sidewalk and I was going to ask about the sidewalk.
But is that a sidewalk on Cleveland?
>>> That is a sidewalk.
>> I thought that was a curb.
I'm going blind.
Never mind.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1101 west Cleveland street more particularly described in section 1, RM-24 residential multi-family to PD office business and professional, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item 15 is a continued public hearing.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
I believe this petition was Cathy's petition and she wrote the report.
It is for rezoning to a planned development district for CG uses and vehicular use, vehicle sales and repairs.
They are asking for three waivers, waivers to allow access on Lincoln, which is a local street, waiver to allow for an additional pylons or ground sign on the site, and to to allow increased sign area from 450 square feet to 600 square feet.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 3306 west Hillsborough Avenue to renovate an existing -- the CARMACK theater building and proposing to renovate at that location.
The frontage along the public right-of-way measures approximately 800 -- 39 linear feet.
Three pylon signs are proposed.
One, a glitch an existing identification sign.
Cathy has listed a number of reasons for recommending approval of this petition, including that there is a recent plan amendment to allow for this to go under the HC-24 land use classification.
The site plan does limit the truck deliveries from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
And they are indicating that they are not going to have any loud speakers on this property.
We have no objection to petition.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question first.
Are you not concerned about them wanting to put more signs?
>>> As I said, Ms. Coyle did the report.
I think that is an issue.
I think the applicant does need to show the hardship related to the signage issue since they are asking for increased signage over the current regulations.
I'm going to leave it for the petitioners to provide that.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
The site was formerly known as CARMICH cinemas, cinema 8.
Quite a few of traffic flowed to that traffic area and these neighborhood streets.
So seeing this use come in of course will significantly reduce any potential automotive access.
And Lincoln Avenue dead-ends over here.
This is an apartment complex.
As Ms. Moreda had stated also, this is the subject of a recent plan amendment which you all had adopted from CMU 35 to HC 24.
You have HC 24 directly across which is a storage facility and over here HC 24.
Surrounding land uses are also CMU 35.
Request is for the applicant is to -- has the desire to relocate their automobile dealership to this site.
I believe in addition to the speakers they will have extra lighting on-site, to avoid any off-site impacts to adjacent uses on the eastern perimeter.
Planning Commission had not received, as I believe city staff did not either, any comments from any of the surrounding neighborhoods regarding opposition to the site.
It is consistent with policies in the future land use, creation of like uses and is supportive of a series of CG and CR uses along this particular segment of Hillsborough Avenue and is of course close in proximity to Dale Mabry Avenue which is home to many other automotive dealerships along this particular segment of Dale Mabry.
Planning Commission staff has no objection to the rezoning.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Garcia, you had mentioned the pylon -- the impacts of the lighting which is good.
I didn't hear anything about any sound attenuation.
Because I've been involved in rezonings around car dealerships where sound is a big issue.
You get that, hey, Joe, come up to the front.
>>> I think that Ms. Moreda stated they are not going to have any speakers.
>> No speakers at all?
>>> I think she said that in her presentation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I missed that.
>>> Good evening.
Blair Colling, Westshore Boulevard.
I have not been sworn in and neither has Ms. Hammer.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
We represent the applicants, here to answer any questions.
Also with me is Ethel Hammer, who are the planners for the project.
And Steve ANTINEL from Suncoast auto builders, the project manager.
As Gloria and Tony said, we are requesting to rezone the subject property from CG to PD to allow CG uses and automobile dealership and associated uses.
This was the site of the former CARMACK theater, has been vacant since 1999 and is in a current state of disrepair.
The applicant are proposing to redevelop the site and utilize the existing building on the site to create a real state-of-the-art facility.
I would like to point out a few items on the site plan.
And I would like to note, we submitted a revised site plan since the staff report came out.
So there are a few changes which I'll point out.
I have gotten a copy for all of you.
I would first like to point out the landscaping.
We are proposing to enhance the landscaping, particularly proposing to add three trees along the southern and eastern boundaries, and we are proposing ten new trees internal on the site.
We are also proposing to replace the hedges along -- along Lincoln Avenue.
There are several conditions we are proposing.
And Gloria and Tony mentioned a few.
We are limiting the future uses to CG uses which are currently committed to that.
And then automobile dealership and associated uses.
So what we are requesting essentially one additional use to be permitted at the site beyond what is permitted today.
We are committed to aiming the on-site light fixtures away from residentially zoned areas.
We are committed to restrict the delivery of semi trailer trucks and car carriers to the site, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
We are committed not to utilize loud speakers and not conduct test drives on Lincoln street and in the adjacent neighborhood.
And these are all notes from the site plan.
Also, I would like to bring your attention to two more things with regards to waivers.
There is an additional waiver we are requesting regarding reduction in the buffer width adjacent to residential from 15 feet to 5 feet.
This is an existing condition on the site.
We thought it should be noted.
It relating to the southern boundary.
There is a 6 foot concrete wall.
And then the parking lots are five foot in so we are requesting waiver to that.
And staff assisted -- we originally requested a square footage of 600 square feet.
They have requested that we reduce that to 550 square feet.
We have agreed to do so.
The basis for the -- substantial frontage along Hillsborough, and also we have a large amount of frontage on Lincoln.
The nature of the business we think warrants the three signs.
This is a knew location for a car dealership.
So to provide visibility for the site, and access -- safe access for the customers.
We have received approval from the Planning Commission.
And finding that the requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
We have received a recommendation with staff conditions and these conditions are acceptable.
We have received support from the homeowners association.
Steve demore as received a letter with 18 members of the association.
And we have received the support of Monsignor Higgins of St. Lawrence church.
>> You're blessed.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You could have cut off ten minutes of presentation if you had said that first.
>>> We would also like to submit a report from transportation analysis, and it concludes that a car dealership and associated uses would result in a net decrease, and transportation impact.
>> I have a question regards Lincoln.
It appears to the south of your property you basically have residential uses.
So you're commercial but fronting on Hillsborough.
So my question is, do you really need access on Lincoln?
Wouldn't it just absolutely protect all the residential neighbors to the south if you didn't have that access point?
You've got plenty of access to the north on Hillsborough and to the west on whatever that --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mrs. Saul-Sena, one quick observation.
I might be wrong but I think I might be on point.
When car carriers come in, it's going to be hard for them to maneuver off of Hillsborough and make that quick turn so they may need to turn on Lincoln.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's even more reason.
>>> But this is all commercial along here.
This is on the corner, right on the corner of Hillsborough and Lincoln.
>> Where does the residential start?
>>> It starts further down.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My whole thing is south of Giddens.
How are you going to keep the commercial uses from going south?
Like people trying out cars.
>>> There's a note on the site plan there will be no test drive -- they will go onto Hillsborough.
There will be none on Lincoln -- Lincoln Avenue or the neighboring neighborhood.
>> How will you do that?
>>> It has to be dealership policy.
>> Yes, dealership policy and the test drives by service staff will be conducted by employees of the dealership.
At this point I would like to introduce Ethel Hammer with the comprehensive plan and clines for the Hillsborough regulations.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you like to see if there's any objection?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 15?
Questions by council members.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER:dy have a concern.
Ethel, I think I would like you to address it.
Certain dealerships on Kennedy, I won't name by name, but one of the big issues with the neighbors, it doesn't look like anybody is here, but when don't want them come to us three years from now saying this is a pain in the rear.
The one issue they complain about is offloading of vehicles on the public street.
Remember that?
And that would be my biggest concern about Lincoln.
So Ethel, tell me logistically how -- I see a lot of parking spaces in there but tell me logistically where the off-loading of vehicles is going to occur.
And I would like to see a note on there that there would be no off-loading of vehicles on Lincoln or any other public street.
Where would that occur on the site plan?
>>> That would be perfectly acceptable to Mr. Chioto.
But I'll show where you the site plan will be.
The car carriers will enter on Lincoln, they will circulate through the site, and offload on this side.
You can see there's openings here for the cars to be offloaded here.
And then they will access and leave on Hillsborough Avenue.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Kevin, your suspicions are correct.
>>KEVIN WHITE: It's going to be hard for a car carrier to cut in.
>> Exactly because the turning movements going through the parking lot, the site actually works well for them to access but to come in and exit from the same point would be very difficult.
>> I would like to be see a note on the site plan that says offloading area and specifically, Texas Turley, to say, no offloading offSeth site and it sound like you're okay with that.
>>> That would be perfectly fine.
>> I'm worried they would drive off Lincoln and drive the cars in.
Just like the other one.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to make a comment afterwards or before.
I know Mr. Dingfelder had some concerns about some other dealership.
But this brochure is one of the cleanest. The accommodations are the light issue.
The loud speakers.
The test driving limitation not into the neighborhood.
Plaza terrace is a tough civic association.
They are very protective of their area.
If they felt this was going to do something to their area, they would be reluctant to support it.
Needless to say, we don't need to discuss Monsignor Higgins position.
And clearly those of us who know this site know this is just a 300% improvement.
The only thing I see with the application that I have a problem with is, whoever prepares our agenda cannot decide whether we are going to spell it correctly or not.
Sometimes it's C, sometimes it's G.
But other than that I think the petition is fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't see the reference on my site plan dated April to no test drives on Lincoln.
This goes to June 16.
Maybe they added additional.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 33406 west Hillsborough Avenue from zoning district classification CG commercial general to PD commercial general uses and vehicle sales and major repair, providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>> Clerk, do you have anything?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all documents.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?
We stand adjourned.
(Meeting adjourned)