Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, August 25, 2005
6:00 p.m. Session

DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this transcript may have been produced in all capital letters, and any variation thereto may be a result of third-party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order. The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Desiree Valdez who will give the invocation.
So please stand for the invocation and also for the pledge of allegiance.
>> Let us pray.
Dear God, we ask you as we gather here this evening to give this Council clarity of wisdom and sensitivity, to make the decisions we would elect them to. Father, we ask that all individuals in this chamber be blessed with integrity, honesty and patience.
Let us also remember all those who protect us and our freedom near and far.
May each of you be blessed, open, and your heart free to hear and truly listen to all the concerns which come before you this evening.
For peace and harmony, for this we pray.
Amen.

>>CHAIRMAN: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
This morning we had some business that we need to clean up.
We are going to start with that business first.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I'd like to call your attention to two cases that have requested continuances for different reasons.
There's a letter on file for case number Z05-81, case number 1 on the agenda.
That request is a continuance to October 27th.
There is one open spot available on that date.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Talking about number one, the question is whether you want to finish the morning agenda first.
>>GWEN MILLER: I thought she was doing the morning agenda.
This morning we had some business we needed to clear up first.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 82.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: A request by, I believe, Mr. Michelini, the petitioner's representative requesting September 29th, 2005 but there was a question as to -- September 29th, but there was a request by Ms. Coyle to have the plans submitted by September 9th and Mr. Michelini wasn't here at the time.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: We had spoken about it.
The issue of that particular site is that it's getting smaller and the design of the project is going to change, so much that I asked for an extra week for staff to review.
Joe Toph is the architect.
I believe he's here as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: The 29th is fine?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: There has to be an agreement, be received by them by September 9th. If Mr. Michelini is not able to do that, then the 29th obviously will not be an acceptable date.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I did not hear you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 82 this morning you requested a continuance to September 29th, Land Development Coordination is requesting the site plan be received by them from you by September 9th as a condition.
Is that acceptable to you?
Or do you need more time?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: That's fine.
We have a conceptual site plan now that addresses a lot of issues that came up before.
That's fine.
We have no objection to that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: What time?
Didn't give a time.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That would be 10:00.
One more.
We had some workshops that we had to remove.
We are going to do those.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: September 1st we had scheduled a continued workshop for discussion on the Historic Preservation Commission, architect review commission process.
And what I suggest is that we reschedule that as a special discussion meeting on Wednesday, September 7th at 9:00 in the Mascotte room.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was supposed to be next Thursday but remember we rescheduled several things for next Thursday.
Wednesday morning at 9 a.m.
It's a special discussion so a quorum isn't necessary.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The next workshop I'm suggesting become a special discussion meeting on Wednesday, September 14th at 9 a.m. in the Mascotte room.
That's on alleys.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Clerk, do you have any?
That's it for you?
All right.
Now we are ready.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Thank you.
Land development again.
David Mechanik has requested a continuance to October 27th for the case Z 05-81 number one on the agenda.
One open slot is available on that day.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: At 6 p.m.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In order to continue, it has to be --.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's a continue public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is it?
Okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: With reference to item number 2, Z 05-57 the City of Tampa wastewater met with the neighborhood association and they have substantial changes to make to the plan so they are requesting a continuance for six weeks.
If the City Council were to wave their rules and allow for an additional October 20th they could be accommodated at that time.
Otherwise the earliest open slot available is November 17th.
>>GWEN MILLER: How many do we have on the 20th?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: That would make the 14.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open number 2.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Motion to move.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone want to speak to item number 2 for continuance?
>>> Gary else worth, west Chelsea street representing south Seminole Heights.
We did meet on Tuesday evening with city officials.
And we have no objection to continuing this.
They have agreed to make some changes and are asking for input from the neighborhood on both building and landscape design so the extra time will certainly help us as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
>>KEVIN WHITE: 6 p.m.
>>GWEN MILLER: November 17, 6 p.m.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Anything else?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 10.
Z 05-89.
Item number 10, Z 05-89.
In coordination with petitioner and city administration, we are asking for a continuance to September 8 at 6 p.m.
Item number 10.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 10.
Okay.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: We are currently working on a developer's agreement for many items involving public land and potentially affordable units.
And the issues of the development agreement are going to take more time to negotiate, to see if we can reach terms that the administration and staff are happy with as well as the petitioner.
I know that there are members of the public here that are opposed to a continuance.
Just a note for council, a staff report has not been prepared.
There is no ordinance prepared and there is no site plan on file with the city clerk because we haven't finished our review.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I may inquire is there a slot open?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
One available zoning slot.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: September 8 at 6 p.m. is what you are requesting?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you talk to the neighbors here in opposition and tell them there was a continuance being requested?
>>> I have been on vacation until today to be honest with you.
As of last week, we hadn't worked out the exact date.
>> This is the second continuance?
>>> This will be the second, yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Staff is not ready either.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm just concerned about the neighbors.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm sorry, Heather Lamboy did discuss it with the neighbors.
In my absence she had discussed that with them.
>>> Truett Gardner, 101 south Franklin Street.
We have been looking forward to proceeding with this.
It was only last Friday that we met.
We have been meeting with the mayor's office to go through this.
There's a lot of complicating issues in this developer's agreement.
It was only Friday that we decided at the administration's request to proceed with this continuance request.
And we want to get it done as quickly as possible, as early as Wednesday I was cc'ed on an e-mail to the neighborhood with a continuance request.
I'm not even in a position to go forward.
We don't have a staff report.
Transportation is still reviewing transportation -- traffic issues.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
We'll wait till you finish.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry.
>>> We want to move forward as quickly as possible.
September 8th is the day we chose.
Sorry for any inconvenience at all to the neighborhood.
And we would even be open to having it earlier at 5:30 if that would be more amenable.
That's the position we're in.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to make sure that we heard from the neighborhood about when we might continue this to.
And I also wanted to know from the staff, usually the staff requires two weeks to review things, 13 days, I think, and the 8th is only about -- pretty site tight.
>>> The site plan would have to be due tomorrow, and it will be in tomorrow.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Coyle asked for that date.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: How come I have a report here?
It's dated August 25th, the day the report was August 22nd.
And the only thing missing was elevation submitted from the LDC.
But everything else was done.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I didn't write a staff report so I don't know exactly what.
>>GWEN MILLER: She says she doesn't have one.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Sorry.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I've got one.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It would be according to code, it is noon tomorrow.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public here that would like to speak on the continuation of number 10?
>>> My name is Jimmie Overton.
You may remember me from the July 21st meeting.
On July 21st they did ask for a continuance and we so obliged.
Actually they asked to have it moved one week from that date during 10 a.m. during the day.
We appealed to have it moved later.
And August 11th was not available.
Then we moved it to August 25th.
Or you so moved it to August 25th.
At that time, Mr. LaRocca said, and I quote from the transcript, I'm the agent for the petitioner.
My petitioner is obviously requesting morning.
We respectfully would like to have the earliest possible date to have this item considered.
So our request is for the 4th because it was the date we have been working on with staff.
This is August 4th.
It's now the 25th.
At that time, it said, councilwoman Saul-Sena said: Would you be prepared to do it next Thursday in the evening to Cathy Coyle?
Cathy Coyle said: I think a week might be a little tithe.
Again we're talking about the 21st of July, and these time lines going forward.
We have got a group of residents here that are prepared, have taken time out of their schedule.
We were the ones who postponed it two weeks already.
And they were supposed to be ready to do it 10:00 during the day a week from July 21st.
So I appeal that we do not allow this continuance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
>>> Again representing petitioners, and now it's in the evening.
Some have been able to make it.
I would like to present to council.
Why it should be going forward now, tonight.
It's July in the letter.
It also has documentation backing up, e-mail correspondence, and you will see the trail as far as when they requested a continuance, which is the last page.
We found out about the continuance, and we found out that this clerk was not made aware of.
So we as petitioners and unified residents were pushing it to make sure this would go forward and it did not get lost in the cracks.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If petitioner would put her name on the record.
>>> Janell, 101 South 12th Street.
Also the things they are working on you can notate, the reference, the documents it was come from, what we referred to.
So I please, I strongly recommend that you read in the sense that we request as petitioners of Channelside the united residents of Channelside that you deny the request before you and move forward with the petition as scheduled.
The rezoning request is precedent setting and it is in the heart of our community.
And we are here tonight.
And everyone said they would be ready.
And the proposed date they are saying we need, as we said last time, two weeks.
We're professionals.
We have solid schedules.
It has to be in the evening.
We have to go at least three weeks out for us to be able to come and you very kindly obliged but it had to go out as far as today for it to be an evening also, and at least two weeks out.
And they came back saying, we're ready to go in the morning.
We can go next week.
Cathy said, just give us an extra day maybe.
The city said that.
They're on record.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Council has a policy of not continuing -- allowing things to continue and continue and continue.
We've heard strongly from the petitioner that he wants to go.
We've heard from the neighbor that they want to go ahead.
And I guess my question is for our legal counsel, Mr. Massey. Can council hear this tonight?
Or if not, why not?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: There is a scheduled public hearing tonight.
You've heard the petitioner request a continuance.
The staff has requested a continuance because there are issues that have not been worked out.
Obviously if council demands that it be heard tonight, you know, that's a possibility.
But what you are going to hear is an incomplete project from the last perspective and petitioner's perspective.
>> If we pick another date, and there's absolutely no more continuances allowed, that if somebody is not prepared, it's a denial?
I mean, it seems ridiculous.
It's been put off several times.
Our staff said they were ready to go.
It's changed.
It just doesn't seem consistent.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I think council can make it abundantly clear if they grant another continuance, this would be the last that council would consider and that both staff and petitioner needs to be ready to go when the continued public hearing occurs.
I still think you need to have a public hearing at that time before you approve or deny a petition.
But you can certainly make it clear to both staff and to petitioner if that's council's desire that this is the last continuance that council will entertain in connection with this petition.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to speak, sir?
On continuance?
>>> John Walton, 101 south 12th street in the victory building in the Channel District.
Is the I guess I'm troubled sitting back as a citizen of the City of Tampa to hear that we're asking for a continuance again.
It's not that complicated of an issue.
The issue is height.
That is what we are here to discuss.
>>GWEN MILLER: Just are you in favor of the continuance or not?
>>> I do not want the continuance.
I would rather discuss it this evening.
I think everyone here is fully prepared.
It's a 60-foot limitation that we're discussing.
It doesn't seem to be that very complicated.
We're against it.
And they would like to you waive that 60-foot moratorium.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, I am going to ask you not to discuss the facts.
>>> With all respect the issue is not that complicated and I think all parties are very able to discuss it this evening.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
What's the pleasure of the council?
Ms. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Based on the staff's recommendation, we are just not ready.
And how can we go ahead without the staff report?
I mean, I don't have a staff report.
Do you have a staff report?
Excuse me?
>>GWEN MILLER: We have the old one.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We have the old one.
But if they are not ready --
>>> it seems to me that the staff report is discussing subtle questions of trade-offs, and what we could vote on tonight is the idea should this proceed or not.
Send things to legal to work out the fine points.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm willing to continue to September 8th.
And I'm sorry that everybody is here.
But we can't do anything else.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I remember Mr. English standing up here saying that they needed a week, staff saying that that would be good enough, the clerk said that a week may not be enough time.
We went out two weeks.
Then we even took to the this date.
We have all these residents here.
I don't think it's fair to them.
I think the petitioner had more than enough time to prepare this.
I can't help it if the staff report is not in.
Because the staff report is not in, it's not our staff's fault that the report is not in.
I think we need to vote this either up or down tonight.
We have residents that are here.
We have been here all day.
I would rather hear this and get it over and done with tonight up or down, pro or con.
You all are here.
Petitioners are here.
If the petition isn't complete we can vote it up or down and they can come back up and reapply for another petition, and/or ask for reconsideration.
But I think in consideration of all the neighbors that have shown up out here I think we need to move forward with this one way or the other tonight.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is that a motion?
>>KEVIN WHITE: That's a motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Discussion on the motion.
Mr. Harrison.
>>.
>> What evidence are we going to be able to take from city staff if we move forward with this tonight?
That's always a critical part of the analysis, is what city staff says, because if city staff recommends against it, that's prima facia a evidence that there is enough in the record to deny the petition.
But without that, we have got nothing other than the evidence, I suppose, that will be presented by the petitioner and by the community.
And I just don't know --.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I want to clarify there is no ordinance for this as well.
It was not prepared because the site plan is not on file.
It is not a completed revised site plan to meet staff conditions, as well as working on a developer's agreement to coincide with that site plan.
So I don't know if you can deny something without an ordinance.
That's a legal question.
>>KEVIN WHITE: It shouldn't even be on our agenda.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Theoretically, if council so chose you could have a public hearing without the ordinance and then refer the matter back to the legal department.
But part of the problem is there's no site plan, what I'm hearing from Ms. Coyle, relative to consider to this petition right now.
Is that right, Cathy?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Technically there is a site plan.
I can talk about it.
I can give you a summary on the case as it stands today and I can tell you where it doesn't and does meet code.
And it would be just a factual representation.
If that is indeed what you are wishing to do.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to address council member Harrison, obviously council can make inquiry to determine what competent, substantial evidence it needs in order to make its decision.
Council, for whatever reason, in this case, is placed at a disadvantage because of the fact there is no staff report, currently there is no ordinance available to go forward, and that does put council at a disadvantage.
And there may be a way in the future to address this.
But ultimately, it appears that if council does hear the evidence tonight, because of the fact that there is no ordinance, it could not be voted up tonight.
It would have to be continued anyway to direct the legal to prepare the ordinance.
Is that correct?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: It not atypical, for instance, in vacatings where we have conditions that are negotiated to the last minute that council has the public hearing petition and then recommends or direct legal to prepare an ordinance based on the decision made by council, if they approve the vacating during the hearing.
And it's been done in context with rezonings before, too.
So that's not -- the fact we don't have an ordinance ready to vote up or down tonight does not mean that a public hearing on the petition cannot occur.
It just means that the actual ordinance will not be ready for first reading for another week.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that the petitioner is going to have all kinds of due process arguments if we proceed tonight.
And if we were to -- let's say that we voted it down, petitioner -- he'll just say, they didn't have anything in front of them to vote up or vote down.
Theres was no -- the record was incomplete from the staff's perspective.
And I don't want to go through a big exercise of futility here tonight by hearing something and then coming back in next week and moving for reconsideration and us having to just start the whole process over again.
I know it's got to be very frustrating and terribly inconvenient for the neighborhood here.
But I don't want to drag everyone back down here again after we hear this a couple -- for a couple hours here tonight, and then just because we messed up procedurally by doing that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can use analogy -- and it was raised by Mr. Massey, I believe, previously.
Sometimes in a criminal case, there is very much due process involved, a judge does say, next time this is set, when you request a continuance, be ready to go, because we're going, and council does give that sort of direction at least it's on notice to the petitioner, it's on notice to staff and it's on notice to the community, that it's council's intention that all parties be ready.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Whether you say that or not, we're still in the same boat if they are not ready.
What more of a legal standing do we have to stand on at that point in time than we do at this juncture?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: One could argue there's a due process notification if they do have a sufficient number of days, and they do have notice that whatever issues need to be resolved will need to be resolved and go forward by that date.
>> I think this council can justify due process when the petitioner said they would be ready to go in a week last time, and we have given them a month.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: But for the fact that you have an administration and a department upon which you rely telling you that they do not have what it is that they normally usually have ready to proceed in order to present to you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: If it's their fault I have no problem with the continuance.
If it's the petitioner's fault I have a problem with that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And I do not know, and I don't know whether you want to get into the facts as to what is holding this up.
>>KEVIN WHITE: If it's our staff's fault that we are not ready to proceed.
If it's not our staff's fault --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know if it's an issue of fault but you have a right to inquire of staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Catherine Coyle, we have a question for you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: There are items that are being negotiated.
I can't speak necessarily to what they are because it's the merits of the case.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Is it because you don't have the things that you need?
Or --
>>> we do not have the items for the developer's agreement and there are potential site plan revisions and some traffic analyses, corrections that need to be made.
Yes.
So we do not have what we need to move forward tonight.
But it is not staff's fault.
I don't know that it's really the petitioner's fault either.
It's been more complications than we had imagined.
And the time that we gave ourselves.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, there's something that's.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems to me -- and Mr. Smith, I'm glad you came down because you need to hear this conversation.
It seems to me that there are two components to this.
One is the straight staff negotiation by our zoning people saying, is this good zoning?
And the other thing is some kind of negotiation that's going on with the development department in terms of concessions and this and that.
And my feeling is, shouldn't we be proceeding looking at the merits of the zoning, and see whether the zoning gets supported by council, and then let the administration hammer out whatever it is in the negotiating that's taking way more time than this was supposed to take.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
I was listening upstairs so I do have the benefit of the entire conversation.
One of the things I was suggesting to Morris that we consider doing is that you go forward tonight with the idea that you will hear the testimony from those people who are here tonight to who want to testify.
I think their issue as you know is limited to a specific aspect.
And then we would have to be careful about the prohibition from subsequently testifying.
Usually if you testify once you cannot testify again.
We are going to have an incomplete application.
If the application becomes complete in the interim it would seem to me anyone who testifies tonight, who has something they want to say about the additional changes in the application, would be able to testify again.
So you could take the information tonight with the people here provide you.
It would be imprudent to make an up and down vote because do you not have the complete file.
But you at least will have the testimony of the people who have taken the time to come down here and provide you, and then whatever changes in the interim with respect to the application, because it is a PD, and you are going to have to review the entire thing, then they will have an opportunity to add any additional testimony based on the changes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do it twice?
>>DAVID SMITH: You do, but I don't think you will replicate the entire process.
And I think at least in terms of the -- I don't want to pre-judge what people are going to tell you but I think the issue is limited to a specific aspect of the development.
And it would be somewhat anomalous procedure, I will grant you that.
But I think what you are trying to do is find a way to accommodate the people who have come down here to testify.
And yet also accord the applicant due process.
So whatever your decision ultimately is is going to be more defensible.
>>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Defer.
>>DAVID SMITH: Just wanted to make sure.
I thought I said this.
But my recommendation would be that you not make a final vote up or down, hence the question by Ms. Saul-Sena that we have to go through it twice.
I'm just saying in essence you are having two hearings before you move forward with it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I withdraw my second to Mr. White's motion because I don't see the point of doing this twice.
>>GWEN MILLER: I don't either.
>>DAVID SMITH: It's up to you.
I'm just trying to provide an alternative mechanism.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to clarify.
There was a lot of use of the term staff, and staff has been negotiating and that sort of thing.
I want to clarify something because I think it's pretty important, at least -- and Cathy, you need to correct me if I am wrong.
Ms. Coyle works for Mr. Snelling in the zoning department.
And their issues are the tradition zoning issues, okay?
I've got a feeling the issue -- I think -- and I came in late, but I think the issues that bogged us down are related -- are related to the other part of the city staff.
And I know this is sort of confusing.
But there's another part of the city staff that is dealing with the Channelside CRA, and is dealing with, you know, the issues of the height and the other -- I'm not talking about the case, but I just -- I don't want there to be any confusion on the record, that Ms. Coyle's opinions haven't been tainted by this process.
Because I don't think you're in those meetings talking about height and trade-off and all that, are you?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, I am.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You are part of it?
Well, there you go.
Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, you have to understand the hierarchy in the administration, the economic administrator is my boss, and we are all under that same umbrella.
But we have also been working with the director of the Parks Department, we have been working with the housing and community development, department to deal with the affordable units issue.
It's been all the city departments that have actually been reviewing this and working on the potential developer's agreement across the board.
My main issue is the zoning issues.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Going back to this and a continuance I think it's a waste of time to do it twice.
>>GWEN MILLER: Me, too.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The good news is, I'm going to assume that these are Channelside residents, it's not too far for them to come, not like they have come down from New Tampa.
Although I'm sure there's other people here who aren't just Channelside.
So this is the third continuance.
But isn't this --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Second continuance.
>> But I haven't seen this large mass of people here before, right?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: It would be the recommendation of legal staff really that this should be continued.
You know, you do need to allow staff to present the recommendations, to allow the petitioner to state their case based on the site plan that they are willing to go forward with for due process reasons.
And if you want to blame this on the staff for not being ready tonight we will accept that.
But that's where we are at.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: 6:00, September 8th.
All in favor -- you cannot speak again.
You spoke already.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The warning, as Mr. Shelby very clearly put it, is that that's it.
I mean, I think September 8th we are going to hear this.
Or it will be withdrawn.
Period.
>>> Truett Gardner: And we are completely amenable to that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Several people jumped up when we mentioned September 8th.
I want to make sure we are picking a date that we can at least have a decent representation by the folks that are here tonight to be there at.
If that means we have to go out an extra week, we can go out an extra week.
It's not going to kill anyone to ERR on the side of caution.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: You do have a meeting three weeks out, the budget, I believe.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's only budget.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We could have four people and go 20 minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is September 8th okay for the neighborhood?
Just raise your hand so we can see.
September 8th will be okay.
Is it okay?
October?
We can go later.
We can't hear it tonight.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the 8th okay?
I think that's the question.
>>GWEN MILLER: Raise your hand if September 8th is okay.
Let's go out to October.
What's next in October?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: October 20 and 27.
But I don't know.
You might want to ask petitioner.
>>GWEN MILLER: October 20th?
>>> Truett: As quickly as possible is what we are trying to do.
(Laughter)
[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: We are not going to have the outbursts.
We'll ask you to leave.
Listen.
>>> Truett: We are continuing to work with the mayor's office on some global issues with this.
We would love to be able to move forward tonight.
We simply cannot.
September 8th would be great.
If not the 15th.
We are trying to move this along as quickly as possible.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think we are clearing the air for everybody.
I feel sorry for the neighborhood because they are here and obviously some of the members of that community spent a lot of time on this this morning.
And it was beneficial, by the way.
But, at the same time, the petitioner's representative has been very quiet.
And it kind of was my understanding that you wanted to go forward, he would have been prepared to go forward, except staff may be taking the blame, but the administration is the one -- correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Gardner -- administration is the one that encouraged you not to be prepared tonight because they wanted it continued.
Am I close to right or not?
>>> You're close to right.
>> So you want to hurry up and move it.
They want to hurry up and have us hear it up or down.
Staff is tap dancing because they are saying okay, we'll take the blame.
But I think none of these three parties are to blame.
I think for whatever reason I don't know -- I'm certainly not privy to what the administration wants done or is trying to get done with this, but it seems to me that they are the ones that need to be recognized as the party that wanted it to be continued.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are they here, Mr. Huey or his team?
>>ROSE FERLITA: No!
Why?
They should be.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion to continue this item to September 8 at 6 p.m.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a second for that?
>> Yes.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
It passed.
September 8th at 6 p.m.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, again, just as a courtesy, just as a request -- I know we can't mandate that.
But if there is some interaction from representatives of the administration, with this particular petitioner, if there's a reason that they want something delayed or continued, just as Mr. Dingfelder said, there should have been somebody in the audience from the administration, like Mr. Huey or somebody.
Instead, you have an aggravated audience, and rightly so, a petitioner who is kind of embarrassed because he's not ready to go forward because the administration has asked you to do whatever they have asked you to do, and they are not here to give us a real reason why nobody is ready to go.
I don't understand that way of doing business but --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We are being put on the hot seat all day today for things that are not our fault.
And we have had to make a very unpopular decision here tonight, and anger a lot of people through no fault of our own.
We are ready to go tonight.
You're ready to go tonight.
And they are ready to go tonight.
So once more, we are put in the position of reacting to things that we shouldn't have to be reacting to. And none of us are happy about where we find ourselves here today, all day today, with some of these things.
But I think we voted and it's time to move on.
>>GWEN MILLER: We apologize to the neighborhood but it's something we can't help because we have to go on with the administration what they have put out.
So we are going to say September 8th.
You can't speak.
We continued it now.
Petitioner said they needed to go.
September 8th.
It's already been voted on.
We thank you for coming.
And we apologize for having you come without hearing you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, I want to ask you a question while they are leaving.
Or colleagues.
Let's just have a conversation here.
What is it that we can do to get these types of messages over to the administration?
As Mr. Harrison said, this has been disaster all day.
We are uncomfortable because they are not giving people enough information.
We are put in a position where we have to decide.
And if we do don't, residents have to be upset at somebody so here we are so we are probably taking the heat.
I don't understand this.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a suggestion.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would love to hear it, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I made a suggestion two and a half years ago when I first came on board with this group to the mayor and the chief of staff.
And I said, who is the regular liaison for City Council?
Okay?
And they said, well, you know, the mayor told me she's going to be, and Darrell said he would be, that sort of thing.
And I think -- I've come across this in numerous situations.
If we had a regular liaison, a regular person who was our person from the administration that sat here and answered these kind of questions, coordinated with us better, on a day-to-day or Thursday-to-Thursday basis, I think it would be very helpful.
And then that way, if we have issues like this, that's a point person that we can just take those issues to her, they are sitting there, and we can address them and deal with them like that.
And I'm not saying that person would have final authority.
But at least they might be a good liaison to the administration.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And you know what?
In theory, I'm agreeing with you, John.
I don't know exactly how we fine-tune that.
But that person as a liaison, help me, the chairman -- you know where we have gone wrong?
And then I will get off our editorializing.
We have given up our own agenda. The chairman as far as I'm concerned is not in control of the council's agenda.
We have to go through so many loops.
We spend so much time trying to figure out what's where and what that means and what's deficient.
It's like we're the last to know what's going on with our agenda.
The frustration is at an all-time high today.
I don't understand it.
I don't understand it.
And that's no way to run this legislative arm of this government.
It's embarrassing.
It's embarrassing.
And I think when we finally decide we need to take ownership of our agenda, have that go between a person that you are suggesting John, however we formalize his or her job description, but something so that we have somebody that can get something organized so when we come up here we are not surprised.
I mean, very quickly, the audience was upset.
Absolutely.
The guy was embarrassed.
Mr. Gardner.
Because he was told by the administration to kind of hold off.
There's nobody here from the administration to buffer anything.
So guess who takes the blame again.
This council.
It's not the way we should be doing this.
And, you know, we're almost halfway, more than halfway through this term.
And I hope that the next time we get some new members that replace some of us old members that we start doing business a about different way. This is so embarrassing.
It's so embarrassing.
All we do is continue to apologize to people.
I saw Mrs. Saul-Sena today, I'm so sorry for keeping you here so long.
It shouldn't happen.
We should be efficient.
They should be least inconvenienced.
And here we are doing the same song and dance that we were doing at noon today.
What are we doing, folks?
>>GWEN MILLER: Other comments?
Are we ready for item number 3?
We need to open.
Motion and second to open.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Should we do the swearing in of everybody before we start?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience that's going to speak on any item on the agenda please stand and raise your right hand.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This site 405 north Armenia Avenue is located at the intersection of gray and Armenia.
As you can see by the aerial, you can barely see it, but there is an existing house on the site and several large trees as well on the site.
Pay attention to those trees because they are going to come into consideration later.
The petitioner proposes to rezone the property at 405 north Armenia Avenue from residential multi-family to retail.
It will be an A specialty antique store.
It has been noted as a storage room to serve the antique business.
There are grand trees on-site.
One will be located immediately adjacent to the parking lot and the others are located on the northern portion of the site which will remain vacant.
There are a couple of objections on this case.
Transportation has an objection with reference to the handicapped space, loading aisle and drive aisle.
Furthermore the sidewalk cannot be -- can be constructed at a future date as indicated on the site plan.
In addition the grand trees on the site especially the grand tree that is to be -- or is currently located near the one-story masonry building may be affected by the future construction, and the Parks Department did not feel like the petitioner addressed that issue well enough.
The petitioner is ready to address these issues.
I have informed them, I he's fully aware of all the issues, and staff would like to note that there are objections to this petition.
That concludes my comments.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
We are looking at a site plan that shows a pretty large block of -- all the development appears to be on the -- the site facing -- it appears that half the lot is not built upon.
Is that reading of it?
>>> That's correct.
>> So there is room for reconfiguration on the lot?
>>> That's correct.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Just to give you a quick idea of the context of the site, it is just south of the armory approximately half mile north of Kennedy Boulevard, the interstate lies directly to the north, here's Howard, and of course Armenia, two of the primary commercial corridors in the west Tampa area.
What you have seen from an existing land use aspect on the-existing uses, this property over here you have recently rezoned for low density office, and another one along this segment, I think this one, too.
So this one was done not too long ago.
Subsequently this one has come and reapplied.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, as to your question about that piece of property, I think this is about the second or third time we have reconfigured the parking to accommodate the site, and I think they are able to probably reconfigure that one more time.
Our issue was basically having access onto Gray Street but if they were to reconfigure the parking where you have parking facing along Armenia versus where you currently have it right now, we would probably make a concession ---they would have to do the waiver allowing access onto Gray Street but that would only be a tit for tat and really siting the tree which is the greater of the two.
They do have off-street parking the way it's described along this part of Armenia to allow parking right here, and access would be currently the way the site plan is showing right off of the alley into the site coming in, to the east and currently up to the north.
It is consistent with what you have seen as far as low density office uses along this particular segment of Armenia. The Planning Commission staff does not object to the proposed request.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question of staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 20 inch oak tree which is up toward the middle of Gray Street there, one thing this doesn't show that I think is really pushing this site is that's kind of square in the middle of the property which normally -- the place would you normally find the structure.
So we want to save that oak tree, right?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: That's correct.
>> So is this a low oak tree with low limbs and that sort of thing?
Is that what's pushing this project to the rear?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Yes.
Well, the canopy is large, according to the Parks Department.
And they feel, of course, by measuring the canopy, you can understand the extent of the oak tree underground as well.
And the Parks Department feels like that would be impacted by the proposed development negatively.
>> In other words that's one of the justifications for the PD, is that everyone wants to save the oak tree, and therefore will accommodate the development to the rear of the site?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Yes.
That's correct.
Oh.
>>> The structure is an existing structure.
It's an antique shop and I think they are basically trying to bring it into conformance.
>> It's always been there?
>>TONY GARCIA: It was an antique shop and I believe the structure was in existence.
I don't think they are going to be modifying it to what it is right now.
>>> Madam Chairman, members of City Council, for the public record, Reg Alford, 4900 98th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33617.
I represent the petitioner.
The petitioner -- allow me to take a moment and talk about the trees.
There are several oak trees, several palm trees, and on this particular site.
We are not removing any tree.
We have been able to work around every tree.
To answer your question in regards to future expansion, I would like to take a moment and show you the existing structure currently has a tent they have been storing antiques in.
And you can see that.
It's to remove that tent, take out that storage area that it currently has and build a future structure there so he can go ahead and include the storage area.
He wants to clean up the piece of property a lot.
There's a fence there that you see on the very front which will take the front out, and add a storage area onto that.
One of the things we are going to work around, I did have Mr. David Riley out on the property.
I did meet with Mr. Riley and walked the property with him and indicated to him that I would save that particular tree.
He was kind of concerned that we were rather close to it.
I assured him that I would make a correction on the site plan to indicate that we would move a specified period of feet that he felt comfortable with in order for that to occur, so we would not damage that particular tree.
And I have accepted that condition.
One other thing that we attempted to do from the parking aspects, you're correct, when they talk about we looked at three different configurations of parking on this piece of property, because we wanted to protect especially one of the 29 inch oak trees is very, very close to the center of the piece of property.
We did originally have the parking coming in off Gray Street, and we received some objections and 90 degree parking off grade and 90 degree parking facing Armenia.
That's the way we originally proposed it.
It worked.
Everything did work in regards to that.
However, the Planning Commission and a few others indicated they did not want access off of Gray Street, they wanted access off to the alley that's currently already paved and utilized with parking that's already adjacent, too.
You can see the alley that's already paved and the parking immediately to the east.
So the site plan that you see this evening is virtually identical to what you see there.
The parking that's immediately at 90 degrees as you come in to the west.
There is an alternative.
There's a third alternative that we also looked at, that we could come straight through with one way in and do angle parking, and then go all the way out to Gray Street.
But we would have to access Gray Street once again.
And one of the things that did not get approval from was everybody to degree with that type concept, also has access on Gray Street.
We'll be happy to look at that and revise it and do what we need to do in regards to that.
But as of this evening, I did not have that approval from the various departments.
In working with Mr. Riley there are several other trees on the property.
We worked around those trees.
And the structure is existing and it has been there for a long time.
We're not changing anything.
The only thing that we're attempting to do is to take down the old stump that is currently there which is the fence and improve that and clean it up and make it more feasible for my client who operates an antique business.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
Maybe this is the fourth scenario. But couldn't you go in through the alley, around the tree and back out to Armenia?
That way you don't impact Gray Street and you keep the commercial traffic on Armenia, and you don't hurt the tree.
>>> Say that again?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You come in the alley.
>>> Yeah.
Take a left.
>> Make a turn around the tree and perhaps remove the old storage building closer to the front of Armenia, the street, rather than in the back where it is.
>>> I have more trees back there.
When you look at the site plan, the closer to the east that you have, I have more trees in that particular area.
I won't be able to make the straight shot.
The straight shot, when you look at the -- you got it?
Thank you.
You have trees here.
Trees here.
Trees here.
And then you have this 29 inch tree located there.
What I think might work best, if everybody would have a consensus of this, is in order to put the drive straight through, put in some angled parking and take it all the way through to Gray Street.
I think that would work best.
That's the way it functions today.
People come in through there, pull in, angle park, and then they go straight.
I would like to be able to keep the same configuration if possible.
Yes, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: She has to recognize me, Mr. Alford.
>>CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This is an antique store.
And it's not being expanded?
>>> No, sir.
>> And how many visitors a day do you have now?
>>> About one.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is it really all that big of a deal?
>>> 80% of my client's business is off site.
He goes off site, picks it up, brings it back, and delivers it.
He rarely ever has anyone there.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council?
Ms. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I notice that there is -- it's sidewalk, an issue with you the sidewalk.
Did you say that you would put the sidewalk in?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
I said we would put the sidewalk in.
Part of the reason -- I also made a statement that we would put it in when warranted.
The point is there's no other sidewalks so it would just be two ends sitting there.
I just made a statement when other sidewalks are put in, we would be happy to put it in.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did transportation okay that?
Because it's still showing an X.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
In my discussions with them, that's why I made that commitment, was that when it was warranted we would be happy to install it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just want to know if petitioner's client is still going to hold on-site all the U-Haul trucks that I didn't see in the picture?
Because I know they rent U-Hauls out thereof and there's two, three, maybe four U-Haul trucks parked on the property.
Would that be part of your parking issue?
>>> May I take a moment to confer?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Absolutely.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In the meantime, council, I was out of chambers and didn't have a chance to make my little speech that I normally do before these quasi-judicial hearings.
So at this time, I would ask that all written communications relative to tonight's hearings that have been available to the public at council's office be received and filed into the record at this time.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to this case and all other cases that are going to be heard tonight if any member of council has had any verbal communication was any petitioner, his or her representative or any members of the public in connection with any of the petitions that are going to be heard tonight, please be reminded the member should disclose the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the verbal communication occurred, and the substance of that verbal communication.
Thank you, council.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Alford.
>>> To answer your question my client has indicated that he would give up the use of the truck.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The problem wasn't give it up.
I'm just saying part of the problem was, if you rezone this and he had four or five U-Haul trucks.
I'm not advocating that he give it up.
I just want to know --
>>> he uses them periodically to haul.
>>KEVIN WHITE: And I figured as much, to go pick up antiques.
>>> He picks up the larger pieces that he needs to do the stuff when he can't fit them in the smaller truck.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 3?
Anyone like to speak on item number 3?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Something tonight that is rather confusion, I understand the petitioner to say he would do anything to protect the tree.
I heard staff to say that the existing site plan in front of us they felt endangered the tree.
So I guess I would like to hear from maybe our tree guy or staff.
I don't want to approve a site plan that's going to endanger the tree.
I wonder if we need to hold it off till he resolves to the make sure the tree is safe before we approve anything.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: We have no parks and recreation staff here tonight.
They were unable to make it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to do is hold off on this until we can hear -- didn't somebody say that the way it's drawn now, they felt that the tree was at risk, too close?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: A memo dated August 1st from Parks and Recreation Department, this is the most recent site plan that you have that they reviewed.
David Riley stated that the parks and recreational resource staff has reviewed the subject revised plan and offers the following observation, tree location and N relation to the proposed construction does not provide adequate space for preservation.
So, in effect, the tree will be killed by --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
And council members, I want to make you aware of something.
The petitioner said on this he would comply with all the parks and rec stuff.
But if we approve this, this is the approved plan and they would kill the tree.
So there's an inconsistency.
So I am not going to support this until the petitioner has a chance to come back with a revised drawing that passes muster in terms of the major trees on the property.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Saul-Sena, I agree on that point, in addition to which if there's any update in the attitude of parks and rec, somebody should be here.
Somebody should be here to tell us something.
>>> Alford: I just conferred with Tony for a few minutes and he indicated if I come back and come off Gray Street that he would not object to that.
And I would like to have the opportunity to revise the site plan and come back with what we originally proposed in order to have it from the opposite direction and that would work fine with us.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to continue for a week then.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
But I believe that Mr. Garcia said he didn't like coming off of Gray Street.
>>GWEN MILLER: He just changed his mind.
>>TONY GARCIA: I did say that.
But I said there's a tit for tat.
And I would gladly let him have access.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You said that you would --.
>>TONY GARCIA: I would consider that.
You get a variety of times the request for waivers onto residential streets.
In this particular instance if we are going to be talking about saving a tree, I would much rather save the tree.
Because you can always control if people are going to have to come in for future PDs on the site restricting transportation, and also has Mr. Harrison pointed out you don't have a significant amount of vehicular traffic, for this particular use.
But my concern of course would be for future PDs that we come for further uses on the site.
>> Am I being too unreasonable, you don't have to concede that.
We still have your first preference and still address the tree.
>>> All things in a perfect world, yes, I would like to see no access on Gray Street.
But if we able to not have access on a Gray Street and still configure the site could you still accommodate.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And the petitioner seems like he's willing to go back and redraw something?
>>> He asked me that question, yeah.
But if you're feeling -- of course it will be council's ultimate decision as to whether or not you feel county be done that way.
That's fine.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I am not trying to override what you suggested.
But seems like we can have both things addressed and we might as well see what the new version is.
Thank you, Tony.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How does the neighbor immediately adjacent feel about a chain link fence as opposed to something a little more protected?
>>> Alford: They have no objection and we have a 6 foot fence placed behind it.
There's a 6-foot fence that goes behind the property, the entire length.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What kind of fence?
>>> Wooden fence.
>> Behind the chain link fence?
On the site plan it says existing 6-foot chain link fence.
Between your property and the residential property immediately to the east of it.
>>> There is an existing 6-foot chain link fence that currently runs 6 foot high, runs the entire length of the piece of property.
We are going to leave that 6-foot chain link fence in place as is.
My client happens to own that property adjacent to.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, no wonder there's no objection.
>>> They use it for rental property.
>>GWEN MILLER: How many weeks it would take to get the plans back to us?
>>> I would like to be honest with you at least three weeks out. The reason for that is I'm going to be out of the country for two weeks.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: When is the next available?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Suggest a morning meeting.
So members of the pun here. The next evening meeting available is November 17th.
>>GWEN MILLER: What do we have in the morning?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: September seems to look difficult.
Today was a morning.
>>CHAIRMAN: How many do we have?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The petitioner will be required to turn in a plan by noon tomorrow.
>>> Could you go -- October 6th is fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: October 10th at 10 a.m.
We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>> Thank you very much
>>ROSE FERLITA: Have a nice vacation.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would also like staff to know right now on the site plan that we have there's no visual access.
There honestly isn't.
It isn't drawn like people get to the parking spaces from the alley.
I want the site plan to be clearly drawn.
And I need to know -- Mr. Alford, I won't support this if the parks people haven't said that the trees are going to be safe with whatever you're planning.
>>> Accepted.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other thing I was going to say was it appears now the access comes off the alley.
That's the way that picture looked.
So I don't know if that's allowed.
I don't know if transportation allows that as the main and only access point.
But if they do, I don't see what the harm is.
Maybe that's the best place is just to leave it coming off the alley.
>>> I can answer that.
First of all, they prefer that the ingress egress be off the alley.
That's why you see the other one.
Gray Street, I have to come back and ask for a waiver.
At that point.
And then council would have to -- would have to grant the waiver for access off of Gray Street.
Whereas if we don't ask for the waiver then we can access off of the alley.
My point being that we would prefer to access off Gray Street.
It makes more sense, more logical and we don't interfere with any trees.
>> They do interfere with the 29.
>>> I do not.
Not with the parking on that.
I can miss that tree and have adequate space with turf block.
>> Show us when we come back.
But I think the preference is leave it off the alley.
>>GWEN MILLER: We'll see you in October.
>>> I will work with staff.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Have a nice vacation.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 4.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The site is 1923 west pines street located in the west Tampa overlay between Albany and Fremont -- north side of pine street.
There's a cigar factory across the street on pines, just as a visual landmark.
And to see it on the aerial, this is the site.
There's an existing one-story bungalow on the site, to narrow lots which the petitioner is proposing to develop.
This is a cigar factory locate add cross the street.
Petitioner proposes to rezone the property at 1923 pine street from RS 15 to PD residential single family, proposes the construction two of additional dwelling units on the site and existing remodeled historic unit will remain in its current location on lot 2.
The lots are proposed to be 38-3 feet wide and 98 feet long, the other.
All three houses 11 feet, side setbacks vary from 3 feet to 8 feet, the rear setback is 30 feet for the existing residence and 10 feet for the new residences.
The proposed buildings are a bungalow style and will be consistent with the character of the streetscape in the west Tampa overlay.
If you will recall, it is characterized by a lot of small lot development.
And therefore staff conducted a streetscape survey.
You can see that on the Elmo right now.
In this particular block, there are a preponderance of lots that measure between 35 feet and 40 feet.
So visually, these proposed lots of 33.8 feet will not look any different than most of the lots in that particular block.
There are objections, however, with this proposed application.
And I have shared my staff report with the petitioner.
Grand trees are on the site.
As you can see by the aerial, there is a grand tree on this side of the residence, and then a large grand tree located just off site.
But any new construction will affect that particular tree.
Number 12 needs to be deleted.
The alley should be repaved to Albany Avenue, that is a transportation comment.
And solid waste also requested that the site plan be modified to allow for carrying the cars out to the front sidewalk with a 4-foot opening.
And once again the grand tree issue.
So therefore staff does have objections that I think can be cured at this hearing.
And that concludes my comments.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Looking at the site plan, it appears that the radii of the oaks is taken into account in the design of the houses.
>>> That is correct.
>> So they are okay?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: We spoke with Cathy Beck this afternoon about the most recent site plan and she stated that she still has concerns about the 50-inch.
Mr. Toph has a picture of that.
It's actually two trees together that create a 50 inch oak.
But, on the other hand, Mr. Topf has agreed in his notes on the site plan to meet tree and landscape requirements so if some minor modifications need to be made either through construction techniques, or by shortening the building or what have you to accommodate for the canopy, that has been accounted for in that note.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>> In addition I would like to remind the council, I think Chairman Miller may have the correspondence from the west Tampa CDC regarding this particular case.
Did you want me to read that into the record?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, please.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The, the three foot side voted for five feet as per requirement of the overlay code.
Remember this is the west Tampa CDC comments, not staff comments.
And a compromise based on the petitioner willingness to follow the above advised rule the committee voted to waive the front setback to no less than 31.8 in width.
The committee voted to waive the front setback average rule.
The petitioner is proposing to do in-fill housing on three lots adjacent to each other.
The middle lot has an existing house on it and the petitioner is requesting that each of the lots line up with each other.
Granting this waiver is consistent with the historic setback of these lots and the current existing house in the middle lot in which the petitioner proposes to do in-fill housing.
The final design of the two in-fill must be consistent with the design requirement of the overlay district to preserve the west Tampa look.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
On the future land use perspective the predominant land use category is residential 35 for this entire area.
Here are two subject properties that I think Ms. Lamboy did a fine job showing you as far as the lots are concerned.
The request we feel is consistent and compatible with the character of this particular area.
You have two gray segments over here, light industrial.
As the unique character in this part of west Tampa which is east of Howard Avenue.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said all that is res 35?
>>TONY GARCIA: Yes.
It all the same.
It's all res 35.
I think the way it used to be a long time ago, this segment of west Tampa, which was old west Tampa, is right off the intersection of Main Street and Howard.
This was really like a little village in itself 65, 70 years ago.
>> But what is this built-out density?
R-20?
>>> When it's built out is if you were to have -- these are 35-foot wide lots.
So doing the math, probably come out to like 20 units to the acre.
As far as the res 35 goes you have the potential of doing something even narrower than that.
You can go more than 35 foot lied lots.
But basically it's reflective of the character of the area, that even more narrow houses, house that is used to be there a long time ago, especially on the other side of Armenia street, could you probably see.
It support the density and it was like that back in the 20s and 30s because this was -- again you had all the cigar factories in the area, you had a big population there because back in those days just like up in New York City, you concentrated your population where all the work was at.
Since you had so many cigar factories in this area --.
>> My concern was as we go through the plan amendment, update process amendment you should revisit these because if they are 35 and they are becoming more valuable to redevelop, they could be vulnerable to a lot of, you know, perhaps too intense density, and we can lose the charm.
>>> I think based on the character of the lots, I don't really think that that is a reality, because the protections that you do have in coming in with plan amendments for anyone to come in with proposed plan amendments for anything other than you have here. The character here is single family detached.
Very rarely do you see more than that really proposed.
You do see it not on this side, interestingly enough, not on this side of Howard Avenue.
But if you go west of Armenia, you're going to see a different type of character.
You will see more of an integrated type.
>> I'm thinking about what we have seen over in Westshore, and that Westshore area, near Westshore mall.
That was all R-35, single-family character, and now five years later it's converting over to a lot of multifamily.
>>> The use as round there, though, along that periphery of Westshore that you're talking about, you have higher densities.
You have got a couple of apartment and condo complexes that we created in the 60s.
Hence you have that kind of character.
It's a little different than what you have got over here.
A little different flavor.
This is much more historic in nature as far as much more reflective of what you had in the '20s.
Planning Commission staff does not object to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Good evening.
>> Joe Toph, the architect representing the owner.
And I have been sworn.
The intention is to in-fill these two small lots with historically sensitive style houses.
And the intention was also -- the developer is in the process currently of renovating the house in the center.
The intention was to split these into three equal lots.
The original platting here, they originally platted 50 foot lots.
But they were all developed more in the 35-foot to 40-foot range as they developed, so that the original platted designs are in there but they are kind of lost between, as you saw on the shot before.
So they all range within 35 and 40 feet so they are consistent with that.
The issues are really going to come down I think to -- we have stickies here for the issues from parks -- from transportation, about changing the note on paving the alley.
The petitioner is willing to pave the alley from this site to the adjacent Main Street which is about five or six lots down.
They are going to improve that a lot, the alley ail the way down because we are putting the parking at the back as it should be in this area.
And there are a couple other notes we are putting on here.
One of them is the gate on the site plan, we didn't indicate the size of the gate next to the refuse carts, and we are putting on this that we have a 4-foot wide gate, and in addition that there would be a paved 4-foot walk that takes at round from the storage area, which is hidden from view of the street by fence, around total main walkway so they can take them out to the street without rolling them across the grass.
And the other issue, something came up at the monthly west Tampa redevelopment agency meeting, was they wanted -- and actually we volunteered -- to put a note on the plans that we would allow -- we would bring the plans, architectural plans prior to submitting them to the city for permits to ensure the character of the buildings was consistent with the neighborhood.
Telling them specifically that these elevations are conceptual for scale and for rhythm and that sort of thing.
Our intention was to have the front porches, which we are going to have.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that a condition?
>>> That's a condition we are putting on here that the west Tampa district asked.
I don't think they put in the their memo to you.
But when we met at their monthly meeting I told them we would put it on the site plan.
>> So that's going to be, what, number 16?
>>> I don't know the number.
Only that the two remaining issues, I think, one is going to be the side setback at the existing house.
Again, the west Tampa redevelopment agency wanted a five-foot setback.
And what we did is trying to keep the three lots equal at 33.8, 33.8, 33.8.
The existing house is not dead center of the property.
So it shifted where there would be a 3-foot setback on the east.
But what we did to make up for that is we made a 7-foot setback on the new house proposed to the east so we would have a combined 10-foot setback, which is pretty much the traditional for the west Tampa district.
On the other side of the house, existing house, it's skewed so there is actually an 8-foot setback on that side of that house.
So there is still a 10-foot side setback cumulative between the two.
And we don't think that actually the three foot is inconsistent because there are a lot of houses in west Tampa as you probably know that have three-foot setbacks.
To avoid continuing, we would like to try to keep the property line as it is, although if you would like we could continue and replot that site plan and move it over two feet so we could have a 5-foot and 5-foot set back, just have three different size lots if that's your desire.
The other issue is with parks and the existing trees.
The 50-inch oak just off the site to the east is actually the main grand tree that they are concerned about.
What's good for us is if you look at the photograph of that tree, it's a very vertical tree.
It's not that typical horizontal life oak that you have to come in to make it work, you have to cut these limbs the size of someone's head.
It's very vertical.
And a two-story building would fit underneath that without trimming any major limbs at all.
They would only be minor limb trimming on that tree.
And that's the 50-inch oak.
That's located right here.
It's just off the property.
And with where we are encroaching, where the Parks Department is having an issue, is this corner right here.
And actually the same thing happens on the 28-inch oak over here which actually by adding up the point system isn't a grand tree.
Our intention is to keep it, incorporate it into the design of the house.
But the same situation happens here and here.
And the problem is, we have the alley and it's a 14-foot wide alley.
By the time we bring our required backouts for the garages, which as you know is 26 but we are asking for a waiver of 24, which gives these garages -- gets these garages as close to the rear property line as possible.
So both of these possible are as far north as we could push then.
And the problem is that little corner on the grand tree encroaches within that 15-foot protective radius of the tree.
What we did with the rest of the house is pull it back so we are not encroaching on the protected area for the rest of the house creating a courtyard effect this way.
And the same thing on this one.
This one being a little further into the lot.
We have a pretty large encroachment area right here.
And then actually a little on the breeze way.
This is just a narrow breeze way, connected garage, which I guess is a detached garage, to the main part of the house.
So we have a pretty large area right there that is encroaching on the 28-inch tree.
But we would think, we have a pretty extensive history of building South Tampa around very large trees and we have all the tricks on locating the foundations, and suspending gray beams and things to protect the trees.
And we really want to incorporate it into the courtyard effect with that tree.
But the garage, the dimension is set so it cannot go anywhere else.
The only solution would be really to make it a one-car garage, and only have one parking space for those two houses.
That would be, I think, really the only way to solve the problem because the parking has to be in the back.
It can't be in the front.
The house in the middle, we are just proposing -- it doesn't have any tree issues but we are just proposing open parking because we didn't want to build a garage on the back of that old 100-year-old house.
Two open parking space that is pack into the alley right there.
That's all.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to be speak on item number 4?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1923 West Pine Street in the city of Tampa, Florida particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily to PD single family residential, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Discussion on the motion?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to say this looks like such a great solution to in-fill housing.
It respects the style.
I really can't wait to see it.
I think they are going to be great.
And protects the trees.
>>> The best we could.
I know we are close on that 20 inch tree.
Anything else we can do.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What is the start date?
>>> They are renovating the existing house now.
We are months out on getting any plans done so it's going to be a little while.
>>ROSE FERLITA: It starts as soon as we vote, Mrs. Alvarez.
(Laughter)
>>CHAIRMAN: Other questions?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Any additional notes?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, he did.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Motion to open number 5.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>> The zoning request in front of you is an existing McDonald, located on the west side of Florida Avenue.
Directly across the street from it to the east is a Kentucky Fried Chicken.
And a K-Mart.
To the north of it, there is a Kash N' Karry and Wendy's.
The site is located south of waters and north of Sligh Avenue.
Petitioner is requesting that it be planned to PD, a planned development.
It is staying a McDonald.
It is located at 8214 North Florida Avenue.
The City of Tampa water tower is located to the southeast.
There is also a proposed site at the rear of the tower park just for your information.
The purpose of the rezoning is to update an existing McDonald restaurant with the new McDonald that would allow parking and drive-through use within the rear 60 feet of the site that is currently an RM-24 zoning area.
This would eliminate a split zoning on the site.
The plan shows a building that contains 4,167 square feet, approximately less than the existing McDonald.
Staff findings, the petitioner has agreed to place a note on the site plan that exhibits of interior areas of the proposed McDonald and the restaurant capacity calculations will meet the life safety code.
The petitioner has agreed to redesign the typical McDonald prototype restaurant model with accustom model that is more in keeping with the architectural style of the neighborhood.
The petitioner is combining two zoning districts into one planned development which can be done within the urban mixed use 16 land use designation.
City Council must consider the rezoning case and I would attach section 23, 321, the purpose of a planned development.
There was only one objection, from transportation.
The petitioner complied with that by adding a note that the parking shall comply with if life safety code at time of permitting.
And applicant added that to the plan.
Staff has no objection to the rezoning request.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There is a located to the west -- do you know what I'm talking about?
>>> Right behind.
>> I think people walk through there.
And I just wanted to make sure that it's configured safely, and the site plan for.
>>> Maybe petitioner can address that.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
There is also a village to the south.
It used to be a Shaky's Pizza Parlor for those who remember way back when.
I think she did a good job of what was in the immediate area, the commercial uses on each side.
This is just north of the Hillsborough River and just outside the Old Seminole Heights neighborhood association.
It's good to know that the McDonald people, Caspers people have listened to staff comments as far as trying to design something a little more in character with the surrounding area.
I think that's very progressive in something like that instead of just having a regular McDonald.
The land use classification for this entire area as you can see is mixed use 60, community mixed use 35, residential 20 to the west, reflect the multifamily use that Ms. Saul-Sena had talked about.
It is consistent with the surrounding uses.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of staff.
Either one of you.
Tony or -- there was reference to design, better design, that sort of thing.
And is there a rendering?
I assume this is a PD, right?
What makes it different and better, the rendering?
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> P.J. Shaw.
The engineer.
Address 2463 enterprise road.
I'm the engineer representing the owner and the petitioner McDonald corporation.
And the first question with regards to the housing project to the west, where there are people who at the current time utilize or have pedestrian traffic into the McDonald.
As you can see for wheelchair there is an opening, a handicapped ramp, and the hash mark that is in the color used and McDonald is proposing to use the current handicapped access that is being used by the housing authority, or the housing complex to the west.
As far as the rendering of the -- The package you have indicates several renditions, the elevation which indicate the McDonald sign, and it's basically indicating the replica of the two towers that -- the water towers that are in the neighborhood.
So it's not a final rendering in a PowerPoint presentation.
But the other iteration, if you see from the left side, the tower is shown up on the top of the roof here.
So it shows the right side, the left side, the front elevation, the rear elevation.
And basically indicate the tower as the symbol trying to blend with something that's in the neighborhood.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Isn't the tower round?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>> I'm not trying to make excuses for the architect but I think it was one of the concepts, and I have the applicant address if the council desires, he could address that they would be able to make it a round one.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's okay.
It doesn't have to be round.
>>> If I could make some points.
I would like to make some points of the plan.
This will be a better site than the current operating site, because as any one of you who will be through there, considering it's an old site, the traffic circulation is not what we would have in a typical McDonald.
The drive-through does not have a bypass lane.
The site in the current has three driveways.
The proposed site proposes only two driveways.
And it's considered a safety upgrade for the driver design.
The site will have more area than.
The trees are there and we have not completed the site plan per the code requirement.
There will be additional trees put on there, the sidewalk is going to remain as it is.
And the traffic improvement is there.
The pedestrian handicapped facilities are going to be maintained.
So it's an improvement to the existing site.
And we would be willing to answer questions of the counsel or from the audience.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question for stormwater staff, who happens to be here.
>>> Alex Awad, stormwater department.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sort of the stormwater department efforts, commercial redevelopment efforts, encouraging the developer to, you know, to improve the local stormwater conditions as opposed to just kind of leaving the status quo.
Are there any stormwater concerns on this site?
>>> No, we have looked at that.
And they will be reducing impervious area on-site, for one.
And there is no drainage, flooding concerns that we have known in the neighborhood.
So it's a positive thing that they are doing at this point.
>> You have taken a good hard look at it?
>>> Absolutely.
>> Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 5?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's my pleasure to move the new improved McDonald location.
Move an ordinance rezoning the general vicinity of 8214 North Florida Avenue from classification CI commercial intensive and RM-24 residential multifamily to PD restaurant with drive-in window, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: He wants happy meals for his children.
>>ROSE FERLITA: He wants happy meals for him.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This site is located at 1505 west Hillsborough Avenue at Hillsborough Avenue.
There is an existing retail store on the site that faces Hillsborough Avenue.
Part of the site is accessed off of hills bow drive. The petitioner proposes to rezone 1505 west Hillsborough Avenue.
Split zoning with a portion zoned CG -- as you can see, the zoning map.
The two lots adjacent to Hillsborough, CG with the lot number 3 at the rear, RS-50. The petitioner seeks to unify the zoning under a planned development to accommodate the expansion of the existing retail business.
Currently the site is occupied with two buildings which contain a total of 3,833 square feet.
The older structure is shown as removed with the proposed 915 square foot building on the remaining structure on Hillsborough Avenue, the total on-site will total 2,993 square feet.
The plan also shows six parking spaces to support the expanded retail use.
The parking will be located on the eastern side of the existing building, even as the building is expanded the business will be located approximately 65 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property.
And I'll show you some pictures.
This is the existing business.
And to the rear, this is the existing open lot.
There's The RS-50 property.
I have shared my staff report with the petitioner.
And there are two objections.
The waiver needs -- a waiver needs to be requested for backout to the right-of-way. The backout with the space closest to the dumpster needs to be noted.
The sidewalk needs to be constructed on grade to protect trees.
A site plan note needs to be added.
The petitioner did provide me with sticky back notes that address these issues.
And I will let him go into further detail about those.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
This comes to you as another animal in a previous hearing.
This was a variance -- not a variance.
This was a special use for off-site parking.
I'm sorry, do you have a question, Mr. Dingfelder, for staff?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a PD?
>>> It's a PD.
It's a PD.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are there handouts?
Just one?
69 okay.
They have them now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sorry, Tony.
>>TONY GARCIA: That's all right, sir.
As I said, this conforms to special use, off-site parking, with the -- what the applicant is proposing to do in the prior request was to supply some additional parking on the northern lot of the three lots that are requested here.
Most of the uses, actually all these uses over here are commercial uses.
This is CMU 35.
Heavy commercial 24 on this corner.
CME 35 here.
Here we go.
The ABC Pizza is here.
This is a church.
This has a pretty big parking lot, also.
What we saw as far as good points, there's only one residential lot on here, I believe, and I don't believe they had any complaints from the one resident that was on the site.
In doing the new PD they would be creating less impervious surface than currently on-site.
Planning Commission staff has no objection to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Michael Horner, 14502 north Dale Mabry Highway, representative of Shaun Treadway, the applicant.
I think staff gave a pretty thorough presentation.
We are before an S-2 presentation, parking lot on that back lot zoned RS-50.
I can just point to the.
These are the three lots in question. The third northern lot is zoned RS-50 and we were proposing a separate lot behind the building.
The PD is before you this evening. The PD removes that parking entirely from that RS-50 lot based upon the encroachment concerns.
And we have gone back and removed the radiator shaft. The second one was a separate radiator shop.
We have removed that entirely.
As Heather indicated we have decreased the building size from 3833 to 2993.
We have now saved the trees.
We have increased the pervious area.
If I can just show you the plan, the submitted drawing.
This was the -- this was the S-2 plan, council.
Some concerns were expressed.
We do have a lot line to the north.
She indicated complete support as long as we do a 6 foot concrete wall.
We have a dumpster back here.
We have parking.
Free standing spaces.
A drive aisle.
The Forest Hills drive.
We have now amended the plan to the PD.
Which allows for only a pond in the back.
The dumpster is still separated from residential lot.
We are maintaining all this natural vegetation and constructing not only a 6 foot wall, but also 6 foot concrete wall, the other adjoining wall.
We have a waiver, because we are just shy of the backout area.
I think, Mr. Dingfelder, you will recall concerns that we expressed when we amended the PD.
But we have been working with Calloway and we believe she would reduce that waiver.
We have also taken this driveway and channelized it.
So we don't have anyone turning left to go north on Forest Hills.
Back to the zoning map.
I'll show you a few photographs.
You can see the CG extends all the way to Mohawk and extends back the entire strip of the block.
I'll give you some photographs.
This would be the front, which is facing west from Forest Hills, based on the D.O.T. acquisition.
We have lost the entire front parking and driveway.
This is now looking from Forest Hills essentially south west towards Hillsborough.
This is all drop curb, the existing commercial use to the east, this radiator shop is now gone.
This is the radiator shop that has now been removed from the site which is behind the structure we are proposing.
This is the commercial use directly to the east and you can see these parking spaces all of which back out directly to the right-of-way of Forest Hills.
A better shot of that driveway, a sea of massive asphalt.
We of course will conform to meet the landscape code.
This ironically is to our northwest.
As we go further toward the residential, this is a PD zoned property -- excuse me, CG.
It is an open storage.
3-strand barbed wire fence.
Some cars on blocks.
A maintenance facility.
No screening.
So you have direct view lines.
That's why we want to do the 6 foot concrete wall to separate.
And then we can see right through.
I think that's taken directly south through Mohawk.
So we think we have met the burden of the PD.
We know that we had some issues we had to address.
Come up with the best plan possible to address impervious surface reduction, increased separation to the residential, moving the parking lot from the back.
We don't need 12 parking spaces as we had before.
A final 1 and 2 employees.
6 would work just fine.
We are CMU 35 in the comp plan.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It says in your notes you will comply with the sign standards.
But on your site plan, it indicates a steel sign.
I just wonder if that was an existing sign, which I believe wouldn't conform to the sign standards.
>>> That sign will continue as a legal nonconforming sign.
>> So that doesn't conform.
>>> I guess it would not conform.
>> Do could you get rid of it?
It's really unattractive.
>>> May I consult with my client?
>> Sure.
>> He indicates he will be happy to remove that sign.
>> I really believe you are going to be upgrading this property.
>>> No question.
>> And that would be good.
>>> We'll make it a package deal, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>> Other questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to item number 6?
Would you please come up now and speak?
>>> Good evening members of council.
My name is Frank Greco and I have been sworn in.
This has been before you once before.
And there was neighbors directly to the north of this subject property.
And there were neighbors who were on Mohawk.
There was some question at the time, if the petition was authentic.
I can assure you that it was.
I represent the members who disapprove of this plan for this particular property.
Because of its potential use.
The use is going to be a pawn shop, used jewelry, and a gun shop, which the last time we approached you, there were seven pawn shops within a two-mile radius of our neighborhood.
Since then there's another pawn shop that has opened up.
There are now eight pawn shops.
That pawn shop that just opened is on the corner of Armenia and Wishart.
This will be another pawn shop in our neighborhood.
And I understand that it is a relocation of a current pawn shop for this owner.
But, however, it is a use that is not consistent for our neighborhood.
And we disapprove of this type of use, because of the element that it will bring to our neighborhood.
They were going to ask for special use for that residential piece of property.
They are not going to use that for parking this time through a special use request.
They are simply going to rezone the entire piece into a PD zoning, which means that it would become commercial anyway.
And it will be used for commercial use, when it was residential before, it will not be residential anymore.
These are the issues that we have within the neighborhood that we are trying to deal with.
We are an emerging neighborhood.
We are doing a lot of things that are trying to upgrade our neighborhood.
And we feel that this use will not help us in this area.
>> I'm John Anderson.
Ways in.
I have two issues against this zoning change.
One is, my house is located two blocks from this proposed change.
That I feel is going to greatly decrease my property value.
I'm at 5502 River Shore Drive.
It's right on the corner of Mohawk and river shore.
Like I say it's two blocks away.
I feel this change will greatly decrease the value of my home.
And thin, too, approximately two and a half years ago, my house was broken into.
I was able to recover a portion of the items that were stolen.
I recovered those items in pawn shops.
All of the items that are recovered were recovered in pawn shops.
I don't think this is a direction that we want to go.
I don't think this is a direction our neighborhood wants to go.
In the third item that I have, approximately a half a block to the east is a daycare.
That this wasn't mentioned.
And I don't think that this is the kind of development that you want close to a daycare.
There's a church across the street.
We are trying to upgrade our neighborhood.
Our neighborhood has changed a lot since I moved there in the mid '80s.
We had a lot more crime there.
We had a lot more derelict homes.
People are starting to take care of their homes now.
Property values are increasing.
I think this is going to hurt the neighborhood.
And I hope very much that you will deny this petition.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> Prida, North Rome Avenue, Tampa.
I am also sworn in.
Councilwoman Saul-Sena, I agree with you.
I was very surprised at the effort they made to upgrade the site from an elevation standpoint.
What does concern me is the pawn shop issue.
This is a neighborhood.
I've lived there since 1980.
It's a neighborhood that really, Major Castor came to one of our association meetings and said it was one -- had the least crime rate, neighborhood with one of the least -- lowest crime rates in the city.
Pawn shop, gun shop, used jewelry shop does concern me.
Obviously, the PD doesn't address that.
But I do have some concerns about that.
We are kind of a neighborhood that's kind of on the cusp here.
We can go one way or the other.
And I just feel like we'd like from my perspective and other neighbors that I have spoken, to we would like to keep it moving in the right direction.
And a pawn shop is not in character with what the rest of the neighborhood would like.
So thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Good evening.
My name is Ron Martinez, I live west Mohawk.
I have been sworn in.
I live practically about five or six house as way from that pawn shop.
And I completely disagree with the development.
The neighborhood has been changing, has been improving.
Recently with the increase in pawn shops around the neighborhood, which he forgot to tell you there's a pawn shop a block away from there.
About a block away from the daycare.
Two days ago somebody broke into my house, tried to break the lock, key broke.
That was not an issue a couple years ago.
So I think encroaching into a residential neighborhood it will make a drastic impact in this neighborhood.
I have a two-year-old daughter who is soon going to be on the street riding her bicycle.
And I do not want to be influenced by the people coming into the pawn shop.
Again, they are trying to encroach into a residential neighborhood.
So I completely disagree with what they are trying to accomplish.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> David Snyder.
I live at 5460 river shore.
And I also don't want another pawn shop in the neighborhood.
There is a pawn shop two short blocks to the east on the corner of Park.
And just like they said, Major Castor came to our neighborhood watch meeting and she said that pawn shops are not monitored the way they should be.
She said they are supposed to take driver's license and fingerprints, and they don't.
And the police just don't have enough people to take care of that.
And we just -- don't want a pawn shop that close.
We just don't think it would be good for our neighborhood.
I have seen that neighborhood really improve.
I can remember early 80s, there were strip clubs along there and stuff.
And I just want it to improve.
We don't think a pawn shop is going to help the neighborhood improve.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
I understand the concerns of the neighbors.
But there's another area in terms of this petition that concerns me as well.
Melanie, maybe we can recount what kinds of problems transportation thinks you may have with the backout into the right-of-way, et cetera.
>>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
I just looked at this note tonight.
I haven't seen of before now but I can show you what my concern is.
This one and this one, they can back out.
This is turning left into here.
How do they get out?
They have to back out.
They have to back out.
Make that maneuver.
I thought -- and I discussed this with Mr. Horner on the phone and we had a conversation and I thought he understood.
I was thinking that they maybe would be able to make a backout maneuver like this.
So the car can come this way.
I never get to talk to him, and the note really doesn't address this.
The 22 foot here, this backout faces this.
I don't know if the stormwater pond can be moved anywhere. Is that where it drains?
I haven't looked at any of that.
I just saw the notes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Horner: Madam Chairman, I'm a little disheartened by some of the comments I'm hearing tonight but let me address a few.
First let me go to the opposition comments.
I suppose a dichotomy would be that the existing business that's closed down, the parking, with backing all over the parking lot and backing into the right-of-way, would be a preferred use, and improved with additional landscaping, compliant, new sign, architecturally designed.
I spoke to the police department before.
They don't like empty buildings, boarded up buildings, buildings that have no occupancy.
If you want to question the operating characteristics of my client between now and second reading, contact the police department detective and they will tell you about Shaun Treadway.
He has been working with them for a number of years.
Notice they have not brought in any violations, any concerns, any traffic -- excuse me, any criminal violations, trespassing, because there are none.
In fact, my client was instrumental in running down a Super Bowl ring heist discovered a Super Bowl ring that was stolen a few years ago from a Tampa Bay Buccaneer.
My point is that condemnation pulled this property into a position where it's currently undevelopable.
And if the commercial zoning remains, which it will, with or without the PD, the business continues, and cars park wherever, we thought, let's address the problem head on.
This is a net reduction of a concept, want to get specific, because it's in existence, closed, and then relocated from another place.
And they talked about -- this is an encroachment into a neighborhood.
We filed to address the impact of actually doing parking, to address Ms. Calloway's concerns, the neighborhood came out and said, do not encroach in the neighborhood.
We then went back to square 1 and filed this PD to remove all the encroachments into the neighborhood.
You saw on the photograph that I put on the overhead to the east, that is entire dropped curb.
Not one raised curb anywhere.
Where all those cars, 25 whale slots, all those cars back up into right-of-way.
And T-Notes we took are from Heather's report.
We filed them in sticky.
If we are allowed to move the pond and you don't mind more impervious surface we'll go back and take another look at it.
We think we have certainly addressed the impervious surface, the encroachment issue, the operating characteristics of the use, the signage, the neighbor to the north, the only neighbor to the north is one that is supportive.
I understand people live blocks away and they have general concerns of pawn shops.
I have a real problem talking about use versus use versus use.
It is what it is.
My client stands behind his integrity.
He would be more than happy to bring testimony in that regard.
This is an improvement.
This is an improvement that this area needs.
It's not going to be an ice cream shop.
I'm not representing Tanya's Ice Cream.
It will continue to be a pawn shop.
He stands on his recommendation, his integrity working with the Tampa Police Department.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are there any questions, council members, Mr. Harrison?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Question for legal.
Morris?
The current zoning on this is what?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The current zoning on the two lots closest to Hillsborough Avenue, I believe it's CG.
And then there's a lot that would be included in the PD.
I have to go back and look at it but I believe it is RS-50.
So three lots.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The building that's there now, is there a building there now?
>>> Yes.
>> So if it opened tomorrow under whatever business classification you can put in there?
>>> Correct.
>> And nothing -- and on the current site, right?
>>> Correct.
>> And does this zoning classification allow a pawn shop?
>>> I believe it does but I'll defer to our zoning folks.
It does?
Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Along those lines, I was looking at section 27-326 of our code, which is the PD section.
And it says that uses including adaptive reuse shall be found to be arranged to ensure complete compatibility among themselves, and with adjacent existing or future land uses, and with existing or future public facilities services and utilities.
So always we want to ensure in a PD that there's consistently and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
We have had testimony from this neighborhood that says a new pawn shop is not necessarily consistent or compatible with the neighborhood.
But Mr. Massey, back up on the witness stand again, is that use that's a legal use under the CG, is that the type of consistency or compatibility that we can legally concern ourselves?
Because we always want to, you know, --.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I recommend, council, that would be a tenuous basis for this because it is currently -- allowed on the portion of it where the structure is located and with the additions proposed.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
We need to close.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1505 West Hillsborough and 5405 from district classification CG commercial general and single family to PD retail sales, shoppers goods, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did I get a second?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I second it just because I don't see where we can really go with it other than to just deny it.
And it stays as is.
And we can have something that might even be less attractive than a pawn shop, I guess.
It is.
But unless someone can make an argument here to sway me, I'm not sure that there is a whole lot of basis to deny at this point.
>>ROSE FERLITA: John, you wanted to say something?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, I have a little bit of concern about the backup issues that Ms. Calloway brought up.
From these more than two spaces.
And I'm just wondering why -- did we close the public hearing?
It appears to me if those other spaces come back down that.
>>CURTIS LANE: And then go out forward that the northern spaces might be able to as well.
So I'm with Mr. Harrison.
I would like to be able to deny this and say we don't want any more pawn shops.
But have we been advised by our legal staff, that's not a basis, a legal basis to deny this.
And without that, now that we have to look at is that there are significant improvements to this parcel, improvements with landscaping, improvement was the sign removal, improvements with the parking situation, improvements with stormwater treatment.
But overall, this site is going to be improved.
And so I'm very sad to have to support this.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me throw out a potential basis for denial.
And that is the fact that they are requesting a PD, which is supposed to be compatible, feel very strongly from the neighborhood that the proposed piece is incompatible with the reinvestment in the neighborhood.
The petitioner is requesting a waiver of a number of things.
They don't have enough parking spaces, that some of the parking spaces are problematic, and I think that if you look at this on a whole, we can look to our staff report where the development review committee has objections.
And based on those objections, I will not support the petition.
And I would encourage you all to deny it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I understand some of the dilemma that is Mr. Dingfelder and Mr. Harrison brought up.
However, when we go back to looking at compatible issues and consistency issues, there's always a risk.
If we don't support something that's before us that's allowable, and the area remains vacant, yes, it could be something else worse.
But I think if I were in that neighborhood I would be hoping that somebody else gets an attempt to do this.
I don't think this pawn shop is something that's going to improve the existing neighborhood.
And I think it's incompatible and I still have some concerns about the transportation issue and the waivers that are required.
So based on those arguments, I cannot support this either.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
A motion and second on the floor.
All in favor say Aye.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion to approve?
>>GWEN MILLER: She read the ordinance.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>> Saul-Sena, Harrison, Ferlita, white, no.
>>GWEN MILLER: The motion failed.
Okay.
(Applause)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can speak with Mr. Massey for a moment, please.
Council, if I can, I'm sorry.
I had an opportunity to confer with Mr. Massey.
I just want to affirm, per charter it takes 4 votes for an affirmative action.
Council did not pass the motion.
The petition is still out there.
My suggestion would be to add finale to it that there be a motion at this point to -- unless it's council's custom not to do that.
But in order to make a motion to deny.
I would recommend that.
Because that would be an affirmative action of council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move we deny this petition based on the objections raised by the development review committee, because of the inadequate parking spaces, the access to right-of-way, the potential effect of the sidewalk on the trees, and the testimony of the neighborhood about the incompatibility.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor signify by saying eye.
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you.
Item number 7.
>> Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Loyal, land development.
Before you is a proposed site that is located north of Busch Boulevard, on the corner of Annie and 30th street, directly across the street from Busch Gardens.
And on the site plan, an 18 hundred foot roller coaster.
And Cathy Coyle let me know on Sunday that she was 200 feet up in the air, she looked over and saw this site and checked it out.
So she was right there.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was she screaming?
>>> She was about to.
The site change, the rezoning-s going from RS-60 residential single family to a residential office, business professional office.
The property location is at 2912 West Annie Street and it's converting an existing 2378 square foot residence into a professional office use.
The plan shows 8 parking spaces as required by code.
The plan will comply with all transportation technical standards and will comply with chapter 13 tree and landscape standards.
The parcel to the south is shown on the site plan -- Tampa Police Department substation.
As noted before, Busch Gardens lies directly east across 30th Street.
The most recent structural addition to the park is Sheikra, a roller coaster, in direct line of site to subject parcel.
Parks and recreation staff has reviewed the site plan dated May 23rd, 2005, and as the following comments: The forestry section, forestry section Dave Riley noted no grand trees on-site.
However he suggested that the parking lot design be accommodated to protect the minimum radius of protected trees.
I spoke with the petitioner before the case tonight, and he's willing to make changes to the three parallel parking spaces shown in the top portion, feet wide, and give an additional three feet to protect those trees.
Also, there's a parallel parking space, going to make pervious material to accommodate protection of the 20-inch oak.
Greenways and trails park department said the subject parcel located immediately adjacent to proposed conceptual trail on 30th street that will include bike trails, bikeways and sidewalks.
The bikeways and trails citizen advisory committee is in the process of updating the master plan to include this conceptual trail.
We have included the findings of fact, section 23-325, to provide district which balance a need for nonresidential uses in in-fill areas, while protecting the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent residences and to recognize urban conditions and encourage rehabilitation of existing structures and redevelopment.
There were two objections listed.
We wanted a note added to the site plan that would say that it would comply -- the site would comply with section 27-325, urban design criteria for parking facade and signage, and the petitioner has placed that note on there.
And also the note to accommodate the parking, the parallel parking and the three parking spots to make them compact spaces.
Staff has no objection to the site plan.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there already office or commercial intruding into this residential neighborhood?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's vacant right now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm looking at your aerial.
>>> Right.
To the south, on the rezoning map, you will see there is a Tampa Police Department substation, and do you see commercial general.
>> To the south.
>>> To the south, I'm sorry.
>> But in this aerial that you're showing me?
>>> Directly to the south is the --
>> The little parking area?
>>> Yes.
>> But all the other roof tops that I'm seeing on the aerial are just single-family residential?
>>> That is correct.
>> And where is your driveway going to come in?
I guess the developer --
>>> the petitioner can address that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Planning Commission?
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
To shed a little more light, Mr. Dingfelder, looking at the future land use map, and see that that particular strip has a land use designation of residential 20.
Since it does have a land use designation of residential 20, it meets locational criteria, as it is within 250 feet of a collector road or higher.
30th street as well as Busch Boulevard are arterials, classified as arterials.
So it does meet that particular criteria for consideration upon residential use.
Also, looking at the aerial, not only do you have a TPD site, you also have a fire station to the south.
There are four residential uses adjacent to it, to the west and a residential unit, which is, I believe, most of the concerns is regarding the -- there are some trees to the rear of the site, and north geographically of the home, roughly between the single family residential home.
It appears the access will have to be onto -- there's a retention area right over here.
So access will have to come onto any street to access the proposed office.
There is a bus stop here, and also a bus stop here, Hartline bus stops.
This is adjacent to a regional attractor, Busch Gardens.
It will be directly on the 30th Street.
And you also have nonresidential uses, even though they are -- they are public uses, which is the PD station and the fire station.
They are nonetheless nonresidential uses, also.
So we thought since this was on the periphery, we didn't see a tremendous amount of impact to the residential area.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Petitioner.
>>> Good evening.
Andrew baker, 911 west baker street.
I have been sworn.
I'm representing Mr. Lenzo Canty and Shoron Canty.
Mr. Canty was running a strip sent -- renting a strip office for his office.
This is an existing structure.
But he only wants to relocate his business and stop paying rent into a building that he owns.
This is a professional office.
He's a CPA.
And the members working in his business is his wife and son.
So it's a family business. This site is actually unique in that as was pointed out of the location, residential along Annie street, this is the existing structure.
The petitioner has no plans to change the structure as it is today.
And as you can see right there in the backdrop you see the Busch Gardens.
This is 30th street, on the picture here and the existing sidewalk exists.
There is distance from there because of the retention and swale.
What makes this unique is the police station that exists.
This is a major substation so they have cars going in and out which is directly -- this house looks directly at the parking lot and the ingress egress for the police station.
Additional to that again, I just want you to get a feel for it.
As you look right out the window, out of the front yard.
So this is screening, people coming down enjoying the ride, every day, time after time and time again.
Also, you do see the bus station is right there.
So there is a bus stop there where people are there, waiting for the bus and so forth.
So this is a unique situation.
We have an individual that was previously renting space, commercial space leasing.
Has a structure here that he's going to leave the residential integrity.
He just wants to relocate his CPA business, professional office, into a structure he owns on a major roadway of 30th street, by a regional attracter of Busch Gardens.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a good explanation as to why -- I'm comfortable with that.
The only question I have is as you come into the backyard for the parking, what do we do about buffering the next door neighbor to the -- whatever direction that is, to the west?
>>> What we have again is the structures here, has an existing driveway, that it won't be changed, won't be moved.
What we have done, this actually aligns with the police station to the south of there.
So what we have done is we have simply come in here, we have the handicapped spacing, come around the house, putting the trash and so forth containers that were recommended over here, by the handler, providing angle parking in that particular area, and took that around the trees to protect the trees, and coming back around and out the front.
>> But it's that west side of the -- if I'm the next door neighbor to the west, and my rear yard -- rear yard is going to have cars swinging around.
So how do you buffer that?
>>> We have a 6-foot privacy fence along the northern property line here.
And then we have the existing fencing and stuff over on the other side on the west.
So privacy fence along the rear.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I think we need to keep in mind, too, this is going to be an accounting firm or something of that nature.
I don't think it's going to be a convenience store.
There isn't going to be that much in and out traffic.
>> I agree with you.
One of the things is when you go to accounting, you have an appointment, they can't see more than one person at a time basically.
So the parking is actually more than what -- what we need as far as scheduling your appointments on accounting.
>>KEVIN WHITE: And I'm sure there's now more than two or three cars at a time.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Anyone like to speak on this item?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2912 east Annie street in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning classification RS-60 to RO business professional office, providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
Any further discussion on the motion?
All in favor signify by saying Aye.
Motion carries Nam unanimously.
Item 8.
Need a motion to open.
>> So moved sneaked.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
The site is located at 402 south Melville Avenue at the corner of Azeele and Melville.
As you can tell there is a lot of mixed zoning in the area.
There's RM-24, RM-16, and to the north of the site is commercial general zoning.
Petitioner proposes to rezone property at 402 south Melville Avenue from residential multifamily to single family attached in order to develop four town homes on the site.
Two of the units will be accessed by west Azeele street.
One will have the access on south Melville Avenue.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold on one second.
Site plan?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
Proceed.
>>> The other will be accessed by an alley on the west side of the property.
The maximum height is 45 feet.
Petitioner, the data in my staff report, petition -- the date of my staff report, petitioner had not submitted for site review.
It was sent to me without anything and just one elevation, not designed for the entire building, yesterday.
Therefore, land development has an objection, because at the time of my staff report there was no elevation, and staff still maintains and O an objection because there is not enough information provided for this elevation drawing.
There are no other objections, however.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a couple of questions.
Number one, the aerial that you showed us has a house on it.
Was that a historic house?
Was it protected?
What's the story?
>>> This is the aerial that Mrs. Saul-Sena is referring to.
And the house, yes, is restored but not protected.
It is not part of the historic district, or --
>> You don't know of the discussion but there's been a lot of discussion about whether to make this a historic district.
And we keep diddling about it and keep losing his pork fabric.
Second lyrics it appears from this aerial that there are some significant trees there, and the site plan doesn't identify the existing tree survey.
David Graham had no objections.
And so, therefore, there are existing trees, but Mr. Riley didn't feel like the proposed development would affect those trees.
>> Lastly, is stormwater addressed on here?
>>> Alex isn't here tonight.
Stormwater has been addressed.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Come on up, Alex.
>>> Good evening.
Alex Awad, stormwater department.
As far as my notes are concerned, I do not believe they address the half inch retention on-site.
So at this point, we haven't seen a plan that did say that they would address the half inch retention.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the things I don't understand, there is a note there that says retention on-site.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But it doesn't say where.
>> Goes on to say retention may be located... And I saw that note on another plan as well.
But I don't know what that note means.
>>> In permitting they would have to resubmit a site plan that at least looks like this, and if they cannot meat the requirement for development because of the trees, because of the roots, they would have to redirect roof run-off to a location that they could comply with, providing either underdrain or something to that effect.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right now it shows on the site plan, vaulted retention.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What does that mean?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So they are putting a parking lot on top of the stormwater, I would assume that's what that means.
>>> Right.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Says retention may be relocated at time of permitting.
>>> Well, let's try to explain.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I can explain in my presentation if you'd like.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't go far, Al.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Staff only got the drawing yesterday?
>>> That's correct.
>> How can we proceed?
Have you had a chance to review it?
>>> No.
I have been asking for continually a week prior, actually longer than that, for an elevation from Mr. Michelini and it has not been provided until yesterday.
Therefore my objection.
>>CHAIRMAN: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
It seems in this particular area of town, which has had a rather interesting history of development in the last five or six years, we probably are going to have to look more closely on these areas on a street by street basis.
That being said, from a land use aspect, future land use aspect, the primary land use category, predominant land use category particular area is residential 35.
CMU 35 along Platt, Kennedy, and this is residential.
Heavy commercial 24 to the east on Azeele on the north side.
This particular segment of Melville based on the massing that you can see does have quite a bit more masses, has occurred the last four to five years in the area.
So I the request is much more consistent than other particular segments of Melville as far as the character, the type of uses that are on here.
As you can see, most of the uses that are existing on this particular segment are more characteristic of what the request is.
So it is consistent as far as -- and compatible as far as type of uses that are being requested for this particular segment.
There is one residential use directly across the street from the site, approximately 80% of all the uses on this particular segment are of a similar nature.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of Michael Preston.
Let me show you first of all, since you asked, what's on the site currently.
It's a two and a half story apartment building with six units in it.
It's asbestos sided and it's in very poor condition.
It's been vandalized significantly.
It's not what you would call a traditional historic fabric structure.
The access for the parking on the current structure is in the rear, and you can see that -- you can see the half story in there where it's two and a half stories.
The building is about 35 feet in height, and we were requesting on this petition the living area on the structure to be 35 feet in height, and then the architectural feature was extending another 10 feet above that.
And that's why the request was for the 45 feet.
This particular design recently received an aurora award for design excellence and in-fill housing in transitional and historic districts.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold that one second.
Show me where you are saying the living space stops and there's ten more feet above it.
I'm having some issues with that.
>>> There's a flat roof somewhere along in here.
And then this is a parapet wall.
And then you have the tower that extends beyond that.
>> But that's a total of 45 feet.
That's not ten feet.
>>> I'm not sure what the scale is here.
And that's one of the things the city staff is indicating to you it not -- I don't know that this is a scale drawing.
I know on our petition that we have indicated that the total height to be 45 feet to the top of the roof.
The staff has also indicated to you that they wanted more time.
Would you prefer that we defer this?
Do you want me to move forward?
What would you like me to do?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think there's residents here that probably want to speak.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to ask petitioner, on the site plan it says green space total a certain amount, 27%.
Is that 27% of the overall square footage, or --
>>> 27% total site.
>> Is that what's required?
Are you asking for a waiver?
>>> There's no waiver requested on the green space.
We're providing 1045 square feet per unit.
750 is what's required.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Dingfelder, don't believe there's a staff report on the doc agenda.
Is there in there?
I'm not pulling it up on the screen here.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: There are no waivers being requested for this project.
The access, each of the units, and way showed you was the elevation on Melville street.
There are two units that face Azeele and one unit faces the alley.
I don't know if you can see that very clearly.
What the note means on the site plan is the stormwater retention area may be relocated, that based on the engineering, specifications that we have to adhere to for both SWFWMD and the City of Tampa, we are depicting what we believe is the best area for underground vaulting for the stormwater.
If SWFWMD comes back to us and says, no, we want you to shift this over a little bit this way, or we want you to reduce the size of this, increase the size of that one, when we go to permitting we don't have the latitude to do that unless we put the note on there.
The intention is not to move them in a wholesale manner, but since these are underground vaults you wouldn't see them from the street anyway.
We are also providing enough space for guest parking for two spaces behind each of the driveways and the garage.
We have two-car enclosed garage spaces, and then there's room for two additional guest spaces behind each of the others.
You would have to back into the right-of-way in a traditional, in a residential manner.
But on the property, we have 18 feet from the edge of the driveway property line before you get to the sidewalk to the building.
We've agreed -- and you can't request a waiver on anything from stormwater anyway, so we have to meet those codes.
We have to meet the landscape codes.
There are a number of multifamily and townhouse developments adjacent to this directly across the street, or diagonally across the street.
There's one house that's immediately adjacent to the south.
And then there's a townhouse project immediately following that.
Anyway, the objective was to remove a structure which was not contributing to the neighborhood, and in fact was a rental apartment complex, it did not in any way attract normal what you would call homeowner, occupied residences, and this would convert those previous six rental units into four homeowner, occupied units.
And in order to break the massing and scale up, we faced the buildings so that you had the fronts going in different directions.
It's a corner property.
And as such, it enabled us to allow one unit to face Melville, two to face Azeele, and as I mentioned one on the alley side.
The trees that you mentioned and had some concern about are palm trees, and there's Australian pines and some other things, I can show you in the photographs here.
None of them were considered to be significant.
And there weren't any significant oak trees that would deserve to be preserved.
I can certainly pass these around.
I guess that concludes my presentation.
I certainly will be happy to answer the questions.
Would you like --.
>>GWEN MILLER: There are any questions from council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 8?
Would you please come up and speak now?
>>> Kelly McGary, 505 south Melville, and I have been sworn.
You know, there is a group of us who is trying to recreate the Courier City neighborhood association, and we have been working diligently over the past several months to do that.
Probably last six months.
And this area, you know, in the past four or five years, I think it's accurate to say that there have been tear downs of structures that are tragic, historically contributing structures that are not protected, and we are working towards that as a group.
However, here we sit without that protective status.
I think that there is no way of this protected use.
From what little I can tell I went total city to review the plans from as little as I can tell from that snapshot that. Is not in character with the neighborhood.
To state that, it's consistent with 0% of the structures around it.
I urge you, those of you who have not been through this neighborhood, to drive through the neighborhood.
Because I don't think that's accurate.
And I don't think it's an appropriate use.
The current structure, it is not the most attractive building.
I'm the first to say that.
And I don't think we as a group are opposed though to these properties.
I think we would love to have the type of architecture that we saw tonight developing the properties on pine street.
Parking in the back.
Those are the house that is we live in now and that we are maintaining, we put our garbage in the alley.
That's how these types of developments were developed and these huge structures now, with parking all along the front, I can tell you because we already have a few in our neighborhood, folks block the driveways-w our strollers, we are going into the street, with people speeding by.
I mean, I have knocked on the door.
I was going to bring you back a picture to show you tons of cars parked there on a regular basis.
I tried to do the neighborly thing and ask them to move them and they don't.
And I think it's begging the problem when you put the garage banks on the sidewalk frankly.
I think going from the current zoning to the new zoning is a step back in the height.
I think that the current structure is just over 3,000 square feet.
Let's not put a 10,000 square foot structure on this site.
We have not heard from the developer.
None of the neighbors have heard from List.
At least come work with us.
We are not unreasonable.
We recognize positive redevelopment.
We just want to have the opportunity to contribute to that.
So you will see some pictures of the area in question as well, pictures did you not sigh from petitioner.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Mike Yestic, and I do have some pictures for you.
This is the house that is directly south of the site.
This is the house that's directly across the street.
And this is the house that is to the north.
Bungalow styles that don't look anything like the proposed Mediterranean.
This is also a view looking down Melville, the 300 block of Melville.
And you will see three bungalows.
And this is on the other side of the street.
Another three bungalows.
My house is in the center.
This is what my house looks like now.
I bought it eight years ago.
I spent four years renovating it.
It did not look pretty when I bought it so I can understand it being an eyesore.
But the houses in this neighborhood don't come that way.
You have to put the time and the money into fixing them up.
And so I disagree with what the gentleman said about just tearing it down.
It's not pretty, yes.
But it can be rehabbed if the right person comes in and works with it.
My issue with the proposed structure is that area right now is notorious for flooding, whenever there's a heavy rain.
The building that's on there now is 35 feet by 46 feet, 1610 square feet times 2, two levels, that's 3220. If they propose the structure it's going to be less green space.
And I have a big issue with that.
On the heavy rain on the front property.
So that's all I really want to address.
I think the rest of the neighborhood has a few issues to talk about.
So thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Jeff Black.
I live at 306 south, and I have been sworn in.
I thank the council for this opportunity to speak.
I want to address the massing.
Yes, it may have been won awards but it is I feel too large for the area they are putting it in.
Mr. Garcia earlier talked about there are quite a few developments in the area that look like this, and it's true.
And that's why we are here, because like we said, we kind of reached the tipping point.
It's starting to feel like the Courier City canyon as you drive down Melville, with these two and three-story basically rectangular buildings coming right up close to the street, and it just isn't in keeping with the neighborhood.
Like Mike was saying earlier, that area, that particular property is surrounded by bungalows.
And I would like to see something more in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood, and not trying to make it a Mediterranean neighborhood by building these structures.
Also I do agree with Mike when it comes to the water coming down Azeele.
It's pretty intense during a heavy rainstorm.
I think this would also compound the problem by building a large structure like this.
Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Good evening.
I'm Paula Sizemore, 308 South Albany Avenue.
We don't disagree that this is not the prettiest building in our neighborhood.
We would like to see improvements made to it, if it means that the building comes down and something goes in, we would like to see it be consistent with what is presently in our neighborhood.
Mr. Michelini mentioned that the architecture of the drawing, which is the only thing that we've seen, is consistent with the development in the neighborhood.
The problem is, the issue is that the development is that's becoming consistent and is not consistent with the historical element of the neighborhood itself.
For example, this is 2201 Horatio.
A bungalow.
Next to one of the consistent development town homes.
What we do not see in the renderings that are presented to you, to make your determination on, is scale.
This is 2001 DeLeon on the corner of Melville.
The ubiquitous tower.
This is the same building taken from the corner of Melville.
The renderings do not show what we see when we walk our dogs, when we stroll with our children and neighbors.
This is the side of that same building at 2001 DeLeon.
The buildings that come up in our neighborhood may have facades that pass muster when they are presented to you, but the size of the build -- sides of the buildings that we see as neighbors are industrial, they would be marvelous dormitories, they are not consistent with a residential neighborhood.
We do not disagree with improvements in our neighborhood.
But we want to see them be improvements rather than detractions.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A question.
Did you all elect a president?
>>> We have an interim president, Kelly is -- who spoke first.
>> She didn't show up that night?
>>> No, we threatened that of her.
>> Is she officially listed in Shannon's registry?
>>> Yes, I believe so.
Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is April Black.
I live at 306 South Albany.
That's just around the corner from this proposed site.
The building isn't that pretty right now.
But it does have a lot of green space.
It has a lot of green space as you saw in the picture.
In the back.
It has some green space in the front.
It won't have that green space anymore.
It will not be able to soak up that water from the rains.
And the worst problem for me, everyone addressed most of the problems, the other side of the building, the height.
But no one else has addressed the parking problems that we have in the neighborhood.
Azeele street on Friday and Saturday nights is backed up all the way both sides of the street, people park from Howard Avenue in order to get to those restaurants and bars all the way down Azeele street.
They are parked all the way to this building and beyond.
And if you add another eight cars there, which adding four more units, it's going to add eight more cars.
Those cars are not going to park in that garage.
Who parks in their garage, now?
Nobody parks in their garage.
If one person parks in the garage, maybe.
But that car is going to be on the street.
It's either going to be on the street or in the driveway.
And there's going to be four of them.
You know, right now, the residents that live there are parked in the back.
We never see their cars. The cars parked on Azeele are the visitors to the neighborhood.
We are going to add these eight cars to this neighborhood.
We are going to add more congestion, more mass, and an ugly structure.
All we're asking for is something that looks like the neighborhood.
And it's not quite so large.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Elizabeth Devlin, South Melville Avenue.
I have not been sworn in. I got here late.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
>>> I do.
I okay.
I just wanted to raise the question of balance in the neighborhood.
We're not a city historic district.
We are sort of on the edge of one and talking about being a city historic district but we are part of the national historic district.
So that's part of why I imagine the developers really want to come in. So we are sort of historic but unprotected.
And so we have right now the historic fabric is about 60% of our neighborhood, historic fabric buildings.
And every time one gets torn down because they are unprotected, it goes down obviously.
So I would imagine as a developer, you want to come into a neighborhood that has some of the historic fabric, and so you get to be like, oh, you get to live in this really cool neighborhood in a nice historic neighborhood but in a brand new building, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, but the problem is the developers are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and destroy the historic fabric of the neighborhood before we get the protection of a designation, and then they are not going to want to develop there anymore because the thing that's great about the neighborhood, which is the historic fabric, will be gone.
So I just think it's really important that even if they are going to bring in new development, which I'm not opposed to development, but if they are going to bring it in, it needs to not detract from historic fabric but actually contributor at least be compatible with historic fabric that's in the neighborhood.
So I would ask that you reject this proposal and ask them to come back with some kind of a development that either rehabs what's already there, which is a historic type of building, or come in with a building that is consistent and compatible with our neighborhood.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> Michael Miller and I have not been sworn in.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have you been sworn in in the back?
Would you raise your hand, too, at the same time?
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>> Thank you, council.
My name is Michael Villa, 2009 Bayshore Boulevard.
And I wasn't familiar with this project until I got here tonight on another issue.
I guess my question would be to the developer looking at the agenda, this is an RM-16 zoned property currently.
And they are requesting a PD zoning, which if it's already zoned for 16 units, if the acreage is correct, then my question would be, what's the need for a PD?
Just other than setbacks and height requirements being eliminated?
And I think these neighbors have a very good point.
I travel up and down that street all the time going home.
And I think that it is becoming very canyon like.
And I think that the city needs to take a hard look at what they are doing in districts that look like they are on the fringe of becoming in the historic overlay district before it's too late.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Will you give me your name between?
>>> Michael villa, VILLA.
>>GWEN MILLER: That you can thank you.
Next.
>>> Madam Chair, speaking on this issue does not preclude me from speaking on another, does it?
>> No.
>>> My name is Roger Hedka, historic neighborhood association.
I think what we are speaking about tonight is the neighborhood crying out for architectural sensitivity.
We have every sort of rule and regulation dealing with stormwater, parking, on and on.
Yet what a building looks like is irrelevant to most of the city outside the historic districts.
We must make a change here.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak?
Petitioner?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me say first of all the pictures you were shown were of attractive bungalows that normally -- we wouldn't have touched those.
No one I represent would have touch those -- excuse me -- would have torn those down and replaced them with a townhouse project or anything else.
We are trying to be sensitive.
We went to different architects to provide designs that we thought were compatible.
If it's a design issue, we can certainly go back and bring back an alternate design.
The pictures that you saw were in the 300 block of Melville.
We are not in the 300 block, we're in the 400 block.
The people that got up and spoke were in the 300 block, on the next street over on Albany.
If you had seen the pictures -- and I'm sorry I didn't bring them this evening, of the 400 block you would see that there are a number of townhouse projects, and apartment buildings in that block.
The removal of this structure is not the removal of historic fabric.
It simply isn't.
Whether you believe it or not, it is an asbestos shingled apartment building.
It is in poor condition.
It has six units.
I mean, normally, you would think that replacing that with four homeowner occupied residential units would be an asset.
We can't waive drainage.
We can't flood the street.
We have to retain that water on the site, and we have to deal with it.
We have a variety of different permitting agencies we have to go through to do that.
With respect to the massing and the height, that's why we went to a design that doesn't put the garages all on one side, or doesn't put them -- it breaks the facade up so that it's much more attractive.
Previously, a number of individuals had indicated that they like the architectural features of the towers.
So we put them on there.
We certainly can take them off.
They are not part of a living space.
It's not air conditioned space.
It's simply an architectural element.
If you like the bungalow style, we can certainly go to bungalow style.
We are simply in the process of trying to redevelop an area, and be very selective about what is removed and what is not removed.
We made commitments to the City Council.
We have been on tours with the historic preservation people and made commitments to them about what was vital and what was not, and they clearly marked on various maps which structures they felt were appropriate for removal.
There are plenty of triplexes, quadplexes, eightplexes, all over in this district. The land use designation is res 35.
And residential 20 in some of the areas, but predominantly residential 35.
It anticipates higher density development.
When you get to individual bungalows that are worth preserving, they are preserved.
The value of them is inherent in the fact what they are and where they are located.
We didn't ask for waivers on green space.
We exceed the parking requirement by providing the additional parking for each of the units.
We have two spaces plus two in the driveway and that's before you get to the sidewalk.
If you want to go back and look at certain issues, we can certainly do that.
When this group was organized -- and I'm not sure exactly when they were organized -- we notified the appropriate homeowner association.
We did it in a timely manner.
It's part of the record.
And I didn't hear anything about any concerns regarding this project whatsoever until this afternoon when I got a call from one gentleman asking me, was the hearing going to go forward, and could they have a look at the site plans and the elevations?
It was the first time that I heard anything about concerns regarding this project.
We can go back and meet with them and show them elevations and what we are proposing, if that's the pleasure of council.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I was going to suggest that we continue it for a period of time to let you meet with the neighborhood, take some renderings, take some elevations.
You know, you guys can do better than that.
Looks like my four-year-old did it with an Etch-A-Sketch.
You guys can come up with something that I think would give them some feel for what might be next to them.
And that's really what I heard, that we just want some different renderings, we want to have a little more say in what this thing might look like, and ultimately we may not go forward, but everybody I think deserves an opportunity to sit at the same table and say what would make everybody feel more comfortable.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We would be happy to go back with a design review with that group.
And discuss all those alternatives and try to explain the site plan and what it means in terms of the neighborhood and the significance of the codes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do have an issue on the notice.
You signed this seat about the affidavit attesting verification on July 25th.
>>> That's correct.
>> And you noticed Mr. Kane who is purported to be the president of the association.
Kelly, was July 25th, were you guys already the association by July 25th?
That is by who?
>>> City.
>> Which agency?
>>> Zoning.
That's not my handwriting.
>> You were given this on what date?
>>> When I filed the petition.
>> Which was in May.
But on July 25th is when you signed this.
And you handwrote in front Cane's name.
>>> That's a --.
I guess you are on notice from this point forward that there is a new association.
Okay.
>>> But the city has to tell me who that is.
I can't make assumptions about who it is.
>> All right.
>>> I'll be happy to notify them.
>> From this point forward you're on notice.
At that point, there was transition.
Okay.
But I don't think you should criticize them for not being involved because they didn't get written notice.
>>> No but I --
>> I'm not asking.
I'm just making a statement.
Mr. Harrison, generally speaking, I would agree with you 100%.
But there is no -- there's no secret about what this structure is that is being proposed.
Okay.
Because there are already several of these in and about that area.
There's no doubt about it.
They look exactly the same.
They are exactly the same.
We have seen photographs from the neighborhood of what they are.
You know, they have got little treatments on the front, on the facade, so they look cute.
But then from the back and the rear and all the other directions basically you have got these big 45-foot solid block wall monoliths.
What we have not included in the list that you are mentioning, Shawn, was this neighborhood has objected to the height, they have objected to the massing, they have objected to the inconsistency and incompatibility with the neighborhood, and they showed some beautiful little bungalows that are right around these that are clearly inconsistent.
They spoke to parking problems, because this is so close to Howard Avenue. They spoke to congestion.
They spoke to the national historic district, which I didn't even realize this was in.
They also, in a very good, relevant comment was -- and I don't know where it came from, Roger or somebody else -- was this was Euclidean zoning, this is already 16 dwelling units to the acre.
This is an RM-16.
So if they want to build four units on this lot, they can build four units on this lot with Euclidean zoning, okay?
But it might be something else, other than this extremely large massive project.
The only reason I say all of this is in the open public hearing is because I'm going to move to close at this point.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And at that point I am going to move to deny.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll speak before we close the public hearing.
>>> I would appreciate the opportunity to address the issues that have been raised.
I didn't have an opportunity to discuss that with them.
I didn't even know they had been certified as a new homeowner association.
And it would seem to me that even if there are issues that have to be discussed, we deserve an opportunity to sit down and talk about it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The bottom line is this is the project.
Okay.
If it's a whole new project and you said we could propose bungalows and that sort of thing, then to me, you just reapply, come in with a new project.
But this is the project that's in front of us.
Mr. Harrison, you have said in the past, you know, let's not continue things to death, let's get the project that's in front of us and move forward.
So there's a motion on the floor to close the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita, question on the motion.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Did you second?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I seconded but before I close the public hearing I want the photographs that were seen that were shown by the neighborhood that showed the bungalows, because I want to use that as part of our official record.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: But they are not on this block.
>> They are in the next block and I would like them.
And I can ask for them.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I wasn't arguing that point.
I just want to make sure you --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't think we are continuing this to death.
But I think there was some miscommunication, and Mr. Michelini needs to make that right by communicating with the right group.
I also, in between all of those complaints that Mr. Dingfelder cited which is direct.
I also heard a neighborhood that said they were not opposed to development so long as it wasn't what you were presenting tonight, Mr. Michelini.
So I think that it warrants at least an opportunity for to you come back.
And I think we have gotten the neighborhood's ideas about what they want and what they don't want.
And I think would you go away knowing pretty well that if it's not something that is a little bit more acceptable to them, we probably won't support it.
So I don't have a problem instead of denying it giving you an opportunity to work with the newly established civic association, come back and see if you can make dramatic enough changes to make them happy, then we --.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I have taken these two months.
>>ROSE FERLITA: When you said something about continuing you didn't make the motion?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What's on the table now is what's before you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have the pictures.
Give them to me.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: For future reference, when you have documents like that, just hand them to the clerk and put them in the file.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The next available public hearing is November 17th.
In the evening.
However, the petitioner in communication to me has requested December 8th.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what we've seen tonight is historic.
This is the first time that a large number of articulate, compelled, leaders from this neighborhood have come forward and said enough with these dense, incompatible buildings.
And I have a suggestion for the petitioner.
There is an extremely attractive duplex design that's located on Rome Avenue, next to the commercial part of Old Hyde Park, that doesn't even look like a duplex.
It looks like a single family bungalow.
It is stunning.
It's worth a fortune.
And that, if you can get four units into that, it is a compatible duplex design.
I mean a compatible bungalow design.
What we've heard consistently from the neighborhood, Ohio thought Mr. Gruntle was very articulate when he said he they were crying out for design, they want porches, pitched roofs, elevated off the ground.
I mean, it's not rocket science.
And what we have there now, and many of those I voted against, and some of those I approved because nobody came and spoke out, make me ill.
Some of the existing designs look so bad.
And the scale next to the existing houses is so incompatible.
And I think that the PD rules say the type has to be compatible with the adjacent land uses.
And structures.
And what you need, if we are going to go ahead, then what needs to come back needs to be compatible, needs to be bungalow, materials, green space needs to reflect the pattern of the existing blocks.
And I am not talking about the med-rev things.
I think we heard from the neighbors they don't want any more of those.
If they don't want them, then council doesn't want them.
>>> We are asking for a chance to --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
Elizabeth.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I visited this neighborhood a couple of weeks ago, and I too was really appalled at what's happening in this beautiful little neighborhood with bungalows, and all I saw as I went down street after street after street was things like that.
It's being transitioned into town homes.
And it's really not -- this neighborhood is just not conducive to all this stuff.
And Mr. Michelini, I think you can do better with the design.
This thing reminds me of the German-American club.
I mean, it's horrible.
And, you know, I don't know whether you can go back and make a design that will be compatible to this neighborhood.
But there are lovely homes in there.
And I want to keep that, now.
>>> We'll do the best that we can to come up with a compatible design.
But I need time to develop that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I know you showed us that picture -- I don't want to say monstrosity but that's what it was.
But if you can do something about it, and maybe rehab it and make it a four-unit apartment, maybe that will work for the neighborhood.
Because it's there.
But I don't like this design.
This is a Mediterranean design where these are just lovely bungalows.
So it's either we go to continue or we are going to deny.
And I'll do either one.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: So now where council stands procedurally, there is a motion on the floor to close the public hearing.
That is the motion that the maker made, has been seconded.
That must be voted on.
And if that passes, then you cannot continue it, because the hearing is already closed.
>>GWEN MILLER: I want to say the petitioner is willing to work with the neighborhood and I feel like the neighborhood is willing to work with the petitioner.
I think we need to give him the opportunity, the neighbors and the petitioner, to get together, to sit down and talk about it and tell him what they want, and the petitioner, I know will be able to work with the neighborhood because like we know Mrs. Alvarez say he can do better, he has brought some very good things to us and I know he will continue to do that.
So I am willing to continue and give him an opportunity with the neighbors because they want development in that area, they didn't say they didn't want development at all, they said we want it but they want to make sure it's something that they want in the neighborhood.
So I would be willing to go along with continuation.
We have a motion on the floor.
Close the public hearing
(Motion failed).
>>THE CLERK: Harrison, Miller, Alvarez, Ferlita, White, no.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Did you say December what?
8th?
Okay.
December 8th.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: At one time, please?
>>GWEN MILLER: 6 p.m.
Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have nothing set out that far at this point?
>> No.
>> December 8th, 6 p.m.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I say something?
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that council has been very clear that we don't want anything coming before us where the designs haven't been submitted to the staff, and enough time for them to review it and provide us with a comment.
Tonight, the petitioner had only presented the facades to the staff the day before.
If that's the case, on the 8th, this council will not entertain this.
We won't continue it.
We'll deny it.
I think this is four months away.
You have plenty of time to get with the tree neighbors and design something that's compatible.
And if it is compatible -- and I think if you higher a good designer it's possible -- then it would be supported.
But if you come back with another variant Mediterranean thing it will not be supported.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion to continue.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Thank you very much.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, I have a proposal question for Mr. Massey before we start on the next one.
We saw an unusual situation there where the petitioner in good faith, I do believe, too many prior to signing the attestation, pulled the list from staff, okay?
And got the neighborhood association two months in advance.
Two months later -- and Steve, I'm saying this you did it in good faith and that's why I let it government but I just want to say, do we have any rule or any policy or any -- this seems without precedent.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: It probably is without precedent.
I would say generally what we look to is what is in effect at the time you filed your petition, generally.
And, for instance, you are required to notify persons within 250 feet based on the latest ad valorem tax rolls maintained by Hillsborough County.
Obviously, property changes hands often.
There may be instances where property changes hands after you have gotten your list.
But you usually don't, you know, impact after they filed again.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
Just to explain the process in our office.
Just as Mr. Massey was saying about the ad valorem tax roll information, when the person makes out application to our office, that essentially is the snapshot and time of what is on file with the city as far as the neighborhood associations, and what is on file at the property appraiser's office with the surrounding property owners.
Because from the time that they file to the time when they have to do notice could be anywhere from 30 to 45 to 60 days, depending on what hearing they get.
Honestly for us to keep track and have them come back at some point in the future, to get that information, could be kind of cumbersome, because we are rolling on a four-month calendar.
So it's at the time that they walk in the office to apply, we give them the petition submittal form saying this is who is on file with the city.
Now there is a looking at times when neighborhood associations change or when properties change hands.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: In the case of Mr. Michelini, when I met with the neighborhood on their association meeting they were trying to get their -- Kelly, you may want to talk to this, because right after I talked to her about forming a new association, they were trying to get Mr. Cain, that was the president at the time, and he wasn't a resident.
Is that right?
Do you want to talk to them about this?
Because it's very important.
>>> Kelly: Thank you.
You know, I certainly understand Mr. Michelini's kind of quandary there, and he hopefully acted in good interest.
>> Put your name on.
>>> Kelly McGary, 505 south Melville.
I have been sworn.
Just a little history here.
Frank Cane was the neighborhood association president from everything I understand.
Did he not live in the neighborhood.
From everything I understand and have been told, as a relatively new resident of the neighborhood -- I have been there about a year and a half -- he did not provide any notice that he received to anybody who lived there.
And from what I also understand, he represented the neighborhood's interest as kind of pro development on everything.
Since, you know, that time we have tried to come together, Devlin and I, Libby had tried to contact Mr. Cain.
I think she will tell you five or six or seven times to fry to figure out the status of that association.
When that failed we took in the our own hands to try to pull everybody together.
We have been working on that.
During that period I believe the city went through a process to formalize, or redocument the neighborhood association presidents, that involved sending out a certified letter to those presidents, and in that let are I believe they had to respond and indicate contact information and whatnot.
From way understand from the city, Mr. Cain did not respond to that.
And as a result of his lack of response he was dropped as the president of the neighborhood association.
In turn we met as a group.
I am currently the interim president.
We are establishing ourselves, developing bylaws, and we'll have formal elections, hopefully in the next couple of months.
But that's kind of the history.
And moving as quickly as we can with kids and jobs and you know how it is.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: After I met with them and I told them to get in touch with Shannon Edge, I received a list of the neighborhood associations, and her name was on it as president.
>>> I received a zoning notification a couple weeks ago.
I think I have been on the list for about two months now.
But I don't know the exact date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 9.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm not used to not doing all the cases.
It's getting weird for me.
Catherine Coyle, land development.
Case in point.
I received the elevation this morning.
I figured that's enough said.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
Mr. Massey.
We have a rule.
And it says that you have to get -- she has to get the elevation 13 days in advance.
She received it this morning.
Are we allowed to proceed?
Should we not proceed?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Council has the ability to waive the rule.
But I think Mr. Michelini is in agreement this matter should be continued.
So it may be moot to save it.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Mr. Michelini just noted he would continue the case.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We agree to continue the case.
>>GWEN MILLER: November the what?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: 17th.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public to speak on number 9?
Okay.
We need a motion.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: If there's no one objecting can we have a day meeting if there's no one here to oppose it?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is the S there a neighborhood association?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Bayshore Beautiful.
That's fine.
We'll go to a night meeting.
I didn't realize.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to speak?
Is it okay to change it to the morning?
Let's see what he says.
He's the only one here.
Come on and speak.
>>> I did not swore.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: He's not sworn.
THE CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes, I do. I was just notified about the rezoning to the property, my business, you know.
And I just want to know what's the plan, on that development up there from the List group and what's going to be happening up there. Because I heard they are going to build some townhouses.
And I would just like to know what's going to be doing up there.
And I would like to see that.
>> Are you nearby?
>>> Across the street.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini, what's it going to be?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's let them meet.
>>GWEN MILLER: I want to see if we can do it in the morning.
In November.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to remind council per rules that at council's discretion, the whole section, for those evening agenda items that are required to be rescheduled continued for consideration council shall schedule these items on a future evening agenda item following the petition consistent with the limitations set forth above in the rules, at council's discretion by unanimous vote these cases may be placed on a future day agenda if deemed appropriate and without hardship to interested parties.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: He works in the daytime so the evening is fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: Continue to November 8th at 6 p.m.
The 17th.
November 17th at 6 p.m.
We have a motion.
Did we get a second?
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Item 11 is a continued public hearing.
>> In this case we do have elevations.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The particular site is 1010 South Moody Avenue, you can see the zoning map, located at the corner of the intersection of Moody Avenue, located immediately adjacent to Howard Avenue.
However it is not part of the South Howard overlay district.
The existing site has an apartment building on it, one-story apartment building.
As you can tell it's covered by large trees.
There are large trees at the front on the Moody Avenue side.
And there is a very large oak tree.
And within the -- there's another very large oak tree.
The petitioner proposes to rezone the property at 1010 south Moody Avenue from residential multifamily RM-16 to PD single-family attached. The petitioner proposes the construction of six dwelling units.
Most units have two car garages that will be accessed at the alley with the exception of unit number 6.
Garages have direct access.
The complex has been designed in a French colonial revival style with facades and balconies facing into a common courtyard.
Care has been taken to design the building a round existing grand trees.
Petitioner worked with Parks and Recreation Departments to ensure appropriate protective radii for the trees.
There are there are No particular objections in this particular case.
However, there are some comments.
Transportation has provided a comment stating that there is no guest parking provided on the site.
There are drive pads at the rear of the existing garages.
But if someone were to park there, it would not be enough back-out space so transportation will not count that as a parking space.
So guest parking will have to be on the streets.
And existing grand trees on the site are to be retained and preserved, and staff would like to give kudos to the applicator petitioner for working so closely and diligently on that issue.
In addition, I'll provide on the Elmo a rendering.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
It looks so nice I hate to take it off.
>>ROSE FERLITA: What did you say, Mr. Garcia?
>>> I'm mumbling to myself.
It's almost 10:00.
I'm not as tired as you all.
I know you have had a long day.
That's no excuse for me.
I just said that looks so nice I hate to take it off.
>> I saw you looking and said, oh, it looks so nice.
I thought you were talking about your stuff.
>>> Oh, no.
From a land use perspective, future land use perspective looking at the context of the area, we all know this area very well.
I'm sure most of you do.
And probably all of you do.
A lot of retail commercial uses along this particular segment of South Howard.
New Suburb Beautiful.
Residential 10 here.
Then we have residential 6 here.
And then you have residential 20 along the periphery.
And then of course along this segment of Howard.
CME 35 along this side of Howard, commercial 24.
Transition from the commercial corridor, you can see the intensity is reduced from CMU, res 10, farther into the neighborhood.
Looking at this parcelization over here reflected on the area where you do have town home developments and you have a multifamily development over here to the north, there are a couple of single-family homes.
As Ms. Sanborn had stated there are a couple of duplexes on the existing site.
It is being requested to change that from four units to six units.
There were significant tree issues on the site that had been addressed by the applicant.
Hence no objections by city staff.
From a comp plan aspect the proposed request for single family is consistent based on the land use category and the policies that talked about attached residential uses on the periphery of established residential neighbors.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of Harvey Petty.
I think each of you have a rendering.
The elevations are attached to the plan.
There were significant tree issues involved here.
And what they managed to do is to weave these units in and around the trees, and they've also staggered them so there is one and two-story elements that work very well with the site.
We have discussed these issues at length with the Parks Department, and they have been satisfied.
I think Heather showed you the extent of a number of live oaks.
There's seven live oaks on the site none of which will be touched.
This site, it was very difficult to get the development plan that works with all those oak trees.
There's one cherry Laurel tree and one palm tree near the center of the courtyard being removed but they are being replaced by a landscaped courtyard which you see in the rendering.
It's a very sensitive project, townhouses all around this.
Across the street. This was a conversion of a rental four-plex and it backs up to commercial property.
I would respectfully request your approval, certainly reserve any time that you have necessary for rebuttal.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are there any questions from council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 11?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1010 south Moody Avenue more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential multi-use to PD single-family attached, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 12 is a continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
There are a number of outstanding issues, site plan related, and potentially -- not really elevation related because elevations do pertain to two story building.
I need the petitioner to clarify that on the record. The reason we're moving forward with this is the neighborhood is here.
There are several people that live on Gray Street that have written several pages of comments, and they are here to present and speak to this matter.
They have been here several times.
This case originally came in in December and it's been continued several times.
The plan that you have before you and the one the staff report was written on is dated February 8th.
We did receive additional copies of a plan that was shown to the neighborhood association a few weeks ago which shows a significantly different design.
And I'm going to walk you through some of the issues that we have technically with the site plan.
There was an objection noted on the February 8th plan from the Parks Department about the grand Laurel oak.
Look at the site plan and this is a difference, what you are going to see on the Elmo.
We can zoom in.
There's a 40 inch grand Laurel oak.
On the building before you, they did have an objection.
What the petitioner has done to save the existing home, that is already fitting within the protected radius of that tree.
So the Parks Department has lifted its objection for that.
The issue that has changed is the previous 2-8 plan shows several as you see --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not sure what we are looking at is the most recent.
>>> It is not.
>> Then what is it we are looking at?
>>> The one that I'm speaking to, the new plan, did not meet the 13-day deadline. The neighborhood is here and I wanted them to be able to put their issues on the record, because the issues that staff has are not so difficult that they probably can't be worked out.
I wanted to get them on the record.
As I stated before, this case has been around.
It initially was submitted in December.
It has been continued several times.
And I know that Mr. Michelini has been to the neighborhood association several times to speak.
Bob Allen is here as well to speak on this, and the CDC has weighed in.
So at this point I wanted to get it all on the record and talk about the site plans to get direction from council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have one here that says 7-27-05.
>>> The 7-27 is the new one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 8-2?
>>> 2-8.
February 8th.
>> Why do I have a 7-27?
>>> That is the one -- the issue with you the site plan is dated 7-27 is to be honest with you, I don't know how and why that is dated 7-27.
Gloria Moreda attended a meeting.
I don't know how it's dated that date to be honest with you.
As of yesterday we had approximately three copies of that, that Gloria had brought back from that meeting, and Mr. Michelini went out and made more copies for us.
Nobody has reviewed it other than the Parks Department looking at it yesterday.
In our office.
Acknowledging that it's an existing family home and it's not damaging the grand tree on there.
I know it's a little confusing.
I just wanted to get through this really quickly.
If you look at the 2-8 plan, the major issues that we had for council was specifically the grand tree, that that they're was encroachment on either side, and the Parks Department had an objection.
And the second I shall four staff was that the building was far out of scale with structures across the street.
It has an 88 foot frontage, 88 foot width when the majority of the houses in the street and the neighborhood measure between 35 and 48 feet.
Transportation had a couple of technical standards that they needed to meet but those are the two main issues.
The site plan that was presented to the neighborhood at the neighborhood meeting shows saving the existing family home so it doesn't kill the grand tree.
And now there's two units on this side but the four units moved to this side so we still have amassing issue from a zoning perspective.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is the one we are looking at now the one we should be thinking about?
>>> It is, yes.
>> But we don't have copies of it?
>>> I can certainly give you a copy.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a procedural question.
At the beginning of the meeting, when we went through all of the -- when we went through all the continuance requests, okay, wouldn't that be the appropriate time to say -- and I think we were doing this a year ago, and I don't know what happened -- but to say, Okay, in addition to the continuance requests, we have also received late XY and Z, late site plans, late elevations from the following petitions.
And if we had dealt with that three hours ago, then we would have held to our rule that we were holding to a year ago when we were in the same circle, and you remember it well.
And then we would have told the neighbors, you know, to go home, come back in three months at another time or fashion.
>>> I agree with you.
But I can say this particular neighborhood group has said to you at the other continuance request that they want to know when the hearing is going.
Some of them have been into my office knowing it was going to go today.
One came to see me today and gave me written comments and wanted to speak tonight.
So I was giving them that forum.
>> I think we need to address that at the beginning of the meeting regardless will so we are not in this situation.
Because now we have sort of got the new site plan but you haven't had a chance to completely evaluate it.
>>> Well, I did look at it.
Greg and I sat down and looked at it at this point today.
>> That's not the standard.
All right.
>>> Would you like me to proceed or would you like to continue it?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Proceed.
Oh.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Certainly, this is kind of like the one that we saw at the beginning of the meeting.
We can't really do anything with this because we don't have a response from you.
>>> Well, you Tilley officially do. This particular one has a staff report and a site plan on file.
It's dated February 8th.
>> But that's not the current site plan that's in front of us.
Do we have the power tonight to approve this or disapprove it?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you're asking Mr. Massey.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If you would like the new plan before you, you would be directing them to revise the ordinance.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You haven't written us a report on the --
>>> that's correct.
>>GWEN MILLER: Why don't we just continue this?
When is your next time?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: At this point I think you should hear from the neighborhood.
They wanted to speak.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to continue to when?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It would be November 17th.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Now we are going to go to the audience.
Anyone in the public who wants to speak on item number 12?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Are you going to the audience or to me?
>>GWEN MILLER: To the continuance.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Procedurally at this point in time the hearing is open, the staff has made the recommendation.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I haven't finished actually.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: She haven't finished actually.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's start again.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The four units were on this side.
It shifted to this side.
So they still have the 88-foot mass that we are objecting to.
At most, as a compromise, this building needs to be split and potentially three and three.
I would recommend that it be the two units only, the 44 feet, to be consistent with the other, the masses across the street, the single-family homes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have pictures of the homes across the street?
>>> I do.
This is one of the buildings on the CPTED site. This is the house at 2410.
Across the street, they are essentially smaller, some concrete blocks, some wood.
And this is the one basically directly across the street.
I'm sorry, it's 2417.
It's a couple houses down.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is that, under construction?
>>> No.
It's a compound.
I don't know. It's a single family residence, I believe.
Residential, I believe.
But the majority of the homes are single story.
The other issue is that the elevation that you have attached to the site plan is shown.
As far as the architecture, meets the west Tampa overlay requirements.
However the elevation shows two stories, and the site plan reads that it's going to be 40 feet high and three stories.
So I don't really know what it is.
When I compared the picture versus site plan.
It's tall, I agree.
Finally, the west Tampa CDC, they did a vote to approve the petitioner's request based on the findings of the city staff recommendation, with the requirement that the design is compatible and consistent with the overlay designs and a look at west Tampa.
I read that to say that they are okay with it if staff is okay with it.
At this point we're not.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
I can speak to the case, not necessarily be site specific because they are still asking for eight units which is a density issue, on a long-term comp plan aspect.
Here's Armenia.
This is the -- just to go back, this is the antique place that we talked about earlier.
That's right across the street here.
Here's the armory.
The uses in the area, as Ms. Coyle had stated, do you have single-family detached uses in the area primarily.
There is a couple of older duplexes a little farther down the street on gray not directly across.
So there is some evidence of that as you get closer to Kennedy Boulevard, there is a little more evidence of the type of use that the applicant is proposing.
I think in coming back a couple of times, it is significant that they have proposed a design that is much more consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses that are in the area.
And the area could potentially be an area that is going to transition.
So this is something that I guess you will have to weigh in carefully as far as how you are going to want to see this area of transition.
You do have a lot of aged housing stock in the area that is -- could probably use a little bit of a booth from what's currently there.
The land use category is residential for the entire site so it does support what the applicant is requesting.
It is on the periphery, as it is right along Armenia.
So it is of a lower scale in massing than what you had been faced with like Courier City, so it is a little better from a mass willing scale standpoint, and also from the character standpoint from what they are offering.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a quick question for Mr. Massey.
Mr. Massey, we have a PD development and a graphic elevation and we like that and it comports with what's written on the site plan, can we like pick the one we like?
That's the one that the developer has to build?
What do you do if you have two conflicting pieces of submission by a petitioner?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: You would want to change one of the submissions so that they are conforming, so there's not that conflict.
That would be my recommendation.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me address that very quickly.
It's an error on the site plan.
It shouldn't be reading 40 feet and three stories.
That was a different concept.
That was an earlier concept.
It was quite different.
It was quite different. Anyway, this is an error on the site plan that we can fix.
We have probably had at least six neighborhood meetings on this subject and on this plan.
And it was my understanding almost three weeks ago that when we met, Gloria Moreda attended the neighborhood meeting and I gave her sets of this plan that had been officially received.
But apparently it was not officially received.
But I gave multiple copies at the meeting.
She heard the comments of the neighborhood and was to come back.
They have also been meeting with Thom Snelling about different issues regarding this site plan.
It's a procedural -- and sort of a technical violation of your 13-day rule.
Because there's been a lot of ongoing discussion.
But this site plan hasn't changed in the last three weeks.
We met as recently as last week with the neighborhood group.
And we made a lot of different commitments.
The changes that you are seeing on this site plan are reflecting comments and commitments that we made to the neighborhood association.
I just received a letter this evening of additional things they would like to see on there that we can correct, and we are committing to them.
Let me just put those on the record quick.
Install a curb that exceeds the norms.
They want a little higher curb to prevent cars from jumping the curb and parking on the grass.
Plant 4 inch trees instead of 2 inches trees which we committed to. This is between the right-of-way, the property line and the edge of the street.
And that is to mitigate the visual impact that this might have on any other property.
They are also asking -- and if you look at this site plan from the 27th, we were showing parallel spaces along Gray Street.
We also added additional guest parking spaces in the back of these units.
So we had a one-car garage, we had a one-car tandem space, we had another car space, and there was 30-something, 33 feet between the edge of the building and the end of the property line, which was nearly enough for three-car staff but we didn't count that.
In addition to that, we added four guest parking spaces behind the single-family residence just for anyone that wanted to use it.
We also committed to alley pickup of garbage, and for some reason that note was not clear on the site plan, but we are committing to that.
And the plans that are being presented, the elevations and the site plans that are presented to you, I have explained to them that that becomes part of the ordinance, and we can't change that.
There might be minor modifications but we cannot change these plans without going back to another hearing.
I think they wanted some assurance from the city staff and council that that's true, that we can't change the site plan.
And we've agreed to put any restrictions that they asked nor, the letter goes on, that they agreed to put those restrictions on the site plan in the corrected version, and move forward.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Can you tell me whether this thing is 40 feet with three stories?
Is that wrong?
>>> That's wrong.
>> What should it be?
>>> Well, it's not three stories.
It's a two-story building.
And it's probably 35 feet.
>> 35 feet?
>>> That's normal single-family residential height.
That's the top of the roof.
>> So you need to fix this site plan?
>>> We have to fix the site plan.
There are other issues.
None of the notes that they have asked for are showing up on that site plan yet.
But we will make those corrections the biggest issue that you have to teal with is we are showing parallel spaces on Gray Street which transportation is not going to be supportive of.
The neighbors have asked us to add a fifth space -- I'm sorry, a fourth space in front of lot 5.
And we added those originally at their request.
That I think is what Cathy is asking you about.
We need direction on what do you want us to do, put another space in, take the spaces off?
But everything else, I think, are technical issues which we have addressed and will address in an effective manner.
The elevation that you saw came about, the original elevation that was presented was not like this.
I'll leave it at that.
The west Tampa overlay committee looked at this, reviewed it, and liked it.
The city staff liked it.
And basically we stopped at that point.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's a pretty nice elevation, Mr. Michelini, but I don't think I'm looking at this.
I'm looking at the site plan and seeing the same thing.
Because the building in the middle that the staff objected to is 88 feet, is not one of these pictures.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: No, that's one that we have to correct on the site plan.
>> Do you have a rendering of what that would look like?
>>> We don't.
And quite frankly, I didn't realize the massing of that building was going to be as significant as it was.
>> It seems like bait and switch.
Nothing personal.
>>> We're not doing that.
We didn't understand that that was going to happen.
But --
>> That was going to happen?
That you were going to draw one thing and have something else on the site plan?
>>> No, we committed to those designs.
>> Well, then, are you going to change the site plan to reflect --
>>> yes, there are a number of things we have to change.
>> But the point is to me, you have got --
>>> we are going to split those up.
>> But then that changes everything.
>>> It doesn't change everything.
There are some trees in here.
And I met with Mr. Yurkis about --
>> Are you going to eliminate one of the units?
>>> Already taken one of the units out.
>> No, another one.
I don't know but we need to get the neighbors comments on the record so that I can finish making the corrections.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: There are six units.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The only thing that I'm hearing that everybody agrees on is they like this picture.
And it looks like two houses to me.
I mean, what does this picture represent?
Is this eight units?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: No.
No, sir are four units in those two houses.
Those two structures.
>> There's four units per structure?
>>> There's two and two.
What you're seeing is the two units --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't want to look at that because everyone says we shouldn't look at the site plans.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I can show you on the site plans.
You're looking at the combined two units.
You're looking at this design or this design.
That's one of the issues that they raise.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Go to the neighborhood and say we like this too and make it happen and we can go to the next hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's listen to the neighborhood.
Come and speak.
>>> I would like to make sure that our speaking tonight does not preclude us wherever coming back and talking again.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: First of all, is there anybody here who hasn't been sworn who intends to speak tonight?
Anybody who has not been sworn?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience that's going to speak, please raise your right hand so you can be sworn in.
If you are going to speak.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The speaker has raised an issue as to whether they do speak tonight, and a site plan which has not been presented or reviewed is brought back to council, will the people who do speak tonight be given another opportunity to speak?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe since the plan is going to have to change they would have a right to speak to the revised plan.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: As long as we have that cleared up.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We have no objection to continuing to testify on behalf of this project to whatever comments they want.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Go ahead.
>> Sharon Miller, 2413 West Gray Street.
This morning, on behalf of my neighborhood, I took the liberty of delivering to your chambers, to each of you, a letter of our concern, because we were not sure, and we have not been sure throughout this process exactly what we are agreeing to.
So in order to find out the truth and where we are and what it is that is proposed, I have, with the approval of my neighbors, taken on to see city staff to find out which plan is really a viable plan.
We have had difficulty in finding the truth, and what has been presented to us.
I'm sure on behalf of Mr. Michelini, maybe that has not been intentional, but that's the perception that this process has created for us as neighbors.
We have listed our concerns which we sent to you this morning.
And in talking to staff this morning, we have not had an opportunity to talk to staff and listen to the objections before we wrote the letter.
So in addition to what we have on the letter, we also would like to make certain that in the PD it is a two-story structure and not a three-story structure as listed on the plan.
We also support staff recommendation to take out an additional unit.
Our initial approach with Mr. Michelini, we called the meetings, we went to the north Hyde Park association which supported us in contacting him to get him to come to our neighborhood meeting.
So Mr. Allen has merely been a support on the north side Hyde Park district.
They have not been intimately involved at the extent that they made decisions for us.
We made our own decision.
So being that this is still a conceptual plan for us, and this is our third time coming to speak to this issue, we would like a continuance, but until we get an actual plan that staff, and the neighbors, have worked with Mr. Michelini to develop, I guess we'll have to continue to spend late nights with you.
We want to thank you guys for being as diligent as you have been, and councilman Alvarez, 'n at our next meeting, we will notify you so that you will have opportunity to be with us.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I cannot be there, but I can come and talk to you another time.
>>> Very good.
We can arrange that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Robert Allen, 301 north Fremont.
I come to you tonight as a facilitator.
The north Hyde Park civic association took on the opportunity to support the West Gray Street community.
We didn't know anything about the program before we became involved.
I think there was two or maybe three meetings before we became involved.
They came to us and asked us if we would facilitate, find a place that was neutral and get the word out, and also contact Mr. Michelini.
We took on that role, and that's exactly what we have done.
We kept verbatim notes for each meeting that we held.
There were a lot of controversy, and I agree with some, and some I do not.
However, I don't want to take away from their fight.
I would like for them to present it to you, but we certainly want you to know that we do support that community.
One of the reasons is they had to put themselves together in over a week and a half or two to put together a fight -- a defense, to bring to you their opposition.
And we facilitated, we showed them some things that we had done to some of the past problems that we had, and of course we brought Mr. Michelini in.
And two of the meetings had to be held at my home, because they were very, very short notice of those, and we were trying to accommodate them because they told us it was continued.
We had to meet with them 15 days prior to the next meeting and so forth.
So my home was the next best option that we had to meet.
So that's the role in the north Hyde Park civic association played.
We don't come to you to give you any information other than the fact that we were just facilitators.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is George Luspus, 2407 West Gray Street and I have been sworn in.
Basically Ms. Miller has covered everything that we agree on, the whole neighborhood, that's in the neighborhood watch -- excuse me, neighborhood association.
So I'm just basically backing Ms. Miller and what she's saying.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is Benjamin Berkeley, 1705 state street.
I'm sworn in.
This plan, I kind of like it, because what we have over there right now is not much.
You know, there's a lot of these houses that were over there, dilapidated, the frame houses are probably term infested, and really bad shape.
I don't think they are the kind of structures that would -- that we should preserve some of them.
I don't know if they have any historical value.
But the block houses in the neighborhood are also antiquated.
A lot of the houses over there are probably built around 1950.
And they need remodeling to be up to the today's standards.
This project is one of the first projects that I've seen.
I have been over there for 24 years.
I raised my children over near this area.
And it's one of the first projects that I seen that come along that had some kind of -- it pleases me.
It has some nice architectural features, a lot better than what's been there.
And I'm really anxious to get something going in this neighborhood.
And we don't have a lot of people coming over there, a lot of developers at this point.
But developers that we have had in there have been short sighted.
They built a lot of houses, just for the quick gain, you know, for rental or for sale really quick with the programs, and whatnot.
And they don't consider -- they don't consider the architectural features in their plans, like I think they should.
And I think the growth is coming up from the south, and it's coming so fast that if plan for the whole neighborhood of west Tampa is way behind the rate of growth.
And there needs to be a plan, a better plan for all of west Tampa.
And it needs to happen fast, I think, because the growth is coming faster.
And a gentleman like this is going to come in with all these ideas, and we're just kind of reacting.
I think we need to develop a plan somehow.
And I'm for this.
I like this development because it's something that's
good, and we need this over there in the neighborhood.
But you folks may be right.
And turning it down, maybe it doesn't fit what everybody thinks of.
But I still haven't seen the overall plan for west Tampa.
And I think that's where we need to focus things right now.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Ben Lavar, 2510 Gray Street.
Just want to say that the structures that are there currently, they are hideous.
You know, this kind of improvement is -- it's what I bought my house for.
But I would rather -- you know, the two structures that Mr. Harrison saw, I would like to see like the big picture, like what it's going to look like.
I mean, I think it's going to be a great thing for the neighborhood.
But I also think that as neighbors, we should be able to see exactly what's going to be there, not like two unit, two unit, shopping mall, single-family, now.
We just want to be able to -- just see the big picture.
But I'm all for it.
I think it's a great thing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Keith Peteon, 1737 North A Street.
I have been to a couple of the meetings.
We have discussed quite a bit.
The ones that I couldn't meet, my wife went to.
We have been in the neighborhood since 1985.
We haven't, you know, regretted any of the development.
We have been waiting for it.
We are glad that it's crossed Kennedy.
It took quite a lot for to the come across Kennedy and we're happy to see it.
As a neighborhood association, I'm glad to see the neighbors are showing up to express their opinion.
Varied opinions.
It makes it difficult.
But the whole city is developing.
The whole city is improving.
Some of the statements made earlier about the Mediterranean south houses, they wouldn't be building these if they weren't selling.
Apparently they are appealing to some people, because they are selling rather quickly.
And if they are selling quickly that means they are attractive to some people.
Attractive to some people.
What I would like to see, I would like to see us not set standards that aren't being set for other people.
I'd like us to as a group and as a neighborhood, I don't want to us try to put a standard on something that I wouldn't set for my neighborhood the same house.
A parking standard, a standard for the trash, a standard for, you know, type fence they put up that I wouldn't ask for myself to have or my neighbor to have.
So I just look for us to be fair and equitable in everything that we vote in.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
Petitioner?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We just need time to straighten out the plans, come back with a consolidated plan.
They have already asked you for a continuance, the neighborhood association asked for it.
So that's what we'll try to do.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to make sure that we are not going to see an 80 foot building.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: No.
That's going to change.
It's a mistake on the site plan.
And we'll fix it.
Just like the height is a mistake and the three story is a mistake.
For some reason it didn't get picked up.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A lot of mistakes.
I don't understand how that's a mistake.
I'm okay with the continuance.
It's just Mr. Stetsman does these regularly. Do you them with him regularly.
You walked out of his office, or you delivered this with a four units together.
And you showed up not even knowing that the four units were together?
I don't understand that.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: No.
We saw them together.
But I didn't think about the massing of that particular structure.
We had tried to separate them before.
But we'll figure out how to straighten them out.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, are you going to have different elevations?
>>> We can give you a pretty -- prettier colored elevation if you like.
>> Are they going to look like this?
>>> Yes.
That's what we committed to, and that's what the city staff signed off on.
That's while we were having this series of neighborhood meetings, we had explained that when couldn't make any more changes last week.
That's why we tried to have a meeting three weeks ago, to get all the changes down.
And we marked some up and missed some.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I would like to go ahead and move to continue this.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: With the understanding that it is this that will come back to us in the form of a site plan, or something very similar to this, which if neighborhood approves, and we will have -- there were several items mentioned in this letter from Mrs. Miller.
>>> Right.
I read those.
>> I know you did. So to the extent that everything can be -- has already been put in the record, just put it on the site plan, or we take this letter and we incorporate it into the site plan.
And as far as the timing on that, what do we need, 30 days or so?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I think they are indicating November 17th.
>>GWEN MILLER: November 17th.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: That's an evening meeting.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The elevations that we are very regularly seeing, Ms. Coyle and Mr. Michelini, you have nine units that I think the neighborhood has clearly indicated they want to see not just the front side, they want to seaside, side.
>>> Front I, side and rear elevations.
>> I want to be sure we are putting something in the record that we have an idea what all nine units are going to be.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: We'll have four sided views.
>>> We noted that.
We'll take care of it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to compliment the neighborhood and tell that you your tenacity is recognized.
And it shouldn't take such stick-to-it-iveness but I'm glad that you all have it because I think the resulting development will be much higher quality for all the energy that you put into meeting and requesting and refining.
And it's necessary.
So my hats off to you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor to continue.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Item 13 is a continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
The site plan -- I'm sorry.
The staff report was dated 7-26.
The site plan that you have before you is 8-12.
August 12.
It did meet the 13-day deadline.
>> Dated what?
>>> July 26th.
I didn't have the opportunity to revise the staff report since --
>> So do you have a copy?
>>> I am going to give you the copies, yes.
I'm going to verbalize them.
I didn't have the opportunity or time to actually update the staff report.
The summary that you have before you is generally the same, though.
This is to rezone the southeast corner of 8th street and Albany Avenue.
It is to construct as you can see on the site plan 13 single-family units.
16, I'm sorry.
The PD site plan shows ten units oriented towards north A street.
As you can see on the Elmo, the property, as I said, is at the southeast corner, north "A".
And Albany.
Kennedy Boulevard lies directly to the south side of the block.
North "A" is the first street in to the north.
There are two ten units that force north "A" street.
Six of the units, the two three-unit pods access an internal driveway.
Then there are six units on the rear.
They all access off of Albany.
And then there are four units along there that would have direct driveways.
There is a grand tree that's being protected on-site, stormwater pond designed around to the meet Parks Department regulations.
There are additional guest parking spaces angled to the alley to the rear.
And a dumpster as well to meet the solid waste regulations.
Each unit, each of these units have a two-car garage and there is a one-car garage in each of these.
I'm sorry, they are two-car tandem.
It looks like a one car but they are in tandem, inside the building.
All the notes have been added.
All the technical requirements that were listed in the staff report objections have been addressed for solid waste for subdivision standards for the parks and recreation and transportation requirements.
The one issue of concern for council to consider in this, and we can hear from the neighborhood association as well, is that once again this is an area that has typically 40-foot homes, they are all apartment buildings and multifamily at the end of this block to the east.
If you look at the aerial,, they are all single-family facing essentially here, single some two story buildings across the street, multifamily towards the east, and a commercial corridor obviously along Kennedy.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold that for one second.
Directly across the street looking at this project is how many units.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 10?
>>> 13.
>> No, don't go too tight.
>>> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Directly across the street.
>>> Right here?
In line with this?
One, two, three, four, five.
>> All little single families.
On the side street on Albany, three little single families.
I just wanted to put it in context.
Go ahead.
>>> The usual you that zoning staff, land development in reviewing this, again it's the massing.
This is 87 feet.
This particular structure is in the rear of the property, obviously adjacent to the commercial.
As you look at the residential to the west, you are seeing the one side.
But this is a very large mass.
But the one that we mainly have concern with was the four-unit building in connection to the three unit.
The architect and petitioner is here as well.
This is the elevation looking at the building.
Let's see.
I have photos that I took.
I'll have to look.
I believe they are in the file.
Anyway, that's the staff concerns from land development.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are these all garages?
>>> No.
The garages, you can see these four blocks right here, these four.
Those are the single -- garage coming out of each one of these four units.
Each one of the six there is a courtyard area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Those are rear-loaded garages?
>>> Yes, they all access off of --
>> Why aren't all of them rear loaded garages?
>>> Because of a grand tree that's here.
There wasn't the ability to extend this any further.
They would have had to remove the grand tree at that point.
>> And that's are how tall?
>>> They are 35 to 40 feet.
I can't remember off the top of my head.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say --
>> I only have the height.
>>> I'm sorry, it's 35 feet.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say that as a council member, I feel at a disadvantage when I don't have a written staff report to refer to, because it's helpful.
But in the written staff report that I do have it says that you have objections.
Is that the summation of what you just shared with us?
>>> The technical objections on the report were lifted as I stated from solid waste and transportation and Parks Department.
The concern that is remaining is the massing of those units on north "A".
>> The massing of the units, the -- the relative compatibility of what's proposed existing in the neighborhood.
>>> Yes.
>> I just want to say that I really -- I know that it's hard.
I know that you are dealing with things at the eleventh hour.
But it's so helpful to us to have your comments in writing.
>>> I do agree.
Unfortunately, and this is really isn't an excuse but I have been other on vacation the last week and just didn't have the to do it when I came back today. I do apologize.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a clarification.
You said you used the term concern, okay?
Well, what happened to the word "objection"? Is it an objection or is it not an objection?
>>> It would be an objection.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>> Oh, by the way, I apologize. I did give you the CDC comments as well, passed them out. The committee is in opposition, to petitioner proposals, strongly feels it will set a precedent that is not consistent with the look of west Tampa.
The committee is also concerned about the bulkiness of this proposal.
This came from Mike Ramos group of CDC, I got it this morning at 11:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Looking at the over head you have several land use categories in this.
Kennedy Boulevard, Albany, of course Howard, just a couple of streets over to the west.
North "A" street.
This is all residential 35, decreases in density for residential 20.
This is all CME 35.
This is all urban mixed use 60.
This particular area, this is the first project of its kind that's come in with this type of development.
Of course, you only see this type of development on the southern periphery of Kennedy Boulevard.
Now we finally transitioned east of Armenia, north of Kennedy.
This is the first time you're seeing this.
So that is why I believe they have had so many meetings, and Mr. Allen is trying to be sure in representing his area of north Hyde Park that whatever comes into the area, I think they would like to see new development in the area but they would like -- I think they would like this to set the standard which is why they have had so many meetings.
The land use category supports what they are asking for.
They are .89 acres so they could potentially build um up to 30 units on the site.
They are ask only asking for 16.
Parking is internalized of the site with the exception of four units on the south base.
We have initially requested in a previous site plan rather than regular driveways to create more green space on the south side of north "A".
I would be of the same opinion as Ms. Coyle from the site specific aspect as far as seeing the massing.
You have three open, three open.
This is on north "A".
And then four units.
So the biggest mass of the three structures that you have is farthest into the neighborhood and it would be nice if it could be three units, three units, three units.
We would like to see that.
I think in an ideal situation, to accommodate us with that. We understand they had to design this in a certain way to accommodate the design feature mainly because of the grand tree on the south side, and also they put retention on the south side.
This is an area of potential transition and there are some opportunities for development in the area.
I don't think the north Hyde Park there is total opposition to having this type of development in the area, but I think they are going to be very vigilant as to the very particular style that you are going to see coming in.
We didn't object.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what I don't understand.
Your initial comments over here said, predominantly single and multifamily with small yards, with large driveways forfeit townhouses, found consistent for this project due to the projection -- protection of the grand tree at the rear of the parcel.
But it says this development pattern should not be encouraged along north "A".
>>> As far as the driveways continuing down that street there.
Because you could have another project that comes in where you could have internal circulation coming in through the alley.
>> Whatever happened to single-family homes?
Why is it all of a sudden we are seeing so many developments?
>>> I am not the developer, Ms. Alvarez, but I understand your concern.
I have to go by what -- and I understand also how pained the decisions are that you have to make as council members in some of these areas based on trying to preserve the fabric.
In some of these areas such as this where you have the land use and supports from a long-term aspect, it's along the Kennedy Boulevard area, it's along the periphery, it's consistent with what the comprehensive plan allows as far as single family attached units.
It's not internal into the neighborhood where you are going to have more of an adverse impact potentially.
The parking is all internalized.
The ingress-egress is off Albany into the site.
The only concern we had was the driveways along the north side, on the south side of north "A", and the four units.
We ideally would like to see three units on that eastern most structure that's there.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tony, you and I usually agree on a lot of these things but I can't agree with you and I have to ask you, what happened to objective D-3?
Objective D-3 of the comprehensive plan that you were the guardian of says that the implementation of a compatible, integrated development pattern in the city shall be achieved in mitigation efforts, inconsistent with long-range plan, then D-3-1 says generally development redevelopment shall be integrated with the adjacent land uses through the creation of light uses tore creation of complementary uses.
And when I look at this aerial, and I'm seeing what appears at least from the roof tops to be lovely, well-kept single-family homes.
And Mr. Allen is shaking his head in agreement because that's his neighborhood.
But I don't understand why.
And I had to cajole Cathy a little bit to acknowledge her objection to this and I'm going to cajole you, too.
I don't understand, you know, just because Kennedy is there doesn't mean we need to throw away that neighborhood to become all multifamily.
And it's a slippery slope because the minute we do this one, then a month from now when the next one comes in and next one comes in and pretty soon, they say, well, that's the character of the neighborhood because we have let these go down the slippery slope.
>>TONY GARCIA: That's a point well taken, Mr. Dingfelder.
And if I may respond to that.
I met with Mr. Allen, went to one of their initial meetings down there. Basically that's why we are saying you need to look at this carefully.
Just because I am not going to object to it doesn't necessarily mean you have to follow my recommendations.
Of course, you haven't followed a Planning Commission recommendation 100% of the time in past meetings and that's understandable, because you have to look at these on a case-by-case basis.
The way the comp plan is written, what it supports and allows, day case, is not necessarily reflective of the individual opinions that may have that feel that they are immediately impacted 24-7 that have to live there 24-7.
This is something that I imparted to Mr. Allen at that meeting.
So I was just saying this is the comp plan the way it's written allows consideration for this.
You know, I can't come out and say that it's inconsistent with what the comp plan allows.
That goes more into more specificity within the land development codes, and your staff is saying as far as Land Development Coordination is concerned.
>> I recognize we have an R-35 land use category, and I think we need to address that in a lot of these areas.
Because way keep running into a lot of these same situations where it is inconsistent.
Even so, the test has to mean something.
And it doesn't mean enough then we have to bolster the text and do text amendments to put in some of these design standards that Roger was talking about earlier, to strengthen up this consistency, compatibility language.
Because otherwise all we do is we spend three times as much time here tonight as we need to because we get plans that are not consistent and not compatible with the neighborhood.
>> I agree.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So if we strengthen up our codes to ensure that the developers are well aware what our expectations are, then we won't have to spend as much time here.
That's my soap box.
I'm sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Horner: Well, with that preamble, counsel.
I'm Michael Horner.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You are going to be sorry you were the last one.
>>> After I heard that I'm not sure I would like to continue.
But we believe in the project we have before you tonight.
And first Michael Horner, 15402, and the project developer who spent thousands of hours and dollars trying to come up with something they feel represents the best architectural fit that works for a town home development, given the surrounding characteristics of the property.
I guess I'll negate my intro here a little bit and jump right to Mr. Dingfelder's comment.
I'm a little concerned about when I hear what happened to single family.
I've been practicing in this profession for 25 years.
I served as the chairman of the land use appeals board for ten years, certified planner, and when a client walks into our office, we tell them, there are rules, and provisions, and laws that we have to commit to.
We cannot go in and amend the plan because we feel it's appropriate.
We cannot file an attached unit type of product within a single family detached zoning.
But we also have to do a zoning development that is completely consistent with the comprehensive land use plan.
And part of that decision-making process, the first thing I do is pull out that land use plan.
And I can assure you, if it says res 10, I'm not filing attached development.
If it says res 20 I'm not going to provide for commercial office development unless it meets certain criteria exemptions and access.
So when we have an existing zoning district of RM-16 that is not legal nonconform, that is not in the last year or two that's been there historically for a number of years, with a comp plan designation of res 35 all we can do is advise our clients, this is what we can do right now.
What can we do to make it better?
And if we pull the petition and develop under RM-16, we drop two units, we have the same mass, we have more driveways, I don't know if that's the answer.
If there's a comprehensive plan amendment forthcoming and going to be a down-zoning process, you know, perhaps that's something we'll have to be cognizant of.
At this juncture, we have tried everything possible to meet the intent of the comp plan, the zoning district, and the commercial influence of the neighborhood starting at Kennedy Boulevard.
That being said, we have gone through a long process, and I know it's late night and we're all tired and I have been fighting a headache for the last couple of hours here.
But my clients have gone through a number of plan iterations of engineer staff, architect, hired Chris Miller, three our four different times, had five, six, seven different meetings with the neighborhood association.
Kudos to the people that have come through and stayed with us.
You know, Bob Bower is an incredible person.
He opens up his house.
He stance up and talks to us about issues.
We have been to every single one.
Even when I was five minutes late jumped in the car, missed my daughter's gymnastics.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I throw this at you?
>>> Sure.
>> These are duplexes.
There's four units right there.
>>> I can't really see that.
>> This is what Mr. Michelini proffered.
It's one Mr. Michelini proffered earlier on what was that, Gray Street?
You know, I agree that perhaps everything doesn't have to be single family.
But those are duplexes.
Okay?
Those are duplexes that look like single family.
So when you're driving down the street, at least if you look on the right side, you see single family.
Look on the left side, you see what looks like single drive but it might be a duplex.
They are rear loaded from the alley.
You might not be able to get as many units crammed into this parcel as you would hope for.
But it at least you would have something that from the street has a consistent and compatible feel to it.
And I don't think that Mr. Allen or any of these neighbors would have any objection.
Could you put that on the overhead?
I don't think they would have any objection to something that looked like that and functioned like that.
>>> I'm sure they wouldn't.
In fact we have had very positive support comments to our elevation.
And in fact the -- you're referring to the document that I probably haven't seen.
So Ms. Saul-Sena, if could you share that with us.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is from the design committee and it says the committee is the in opposition to the design of the petitioner's proposal, and strongly feels it would set a precedent that is not consistent with the look of west Tampa.
The committee is also concerned about the bulkiness of this proposal.
You know how there's an overlay district in west Tampa?
>>> Yes.
>> This is from that committee.
So you must have talked to them because you said you talked to everybody.
>>> Ms. Saul-Sena, we have not received one phone call.
We have had seven, eight, nine meetings.
We contacted everyone in the association.
We are not in the overlay district.
That's why we are not a mandatory contact.
It not on our association contact list.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I want to make sure.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's a factual issue of staff.
If council wishes to inquire.
I would just caution council to allow the petitioner to make presentation and hold questions and dialogue towards the end of the presentation.
In all fairness, please.
Thank you.
>>> Horner: Thank you.
It has been.
I didn't mean to jump own, Mr. Dingfelder.
But I felt I would respond immediately on those comments that you started with.
Let me just say that we have gone through numerous meetings and discussions with the homeowners association.
We have had very positive comments.
In fact, this elevation that we just posed was actually on the front page of the Tribune and had many phone calls, very positive, big articles, client was interviewed, photographs, excellent presentation, had numerous phone calls in support.
In fact, as a county planning department here today, said is this on north "A" that you are talking about that's in the paper?
Yes.
My gosh, I saw the elevation in the paper, that's committing stuff.
So we go back to where we are in this commercial corridor, which IG zoned to the east, with commercial general to the west, commercial zoning completely surrounding us on the south side, and we are the buffer -- we are the buffer to the single-family neighborhood.
Now, I would perhaps feel differently if we had RS-50 zoning here, and this was RM-16 as a carryover, alternative to commercial general zoning.
I understand that.
But we don't.
We have RM-16 zoning.
This is higher area.
This RS-50 is not encroaching on the RM-16.
This RM-16 is not encroaching the CG.
The CG is influencing those evaluations and those reasons for the higher density unit.
That's the value of the property.
If we were isolated on a two-lot parcel, I don't think we would even be here tonight but we are next to Kennedy Boulevard, where being a single-family house at the value of the property, we would be at 5, 6, $7,000 behind a dumpster and alley that's not been maintained.
So where are we in the marketplace when week deliver something single-family attached, extremely well designed, behind a commercial corridor with an alley access, with guest parking.
We go right to our site plan.
In fact, this is one of our first designs.
And we went, wow, this is kind of a difficult petition.
I'm not so sure we feel comfortable about this.
We went to the A.R.C. meeting.
Yes, thanks for saving the tree.
All these driveways line up.
All these alleys on the alley.
Staff had concern.
We understood.
We revisit.
Came back with amended plan, got some massing breakup of the buildings, came Ba came back, saw the wrap-around, guest parking.
And then we came in with internalized courtyard.
I think I heard on the Albany side of the Melville case, we want patios and courtyards in the front, garages in the back and parking.
Well, we have patios and courtyards in the front and garages behind the units.
What does that do?
It gives you this elevation as opposed to continuous driveways and non-stop.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many units do you have stuck together in what I am looking at?
Point to them.
Just point to these.
>>> Three units.
Three units.
Four units.
>> Okay.
>>> Total of ten.
The only driveways we have, we have five plotted lots, if we did single family, Mr. Dingfelder, we would have five driveways.
So we have four driveways with ten units.
>> No, you can still enter single family from the rear.
>>> Not if we have -- and there's no alley here.
I'm just indicating, internalizing the courtyard, we have the front elevation.
If you want to know the alley elevation, it's this elevation right here for these units.
>> And how many original plotted lots?
>>> Five plotted lots.
>> Five plotted lots.
And 30, 40, 50 years ago there were five single-family homes there and now you want to do ten.
Okay.
And you're cramming him in.
And that's why there's too much mass.
And everything else.
But you know what?
Let's let the neighborhood talk, and let's see where we are going to go with this.
>>> As I went through the iterations we handed out the plan we felt was the plan for you tonight. This is the one that has the driveways on the northern side.
We have reduced the setback on the left side of your building ten feet.
We received a letter, I believe, from the Hyde Park association that said give us a building separation of ten feet.
And also increase guest parking.
We went guest parking to five spaces which exceeds the minimum requirement by one space.
So we feel we have addressed those issues.
We also say other perimeter trees in addition to the grand oak.
We have to relate to this interface along Kennedy Boulevard commercial.
It's difficult to sell single-family detached next to an open ended alley.
Yes, Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There are several brand new upscale houses on north "A".
I drove down there really recently.
So, I mean, there are.
>>> We were talking about this commercial, this neighborhood, that is surrounded by this L-shape almost of CG zoning.
In fact bun one of the neighbors pulled us aside and said that single family house -- usually there's cars lined up all the way down north "A" which they have their parties.
We welcome control, lighting, security, courtyards, architecture, reduced access conflict because we only have four driveways for 16 units.
And we also allow for the alley connection through here with the elevation that's relating to the alley relating to north "A" street.
Do we have bungalows on the north side?
I don't know if you can find a consistent architectural pattern.
We have single-family homes.
We have my client show a few photographs and give you his impression of the architectural influences out there.
But I don't think we're talking bungalow style for this parcel.
So whether we increase the mass, do RM-16 conform, try to do something creative, exciting architecture, we try to save a grand oak tree, we certainly try to save the conflicts on north "A" street with internalizing.
Downtown have to internalize RM-16.
It's not a requirement.
And what benefit is there?
I guess the benefit is we deny two units and now we have to increase the square footage.
The height is the same, 35 feet.
I like Mr. Michelini's proposal, increasing height.
We are not increasing height.
Sam mass, same mass.
But we are not doing sing am family detached.
When you do single familiar family attached you can do economies of scale, increase open spaces, save some trees.
That's all I have, council.
I have much more but I am going to allow my client to stand up and speak.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Horner, I heard in the back, the most relevant and telling I shall issue for us now at 11:00 is what can do you from without ever coming before this board and without having any input whatsoever from the neighborhood?
>>> 14 units.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Catherine, let us know that and then we can ask the neighborhood.
Do you want a seat at the table or not?
And --.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
There are a couple different issues with this parcel.
The CDC weighed in but this property is actually just outside of the overlay district requirements.
The overlay is along north "A".
They are on the south side.
So they are not subject to the design standards.
14 units would be permitted as a max by the RM-16 zoning district.
Given that there's a grand tree on-site, I don't know that they would actually achieve the 14 units without -- they would have to lay it out.
We would have to review it by code.
Other than that, it's a nice 14 and there really isn't a regulation on what it's going to look like.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is 14, say they might lose a couple or three?
>>> They are never allowed in single family attached to be more than eight units in a row.
So the ten units that he showed in that first picture wouldn't be allowed by code.
It's three to eight units or one or two individual units.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The setbacks if they were to go by code, wouldn't the setbacks have to be great er?
>>> 25 feet in the front.
>> And they are currently at 20.
I mean, if they were to comply with all the regulations and not apply for waivers, it would be more like ten units.
Maybe.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Potentially.
We would have to see it laid out.
They are asking for 16.
They are asking for an increase -- the 14 is allowed by current zoning. The extra two units they are asking for is because the land use designation is higher.
It's 35 units per acre through the PD they could potentially maximize up to 35 units per acre.
That's why they are asking for the two additional.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But if they were to do all the setbacks and not ask for waivers, ten?
>>> I can't say for sure without having it laid out.
Potentially less.
Generally speaking they would wind up with less because of site constraints.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It could be any architectural style in any color.
>>> There's no regulation on floor height or roof pitch or anything.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to the audience portion.
Anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 13.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want your clients to address as part of your time?
>>> Horner: If I comment only for rebuttal.
We'll defer.
Thank you.
>>> Robert Allen, 301 north Fremont.
I have been sworn in.
We had the meetings over the past month.
And there are several questions brought up just as you were saying here tonight, in particular what you were talking about, Mr. Dingfelder.
They came back to us, in fact as late as two or three hours ago, and brought to us a different scale.
What it did is it showed a different building than that which occurred on the original building.
At that time, I had at least six of my Board of Directors here present, and I took them out and had them to review that particular site that you see here.
And they all agreed that we would like to have this site rather than the original site.
I understand it does not take away the density, nor does it take away the height of the building.
The only thing that I can see here is that I think it's the effect of the greenery, aesthetics, the trees and so forth.
They are not only going to put on knot "A" but also the alley, as I understand it.
So if you drove up north "A", you would see finished buildings here that look like homes, only three-story status.
I cannot stand here and rebut or go against what my community or my board of directors want.
If you looked at the north side of north "A", the folks in the north side would be more effected than people in the south side, because there are only three buildings left.
Two of those buildings are rental property, and one is a single owner.
That single owner called me, and the only thing that he was concerned about was his security.
He didn't like the fact that these buildings were going to be three stories in height, because he likes to lay around in his backyard in the nude.
And of course -- (laughter) he did not like -- did he not like the fact that they were going to build three stories there.
Now, what I'm trying to tell you is that on my board, there are 12 of us, and out of the 12 folks that we have there, the majority of those folks are investigators.
They are people who has property, enough property that they can sell two developers, or develop themselves.
So naturally they will be in favor of this project.
Or any project that might come into our community that will give us the look of condominiums or town homes.
Yes, this will set a precedence. This will be the first one in our neighborhood.
There are questions, serious questions about the fact that it was too bulky built.
But yet when they seen the new scales and so forth, they decided that this would be what we can live with.
(Bell sounds)
And because of that factor, I have to go along with what my board wants.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
Mr. Horner, a minute ago, I had your organization drawing, your organization rendering.
Mr. Allen, stay there for a minute.
I had your original rendering.
And I just want to show council and anybody else who is watching -- put it on the overhead.
>>> Horner: I think it is on there.
>> No, the original rendering, the black and white one.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Two dimensional.
Original, original.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Allen, is that the original one that you all had seen?
So put that down there. So you were comparing it to that?
>>> Allen: Right.
>> And you liked the more recent one even better?
>>> Yes.
They agreed that this building looked more like a government building or something that was not conducive to the community.
The new drawings, they felt, that it would be more conducive.
I wish it were a case where I could have gotten people from the north side of the street to voice their opinion, but they had no opinion.
And these are mostly homeowner owners.
They came to our meeting.
I tried to get them to voice their opinion.
They were satisfied what they were shown.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>> My name is Keith Peteon, 1737 north "A" street, also the vice-president of north Hyde Park civic association.
On the aerial view that you think are single families, the multifamily unit, two doors down is a triplex, two doors down from that is a triplex, it's not single family across the street, folks.
1919, which is directly across the street, I owned it.
It's a triplex.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are they just broken up?
>>> Yeah. It's got two story garage apartments in the back and house in the front but it's still a triplex.
And across the street on the corner is multifamily.
There's apartments in the back of that little house on the corner.
Go two doors down from that.
Two stories.
Garage apartments in the back of that.
It's four units total.
Not single-family across the street.
So you're misled there, okay?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about further up there?
>>> As you're going down, multifamily.
Multifamily.
You go down.
Multifamily.
Then you have got the apartment complex, U shaped right here on the corner.
I have the houses in the next block.
I wish I could have seen a lot of this concern back when I had a bar across the street from my houses with 53 parking spaces and they had a capacity of 1200 people.
One of the concerns we had for them was parking.
We don't want the cars on the street.
They broke up the units.
That's what made it more attractive.
We didn't have a solid base on north "A" street.
They broke up the units with the ten foot in between.
It makes it more attractive to us in the neighborhood.
We see logically that area as a transition from commercial to residential.
And in doing so, these types of buildings are what belonged there.
You don't go straight from commercial to residential right behind it.
It didn't work.
It didn't work -- I mean I'm down the street.
Look at the back of a building, the law firm.
Yes, better looking than the bar.
But all three of my two-story houses look right at the law firm.
Still, I'm looking at commercial.
There needs to be some transition from commercial to residential, town homes are logic.
That's the logic, in moving into the residential neighborhood.
We have alum ber company in our neighborhood.
It's commercial.
We need some of these things to transition in this neighborhood.
We need this to move over into our neighborhood.
Developers, yes.
I invested in the seven properties in this neighborhood.
But I have been there since '85.
I live in it.
So I want to see it develop.
It's my neighborhood.
I didn't want the bar there, 12 years for me to get rid of it.
I had to wait it out.
This is what I want in my neighborhood.
This is what a lot of people in the neighborhood want.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Buckley, 1705 state street.
Everything I talked about before about that other case on Gray Street, I want to apply that to this.
And this photograph, I don't know how to turn the thing on.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's on.
>>GWEN MILLER: Move that up.
>>> Oh, yeah, that one right there, the aerial view.
This is my house.
I bought that house in 1981.
And that little shack in the back, that little duplex to pay for the house, I raised my family in the house, and I bin through all kind of things in this neighborhood.
I had a shoot-out right there on the street one night, or one day, in broad daylight right in front of me, ten feet some drug dealers shooting.
We got rid of the drug dealers.
I agreed with Keith about all that.
And we would like to see something new in the neighborhood.
As far as density, I think, you know, we are in a city here. This is a growing city.
It's growing like crazy.
All the streets are filling up.
And I don't know how to control people from moving into the city, but they are moving in.
And I think density is something that we're going to have to live with, and we ought to make the best oust it and maybe increasing the density and leaving more green space is a good way to go.
I don't see single-family homes going in here.
Don't see how anybody could really make it profitable.
And I think for the future, this high density is -- I think that's the way the future is.
As a matter of fact, right now, there's a big, big project, I understand, that's going to take place down on Rome Avenue, ten blocks from Kennedy all the way up to cypress.
There's a big developer that's going to -- that's buying all this property right now, that's perhaps going to be one of the biggest developments in the city coming up soon, now. It's what I hear about.
And I don't know what the plan is for that but that's just two blocks to the east.
And it's quite a thing.
And I don't think this thing here is something that we should -- well, I think it's something gad for this area.
I wish you all would vote for this.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
Petitioner?
Rebuttal?
>>> 1725 and a half East 7th Avenue.
I want to show you guys a pictures of the surrounding properties, to give you a visual.
This is one of the properties.
I don't know whether it's Mediterranean or not but about two houses down from it.
I think they were built in 1991. They really have no architecture style.
This is another elevation.
These are all facing our property.
This is the property in question.
This is 1924 "A" street.
This is during the day, like the same houses.
Built in '91.
This is right across the street, empty lot, catter-corner there to our property.
Another home, architectural style. This is the apartment complex talking about on the other corner of Fremont.
It not really maintained.
It's the same units.
This is an apartment complex.
And they speak for themselves.
We met plenty of times with the homeowners association.
We took in their concerns.
The design that we came up with, interesting, all the property they are talking about on Melville, the concerns about that, you know, you see a nice elevation in the back part.
This is kind of forgotten.
I think it's kind of an external design.
They face the alleys so the homeowners have interest to maintain the alleys.
We have front patios which kind of promote people actually entertaining people in their front patios instead of just going through a backyard, sufficient parking, all the units have two-car garages.
The units that are -- the four units with tandem parking you can actually put another car in the driveway so technically that's three, three cars in particular units.
So the design like I say, we feel like it's going to majorly improve the neighborhood.
It is setting a good precedent.
And I hope that you guys will support it.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1916, 1918 and 1924 North A Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily to PD single family attached, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Question on the motion.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am not going to support the motion at this time.
And I hear what the residents are saying.
I have known him a long time.
He lives right across the street.
And I respect what you have to say.
But I think what happens is after living in difficult conditions for a long time, you said 12 years with that miserable bar, and that sort of thing, I think what happens is you become desperate, and you say, you know, oh my God, somebody is actually going to redevelop that property across the street and put up something new, okay?
And everything -- anything that's new, you know, always is kind of exciting.
It's better than what has been there.
But it's not as good as it could be.
Okay.
And I think that that's what this council, you know, strives to do, on occasion anyway, is to push the developers to give us a better product, okay, give us a better design, give us less density instead of the 16 units.
And right now they could go on there as Mr. Harrison calculated, RM-16, they could build 10 or 11 units by staff's calculation, you know.
They can do better.
But if the neighborhood says, oh, my God, it's new, you know, let's take it, because we're desperate, okay, then that's the message that's sent and the developers never, you know, they won't push themselves.
And this is no offense to you guys.
This is all -- they won't push themselves to make the best product that they can.
So that's why I can't support it.
It's not out of disrespect to your comments.
We want the better, and the best possible product for your neighborhood, not just something that we can all live with.
I think that's what the quote was, we can all live with.
So that's what where I'm coming from.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I agree with the comments that Mr. Dingfelder made and I have a few more.
I have been very involved in the redevelopment of Kennedy.
And I believe that it will happen.
But there's no requisite that the development on either sides of Kennedy be this dense.
That's not necessary.
It is possible to have attractive single-family homes that have value, that are both to the north and the south of Kennedy.
It does not have to be this density of multifamily.
The other issue is that of the quality of the design.
And I have to admit a prejudice.
I think that architects are better designers than engineers for buildings, because they are trained in aesthetics.
And the architecture that's put before us in the elevations is just not as attractive as cost.
And I think the four house that is have driveways that are 20 feet from the curb, we will never see the sidewalk there.
We will always see cars parked on top of that sidewalk which is going to take away from the pedestrian orientation of the neighborhood.
And I won't support this because even though the design guidelines stop on the north side of north "A" street, if I were developing a project, I would want to reflect the qualities demanded by the design guidelines that are directly across the street.
I do believe west Tampa is going to develop, redevelop.
I think it's going to be higher quality.
And I don't think this project reflects that higher quality that we will see in the future in west Tampa.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm not sure you can answer this but when Mr. Allen said he didn't get anytime comments from the people that live on the north side, were they in an area that they were noticed, Cathy, or what?
Yes.
That's fine.
Because they were going to be the most effected by what they look at.
So as far as you know, Mr. Allen, nobody talked to you that lived in that?
>>> Allen: (speaking off microphone)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Well, you know, some of my colleagues said we do want the best product for any area of the city but you have people from across the street who don't object, you have a neighborhood that's supporting it, I think that your opinion what he's heavily.
Whether it could be a better product or not, you're satisfied with this plod.
So therefore I'm going to support it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And I made some comments before I actually heard the rest of the presentation, and I'm sorry about that.
But I can see that the people that are here that are supporting, and they do live in that neighborhood, so they will live in that neighborhood.
We don't.
And if I feel like they are uncomfortable with it, then I will support it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion on the floor.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena and Dingfelder voting no.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: From this morning -- yes?
>>THE CLERK: We have an ordinance given to us from legal department for --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It was a wet zoning, I believe.
>>THE CLERK: A conditional wet zoning.
>> Number 85, yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move and ordinance regardless of alcoholic content beer wind and liquor 4(COP-R) for couples on premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1701 west Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings imposing certain conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to receive and file all documents.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like a commendation, hopefully be scheduled September 15th.
He's available that day.
9 a.m.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Anything else to come before council?
We stand adjourned until 8:00 Monday morning.
(Meeting adjourned)