Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 8, 2005
5:01 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]
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Tampa City Council is called to order.
We have on the agenda for 5:01 the invocation and pledge of allegiance.
But do we have anyone here for our invocation, Councilman White, do you know?
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would be happy to do the invocation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Why don't we all stand?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Dear heavenly father, we thank you for the day.
We thank you for the freedoms that we have been given.
We ask that you give special blessing upon all of your public servants here and all of the community in which we represent.
We'd like to ask your special blessings upon those that are homeless in the states that are devastated by hurricane Katrina and we ask your blessing on this meeting tonight and all that we do.
And please bless our men and women serving abroad in our military and fighting for justice and equality all over the country.
All these blessings we ask in your name.
Amen.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
Items 1 and 2, are you here to speak to those?
>> My name is Cindy Miller, director of business and housing development.
I requested items 1 and 2 be deferred until item 22 is heard later this evening.
And we will address them and have them considered at that time.
They are linked together.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have and a motion and second to defer items 1 and 2.
Any discussion by council members?
(Motion carried)
Thank you, Ms. Miller.
Now, on items 3 through 11, the rules require that we pass these by a super majority vote, which would be five members.
We do not have five present.
I know that there is at least one request for a continuance.
So if there's anyone on items 3 through 11 that would like to ask for a continuance, we can do that without a super majority vote.
>>> Tom Vann, and I'd like to have PA 5-09 continued.
And if you could just do it a certain period.
I don't know when it would be scheduled.
But we would like that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's number 5, right?
>>> Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We need agent direction.
When would we -- Mr. Shelby?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. O'Dowd?
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
In order to not have to renotice this, it does need to be continued to a date certain and I would request that it be continued to an evening meeting.
And I don't know, I'm not familiar with what we already have scheduled in the evening at the clerk's office could assist us.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We just pulled up October 20th.
Although we do have one slot for a continuance on October 20th.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Would that be good for you, Mr. Vann?
>>> That's fine.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: October 20, 6 p.m.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Before do you that motion, I don't know whether a motion was made to open this public hearing.
>> No.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second to open item number 5.
(Motion carried)
Now we need a motion to continue item number 5.
6 p.m.
October 20, 6 p.m.
Let me check.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 5 as total continuance of that mat er? Yes, sir, come on up.
>> I'm Stanley Jones.
And I own adjacent property to the property.
I'm hard of hearing.
But is there a reason why we are continuing it?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, there has been no reason given.
But we can certainly ask the petitioner.
>> I'd like to know that because we planned to come to this meeting.
They have had plenty of time to contact the residents and there has been lots of conversation about it.
If we are continuing it just because there are people in opposition to it, I think that's not a very good reason.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>> VANN: Because we have to have a super majority I would like to have a full council.
Gwen miller is absent.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We understand that.
It is not uncommon to have a request, when we have an item that requires a super majority and we don't have a full council, it's not uncommon to have motions for continuance being requested.
It happens with some frequency, as a matter of fact.
It's still the will of council whether or not we grant the motion.
But you've heard the reasons, sir.
>>> Okay.
But why are the other council members not here tonight?
And what guarantees they will be here in October?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: There is no guarantee.
It's subject to everybody's schedule.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that in an attempt to be fair to the public, we should say that it would be heard the next evening whether or not there's seven of us.
Because the issue that you raise, is there a guarantee that we'll have a full council, there's seven of us.
We have families, we have complicated lives.
There's never an absolute guarantee that we'll have seven members.
But I think that council needs to decide.
I think in fairness to the public, we should say that we are going to hear it on the 20th if it's scheduled for the 20th barring, you know, barring nothing.
>>> I think you should amend it to that but that's the -- what's the responsibility of the council members to attend these meetings?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, sir, we all attend every meeting that we can, and Ms. Miller is, unfortunately, not here this evening because she has a previously scheduled arrangement.
She's on official city business at another meeting.
And we are here with five right now.
>>> So there is no ironclad obligation for City Council members to attend the meeting?
I thought that's what you were elected for.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, we appreciate that, sir.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're speaking to the choir.
We are here.
Ms. Ferlita is in the building.
>>> I saw her over 45 minutes ago outside.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: She's in the building.
I'm sure she'll be here in a second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the continuance of item number 5?
All right.
Do we have a motion?
We have a motion on the table.
Do we have a second to continue this to October 20 at 6 p.m.?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will second that motion, but it would be my desire to hear it on the 20th then, and hopefully there will be all seven of us, and if there aren't, that's just --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion.
We have a second.
Any discussion?
(Motion carried)
Thank you.
Is there anyone else that would like to request a continuance of any item number 3 through 11?
Okay.
Very well.
Then we will go to item number 3.
>> Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
We will be hearing tonight eight small scale plan amendments.
I have two in sequence in the same area, Mr. Chairman.
So I would make the request if you could possibly open 02 as well as 04.
They are both in the same area.
I think you can probably make your findings and come up with these contemporaneously.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second to open item number 4 as well.
(Motion carried)
Both items are open.
>>TONY GARCIA: Both plan amendments are located in the South Tampa area just north of MacDill Air Force Base, under the land use map.
Here is MacDill Air Force Base.
Here is South Westshore Boulevard.
The predominant land use category is residential 10.
The request is for all these parcels by one individual from light industrial and heavy industrial right here to residential 10.
Historically, most of you are familiar with this area, knowing that this area has transitioned quite a few parcels in the South Westshore area, this section of South Westshore.
There have been several parcels, a city block changed from light industrial and heavy industrial to residential 10.
So this is consistent with the pattern of change in this particular area.
That is PA-05-02.
Here is PA-05-04, two areas being considered for change.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did we open 04?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>TONY GARCIA: Now all of the requests will be for the same type of single family attached residential development which is familiar for the area.
These streets are shown, but they are not actually -- we feel in the pattern of development that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not pose any adverse impact for the continued development but for this area of Tampa.
Planning Commission staff unanimously approved the condition finding these two plan amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
How can you assure us that these will be developed as single-family detached?
>>TONY GARCIA: I cannot assure you of that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
Because I thought I heard you say that.
>>TONY GARCIA: What I can tell you is the pattern of development in this area that has been provided has been for single family detached homes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But there is a potential there for attached.
>>TONY GARCIA: Mr. Dingfelder, would be up to your discretion whether or not.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: For some reason I thought I heard you say that.
>>TONY GARCIA: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're welcome.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Garcia, I have a quick question.
Keep it up there.
If you look at the lots, they are in a row but sort of scattered about.
I wondered why you didn't just do for the sake of consistency a plan amendment that addressed those six blocks.
>>> To be honest with you, I'm representing Ms. Patrusha who is on leave right now.
These are her plan amendments.
But do you have a diversity of ownership.
As a matter of fact the City of Tampa owns quite a few of these lots.
>> Is the city the petitioner?
>>> No, ma'am.
These are privately initiated developments.
>> Well, it just seems to me that residential uses are more appropriate than industrial uses in this area.
And it would seem to me that the most efficient thing to do and the most consistent thing to do is take everything from a street that doesn't appear to have a name but basically the street parallelling 12th and one block south of it just do the whole block residential.
>>> We can take a look at this.
And I have made that recommendation, in Planning Commission with other staff members to bring this up, possibly change all the industrial to residential 10.
>> It just seems to me that would be consistent.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions for Mr. Garcia?
Thank you.
We don't have a city staff report for these, do we?
Okay.
Petitioner?
On item number 3?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It appears there is a city staff report in writing on page 13, labeled page 13. Anyway, appendix A, various departments have chimed in on this issue.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Item number 3.
Is petitioner present?
Do we need to swear everyone in?
>> No.
>>> Petitioner for item number 4.
I think 3 is here.
Anthony Golarza, 7303 north Nebraska Avenue.
I think the Planning Commission did a wonderful job as far as their explanation.
It is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
If council has any questions, we would be more than happy to answer at this time.
Other than that I have no comments.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions of petitioner on item number 4?
Yes, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 3 or 4?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think we have a petitioner here to ask of item number 3.
This man is here on item number 4.
Nothing on 4?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on either item number 3 or item number 4?
Come on up, sir.
>>> Rod Griffin, 7412 South Westshore Boulevard.
I'm a new resident to the area down there.
I have lived in Tampa for a long time but I just moved recently to South Westshore Boulevard.
We had a sign put up down there in the neighborhood for the hearings, what have you, wasn't visible readily.
I haven't been able to speak to the civic association about it so I'm a little in the dark, did go online last night and able to get a little last minute information and there is some ambiguity as far as I'm concerned.
I think the Planning Commission did outline some important issues but there were also some things that I was concerned about that weren't brought to culmination as far as a decision.
There were several departments that hadn't made a determination as far as impact on the streets, stormwater drainage which is really important in the area.
We have a problem in the past with that, and I think the development is going to have to be looked at really hard for my concern.
We have a transit in that area down there, is going to be continued, influx and outflux for people going to and from work.
I would like to hear a little more about the impacts if possible on both 3 and 4.
Primarily 4 since I live on South Westshore just about a block away from that development.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, what these people are asking for today is to switch from industrial zoning to residential zoning.
>>> I realize that.
>> And before anything specific would be done in terms of the residential, they would have to come back and answer more specific questions.
>>> Okay.
>> My personal feeling is that industrial would be -- would have a greater negative impact on the surrounding residential.
But I would be very skeptical of multifamily in this area.
>>> Absolutely.
>> Because if you looked at the transportation table, and saw that inner bay is already an F.
>>> Absolutely.
And also said the properties would be zoned for a maximum up to 10 dwellings per acre and as I understand it RS-50 is 8 dwellings per acre? Is that not correct?
So that's an ambiguity there that I would be concerned about.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Garcia, does the petitioner for these small-scale amendments have to contact the civic association and surrounding property owners within 150 feet?
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission is advised 250 feet, and the civic association.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>> Just for the record, to make it a little clearer, the two parcels, the two plan amendments combined total about 7 acres, therefore allows potential for 70 single-family units.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In regard to 05-02, item number 3 on our agenda, the city comments from our various departments are interesting, relevant to what you are talking about, the strategic planning department, Mr. Gallery says creating traffic problems for the area, petitioner should discuss the plan amendment with the neighborhood association and address their concerns prior to public hearing.
Stormwater indicates that they have some concerns.
Obviously that's a flooding area.
>>> Sure.
>> It says the property owner should be on notice that they will not be able to bring fill on-site or use stem wall construction, transportation says the adjacent street needs to be paved, water department seems to be okay with it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, they say significant financial costs.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, yeah, to connect to city water.
Apparently the closest line is a little distance away.
Doesn't seem to have a problem.
I just wanted to mention that.
>>> It seems to be a pretty significant development, says it falls under the category of small scale plan amendment and I would really be curious as to what the designation is there, you know, small scale plan amendment.
This is 70 units, seven acres worth of developments.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
It's seven acres.
R-10.
So the maximum they could do is 70 units.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Threshold between the small scale --
>>> Ten acres.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's an arbitrary thing.
>>> I understand that but it seems it's a little more of a procedural thing that goes on for a large scale.
Okay.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Actually, sir, do you have any other comments?
>>> I don't.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Where we are tonight on these things, we are changing only the underlying land use category.
It's not a rezoning.
If there's any development that's going to happen on these properties that requires a rezoning, you'll get notice.
There will be much more involved testimony and things like that.
Anyone else that would like to speak on items number 3 or 4?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion to close both 3 and 4.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Dingfelder, would you take number 3?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I will move this ordinance.
I just want to put the caveat in as Ms. Saul-Sena indicated right now it's industrial.
It's going to a low density residential.
So I think there's something to be said for that.
I don't think anybody in that neighborhood really wants more industrial in there.
With that I'll move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan future land use element, future land use map for the property located in the Port Tampa city area in the general vicinity north of MacDill Air Force Base located between Westshore Boulevard and east Germer Street on the west and canal on the north from light industrial and heavy industrial to residential 10 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
I also wanted to mimic Ms. Saul-Sena in regard to a little caution, whoever is asking for this plan amendment, that I don't think I would look favorably at multifamily or attached housing either.
Just a little heads-up on that for future reference.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
Discussion on the motion?
All in favor signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Ms. Saul-Sena, will you read number 4?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh with the same caveat, future land use element future land use map for property located in Port Tampa city area in the general vicinity of south O'Brien street, north of MacDill Air Force Base, and south canal street -- south calf natural street from light industrial to residential 10 providing for an effective date providing for ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second on item number 4.
Any discussion?
All in favor signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
>> Move to open number 6.
>> Move to open number 6.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Number 6 is now open.
Planning Commission.
>> David Hey, Planning Commission staff. The next plan amendment is PA 05-10 located at the northwest corner of west Tampa Bay Boulevard and north Lois Avenue.
This is the formal site of the BORON dairy facility, the residential neighborhood park which is located up to the north.
Tampa International Airport is to the south and west over here.
They have been acquiring some property west of Largo way and the HCC campus is to the east. The proposed site is located within the boundaries of the Drew Park CRA area, and it's relationship is fully discussed with within the staff report that has been provided to you.
The amendment proposes to change the current future land use designation from light industrial to major public semi-public to facilitate the expansion of Hillsborough County community college.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 2005, and found the request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan, and forwards this recommendation to Tampa City Council for your consideration.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Petitioner on item number 6.
>>> Steven Southwell, 501 East Kennedy Boulevard here on behalf of HCC.
It's consistent with the area.
It's part of HCC's overall expansion on Dale Mabry.
This is a site particularly that will be student housing for the area.
And HCC decided in the Drew Park area and happy to answer any questions you may have.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions for petitioner? Is there anyone for the public that would like to speak on item 6?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Move to close.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element, future land use map, for the property located in the Drew Park area at 4010 north Lois Avenue near the northwest corner of west Tampa Bay Boulevard and north Lois Avenue from light industrial to major public semi-public, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
And I wanted to just say, Mr. Chairman, that this is actually one of the first things that happened in Drew Park in a very, very long time.
And I'm thrilled that we are going ahead with this.
Because this is something that not only the HCC needs but student housing is very needed for the kids -- children that go to the HCC.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Absolutely.
We have a motion and second.
Do we have any further discussion on item number 6?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to open number 7.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
Item 7 is now open.
>> David hey, Planning Commission staff again.
The next plan amendment is PA 0511 north the northeast corner of Westshore Boulevard and west Cherokee road and within the South Westshore neighborhood. The existing land use map shows the site in relation to the light commercial uses along South Westshore Boulevard.
There are single family detached homes to the north across spring lake channel and to the east along the north side of Cherokee road.
To the south --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you go back?
Could you point to as related to this map, that's the water, isn't it?
>>> The channel is back here.
Here's Westshore.
This is Cherokee road.
>> Single-family homes where?
>>> Located on this side of the channel.
There's also some along the north side of Cherokee road.
And then at the south end -- the east end --
>> What's across the street from this?
>>> Across the street there's single-family attached.
That's why they are so close together.
They are all attached town homes.
We do have a picture, too.
This is what is across the street.
The town homes there.
The amendment proposes to change the current future land use designation from residential 6 to residential 20 to allow for the consideration of up to three attached residential units.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 2005, and found the request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan and forwards its recommendation to Tampa City Council for your consideration.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Any questions?
>>> I have a question but I don't know who to ask.
>> Try this guy.
>>> Maybe you're not the one to ask.
Maybe we need to ask one of our staff.
Maybe Ms. O'Dowd may be able to help us.
Didn't we pass an 80% rule not too long ago?
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: A prohibition.
I recall discussion on abolishing the 80% rule.
I believe Morris Massey worked on that for the city.
But I don't have a time line on when that was approved.
80% rule.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Abolished approximately six months ago.
>> Isn't this part of the 80% rule where we are taking off one and putting in two?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: This is a plan amendment.
It would not be an 80% rule per se.
If you're allowing greater density, then effectively you could be allowing what could have been allowed with an 80% rule.
But it is not an 80% rule per se.
One of the reasons why we went forward with doing away with the 80% rule is folks with other options with dealing with the issue if they had to and one of these may be a comp plan amendment or a PD.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I totally remember this, and did we abolish the 80% rule.
But my question about this and why the Planning Commission, I can't imagine why they are recommending approval for this, thank you, is if you look at the pattern, we can look up and down Westshore Boulevard at this portion.
And we see single-family residential of lesser density.
And I can't imagine why on this particularly small lot, you would be encouraging us to increase the density when there has been no initiative to do this, and these neighborhoods in fact are very outspoken about not changing their character.
What were you thinking of?
>> The policies within the comp plan talk about compatibility of uses.
We looked at the existing attached single family already that's located to the south.
And it extends much into the residential area.
There's also policies in regards to single-family attached located near the edge buffering, commercial with single-family, and that provides the attached can provide an excellent buffer between the commercial and the single-family detached.
>> Was there a civic association that was notified of this?
>>> The South Westshore neighborhood.
I believe, yes, they were notified.
If they are still meeting, they are automatically notified as part of the notification process.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They are just reforming as a group.
They just met for the first time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because I want to caution my fellow council members.
Things first appear before us in terms of these small scale plan amendments, and we don't pay much attention to them.
And then when they come back for the rezoning, which is the next step, then the neighborhood says, how could you possibly allow this?
And the Planning Commission staff says, well, you approved the small scale plan amendment.
So this is the proverbial nose under the tent, camel -- whatever the metaphor is.
And I just know that if you look at this neighborhood as a whole up and down, we see solid, single-family adjacent to the commercial on Westshore.
And I think beginning the erosion of this on the north side of the street is something we should be very careful of.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's hear from petitioner.
Is the petitioner here on item number 7?
>>> Dick Loresso, Hamilton Engineering, representing owner Greg Stoker. This request is to allow, well, the request for the rezoning would ultimately come in for two single-family attached housing.
As you can see from the plan before, property to the west is currently a restaurant, gally pizza restaurant and bar which currently abuts, directly across the street is a row of single-family attached town homes.
This request is basically, we are asking to be able to come and perhaps work with the neighborhood to present a plan, something that would appeal to the neighborhood, perhaps, to allow two single-family attached town homes.
We feel it would be a nice buffer between the restaurant/bar and then the single-family adjacent to us.
This that is our initial request.
Again, this is the second of at least four hearings to get this approved.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have you talked to the next door neighbors?
>>> The owner Craig stoker who unfortunately is out of town, but yes, he has.
I'm not sure if the neighbors have shown up tonight.
But they were, I'm sure, notified by the Planning Commission.
And I believe Mr. Stoker has in fact spoken with surrounding property owners.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 7?
>>> Tom candle, 4726 west Laurel which is the directly across the channel from the subject property.
I haven't spoken with the owner.
I do wish him, you know, the best of luck and success and give him the best for his property.
I understand what he's trying to do. However, my family, and I believe I echo sentiments of all of our neighbors, which the north side of the channel would be the Sunset Park homeowners association, and I think it's Belmont owners on the south side.
We feel it's out of character.
We think there's a lot of stress already on the canal with stormwater run-off, dredging.
Most importantly we don't want to see a precedent established to further increase the density of the properties in our neighborhood or anywhere up and down Westshore.
My understanding is that the attached homes to the south, the subject property, were at one time a trailer park, and that they had a grandfather exemption when they built this.
I also understand that there might have been a mixup when that property was transferred or was transferred earlier, and my understanding from what I heard from the Planning Commission is that an act of God removed those, they would have to be reestablished as single family R-60 residences.
I believe it's out of character for the neighborhood, for the canal, and as a homeowner that lives next door, I would not like to see a precedent established to increase the density there.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before we close, I had a question for David, if I could.
David, would you put up the comp plan map, existing plan, land use?
Okay.
Directly across the street from the subject property, on the map that's on the end of it, by the way, I'm reading this.
It's still R-6.
>>> Right.
>> Even though the existing use is obviously been broken up and parceled out, because a mobile home and now become town homes, attached town homes.
But the future land use category -- does everybody see that?
The future land use category directly across the street from this parcel -- can you all jump that?
Just slide it up a little.
Is the same color.
It's R-6.
So this would be the first -- I think it would be the first new intrusion of anything more dense further up into that street.
At least from a land use perspective.
Not from the actual what's-built perspective.
>>> David: Our understanding is the town homes were built using the flex provision which has been removed out of the comp plan.
So that's a little history behind it.
>> This is asking for what kind of density?
>>> They are asking for residential 20.
>> So even the pink, if you go back to the overhead, the pink right there is only, council, R-10.
And they are asking for R-20.
>>> This pink here?
That's CMU-35.
>> Oh, that's CMU-35?
I'm missing my colors then.
>>> They flexed the line.
>> I misread the colors.
Maybe I'm going color blind in my older age or something.
Thank you, David.
And I don't know if everybody has seen the actual house that's on the property.
Can you put that up?
It's in your notebook as well.
This is the existing home that's on the property so it's not like it's something that's horribly shabby or anything.
It's a nice comfortable Florida home.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are there any further questions of Planning Commission?
Petitioner, you heard the concerns of the neighborhood.
Do you have anything in rebuttal?
>>> Just basically want to point out we feel it would be a buffer between the res 6.
You go from the mixed use, the restaurant and bar, and right now you basically jump right into residential.
I actually ate at galley pizza last night myself against the property line.
The dumpster and things of that nature are there.
Not that putting town homes is -- but it would be a buffer.
It seems like you have a residency concern but you have to W this request res 6, seems like a taper effect if you will.
Basically that's the request.
We just want the opportunity to come back, hopefully work with the neighborhood and present a plan they would approve for single-family town homes.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you close, Mr. Chairman, I received an e-mail.
Did you all receive an e-mail from the Standards?
Let me read this.
I won't read the whole thing but I'll read part of it.
I guess they wrote to me because it's my district.
I'm sorry we can't make council meeting, intending to voice our opinions against plan amendment 05-11.
We live two houses down from the property so we are very familiar with the neighborhood.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. White?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm reading a letter from the constituent.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'm listening to the.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The building would be two levels on stilts with the department on each level.
There will be parking below.
I'm not going to read the whole thing.
Their concern is, more and more traffic is now using Cherokee way as a shortcut between Manhattan and Westshore.
Since it is a shortcut we don't have sidewalks, we must walk on the street, they say Cherokee road is a short, quiet street that does not need additional traffic from another apartment.
More importantly it does not blend with single-family homes along the canal.
My husband and I are against changing the land use designation.
Thank you.
Linda and OB Standard, west Cherokee road.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we have a motion to close the public hearing?
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move for denial.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on the concerns of the neighbors that the proposed change does not exist the pattern in the neighborhood and would set a precedent for a more dense pattern than the neighbors want to see.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second for denial.
Any discussion on that motion?
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Saul's position is right on target.
This land use designation change would certainly be something that I wouldn't support based on what I've seen and what I've heard.
I will support the denial.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All in favor of the motion for denial please signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously to deny.
Thank you for coming.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 8.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
The amendment before you this evening is located on Courtney Campbell causeway.
The amendment impacts 6.57 acres of land, currently developed as a Radisson hotel.
The land use change request is community mixed use 35 to urban mixed use 60.
In the staff report supplied to you the Planning Commission staff does report that the comprehensive plan speaks to encouraging urban mixed use in areas recognized as activity centers, mixed use regional activity centers, of which Rocky Point is designated one.
The land use change request is locationally restricted.
The Planning Commission went through the reasons for this request at its August 8th public hearing, 2005, and is recommending consistency finding to the comprehensive plan, and forwards its recommendation to you this evening for your consideration.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Ogilvie, I have a problem with the hurricane evacuation route.
Did you all talk about this extensively?
>>> The Planning Commission was made aware of it in our staff report, and in our report, verbal report, the comprehensive plan and the city policy today is that if there is evacuation in the coastal high hazard area, which this is located, that there is adequate shelter, and that there is adequate time to vacate from the coastal area.
And all those things are in place in terms of at the building and zoning level rather than at the plan amendment stage.
>> My problem is that Courtney Campbell causeway is only a one way in and one way out.
You either go in to Clearwater, which if you are in a hurricane situation surely you don't want to go there, and you have to go quite a ways to go out of this place.
And where would you go at this point?
What's the evacuation route at this point?
>>> The Courtney Campbell itself is the evacuation route.
You go over to Hillsborough.
Hillsborough to the 275, 75 north.
It would be the evacuation route up to the University of South Florida, or beyond.
>> Will you talk louder, please?
>>> I'm sorry.
Where did you hear me leave off?
Courtney Campbell is an evacuation route to which Pinellas takes to come inland.
They would then go onto Hillsborough.
Hillsborough to 275.
275 north to shelters such as the University of South Florida.
And all the other public schools that are available as shelter spots, or you leave going inland to Orlando.
>> But when you put 394 units in there we are talking about maybe an average of two to three people in there, you are talking about a lot of people.
You're talking about a thousand people trying to come out at the same time.
That gives me a big problem.
We certainly don't want to exacerbate the problem.
So I have a concern.
I don't know how my fellow councilmen feel, but --
>>> certainly in the last few weeks that concern certainly comes even closer to home.
I agree totally with you, Ms. Alvarez.
And I can only report to you what the comprehensive plan is.
>> I understand.
This is the first residential unit that would be built right on Courtney Campbell, right?
The one -- the other one is going to be a hotel.
>>> There is existing multifamily on the island to the east, to the south.
I forget.
It's not post -- I think it is Post.
And then there is a large Post apartments to the north all built in the last ten years.
>> But this is the first --
>>> new.
>> Right there.
>>> I have to confess that I'm not sure that the petitioner is going to be doing residential.
>> I think it is.
>>> Mr. Southwell is here to answer that question because they haven't told us whether they are going to do office and commercial and residential, or totally residential.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we look on page 2 of your report, and also on the Elmo, is the property even showing in there or do you need to raise the Elmo up?
There we go.
Thank you.
I kept looking for it.
>>> I'm sorry.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all right.
On page 2, policies, the coastal management, policy 4.6, and policy 8.5, seems to support what Ms. Alvarez is saying.
It says the city shall ensure the future development, redevelopment within coastal high hazard areas consistent, and not measurably increase clearance times in evacuation along an acceptable level.
When we do this, does this go up to Tallahassee for review?
Or because it's small scale --
>>> it will not go to Tallahassee.
>> So who looks at those evacuation numbers and that sort of thing?
>>MICHELE OGILVIE: You do that through the rezoning process, again through building.
There is a total hurricane evacuation preparedness that's done by the county.
And that's done, it's my understanding, on an annual capacity basis in which that discussion takes place.
You will see that there is a ten-hour -- does not exceed ten-hour evacuation time, and we know from past experiences that that seems to have --
>> Right now the property is CMU-35?
>>> That's correct.
>> So it's 35 units to the acre residential.
UMU-60 is 06 units to the acre if they want residential.
But that gives them other options, I guess.
What other option are UMU?
>>> The other option is the types of uses and intensity.
If the intensity is 2.5 versus 1.5 in terms of floor area ratio, and you can do -- I guess the only difference in terms of going down -- might have to remember the zoning code now -- but there is intensive commercial uses introduced in the UMU category.
As I said before, when the petitioner came in, they were selling this property, the new property owner wanted to maximize the site.
>> Put in the taller high-rise possible.
>>> That I don't know.
>> But I think that residents there possibly could get out and get going.
My concern is, will it create more and more of a bottleneck for Pinellas residents oh who need to really get across that bridge and get out, too?
And that caused a little bit of concern.
I saw a TV report the other day that said something like 6 or 700,000 residents in Pinellas would have to leave in a serious hurricane, and that's pretty daunting.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I have Ms. Ferlita, and then --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a quick question.
I'm trying to -- tell me what that is currently, if you would.
>>> It's the Radisson hotel.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.
Thanks.
Thanks.
>>> I think it was called the Yankee clippers years ago.
>> I'm sorry?
>>> The Yankee clipper years ago.
>> I know that well.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's hear from the petitioner on item number 8.
And we are having trouble -- we are having trouble with our microphones.
So if folks could try to speak directly into the microphone, the stationery microphone, or you can else take the hand held Mike and speak into that a F you like.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As loud as possible.
>>> Steven Southwell, 501 East Kennedy here on behalf of the applicant.
I hear your concerns.
And the best response I can provide is that when we have actual footprints and plans and units, that kind of stuff, we will address them at the appropriate agencies.
The hurricane evacuation was something that when we looked at this early on was a comment, that that would be something that would be addressed at the zoning.
We do not have a plan in place formal -- final plan.
What we do want to redevelop on this property, it is a redevelopment project, not just a development project, and there are pretty substantial traffic and other impacts that this property is creating now.
And anything we would be doing, we would be looking at really net impacts and not just total impacts because there is already a substantial business there, and it generates a fair amount of traffic.
And those are things that we will try to stay under the thresholds or not exceed them in a gross way, complicating a problem.
If there's a problem now, not exacerbate it, or fine ways to make it better.
If there's any questions I would be happy to answer them.
But I think that the important thing is when we go to rezoning, it's PD now.
It will most certainly be a PD when it comes back for redevelopment.
Adhere to the higher standards, the plus side. The new buildings codes in effect are much more stringent than the ones in the 70s and becoming more and more hurricane tolerant and that's a plus if you want to keep in mind this development.
Should be more hurricane friendly, I guess, if there's such a term. Anyway, there are any questions?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are there any questions to the petitioner? Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 8?
We have a motion to close.
We have a second.
Do we have a question on the motion to close?
Motion and second.
Discussion on the motion?
We have a motion to close and second.
(Motion carried)
What's the pleasure of council?
Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I still have a problem with the hurricane vacates problem.
And it's not because it's just hurricanes, but I've seen this Courtney Campbell causeway closed for many times because of high water that just goes over the road.
And it just doesn't have to be in the hurricane season.
It's usually when you have like a no-name storm or something like that.
This is just giving me a little bit of heartburn to think they were planning to put 364 more units in there that are residential.
And that scares me.
And I understand what you're saying about coming back as a PD.
But it still doesn't give me a level of comfort.
So I will defer to any of my other council colleagues.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I disagree completely with the comments from the petitioner in regard to, you know, this is merely a plan amendment, we can deal with the hurricane issue later.
Our comprehensive plan, at least the portions that were excerpted by the Planning Commission staff, identified two policies, policy 4.6 and policy 8.5.
4.6 I already read part of, says we shall ensure the future development, redevelopment is consistent with coastal resource protection will not measurably increase along evacuation routes.
8.5 says the City of Tampa shall maintain adequate capacity on all identified major evacuation routes for which it is responsible so that clearance time as identified in the most recent hurricane evacuation study could be maintained.
The petitioner responded and said, we'll deal with that with the site plan, you know, but a site plan isn't going to change the number of units.
It's just going to change the site plan.
I mean, so right now, and on page 2 of the staff report, it says the current density is CMU-35 is K allow maximum to 237 units.
The category that they are asking for UMU-60 can allow 390 units.
So that's a difference of 163 units.
I think, Mary, you have raised some very valid concerns in a very troubling time period for us.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think what my colleagues have said is very germane to what we are doing.
Timing is everything.
We have got issues with hurricanes and those type of things and I am not going to be supportive of it so I move to deny.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second for denial.
Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion for denial please signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion for denial carries unanimously.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open number 9.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Item number 9 is now open.
>>> Good evening.
Phyllis Fleming, planning commission staff.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You are going to have to yell.
>> Or use the hand held Mike.
I see red shirts in the audience.
And I wonder if we can just take an item out of order since it's our 6:00 agenda.
I don't think it's a continuance, I think it's a cancellation.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have no idea what we are talking about.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, yes, we can, although I think we were expecting David Smith, our city attorney to address that.
So until he arrives, let's press on with item number 9 and we can maybe get 9 out of the way and then go ahead and handle that one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is Mr. Smith delayed or do we know?
>>> It says that it's on but it doesn't appear to be very loud.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's address it as soon as possible.
>>> Phyllis Fleming, Planning Commission staff. The item before you this evening is PA 05-13.
It's located at 902 South Dakota and old Hyde Park.
The site is currently known as the Seville, and it was built in 1926.
It is a 12-unit apartment complex and was purchased and converted to condominiums in the late 1960s and early 70s.
Since that time the units have been sold as condominiums to individual owners, and the purpose of this request is to change the approximate .4 acres from the future land use designation of res lengths 10 to residential 35, to recognize the existing use and reflect the current density.
The site is located on the corner of Morrison and Dakota, between Morrison and Watrous, and I'm available for questions if you have them.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions of the Planning Commission?
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I wonder why?
I mean, if you have got -- all right, I'll ask petitioner.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Good idea.
Are there any questions of the Planning Commission?
Petitioner?
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: 501 East Kennedy here for the petitioner.
And the simple answer is, some of the condominium owners within the building have had trouble refinancing because right now the building is a nonconforming use.
It couldn't be -- you couldn't have this many units under it's current zoning and its current land use plan.
So what we have to do is change the plan, and then what we intend to do immediately thereafter is come in to you with a PD zoning that will basically just mask the exact footprint of the building, exactly what's there today. The soul purpose of this amendment is to enable this amendment to be rebuilt, if heaven for bid it were destroyed by fire or hurricane or whatever, but also for right now, as I said, some of the unit owners have had trouble refinancing within the building.
One of the unit owners told me today that his bank gave him some sort of exemption to zoning confirmance but said this is the last time, you can't finance again without this becoming confirming.
That was the only motive, the only intent, and I'm glad to answer any other questions.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many units in the building?
>>> 12.
>> What's the acreage?
>>> .4 acres.
I think under current zoning they can have like nine units.
The current zoning classification on it.
They couldn't have more than nine.
Was it anyone or eight?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just a little concerned the R-35 is more than they really need.
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: We went through it with the Planning Commission.
This was the only one that worked with that amount of acreage to get that many units.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The R-20 doesn't work?
>>> The maximum number of units that's allowable under the request is 14.
But we have been told that they are planning to maintain the current use and just to reflect -- just to reflect the existing use.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the R-20 wouldn't work?
>>> No, sir, it would not.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is one of the absolutely most wonderful buildings in Hyde Park, and we certainly want to protect it for the future.
But we no N no way want this land use changed to be cited as a precedent by anyone else in the future.
And I want to ask the Planning Commission staff, is there a way to avoid this being cited in the future as a precedent for increasing the zoning in what is a completely single-family area with the exception of this historic and really lovely apartment building?
>>> I think that you're putting it on the record this evening is significant enough so that it will be reflected as such in the future.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Councilman White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just wanted to echo, I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena's comments but bit by the same token as far as property rights are concerned this is the S almost a duplicate of what we have in East Tampa, an industrial area, and we don't want to violate anybody's property rights, and God forbid something happens we want our residents to be able to claim home ownership for claims that may be involved because of this.
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: And you actually did amend the code a couple of years ago to say that in a historic district, and not a conforming structure, that a historic building can be rebuilt.
The problem is that still leaves the building considered nonconforming.
And that's where the people have gotten into trouble with the refinancing.
So I just want to make that clear.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Zelman, you bring up valid points.
Otherwise as a neighbor in that area I would be the first to rally to deny this.
But I understand what you're doing, understand what you have to go through.
I think Ms. Saul-Sena has certainly put on the record her opinion and it certainly reflects mine, that if it were a precedent for somebody else under different circumstances we obviously wouldn't confirm it but I'm supportive of it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Sounds to protect the building this action is probably necessary.
Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on item number 9?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Like to move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan future land use element, future land use plan for the property located at Old Hyde Park area at 902 South Dakota Avenue from residential 10 to residential 35 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
All in favor signify by saying Aye.
Motion carries unanimously.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open 10.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
Ms. O'Dowd?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's my understanding Mr. Smith was going to address item number 22.
If that is the intention that Mr. Smith was going to try to address item number 24, I believe it is --.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I will try to contact him.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Otherwise we are moving through these things pretty well here.
We have a motion to open item number 10.
Do we have a second?
We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item number 10 is now open.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
You have before you plan amendment request privately initiated.
This is in the vicinity of Channelside Drive and Adamo Drive.
I put a future land use map over here for your information.
The site, it is currently as a land use classification of light industrial, on the intersection of northeast corner of the intersection of Channelside Drive and Adamo Drive.
This line over here is the coastal high hazard area the request is to go from light industrial to regional mixed use 100.
It is in -- this particular parcel is in a very strategic location as it lies between two regional activity centers, Ybor City, historic Ybor City, and it is not within historic Ybor City district.
It is also within the CBD periphery boundary area.
The site is, as I said, in a strategic location, at an intersection between Channelside to the south, the Channel District to the south, and Ybor City to the north.
Regarding planning issues and planning consistency, there are a variety.
But the land use category referred to go to.
You still have on the south side the Leroy Selmon Expressway, allowing heavy industrial use.
That will eventually we are sure transition to the same category of RMU-100 which is what this is here, which is the 12th street, operation yard, City of Tampa operations yard, and mixed use 100 in the Channelside south of Twiggs street.
These land use categories over here, this is light industrial, CMU 35, GMU 245 L 24, heavy commercial 24, and again, this particular corridor, Adamo Drive has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny and quite a bit of -- there has been quiet of requests made regarding the potential development capabilities of this particular corridor.
This one particular piece of property, though, should be singled out as different from the rest of the properties on this particular a came Dame oh corridor, as it is not within the a historic district.
Yes, ma'am?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why is this not within the historic district?
>>TONY GARCIA: I don't know, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
This was determined by the city --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where does it end?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Across the street.
>>TONY GARCIA: It actually takes, I think if I were to show you, this parcel is not in it.
I think part of this parcel is not in it.
So it's not just that one particular piece.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let Mr. Garcia finish his report.
>>> Thank you, sir.
There are some concerns that have been raised as far as the transportation department's concern, as this particular segment up to 16th street is concerned, it's fail.
Also, Adamo Drive, that segment is part of the strategic intermodal system.
We did consult with the port, City of Tampa port, and he they did not have any concerns at this point in time regarding this particular request that's being made.
Of courts I'm sure if it were something south of Adamo Drive which is within their activity area of center they would probably have more interest in the site.
Again, we feel that there are a lot of reasons, this particular site is immediately qualified.
You also have a TECO -- you have the trolley line also goes right along this particular path north and south along this particular piece of property.
It would be nice to see if this were developed in this manner, if this were to be given this land use designation, that the provisions within the TCBA would be applied and we could have a lot of additional transportation alternatives provisions offered in this area, such as pedestrian enhancement, and other mobility options for this particular area, as we do have an excellent opportunity, as the trolley line does run right along the western perimeter of this site.
Just to reiterate very quickly, the site is strategically located between two activity centers within the central business periphery area.
The development direction will ultimately converge on this location.
The intersection of Channelside and Adamo Drive is a major Gateway into the area. The site is adjacent to the streetcar system, is adjacent to the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway Crosstown Expressway, is not within Ybor City historic district and does offer an ideal opportunity for multi-model, leading to the Ybor City and the central business district.
I think those are quite a few reasons right now.
Planning Commission staff voted unanimously.
Planning Commission voted unanimously with staff's recommendation, found it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Any questions?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the reports looks like it's the report of the MPO.
On page 11.
It says -- it talks about street capacity.
It says Adamo Drive had an unavailable peak peek capacity of zero vehicles bounded by the railroad.
It indicates this additional traffic cannot be accommodated on this roadway.
Is that statement involved in the Planning Commission analysis?
Did the Planning Commission board look at that or what?
>>> Yes, we did look at that.
If you also look in there you do have a comment from your own city of transportation staff that states a detailed traffic analysis would be required prior to development, which is on page 9.
>> I understand that.
But I mean, why do we have this comment from MPO if we are not going to pay attention to it?
>>> I didn't say not to pay attention to the.
It is a valid comment, Mr. Dingfelder.
But it is ultimately up to your discretion as to whether or not how much credence you want to put into that particular situation of transportation at this point in time.
I think it does offer an alternative since you do have the trolley system in this area and do you have other provisions as far as alternative mobility options in accordance with the TCEA.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While I recognize that the historic industrial use is no longer really appropriate, I think that what they are asking for is a very intense land use.
And I'm wondering, did the planning staff consider something less, or did you just respond to what the petitioner requested?
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff recommended an alternate plan amendment category of CMU 35. The applicant requested RMU 100.
>> I think that's pretty significant and I wonder why it didn't show up anywhere. Is it because we don't hear from the staff we just get the Planning Commission?
>>> At this juncture it's pretty much Planning Commission but do you have input from most of your departments over here, as far as wastewater, stormwater, strategic planning.
>> The thing to me that's most significant is because it's not technically in the Ybor district we don't have any of their input.
It's not technically in Channel District so we don't have theirs.
And it's oh just on the periphery of downtown so we don't have the downtown partnership input.
But you know what?
It's really key to all of those.
And I think it's in this like little vacuum.
And I think we need to see how well it integrates with the surrounding neighbors.
But most particularly, the Ybor historic district which is located right to the north of it.
And the reason that it wasn't considered is because the property owners heavily lobby council when we did the Ybor historic district expansion, said, oh, please, don't include us in that because we don't know what we want to be when we grow up.
And I just remember that clearly and I'm very concerned that we do something here that would not be compatible with Ybor when it's actually smack up against it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't feel that way, because it's the southern boundary of the Ybor district.
So I don't have a problem with that.
Besides, according to the Planning Commission's comments, it said the likelihood of being designated a redevelopment corridor is a realistic explanation given the number of redevelopment opportunities that lie along this major arterial, which serves as a gateway to Tampa.
So we have to take a look at these things, too.
And so that doesn't bother me, because it's going to be developed.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want it to, but not so density.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That will come back with a PD or whatever.
But I think this is good.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's go to petitioner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Quick question for Tony before we go to petitioner.
Mr. Garcia, Ms. Saul-Sena did some excellent sweeping there.
Why didn't it suggest RMU 35 as a reasonable alternative?
>>> The applicant has of course the request to RMU 100.
>> No, no, I'm saying you guys are planners --
>>> well, in the --
>> I'm not saying why didn't you end up there.
Why in our staff report from a good planning perspective, somebody over there came up with CMU 35 as an alternative.
I want to know why you guys thought that might be a good alternative.
>>> Because we can't offer RMU 60 right now because this is not a redevelopment corridor.
Adamo Drive is not designated redevelopment corridor yet.
Probably would have settled for 60 also, but to be 60 it has to be redevelopment corridor which it is at this time.
>> Where did that come from?
>>> It's in the comp plan.
>> Go to 100 but we can't be 60 but we can be 35?
>>> That's correct.
That is dichotomy.
I'm sorry, but we would have probably settled the most logical category would have been UMU 60 but to do that requires a text amendment to the comp plan, designating Adamo Drive which would take approximately a year, the applicant preferred to go this route and take their chances requesting RMU 100.
>> Why did staff feel that 100 might be too dense or not an appropriate density there?
>>> I think I stated my reasons in my report.
>> No, no, no.
>>> As to why it's not too dense.
>> No.
Based upon this notion that 35 was something that you suggested, obviously there was somebody over there, perhaps you or someone else, that thought that 100 might be a little too much.
I just want to know what your thought process was at that point in time.
>>TONY GARCIA: Well, we had at least three or four other people besides myself looking at this, and it was the general consensus based on the strategic location of the site, not to be able to do UMU 60, and CMU 35 because of the unique location of this particular site, probably would have done it an injustice.
The only other alternative we had was to go with RMU 100.
>> All right.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Petitioner.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: 101 East Kennedy Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant.
I'm going to answer a couple of questions and then I'm going to ask Mr. English to speak to some of these issues.
First of all, Ms. Saul-Sena, we did not specifically ask to be excluded from the historic district.
It just, for my clients were not really involved in that particular process but the boundary was set, and it excluded their particular parcel.
You know, they don't believe that their property should have been included by any means, it's an industrial site, and doesn't really -- would not have contributed.
I would like to also speak to Mr. Dingfelder's comment about the transportation.
This is a case where there is a comment regarding one segment of Adamo Drive, that during the rezoning process -- and I know you heard that before, that this is a little bit different situation.
You cannot require mitigation or attach conditions to a plan amendment as part of your approval, and so transportation mitigation, looking at mobility options as well as other transportation improvements, are only available through the PD zoning process, which we would of course have to go through as a follow-through to a plan amendment application, such as we have this evening.
We believe we can adequately address any transportation issues, and this particular site is uniquely situated with a lot of transportation facilities, not just the streetcar, but we are very approximate to the Crosstown expressway as well as the interstate.
And this is an extremely urban area being that it's in the CBD periphery.
The fact that there is some level of congestion on Adamo Drive per se, I don't believe, would be a basis to simply exclude this request.
And finally, I would like to clarify, when we initially met very casually with Mr. Garcia, he suggested CMU 35 as what I guess you could characterize as a simple amendment, something that he did not foresee would be very difficult.
He never suggested that RMU 100 was inappropriate.
We then had a formal meeting with him and Ray Chermontue several weeks later, made our arguments why the RMU 100 was appropriate and the staff accepted that and made their recommendation to the Planning Commission which unanimously accepted their recommendation and made that recommendation to the City Council.
So I don't think there was ever a situation where they were saying this should be CMU and we were fighting back and forth.
The staff themselves recommended the RMU 100.
At this time I'd like to ask Mr. Michael English to speak to some of the other issues.
>> Michael English: 1101 Channelside Drive here in Tampa.
I'm pleased to be here tonight representing Tom and Dan stoner and owners of the property and they were quite adamant to the not to be left out of the district, and we met with Del Acosta who voiced no objection whatsoever to this request.
He couldn't really explain why it had been left out of the district except he showed no interest in it being in the district.
We met with the Ybor City Development Corporation who thought this was a positive contribution.
We met with the port authority director of planning who had no objection to our request.
We met with Florida Department of Transportation and discussed the matter, who had no objection to the request.
We didn't talk to the MPO but we do recognize it was a peak failure at peak hour.
Most every major intersection fails at the peak hour.
Channelside Drive will continue to fail at peak hour.
This property -- I guess the points I would really like to make before I answer your questions is that this is an unusual site.
It really is at the Gateway entrance into the area.
It is the key parcel on this segment of Adamo Drive.
If you have been here all of your life, you know that Adamo Drive has been begging for beautification if not redevelopment for many years.
Later in the fall, you will see a request that to designate Adamo Drive a redevelopment corridor in order that UMU 60 may be applied to the other properties as appropriate along that corridor.
This particular property, because it's a corner site, it's a significantly scaled property.
It's two acres.
And it really is the only possible place to make a major land development statement, architectural statement as a gateway into three biggest and most important urban neighborhoods.
We felt that RMU 100 was appropriate.
We also know from watching interactions in particularly recent weeks that you would be very careful about how you allow zoning to occur on that property, and that the scale and architecture of quality and height allowed on that property will be consistent with what you believe to be appropriate in both Ybor City and the Channel District.
We do also think it's very important, it's on the streetcar line.
We have already begun talking to the current owners about the potential for any future land owner to have a streetcar stop at that location, because there is right-of-way adequate to do that.
It's not something the streetcar system has ever discussed.
But there are some opportunities for station stops, and this may well be one, if it can be redeveloped in an important mixed use way.
So we see this is a very important site.
And perhaps more related to the Channel District than to any other part of the downtown, and we believe it deserves to be developed somewhat more intensely than historic Ybor City, and more consistent perhaps with the Channel District which is undergoing development concepts now that are intense and will continue to be intends to some degree or another.
So we think it's a reasonable request.
And we would certainly like your support.
And I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are there any questions from the petitioner? Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was incorrect, it wasn't you all that asked it to be left, it was Kimmens to the east of you but they said let's do the whole street, let's leave it out of Ybor City.
My question, did you contact any of the civic associations that I referenced before?
Ybor City, Channel District, downtown?
>>> No.
As I said, we talked to Del Acosta.
We talked to Vince Pardo.
>> Did you talk to any residents?
>>> No.
I mean, typically in the plan amendment process, you don't do that.
I think they may be typically noticed by the city or the Planning Commission.
Certainly surrounding property owners are, and the rights are included so there are people who were notified.
But we really were surprised that the Planning Commission, there was nobody there, Planning Commission was very supportive, it was a staff recommendation which I think they took a deep breath and they thought about it and they finally felt comfortable about it which is why they wrote it into the recommendation.
So I feel like this is a rational, reasonable application that you all are going to look at very closely when and if it comes in for a zoning change.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One quick question.
You referenced the scale of the proposal, and I would agree that those are chief concerns.
What are you thinking of?
And what are you allowed to do under the RMU 100?
>>> RMU 100, which is also applied in both of the Channel District, allowing development up to a 5 FAR.
>> And what is the height?
>>> Uses would be residential, commercial, office.
It's a classic mixed use category.
>> And what's the height?
>>> The height would be determined by the planned development zoning.
So you would control the zoning.
You would control the FAR.
Would you control the height.
In other words, it wouldn't be zoned Channel District.
It wouldn't be zoned CBD.
It wouldn't be changed -- it would be zoned PD so you would control exactly what you wish to see there.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Michael, take your representative hat off, okay?
And just put your regular planner hat on and tell me, for 163 units, which is what this is the maximum allowable thing, and I'm reading that off of page 1 of the staff report, 163 units on one and a half acres, 1.6 acres.
If the developer opted to maximize that and build that in a typical project like we are seeing in the Channelside or downtown, how tall would that be at 163 units on 1.5 acres?
I mean, are we talking about a 5 story building?
A 20 story building or 30 story building?
>>> We are going through that exercise now in the Channel District.
And actually there's some things that I'm sure it's time for you all to see some visual aids and graphics.
Developing a 3.5 FAR, requires structured parking and requires a pedestal with living units above it so you may end with a 10 or 12 story building there. It could be tolerant that if you built a narrower pedestal on top of the parking base.
But keep in mind you don't have ton approve a 3.5 FAR.
The city does not have to approve anything it doesn't choose to approve on that site.
>> Many developers often try to mimic the maximum they can allow.
>>> I understand.
There's an interesting trend --
>> So you're saying it could be done at 10 or 12 stories or it could be tall er?
>>> Just as is being done in Channel District today.
There are 3.5 FAR projects that have a 5 or 6 story parking base and 7 or 8 story or lower residential base for a total height of 8 or 9 or 10 or 12 stories.
So it does not have to be a high-rise.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions of the petitioner? Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 10?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Take item 10.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance approving a comprehensive plan, future land use element, future land use map for the property located at the historic Ybor City area at 1307 west 2nd Avenue from light industrial to regional mixed use 100, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and a second.
And we have -- is there any discussion on the motion?
Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not feel comfortable supporting this proposal because I just think that this mimics a zoning that's appropriate downtown, but my interpretation of this location is that it's not downtown, it's in Ybor City.
And I believe that if we support this proposed land use change, although I don't think industrial is appropriate anymore, I think residential is, or office, but to a lesser and lesser category, I believe if we support this you can see Dominos sliding all the way to the it east up Adamo Drive and I really don't think council wants to see a wall of high-rises on the periphery of our national historic district.
So I really encourage my fellow council members not to support this proposal.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's a question that I don't know how to answer but does the BLC chime in on this?
FROM THE FLOOR: Yes, they have jurisdiction.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
Barrio Latino commission is limited to property within the Ybor City historic district so they would not have an opportunity to comment on it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May I say something?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mrs. Alvarez, you still have the floor.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
I am going to support this because I think this is what this corridor needs.
It needs help.
And I believe that the RMU 100 is appropriate for this.
And I don't believe that -- this is a continuation of Channel District, and it's going into the southern boundary of Ybor City.
So I don't see any problem with that at this point.
We do have a way of when it comes to the zoning to put our stipulations in there, and at this time I don't see why we could not have to further this along.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I am going to also be in support of this petition.
I think that the periphery of Channelside, which is Ybor City, both of which are in my district, is a continuation of downtown.
And I think that's the way that this city is going.
We want to encourage more people in the downtown area, to help support the revitalization of Ybor City, the revitalization of Channelside: We want to keep our downtown alive and vibrant.
We also would like as many people down in the Channel District, the Ybor City as possible to have support of our trolley system, and I think that more residents and more area in there -- I don't know necessarily know if 100 units per acre is the totally appropriate thing, but industrial is definitely not.
And I think the encouragement of us having any type of residential use down there is much more appropriate than what wave now.
And I will be in support of the petition.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other comments?
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to take one more stab at this.
We have a downtown that consists of downtown neighborhoods.
The core of downtown, the central business district has no height limits.
That's where we have said it's most appropriate for really high density structures.
Then we have the Channel District which has a different character.
Finally we have Ybor City which is our landmark historic district which has a lower density character.
Two blocks from this be the height limit is 35 feet.
If council supports this proposed change, we are allowing truly downtown to encroach upon Ybor.
I support density.
I support quality redevelopment.
But I don't think that this location is appropriate for what they are requesting.
And I really encourage council not to support this.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Saul-Sena, I do agree with you on that particular instance but the only other reason to support this is because if it comes back, it has to come back before this board as a PD.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Absolutely.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Then we can say, well, if 35 is all we want, if that's consistent and compatible with what is in the area, we as a board make that decision.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder, then Ms. Alvarez.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Close the public hearing?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion on the floor to approve the item.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It was seconded?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It was seconded.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Currently, there is no residential category on this parcel of land.
It's a blank slate.
Okay?
It's light industrial.
It's been industrial for probably a long, long time.
I think we really are at a major point, a major turning point on this issue.
And we knew this was going to be coming.
Because we heard Kimmins was here a couple of months ago, and they wanted -- they didn't want to be in the historic district, and they didn't want to even be part of some other discussion, you know.
And so there is a Domino concern here.
And I'm not saying at all that there shouldn't be, you know, some type of intensive residential project here.
I'm leaning towards something along the lines of what the Planning Commission staff perhaps suggested at some point, which was the 35 units to an acre.
That provides in this case about 90 units, because it's an acre and a half, instead of 163 units.
It also establishes a precedent of not low density but precedent of moderate density that frankly I do believe is more consistent with the surrounding communities of Ybor and Channelside.
You know, I have got frankly could probably support perhaps the UMU 60.
And if they had gone back and just done a plan amendment to the language, because apparently we have this sort of off-the-wall language that doesn't allow UMU 60, I could probably even support something a little higher than the 35 but I could not support the UMU 100.
I think UMU 100 as Ms. Saul-Sena says is a downtown density that I think is inappropriate for anywhere near Ybor City.
And you know what?
This notion of we can deal with it at the PD level, we don't deal with it very level at the PD level because what happens is the developer comes in and they stand in front of us, Mary, and what is the first words out of their mouth?
They say, we have an entitlement to 163 units.
Because that's the density on the land use category.
That's the first thing they always say when they come in front of us.
And then the presumption is sort of created, and we have to backtrack from there and we beg and plead to come down off that 163 to 150 or 140 or whatever.
I say let's take this comp plan very seriously and keep it at a category that's reasonable for the protection of Ybor City.
And you guys should be as aware of that, more aware of that than I am.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
I'm going to speak.
We don't know what this will be until we give at chance to be something.
We don't know how tall it's going to be.
We don't know how densities going to be.
We don't know what options they might be providing for multi-modal transportation given the fact that it is right on a streetcar line.
I don't know if it's going to be five stories.
I don't know if it's going to be 500 stories.
Until we give them a chance to come back with something that we can all sit in judgment on, I think that for us to say we're afraid of what it could be, I just don't think that's the right way to go.
However, petitioner, you can count, and I'm not sure how we are going to come out here.
But those are my sentiments on this.
We seem to be spending a lot of time on the unknown.
And I just -- I'm not sure that that's a productive use of our time.
So that's my piece.
I'll go back to Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just want to reiterate that on page 4 of the report, it says that this particular site would be appropriate for an RMU designation as it uniquely leaves a variety of criteria. There's eleven bullets there that support it.
So I think that this is a good project.
It will be a good project.
And we can go on what it could be, if, should, could.
No, we can't do that.
We have to vote your own conscience, is all I can say.
But we have got criteria here that says it supports it.
It's there.
That's all I can say.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just have a question, perhaps it will be directed to Shelby.
Your points were well taken by me, should have been well taken by the petition petitioner.
Now that we have closed the public hearing and Mr. Mechanik certainly can count, this requires a super majority, what options does the petitioner have if we decide to reopen it?
If we decide to do something?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In a case like this, a small scale plan amendment requires a super majority of five votes.
Likewise, there is a rule that the council requires four votes to take affirmative action.
In this case it would require five votes to take affirmative action.
My recommendation would be if it fails to get the five votes it would be continued to the next regular council meeting to have a full council present.
Either that or somebody would have to entertain a motion to deny.
But again it still requires at least four votes for the denial.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Even if they got voted down they would have the option to come back for reconsideration as well, is that correct?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, if it were voted down they would have the option to come back for reconsideration.
But if the motion is to approve, which is the motion that's on the floor, if that fails to get five votes, then my recommendation would be that it returns to the next regularly scheduled council meeting for a full council vote.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that a motion to call the question?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
Just call for the question.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: There's no debate on the motion.
Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Question is called.
All in favor of the motion which is to approve item number 10, please signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
>> Nay.
>> Motion fails 4 to 2.
So, Mr. Shelby, your recommendation is that this carries over until when?
Next Thursday morning?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Next Thursday morning at a time certain.
My recommendation would be 9:30 or 10:00 would be the most appropriate.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you have a council for next Thursday morning?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, would the petitioner have the option of changing their request to a lesser -- a less intense category?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know.
Mrs. O'Dowd?
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: First of all with regard to rolling over to next week it does not have to be a time certain. The time certain only applies when you are continuing the public hearing so you don't have to renotice.
Unfinished business perhaps.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I stand corrected.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: With regard to a lesser dense use category, council's options are to adopt the plan amendment, adopt with changes, or to deny the plan amendment.
So that's something that council may want to consider, is a less intense use, and of course subject to the petitioner's involvement.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
For 9:30 -- well, just set it under unfinished business Thursday morning.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Unfinished business Thursday morning, and it would probably be if it's a situation where it would be a difficult position to reopen the public hearing, just as council's rules put it onto a vote, and Ms. Miller would have to review the record.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I could ask a question of petitioner?
Or do I have to open the public hearing?
I want to ask if they would consider a lesser designation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't know if that's procedurally appropriate.
It would have to go back to Planning Commission for review.
Let's see what happens on Thursday, then we can go from there.
Do we even need a motion to hold this over?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: No --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Next Thursday morning under unfinished business.
>> Move to open number 11.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Item 11 is now open.
>>> Phyllis Fleming, Planning Commission staff, PA-05-15.
The plan amendment is located in the South Howard district.
And encompasses several parcels on the southeast corner of Swann and Howard Avenue and one parcel to the south of and abutting Inman Avenue.
The intent of the approximately 1.37 acre privately initiated amendment --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can't hear.
>>> The intent of this approximate 1.37 acre privately initiated amendment is to change the land use designation from heavy commercial 24 to community mixed use 35.
The request will reduce the intensity of the land use on the parcels and conform several remainder parcels to the predominant land use on the site which community mixed use 35.
The request has been initiated because the petitioner wishes to redevelop the site with to include residential and neighborhood service specialty retail uses.
As you can see from the plan amendment site, the predominant parcel is what I call the parent parcel, and the amount is CMU 35, as is most of those -- as are most of those parcels abutting South Howard Avenue.
The request is to change this L-shaped portion of the site to conform to CMU 35.
Most of these are the rights-of-way of Inman and westland Avenue, in addition this is the site that is to the south of the predominant parcel.
As you know, South Howard is a failing roadway, and the Planning Commission did deliberate this fact at some great length.
We have worked diligently with the applicant, as has Hartline in trying to mitigate the effects of the failing roadway.
And I'm valuable for questions if you have them.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions of Planning Commission staff?
Petitioner?
>>DAVID MECHANIK: 101 East Kennedy Boulevard here on behalf of the petitioner, Post Properties.
I think the staff did a thorough job on the report.
I would like to say there is a pending zoning application.
We are working with the transportation staff and have identified mitigation options.
And we will most certainly address the issues regarding Howard Avenue.
And I would also point out that the traffic generated by this proposal is literally the same as what is currently being generated by the uses on the site.
This is currently built on-site with engineering offices and a bar and so forth, so our traffic is not actually going to increase over the present traffic being generated.
We do have our transportation consultant if you have any question.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Are there any questions of the petitioner?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.
Do you plan to do anything different, or just legitimize what is there?
>>DAVID MECHANIK: The proposal is to build 248 condominium units and 20,000 square feet of retail.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, my God.
>>> Which does generate the same or less traffic than what's on the site today.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Really?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Do you wish to make any other presentation at this time, petitioner?
Or do you want to wait and see?
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item number 11?
Yes, ma'am.
>>> I have a speaker waiver form.
I don't think I am going to need them.
I'll keep this quick.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, that was our response, also.
Obviously this is not the time and place to discuss this zoning issues involved, and we do understand this is a planned amendment change.
We do feel City Council and the city and the developer work with us to mitigate the impact of this development.
Although it is currently zoned as heavy commercial, we question really whether the number of units, the number of shops, is really going to be less demanding on this very failing street.
Page 6 of the MPO states Howard Avenue is a failing street.
In spite of that, I have to say that this is a piece of property that is prime to be developed, and this is a good developer, and we are more than willing -- we already met with the developer twice.
But I really caution council and the city, we were made a lot of promises things were going to be improved at Swann and Howard for years now.
And nothing has happened except we got some stamping in the sidewalk that didn't do anything at the crosswalks.
We think this is -- could be a very positive impact on the neighborhood, but also have a very detrimental impact on the neighborhood.
And we are going to need your guidance in the zoning process to help us through this process to make sure that these neighborhoods, that what makes this so successful is that the neighborhoods do not suffer any more.
It's a big development.
It can be done well.
It can be done with mitigation, things like trolley pull-ups and things like that, that we have to work together on it.
We do -- at the commission meeting we spoke in support of it with reservation, and I want to be here tonight and share with you as approximate president of Bayshore Gardens neighborhood association, we do support it with reservations.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Would you give us your name?
>>> 1311 south Moody Avenue.
Mickey.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone else in the public to speak on item number 11?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a question.
Is it for Ms. Pollack?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Staff.
Is this yours, Phyllis?
>>> Phyllis: Yes, sir.
>> The drawings that you guys have here, seems to be to show the footprint of the building.
But it doesn't include the parcel -- the parking lot that goes out to Howard.
Is that just an accident?
Or is that the reality?
>>> The CMU 35 does encompass the parking lot that goes out to Howard.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the drawing has a little arrow to it then?
>>> This is what I call the predominant parcel.
Right here.
And this includes the parking lot that goes out to Howard.
>> So that's already CMU?
>>> That's already CMU 35.
>> How about the next parking lot down?
Is that -- yes.
>>> That is a building, I believe.
That's not part of it.
What we are talking about are these areas here, Mr. Dingfelder.
And here.
And then this parcel right here, which is the Heidt & Associates building.
>> And then in front of that as you go to the west, that --
>>> that parcel is not part of it.
It just shows that it's partially heavy commercial.
It's partially CMU and heavy commercial.
So it's split.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Mechanik, can you clarify that?
I always assumed that parking lot was owned by Heidt & Associates as well.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: This is not a parking lot.
You're looking south of Inman.
And the parking lot for the Heidt & Associates is -- I'm sort of drawing a line here, west of this line, about half of this parcel is surface parking, and then the building is in the rear of the site over here.
It's a little confusing because the parcel has two planned categories, the CMU 35 is on a predominant portion of the site, and, if you will, the eastern third of the property is the heavy commercial.
So this is really to conform, the whole site into one land use category.
>> How many units are they talking about?
>>> 248.
>> And what sort of -- I mean, if you got a number, I guess you already know what sort of building you're talking about, three-story building or something?
>>> I did not come prepared, because we're not in the mode.
I mean, we have renderings and all that.
I believe the buildings are no more than four stories, though.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are there any other questions of petitioner?
Petitioner, need any more rebuttal time?
Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
Number 11.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan, future land use element, future land use map for the property located in the general vicinity of the southeast corner of Howard Avenue and Swann Avenue from heavy commercial 24 to community mixed use 35 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
Discussion on the motion?
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think you have been a leader in the community and our community and I know you spoke in favor of this Planning Commission with some reservation.
So I am going to support this as well with reservation, depending on what comes afterwards.
But your comments and your warnings and your reservations are well taken.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Phyllis, Tony mentioned earlier when we asked him about public involvement that he had spoken to neighborhoods and whatever one we were talking about.
What is the notice requirement for plan amendments for neighborhoods?
>>> Phyllis: With regard to this particular amendment, I know that there were several neighborhood associations noticed.
>> Let's start with generically.
Generically, does anybody -- Kate --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Do we have to open the public hearing?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just asking generic questions at this point.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We haven't been opening the public hearings on these last questions.
Can we answer the question quickly, though?
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
There is no notice written notice required to surrounding property owners or to the neighborhood association.
The notice is dictated by our plan amendment procedures manual.
That requires written notice to the property owner whose land is the subject of the plan amendment.
And then an advertisement in the paper seven days in advance of the first public hearing, and then posting of the property.
I think what I heard earlier is that the Planning Commission as a courtesy sends written notice out to the surrounding property owners within 250 feet.
But that actually is not required at this stage when we set the hearings for City Council.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: When we are all done with this maybe next Thursday we need to address that because I think that's wrong.
Plan amendments are extremely important.
The underlying basis for our presenting.
So specifically, I'm extremely surprised, Phyllis, that we haven't heard anything from Parkland Estates.
Parkland Estates has been coming out on all of these zonings, and land use issues up and down Howard.
>>> Yes, sir. I did speak by telephone with several residents of Parkland Estates.
And when I explained the plan amendment to them, their concerns were allayed, whether or not they still have reservations will be seen at the time of rezoning.
I'm sure they do as do these other residents have concerns.
As does the Planning Commission, truthfully.
But we support the amendment with those mitigating factors.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
Any further discussion?
All in favor?
[Motion Carried Unanimously]
Thank you.
All right.
We now are going to go to our 6:00 hearings, which is actually not too bad because we got almost a 20-minute late start.
And we just went through nine plan amendments, which I hope will never happen again where we have eleven hearings scheduled for a one-hour period of time.
So Planning Commission, and staff, please hear us when we ask that this be the last time we are having to deal with nine public hearings in the space of one hour.
Thank you.
We do have several motions for continuance.
And there are some items that cannot be heard from our public hearings 12 through 24.
Procedurally, do we need to open it everything now?
Or should we go ahead and handle the ones we know can't be heard?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Remove the ones that cannot be heard.
That's my recommendation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Go down the list, items that cannot be heard.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
Item number 13 cannot be heard.
No affidavit was filed.
I have been in contact with petitioner, and the petitioner has requested that this be converted into a PD and has requested that the application be actually amended.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
What we are asking for is council to make a motion to allow the petitioner to amend the petition and refile.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
We are not amending it.
We are allowing the petitioner to amend it.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would they be required to renotice?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Yes.
Item number 14.
An amendment fee has already been filed with the land development division.
And these are Z 05-111.
Staff is suggesting December 8th, p.m. agenda.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We don't have anything set for December 8 yet, do we?
This is to be set for November 8th.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Item number 19 cannot be heard because of a misnotice.
The petitioner has submitted an amendment fee with land development.
And shall I begin by suggesting December 8th the p.m. agenda.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Currently City Council has one evening meeting in November and one in December.
And I just want to -- I just -- if we are going to consider any others, we should probably consider like next week.
Did you prepare a list for us? So now they are stacking up.
And what the options are?
Not to discuss tonight but next week.
It's okay.
Because I still think we have room for the 8th, tonight to continue things.
But I think we need to really take a look at this next week.
Maybe you could circulate it to council members and we could discuss it next week.
Thanks.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and a second to continue item 19 to December 8th.
All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I actually did the misnotice, the continuance request.
Item number 18, Z 05-116.
Petition worry like to go back to the drawing board, as it were, and has requested a continuance, the first available date is December 8, 6 p.m. agenda.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anyone in the audience?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Wait a minute.
Go ahead, Mr. Attorney.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It will require the public hearing to be open and then continued to December 8.
Notice then would not necessarily be required?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 18.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question.
You said you want to go back to the drawing board.
Well, why don't they just withdraw it and refile something new?
If it's a continuance, it means it's the same thing that's being continued.
If it's bringing anew, it's brand new.
So any idea?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The petitioner -- staff report in advance of the hearing and was concerned about the objections raised from staff.
And thought it would be better to bring a cleaner application to the council.
>>KEVIN WHITE: E-mail said he wants to make necessary site plan corrections -- corrections.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So we need to open the public hearing, right?
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 18?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As to the consequence answer.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 18?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to continue to December 8, 6 p.m.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Item number 20.
Z 05-118.
The petitioner has reviewed my staff report as well, and has requested a continuance to address the issues raised in the staff report.
And the earliest date at this point that we have for that particular case is January 12, 6 p.m.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 20.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion to open number 20 and a second.
(Motion carried)
Question, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Heather, when did they receive your staff report?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: In this particular case it was on Wednesday morning.
I typically try to have it to them by the beginning of the week.
As you know, staff reports are typically do the week before the hearing.
Staff is a little slow this week in getting the staff reports out.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So they didn't have them until yesterday morning?
>>> That's correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What date did you say?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: January 12.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Anyone in the public like to speak on item number 20 on the motion for continuance?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to continue to January 20, 6 p.m.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 12th.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Hang on, ma'am did.
Did you wish to speak on this item?
What we have on the table is a request for a continuance.
So we do ask that you limit your comments to the motion for a continuance.
>>> I can't make an objection to the petitioner at this time?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Our rules dictate if you are going to speak to the substance of the petition, you don't get to speak on that subject again at the continued public hearing.
So really, it's your choice, you can speak to it now if you want, I won't say you can't speak on the 12th.
>>> On both of them.
Well, we object to be the zoning of this --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Name for the record, please.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we need to swear her in?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually, yes.
And I don't know, is the petitioner present here?
FROM THE FLOOR: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Should we go to the petitioner?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion is if it's a motion to continue she should be able to speak to the continuance and solely the continuance because that's the only issue that's on the table right now.
So my advice would be to not to have any testimony to the merits, just to the continuance issue.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right, ma'am.
You heard the advice of council.
Do you want to talk about a continuance?
January 12th okay?
That's probably the biggest question.
>>> Yes, I guess it would be okay.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we apologize for the inconvenience and we'll see you in January.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we have a motion to continue this to January 12th?
We have a motion and a second.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The next to the last item for request for can't answer is number 23, Z 05-120.
My staff report again with the petitioner, the petitioner thought it was necessary to address those concerns.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open the public hearing.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion to open item number 23.
And a second.
(Motion carried)
23 is now open.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 23 to the continuance only?
All right.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Come on up if that's what you are going to talk about.
>>> I'm sorry there, were no agendas left so I'm having trouble following what item we are on.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Corner of Platt and Albany.
>>> Kelly McGary, south Melville.
I have not been sworn.
I don't know if I need to.
On the continuance, as the interim president of the Courier City Oscawana homeowners association, I would ask that you consider continuing this project, as the petitioner, I think in good faith attempted to contact the homeowners association, and was unable to do that because of timing, and was also kind of led to believe that he was talking to the representation of the neighborhood.
We have since met, and I would ask you to consider the earliest date possible for this to be heard, understanding that the petitioner feels that they can update the plan as appropriate.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Anyone else like to be speak to the continuance on item number 23?
Yes, sir.
>>> Michael Horner representing Paradise Development Group.
We stand before you for the continuance.
We found out 14 days ago we have a changing of the guard with the homeowners association.
We would like to get October 20 if possible.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: October 20?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: How about December 8?
Is that still available?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: With reference to continuance you have to look at a particular agenda.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So January 12th?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue to January 12th.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion to continue to -- to continue to January 12th and second.
Any discussion on the motion?
(Motion carried)
Motion carries.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: There's one other item on the agenda tonight, number 24.
At 4:30 this afternoon, we received a letter from the petitioner.
Let me hand that out to you all.
I shared a copy of it with counsel representing neighborhood group already.
I can read the letter into the record.
That may be helpful.
I would like to discuss some things with council briefly.
I had conversation was David Smith.
He will not be appearing but I have had conversation was him and I can tell what you his opinion is.
I think Mr. Nelson would also like to address you on this point as well.
It's addressed to chairperson Gwen Miller.
We are looking forward to a spirited philosophical hearing in regards to this case and are disappointed we will not be able to be heard because we failed to perfect our application as all the required documents were not filed in a timely manner.
In addition we previously asked for and received postponement of two consecutive scheduled public hearings.
As a result we are barred from being heard on our actual application to tonight's scheduled public hearing.
Furthermore it was made clear at the last hearing that another continuance would not be granted and I personally assured council that I would not ask for further delay so I am not going to do so.
The effect of this situation is that we have in a other choice but to refile our application at a later date.
In addition, we will provide a courtesy copy to the representative of the objecting faction, thank you for your attention to this matter, sincerely, Teagardner.
Under section 27-395 of the city code that deals with petitions that are withdrawn, denied, and what refiling requirements are applicable.
What this letter indicates, and David had conversations with Truett Gardner and Steve Gardner relative to this, is they believe they filed under section 23-subsection E which provides where an applicant filing an application for zoning property fails to perfect his application but not filing the affidavit on time or otherwise fails to comply with other requirements, other section with where the applicant asks for postponement of any reason so the petitioner may not be heard at the public hearing, when scheduled, and any acts or omissions occur for two consecutive scheduled public hearings, then no new or amended application having the same property may be filed until the expiration of six months from the date of the last monthly meeting.
We just received this application -- I mean this letter at 4:30 this afternoon.
Frankly, and I think Mr. Nelson again would like to address you.
I think they may argue that you all should deny this application tonight.
The legal department is considering which of these various sections in section 395 it falls under.
Essentially this application has either been withdrawn or is barred from going forward tonight.
I think Mr. Gardner's argument is that the site plan that was on file, that staff has reviewed and staff is willing to go forward with tonight, was effectively withdrawn.
So there was a site plan that was filed in July, and that was -- they withdrew according to them at the last hearing, communicated with staff after that.
They refiled an application.
But they filed it after the 13-day deadline.
Therefore, staff could not review it.
And they feel barred as a result of that.
And so they feel they fall into this category.
The import of that is if the application is deemed withdrawn or denied, there's a 12-month ban on refiling.
That's the critical issue.
And quite honestly, we are not in a position to give you an opinion per se tonight other than tell you that the application really is not before you at this time.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Massey, I don't accept that.
I think we need some direction from staff.
Because otherwise -- from legal.
There is nothing before us right now.
It's either been withdrawn.
>> Or it's barred.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This doesn't say it's withdrawn.
Or it's barred.
Under either one of those, what you are saying is the period in which they cannot refile is six months.
>>> Minimum period of six months.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
Now, is it the legal staff's opinion that it could be something other than either one of those two openings?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: That's legal's staff's position, it's either withdrawn or barred in this juncture.
>> So the official legal opinion of the City of Tampa before us tonight is that this matter is either withdrawn, or it is barred, under either circumstance it cannot be refiled for six months?
>>> Minimum period of six months, correct.
If it's considered withdrawn, it's a 12-month period unless council waives that and allows it within six months and they have to specifically request that from council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why barred?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Their argument is they have no site plan penned pending before you all tonight.
I have not had direct conversation with Truett. This is what David Smith indicated to me tonight.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to hear from Mr. Nelson, but a lot of times when a petitioner has a bunch of continuances and then doesn't show up, we deny the petition meat.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: You do have the right to deny if applicant is not present at the public hearing.
You know, but they have communicated to both staff and to legal staff and to you all officially tonight that they believe they are barred and they fall under that subsection of the code.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's just their opinion.
I guess it bothers me a little bit that a petitioner doesn't show up, period, and under these circumstances.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I understand, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Nelson, please come up.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: And I have spoken with Mr. Nelson before I approached the podium tonight to let him know what the position was relative to which one of those options we believe are applicable in this situation. The legal department is prepared to appear before you in two weeks under department heads to advise you and to advise Mr. Nelson and allow him to time to respond.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here's way don't want to happen.
We are not going to hear. This there is no reason to open this and listen to an hour's worth of very obviously probable going to be upset people that they have had to come back down here simply so we can deny this petition.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Understood.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Can we without ever opening the hearing deny the petition therefore putting in place the one-year bar from refiling?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe Mr. Nelson will argue that point.
I think our position is that at this juncture, they have effectively either withdrawn or they are barred from going forward tonight, so the denial section would not apply.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
So you are saying we have to open this public hearing.
>>> I'm not saying you open the public hearing.
Don't have a petition before you tonight.
And it's either withdrawn or barred at this juncture.
I think Mr. Nelson would like to argue -- I am not going to speak for Mr. Nelson.
I think I wants to argue that you have the right to deny the petition tonight.
I am advising you that I think it's either been withdrawn or barred.
We will advise you which one of those in two weeks.
Either case, no public hearing should be open because there's really nothing for public hearing to occur upon.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So if we were to deny this petition tonight, in two weeks, you all come back and say, I don't think you did the right thing, I think it was probably just barred, therefore the six-month rule applies and not the one-year rule will apply.
We can deal with that issue in two weeks.
One of two things is going to happen.
It's not going to be reheard for six months or not reheard for a year.
>>> That's essentially correct.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Nelson, can you assure me that you're speaking on behalf of everyone that's in a red shirt here tonight?
(Laughter)
Because if you are going to be here, folks, for a long time tonight and I would rather not take up my time, their time or anybody else's time on an item that all we are really arguing about is whether it's six months or a year.
>>> Seth Nelson: Yes.
I have been retained by one individual.
And so that's Don crow at 201 north 12th street.
So I cannot affirmatively say that I represent anyone under the flab rules, bar rules.
However, I would Smith submit that I would think that this has been an organized effort, and I think that I could safely say that maybe by show of hands or whatnot they will certainly hear my legal advice and arguments.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Everybody in a red shirt that wants Mr. Nelson to speak on your behalf, please raise your hand.
Anybody else still want to talk about this item?
Very good.
Mr. Nelson, you have got the floor.
>>> Seth Nelson representing I guess everyone in the red shirt.
Law firm at 2102 west Cleveland street.
We're sorry to be here talking procedure with you tonight.
I think everyone has been put in a difficult position.
It's my understanding that the petitioner's argument is that they failed to file in a timely manner.
It's my understanding they filed 44 minutes late.
And, therefore, it's their petition that it's -- position it's barred and they cannot come before back before you for six months.
I spoke with Mr. Gardner earlier today and just out of courtesy to him said I was obtained and would be opposing the subsequent portion but I heard he may be withdrawing, and he said they are considering it and if they do they would send a letter.
I am carbon copied on the letter before you.
I think the letter before you is -- can be viewed simply for what it is.
It's their legal opinion that their application was barred.
I would argue that under 27-393 sub-B the applicant is not here.
If the applicant is not here, you may deny this petition.
Therefore, they cannot come back before you for 12 months under sub-C unless they can show two sub categories which we don't need to go into this evening.
The letter does not state that they are withdrawing their petition.
And if you look closely at sub-D it says the council may allow an applicant to withdraw his application at any time.
Provided, however, if the request for withdrawal is made after -- there has been no request for a withdrawal.
They simply sent you a letter stating their position that it was barred.
They haven't requested a withdrawal.
What they have simply done is not showing up at this hearing.
As you're aware, on July 21st, they first came to you for continuance and asked for the earliest date, that date set for August 25th.
Once again, they asked for a continuance and asked for the earliest date.
I'm not going to waste the council's time.
These are the transcripts from those two previous hearings where council was adamant, as Mr. Gardner points out in his letter, that they would not look favorably on another continuance.
I think the proper procedure would have been for tonight for Mr. Gardner to come down, with the petition to argue, and come before council and say, we haven't filed timely, we believe it's barred, but we're asking for our petition to be withdrawn but we're asking to come back in six months.
That would have put this in a procedural posture where everyone would be comfortable and not in some limbo where legal has to go do research for two weeks and come back before you.
However, they chose not to come here tonight.
By choosing not to come here and asking for withdrawal an going for the six months, which is the same six months that it's barred, you know, I say that they have waived that right, they haven't come before the petition, it should be denied, they shouldn't be allowed back for 12 months.
I'm happy to entertain any questions.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions for Mr. Nelson?
Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
I have to ask, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on item number 24?
Mr. Massey, if we choose to take action do we need to close the public hearing at this point?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: It's been continued.
It's a continued public hearing.
Yes, to take official action, you should do it --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I have a question for Mr. Massey.
You said there was a possibility that either Mr. Smith or somebody that represents our legal department, depending on what action we're taking, would come back in two weeks, and give us a response?
Or an opinion?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Yes.
If council chose to deny this because the applicant is not here tonight, we may have to come back to council, depending on what our research shows, and request that council reconsider that position.
>>ROSE FERLITA: My confusion is this, though.
Don't think that it would have taken seven weeks of research, even if we had gotten this at 4:30 or 5:00 5:15 or 6:00 for you, Mr. Smith or anybody else that represent our legal department to come up with an opinion and then of course the council would be -- this is kind of a repeat performance about where we have been with this whole thing.
And there are a couple of people who suffer.
The group that's out there.
And you know you were nice enough to take the blame last time, and believe me when I tell you, let me preface what I'm saying, you are not at fault.
You are not going to take the blame.
Don't care what kind of good soldier you are because you had nothing to do with this.
But the point is because last week, or whenever we were trying to hear it, there was the opinion that Mr. Gardner felt that the administration was going to come in and request the continuance that it appeared that they wanted, and they weren't here because he was someplace.
He was embarrassed.
You all were embarrassed.
You tried to take the blame.
Cathy Coyle tried to take the blame.
The neighborhood was exacerbated because they were here to argue something and couldn't. The petitioner's representative was embarrassed.
Now we have an issue for whatever reason.
They were 44, 45 minutes late.
And according to our rules, if that happens because they didn't happen something, again for whatever reason I don't know, but they were late, so that means it's barred, and that means in a typical scenario that gives them six months.
Now we have an issue about what do we do, and then of course whatever we do is going to be something that's going to be debated again in two weeks, depending on what our legal department does.
It always ends up the same way, doesn't it?
We're up here again.
And no matter which way we do.
Mr. Gardner is probably not here because he figured if he was barred he's got six months and what is he going to argue about because that's what it is for whatever reason?
The neighborhood is here because they are sick and tired of this.
Some of us are tired because we have an issue with height.
But at the same time we wanted to hear both sides.
We can't even hear that because we don't know where we are going.
Whether in six months the neighborhood is going to be happy to listen to something, whether in six months the petitioner is going to come back with something better, we don't know, they don't know, he doesn't know.
And all of this was configured around the potential of offering something that the administration wanted, affordable housing someplace in that group, green space in terms of the park somewhere in this development, and then the neighborhood is sitting there thinking, what's going to happen?
So, I mean, this is a crazy way to run what we do.
And no matter what we do tonight, somebody is going to be aggravated.
We are trying to be fair to everybody, and we are having no support, no direction, no opinion, no Mr. Smith -- know Mr. Huey, no Mr. Gardner because he doesn't know whether or not this is going to go forward, and the neighborhood sits there.
It is unconscionable that this is how we get through this.
And if we go with the sentiment of the neighborhood, we go against our rules, and we continue to profess that if you're late you're barred, end of story.
But in this case because there has been continuance that is aggravate them, aggravate us, aggravate everybody, we might be inclined to go against our rules so that we might be able to deny it.
The petitioner's representative things probably it's going to die.
So he is not here.
In all fairness to him, and we have to hear both sides.
He's not here because he thinks it's not going anyplace.
They are here because they want it to go someplace.
Why is it that we are always in the middle of it?
I mean, they had an issue a couple weeks ago or last week about a workshop.
I wanted to intently listen to that because height is an issue.
If there was some compromise, and I'm not sure at this point there is or going to be, I don't even know in six months that the heated dissension from one side to another is going to be quaffed.
I have talked for 20 minutes and I'm still frustrated because the administration has put this us in the middle.
They are there.
We are here. This guy is probably looking at television and thinking, oh, my God, I should have been there but I didn't think I had to.
Why do we do business this way?
Why?
(Laughter)
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I'm not sure I want to respond.
I share your frustration.
>> No, you share their frustration.
It is just unbelievable.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Let me make a suggestion.
And it's almost --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would love to hear it.
>>> Slicing the baby in two.
So to speak.
I mean, council would like to move to deny tonight, on the basis the petitioner is not here.
I think that is a basis for council to act.
Whether they are able to refile within six months or a year is a decision that the legal department needs to make on whether they are actually barred from going forward.
And let us come back in two weeks to make that and let you all know what our determination is at that time.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Follow-up question, Mr. Massey.
If we decided to do that, and go against our rules because we are not supposed to be even acting on it if it just didn't come in in a timely fashion.
The usual, the regulars, Mr. Michelini, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
If we did that, then how do we justify six months to come back or one year to come back?
And if we can justify six months instead of one year, what is the difference between denying and barred?
Tell me that.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The only difference -- the basic difference between a denial and being barred from going forward is the time frame under which the applicant can refile.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If we deny it, could we do six month?
And if we did, then what's the difference what --.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The code also allows council to waive the -- 12-month time frame if there's a change in comp plan, change in circumstances, change in the plan.
So the council always has that option.
The developer has to come -- the petitioner has to come and request of council and prove that it's within one of those categories in order to get that waiver.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And would we have to do that if we took that direction?
When?
>>> There's no specific time frame in the code.
>>ROSE FERLITA: What I'm saying if we took that direction tonight -- I want to put it to bed but I want to put it to bed fairly, Mr. Dingfelder.
I just think that we have been stuck in the middle of this again.
So have they.
So has he.
And the administration is sitting home watching television.
You know, it's like what do we do?
What do we do that's fair?
I understand their issues and I am not going to get into the specifics or the merits of the case.
I understand their issues.
I have been supportive of some of the issues that they will probably bring up if we did this.
But, at the same time, it is unbelievable.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's go to Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you.
First of all, I don't know if anybody else wants to speak.
I was going to move to close and then put this to bed.
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And we have a motion to close.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we open it?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I wanted to close and go.
Since this monstrosity happens to be in my district I think I want to weigh in on this.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think you ought to move.
Just joking.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I've done that before.
I think on a personal level, I think the petitioner's representative should have been here and I think he attempted to roll the dice on this particular petition and leave it incumbent upon the City of Tampa's legal staff and incumbent upon City Council.
When this petition first came before us in August, they weren't ready.
When it came back again -- I'm sorry, in July, it wasn't ready.
When it came back in August it wasn't ready.
And I don't want you to take offense at this statement.
I'm tired of seeing you all and I'm sure you're tired of seeing us.
And I'm going to make a motion that we deny this, and it just be denied, and that petitioner took a gamble, he rolled the dice, he lost.
If it's 12 months, it's fine.
Fits six months, it's fine.
Whatever the rules are.
If it's 12 months the petitioner needs to play by the rules, and if not, he can come back before this body and ask for reconsideration, and see where it goes at that point in time.
I think they are tired of coming down here.
They don't want to be here.
We don't want them to be here.
And I think this has gone on and dragged out long enough.
The petitioner should have been here.
If he wanted this to be -- if he wanted to be heard on this and not just a letter from the representative.
And I think each one of these people up here in the audience, none of them sent letters instead of appearing before us in their red shirts.
They took time out of their busy schedules, took time out of their night to be here to show this is important to them.
I think petitioner should have shown them the same respect.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
I'm going in the order of hands that I saw.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I support the motion.
I just wanted to put on record section 27-395 (B) says as Mr. Massey pointed out the applicator their agent shall appear in support of the application at public hearing.
Failure to appear shall be grounds for denial of the application in the absence of good cause shown.
I'm going to support the motion.
I think the motion is well grounded.
I'm going to add that we add as a friendly amendment to the motion that there's no good cause shown why we shouldn't be denying this.
Because that's what the standard is.
There's no good cause shown.
There's nothing in this letter or any testimony that I heard tonight why we shouldn't deny this.
Frankly, I'm a little bit shocked that these petitioners are not here to express their position, if that's their prerogative, and I think we're on very good grounds to deny this on this basis.
As you said, Kevin, whatever happens after that happens after that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Many of the faces here I saw at a workshop that was held about the Channel District about two Saturdays ago, and I understand we are going to have future workshops, and we are going to use these workshops as a basis for determining a vision for the Channel District in the future.
We have a -- I think it would be wise for the petitioner not to resubmit this before the community has weighed in and helped craft a vision of what they want for their neighborhood, and whatever future petition is submitted reflect the vision created by the neighborhood.
I think that would be sound and wise.
And I would hope that all of you who have taken the time to come down twice to City Council, at least twice or three times, would continue your energy, and be involved in the development of this vision plan, because if T future of your neighborhood is really at stake, and you're the ones who are most clearly impacted by it and your involvement will shape it.
And we will listen to you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: The only comment I make -- and I'm supportive of the motion given the arguments that I've heard.
However, I still want it on the record that regardless of what Mr. Gardner's choices were or decisions were, if he was thinking because they were late in submitting the information, that Pa that was grounds for barring, that's his decision.
But I still want it very clear that given what we saw last week, and the body language and the comments, et cetera, from neighborhood, and petitioner's representative, that this was certainly influenced by what the administration had and what they wanted from the petition.
It is hard enough, I think, to have the neighborhood and a petitioner, or petitioner's representative agree.
And typically that's what we want done.
Whether it works or doesn't work, that's the outcome that sometimes is ultimate.
But I think if they were less had confusion based on what the administration wanted and what the administration did not stand up for, there would have been less animosity and it would have been up or down, end of story, less continuances, Mr. Gardner would have been here, the neighborhood would have been here, happy with their proposal, we would have listened to the neighborhood and denied it.
But this has been something that is embarrassing for me as part of this government, that it was handled this way.
I am certainly going oh to support it and I understand the issues of the neighborhood, and I support your perseverance in this.
The red shirts have almost been faded to pink they have been here so long.
I think we got the message.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Just let me say nothing more needs to be said on the substance.
I want to thank everyone who came down tonight for not taking your three minutes to speak on this.
We appreciate your ability to read between the lines what was happening up here, Mr. Nelson.
All in favor of the motion for denial please indicate by saying. I'm opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
We'll take a ten-minute recess.
(City Council recess taken at 7:50 p.m.)
-=-
[Sounding gavel]
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Tampa City Council is called back to order.
Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (No response.)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>> We are back in session.
I believe item number 12 is up.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Yes, that's correct.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Shelby?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Before we get to the public hearings... if council had any discussions they should be received and filed in the record at this time.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Anyone in the audience who would like to speak at a public hearing from this point forward, please stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please state your name, please also indicate that you have been sworn.
Thank you.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
The site is located on broad street across from the housing authority development in the Seminole Heights neighborhood.
The petitioner at 115 east broad street. The site is located in the Seminole Heights overlay and is subject to design standards.
Each will be 1,010 square feet and contain two bedrooms, be provided with a carport and a tenant parking space to the rear two. Of the units will be accessed via the alley at the rear of the subject properties.
As outlined in my report and I will be succinct, just to let you know, the standards that have not been met with this proposal, the height of the bidding as I will illustrated on the plan is 18 inches above grade.
In addition, other objections is that the minimum backout requirement is not met on the alley, for transportation.
Solid waste says there needs to be a sidewalk, and parks and recreation states that the construction of the driveway for unit number 2 will cause the effective removal of the 15 inch tree on the right-of-way.
And you're asking which 15 inch tree?
The tree that they are concerned about is this tree here.
This is an adjacent property.
Another adjacent property.
Across the street is the housing authority project, under construction.
And the community center.
Staff concludes comments and notes objections.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm sorry, there are objections or not?
>>> There are objections.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Planning Commission?
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
As it relates to the comprehensive plan, I want to go ahead and put a future land use map up here.
The site is located in the Seminole Heights neighborhood association area.
The Hillsborough River is just to the north of the development, and land use designation, residential 35.
North-south corridor.
Predominant land use, commercial 24.
The site has a land use designation of residential 20.
The entire north face of broad street is residential 10 as it transition as way from North Florida Avenue and then transitions down into residential 10 along the neighborhood north-south streets.
Of course, Nebraska Avenue is further over to the east.
The request serves as a logical transition being that it's residential 20 land use category, as you go for the more intense category, from the intersection as one heads east or south, you have a logical transition of intensity.
I also took the opportunity to speak to Randy Barren, the Seminole Heights land use subcommittee with Steve Grutman and also with Mr. Duval, who is current president of T.H.A.N. and was a president of Old Seminole Heights neighborhood association.
None of those gentlemen had any issue when I spoke to them this regarding this project.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Go ahead.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did they see the proposed elevation?
>>TONY GARCIA: That I cannot answer, Ms. Saul-Sena.
I do know that the applicant at some point in time was supposed to go in front of.
They do have a subcommittee, land use subcommittee, and Mr. Grutman is a member of that.
>> My concern is when he took a look at this he looked at the number of units, perhaps, but you didn't really look at the Seminole Heights design standards and then look at the elevation that was -- that's been given to us.
Is that true?
>>TONY GARCIA: I did not.
I relied more on the people that are more intimate with that, more intimate with the design standards who would be Mr. Grutman and Mr. Duval and Mr. Barren who live in or are in Old Seminole Heights every day.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I'll find out later, thanks.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tony, I'm not trying to pick on you, even though it sounds like it.
Following up on Mrs. Saul-Sena's comments, when you look at this, you're pretty much constrained to looking at the comprehensive plan and the goals, objectives and policies of our comprehensive plan, and whether or not it fits.
Correct?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> And you haven't referenced anywhere in here -- do we have any historic element or anything in the comprehensive plan?
>>TONY GARCIA: Well, as far as resources, we depend upon this is one of three historic areas that we have.
>> But is that in our comprehensive plan?
>>> Historic resources element, yeah.
>> And you didn't excerpt from that --
>>> well, this is not a contributing structure.
It's nothing contributing as far as this particular piece of property.
There is no significant history regarding this particular piece of property.
>> But it's in the district.
Isn't it in the district that we designated?
>>> Correct.
They have to follow -- as Ms. Lamboy said, do you have guidelines for the area.
But I'm going by the fact that if I don't hear any objections, since I do have more intimate relationship with this particular association, Seminole Heights, I value the comments that I get from these people because who else would know their neighborhood more intimately than the people who live there?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Petitioner?
>>> Jeffrey Zwirn.
We just want to change it, put a four-plex on the site.
We worked with an engineer to come up with the drawings.
We unfortunately were not provided with the report from the first individual.
She said she had e-mailed it on Wednesday Haiti late, and I was not provided with that report.
And unfortunately we had submitted a later site plan, I believe a few days ago, just to talk about the backout with regards to the driveways in the back.
You know, this is an area of town where they have done a large amount of renovation.
They have completely blown out anything that was there.
Unfortunately, where my property was located, there's about five or six eyesores, and everything else is even being built up on that street.
And our vision was to come up with something that was affordable housing that could accommodate people in that area who can afford it, and at the same time enhance the community as well as the value of the property.
So that was our whole plan.
And other than the few, I think things we could probably note and change in the site plan I didn't see anything -- we hadn't been notified of any other problems.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that it?
>>> Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to be speak on item 12?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question for the developer.
You have now seen the report?
>>> Yes, the one that we spoke of in the very beginning, I would like to correct, I'm not a developer, I'm just trying to build a four-plex.
>> But you have seen the staff report dated September 2nd?
>>> Just before this hearing started, yes, I did.
>> Staff had some serious issues that are raised throughout the first couple of pages of the staff report, pretty much design and orientation issues, orientation, building fronts on the street.
However, the building has two fronts.
It says, let's see, orientation.
There's no precedent pattern in the vicinity for this type of development.
Carports.
Carports do not function as a portico, not consistent with the historic development pattern in Old Seminole Heights neighborhood.
The project does not meet the standard elevations.
Kind of some serious questioning of the design.
You have been working on this.
I know this was continued from June.
And, you know, did you take an aggressive opportunity to work with staff on these kind of issues, the design issues?
And did you know you were in a specific design area?
>>> We hired Joe Croske, a PE, and he was unable to be here today but my portion was meeting with the engineer drawing up the plans and I wasn't really actively involved unfortunately.
But we would be able to do whatever it takes-f there was certain things including raising the elevation, with regards to the backout problem, I found that to be more of an interesting thing and I think improves the area because it requires us I believe to pave the back alley which is definitely going to enhance the neighborhood.
And I believe basically what's there right now is going to continue to grow and I think what makes Seminole Heights special is that it is unique, and I think that at that point there's a lot of --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: My guess is this council would probably -- I have to speak for myself -- my guess is council is thrilled that anybody wants to develop, you know, along those streets, new development along those streets has not happened in awhile, would be my guess, and so it's a good thing that there's anybody who wants to go in there and pioneer and start with some new development especially directly across the street from public housing.
That's great.
But there are still design standards that the city and Seminole Heights have established.
Staff seems to indicate, and by the looks of the drawing, doesn't seem to have really been met.
So maybe you can just work with staff and come up with a little better design, and meet some of the design criteria, or all the design criteria.
>>> We would have no problem with that.
We had submitted a later site plan which I don't think they had the ability to see based on some changes that were provided before.
But we would be more than happy to meet any other design specifications that the commission wants.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, it sound like we are kind of ripe for a continuance.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to speak on it.
I would flat-out deny it.
We have an investment of millions and millions of dollars being made in public housing right across the street.
And what's before us is completely mediocre.
And I'm positive -- did you meet with the Seminole Heights design review group?
>>> Not me myself.
I can't --
>> Well, nothing against this engineer.
But I don't think that maybe he has the design capacity to come up with the -- maybe he does. Anyway, it spells out in the report, you are not even vaguely there.
You can't just slab on grade.
It has to be a better design.
You can't wait 15 feet backing out.
You provided 11 feet and the code requires 26 feet.
That's not waivable.
Transportation has certain standards.
And you are not like a foot or two off, you are way off.
You are 2 feet from a tree.
Your solid waste is only one foot by one foot walkway.
I think you really need to rethink this.
Maybe four units is too much, you know.
Maybe two good units is a better idea.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions from council members?
Ms. Alvarez?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Is that a motion?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm not happy with this design either.
As I understand it, this is mole heights but this is not the best you can do.
For one thing you don't have any guest parking so what are you going to do when they do have people coming over?
Or they might have two cars, or three cars.
You just need to go back.
There's just too many things.
Ms. Saul-Sena hit it right on the head where you have the alley backout from 26 feet to 11 feet.
There's just too many things going on here.
This is not good.
It's just not consistent with the historic development area.
So I don't know, but I move to deny this.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We need to close the public hearing first.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item number 12?
I see no one.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to deny.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: If we continue we keep it open.
We have a motion to close.
We have a second on the motion to close.
The discussion on the motion to close, which means there is no continuance, it means that we will either be voting it up or down.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe petitioner has the right to -- (off microphone)
6th.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think there's any argument presented except go back.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm saying give him opportunity for time, and if there's anything he wishes to add, then --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Petitioner, come on back up.
>>> We would be more than happy to go back and attempt to revise it even more so.
It's my opinion because came here to at least complain of what the project was.
But everyone I think we could put a four-plex on there, if we need to work on the design, we don't have a problem doing that. We have already significantly invested in what we have, and I would request that we be given more time to do what I think -- I don't think it's impossible.
I think we have gone this far so I would hate to have to start again with something that we have attempted to comply with.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Where we stand procedurally tonight is we have almost filled up our January 12th continuance docket.
Do we have any space left of January 12th?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: There's one.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Petitioner, you heard the concerns of the council.
Do you wish to ask us for a continuance?
Or you can take your chances with an up or down vote.
>>> I do ask for continuance and one other consideration.
I know we asked for quite a bit.
We have complied twice with the notice requirements.
We did not receive the report.
I believe it was indicated earlier today that had we had those additional concerns that were e-mailed on Wednesday, you know, we could even have enhanced that and been prepared for it.
That's why I ask --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You would have had to make major revisions to your site plans which could not be done.
>>> I'm not an engineer.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: In any way event you are asking for a continuance and January 12th would be the soonest we could do that.
>>> That's fine.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue to January 12th.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we had a pending motion to close on the table, although, Mr. Shelby, were we out of order on that?
Because we weren't supposed to --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I think just for the sake of due process, the rules do require an opportunity for them to have closing rebuttal, to close the public hearing.
So I apologize.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So the motion to close wasn't well taken.
Do we have another motion on the table at this point?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To continue --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, do you want to make a motion, Mrs. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move to close.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion to close and second which means there will be no continuance.
Is there any discussion on the motion to close?
There being none, all in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying Aye.
All opposed to closing the public hearing signify by saying Nay.
I'm sorry.
Let's revote.
All in favor of closing the public hearing please signify by saying Aye.
All opposed to closing the public hearing, please signify by saying Nay.
All right.
Motion to close fails.
Now, do we have a --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to continue -- allow the petitioner to continue to January 12 at 6 p.m.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion.
We have a second.
Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sir, I think we are giving you the opportunity to come back.
But that's a possibility.
But unless there are just drastic changes, the probability of this getting approved is going to be, in my opinion, slim to none.
I think Mr. Dingfelder talked about the guidelines and those type of things.
I'm quite surprised, to tell you the truth, knowing Seminole Heights neighborhood as I do know them, that they are not here.
But maybe sometimes when they think that something is so blatantly against the guidelines, they assume that we are going to be responsible enough to deny something.
There are so many things that you need to correct.
You will probably need to January to correct them.
So I think in order to utilize that time to your best interest and our best interest, and the audience's best interest, remember that this I believe almost got denied.
So you have a lot of things to do.
And whatever your role was -- and I don't know exactly what it was, make sure you're very active in terms of participation to come back with something that's in keeping with what it needs to be.
And you have got the opportunity.
Let's see where it goes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would just specifically request that you contact Randy brain with Seminole Heights neighborhood association.
I believe he's the chairman of the design committee.
Because I'm going to want to know how they feel about this, because you are in an area that has a design overlay, and that's really important to us.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I also think that Ms. Saul-Sena's comments earlier that four units might be excessive on this.
I think lot only appears to be 50 feet wide and 100 or 150 feet deep, I'm not sure.
So I think it just might be too much on there.
Maybe it's two units in the front and a granny flat, you know, a garage-type thing in the back to utilize the alley.
It's just something a little more creative like that might be able to satisfy the guidelines from staff better.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any further discussion on the motion to continue?
All in favor please signify by saying Aye.
Motion carries.
Opposed?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue to the 15th.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second to open item number 15.
All in favor say Aye.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The subject property is located just south -- on Westland.
As indicated on the aerial the site is on a mixed type of streetscape.
Historic apartment building in this particular block there has already been redevelopment, sites for this type of structure that I'm going to be talking about.
The petitioner proposes the construction of four attached residential unit on the site.
The building will have two dwelling units on westland Avenue and two fronting the alley.
Each will have 2,219 of heated space.
North and south side of the building for pedestrian access to and from the alley and/or streets.
The total green space provided is 2,267 square feet, single family residence will be demolished so the proposed construction may occur.
This is the single family residence.
In order to get an idea of the streetscape, adjacent to the single family residence, there is a small apartment building.
Down the street across the street is a redeveloped site with multifamily housing.
Multifamily across the street.
Further north, there's multifamily here.
As you can see by the sign, there's going to be another four-plex on that particular site.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have to say that sometimes people have signs advertising thing that haven't got rezonings yet.
They are kind of optimistic.
So I don't think you can take a sign as an absolute symbol of what's to come.
Sometimes it's sort of wishful on the part of the property owner.
>>> Point well taken.
I did check and there's an approved PD for that site.
There are just a couple of minor objections that staff has for this particular case.
The proposed landscape waiver from the required 750 square feet per dwelling unit to 566 square feet per dwelling unit is excessive.
And the transportation division has also objected with reference to the backout on the alley.
The 26-foot backout is not met.
That concludes staff's comments.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Planning Commission?
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Future land use in this surrounding area, here's residential 20 to the north of Platt Street.
On Howard and West Platt street you have community mixed use 35.
South there is one transition from Howard and from Platt.
All residential 35 in the area.
Looking at the aerial for this particular area, one can see, as Ms. Lamboy has depicted on this particular area of westland, a significant amount of multi-use, four town homes, another multifamily use here, multifamily use adjacent to the proposed site, and another one just to the south over here on the corner of Horatio and south westland.
There is support on this particular segment of similar uses, and the residential 35 land use category is .18 acres of land and does allow consideration for the number of units that the applicant is requesting.
As to the degree and density of the units, that is a specific technical issue.
But from a comp plan aspect the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Regarding this particular character on this particular segment of westland within this general area.
Planning Commission staff finds the request for this particular area consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Could you say that this area has reached the saturation point of multifamily in this area?
>>TONY GARCIA: Specifically as it relates to multifamily?
I would say -- that's a good question.
It's a determination that I think will be probably best represented by your new neighborhood associations coming out.
I think you had a similar thing happen farther to the east on the east side.
I want to say not where Hyde Park is but you had some plan amendment that is came out where people wanted to change to residential 35 and get some plan amendments, basically they said you don't want to have any more.
So basically, I think what council is going to have to determine on that particular instance is the feelings of the people that are being affected, as I said, in a previous rezoning of the people that lived there, 24-7.
To answer your question about saturation, I would say with the increased units that you have, where you have a potential for saturation as far as transportation is concerned, I think that's probably the biggest issue that you are probably hearing consistently from the resident in the area.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Petitioner?
>>> John LaRocca.
I have been sworn in.
I'm agent for the petitioner.
With me this evening to answer any questions that may come up during the course of the discussion is Alex Liggett, a representative, David Mechanik, legal council, and Pete Taglorin, architect.
I will not reiterate what staff and Planning Commission indicated but I'll further illustrate for discussion purposes the Elmo, reflect this particular lot on west land between Horatio and Azeele as indicated earlier, res 35, zoned RM-16.
The density of this project and the four units on the property, it's a lot that's 64 by 125 with a 20-foot alley at the rear.
The project density with the four units on it is 21.7.
I believe there was a discrepancy in the site plan that indicated it was a higher density.
But that calculates to the 21.7 dwelling units to the acre in a res 35 designation.
The character of that particular street obviously, I have been before you in a previous case where there was a questionable number of uses on that particular street with regard to how it was trending, but in particular this block as commented on to the earlier drawings the figures, and hopefully you will understand a quick explanation, is references of items of four dwelling units per block on those items that are designated, there's this particular lot here has three units on it, but they are geared farther to the west and looks almost vacant when you are out driving by or walking by.
There are, on the block today, one sides the property in question, one, two, three, four single-family homes in a block with 12 lots.
There are four-unit townhouses up in the northwest corner, the three lots on the west side of the street, and on the southwest corner.
And then there's a four-unit quadriplex that's designed in a 1960s fashion directly south of the property.
There were some illustrations shown.
I'll be glad to discuss them at length in the question and answer portion of the session.
But would indicate that we believe we are consistent with the comp plan.
We believe we are consistent with the character of the area.
This is an area that has been out of any of the areas to be considered in the past with any historic overlay.
I know that was an issue discussed at one particular point in time.
But this particular property as Heather had indicated earlier is one that could follow through on the demolition process in terms of the existing home that is on the property.
With regard to the two issues as Heather indicated in the staff report that were stated reasons for objections, the transportation issue on the 26-foot backup onto the alley, we are showing 20 feet -- 19 feet from the rear face of the garage door to the property line.
Then we have a 20-foot alley.
We are indicating that we seek a waiver of approximately 6 feet, because there just isn't that distance in the back based on how this area functions, even if the building itself were to be altered somewhat.
We believe based on the character of how the alley functions and the 20 foot right-of-way that exists for that alley, we believe a 20-foot backout and only a 6 foot waiver to the standard parking lot dimensions for driveway movement is and would be appropriate and justified.
With regard to the landscape area, obviously we have asked for a waiver of the green space requirement.
There is 7-foot side yard setbacks and green space and landscaping we are providing on the corners of the property.
Again, there may be some ways to inch out a bit more of green space on the property, but we believe this is the best design that fits the character of the area.
Therefore, I respectfully request your approval this evening.
I know there may be some people in the audience who raise some questions.
We are prepared as the representative, and the petitioner's representatives to answer those questions.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions of petitioner?
All right.
Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak on item number 15?
If would you like to speak, please go ahead and come up and line up on either side of the podium.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While they are come up I would like to ask a question of staff.
I wanted to make sure that the property now has been approved for demolition.
Was it reviewed?
Was at contributing structure?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Yes, as part of the review DRC process, I referred this out to Dennis Fernandez for his review.
And he did a site visit, and it is actually not part of the national register of historic district, but he did drive by, and he said that would be considered a contributing structure if it were considered -- I think the national register district is a couple blocks over, or something.
I have to look at a map.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I thought the national register district went up to Platt.
We'll have a chance top look at that later.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
>>> My name is Jeff Black.
I have been sworn in.
I live at 306 South Albany which is a block over from this proposed development.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, the sign that you were referring to -- I'll wait.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You're on the clock.
>>> I understand.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, that sign you were looking at, that was one of Mr. Liggett's beautiful bungalow homes that he decided to demolish while I was sleeping.
I'm not sleeping anymore.
Okay?
It was a gorgeous house.
It's going to be another one of those flat-faced, quadplex, just like this one, that I am here to say please don't put that type of place in my neighborhood anymore.
Don't want you cutting back the green space.
Don't want you giving them any variance.
They got the height right.
It only two story.
But this is ugly.
And it was way too much space.
There are too many of these in my neighborhood already.
I brought along a couple pictures that I took of development over on Rome Avenue.
These are duplexes, not quadplexes.
But at least they are fitting with the way the neighborhood looks.
And I disagree.
I believe that --
>> Put them on the Elmo.
>>> Okay.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Scootch the bottom one up, please.
>>> Anyway, this is the type of place that I wouldn't mind having in my neighborhood.
I'm just really tired of these boxy quadriplexes.
I would never buy the house that faced the alley.
I walk my dog down the alley.
The houses down the alley are all historic bungalow homes.
This is going to be two story in the middle of a block.
And I can't go for it.
It's going to be shading those back yards at about 5:00 in the afternoon during the summer and about 3:00 in the wintertime.
I won't ever -- I have forgiven Mr. Liggett for knocking down that beautiful bungalow but I will never forget.
And I am here to say please do not approve this project.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Next.
>>> My name is Elizabeth Devlin, 506 South Meadow Avenue.
Actually, I have a copy of the map that shows which streets are in the historic district and which are not, and which houses contribute and which don't.
This is the block they are talking about.
This is the house they are going to tear down.
This is a little alley.
And these houses here are all single-family bungalows that contribute.
I don't know why the distribute cuts in and cuts back out.
But that block is excluded for some reason from the historic district.
In any event, this building here you saw a picture of, you have seen all the pictures on this street.
The scale is relatively small.
So if we consider the density and scale issues that we have concerns about, even though the street is not lovely-e they are not really historic buildings, they are not beautiful bungalows.
I'm not going to argue it.
They should be proceed served in that regard.
But if you build a huge, dense structure that's going to back up to five single-family bungalows, no one showed you a picture of that street, and this morning when I drove over there to look at it didn't think, oh, I should grab a picture of this street to show you what it's going to back into.
But the scale of the ones that are already there is pretty small.
You don't feel completely overwhelmed.
You don't feel like you are having to walk by a warehouse.
When they put in these buildings, they just have two-story -- I mean two two-car garages, you are walking by a warehouse in the bungalow district.
What we would be looking for, like Jeff just showed you, those kind of, you know, duplexes or even quadplexes that are consistent and fitting with our neighborhood.
And so scale to me is more of an issue on this one than the density.
Although I continue to have density concerns.
And I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over and over.
People want to live in this neighborhood because it's historic.
But we don't have the protection of being historic.
And so the developers come in and they say, well, people would really love to live in this historic district so let's build a brand new thing that doesn't fit in the neighborhood and pretty soon it's not going to be historic anymore and it's going to be sort of this ugly warehouse-looking -- not even as nice as warehouses.
I wouldn't mind if they were warehouses.
They are garages.
So it just makes the neighborhood not what it is.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
>>> I'm sorry, yes, I was.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for coming tonight.
This project is, I think, one or one and a half blocks off of Howard.
And although I can't see Howard on my drawing, since it's near Azeele, I want to say there's some bars or restaurants nearby.
Can you tell us, give us testimony in regard to the weekend parking issues along these kind of streets, westland and Albany?
>>> There's someone that's going to come up and speak.
I live about two blocks away.
>> That's fine.
>>> Let me point out the building that Jeff showed you that got torn down.
It's right here.
It's the one right next to is the street that we're talking about.
So there was this very nice historic bungalow.
I have never been in there but it was very nice on the inside and that's about to be torn down for a similar thing that I get they don't need to get rezoned for.
So they are going to put in this little hideous, you know, garages on that corner as well.
It's going to sort of extend these buildings which are all historic.
It's going to extend further out these nonhistoric buildings.
Thank you very much.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Thank you.
I'm Paula Sizemore, 308 South Albany, less than a block from the development that is proposed.
And our understanding that this is what is going in.
Traffic in our neighborhood is a serious issue, because we are sandwiched between Soho, which has gone through marvelous renovation and rejuvenation.
I have lived in the South Howard area since I moved to Tampa in 1980.
So I have seen what's happened there.
And we are sandwiched between Soho and Hyde Park village.
Developers are flocking into our neighborhood.
They consider us a golden goose, ripe and ready, fatted for plucking.
We have incredible traffic problems in our neighborhood, because of these developments that are multi-unit and single-family properties.
There isn't enough parking.
People do not park in the garages.
They park on the aprons, of the sidewalks.
We have signs all over the neighborhood saying no parking here.
The people who live in buildings, where there is no off-street parking, are the ones who really pay the price.
They are forced to move to other areas in the older apartment complexes that are in our area.
It is the ambience of the bungalows that do remain in our neighborhood that are another reason we are fatted and being plucked.
We are affordable properties.
Our property values have gone up immensely over the past ten years.
And it's a wonderful thing.
However, these developers come in putting up multi-unit properties on single-family pieces of land that are institutional, have no character whatsoever, are going to ultimately be the demise of the neighborhood because no one is going to want to live in an industrial warehouse area.
The properties will not sell.
The land will be devalued.
It won't be the charm and the historic area that it is today.
I could go on.
The little yellow light is on.
So I won't.
Thank you very much.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Very observant.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn in?
>>> Yes, I was.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Next.
>>> Helen McGary, 505 South Meadow. I have been sworn.
I am not going to repeat the sentiments of everything you just heard, though I agree with the majority of them.
I mean 99% of them.
I would just say that, you know, just because the majority of structures on this block are these kind of boxy multifamily units that have developed over the last, you know, five years, I don't know the exact dates, I don't think that's a basis to keep doing it.
I think that -- I would ask that you consider the whole neighborhood, and not just that one block.
We didn't come prepared with a picture of a couple of the smaller single-family homes on that block.
And they are not spectacular.
I am not going to sit here and tell you that they are.
But there's green space.
They are small.
There's parking in the rear.
We have alleys.
The purpose of the alley is put your garbage back there and park back there so we can enjoy the pedestrian walkways.
There is a sidewalk currently.
That said, I'm not opposed to development here.
I think the project can be redeveloped.
I just would rather it not be redeveloped with a project that's, you know, almost 9,000 square feet.
I don't know the T exact square footage of the existing bungalow. I would expect it's absolutely below 2,000 square feet.
It's just too much.
I brought pictures of something that you just looked at here.
This again is an example of a duplex in Historic Hyde Park.
Jeff showed you a picture as well.
You wouldn't know it was a duplex when you walked by it.
It has the front door, the garage back to the alley just like the bungalows.
It has a front porch.
You know, I think I would support a development like that.
I would support two stories like that.
Just pitch the roof in, make it unique and not develop the same thing that has been dominating this block.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
You may hand those to Mr. Shelby.
>>> My name is April Black.
I have been sworn in.
And I live on Albany street, 3 the 300 block.
My concern is that most of these boxes that have been built have been built on the other side of the street from this one.
But most of these have their backs facing Howard.
So, you know, they have their condition but this side of the street is so far mostly residential and we'd like to keep it that way.
If you looked at the petitioner's numbers on the number of units, there are a lot of four units already on this street.
It's a small block. The blocks in the neighborhood are not all that long and it's getting so dense, and so traffic jammed on the weekends.
We would just like to petition you that you don't agree to this.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>> My name is John Jones.
I live at 1704 West Jetton Avenue.
I have not been sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> I did not come prepared to speak on this topic tonight.
But I'm watching this.
It is in my neighborhood.
And I think because of where I live in Hyde Park I'm very cognizant of what neighborhoods are, what communities are, and I watched the patterns of development, and tried to see where they foster community.
Because that's what we're all about.
The city is not a community of buildings, it's a community of people.
And when we start putting structures up to take up 50, 60, 70% of the site coverage, it does allow green space, and we have to have front doors on alleys, and we're breaking those down.
We are in fact building the slums of 2050.
And if we don't address this, we are going to be faced with the problems that slums are going to bring to us.
I am not opposed to multifamily development.
This meets the comp plan and I appreciate that.
And I think that perhaps the idea of development in this area would be to require perhaps go to three or four stories, and put the little taller buildings in that have the setbacks on the side, the front and the rear, that provide for the kinds of things that we see in communities, that provide for green space, that provide for sidewalks, provide for parking.
So I don't think that this meets the Tampa current zoning in terms of having front doors on alleys.
So I respectfully maybe request that the attorney for council take a look at that and see if that does meet the non-PD zoning requirements.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this item?
Petitioner?
Rebuttal?
You have heard the concerns of the neighborhood.
>>> I'll take a few months to be rebut if that's the right term.
Obviously there were some provocative commentary and philosophical issues dealing with growth, and you would have to face them every day.
I will not respond to the question regarding the historic designations because I have a similar map so I won't show that again.
We are outside of any of the designated districts and I believe there was an attempt to study that area and expand the district about nine months ago, and so we are definitely not in the area and it's my understanding that the historic preservation staff indicated that the buildings' ultimate demolition could be considered.
The issue with regard to parking in the area, obviously we are a block east of Howard Avenue, and there are conflicts with development in the commercial district.
This particular project as proposed is consistent with -- certainly within the consistency of the comp plan, consistent with design standards that have generally been established in and accepted in the city.
There are two-car garages to each unit, and two parking spaces behind each of the garages.
The area where there's a conflict in terms of the back alley is on the alley portion.
But we believe based on that particular design, and that location, we believe there's adequate space to accommodate the cars that would park behind the garage door as additional parking for the area and the units that are here.
There were no transportation objections from an impact standpoint, the four units on their own do not create significant impact to the network and don't contribute to more than 5% of the carrying capacity of the surrounding roadways. The green space is consistent with design in the area.
And again whale we can play around with a few feet here and there it's not going to significantly alter design of the structure as it exists today.
Issues with regard to height, we know our concern.
The last gentleman spoke about looking at different ways of dealing with growth, density and development.
Some ways to offer more green space and do alternative designs would be possibly to increase height.
But we've taken a position that this design is not inconsistent with what has been a rehabilitation of the neighborhood.
The neighborhood has changed tremendously from what it was 20 years ago.
There is a market of people want to live in fee simple ownership units of this type, or they wouldn't be designed and sold.
So with all that said, we respectfully request that you consider this favorably.
We'll be glad -- glad to answer any questions.
I don't know if any of my colleagues want to answer any of the questions that have been raised stating our position to this.
But we again respectfully request that you consider this favorably.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Do we have a motion to close?
>> Motion to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to move to deny this project.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the following basis.
There's a request for waiver of green space but there's been no sufficient testimony to justify waiver of green space.
I believe that the scale and the mass are inconsistent or incompatible with the surrounding development, chapter 27-326 of our code states specifically in regard to PDs that the proposed project should result in no adverse impact on surrounding properties in that the project "B" should be arranged for compatible among themselves and with adjacent and future land uses, et cetera.
I think that there's clearly been testimony over and over tonight not only tonight but previously about parking problems in this area. The fire department has complained to the transportation department about parking along these streets, and as a result, the transportation department is putting up no-parking signs so the fire trucks can get through.
And by multiplying the units from one unit that's there now to four units would exacerbate that problem regardless of how many garages you put in.
There is a traffic issue that has not been addressed satisfactorily, and furthermore, the design, I believe, is again inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding area.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
Discussion on that motion?
Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I am going to support the denial, because based on what Mr. Dingfelder has said, but also because this neighborhood is really a precious neighborhood.
It's got bungalows in there.
It's what would you really want in a neighborhood.
And we have got to stop these multifamily units coming in.
It's just -- I went in there and was just appalled by how many of these multifamily units are in there.
It's encroaching into their very way of life.
And I'm just not going to support that.
I'm just going to go ahead and go with the denial.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we have heard eloquent testimony tonight about the saturation point those been reached and breached in this neighborhood that the existing character of the neighborhood is a bungalow character, and that if new projects are to come in, they need to respect and reflect the bungalow character and quality of the neighborhood.
And for that reason, and what we heard on the record, I will support the motion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Further discussion on the motion?
All in favor --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to say one more thing before we move on.
And I don't want to belabor this too much.
But Mr. Jones mentioned about these projects that face the alley.
And when I came on board council two and a half years ago and I started seeing these projects right in this neighborhood, and I said, that's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
Why would anybody even want to buy 3 or $400,000 town home so they could face an alley?
I never even understood it from a marketing perspective.
And I clearly didn't understand it from a planning perspective because it does not create community at all.
We're trying to talk about, you know, porches on streets, where people watch out for each other, and we've got these homes on these alleys.
So anyway, I am so pleased that council is seeing it this way.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just one brief comment, because obviously I am going to support the denial as well.
This neighborhood has come here and has spoken loud and clear, and they continue to not be protected in terms of compatibilities.
And I think we have seen how this trickled into the neighborhood and they have shown what they want, they have shown Watts what's consistent with the neighborhood, they have shown some of these projects continue -- the homes they have.
So based on many of the speakers said, particularly Mr. Black, I think enough is enough is enough.
And I think we are getting that message.
So no.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: There's a motion for denial, second.
All in favor of the denial signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion for denial carries unanimously.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that one of the points that we keep going back to is the fact that while this area is a national registered district it is not currently protected as a local district, and tonight at our meeting Ms. Miller, who is in charge of -- who oversees the A.R.C. and the BLC and HPC, and I think it's time that the HPC got with it and came up with a level prove Texas from Courier City.
I would like to make a motion that we request that the HPC finally, finally, after far too long, protect the Courier City Oscawana neighborhood.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe a report back in 30 days.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a comment when I did meet with the Courier City Oscawana neighborhood, they were very much in favor of trying to do that.
And I think that was one of their objectives, was to do that.
So I'm glad that we are taking the steps now.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
All in favor signify by saying Aye.
Motion carries.
Motion and second to item number 16.
(Motion carried)
Number 16 is now open.
Thank you all for coming.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I have been sworn.
The subject property located at 5001 west Tyson Avenue is south of the Imperial yacht basin, and north of industrial properties abutting Tyson street.
As illustrated by the aerial, there is a large parcel of the subject property and there is still significant industrial uses located to the north of the subject site.
The subject site is currently an industrial site.
This is part, the final piece of the Imperial yacht basin rezoning process that you have seen in a different case.
Before you balk at all the waivers listed, I would like to let the council know that these waivers were established as part of that whole rezoning process, and they have copied the waivers that were listed previously in previous cases.
The petitioner proposes to rezone the property to a PDA zoning district to construct 150 residential units.
The types of housing would be multifamily residential, condominiums, single family attached residential, accessory parking, recreational, and marina facility. The plan depicts Bridge Street being extended as a 50 foot right-of-way to the south through the subject property and connecting to Tyson Avenue.
Zero setbacks are proposed along the property line, if northern portion of the western property line which abuts the Hendry parcel. The subject site lies south of the Imperial yacht basin property, east of the channel, and I said that before, I'm sorry.
With reference to staff concerns regarding the project, there is only one concern that was raised by the transportation division, and transportation requested the notes be added to the site plan.
Those notes have been complied with.
In addition, stormwater requested that the stormwater note be clarified to provide one half inch retention for parcel C, and the petitioner has agreed to that, and will be adding that note as well.
One last piece.
The Hartline has revised its original letter submitted as part of the staff packet.
I am going read this into the record.
Hart has reviewed the request, Hart currently provides local service to this area on route 19.
This route travels on Westshore Boulevard.
Hart has no objection to this request and the developer provide a visible pedestrian crossing on Bridge Street to help provide safe connection when crossing at the northwest and northeast corners of Tyson Avenue and Bridge Street.
Hart concur was the provisions to the green ways trail to the bus stops and Westshore Boulevard.
That concludes staff comments.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Planning Commission.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Ms. Lamboy got to most of the salient points regarding this particular project.
As it is going to be integrated as part of a larger project which has recently been approved as a rezoning recently by council.
Also, council has changed this land use designation from heavy industrial to the EMU 60 to the north.
It is an integral piece as it will be filled as a development and will be the final pieces necessary to complete the continuation of bridge all the way down to Tyson Avenue.
It is consistent with the surrounding uses that are mostly mixed use, yacht basin, the lower land use classification of CMU 35.
Planning Commission staff has that objections to the proposed request.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Petitioner.
>> Ben Marchetti representing applicant, Ecogroup, the developer of the project.
This is again the rendition of the Tampa Bay project that council had seen a couple weeks ago.
As you may recall council approved a Hendry rezoning which is a 32-acre parcel two or three weeks ago.
The property in question, the moody parcel is about a 4 ---I'm sorry, 3--acre tract in this general location here.
Tony mentioned the comp plan amendment that was approved, which is consistent with the remainder of the properties in question for New Port Tampa Bay.
We are simply asking for the rezoning to be consistent with the notes, et cetera, for the remainder of the project to be developed.
I also note for the record that we believe we met all the standards and requirements.
I think Heather referred to the one Hartline comment that we received literally today.
We are more than willing to accept that as an additional note to our site plan to accommodate that pedestrian issue.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
>>> Yes, I have.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 16?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. White, would you take number 16, please.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5001 west Tyson Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida from zoning district classifications IG light industrial general to PD-A, mixed use residential commercial, providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and a second.
Any questions or comments?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is just a little piece of land.
And what they are asking for is a PD-A so it can be part of a larger PD-A.
But the PD-A category is very conceptual.
It was developed for New Tampa.
It's being used in a developed part of town that's redeveloping because it's trying to follow the neighborhood.
Don't think that this zoning category is appropriate to be used here.
Originally, PDAs had to be at least 0 acres.
We took away any kind of requirement, which is obvious because this is just a little postage stamp size piece of land.
I believe when we go back to chapter 27 we need to come up with Barrett category that gives council and the public an opportunity in the future to review what's being proposed.
Because once we sign off on this, the developer has a certain number of units that they'll build, they have said that they are going to do some things, very vague, all the beautiful ones they gave us are stamped conceptual, and I don't believe we, council and public, will have another chance to help form and observe what goes on and shape it and make sure it works well for the folks who live across the street.
So I'm really not happy with this petition.
Not this one as much as the whole PDA.
I don't think it's the appropriate zoning category.
And I won't be supporting it.
And I will very much encourage our staff to come up with a new category for urban redevelopment.
But that gives us and the public greater control and another opportunity to weigh in on what's built.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize to council.
I need to ask council if we can reopen the public hearing.
I need to ask a substantive question.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to reopen.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
Note number 45 speaks to wastewater.
And I can't remember when I brought it up last.
But I asked Mr. Metcalf to come give us a report about whether or not these projects, along this area, not just this project, but all of these new projects, are going to be connecting into the San Carlos pumping station.
It been a long day.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was two weeks ago.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We haven't heard back from Mr. Metcalf because I didn't ask him to come back till next week or the week after.
I guess I didn't realize this was going to be back in front of us today.
But in the meantime, I see note 45.
And it concerns me a little bit because they specifically are saying that they are going to tie in at the proposed Paxton and Trask sanitary sewer connection point at their own cost.
I have great concern if this project is going to be feeding into the San Carlos station, which has already proved itself to have repeated failures, and probably just not a great location to be putting any more sewage in, that maybe -- and I'm not against this project at all.
I've said that on the record.
But I have great concerns about where this wastewater is going to be going, where this sewage -- just call it what it is -- is going to be going.
And if it needs to go down Gandy or routed a different direction, then that's fine, but the developer -- there needs to be a note on here the developer needs to recognize that and needs to pay for a connection that's not necessarily going to go to the San Carlos pumping station.
So has that come up?
And where did this note 45 come from?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The additional note was part of the development review comments that were provided to me from the wastewater division.
So those are direct responses to staff concerns that were raised at the DRC level.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wastewater is not here tonight, I take it.
>>> No, they are not.
>> I'll let the developer speak to this.
I see they have an engineer here.
And perhaps you can tell us where you expect to be tying in, and do you expect your sewage to be prone to the San Carlos pumping station?
>>> Yeah, we had preliminary coordination meetings with staff on this, already submitted an infrastructure application for the sanitary, and we have worked with specifically Charley lynch on this matter.
The application is certainly in for review.
They have told us specifically that we are to tie into the Paxton and Trask location.
There's actually a pump location on our site that is going to be abandoned, we'll be replacing it with a pumping station for our project, and then there's going to be an extension of a main off-site to accommodate and to tie into the Paxton and Trask station.
So yes, that does go to San Carlos station, but that has been our point of connection deemed for this project.
>> Deemed by who?
>>> City of Tampa.
>> Well, this hasn't been approved for rezoning.
And this.
>>> Not this parcel but this is part of the overall.
>> Right.
And I've already stated my concerns that I think everybody should have heard previously about tying more sewage into the San Carlos pumping station.
>>> Okay.
I mean, we can only provide information on our drawings as to what were indicated by the city staff as to what our point of connection is.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a serious problem with us approving this that's referencing the point of connection.
Okay?
I recognize there's going to be a point of connection somewhere.
Mr. Marchetti.
But I have a real problem with us approving item 45 as it's written.
We can modify it slightly, and delete any reference to the specific location in terms of the point of connection.
I don't believe the specific point of connection was referenced on the previous site plans.
I can be corrected if I'm wrong.
>>> Vin Marchetti for the record.
I agree with you.
Again we were responding to staff comment specifically.
We basically took their note and put it on a plan.
We're happy to provide it, and whatever is accepting to staff in having your comments on the record, I think will assist staff in determine that issue.
So we don't have any opposition to deleting the specific reference to Paxton Avenue or Trask street and just making it subject to city staff approval.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That would be fine.
As long as we delete the specific reference to where that point of connection is going to be, you can leave the reference that you will be responsible for all costs, you know, required to connect to the sewer system and that sort of thing, and our costs -- all costs necessary for improvement to the downstream system.
That's okay, too.
I think those are positive points.
But as long as the remainder of that sentence is deleted.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's not a textural amendment that would require it to go back to first reading?
I understand.
Hearing is still open.
Is there anything else we want to ask?
It will be closed in a second.
All in favor significant -- motion to close and a sec.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You guys have been hearing about the pumping station for a long time so you know what I'm talking about.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Does he have to reread it?
We have a motion and second on the table.
Any further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
>> Nay.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion passes 5 to 1.
>> Move to open 17.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 17 is now open.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The property is located at 506 south Tampania Avenue.
It is located just north of DeLeon street, and west of Armenia.
The existing building on the site is a one-story apartment building, right behind it is the Tampa rehabilitative services building at Armenia.
Across the street is another PD that has been built out.
This area experienced a lot of change and you can see that this is a daycare facility.
There is warehouse facility.
And more housing on the block south of here, DeLeon.
Just to the north of the subject site is a retention pond.
And I will provide with you an elevation as well.
The subject property is proposed from RM-16 residential to 8 single family attached dwelling units.
The 3 story units will have garages and some on a ground floor with living space above. The two buildings on-site will be projecting windows and balconies.
There's no guest parking on-site.
Staff objects to landscape waiver, and thinks it is excessive.
The petitioner has a response to my concern.
Actually I shared the staff report previous to the hearing, has provided a tree table which can be attached to the site plan.
To provide Tampania, issues with reference to transportation, and those issues have been addressed.
With notes that have been added.
And curbside appropriate, solid waste and site plan has been amended to have garage pickup for solid waste.
So in conclusion, staff reports that most of the objections have been removed with the exception of the landscape waiver and the request to have a more street friendly presence on Tampania.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: When does it mean as far as an objection goes?
>>> There is a reference to single family attached housing that states that -- let me find it.
Just one moment.
Single family attached unit shall be designed if situated the primary front lawn entrance to each unit is facing dedicated public or private right-of-way.
And so I state that the standard has been melt because there is a primary facade that the front door was not apparent, and talking about front porches and front door and presence on the street of human beings rather than just vehicles, and this is one way to get that.
>> But is that a basis for an objection?
Or you have no objection?
>>> That is a basis for an objection, yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
Mr. Garcia.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
The predominant land use categories, putting the land use map in front of you now, CMU 35, commercial 24 and of course residential 20, the predicted site has a split land use category, heavy commercial 24.
To give you a better perspective of the area, the area does lie directly west of the apartment complex which is directly east on south Armenia.
There is significant retention to the north of the proposed site right here, which is on a dead-end on this north part of Tampania which goes north of DeLeon, and it does interface an existing 8-unit town home development unit on this side with medical, medical, and medical surrounding it so you do have low density office, the balance of the property, with the exception of the drainage to the north.
This area is part mixed and what you see in the area regarding residential presence, not a significant residential presence in the immediate area with the exception of multifamily use in the area.
It is located in the South Tampa area, south of Azeele, north of Swann, in the Soho area.
It is adjacent to the neighborhood associations and Oscawana Courier City to the east.
Both local roadways.
Planning Commission staff has no objections to the proposed request as it offers no adverse impacts to any of the residential units in the area.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Garcia, across the street, multi-unit family.
Everything else on that treat is residential -- I mean is commercial?
>>> Nonresidential, that's correct.
>> Thank you.
Petitioner?
>>> Vin Marchetti for the record representing the applicant.
I have been sworn.
From a handout, several photographs for the record.
As staff mentioned the property is on Tampania, north of DeLeon street.
The 4-acre site is located at the end of the cul-de-sac and surrounded by City of Tampa drain drainage area to the north, 8 town homes to the west, office uses to the south, and the heart center office to the east.
The site is currently developed in the first photograph I believe in your packet to -- existing 12-unit apartment building on the subject property.
To the rear of that building you will see the heart center, which the building on question in site was built in 1960, and again my client is proposing 8 town homes consistent with the uses available.
Staff noted two objections.
The other objections have all been dealt with by us.
One objection deals with the street front, I guess, perspective, and having two of the units fronting on Tampania.
We are not objecting to that.
In fact we'll make that modification for the record, and we'll commit to having one here and one here units on Tampania.
The site is located in res 20, heavy commercial land use 24 categories for this use, as Tony mentioned.
We have worked with staff, land development, solid waste, transportation, and do believe the objections listed have been withdrawn.
The only issue we have, I think, before council is concerning the amount of green space.
Staff is mentioning that the -- and this is land development staff.
I want to distinguish land development staff, Greg, who is actually out in the hall, I think, land development staff has indicated that the requirement for this T town homes is 750 square foot per unit.
Our interpretation of the code section is that in fact the requirement is 350 square feet per unit.
We have, if you review the site plan, internal circulation drive here. The way the code is read, in my opinion, I think Greg agrees with our opinion, when you have internal circulation driveway the code requires 350 square feet.
If you have direct access, for example, if you have a unit here facing this way with your driveway off of Tampania requires 750 square feet of space.
We disagree with Land Development Coordination.
We agree with Greg on this issue regarding that 350 square foot requirement.
I'll also mention that we are -- we have 574 square feet provided for per unit at our current site plan.
That totals over 4500 square feet of open space or green area of which entails 25% of the site will be open space.
So I want to make sure council understands that 25% of our .4 acre site would be green space, as currently situated.
Again we think the code is very clear on this issue requiring 350 square feet.
We are providing 574 square feet per unit.
We also have -- and I want to hand out to council numerous letters in support of our petition.
We have support from the heart center who owns property immediately to our east, as you see on the overhead earlier, the building is located here.
They also own the two parcels directly to our south here.
We have also correspondence and letters from all of the property owners on DeLeon street to the south, south side, Tampania, south side of DeLeon, all the property owners here have letters in support of the petition.
The warehouse around the corner of DeLeon is also in support of the petition verbally.
We also have support from the child care facility operator and owner which is part of our backup here.
That's indicated as letter number 6.
We have support from the town homeowners, the 8 units directly across from our project here.
We also have support letter in the backup there from the apartment owners indicated as number 8 in the backup.
If you have any questions regarding this I'll be happy to respond.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a map take that shows the elevation, that shows the green space?
I'm a little confused between the discussion of open space and green space.
Doesn't a certain percentage of the land have to be landscape?
>>> The current section I'm referring to -- 13-161, landscape and tree planting requirements, states: The following amount of landscaped area and recommended trees shall be required for the following land uses.
>> Do you have a plan that shows that?
>>> I two of check to see.
I don't think we do.
>> Because all I do is some dimensions.
On my plan, it doesn't show any trees.
It doesn't show what's green, what's hardscape.
It really is not clear.
So I'm thinking maybe you have something that's clearer.
>>> I don't have a plan with me this evening that would be any clearer than what you have before you.
I will indicate, however, for the record, it's indicated in the record that 574 square feet are being met with regard to the landscaped areas. The code requires 350.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Marchetti, you showed a picture of, I guess, a similar project.
And it shows a 6-foot wrought iron gate across the front of it.
I think that's the front.
I don't know.
Maybe it's the back.
Is that an entry gate?
>>> That's a gated project there, yes.
>> Okay.
>>> That's directly across from the subject site.
>> It's what?
>>> It's directly across to the west of the subject property.
>> Okay.
And I notice that on your site plans, I think I'm seeing a reference to wrought iron gate.
>>> We have eliminated that.
It will no longer a gated entrance.
It will be a nongated.
>> Do I have an old site plan?
>>> I think there was a note added to it that we will not --
>> That's fine as long as staff makes that --.
>>> I think the note was stricken referring to the entrance.
>> The other thing is -- and I recognize to a certain extent, I'm familiar with the street, I'm fad with the existing project.
And I can understand why most of the surrounding property owners were glad to see it go.
But I have a little bit of concern on all of these type of very intensive projects about visitor parking, and council has been pretty consistent over the last six months to address visitor parking and to ask developers to address visitor parking.
You have got a very tight corridor down through the middle, you know.
I don't see any visitor parking referenced on here.
>>> My client has actually been working on the guest parking issue.
There is no code requirement, as you know, to provide guest parking on-site currently.
Recognizing that, however, we do have the ability to put one guest space on-site, he's worked that out on the site plan, but also more importantly had an agreement, I think, with the adjoining property owner, the heart center, to utilize several of their spaces after hours, after 7 p.m., I believe, during the week, and weekend as well.
There's also other property.
If you notice the other plan that I have shown here, the heart center own properties to the south of the subject property as well as the office building to the east.
So they've agreed to accommodate guest parking on-site, and we're working out those agreements.
We have a letter of agreement currently with them.
>> Isn't this going to be fenced to the east?
On the Armenia side?
>>> Yes.
We were going to have an opening in the wall, or if the space is occur south here, which is a possibility as well, then we'll just have the guest walk Tampania.
>> Anything else for Mr. Marchetti at this time?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Or maybe he could put A assign up "no visitors allowed."
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that would like to be speak on item number 17?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait, wait.
Well, okay.
Would you read 17 and see what happens?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 506 south Tampania Avenue, RM-16 to PD single family attached providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
Any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to support the motion, because of the unusual location of this project.
You're at the dead-end street that's mostly to a great extent has a lot of other commercial and medical use.
But typically on these kind of projects, I think council has expressed grave concerns about lack of guest parking.
So for any other developers who love this eight-plex complex, concept, you know, I think these projects need to have some guest parking.
But in this case, due to the unique location, I won't object.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One of the photographs that the petitioner gave us of a similar project across the way, interestingly, has five cars parked right outside the gates, because of guest parking not being provided.
I feel like, honestly, what's allowed here, if they weren't applying for this rezoning as six units, six units would be a more appropriate density.
I feel like these eightplexes on the lots coming before us are absolutely too dense.
The petitioner is requesting a waiver of open space, and I think council should stop giving people waivers of open space.
What makes this project palatable are the beautiful mature trees on the street that were saved as part of the development.
The petition before us has one nice tree that will be saved.
But I just think it's going to be too much hardscape, too dense and I won't be able to support it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
Any further discussion on the motion?
Motion carries 5 to 1.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 21.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 21 is already open.
Yes.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I have been sworn.
The subject property is located at 2225 east 109th Avenue.
It's south of 109th Avenue.
And to the west of 25th street.
As you can see by the aerial, it's a large parcel.
The existing church facility is 109th street, fronts 109th street and immediately adjacent to the school.
I have included some additional information.
The petitioner has given to me this evening regarding the parking issue.
Because it seems like it comes down to parking all the time.
The petitioner proposes to rezone the property to allow redevelopment of the existing church. The church breaks down to 150 feet facility and has classrooms and offices, 48,107 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will be 35 feet.
There will be 133 parking spaces on-site for church members.
Due to the size of the church, city code requires 450 spaces.
The petitioner is proposing utilizing parking in an adjacent school, illustrated here, in addition the petitioner will utilize the fleets to shuttle other petitioners to -- parishioners to and from the site.
There is analysis for you in the staff packet.
There are two objections to this petition.
The parking standards have not been met.
This is coming from land development.
And the petitioner has not supplied permanent off-site alternatives.
Permanent off-site alternative is an agreement, for instance-w the school board that would last at least 50 years.
In addition the transportation department object on the same basis that the parking waiver is excessive that. Concludes staff comments.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Planning Commission?
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
The predominant land use category for the entire area is residential 10.
The request is -- the site is in the northern section of Tampa just east of 22nd street located south of Fowler Avenue with university square mall to the north.
Tampa industrial park.
Ms. Lamboy gave you all the specific issues regarding the site as far as the increased, significant increases as far as the number of worshipers in this particular church.
Very supportive of having churches but the issue with you the significant request for waiver from 450 spaces to 133 spaces in addition to the increase in impervious surface which causes the stormwater issue adjacent to a site over here that does have significant stormwater issues in the past, I think they have been addressed and probably will be brought up.
This will be brought up by the engineer who represents the site.
There's still a lot of gray areas regarding the agreement with the adjacent school, as to actual accessibility.
This has been a difficult one.
But there are significant or specific provisions in the comp plan, that talks about approved development site plans must demonstrate safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and have needed feel for parking as required in the city zoning code.
And of course the development and redevelopment with the adjacent land uses through the creation of life uses is not -- appreciable but as far as mitigation of adverse impacts and transportation connections or their appropriate mechanisms, it seems to be deficient in that respect.
Unfortunately because of those reasons Planning Commission staff finds the plan inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Garcia, were you in receipt of the letter from the public elementary school allowing the church to use their parking before your report was prepared?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> I just wanted to make sure.
>>> That would only accommodate a percentage of the parking that they require.
Not all of the parking.
>>> The parking the school has available?
>>TONY GARCIA: Is it 100?
I think it was approximately -- not enough to accommodate the waiver that they requested.
I think they have other alternative measures that the applicant's representative will bring up for you to take into consideration, other bus routes, other alternative methods of providing accessibility of the members of the congregation to the site.
But as it states in the comprehensive plan, going by the letter of the law, I have no choice but to define that ruling in that respect.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Garcia, you said Planning Commission find it inconsistent?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
Don't read the back, that's a typo.
That's my mistake.
>> What?
>>> You're reading my report?
The back part is wrong.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh.
Okay.
>>> The front part is right. The back part is wrong.
And I'll admit that.
That's my fault.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Petitioner.
>>> Vic LaRossa, Hamilton engineer, New Port, I have been sworn.
We are not here for town homes, luckily.
I'll jump right to the issue at hand, the parking issue with this request.
By code, the required parking is 450 spaces, which comes out to about .3 per seat.
The church had done a bit of a study.
They did counts through several weekend, and what they are finding is basically about four persons per car, or there are four persons per vehicle coming to church.
In essence the required parking nor particular facility if you go by 1500 seats would be approximately 375.
They wanted to give you a little bit of a warmth that this particular church is below what code would specifically require.
Now, their on-site parking we propose is 133 spaces.
And adjacent to us is Bill Whitter elementary, and I'll put a map up so you can get relation of the schools.
Whitter has an additional 111 spaces.
And I believe that's what Tony was referring to.
However, we recently got a letter of intent from Lassie Shaw elementary which is nearby, right down 109th.
It's just a few minutes away.
You travel west on 109th and north on I believe it's 15th.
Just a few minutes away.
They can accommodate 222 additional cars.
So between those two schools alone, we have 133 on-site, 111 over at next door at Belle Witter, then at 22 over at Lassie Shaw provides more than adequate parking, more than 450 required by code.
The reason we can't meet the city requirements is the 50-year term.
And that's really governed by the school board.
The school board requires that proof of insurance be provided on a yearly basis.
So, therefore, the church has been executing yearly leases with Belle Witter basically every year.
Pastor will come up to testify to these in a few minutes.
But we furnished a letter of intent from Lassie Shaw elementary.
They have also gone above and beyond that.
They have approached the Parks Department, City of Tampa parks, and are going to pursue getting a parking agreement for Copeland park which is just south of Lassie Shaw.
That provides an additional 48 spaces.
Also with that, they are in discussion was the University of South Florida, which would accommodate an additional 300 spaces.
So I think we are probably up to about 700 spaces available.
The church currently has five buses, each bus, I believe-k accommodate 125 persons.
So they have basically heard staff -- we have heard staff's objection, and the church has been working diligently to meet their concerns.
And the other issue that was brought up by Tony, I believe, was the stormwater.
It is in a flood zone itself.
We have put a note on the plan and we'll go above and beyond what code would typically require for a site of this nature.
It does have -- a pond, there's a link south of us that does have a outflow pipe.
However it's a bit restrictive. Typically by code you have to store the pre- post-100 year stormwater run-off which means we get credit for all the impervious that's there.
What stormwater has asked us to do, and what we will do is we'll just not take the credit, we'll go ahead and assume it's a bare site and we'll store all the run-off.
So in essence we would actually be improving the flooding situation.
We have agreed to do that and have so stated by note on the plan.
So we have worked as best we can to meet both of those objections.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Oh, I'm chairman.
(Laughter)
All right.
So let me understand.
You all have 133 or so on-site?
>>> 133 on-site, correct.
>> And code requires 450 on-site?
>>> 450 spaces, yes.
>> And next door at Belle Witter you have 111?
>>> Yes.
>> And I don't see any proof of your agreement anywhere with Belle Witter.
The letter is from Lassie Shaw.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: With your attachment in the staff report.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'd like to see that.
Because I don't have the packet handy right now.
But this letter from Lassie Shaw doesn't say anything.
It says that pending approval from the school board.
Has that approval happened yet?
>>> No, it hasn't happened as of yet.
It is in the works.
Now granted, we are requesting approval tonight.
Of course, construction is going to take some time.
The church is pursuing available properties.
The church itself right now as well as I believe around 800 members.
They project up to 1500 members.
But that will not -- this isn't likely to occur until twelve.
I would like to give pastor Davie a moment or two to come up and speak and he may be -- pastor Davie, the church has been coordinating the agreements with Shaw elementary as well as with the City of Tampa Parks, Copeland Park, as well as USF.
So he can speak -- he can testify to his conversations with the school board, the Parks Department, and the University of South Florida.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
>>> I'm pastor of the Tabernacle at 2225 east 109th Ave. and I have been sworn.
And Mr. Chairman and council, in regards to our petition and the objection with regard to the parking, we have an agreement with Belle Witter elementary school which is just to the west of us.
And we also have the intent with Shaw elementary, and they use pretty much the same logic in terms of granting the request.
It goes through their county school board.
And it's renewable every year.
And they will not give a 50-year agreement, because it's contingent on insurance.
So it has to be done on a yearly basis.
Of course, we know those schools are not going anywhere.
And we do have that agreement.
So every year when it does come up, as we have provided proof of insurance, and they just issue us another permission.
And that's been going on with Belle wither for several years now.
And that is the same thing with Shaw elementary, I have spoken to the principal there, and she has conferred with the principal at Belle wither, and the agreement will be forthcoming.
It's just a matter of the next school board meeting, that will be approved.
And of course beyond that we are looking at the park just to the west of us.
And also pursuing that same type of agreement with USF.
They have a facility there that will accommodate 360 vehicles.
And they have given us pretty much the intention that they will do that, also.
So I believe in terms of the parking and so forth, that requirement would be met.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that all you have, pastor?
>>> Yes, sir.
Relative to the parking -- and let me just tell you a little about our church.
We have been in that area for some 13 years.
We are a church that is designed to help that community.
We have helped the community in just an abundance of ways.
Everything we do in that church is free to that community.
We have support from -- and I think maybe in your package you will see support from the manager at University Square Mall.
We have support from the civic association.
We also have support from Victor Crist, a state senator.
Our church is designed to help that community.
And not only those that are currently there, but reached out to some of those folks up in New Orleans.
We have about 12 of those that have come to Tampa.
And we're helping those, too.
So that church is there to help that community.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's see if we have anyone from the public.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 21?
>>KEVIN WHITE: I move to close.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion to close and second.
My own personal thoughts on this is I have no problem with the request and wish you all the best of luck.
You're a good neighbor.
I know the neighborhood.
I know your church.
I would feel a bit more comfortable if we waited to get some confirmation from Shaw elementary that they are going to approve the parking arrangement there, because even if you take Whitter and your current location, your only at 230 or 240 spaces, when the code requires 450.
You may not ever need 450.
But you're only halfway there.
If you get that confirmation from Shaw, you're well over what you need.
And if you run the shuttle buses, I think you'll be fine.
In a one in their right mind is ever going to walk from Shaw, I don't think, to your site, nor I do really believe they'll walk from Copeland park to your site.
You're going to have to run those buses.
So my own personal preference would be to just continue this for a space of maybe 30 days, come back in a morning meeting and give you all an opportunity to get that sign-off on coming from Shaw elementary, and I wouldn't have a problem with from that point.
But Councilman White?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with you, except one thing I just want to ask petitioner.
Do you think you might be able to get that letter of agreement beforehand?
And the only reason I say that is we might be able to move forward with this tonight, approving the church and to have that letter of agreement in-house by second reading.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Two weeks away.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's a school board decision.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I don't know where they are in the process of him getting that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You have to get approval from the school board in less than two weeks and I don't know when this is meet or when this is going to be on their agenda.
Come back to the podium, sir.
>>> Pastor: I'm not sure as to what their schedule is.
But I know she's gotten it into the whole mix, and therefore should be presented at the next county school board meeting.
I have to try to ascertain that fact.
I do not know.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I'm okay with what Councilman White suggested.
We can go for it on first reading and if in two weeks school board hasn't met we will be able to go forward from that point but I won't be able to sign off until it's signed by the school board.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'll be happy to read it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
All right.
21.
>>ROSE FERLITA: He wanted to do it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2225 east 109th Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning districts classifications RS-60 residential single family to PD church, providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you all.
We are now on 1, 2 and 22.
I think they are all at the same time.
Give everyone a chance to clear out here.
1 and 2 are resolutions.
Okay.
So have we opened 22 yet?
>> Yes.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I have already been sworn.
This particular PD involves the redevelopments of many tracks in West Tampa.
As illustrated by the rezoning map that is provided as part of your staff packet, you can see that the property is disbursed throughout West Tampa beach streets, north of union, to the east, of Armenia, another street here, and I can't remember what it is, I'm sorry.
And to the west of Fremont and a couple lots to the west there.
Much of the development will be centered around a couple of blocks.
I would like to point out the development pattern in West Tampa.
You can see that the West Tampa development pattern has a combination of historic development pattern and the more suburban development pattern that came in in the 1950s and the 1960s.
So you find house that is have no front set back and very small lots to house that is have traditional lots.
Much will be occurring on block number 38 in block 1.
You can see the large tracts of land that has been left open for this redevelopment opportunity.
We also have some pictures of the properties.
This property at 2008 Albany, which is on the site of where one of the model homes will be, a contributing structure has been identified by Fernandez as a structure that is preservation, and I will read a letter from him addressing the I shall knew a minute.
The petitioner proposes single family residential housing on small lots.
The development is two housing types, bungalow, reminisce interest of the district and a Key West style residence.
There are actually three types, or three identified types of architecture.
I have been corrected by petitioner.
Housing types, details in keeping with the West Tampa vernacular. The homes range from 1,320 square feet to 2,160 square feet.
Purchasers will have the option to have a detached garage or parking space, typically accessed by the alley.
Varying heights from 60 feet to -- 26 feet from grade, and the proposed density of the project will be approximately 16 dwelling units per acre.
The petitioner has provided a historic sidewalk insurance map from 1931 to the historic pattern of the area.
It is characterized by small setbacks, narrow residents, sometimes occupying edifices, many residences on the same lot and narrow building footprints.
The precedent development pattern in West Tampa is set by historic structures on small lots.
But as I have indicated to you earlier, the conflicts in the code with the West Tampa overlay is based on an average of what is there.
And that is the historic precedent pattern, and more suburban style lots.
So you will find that in some blocks, as I have outlined in my staff report, the front setback or the average setback is consistent, and in other blocks it is not.
So that's why the petitioner is having to seek a waiver to have the 6 foot setback on all the properties.
The West Tampa architectural standards have been met.
And the proposed single-family housing meets the purpose and intent of the West Tampa overlay.
However, a large amount of on street parking is expected to be a result of a parking waiver that is proposed.
Public safety issues of access may be difficult.
And in response to that, the petitioner has added some notes to the site plan, an some particular blocks there were some particular blocks identified by the fire department to commit to on-site parking for both parking spots.
Transportation has identified several issues.
The petitioner has committed -- and I will let him speak to this, to the paving of three and a half of the alleys on lot blocks that are developed, large number of homes.
Transportation objects to the back Utah for the commercial parking spaces.
And a note has been added to the site plan to cure this objection.
And transportation objects to the reduction of parking spaces from 8 spaces to four spaces.
And transportation objects to the short driveway to the models homes.
Money of many of these issues everybody addressed.
However the glaring I shall issues that do remain is the parking which is the amount of on street parking that results because of this because most familiar list have two cars now.
Setbacks for several blocks are consistent with the codes.
Others are not.
The proposed waiver requires access along the public streets.
And let me read Mr. Fernandez' memorandum.
I have reviewed the application for rezoning of the property and referenced property that being without the Albany, and visited the site.
In an area in which the properties are located in West Tampa national register of historic district.
A request to demolish a structure is located at 2008 north Albany Avenue, situated on one of the parcels associated with this petition to rezone was received by Historic Preservation Commission staff on August 11, 2005.
The property was subsequently evaluated by HPC staff in accordance with section 231.
Historic Preservation Commission staff identified the structure at 2008 north Albany I have a is of historic significance.
Staff has forwarded review to the HPC with the next scheduled public hearing on September 13th, 2005.
HPC staff has been working closely with the property own towers develop options to demolition of the property.
The property owners have indicated the e-mail date August 25th of their intent to locate to a vacant parcel the original site.
HPC staff is supportive of this effort to relocate and preserve historic structure.
However to date demolition request is still active and HPC public hearing agenda.
Staff objects to the rezoning of 2008 north Albany Avenue as it encompasses the inherent demolition of a structure that currently occupies the site.
Until the matter has been resolved to the September 13th, 2005 demolition review before the historic commission, the withdrawal of the demolition request by the property owners or the filing of permit with the city of transportation division to relocate the structure.
I have provided to you an in addition some tree reports that were submitted by the petitioner, and to staff, for the construction services division, and the resultant copy of the parks division.
I'd like to refer you to the last two pages of the report.
There are grand trees on two of the properties, 2115 West Cherry, and 1736 Pine Street.
The petitioner has verbally indicated, and graphically indicated that they will retain those trees and preserve those trees, still has concern that those trees will not be preserved well enough.
And I will let Mr. Riley speak to that matter.
Just conclude my comments with some views of West Tampa as we not.
You can see 1950s and '60s developments, and then the historic development that has gone away.
There's also the multifamily housing as well.
You have the historic housing.
And you have the packet of photographs as well.
That is the historic housing.
And suburban housing.
As a final note I would like to say that the that despite the number of differences that we have had trying to marry current zoning standards with an historic district and historic precedent pattern, I would like to compliment the petitioner on providing information to staff.
Petitioner has been a delight to work with.
He's always provided information, and above and beyond in terms of getting things to us in a timely manner and I wish more petitioners were like that.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Planning Commission.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
This area is one of the oldest and most historic areas of Tampa.
It was a municipality annexed into the City of Tampa in 1925, many immigrants made this their home and place of residence.
One of the original walkable communities that we talked about in the previous rezoning hearing.
The evidence of land use in the area as far as the intensities that were really going to develop at that stage.
You have heavy commercial along Armenia and Howard. And Albany which was another major thoroughfare was home to Albany along the site.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you speak a little louder?
>>> I'm sorry.
And there are a significant number of factories, in good condition, cigar factories along North Armenia and Howard, and of course the town center at that point in time around the 1930s and 40s was Main and Howard.
These used to be two-way streets back in the '40s and '50s and were changed in the mid 60s.
It had its time in the 50s and 60s but unfortunately fell into -- there it was ignored largely as far as economic opportunities in the 1970s.
And it was a neighborhood that was economically stagnant and it has been so since the 1970s.
Of course there have been efforts made within the last decade by many individuals in the West Tampa area.
For an area that has been largely ignored for redevelopment, for literally decades, this is something that is welcome for an area that is a crown jewel of the City of Tampa, and has been long overlooked, and is conveniently located to so many things in the heart of our city -- Tampa stadium, Tampa General Hospital, St. Joseph hospital, the downtown core, the interstate, Kennedy Boulevard, so many things that is in close proximity and easily accessible.
So many be underutilized lots in an area that has been so economically deprived, something that is long overdue for the area.
The applicant as Ms. Lamboy stated has to be committed for their efforts in trying to accommodate staff's requests.
Planning Commission staff log at from the a comprehensive aspect find it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan as it provides the impetus for continued economic progress in the West Tampa area.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Any questions by council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A question.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As submitted --.
>>> Alex Awad, stormwater management.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Explain that a little bit, and if and how that makes meets the stormwater requirement.
>>> The developer's engineer and I meet quite a few times to comply with the volume necessary to meet the half inch retention for this type of development for single-family.
And the best way we could come up with, because of the nature of the site, is to put it in an underground filtration trench which is a pipe, and put the project in a gravel bed, and the volume will be provided by that system on each site.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I heard at that meeting that we both attended at plant high, one of the developers engineers, and he expressed some concern about this type of system.
They said, yeah, it's good for the first couple of years but it's going to fill up with sediment in that pipe, and then it will fail.
And you can't really maintain it.
Any comments on that?
>>> I mean, if it's designed correctly and inspected correctly, the filter should keep the sentiment from filling up the pipe itself, and the volume of the gravel and the pipe should be adequate to last for awhile.
It could be jetted out and maintained.
Our biggest concern with a retention pond per se would be after all is said and done, would a resident want a retention pond on the side yard, and they may not, and just go to Home Depot and get some dirt and fill it in and would you never know.
So we figured this would be safest thing for us to have as a system that is pretty adequate.
>> So your professional opinion is that as long as this thing is built properly and inspected properly on the front end you have a good chance that it will work?
>>> Right.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Other questions of staff?
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a question for Greg Yurcus if you could speak to the tree issue that was alluded to earlier.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Dave Riley.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Dave Riley, sorry. The question of whether the trees will be protected.
>>> Dave Riley, parks and recreation, I have been sworn.
Actually, that is one concern, and we do have a second concern about the right-of-way plantings.
The first plan that was submitted had references to tree protection.
And in that note, they referenced a ten-foot protective radius, and then anything inside of that ten foot would be special construction.
However, we requested them to revise that note to 20 feet for grand trees, and on the most Reiss revision that we have, they didn't address that at all, except that they would provide adequate protection.
So we were a little disappointed in how we would like to see that in the plan as 20 feet, which is required by code.
There were, I think, four or five sites that we identified with potential grand trees, so that they confirm two definite grand trees.
We have just received this report as of yesterday, so we really haven't gone out to double check.
But I just want to make sure that council understands, there are other significant size trees out there that may be short of grand.
The one site that we are particularly concerned about is the one on Pine Street, which has, I believe, a 39-inch pecan tree that's a grand tree. This one is located somewhat in off the lot.
More towards the middle.
Now, they have committed to preserving that tree.
I find that it's going to be difficult.
I would like to make sure that there's a mechanism in place that if they do -- we say you have to do this, they say they can't do anything else, they want the tree removed, we have a mechanism that either they have to go to the VRB to get the grand trees removed or they have to come back to City Council to get the grand tree removed.
That way, it's not assured just by the approval of the PD.
But that got us to thinking.
Because one of the notes that they address in N their plan is to plant the trees, require trees in the right-of-way.
And our code specifically says planting in the right-of-way is allowed as a last resort.
And we have to question why there is not any trees going back on the properties, and why they are coming onto the right-of-way.
So I'm not sure the exact number of units they're building, but I think it's around 80 or something like that.
So we're getting 80 additional trees on the right-of-way.
That's going to require an adoption agreement.
Now they said the homeowners will be responsible.
But I don't think that's enough.
I think we are going to have to do the adoption agreement, and that adoption agreement will have to be tied into a deed of something so that as it's sold down the road to people that are buying that property understand that that tree is their responsibility.
So we are kind of -- we take care of the over the street part, but in essence the tree becomes the homeowner's responsibility.
Yes?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If they wanted the -- planted the tree right on the property owner's side of the sidewalk, would there be enough room for them?
>>> Well, again, we're looking at the only available space to plant on these sites are the six-foot setback area in the front.
So it would be close.
It would be questionable.
We're not saying we have a problem with them planting in the right-of-way.
But this leads to another issue as we're thinking, okay, there's going to be, in addition to the 80-plus trees, there's going to be replacement trees.
There could be up to 20 replacement trees just for that pecan tree if it has to come out.
There's going to be other replacements.
So I don't know if the right-of-way, because they can't plant these trees in front of other people's houses.
They have to plant them in front of the houses they are building.
You're talking about 25 foot wide lot.
You're probably at most going to get two trees in that.
So I don't know if they have to plant all the trees that they are going to be required and replacement trees into the right-of-way.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They can always go to the tree bank.
>>> I want to make sure that's part of the record that anything that can cannot be put into the right-of-way would go to the tree trust fund at 300 per two inches.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clearly that needs to be a note.
I mean, they need to be treated the same as everybody else.
And they can't do it on-site it goes to the tree bank.
>>> And the final thing we would ask for because of the number of trees planted in the right-of-way that they retain the arborist or certified arborist that they have been using or whomever to oversee the tree protection during construction specifically for the grand trees and to identify the available planting spots and the proper species for power lines, et cetera, because again that would be overwhelming to staff to go out and say you can plant a tree here but not there, so we would be concerned about that.
We would like them to keep the arborist to do that part of the work.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Riley, looking at the basic elevation of most of the homes, with the six-foot setbacks of the trees that we're talking about trying to plant, I think the right-of-way would probably be the best place for them.
When you start planting trees that close to the house, I think we are going to start fighting the facade of what we are trying to create.
But I think probably the most appropriate place would be right in between the homes, right in the setback area, rather than directly in front of the home, trying to hide the beautiful aesthetics that we are trying to bring back to the ambience of the neighborhood.
>>> Sure.
And again that would be something that their arborist could address.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I guess from what you're saying, I'm trying to get a feel from you, do you really think that on the property rather than on the right-of-way as actually the better way to go?
>>> No.
But what I'm saying is our code encourages them to plant on their own property.
Now --
>> They deviate from code all the time.
>>> I know, but I'm just bringing it up because it's important that there is only a very little bit of area to do anything on the sites.
>> Based on the setbacks and based on what you are trying to duplicate from the past, I just don't think that's --
>>> again we don't have an objection to them going in the right-of-way as long as we're all clear on what is expected.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Petitioner?
>>> Ed Turanchik, and the principal of Intown home, Teresa Cadic to make a presentation with me and Mr. Bucky Sebastien president of GTE federal credit union and Michael Randolph, economic director of the West Tampa Community Development Corporation.
You are-oh you got yourself thrust into the very fundamental crux of this matter.
We are in a pre-World War II, 1920s neighborhood that was built before cars.
And we are trying to redevelop it in a way that is consistent with the architectural and historic urban fabric of that community, and at the same time try to accommodate the stormwater, the parking, the landscaping, all those things which typically had been on a 50-foot lot and we are trying to fit it on a 25 to 33-foot lot because that is the pattern of West Tampa.
Cannot do that -- could to not do that would be to say we are going to do away with the historical characteristic of West Tampa, and the historic district requirements.
We will address all the things in part.
But I want to, on the very front end, to say the provisions in our application about trees were exactly what staff requested of us when we put them in.
Second of all, we are committed to relocation of the contributing -- contributing structure, and there are specific waivers in here to deal with that issue, and I will address that.
So we will respect the trees.
We will respect the historic character of West Tampa and the contributing structures.
And that is in fact what this application is all about.
I want to establish the predicate which your staff and Planning Commission staff did nicely.
Let me see if this works.
This project started 14 months ago, really between GTE federal credit union, Suncoast schools credit union, CU housing partners, which Mr. Sebastien will discuss and the West Tampa Community Development Corporation, about how do you realize this dream, and how do you solve the challenges of doing in-fill redevelopment in West Tampa?
This is all by way of context.
You all know -- and I have shown this for the viewers at home and in the audience -- that West Tampa is historic place.
We won't belabor that.
It has a tremendous number of important historical buildings in the commercial district.
It has got retail intimately woven into the residential fabric.
You cannot do this today.
There are neighborhood stores all over the place.
Twice a day, I patronize them.
Our office is in the middle of West Tampa.
We walk to get our sandwiches.
We walk to get cold drinks.
The neighbors walk to the stores.
It is an actual, real, live, functioning urban neighborhood.
It is an intimate traditional neighborhood built on small lot sizes, it was specifically designed for cigar workers and their families of 100 years ago.
Ifs typified by small lots with very short front yard setbacks, very short side yard Seth backs, rear alley access, unfortunately working alleys, be which we have committed to pave three and a half of them, after a lively discussion with city staff about that.
As I turned around and looked at Ms. Miller, I want to say this has been a tough rezoning application, because it's trying to fit a lot on a small lot, and Ms. Miller worked with her staff very hard with us to try to figure out how to do this.
And it was a real team effort.
And we really appreciate all the tremendous input, intellectual input into this.
The houses in West Tampa are typically 900 to 1200 square foot in size.
When they were built they did not have bathrooms.
They certainly did not have air conditioning.
Subsequently added onto a lot of porches.
2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms, right off of the family room.
So they are basically square, actually rectangles.
But what makes them special are the front porches.
And that's West Tampa.
It is a front porch community.
And we're trying to by this rezoning application reinforce those trends.
It also has an abundance of historic homes.
Not as many as it used to when the historic designation was created.
In fact a lot of those were torn down by the city over the years because code violations, other kinds of issues.
But it still has a good fabric there.
Those are the strengths of West Tampa.
The parts that are less good about West Tampa, the larger challenge, if you will, is that you have this wonderful historic community, but you have modern development which has undermined the integrity of the community.
And this is the poster picture perfect.
That is a great cigar warehouse in the back, and that is a city financed affordable house.
This is a city relocated affordable home that used to be located in town and country, and when the veterans expressway was taking out homes, the city said, you want us to move some of these homes into West Tampa as affordable homes?
And I hate to add -- admit this but I was on the expressway authority board that said yes.
Apart from some of these things being fundamentally incompatible with architectural style and with the setbacks you see these intrusions.
Here you see this intimate relationship that are home to street that has been totally interdictive by a driveway, and the sidewalk doesn't even go down it.
Then you have this amount that happened in the 60s and 70s, you have two contributing structures, next to it two duplexes, front driveways. This is not conducive to neighborhood.
Then when an architect finally starts gaining a right and tries to get a home that sorts sort of looks like West Tampa, look at the setback.
That's a home in the middle.
That's a Jim Walter home.
It's not a bad home.
It's set 20 feet back.
It doesn't work.
So we have got this intrusion of post World War II stock in West Tampa which the staff has nailed it intrudes into what West Tampa is.
It also by the way screws up, if you will, the setback, front yard setback measurements, because when you go on average you are averaging in the historic with the suburban on a street that has all historic structures, you get a 3-foot setback.
On a street that is half historic and half suburban, you get a 15-foot average.
So if you judge a petition based upon averages, what you're averaging is the suburban development.
So it's a bad standard to go by.
Another challenge in West Tampa is it still has dilapidated buildings. We hope some of this turns around.
It still has code problems.
You all know this.
A serious issue in the area that we are focused on is the lack of stakeholders.
Residents that live in a place that own their houses come to take care of things better than residents who don't own the houses.
You also have a high degree, a high frequency of vacant lots in the area which is not good for the community.
The result is, the core area we are working in, the 187 residential lots, only 30% of the lots are owned by homesteaders.
70% of the properties in this core area have either rental properties or vacant.
That is not conducive for creating stable, functioning, secure neighborhood.
This brings us to the heart of the petition.
And I thank you for allowing the time to set this predicate.
Because you have to judge the overall petition based upon what the community is, what it used to be, and where it's going.
We could not be here today but for the tremendous effort that the overlay district committee did, the West Tampa CDC did, the staff did, and the City Council did, in establishing the West Tampa overlay district.
All that work was a predicate to make this petition possible.
Our approach is very succinct.
Investments should be focused for this project to be successful.
Roof tops have to come first.
We need homeowners.
And you will see as part of the agreement with the city and as part of the condition all these homes would be sold only to homeowners and there would be a covenant and warranty plus a deed restriction requiring people to buy the home, to live in the home for the first three years.
The product has to be consistent with the legacy of traditional housing in West Tampa, and it has to have an aggressive mortgage product.
We'll skip right to the design and go to the meat of the petition.
As I said, and as the staff has indicated, the challenge is building a modern home on a small lot that meets all of the modern requirements.
For instance, potentially accommodating two cars.
Dealing with stormwater.
Providing we learn all these homes have three bedrooms and two baths.
We want a certain percentage to be affordable.
And let me address the affordability issue.
When we first started this project, we were thinking about all affordable.
In our discussion was the West Tampa CD and our discussion was the residents, it was quite clear that people said they wanted to have diversity of housing, attractive diversity of personnel, and diversity of home buyers, economic diversity, as well as cultural and racial diversity.
Of course, in fair housing, you can take people as they come.
But that was a statement of value for the community.
So we want to do a one "story home that's a bungalow, and we modified these two designs to come up with a 3-bedroom, 2-bath bungalow, that will sit on a 33 foot wide lot.
It is tough to fit this with a 6-foot front yard set back, 62 feet of house, then accommodate the parking in the rear.
And if you put two parking spaces in the rear, you don't have a backyard.
That's an essential element of this request is to allow the homeowner who is buying these the option to select where they want a green space in their backyard, or two parking spaces in their backyard.
And the staff has agreed with that.
I thought we would agree on that point.
The only exceptions to that are where there's a safety concern such as fire trucks passing down the street.
In those cases we stipulated by a note that two spaces will be provided for those homes.
The next model is a bungalow with two bedrooms coming off the top of it.
This is actually designed by Franklin Sebastian who has been a West Tampa activist for a long time, 3 bedroom, two and a half bath, full front porch, again will have one car in the back, maybe two slots if the homeowner wishes it, and front-yard setback.
This is what it looks like in three dimensions.
The final product was inspired by something you see in West Tampa and South Tampa and East Tampa and central Tampa.
Duplexes, four-plexes, six-plexes that were all rental housing.
We saw this design in Key West, and Savannah, and New Orleans, and here.
So we kind of converted it into a single-family home that's a double gallery.
This is a phenomenonal product in any neighborhood.
It's got a full front porch.
For whoever was talking about porches before, maybe councilman Dingfelder, this has double front porches, because the master -- master bedroom on the front has a full balcony front porch.
3 bedrooms, 2 baths, this product has no parking issues, because we are able to accommodate a garage in it.
However, this costs more money to build, and it's more expensive product.
So that's why we have three different model types.
That's what that looks like in three dimensions.
We weren't trying to get the average setback on the average street today. We were going back to the past to try to redefine the future.
And we looked at the 1931 Sanborn map that is a part of this application and say, what was the urban fabric of West Tampa like?
Let's try to recreate it.
And you can see it here.
It is two feet, three feet, four feet, front yard setbacks, two to five feet on the side yards within the context of meeting life, health and safety concerns.
We are trying to replicate that.
And so on the rezoning application, just to go through these points very quickly, it's a standard six-yard setback.
There's flexibility on side yard setbacks, Parks Department, other people's concerns about trees.
We have some ability to move houses this way, or that way.
As an open architecture, it's on peers so -- piers so we can minimize impacts to routes.
We don't know what impacts to all the trees are because that frankly is a particular site by site review.
However, we agree with Mr. Riley's suggestions to have a certified arborist.
We already used one.
We are continuing to use one.
We think that putting the trees on the right-of-way, on the front, is the best place, it provides shading for pedestrians, it provides a nice feeling on the street, and it has less impact on the house and the tree.
The other thing in here is the rear yard setback off the alleyway, it's six feet, not ten feet, again to accommodate everything on the lot.
You can see all of this set forth in your plans.
The stormwater piece councilman Dingfelder, we are trying to figure out how to do this.
And we work with stormwater department to come up with a solution.
Some really quick exceptions to our standard design.
One of the things we are doing is a model center on Albany and Walnut.
You have the design plans in your rezoning application for that.
We have already addressed the relocation of the historic home.
That is another waiver request.
Because where we are moving that home to, that the lot can only accommodate one car, so of all the homes that would have an exception to allow only one-car parking for the relocation of that one historic home, the transportation -- excuse me, historic preservation department supports that.
The final issue that came up deals with the commercial rezoning application.
We work very closely with the West Tampa CDC.
As part of this, we are committed to provide them with new offices on Armenia and walnut.
This is the proposed site for it.
It currently is a lot the city owns.
Those of you that travel down it, and the city doesn't realize it has a boat on its property but you do.
The for-sale sign I believe was of the boat, not of the property.
This is the area across the street from it.
It is an area of Armenia that has seen very little redevelopment activity.
We are admittedly stretching the envelope on the parking waiver request here.
No bones about it.
But the motion is to try to do more on this part of Armenia and try to understand this is an urban area, and we have a variety of uses in this particular petition, and we hope that you understand that this is an area in transition, and we hope that we will have the flexibility to develop it in a way that the market respects.
I would like to ask Mr. Sebastien to come up and talk about the financing component.
This is as much about the other agenda items as the rezoning petition.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Turanchik, for the record you have been sworn?
>> Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You are down to about 10 minutes left in your presentation.
>> Sebastien, GTE Federal Credit Union and Suncoast Federal Credit Union formed a joint venture not-for-profit corporation to provide affordable housing financing throughout the State of Florida, primarily west central Florida where the two credit unions are headquartered.
I don't know if you know Matilda who runs the housing partnership that we created.
We have been working with this group since day one.
Our interest in it is to be good citizens, to be good neighbors, and to provide affordable housing financing.
Suncoast schools is a $5 billion financial understand substitution.
We are a $2 billion financial institution.
We have a great interest in this area.
Sun coast schools in providing for bus drivers and bus drivers, things like that, GTE because we serve a very diverse population most of whom who work in the City of Tampa and we would oh lo like to see them living where they work.
Our headquarters as you know we think is very close to this neighborhood and would like to see that whole corridor that basically goes from Himes Avenue to 40th street, from cypress north to King drive, we see that as all part of our home base, if you will, and so we have been working with this group since day one.
We will provide all of the necessary housing finance for all of the units that are built between the two of us through our foundation.
Any questions on that?
>>KEVIN WHITE: I have one.
Just by some off chance someone wants to use their own financing --
>>> oh, absolutely.
There's no requirement that they use us.
We are providing it simply to be sure that you would know that if what is more likely to happen is that some people would not be able to provide financing, we provide all levels of financing.
We will work with people of very modest means.
There's all kind of incentive programs from federal home loan bank, from Fannie Mae and Fannie Mack.
We have access to all of those finances.
There are affordable housing loans and grants available from all the federal agencies, from the City of Tampa, in some cases for city employees.
We will be providing for some people below-market financing to get them into the affordable housing units, and at-market financing for those that are at market rates.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Sebastien.
I'm curious, do credit unions have the same requirements that banks have in regard to affordable housing and all that type of thing?
>>> The quick answer is no.
The full answer is, would you get my sermon on credit unions.
We serve our members.
We serve all of our members.
The reason why the community reinvestment act was placed on banks, they had a long tradition of taking deposits from one area and not putting the money back into that area.
Credit unions have always taken deposits from their members and always made those loans back only to their members.
And so we have never had that situation where we were raiding one neighborhood for deposits and spending all the money in another neighborhood.
We take our money from our members, we give our money back to our members.
So we do not have a community reinvestment act required requirement on credit unions.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>> Mr. Michael Randolph will conclude our portion of the presentation, talk about the community participation process that we went through and the support theories for the application.
I'll be available for any questions at the end.
Thank you.
>>> Michael Randolph: It is uncommon to find these days with a social conscience, and I must say this development does have a social conscience.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We know you, Mr. Randolph, but we need your name and address.
>>> Michael Randolph, CDC, 1803 north Howard Avenue.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Can you speak into the hand held Mike so we can hear you better?
>>> Is that better? Is it on?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>> To be in favor of this particular project and part of the overlay.
The neighborhood group, the old West Tampa neighborhood group, the west rougher view neighborhood association, and the West Tampa Chamber of Commerce.
Several of those people are here.
We had three community wide meetings to get a broad spectrum of what does the community feel?
Two meetings were given by the developer -- I'm sorry, I have a cold so please bear with me -- and there was 120 people came out to give their endorsement.
What the petitioner doesn't talk about is that they are buying three crack houses to close up in order to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood.
As relates to the CDC, something we didn't have to deal with, is the office, and that office would be the employment and business center.
So residents in the neighborhood.
This has been one of three activities that the West Tampa CDC has been involved in, that has contact with the neighborhood, and making sure the neighborhood is on board as it relates to this.
I'm proud to be part of this process because I have been always been about community empowerment.
I have always been about making a difference in the neighborhood.
That employment center is going to go far beyond the bricks and mort mortar in this neighborhood, leaving a footprint in the neighborhood to go on from there.
I want to submit to you some progress that it's made at one of the meetings.
And I will highlight one or two because I know I'm time restrained.
Residents that came out made a statement, seems like a great opportunity to revitalize a neglected area.
Another resident say, good beginning for West Tampa, it needs to save what is left.
And I want to submit this for the record if I may.
In addition to that, about six people asked me if I would be in favor of it.
I'm not sure what the process is.
In conclusion I want to say if we have more developers like Intown properties that works with the neighborhood, that connects with the neighborhood -- and we beat them up.
We did.
But the bottom line is the neighborhood got what it needed to get about empowerment, about leaving something behind in the neighborhood.
Thank you very much.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Randolph.
Petitioner, does that conclude your presentation?
>>> Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item?
If would you, go ahead and please line up.
Don't feel you need to take your full three minutes.
We have been here since 9:00 this morning.
And is there anyone here who has not yet been sworn in that intends to speak?
If you have not yet been sworn in, everyone please raise your hand.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would be real curious, and this way, it might influence how long people talk.
If these folks are in favor or opposed, if there's anybody here opposed to the project?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay, at least one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there anybody else opposed to the project?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Give your name.
>>> Maybe I shouldn't say I'm opposed to it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Speak louder.
>>> First my name is Tarahoff and I have been sworn.
First of all I want to say that I don't have a problem with new developers coming into the community to improve our quality of life in the West Tampa area.
The problem that I have is, and the concern is, the elderly, as well as what they are bringing, what type of benefit for our community.
I have lived in the community since 1994.
Okay.
And I do agree that our community need to be -- a lot of improvement.
But my concern is the process that they are saying they are going to profit by making houses, when I went to their -- to talk to someone at Intown which was Gloria concerning the projects that were going to be done, a specific property which was 2117 -- I live at 2117.
The property was 2115.
It has a big old pecan tree in the middle of it.
And if the tree can't be moved, they want to put a house on that lot.
And the lot is so small.
In November of 2002, I requested the lot to add onto my house.
I was denied because they say the lot was too small in order to build.
But yet when the new developers came in, they wanted to rezone it and make it sufficient to build a house.
I had a problem with that.
Another concern is with the enormous building in the West Tampa area, the taxes would go up enormously, and then we are dealing with the elderly because we have so many elderly in our community.
And the West Tampa CDC says, in this article, that we empower the people of West Tampa to reject what they don't want in the community through our overlay plan.
In other words, they give us that opportunity to say what we want and what we do not want.
I don't have a problem with them coming in and helping us or better living, but I do have a problem when it's called a major concern and when it's going to not approve but affect our way of living, because the elderly, you know, we have a lot of elderly people in that community.
And if the taxes go up, you know what I'm saying?
And it's no way, they already on a fixed income.
They already on affixed income.
You can't get blood out of a turnip, you know.
And I don't think anyone in West Tampa want to live the way they live.
But if you going to bring new houses in our community, and they are not going to line up with the houses that's already there, you are trying to add apples and oranges together.
(Bell sounds)
And then --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ma'am, we do need to you wrap up very quickly.
>>> Okay.
Well, my concern is this.
And you talking about new houses.
I'm saying you need to deal with the root of the problem which is we need jobs, you know what I'm saying?
A lot of people, you talk about bringing new homes but people don't have jobs.
But I'm just saying, please take that into consideration concerning the taxes, the profit --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Way heard you.
We have a couple of questions.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for you.
I'm real interested in this because I believe in -- did you really -- now stop, guys.
If you have the opportunity to -- this is right next door to where you live?
>>> Yes.
>> And you wanted to buy it?
>>> Yes.
>> Did you want to buy to add onto your yard?
>>> I wanted to buy to kind of add onto my house, too, because me and my husband, we have six kids and the house was small and we wanted to add on so it could be at least spacious for the family as well.
But the property is big enough to either keep the pecan tree there, because the pecan tree has been there, and it's enormous.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just wanted to reply to some of the comments that the young lady made.
First I'll be brief in my comments.
Year talking about the benefits to the community.
I think the project will severely benefit the community.
It's going to revitalize the community.
It's going to bring new people into the community.
It's going to bring new life into the community.
It will clean up the community.
We have a lot of open and vacant lots that will bring in-fill development and make this a more cohesive community.
The effective way of living especially for the elderly, I was raised in West Tampa.
I was a police officer in West Tampa.
I know some of the blight that elderly go through.
I think we talk about the front porches that Mr. Dingfelder and the petitioner talked about.
Some of the elderly can't even sit on their front porch because some of the activities that are going on in West Tampa.
And I think this will better that quality of life for some of the elderly.
And higher taxes, things of that nature.
I don't think it will go up enormous because it can only go up 3% a year.
I meant for the people that are already homesteaded there. So I don't think that's going to be that much of a concern.
You said we need jobs in our community.
If we are building 68 houses, I guarantee it we are going to create jobs for years to come in that community with laborers, and which West Tampa is comprised of.
Bricklayers, mortarers, carpenters.
We have many of those trades right there in West Tampa.
And I can't speak for Mr. Turanchik but I would be remiss in thinking that -- or for the developer, and thinking that they would not utilize some of the resources right there from that neighborhood for this project.
And if I didn't think that was a part of this, I wouldn't be anywhere close to being supportive of it.
But we need to move along.
I just wanted to just reply to some of those of your concerns.
And that's the way this council person feels about it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, ma'am.
Next.
>>> Huey Johnson.
I have been sworn in.
1718 Main Street.
I'm speaking as a conscious individual as well as with the West Tampa cultural society.
First of all, there's something really wrong here.
We have been at forums on how to see land sold.
If I own 6 to lots in Hyde Park or Palma Ceia, you wouldn't give them to me, not as an individual.
We are asking a forum and this thing be continued until people come by and express their real concern of what's going on here.
And number one, how the city, has the discretion to sell this man 68 lots without a public forum, there's nothing equitable about it.
I mean, there's numerous business along the Main Street corridor that would love to buy some of these lots.
There's several organizations that would love to buy some of these lots.
Like this young lady said here, she was denied a right to buy it right adjacent to her.
Yet this man comes along and you say he's going to come save us without our opinion.
Without our input.
We have actually sent letters to jack Rodriguez at city real estate and asked to purchase these properties and been denied it.
But yet you are going to allow this man to get 16.
Bulldoze in South Africa and that was Apartheid.
We are not in South Africa anymore.
When was this sale approved?
And rezoning, when was the sale?
I would like to know.
Please tell me.
When was the sale?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tonight.
That's one on our agenda.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: If we approve zoning rezoning it will be after this.
>>> We are looking for equity.
Not just CDC.
We have had numerous events in West Tampa.
Didn't get a dollar from the developers.
But how can you be socially conscious when you won't pride for something the West Tampa culture sponsors for the kids?
We have to have a balance for these people.
We have kids, children, in West Tampa area.
They can't say that.
But they are talking about the social conscience.
What kind of social conscience you talking about?
The bank pocketbook?
This is ridiculous.
And I'll answer any questions.
Like I say, we really missed the ball here.
To allow this to get this far.
Because we have tremendously tried to help West Tampa and been denied.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One comment to that.
We have a workshop coming up for land development to come over and tell us expressly how the city is dealing with the disposition of city-owned land.
That what was made about a month ago.
>>> We were here.
Like I say, before, that's my objection to the rezoning.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
Next.
>>> Good evening.
My name is Patti Rosa, I live in Tampa.
I'd like to support this project.
I think it's a big undertaking.
I'd like to see the revitalization of wist Tampa.
I grew up here.
I remember 20th century drive-in and I remember some of these places.
And West Tampa, I'd like to see it go back to the way it used to be where you could walk down the street, or drive down the street, and not be afraid.
I would like to support the fact that these people are buying these houses that are being used as crack houses right now and they are getting rid of them.
How much more can you improve a community by getting rid of such negative things?
You are talking about kids playing in the neighborhoods.
Who wants their kids playing near crack houses?
Let's get rid of all these negative things, build these areas up, bring in people that would be more positive for these areas.
The fact that it's affordable.
Try shopping anywhere in Hillsborough County for homes that are affordable, especially in Tampa.
You can't touch anything south of Columbus drive for under 350.
I mean, you're talking huge, huge amounts of money.
These homes are available, affordable for people, teachers, workers.
I work at St. Joseph's hospital.
I'd love to be five minutes from work.
Firemen.
Policemen.
You know, these are people who have -- worthy professions that can't afford to buy homes because the market is just outrageous.
Anymore.
I would like to see this come out, you don't have the multi-housing town homes that are just boxes with slots or selling apartments that are being converted and trying to be sold as condominiums.
These are single-family homes.
These would be a great neighborhood, where you could walk down the street, walk around, visit with your neighbors and have the type of neighborhood that we used to have in West Tampa.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, ma'am.
Next.
>>> John Joyner, 1710 Jetton Avenue it, I have been sworn in. I have no connection at all with the developer.
But this is one of the most exciting projects that I've seen in the City of Tampa since I oh moved back to Florida in 1983.
I moved into Hyde Park at that time and Hyde Park was not a particularly great neighborhood then.
And I have been benefited greatly from historic preservation and from the redevelopment of the Hyde Park area.
Financially, socially, and I believe culturally.
I think the same opportunity is available here to the people of West Tampa from the seed that's being planted here tonight.
If you approve this project I think that you'll see an opportunity for the people of West Tampa to benefit the way that the people in Hyde Park have benefited, the way people in Seminole Heights have benefited, the people in Tampa Heights are benefiting.
The opportunity for people to own their own homes, and see the kind of appreciation that comes from this kind of redevelopment it's an incredible opportunity.
It is the American dream.
I think this is the first opportunity, possibly the second, for people who live there to benefit from this kind of redevelopment.
A lot of the people who moved into Hyde Park and Seminole Heights came in and redeveloped.
People who railroad -- who were living there were forced out of the area because they couldn't afford to improve their properties.
They were tenant and didn't own.
Here is an opportunity for market and subsidized interest rates for people who can benefit and to also see the incredible opportunities that I've seen.
I think that the seed is going to provide the city an opportunity to see this happen without a great deal of city money going into it.
This is a developer who is putting this project together.
And I think the first person who spoke would be able to come back later this year or next year and get what she wanted because of this developer when she couldn't get it when she went to the city as a one-off type of a request.
So I think this is going to be a great benefit to the City of Tampa.
And to the residents of this community.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is Lindsey Longbottom, have a home on 2109 Walnut Street and I have been sworn in.
I just want to say that I'm in favor of the project, the rezoning.
I think if there was more developers with the same ideas and direction as this group that these meetings would not last as long into the evening.
I just want to make it short and sweet and say I'm in favor of this project.
>>> Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is Bob Garcia, I'm with the West Tampa Chamber of Commerce, 1721 north Howard.
I do want to say regarding the information that I have heard here tonight and have seen at other presentations that this project is very positive.
Starting with some objections concerning the trees and the historical house, all that's been addressed.
And so to the complement of the petitioner, the developer.
And it's also, the project has the ability to turn around the community, the West Tampa community, as someone has stated the community has been neglected, and lack of funding or investments has not taken place till a project like this has come about.
And as was stated that the financing has been arranged, so they are taking this project step by step for it to be successful.
And someone had mentioned about property owners, and it's been addressed the taxing scenario that they can't be increased more than 3% and in most cases won't even reach that.
So the current property owners shouldn't be affected, and certainly down the road it will increase their value.
As an aside to this the West Tampa economic development plan has been talked about.
The West Tampa Community Development Corporation and so on, it will enhance the community of West Tampa along with other entities.
And it looks like they are forming it to be a team with all these -- with all these entities working together.
As you know, W at one time West Tampa was the fifth largest city in the state and when this project along with many others in the Tampa, West Tampa can begin possibly start to regain their importance, not from a geography standpoint, not necessarily just in the state or the county, but in the city.
And I think it's time to move forward with this project.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Next.
>>> Good evening.
I'm lily Howard.
And I have been sworn in.
I reside at 2102 west Pine Street.
I'm the secretary for the old West Tampa neighborhood crime watch association.
And I'm the secretary for the CDC.
My concern is, I appreciate very much what Ed Turanchik is doing for our community.
I wish that he had enough money that co-buy the vacant houses in the 2100 block of west pine Street that I live, because the people that live in my community are moving from other areas, and they are using their houses on section 8, and they are drug dealers.
And it gives me a problem.
Because I called the police because of this activities.
But I felt as though if Mr. Ed Turanchik had enough money and could buy these homes, they would be altogether different.
So Ms. Alvarez, and I would appreciate if would you see what's going on in the 2100 block of west pine.
Thank you.
>>> Gad evening.
I'm Dan Mac NEA, 2407 land street.
In about 23 years, never had no problem, been in the City of Tampa 23 years.
And now I been there, going on, taking my time and everybody treat me real good in West Tampa.
Everybody.
And I enjoy what the mayor did not long ago.
She was in West Tampa and I was over watching.
Standing on my porch.
She was right with the crew.
So I didn't say too much because I'm a little hoarse.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You support the project, sir?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh, yeah.
>>> Thanks.
>> Almost time to say good morning but I'll still say good evening.
My name is Jimmy gray.
I have a home at 1739 Walnut Street.
I have a business at 1930 Main Street.
I been in business in West Tampa for the last 25 years.
I support the project.
But there are some exceptions that I need to make that I want City Council to be aware of.
So these problems can be solved before they happen.
The old West Tampa has a rich heritage of Hispanic homeowners and this would disappear with the economic changes that you have been hearing about.
If you don't own your own home or building you need to prepare for the increases in prices of your lease, if you own your home, you must prepare for full fold increases in tax assessments.
Your place in this neighborhood could disappear as if a hurricane had come through.
This is one of the fliers that was sent out.
If it sounds harsh and scary, but I been newly appointed for the West Tampa cultural society as a director and we will bring about some changes.
Now, those changes need to be made because of two things.
The medium income from the West Tampa economic development plan of residents in West Tampa is $30,000.
I've talked to the property appraiser's office.
Their person cannot afford one of these homes if they are 169 or 16,000.
Those people would never qualify for them.
Bus drivers don't make $30,000 a year.
A lot of school teachers don't make $30,000 a year.
So we proceed to have some creative financing for these individuals to get it.
I know there's a cap for individuals that are already in West Tampa, say your home won't GTE go up 3%.
Okay.
Another 40% of those home owners West Tampa are elderly people.
So within the next five years, as soon as they sell their house, their property is going to go up to what that assessed value is.
I purchased my property last year at 63,000 dollars.
I've already had offers to sell it for 129.
My property value went up $12,000 from last August to this August.
Okay.
We as a West Tampa cultural society are planning to run seminars, because this will change.
If those 40% of the people actually move out of the community or sell, the property appraiser says as soon as they sell that house for 40,000 or 60,000, 63, the next homeowner, that house is not going to sell for that.
It will sell for the property that's in-fill houses which the $160,000. The rest of the houses in the core community are going to go up to their value.
So the next person that purchases a house in the West Tampa area will be purchasing at that amount.
So you are going to have a flux of change where you have Moses White Boulevard, and there will be no income, for poor people that live in Tampa, will be eventually moved out of the area, if there's no creative financing done, or if there are not other incentives that are done now.
The proposal that we have for those incentives is to make sure all the current residents join neighborhood or civic associations now.
They seek training to increase their income.
We need to start training the individuals that are there now that want to stay in the neighborhood to increase their incomes over this $30,000 so they can be able to afford the housing, maintain the mortgages that they have.
They need to seek assistance to purchase their homes, as we heard that's already available.
(Bell sounds)
Find out how to save their money, increase their income, increase theory wealth, to create co-opens to purchase their businesses, if there are businesses, and also be aware of government and private assistance.
I have reviewed the CDBG proposals.
There are several projects in the CDB approved budget that can help assist and make sure some of the residents that are still there can maintain their residence and heritage in the West Tampa area.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Gray.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Miller, I know you enjoy spending your evenings here but I'm just curious, are you planning on speaking to us this evening on this?
>>> Cynthia Miller: I'm available for questions but I wasn't planning on making -- since the real estate transaction was here, I was here representing my department in the city on those items.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on item that hasn't yet spoken?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to ask Mrs. Kill -- Mrs. Miller some questions but I'll wait for Mr. Turanchik.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: If you have any rebuttal now is the time.
>>> Ed Turanchik: Principally, I think one of the greatest sentences in West Tampa in support of the project are the elderly who live there.
This is not an abstraction for us.
We know these people personally.
We have worked with them to solve many issues in that community, on a very intimate level.
I will tell you some of the elderly in that community feel trapped.
Other elderly in that community would like to see this project happen because they would like to see their property values to go up because they have personal health needs that they have to address.
Most of the homeowners in this community are African-American, are over 65, and are women, and are on fixed incomes.
We work closely with them, and I think received strong support.
You have heard from some of them tonight.
As you know, the homestead, it is a cap on how much property taxes can go up.
If you are a homestead property owner it's limit by Florida Constitution to I think no more than 3%.
The pecan tree issue on that lot, that may not be a buildable lot.
We don't know that.
As you know, that's a detail site review matter.
It could be a tough lot to develop.
And we are committed to grand trees.
We'll have a certified arborist.
We are working with the Parks and Recreation Department to try to figure out how to do that.
For the record, around two-thirds of the properties involved in this application are owned by Intown properties.
The City of Tampa owns about 21 or 2 lots.
More than 60% of city lots are 25 feet in width.
Prior to this, last year we understood the City of Tampa's real estate department is undevelopable because how do you develop onto a 25 foot lot?
It has taken a lot of time, energy and money to figure out how to do that.
As you can see by this petition.
Another 50% of the city lots are either in between or adjacent to lots that we own.
A good example is our model homesite.
Three of the four lots we own.
The fourth, which is where the garages are on, are owned by the city.
It is the problem of developing in a small lot area to be able to do enough, put the lots together, to be able to address tree issues and parking issues and all these things.
It just takes a critical mass, enough to work with, to make it happen.
That's why the city land conveyance is absolutely essential for this project to succeed and to go forward.
That has to be stated unequivocally.
We would not be here doing this but for the city administration working in conjunction with us, and financial partners, in the West Tampa CDC, to bring to you a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of this section of West Tampa.
I don't nobody how else we can do it.
But these lots are important.
And I understand individual grievances about that.
But West Tampa has sat there for 30 or 40 years.
West Tampa is the next thing coming.
There's a reason why this hasn't happened.
It's because this is a tough problem.
We work so well with everyone to try to solve this, to try to be good community partners.
We hope you will support the rezoning application.
We hope you will understand why this is essential land conveyance piece is essential to be able to make this project and all the things we're doing work economically.
Thank you very much for your attention.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Turanchik.
We have a couple of questions, I believe, first from Ms. Alvarez.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me.
I wanted to ask Ms. Mill area question.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Go right ahead.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's been some accusations that, you know, Ed Turanchik walks in and the city, now, just gives him these lots and no strings attached, et cetera, et cetera.
Could you tell us a little bit about what's been going on in that regard?
And I know this discussion is also attached to the other two agenda items.
But it's intimately attached to this issue.
>>> Cindy miller from at the present time of business and housing development.
And I have been sworn.
So they are very integral to the rezoning.
When it comes to the parcels -- and let me just outline, they were earlier agenda items 1 and 2, and one is for one parcel on agenda item 1, and there are 22 parcels on agenda item number 2.
We asked it be deferred because of the rezoning.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you speak a little loud er?
>>> I'm sorry.
As most of my colleagues on City Council know I do a lot better in the morning than I do this late.
And I really admire you and staff and the citizens for being here.
So I'll speak up.
Sorry.
When Mr. Turanchik came to us, and this was several months ago, I think I'm almost to the point now where I am not the new kid on the block anymore.
We were also concerned with making available this number of lots to one petitioner, to one person that we would sell it to.
And that is why we did make it an integral part of the rezoning.
We looked upon the sale of the land as a true opportunity for redevelopment of many blocks of West Tampa.
And I think that is our key motivation from the city standpoint.
Is that this was a sale partnered with the land that untown properties already owns to be able to have the scale of redevelopment that could make a significant difference in the community.
So that is why -- and I said this to individuals, I said to the groups in other parts of the city, is that if anyone comes to us with a plan for redevelopment of this scale, even a smaller scale, that we think is a viable utilization of city property, of course we're going to listen to the.
And I think it was only fair that we bring this type of thing forward to you.
Now, when it comes to that, we did not just do a sales transaction to Intown properties.
We tied it closely to the rezoning.
Not just from the standpoint of the agenda items being considered, but particularly for the 22 parcels, the actual contract requires that the parcels and the pledge of allegiance project have the rezoning occur before the closing on those properties can ever occur.
So not only are we trying it from an agenda standpoint, we are tying it up from the contract standpoint.
And I'll stop there and see if there's any other questions you have or any elaborations.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a follow-up in regard to the sales price of these parcels.
Is it just arbitrary?
And also affordable housing?
>>> Yes.
These are all at appraised value, after my initial meeting with Mr. Turanchik and the rest of his partners.
We had the properties appraised so they are all based upon appraised value in 2005 dollars.
And when it comes to affordable housing, we are requiring a 20% affordable housing ratio, not just for the parcels, but the city is trance -- that the city is transferring but for the entire project.
And we intend to monitor that closely.
I think you all know me from my past work, I know how to monitor folks pretty well.
And that is based upon again the federal definition of affordability.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Miller.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions for Ms. Miller? Ms. Alvarez, you had a question?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I didn't have a question, I was just going to make some comments.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no.
Wait for the petitioner.
Mr. Turanchik, you alluded to some of these.
I want to make sure it's on the record.
No demolition for the historic houses on the record?
>>> Yes, ma'am, that's on the record.
We haven't withdrawn that yet but we are in the process -- I want to make this perfectly clear.
Only the core part of the house is historic.
Dennis Fernandez has been on the site.
We are going to knock off the front porch and the back additions and moving the core and build new onto it.
>> The tree issues raised by our staff, there were a couple of things.
Number one, I'm going to ask if you will voluntarily give up the tiny lot with the large pecan tree.
Because I think that it's contentious, it's complicated, and it's obviously an important tree, and that's one lot out of many lots --
>>> councilman, I have no problem with that but I'm not sure that's the best solution for the community.
Because right now, it is a city lot that is vacant, and you need to see it to understand it.
>> I'll go look.
>>> Please.
But I'm not sure -- if the city administration, after we look at it and all that, wants that, we are happy to do that.
But as it is now, as you know, I hate to say this but the city is not the best steward of vacant lots.
And maybe the best solution is to sell to the an adjoining neighbor and let them build on it.
If that's the case that's fine.
You have to sort out the adjoining neighbor.
I'm not sure how you develop upon it but the neighbors on that street would like to see something done with it.
Frankly the neighbors on that street would like to be see it cut down because they are worried that it will fall on them.
They are kind of wrong because you know how pecan tries look.
When they get old, until they are kind of scraggly and barren.
Whatever you would like to do with respect to that.
>> And the other point that our arborist made is that there are a couple of things, that you need to set back.
Because they came up with a couple of things, if you want to get rid of the tree, it has to go before the VRB or council.
I think --
>>> I continue to go to the ordinary development review process of construction services.
We specifically added the language of what we would comply to at the request of the staff and the city administration.
Protected trees, we have a tree report.
It indicates that most of the trees, most of the protected trees will be saved.
I think it is appropriate to file the -- follow the city code and regulations and we are happy to do so and we stipulated.
>> Last the adoption agreement by the homeowners.
>>> Excuse me?
>> An adoption agreement?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
We already stipulated to that.
And again we think that the right place for these trees is on the right-of-way.
You know, those livable streets and shade.
>> Your design of the homes shows that some of the homes, the traditional development pattern in West Tampa is -- some are wood and some are stucco.
I wonder.
>>> It is a mixture of things.
The bungalow will have a vinyl siding on the front.
Architectural vinyl siding.
Vinyl number one it's affordable.
Number two, it's maintenance free.
Number three, there are two prevalent patterns of siding in West Tampa.
Two-thirds of the original homes there have dutch cap to it.
I think that's the terminology, the board that goes up and cut in.
A third of the homes are triple threes.
Three inch boards every nine inch inches. The only way you can replicate that pattern with many existing commercially available material is vinyl.
They don't make wood that way.
They don't make hardy plank that way.
So we pick designs that would fit back and we are going to finish the fronts appropriately.
The side stucco on the bungalows is strictly a matter of trying to make these homes affordable.
The second will be all clad in a triple three or dutch vinyl.
The home third, the gallery will be concrete block on the first floor, and wood frame on the second floor.
And the vinyl siding on the second floor.
First floor is stucco. It simply deals with the question of how do you re-side concrete block home.
A lot of thought went into the answer.
We are going to experiment with that a bit.
There's a lot of technical reasons for doing that.
We'll review those in depth later if you like.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm going to read the ordinance and then make a comment, okay?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Very good.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt -- move an ordinance rezoning certain parcels of property bounded by Tampania Avenue on the west, Rome Avenue on the east, union street on the south, beach street on the north, in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described as section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential single-family, RM-16, residential multifamily, and CI commercial intensive, to PD, single-family residential and mixed use, office residential, West Tampa CDC, providing an effective date.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And seconded.
You have the floor.
>> I think Ed Turanchik has made a wonderful presentation on what's happening in the West Tampa area.
This finally, West Tampa's time is here.
He has gone beyond -- above and beyond the West Tampa guidelines.
And I know that the West Tampa CDC wouldn't be in this project with him unless you had overlay guidelines that were put in for this project.
Economic development will come once this project gets started.
It's ironic that after Mr. Turanchik and his partners bought or tried to buy these properties that all of a sudden everybody is coming out of the woodwork, saying, oh, wish I could have brought those properties, could have bought those.
I think it's first come first served.
And if you try to do it years ago, maybe you didn't have the money or whatever.
The problem is that he got them, and I think he's doing a great service to the West Tampa community.
It's a win-win situation for everybody.
He's committed to a good product to this community.
And I for one am all for this.
I've lived in the West Tampa area.
I've seen the deterioration of these lots, of this neighborhood, and it's time for it to start coming back.
It's a West Tampa historic neighborhood.
And it's ironic to me that we even have any questions for this developer, because he -- he has done everything that he possibly could, and he's worked very hard with the staff and I just have to thank you, Ed.
I really have to thank you from the bottom of my heart.
And you too, Teresa, for helping.
And everybody else that's involved.
But thank you for bringing something that's good for the community.
And of course there's always going to be naysayers.
And going to be brought to the table.
But wave to overcome that.
You cannot make everybody happy.
But once that goes, starts, it will happen.
Everybody will jump in and want to buy the property.
And I may even buy a house myself.
Back to West Tampa.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I do not want to spend a second Thursday evening going into the morning hour once again, at City Hall instead of with my family.
First of all, I would like to make this brief.
I would like to thank Intown properties again for being creative and innovative, and a new design concept for an area that has been sorely deteriorating, and it's such a valuable asset to the City of Tampa.
I would also like to thank GTE federal credit union, Suncoast schools credit union and CU lending for partnering in this effort to make this project come to fruition, as well as providing innovative financing strategies to be put in place for underprivileged neighborhoods and neighborhoods that need to be revitalized.
I would also like to thank the West Tampa CDC under the direction of Dr. Margaret Fisher, with Michael Randolph as her right hand man, for sticking with this developer and helping to create and resynergize and area in which they are so deeply entrenched and deal with the people day in and day out.
I know as a part of the West Tampa CDC economic development, job creation, is tops on their list, and I'm sure that they are going to make sure that people within the West Tampa area are greatly impacted in a positive manner by this project.
The only thing that I can say to some of the credit unions that are involved in this project, this is just off the cuff, maybe one extra step, not this process but you may want to consider in the very near future, because of the elderly, because of the walkability of West Tampa, it's possibly considering putting a small branch location within the neighborhood somewhere, where the elderly can walk and cash their check and/or buy money orders and things of that nature, as well as -- not just the elderly but people, period.
I don't know how viable that is.
I know SunTrust went in years ago.
I don't know why they left.
But if it's something that's viable, something that's doable, let's consider it.
And I think, I don't know if there would be any dissension on this board.
But certainly from this council member and this project being totally in my district, you certainly have my support.
Oh, two lots are in your district, Ms. Alvarez.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is an exciting project, a good project.
We are looking at a very large project.
And I asked Mr. Shelby to -- if we can just make a note perhaps on the plan saying, except the lot with the pecan tree so we can move ahead tonight.
It seems that should be able to be doable, except the lot with the pecan tree on Pine Street.
If the architecture, the scale, the feeling reflects the character of the neighborhood, and I think because you clustered so many units on a block, it will just -- what's the word, fast forward things back to life.
I'm real excited.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Except for the fact that I spoke with Mr. Massey.
I don't know whether that note specifically is acceptable legally.
>> To whom?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, I know Mr. Turanchik has agreed to the.
I'm just wondering of the proper procedure.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: If council wants to modify the rezoning request to delete the lot with the pecan tree on it, then what I can do, I will have to go, if that's acceptable to Mr. Turanchik as well, I need to delete that off of the legal description, the lot off of the rezoning petition and also off the real estate contract if I can do that.
But I need to note that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would not be positive N in support of that motion.
But not only that, I don't think the petitioner had agreed to that.
I think he agreed -- unless I heard him wrong -- if that was the administration's wish, he would agree to that.
Not him personally.
And even if it wasn't, I think that the whole redevelopment process -- and if it's not a buildable lot it will stay as is.
I just Di think we need to go it with as is.
I won't be supportive of that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, a question because the motion has already been made and seconded and I don't know if it includes the pecan tree or not.
I don't know how much time we really need to spend on the pecan tree tonight.
If it sounds like we are going to debate the pecan tree. So --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I make a motion to amend.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which way?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To exclude the pecan tree.
The lady with the six kids who lives next door. The whole point is to revitalize the area.
She asked the city before.
We didn't make it available to her.
We have this great revitalization project but I think it's a way to say to the neighborhood you're here, too, and you count too.
That's my motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Two things.
Number one, that motion would require a second.
Number two, I don't believe that --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, it would be to exclude it from this.
And the city would go through its process.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion -- hang on -- we have a motion to amend to exclude the pecan tree.
Let's see if it gets a second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to second it for discussion purposes.
And -- being a little rude.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have all been here a long time today.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to ask the petitioner to clarify -- Mr. Turanchik?
To clarify your position on the pecan tree lot.
I thought I did hear you to say to Ms. Saul-Sena that you would be glad to withdraw that lot if it made her happy.
>>ED TURANCHIK: I think the simplest thing to do is go forward with the application as it is, with the land conveyance as it is, we will commit on the record that we will convey the lot to either of the adjoining property owners, if they can finance it at our cost of acquisition.
That way, it keeps everything straight and clear.
It's our commitment to the community.
And it's just that simple.
On the record stating that to council.
We had thought about that frankly before we came here.
And Weaver were aware of the person's issues.
And we have concerns about how you develop that lot with our models because of where the location of the tree is.
Frankly, if I were in your shoes, I would want to get the lot off the city's roles because what do you do with it?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mrs. Miller, come on.
>>> Cindy Miller: I would like to confirm the exact address that we are talking about, and that we heard from one person.
Because I'm not sure, we keep talking about the lot with the pecan tree, and the adjacent homeowners.
Let's just make sure we have the precise address.
>>ED TURANCHIK: After concurring with esteemed council we cannot do that under the terms and conditions of our agreement.
We have to build on every lot we are buying within five years or there's a revert theory sends it back to the city.
It's one of the things the city held our feet to the fire on.
You understand, we don't want to belabor this.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I withdraw it.
>>ED TURANCHIK: If there's a way of curing this --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: He withdraw it -- withdrew it already, Mr. Turanchik.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was going to ask if that lot was a buildable lot even if you gave to the that lady.
She was probably going to have to cut down the tree to put her addition on it, right?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's not talk about the pecan tree anymore.
We have a motion on the table.
We had an amendment.
It has been withdrawn or it has been not seconded.
Did we have a motion to call the question?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, we have a motion to call the question.
We have a motion to call the question.
It is not debatable.
All in favor of the question signify by saying Aye.
Aye.
The question is called, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
Why is it some council get to speak on the primary motion and some other council people don't?
I don't get it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Shelby?
Help us out, Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: There was a motion to call the question.
It is not debatable.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can't bring a discussion on a motion to call the question?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe a motion -- I will double check that.
Don't believe a motion to call the question is debatable.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think it is either.
The question has been called.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The question has been called.
All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion passes 5 to 1.
I'm sorry that the evening ended this way.
But the evening has ended this way.
We now have items 1 and 2 to deal with.
Which one?
Building and zoning and preservation committee?
>> Move resolutions 1 and 2.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there any discussion on the motion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is it allowed?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All in favor of the motion please signify --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's discussion on the motion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm sorry.
I didn't understand that.
All right, Mr. Dingfelder, we have discussion on the motion to move items 1 and 2.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I was going to say before very briefly is, I just wanted to make a point, even though Mr. Turanchik is a big guy, okay, that this issue is bigger than Mr. Turanchik.
Okay?
This as Mary put it very, very well, this is about West Tampa.
This is about an area that's been neglected for a long time.
And I think there's been a lot of stuff that, you know, has been thrown around that the city will do anything for Ed Turanchik and I want to make at abundantly clear we have one of the most thorough professionals on our staff in the form of Ms. Miller and also Mr. Massey, and other people who have worked on this, who have looked over this issue with a fine tooth comb, and have made sure that this is in the best interest of the city.
That's why I'm abundantly comfortable with this project.
Thank you.
Thank you, council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to say that our arborist said that a grand tree has a 20-foot protective radius.
If a lot is only 25 feet, you can't build on it.
So I would like to T city to figure out a way that this lot could, rather than remaining dormant and rather than losing a grand tree, could somehow become part of someone's yard where they will maintain it.
That's my comment.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Did you want a response from one of the staff members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not immediately but I would like Ms. Miller to figure out how we can do something with this if it becomes part of somebody's yard.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
On the record.
Any other questions or comments about items 1 and 2?
There being none, all in favor of the motion please signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you very much.
>> Move to receive and file all documents.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second to receive all and file all document.
(Motion carried)
Do we have any other unfinished business to deal with this evening, clerk?
No?
Mr. Massey?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I think there was one item, one public hearing that needed to be rescheduled from this morning and I think Ms. Coyle has a date for that.
The one hearing that you wouldn't move to the 20th because of the 10 new cases.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Is that the case?
Did you not?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We did not.
Looks like we are at February or maybe January?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The only thing to do out of fairness because it came in order is to bump one from another month, so we are going to do that.
We have to bump about four months out but to schedule it for October 27th at 6 p.m.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's fine.
Do we have a motion?
>>> Z05-140.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
6 p.m.
Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor please signify by saying Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
Thank you all.
We are adjourned.
(City Council meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.)