Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council

Thursday, February 16, 2006

5:01 p.m.

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 was 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.


17:11:04

17:11:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.

17:11:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Pastor W. James Favorite with the

17:11:27 Beulah Baptist church.

17:11:31 >>> Let us pray.

17:11:31 Almighty everlasting father, we come before you and

17:11:35 thank you for what you have done for us.

17:11:40 We thank you for this occasion of the meeting of the

17:11:43 City Council.

17:11:43 We pray for your guidance and your direction as they

17:11:48 tend to the business of our city.

17:11:50 The decisions are difficult and require much

17:11:54 deliberation.

17:11:54 We pray that you would bless them, allow each of us to

17:11:57 know that everything that we have you gave us.

17:12:01 Everything that we know you taught us.

17:12:03 And where we came from, you brought us, and where we

17:12:07 are going you would have to take us.

17:12:08 Father, we pray the blessings upon the direction of

17:12:11 the leadership of our city.

17:12:13 We pray that you bless every home and every family

17:12:16 represented here this evening.

17:12:19 We pray for those presentations that must be given




17:12:22 careful consideration, that we might prove that we are

17:12:26 diligent in exercising and spending the funds that are

17:12:33 so graciously given to us.

17:12:35 We pray now that you bless us in this period of

17:12:41 deliberation.

17:12:41 In Jesus name we pray.

17:12:43 Amen.

17:12:49 (Pledge of Allegiance).

17:13:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.

17:13:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.

17:13:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

17:13:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.

17:13:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

17:13:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)

17:13:09 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

17:13:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

17:13:11 Before we begin tonight's agenda we have some

17:13:13 unfinished business that we need to take up from this

17:13:16 morning.

17:13:19 >>THE CLERK: At this morning's council meeting, to

17:13:29 change it to a (COP-R) for property at West Platt.

17:13:38 >> Ordinance making lawful sale T sale of beverages

17:13:42 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not

17:13:45 more than 14% by weight, beer and wine, 2(COP-R) for

17:13:48 consumption on the premises only in connection with a

17:13:51 restaurant business establishment at or from a certain

17:13:55 lot, plot or tract of land located at 1617 West Platt

17:13:58 street, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described

17:14:00 in section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as

17:14:03 to distance based upon certain findings, providing for

17:14:06 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

17:14:09 effective date.

17:14:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

17:14:12 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

17:14:13 Opposed, Nay.

17:14:15 [Motion Carried]

17:14:15 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.

17:14:25 I have filed a resolution resetting the transmittal

17:14:28 public hearings that were originally scheduled for

17:14:30 this evening.

17:14:32 The clerk's office has it and as directed by council

17:14:35 this morning we are rescheduling items 1 through 9 on

17:14:39 tonight's agenda for April 13th, 2006 at 5:01 p.m.

17:14:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.




17:14:47 >> Second.

17:14:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

17:14:49 (Motion carried).

17:14:56 >> Move to open number 10.

17:14:58 >> Second.

17:14:58 (Motion carried).

17:14:59 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.

17:15:07 Agenda item 10 is a plan amendment, 05-16 which is

17:15:12 located in the vicinity of North Armenia Avenue and

17:15:19 ALVA drive.

17:15:20 At the northwest corner of ALVA drive and North

17:15:23 Armenia Avenue, generally north of Dr. Martin Luther

17:15:26 King Jr. Boulevard. The request is to change the land

17:15:30 use plan from residential 10 to community mixed use 35

17:15:33 to allow for consideration of the expansion of a

17:15:37 particular commercial use located on that particular

17:15:40 site.

17:15:40 The site is roughly .17 acres, and it is an active

17:15:45 commercial use.

17:15:59 The site is currently used for a part of the parking

17:16:03 area for this commercial building, and the building is

17:16:06 looking to expand.




17:16:15 The amendment if approved would change the plan from

17:16:18 residential 10 to community mixed use 35.

17:16:24 This is the commercial use currently located on

17:16:28 Armenia Avenue.

17:16:35 And the subject site lies to the west of the current

17:16:38 building.

17:16:39 The Planning Commission reviewed this particular

17:16:42 amendment on December 12th, 2005, and found it

17:16:47 consistent with the long range comprehensive plan, the

17:16:50 goals, objectives, looking at this as a revitalization

17:16:54 of the North Armenia Avenue corridor, provides for the

17:16:57 expansion of some existing established commercial

17:17:01 uses, which are in relationship to the St. Joseph's

17:17:06 medical complex, which is located less than a quarter

17:17:08 mile away.

17:17:09 That concludes my presentation.

17:17:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Petrucha, it appears that you

17:17:16 have a residential.

17:17:18 Like this is going one more lot into the adjacent

17:17:21 residential.

17:17:22 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The site is owned by the medical

17:17:27 office complex.




17:17:29 They are not moving into the residential area.

17:17:31 This is on their particular site.

17:17:34 They are just looking to expand their business.

17:17:36 That back end of their parcel, instead of all their

17:17:39 property being designated community mixed use 35, the

17:17:42 back portion is designated as residential 10.

17:17:45 They cannot request a rezoning to expand the

17:17:47 particular building without the plan amendment.

17:17:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

17:17:53 But the picture that's on our overhead right now, is

17:18:01 that a little residential house that's next to the

17:18:06 proposed plan?

17:18:20 >>> Let me show you the existing land use.

17:18:21 This is the site of the requested amendment.

17:18:24 That is all one property.

17:18:26 This is the residential home, the existing use.

17:18:31 Al Virginia.

17:18:39 Alva.

17:18:48 The backside of the property is the storage shed for

17:18:51 their property.

17:18:52 They want to expand their building, for more storage.

17:18:56 >> So they would be using this for parking or what




17:18:59 have you, storage and parking?

17:19:01 >>> That's right.

17:19:01 But they want to do something with the building.

17:19:03 They can't under the present classification.

17:19:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, that's right on the

17:19:08 corner of Bishop Boulevard, on the east side of Bishop

17:19:14 Boulevard and Bishop place.

17:19:16 They have been using that area in the back there for

17:19:18 their personal use, for storage, and parking.

17:19:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

17:19:28 >>MARK BENTLEY: 201 north frankly street.

17:19:39 I represent the petitioner. The intent here is to

17:19:40 recognize a long standing legal nonconforming use.

17:19:44 I think council picked up on the fact that over the

17:19:46 past 30 years which pre-dated the effective date of

17:19:49 your code which is 1989, they have been using the 7400

17:19:52 square feet for storage, parking, et cetera.

17:19:54 This would be the first step in the process, and give

17:19:57 us the ability for minor expansion of the building in

17:20:00 the range of 1,000 to 2,000 square feet and put some

17:20:02 retention on the property and kind of clean up the

17:20:04 parking, and that's essentially it.




17:20:08 And then on the west side of the property, my client

17:20:10 also owns that to single-family residential house.

17:20:13 And they rent the house out.

17:20:16 So they have been using it for 30 years plus, and we

17:20:19 just want to have the ability to clean that up.

17:20:22 Like I said, this is only the first step. The only

17:20:24 way we can effect that change is through a PD

17:20:26 rezoning.

17:20:26 So they are going to have another opportunity to weigh

17:20:29 in on this and make sure there's no adverse impacts to

17:20:32 any surrounding properties.

17:20:33 So thank you very much.

17:20:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

17:20:36 would like to speak on item number 10?

17:20:38 >> Move to close.

17:20:39 >> I have a motion and second to close.

17:20:40 (Motion carried).

17:20:43 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you very much.

17:20:44 Good night.

17:20:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Good night.

17:20:47 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa

17:20:50 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future




17:20:53 land use map in the general vicinity to community

17:20:57 mixed use 35 providing for all conflicts, providing

17:21:03 for severability, providing an effective date.

17:21:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

17:21:05 (Motion carried)

17:21:09 Open 11.

17:21:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.

17:21:11 >> Second.

17:21:11 (Motion carried).

17:21:13 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.

17:21:14 Plan amendment 05-17 is located in the greater West

17:21:19 Tampa area.

17:21:21 It is located in the vicinity of Rome, cypress, Cass

17:21:26 and gray streets. The amendment area is approximately

17:21:30 ten acres in size.

17:21:32 The predominant uses in the area are vacant industrial

17:21:35 and commercial buildings.

17:21:37 The plan amendment is being requested from general

17:21:41 mixed use 24 to community mixed use 35, to allow the

17:21:45 applicant to request a rezoning for a mixture of uses

17:21:50 that would include residential as well as neighborhood

17:21:53 commercial and office.




17:21:54 The general mixed use 24 plan classification only

17:21:58 allows density up to 24 dwelling units to the acre.

17:22:02 And the community mixed use category would allow for

17:22:05 the ability for the uses within the same structure.

17:22:10 The site is located a mile west of the central

17:22:14 business district, and this particular area provides

17:22:17 an opportunity to support the economic revitalization

17:22:20 of the West Tampa area as envisioned by the West Tampa

17:22:23 economic development plan.

17:22:25 The West Tampa area is also designated as an urban

17:22:28 village.

17:22:29 And again this area and this amendment is looking

17:22:34 providing complementary uses to the neighborhood.

17:22:40 Let me show some graphics here.

17:22:44 Again, the area is bounded by cypress on the north,

17:22:52 Rome on the west, Gray Street on the south, and Oregon

17:22:59 on the east.

17:23:01 And the existing land use shows the predominant uses

17:23:04 in this area are industrial uses.

17:23:07 The current plan is general mixed use 24.

17:23:12 The proposed amendment would change to the community

17:23:14 mixed use 35.




17:23:16 And the area again has a number of industrial

17:23:20 buildings, vacant.

17:23:24 And this is an underutilized area.

17:23:28 The Planning Commission reviewed this plan amendment

17:23:31 05-17 on December 12th, 2005, and found it

17:23:35 consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of

17:23:37 the comprehensive plan.

17:23:38 That concludes my presentation. Mr. Dingfelder?

17:23:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The current uses in there, who

17:23:55 initiated this plan amendment?

17:23:59 Is it property owners?

17:24:01 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Yes.

17:24:04 I'll have the petitioner come speak to that.

17:24:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

17:24:10 I'll hold my questions till after their presentation.

17:24:13 >>KEVIN WHITE: Looking at the graphic you have up

17:24:16 there right now that shows the boundaries, the picture

17:24:19 you had just before that, that building is on the

17:24:23 northwest side of cypress.

17:24:26 Is that going to be in the --

17:24:28 >>> it's on the north side of cypress.

17:24:32 No, it is not.




17:24:32 >> I was just wondering why that graphic was there.

17:24:34 I know that's on the north side.

17:24:36 >>> There are some industrial buildings, and must have

17:24:39 picked up the wrong one.

17:24:40 I'm sorry.

17:24:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

17:24:51 >>KEVIN WHITE: I grew up right there.

17:24:57 Like Mr. Moses, here two nights a week, there three

17:25:04 nights a week.

17:25:05 >>> Brian Sykes with Phelps Dunbar, suite 1900, Tampa,

17:25:09 Florida 33602 here representing proposed developer of

17:25:13 this project.

17:25:15 The proposed developer is Ken Mornan, development

17:25:22 group.

17:25:25 He's kind of a redevelopment specialist, if you will.

17:25:27 To give you a couple of ideas of some projects he's

17:25:29 done, the build swig now the two-story retail center

17:25:32 with target, linens and things, Macaroni Grille, DSW,

17:25:37 a few others.

17:25:38 He also took the former Tampa jai alai site and

17:25:41 created the Home Depot, Sam's club complex on south

17:25:44 Dale Mabry, south of Gandy.




17:25:47 Ken and I have been good friends.

17:25:48 He's been a client of mine for awhile B.a year, year

17:25:51 and a half ago he came to me and said I've got this

17:25:53 great project I want you to take a look at with me.

17:25:56 We were driving down Kennedy and took a sharp left

17:25:58 onto Rome and started driving through an industrial

17:26:01 enclave.

17:26:03 A lot of properties there that are warehouse,

17:26:05 industrial warehouse type uses.

17:26:08 And looking around saying, okay, this is interesting,

17:26:10 lots of opportunity for large land assemblages.

17:26:13 I said why is this such a good project?

17:26:16 And we then took a left, and drove to the west, and

17:26:20 looped back around and drove to the east.

17:26:22 And you soon discovered that this property, which the

17:26:24 plan amendment is subject of, is surrounded by

17:26:27 residential property.

17:26:29 This is truly an industrial enclave, surrounded by two

17:26:32 neighborhoods that were one-time thriving, flourishing

17:26:37 neighborhoods.

17:26:37 And you drive through the industrial section.

17:26:39 While we are not slighting the importance of




17:26:42 industrial uses and having industrial uses within the

17:26:44 city limits, really bisected some neighborhoods and

17:26:48 create sod difficulties in the growth and

17:26:51 sustainability of these neighborhoods.

17:26:52 If you go through there today, it's a sea of asphalt

17:26:55 that separates two communities.

17:26:57 It's not pedestrian friendly.

17:26:59 It does not have a lot of local community serving

17:27:01 needs.

17:27:03 But it does have a job creation market there as well.

17:27:06 But with all things there comes time when

17:27:08 redevelopment needs to look towards these areas and

17:27:10 find more appropriate locations for these industrial

17:27:12 type of properties.

17:27:14 Just a couple of quotes I want to start with.

17:27:16 The comprehensive plan for the City of Tampa states

17:27:19 that stable neighborhoods are very important to the

17:27:20 social and economic health of Tampa.

17:27:24 On the wall at the Planning Commission's chambers it

17:27:28 says that redevelopment and enhancement of our

17:27:30 existing neighborhoods are critical aspects of

17:27:32 planning for the future of our community.




17:27:35 This is exactly what we're trying to do with this

17:27:37 project.

17:27:38 We are requesting a change from GMU 24 to CMU 35, to

17:27:43 accommodate a project that would include for-rent

17:27:46 products and apartments, some condominiums, some town

17:27:49 homes, some smaller-scale retail, potentially offices,

17:27:52 basically building a glue between these two

17:27:55 neighborhoods and pulling them back together and

17:27:56 creating a sustainable neighborhood and sustainable

17:27:59 community for West Tampa.

17:28:01 The City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the

17:28:02 Planning Commission have all started initiatives for

17:28:05 the redevelopment of West Tampa.

17:28:07 We have the West Tampa CDC, Community Development

17:28:09 Corporation.

17:28:11 We have several neighborhood and civic associations

17:28:13 there that have initiated neighborhood clean-up

17:28:17 programs.

17:28:18 All of these programs are working towards the

17:28:20 redevelopment and cohesiveness of this neighborhood.

17:28:23 This project will help further enhance this.

17:28:27 The project as noted by Planning Commission staff is




17:28:30 bounded on the north by cypress, on the south by gray,

17:28:33 on the west by Rome, and on the east by Oregon Avenue.

17:28:38 Cypress -- Cass Street, which is just south, right in

17:28:43 the middle of this project, provides an excellent

17:28:46 arterial road directly into downtown, provides great

17:28:49 access, probably better access than most of us have in

17:28:52 South Tampa in, fact.

17:28:54 Looking at some of the views that we obtained from

17:28:56 residential properties there, looking on downtown,

17:28:58 which has been a -- but a mile away, you can only see

17:29:02 what a quality development this could be.

17:29:09 It is appropriate for a mixture of residential,

17:29:11 commercial and light industrial uses, and I want to

17:29:13 state the last part of this which is so important,

17:29:15 with no clear identifiable development trend.

17:29:19 This kind of defines what has happened to this area.

17:29:22 There's been no clear identifiable trend.

17:29:25 We are proposing to create an identifiable development

17:29:27 trend.

17:29:30 As it states further on the comp plan, many of these

17:29:33 areas have historically been developed prior to zoning

17:29:35 and planning regulations and the more specialized use




17:29:40 categories will create a large number of nonconforming

17:29:41 uses and undue hardships.

17:29:43 What we are planning on taking out the nonconforming

17:29:46 uses, the industrial properties, the commercial

17:29:48 properties.

17:29:49 Incidentally, in that plan area, there was only one

17:29:52 residential home that would be displaced to show the

17:29:55 redevelopment project.

17:29:58 One residential home, the entire remaining 9.95 acres

17:30:02 is commercial.

17:30:04 Part of the problem with redevelopment is getting a

17:30:07 sustainable, critical mass to allow the redevelopment

17:30:09 to go forward, to pull together the surrounding

17:30:12 neighborhoods, and to keep the project moving forward

17:30:15 throughout the years.

17:30:16 One of the issues with redevelopment in the city is,

17:30:19 how do you find these large blocks of land that you

17:30:23 can assemble and create these large masses?

17:30:25 This is a unique opportunity. This is not going down

17:30:28 and buying up 200 residential homes, bulldozing them

17:30:31 and then putting up new homes. This is taking out a

17:30:35 concurrent incompatible use and allowing for the




17:30:38 development of a more compatible community serving

17:30:40 use.

17:30:41 I want to kind of close out on a couple things.

17:30:44 Number one, Planning Commission staff report was

17:30:46 excellent.

17:30:46 It went through everything.

17:30:47 I'm not going to regurgitate what is in there. This

17:30:50 is consistent with all the plan policies, goals and

17:30:53 objectives of the City of Tampa comprehensive plan.

17:30:56 There is an interesting study that I came across in

17:30:58 looking at this project and it was done down in

17:31:00 Bradenton, and it was with respect to the development

17:31:02 of 14th street in Bradenton.

17:31:05 And one of the quotes from there that I thought was

17:31:08 very interesting, it says ideally, the redevelopment

17:31:10 project would be a minimum of ten acres, it would

17:31:13 include a mixture of retail, apartments, condominiums

17:31:15 and town homes.

17:31:17 Quote-unquote could not be more appropriate because

17:31:19 that's exactly what my client is proposing to do.

17:31:22 Given the fact that it is consistent with the plans,

17:31:24 goals, objectives, policies of the comprehensive plan,




17:31:27 being that it is consistent with the general character

17:31:29 of the surrounding neighborhoods, we respectfully

17:31:31 request your approval.

17:31:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.

17:31:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's an interesting project.

17:31:38 As I drive through there periodically, I have been

17:31:40 wondering how long the industrial was going to last.

17:31:46 The only down-side about losing the industrial is to

17:31:50 the extent that it's active industrial.

17:31:52 You lose some jobs.

17:31:54 And I don't know how you combat that.

17:31:59 Clearly that's not going to be a big factor in my

17:32:02 decision tonight.

17:32:03 But what I am wondering about is it appears you have

17:32:06 got an active street grid going through the various

17:32:11 one, two, three -- three or four different east-west

17:32:15 streets going through the property.

17:32:19 And I'm just asking you candidly -- I know it's not a

17:32:23 rezoning tonight and it's not a vacating tonight but

17:32:25 I'm asking you candidly, does your client anticipate

17:32:28 trying to vacate some of those streets, or, you know,

17:32:31 or leaving them intact?




17:32:33 Because I think the current trend of this city -- and

17:32:36 I think the current trend in planning is to leave

17:32:38 streets intact, leave your grid intact, especially if

17:32:41 you are talking about reconnecting these

17:32:42 neighborhoods, and not making big, giant, walled

17:32:48 complexes, which often, when people aggregate large

17:32:51 parcels to go like this they say let's vacate all the

17:32:55 streets and big build a big walled complex and

17:32:58 everybody inside will feel secure.

17:33:01 >>> I can assure you we are not planning on vacating

17:33:03 all the streets. The plan is being currently

17:33:06 developed.

17:33:06 We are going through the process of submitting the

17:33:08 rezoning of PD plan.

17:33:10 And right now we are contemplate ago request of one

17:33:12 closure.

17:33:13 That closure would be state street, which is between

17:33:15 the top two blocks that's currently developed -- I'm

17:33:19 sorry?

17:33:22 South cypress, exactly. The street I think looks

17:33:25 appropriate for closure and number one it does not run

17:33:27 through the adjacent neighborhood to the east.




17:33:31 It actually does dead-end about a block to the east of

17:33:33 Oregon.

17:33:34 Other than that, we would want to keep Cass open,

17:33:37 cypress open, and the remainder of the streets to

17:33:40 promote the traffic between the neighborhoods and to

17:33:42 create a pedestrian friendly and vehicle friendly --

17:33:48 >>: Where did you say it dead-ends?

17:33:50 >>> About one block, I believe to the east and

17:33:52 possibly two blocks to the east of Oregon.

17:34:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: It dead-end at Rome?

17:34:10 >>> Yes.

17:34:12 Right here.

17:34:14 What we're talking about -- I have to get my bearings,

17:34:17 also -- state street running through here, at that

17:34:20 point in time dead-ends.

17:34:22 This is north Oregon.

17:34:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate your candor.

17:34:27 I'm not keen on vacating but I guess we'll cross that

17:34:30 bridge or street when we get to it.

17:34:36 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Sykes, as I said this is an area

17:34:41 that I am very, very familiar with.

17:34:41 I'm grossly concerned as well.




17:34:44 We talked this morning, I think it was this morning or

17:34:47 last week, about where can industrial go anymore when

17:34:51 we were converting from residential back to

17:34:54 residential.

17:34:55 Just in this aerial alone, some of the large

17:34:59 industrials, you have Graybar Electric, you have Cox

17:35:03 Lumber, you have Martin Lithograph, United Cab, you

17:35:12 have the Stay-right, whatever, big grocery store chain

17:35:17 there.

17:35:18 There's a lot of industrial.

17:35:19 Throws a lot of jobs that could possibly be lost up in

17:35:22 there.

17:35:24 Not only that but on the north side of the picture

17:35:27 that Ms. Petrucha still has there's industrial across

17:35:31 the street.

17:35:32 So what we are going to be doing is choking out some

17:35:34 of the existing industrial and hoping to buy that up

17:35:37 on the other side of the street, too.

17:35:39 This is an area that Ruth McNair and Robert Allen all

17:35:46 hold near and dear.

17:35:47 I don't see how a project that would be rezoning and

17:35:51 taking up, you know, the glorious views of downtown, I




17:35:55 don't see how that's going to bring that area, connect

17:36:01 the neighborhoods together.

17:36:06 Sentimental maybe.

17:36:07 But I don't know that sentiment would guide my

17:36:10 decision.

17:36:11 I know the area like the back of my hand because I

17:36:13 grew up there, learned how to ride my bicycle in the

17:36:17 parking lot.

17:36:18 But I know what this area and the commercial things

17:36:20 have done for the area, the jobs that they have

17:36:24 provided, as well as still providing for the people of

17:36:28 this area that don't have transportation and have to

17:36:30 walk to work.

17:36:31 And there's not much left of commercial and industrial

17:36:38 area to be had.

17:36:40 But I don't know what any other council members have

17:36:44 to say.

17:36:45 And I would have to -- for this to be sold to me, I

17:36:49 would have to hear a lot more about what is going to

17:36:51 be planned, or what the developer would have -- would

17:36:55 want to be built in there.

17:36:57 I personally think if we are going to do this, if we




17:37:01 really want to connect the dots and connect the

17:37:03 families together, then we need to do single family

17:37:06 detached just like we have now.

17:37:07 I mean, there's no multifamily at all in this area,

17:37:13 north, south, east or west, until you get to the very

17:37:15 end of cypress dead-ends, down to North Boulevard.

17:37:22 Fanned we are talking about really keeping the area

17:37:24 intact, keeping the neighborhood intact, and, as a

17:37:28 matter of fact, I have talked to several people in the

17:37:29 neighborhood that asked me about this when they saw

17:37:34 the signs posted.

17:37:36 There's really no disconnect in the neighborhood at

17:37:38 all.

17:37:42 From a neighborhood perspective, of being a

17:37:45 disconnect.

17:37:46 They still live in West Tampa.

17:37:47 And just because there's two blocks of commercial in

17:37:50 between, and a lot of the people in that area are

17:37:54 elderly and they still use State Street quite a bit,

17:37:58 so that's where I stand.

17:37:59 And I would just be wouldn't be willing to support

17:38:04 this one until this particular council member has more




17:38:09 information.

17:38:13 >>> First of all from the job lost perspective and the

17:38:15 relocation of businesses, being that all these

17:38:18 businesses have contracted with the developer for the

17:38:21 sale of the property, we are very well aware of what

17:38:26 their plans are.

17:38:27 And I am not aware, and I don't believe my client is

17:38:30 aware, of any of the businesses shutting down.

17:38:33 Most of them have been looking.

17:38:34 These properties have been under contract for the

17:38:36 better part of almost a year at this point in time and

17:38:39 most of them have been looking and have been

17:38:41 successful at locating nearby relocation places for

17:38:44 their operations.

17:38:46 Some of them are scaling back a little bit more.

17:38:50 Some of them are actually changing ownership and going

17:38:52 on.

17:38:52 But there is a concerted effort.

17:38:54 I think everyone is going to attempt to continue going

17:38:56 forward with their businesses and trying not to lose

17:38:58 any of the workforce to the jobs in the area.

17:39:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Like I said you're absolutely correct,




17:39:04 this being right in the middle of an underprivileged

17:39:09 neighborhood, if you will.

17:39:09 A lot of people that work in that area still walk to

17:39:13 work, take the bus to work, right on a major

17:39:15 thoroughfare, bus line, Hartline runs right downcast

17:39:21 street, right down Kennedy.

17:39:21 They can still goat work that way.

17:39:24 For the one that is don't have transportation or

17:39:27 walking, if gray bar picks up and moves, where else

17:39:33 are they going to go for industrial commercial?

17:39:36 Out to the county?

17:39:37 Now somebody has to travel another three hours to

17:39:40 catch a bus, catch a connecting bus.

17:39:43 I would have to have more information.

17:39:44 Thank you.

17:39:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's extraordinary that you

17:39:51 located this amount of land in the middle of the city.

17:39:53 And particularly charming part of the city.

17:39:57 It's a great neighborhood on both sides, with streets,

17:40:01 not a lot of trees in the area.

17:40:02 This is industrial.

17:40:03 But it's got a lot of character, great area, and I




17:40:07 would think a lot of people would want to live so

17:40:11 close in to the city if it's possible.

17:40:14 Just a hop, skip and jump from downtown.

17:40:17 And so I think that what's before us is an attractive

17:40:25 place.

17:40:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: My question, Mr. Cypress, if you

17:40:30 already purchased this land, or are you just in

17:40:33 contract?

17:40:34 I way goes to ask you that.

17:40:36 This is in contract form?

17:40:38 >>> Some of it is still under contract.

17:40:40 Some of it has been purchased.

17:40:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm familiar with this area, too.

17:40:45 And I'm surprised -- I see Mr. Alley would assume Mr.

17:40:55 Allen and Mrs. McNair would be here and I don't see

17:40:58 them in the audience.

17:40:59 >>> Not only were they noticed but we had meetings

17:41:01 with both the north Hyde Park group, the west

17:41:03 riverfront civic association, what is the one I'm

17:41:09 missing?

17:41:11 We have had three meetings with three different

17:41:14 groups.




17:41:14 In fact we have had a couple of repeat meetings with

17:41:19 Ms. McNair's group.

17:41:20 We have been back twice to discuss the plans, showing

17:41:24 them architectural drawings and hopefully we can come

17:41:30 back to you again with our zoning plan to show you

17:41:33 what our vision is for the area.

17:41:34 Obviously we have had several meetings with Mr.

17:41:37 Randolph with the CDC and the board.

17:41:39 We have been well aware, have been following the guide

17:41:42 loins for the West Tampa overlay district, the

17:41:44 architectural guidelines, zoning stands, et cetera.

17:41:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think this area needs to be

17:41:51 redeveloped.

17:41:52 It's in an old neighborhood on both sides like

17:41:54 everybody is saying, but Cypress Street, when you get

17:41:58 past east, going east on I think it's past Albany,

17:42:02 it's pretty desolate in there.

17:42:05 And it's all commercial or industrial.

17:42:10 And I think that the neighborhoods in there would

17:42:13 really like to see a redevelopment in there,

17:42:15 especially if you are talking about town homes, and

17:42:18 condos and things like that, that they'll have a




17:42:21 chance to see some beautiful amenities coming in.

17:42:27 So I'm happy.

17:42:29 And if you have talked to everybody, and I don't see

17:42:32 anybody here that's going to -- especially them, that

17:42:36 they are very vocal in their opposition, or that they

17:42:42 would be here.

17:42:42 And I don't see them here.

17:42:44 So I'm comfortable with this.

17:42:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.

17:42:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't know if anyone is in

17:42:56 opposition until we ask.

17:42:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, but watch.

17:43:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The folks around there are no

17:43:04 strangers to this board and they will be here if you

17:43:06 present a rezoning that they disagree with.

17:43:08 And I think that you've heard some good comments.

17:43:12 I tend to agree with Mr. White that while I'm willing

17:43:16 to support you tonight, let you go forward to take a

17:43:18 shot at this, I would like to see more of a

17:43:22 single-family residential element to this.

17:43:28 It seems like a ten-acre wall to wall sort of condo,

17:43:33 townhouse, apartment development, doesn't sound very




17:43:36 attractive to me.

17:43:40 And so I would encourage you when you go back, and you

17:43:44 really start to put in the paper on the rezoning, that

17:43:47 we have a significant single-family home element of

17:43:50 this.

17:43:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?

17:43:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. White brings up an interesting

17:43:59 point.

17:43:59 And I think that procedurally we could change this a

17:44:04 little bit.

17:44:06 It not without precedent that a large, significant

17:44:10 plan amendment like this goes hand in hand with the PD

17:44:16 rezoning effort, and that we would see both at

17:44:20 virtually the same time.

17:44:22 I know it's a little burdensome but you indicated

17:44:25 you're already in the process of, you know, doing your

17:44:28 PD, doing your drawings, working with staff,

17:44:31 et cetera.

17:44:32 So, Kevin, I agree with you, that perhaps the best

17:44:38 course might be to defer this until they have their PD

17:44:43 and their rezoning plan, so we can see -- we can

17:44:47 actually see what they're talking about, and they are




17:44:50 bound to it all on the same night.

17:44:52 Now, that's not going to change the job situation, you

17:44:55 know, clearly.

17:44:56 And maybe, you know, maybe you will be able to answer

17:45:00 that for fully in terms of telling us where those

17:45:03 businesses are going and what their plans are.

17:45:05 But I think a deferral might be something at least

17:45:09 worth talking about.

17:45:26 But I think with the PD site plan, you know, I agree

17:45:29 with Ms. Saul-Sena, I think there's great opportunity

17:45:32 here to reinvigorate the neighborhood, with a mixed

17:45:36 use plan, you know, maybe you can throw in some

17:45:39 single-family to keep some of that old concept going.

17:45:45 I don't know if that's possible.

17:45:46 Especially at the prices that you probably paid for

17:45:48 this land.

17:45:52 I'm strongly going to discourage any exterior fences

17:45:55 or walls along those streets.

17:45:58 We like to keep fences to three and four feet when

17:46:02 they are facing the street.

17:46:02 And I don't see any reason why this project should be

17:46:04 any different.




17:46:07 And really the smart growth concepts, which you're

17:46:11 well familiar with, and see what you can come up with.

17:46:16 Tell me if deferral to combine the plan amendment with

17:46:22 the PD will cause any specific financial hardship.

17:46:27 You have got closings that are contingent or whatever.

17:46:29 We always like to give people the opportunity to speak

17:46:31 to that, if in fact we are going to continue it.

17:46:37 >>> Actual think already there are.

17:46:40 There are closings contingent upon having the plan

17:46:42 amendment heard.

17:46:43 There are some time uses respective to that.

17:46:46 A project of this size is going to require financing.

17:46:49 The financing has a lot of contingencies with respect

17:46:52 to doing construction loans, even the pre-development

17:46:56 expenses and development of plans.

17:46:58 What I would suggest is that council does have the

17:47:00 ability, again, we have to come back to council with

17:47:03 the PD plan.

17:47:05 And that gives you the opportunity to look at it, to

17:47:08 approve it, to reject it, to make suggestions.

17:47:11 We are also covered in this area by the West Tampa

17:47:14 overlay district which has some pretty strict




17:47:16 guidelines.

17:47:17 One thing I say is we are not planning to build walls

17:47:20 around this community.

17:47:21 We are planning for open space.

17:47:22 We are planning for retail, community service

17:47:25 community uses.

17:47:26 We want to invite the neighborhood it into.

17:47:28 We do not want to exclude the neighborhood from this

17:47:30 project.

17:47:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would hope this would be an

17:47:33 opportunity to make a town center which otherwise

17:47:35 doesn't have a town center.

17:47:37 >>> That is precisely what we are looking to do.

17:47:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

17:47:43 would like to speak on item number 11?

17:47:47 Does anyone want to speak on item 11?

17:47:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

17:47:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have another question.

17:47:53 Your client is here?

17:47:57 >>> Yes, sir.

17:47:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would you mind if he comes forward?

17:48:03 I just like to hear from the horse's mouth.




17:48:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.

17:48:08 >>> Ken Moore, development group, Cleveland street,

17:48:13 33606.

17:48:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: can you elaborate without your

17:48:23 personal details?

17:48:24 You heard me question about potential hardship.

17:48:26 I don't think any of us want to create a potential

17:48:28 hardship but at the same time there's some concern

17:48:30 from all of us perhaps about, you know, getting too

17:48:33 far ahead without really being able to see the nuts

17:48:37 and bolts of what the PD is going to look like.

17:48:40 So is it possible that you could combine the P.O. with

17:48:44 the PD?

17:48:45 >>> As Mr. Sipes indicated just moving forward with

17:48:49 the plan and design, architects, engineers, relocation

17:48:52 of the utilities, land use, all that, you know, it's a

17:48:56 very expensive proposition.

17:48:57 And you need financing to move forward with that.

17:49:01 And the lending community would at least like to know

17:49:05 that you stand a shot to pursue the development.

17:49:09 And also as Brian had said, you have the opportunity

17:49:13 to come to a PD rezoning to approve it, disapprove it.




17:49:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about if we did this as a

17:49:20 compromise?

17:49:20 What if we approved you on first reading tonight, but

17:49:24 deferred the second reading until you brought the PD

17:49:26 in?

17:49:27 That gives some pretty good assurances that council is

17:49:31 leaning your direction.

17:49:33 But it gives us some assurance that is we get a look

17:49:36 at the PD at the same time we do the second reading on

17:49:38 the plan amendment.

17:49:41 It's a little unusual but I think it can work.

17:49:45 Do you all want to talk about it?

17:49:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Can they do that or not?

17:49:58 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: That's a good question.

17:49:59 We are getting a little innovative here.

17:50:01 Nothing wrong with that.

17:50:02 I'm wondering from an advertising standpoint on second

17:50:07 reading we advertise -- Sandy, is it ten days?

Ten days.



So it would just be continuing the second reading to a

date certain so that we would know to advertise.




With the PD rezoning, but I'll defer to the petitioner

on that one.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we break this plan amendment

away from the others?

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Yes.

We are not tied to the two cycles a year so that is an

option.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm being really creative.

(off) --

Can I add something as long as our setting precedent

doesn't destroy our chances of --

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't understand.

>>> If council cannot legally do what we are doing and

it would compromise because you are setting a

precedence --

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Our legal staff wouldn't let us do

something.

We would normally hear second reading two weeks later

as a matter of course.

Right now, some of us have what we think might be a

good reason to defer that a little bit until you all

can bring the PD to us.




I just want to explain what I think council's concerns

are.

It sounds like what you are describing for West Tampa.

My concern is oftentimes people receive this approval

and come back with a PD and come up with something

that's too dense, not compatible.

We say that doesn't look right.

The petitioner argues.

But we receive this approval on the underlying land

use.

And it's very difficult to make the decision on the

land use, which at this point is wide open, very

abstract.

If you broke it out, as a solid wall of density, very,

very dense, and to see, before we have the detail, the

elevations, the specific proposal, ready to bring this

with a PD, what exactly it is.

And it's a very awkward position when we really want

to protect you all.

We really want to protect the folks who have been

living here all these years.

As Mrs. Alvarez said the fact that you calmed the




neighborhood's concerns is huge to us.

But some of the -- you know, there are huge question

marks here.

We are not completely comfortable because this is a

big deal, nine acres in the middle of one of our

older, most established neighborhoods.

Believe me if it was Hyde Park, you would be hearing

more.

>>> If you look at the surrounding area we are not

looking for something that's not in that area.

There is CMU 35.

There's GMU 34.

There's R-6.

A variety of different comprehensive planned

designations.

This is not an inconsistent planned designation is

what we are asking.

And while my client has agreed and said that, yes, he

would be willing to go forward, I still, just looking

at saying, council has the ability on the rezoning to

come back and say we don't like what you're proposing,

it's too dense. The fact we have a CMU plan




designation doesn't give us immediate rights to go out

and build 35 units per acre.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But let's say the market went -- we

approve this, and two weeks late area prove the second

reading and forever it gets that CMU 35 on it.

Then let's say he sells it, he changes his mind, the

market goes flat, whatever.

20 years go by and nothing happens.

Then all of a sudden to 20th years go by, then all

of a sudden we end up with this same situation we have

in Courier City which is 20 years later, oh, look,

there's CMU 35, a great opportunity to do something

that is not necessarily consistent with the

surrounding neighborhood so it's not that we suspect

anything of you two guys.

It's just we are in a position to protect the city and

the residents.

It's not a matter of success special of you guys.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Sipes, when you talked to the

neighborhood did you give them a copy of what your

plans were and you talked to them about it,.

>>> They asked for proposed architecture elevations,




breakdowns of how we want to do commercial, we brought

everything, yes.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is there a possibility that by that

time, by the time we move this along that it will be a

different PD when we bring it in?

Is there a possibility of that?

And will you continue to meet with the neighbors?

When you come back for rezoning?

You will have to.

>> We have already committed to going back to the

neighborhood association, civic associations once we

have gone through the plan amendment process to bring

the actual plans.

And that's something Ken does.

We don't want to come to council without a PD plan and

have 25 people in the audience in opposition.

That's why we continue to work with Mr. Randolph in

the CDC.

That's the direction we are going on this project.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: And I feel very comfortable with that.

And I think that we should pass the plan amendment and

go forward.




We have to have a little trust.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: My concern, I appreciate Mr.

Dingfelder's creativity.

But what happens if we come in, and we don't approve

your rezoning?

Then I guess what happens at that point is you still

stick with whatever you are now, general mixed use 24,

which my question would be, what can go in general

mixed use 24 without ever coming back before this

council?

So if we -- you know, it's an industrialized area

right now.

Seems like everyone agrees that it's probably time to

move on from the industrialized area, that it is now.

Are we potentially creating more headaches by this

sort of limbo status that is going to be at if this

doesn't go through the second reading?

If you have contract subject to this rezoning or plan

use approval, how can you say that you have changed

the land use category to close on this property?

We have to go through a second reading that won't take

place for several months.




>> We'll have to go back and try to renegotiate some

things.

But we would obviously like to see this move forward

tonight and then again in two weeks.

Understanding, however, if we are putting council in a

position that, now, it's not an appropriate move, we

are willing to accept some creativity.

But, yes, our desire would be to move forward.

And what would happen if the plan amendment didn't go

through?

It's industrial zoned property.

It has a 15 F.A.R.

We could develop, what, 600,000 square feet of

industrial commercial uses in the property, I guess

that. Would be the worst case scenario.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But that's where we are today

anyway.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)

A small scale plan amendment for future land use plan.

What you are doing is you're mixing

The --

>> In this area, don't think that's inappropriate.




I think the neighborhood appreciates our diligence.

Move to close the public hearing.

>> Motion and second to close the public hearing.

(Motion carried).

>> I believe there's somebody who wants to speak.

I asked before, was there anybody in the public that

wanted to speak?

And nobody said anything.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to reopen.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.

(Motion carried).

>>GWEN MILLER: You may speak.

1706 west Carmine street, Tampa.

Mr. Dingfelder keeps making reference to Carver City?

>> Courier City.

>>> I'm unfamiliar with Courier City.

I don't think this area should even be compared to --

I don't know if you have driven in that area.

I lived in Drew Park.

I lived in Ybor City.

And I chose the area that's under discussion now.

Like I say, I have been there 20 years.




Where have you been?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you in favor of this or --

>>> Absolutely.

And way don't understand how you can deny him --

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I never said I was going to deny.

>>> -- this zoning at this time and you are letting

them build what they build in Hyde Park, in a historic

neighborhood, and build what they are building on

Bayshore Boulevard, where there's nowhere near enough

parking.

And I don't understand how you can let the buildings

that are going up on Bayshore, with just Bayshore

Boulevard as the main thoroughfare, for all that

development.

I'm just -- I just don't understand.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want me to explain?

>>GWEN MILLER: No, sir.

>>> Fleece please.

>>GWEN MILLER: No, Mr.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Dung I'm going to explain because

he asked me to.

It's a matter of personal preference.




My whole point is, nobody can know exactly what they

or anybody else will do until we continue to see the

site plan.

You think they are headed -- you think they are headed

in the right direction, and you know what?

So do I.

I think it would be great for them to have a brand new

project in the middle of this area because this area

is a little bit, you know, on the downtrodden side and

it needs a shot in the arm.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

But at the same time, I'm trying to propose a

compromise position that would allow us to be able to

sort of see this in a little more further refined

state so we're not just approving a pig in the poke as

they say.

So I'm not voting no tonight.

My motion if I made a motion would be to vote yes.

The only question is when would the second reading be

because we have two readings.

I'm suggesting instead of approving the second reading

two weeks from now that we defer it for about 3 or 4




months until they can bring us the site plan that

would show you, me and the rest of the neighborhood

exactly what they are going to do.

>>> That's reasonable.

>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER:

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I move for approval.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

>> Again, Mr. Dingfelder, I think -- I think if we

were to go down the path that he is suggesting, what

we are going to be doing is we are using two separate

standards of review under two very different legal

processes, different hat that is we even wear, at the

exact same time, and I don't know that we can do it.

Just think about, there were nine things that were

continued here tonight and some of those are major

projects too.

And I think once we open this door we might find

ourselves in a place where we don't want to be.

And really the question here tonight is, is CMU 35

better than mixed use 24?




That's really the only thing that's in front of us

tonight.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison, would you read it?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, I will.

Thank you.

I move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive

plan future land use element, future land use map for

the property located in the general vicinity south of

Cypress Street north of Cass Street west of Oregon

Avenue and east of Rome Avenue from general mixed use

24 to community mixed use 35 providing for repeal of

all ordinances in conflict, providing for

severability, providing an effective date.

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

Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mrs. Saul-Sena was first.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: thank you.

I just want to say that within the category that we

are looking at changing this to, which is CMU 35,

there is a broad range of land uses and densities and

heights and a variety of things going on.

And I think that it would be inappropriate for the




petitioner to assume the maximum of everything.

I think that often council is in a situation where we

are made to feel, well, if this is the underlying land

use, then we can maximize every last square inch.

And I just want to say that what I'm looking for is

sort of the new urbanism mixture of land uses that

respect the residential uses in the area, as well as

the industrial uses.

Really transitioning into more residential uses of a

greater density but not the absolutely maximum density

you can possibly eke out.

I look forward to seeing your PD plan in the future.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other thing I was going to

point out, after what counsel said, if everybody looks

what's in the land use map in our folder, to the east

of this property is about 20 blocks that is R-20.

To the west of this property is about 20 blocks that's

light pink, which is R-10.

Okay.

At the top of your screen is the R-20.

And the R-10 -- okay.

Roll the thing around so north is north.




>>GWEN MILLER: That's north.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that north there?

Okay.

So to the east, where the dark brown is, is R-20.

To the west, where that tan color is, that's R-10.

This 35 --

>>> This is 35.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The dark brown is R-35.

The brown-brown is the 35.

And then that lighter brown above it is 20.

So my point is, introducing the 35 is not generally

the character of this neighborhood.

It's clearly -- it's more dense.

It tends to he -- the townhouses, the quads -- and I'm

not necessarily saying that's going to be a bad thing

as they are proposing it -- but that's my caution to

you guys.

Just look at the colors, and they speak very loudly.

Okay.

And so it's like the motion is to approve for tonight.

But I would ask the procedural question to the maker

of the motion.




Is the motion to proceed tonight and two weeks from

now hear it for second reading?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, with that I can't support it

based on everything else I said tonight and I'm sorry.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask staff a question?

>>GWEN MILLER: No.

We closed the public hearing.

We have a motion and second on the floor.

All in favor of the motion say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder and white.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Is she here?

She had to leave for a minute.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ring the bell.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May ski Mr. Shelby a question?

Mr. Shelby, the vote was --

>>MARTIN SHELBY: The vote was taken, by the way.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The neighborhood has had the

opportunity to see the proposed lands from the

petitioner.

We have not.




But it is extremely germane to our understanding of

this to be able to -- to be able to see these plans.

Are we legally precluded from seeing them?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: No, don't believe you are legally

preclude flood seeing them. The issue is whether or

not that forms the basis for your decision.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What if it just was important

input?

It's really important, and I think this is an

important principle about how can we make a decision

when we don't really -- I mean, the neighborhood's

response was based on seeing these plans.

We are not given the same opportunity as the

neighborhood.

That's screwy.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: I hate to say this.

Maybe I'm misspeaking and maybe Ms. O'Dowd who has a

lot more land use experience, but quite frankly, the

planned development at this stage of the proceeding is

not relevant to council's determination.

And if I am misspeaking, please correct me.

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: If I may.




Cathleen O'Dowd, legal department.

When council is looking at a proposed plan amendment

the standard for review of council is whether or not

the proposed plan amendment is consistent with the

comprehensive plan.

You've heard this evening from rose Petrucha that the

Planning Commission staff as well as the Planning

Commission found this plan amendment is consistent

with the comprehensive plan.

When council is looking at elevations and site plan

specific issues, that is a review by council, when

you're sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity as opposed

to your legislative capacity as you are sitting this

evening, and you are looking at different issues.

When you're approving a PD site plan you are looking

to see, one, is it consistent with the comprehensive

plan?

But also, is it consistent with the criteria in your

Land Development Code?

With plan amendments, we are not looking at the

criteria in our Land Development Code.

We are looking exclusively as to the consistency of




that conceptual plan amendment with the comprehensive

plan.

So I do agree with Mr. Shelby's assessment that when

you're looking at these two different functions and

trying to meld them together there are concerns.

As to the standard of review.

And it would be important for council to remember when

it's sitting as a legislative body and when it's

sitting as a quasi-judicial body.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Not to make it more complex, but the

issue is, is what is presently being asked for a

community mixed use 35 consistent with the long-range

plan for that community?

To look at it, with the objective, what is the maximum

that can be built there?

Because legally, as you are sitting now, that is a

possibility.

Are there other land use plans that may be more

appropriate to that development?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have a West Tampa plan that

has been entered into evidence that says that this --

I don't believe we have a West Tampa plan that says




that CMU 35 is appropriate at this particular area.

I don't know that we have one that speaks to it at

all. What is the status for the West Tampa plan?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's a question for staff.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.

We have a vote, 4 to 2, we can waive the rules so we

don't carry it over to the next meeting but don't wave

to waive the rules to do that?

>>KEVIN WHITE: How are we going to vote again?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's what I'm saying, we can

waive the rules to do that so we can just vote and be

done it with.

>>GWEN MILLER: Can you vote again?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It rolls over.

Unless we waive the rules.

That would be my guess.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Excuse me just a minute.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm all in favor of just being done

with it.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that the answer is that you

can waive the rules for this particular meeting and

vote again.




>>SHAWN HARRISON: Does it have to be unanimous?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move we waive the rules and vote

on this item right now.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>KEVIN WHITE: Nay.

Move to open number 11.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: The motion will carry until -- .

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman.

This is just a question for staff.

In the interim, which I assume the public hearing is

closed, and -- what happens next?

When we meet next do we just vote on it?

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Was it a 4-3 vote?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: 4 to 2.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Substantive vote was 4-2.

The vote on waiving the rules was 6 to 1.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, when we meet again,

do D we get to see the pictures, or do we just vote?

Could I ask staff to see the pictures?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we reopen the public hearing.




>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I think since you had an

insufficient vote this evening the proposed plan

amendment, the vote rolls over to the following week

and you go straight to the vote unless you reopen the

public hearing.

But then I have to caution council, if you are going

to be looking at elevations and site plans, those

usually are more relevant for the purpose of approving

a PD rezoning as opposed to a plan amendment.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Perhaps unless they are voluntarily

brought in, and the petitioner is just including as

part of his evidence .

Who can object to that?

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I'll defer to council.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Petrucha.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: (Off microphone).

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: The Planning Commission didn't ask

any specific site plan elevations.

They looked at the goals, objectives, policies of the

comprehensive plan.

They were very much aware of the West Tampa

redevelopment effort.




They looked at the economic plans for guidance as

well.

It was emphasized to the petitioner from the very

beginning of the process, we stated to him that there

are two separate processes, that the plan amendment is

the first step, and that we cautioned them to talk to

the neighborhoods as much as possible and the

surrounding property owners, so that the property

owners were very much aware of what the potential

would be, and that it would be at the time of

rezoning, but then again that they would be looking

and working with that neighborhood for very specific

uses, and configurations, and that that was a very

separate process, but we suggested to them in the

beginning to go to the neighborhood and talk to them,

in general about the perspective of what was being

proposed, and but we cautioned them that the rezoning

would take a little bit of time, for them to be

strictly working with that neighborhood on these other

issues.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did anybody from the neighborhood come

over and --




>>ROSE PETRUCHA: We had the neighborhood association

call us, and trying to think if they were at the

public hearing or not.

But our understanding from the neighborhood is that

they were satisfied at this point in time, with the

understanding that at the time of the rezoning that

they would then be looking and working with the

petitioners for the uses, and how it would actually

fit into their neighborhood.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, I have a question.

The reality was that I was out of the room.

The reality was the vote was taken.

The reality is also that we have to vote next time.

Is that right?

Is that where we are?

>>> That's where we are.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Between now and next week everybody

can look at the data, and evaluate where we are.

I think that's tend of the story for item 11 for this

evening, is it not?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.




>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Have to come back at night.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: This is done at the next regular

meeting.

>>GWEN MILLER: In the morning?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: I was going to state that the public

hearing is closed, and that is the procedural way it's

going to go in.

>>GWEN MILLER: Does it go to next week or

automatically?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: As a matter of course.

>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

Next week in the morning, we will hear it again, and

then we will vote again.

We need to open item 12.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.

This next agenda item is plan amendment 05-18.

I need five members.

I will talk.




Privately initiated our request.

The site is located in the northeast McFarland

neighborhood of the greater West Tampa area. The site

is located at 3802 north Glen Avenue which is the

northwest corner of Glen Avenue and Broddock street.

The total acreage of this amendment site is .13 acres.

Currently the site is occupied by what would be

considered a nonconforming duplex.

Two units were built, probably in about 1939, and at

some later date the two units were connected, and so

now they are considered a duplex.

The current comprehensive plan is residential 10.

And the request is to change it to residential 20 to

recognize this particular existing use to reflect the

existing density on the site.

The site is located in proximity to several activity

centers including stadium, and the St. Joseph Medical

campus.

This particular neighborhood has some single family

and has some other two-family units.

Let me move to the graphics.

This is the northwest corner of Braddock and Glen,




approximately two blocks south of Tampa Bay

Boulevard.

About a block east of Himes Avenue.

It is an existing nonconforming duplex.

The current comprehensive plan is residential 10 in

the area.

The Ned to recognize the use will be a change to

residential 20.

And I've got one more graphic the use.

The Planning Commission heard this particular

recommendation on December 12th, 2005, at the

public hearing, and found the requested amendment to

residential 20 consistent with the long-range

comprehensive plan.

That concludes my presentation.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

Come on up.

>>> Valdez, I'm the owner of the property.

I'm the petitioner.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Council, I apologize, I was out of

the room for a second.

But what are we grandfathering in?




What is this?

How long has it been there?

>>> Since 1939.

>> That was a duplex?

>>> Yeah.

>> Switched over?

>>> No.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sorry, Ms. Petrucha.

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: They were two residential units, at

one time in 1939 but over time they weren't connected.

There was a connection then between these units so

they are officially a duplex because they are

connected together.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to speak on item 12?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Give it to Rose.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa

Comprehensive Plan, Future land use element, future

land use map, for property at 3802 North Glen Avenue




within Northeast MacFarlane neighborhood of West Tampa

from residential 10 to residential 20 providing for

repeal of all ordinance in conflict, providing for

severability, providing an effective date.

(Motion carried).

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 13.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.

This next item is plan amendment 05-20.

It is located in the Palmetto Beach area.

It is located at the northeast corner of 26th

street and east Clark street.

It's in the heart of Palmetto Beach.

The requested change is from residential 10 to

residential -- excuse me, it's residential 10 and

residential 20 to residential 35.

The plan amendment is approximately .73 acres.

You will like this one.

You will like this one.

You're going to like this one.

And again before we get into the aspects of zoning, I




do want to state to you that we have also suggested to

the petitioner on this particular amendment to also go

out and talk to the particular neighborhood, and again

everything we have received has been very favorable

towards this particular amendment, but we also

emphasize to the petitioner that they will want to

talk to the neighborhoods as well as the adjoining

property owners, if it's approved for the rezoning,

because there might be some issues in transitioning to

the single family in this area.

The particular site again is at Clark and 26th

street.

It currently is a vacant cigar factory, and there is a

single-family home that faces Marconi street.

You can see from the neighborhood that there is a

mixture of single-family and duplexes within Palmetto

Beach area.

The current plan designation is residential 10 on the

northern portion, residential 20 on the southern

portion, they are requesting amendment to residential

35 for the site.

And that's what the amendment would look like if it's




approved.

This is a portion of the cigar factory.

I'm just going to show a few of these.

This is the residential home on the northern side of

the site.

The cigar factory behind.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are they asking for historic

preservation at the same time?

>>> They will be coming back, my understanding,

looking for a landmarking on the site.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was a joke.

>>> These are some of the single-family homes, north

of the particular site, if it's approved in rezoning,

there will be --

>>MARY ALVAREZ: what's the name of that cigar factory?

>>> I'm sorry, don't No. petitioner will know for

sure.

Again it's a vacant cigar factory, single-family home,

the request is to change to the residential 35 to

facilitate the future rehabilitation of the cigar

factory into residential -- in two residential units.

The area currently is a blighting influence into the




neighborhood.

And I believe all the calls that we received, everyone

is very excited about this particular project.

The Planning Commission did review this particular

amendment to residential 35 on December 12th,

2005, and they did find it consistent with the goals,

objectives and policies dealing with redevelopment,

stable neighborhoods, and a variety of other goals,

objectives and policies.

That concludes my presentation.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

Petitioner?

Who is the petitioner?

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: I don't know where he is.

I guess he didn't come.

They hired an architect out of Atlanta to be working

on this particular project.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Should we continue this until they

have an opportunity to come, Rose?

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: Well, they were here at the public

hearing.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's see what happens at second




reading.

>>GWEN MILLER: He will be here for the second reading?

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: I will call to make sure that he is

here at the second reading or a representative from

the firm.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to be speak on item 13?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's called the Cuban American

manufacturing cigar company.

>>GWEN MILLER: All in saver say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

Mr. Dingfelder, you like this one.

Do you want to read this one?

Because you didn't make one comment.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: You the man!

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: An ordinance amending the Tampa

comprehensive plan, future land use element, future

land use map for property located in the general

vicinity of north 26th street, Marconi street and




Clark street in pal met -- Palmetto Beach from

residential 10 and residential 20 to residential 35

providing an effective date.

(Motion carried).

>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dingfelder, you see if you behave

you get to read more.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to open

number 14.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Absolutely second.

[Motion Carried]

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: You're going faster than I

anticipated.

The next agenda item is plan amendment 05-23 which is

located in the vicinity of MacDill, Woodlawn north

of Tampa Bay Boulevard.

The request is to change the site which is .13 acres

from residential 10 to residential 20.

Let me put the graphics up so I can speak to that.

The current site of the amendment lies vacant.

There was a single-family home in here which was torn

down.

A new residential home was built and this area lies




vacant.

It lies at a medical office located at the southwest

corner of Woodlawn and MacDill.

The current plan designation on this site is

residential 10.

There is residential 20 to the east as well as to the

north along MacDill.

The request is to change to the residential 20.

This current site is owned -- by the same property

owner as the site that faces Woodlawn Avenue, which is

the office.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Will you move it down, please?

There you government.

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: The owner of the vacant lot owns this

particular office.

There is an office across the street to the north.

This is the residential home that was built on further

to the east.

And again this particular amendment site lies between

this office and this home.

It's a vacant lot.

And across the street from the lot is the parking




area, medical offices and you can see the church is

designated as residential 20.

The intent of the petitioner is to possibly expand his

office facility or to build a new facility on the

site.

Because it is within one ownership, the Planning

Commission did review this particular amendment on

December 12, 2005 at the public hearing, and based on

the goals, objectives and policies and the especially

the supporting policies towards the St. Joseph's

hospital, medical facilities in proximity, the

Planning Commission found it consistent with the

goals, objectives and policies.

That concludes my presentation.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

>>> David Basiglio, Eagle Mount Circle, 33547.

>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?

>> No.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is just to add additional

office or town homes?

>>> No.

I'm looking to rebuild my dental office.




Presently it's been a medical-dental office for well

over 20 years now, and it's an old frame house that's

been converted into a medical office.

And it's time to rebuild.

My plan is to go ahead and build a new office, so

that's going to take some time to build.

And then once that's built, knock down the old office

and make that into a parking lot.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to speak on item number 14?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance amending the

Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element,

future land use map in the general vicinity of west

Woodlawn Avenue, and MacDill Avenue from

residential 10 to residential 20, providing for

severability, providing an effective date.

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

(Motion carried)




Open 15.

>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.

This next agenda item is plan amendment 05-31.

It's located in the vicinity of Dale Mabry and west

Estrella street.

The request is to change the designation from

residential 6 to community mixed use 35.

The approximate size of the site is .33 acres.

And as currently developed with a one-story structure.

The request in the area of residential 6 community

mixed use 35 would allow for the consideration --

future consideration of offices, specialty retail

operation which is prohibited under the current plan

designation. The residential 6 designation only

allows single-family detached housing on-site.

Let me show you these graphics.

And the general location.

This is Dale Mabry.

This is Henderson.




This is Neptune street.

This is Publix located right in this particular area.

This is Estrella.

Church.

And the amendment site is located behind some

commercial uses right here that front on Dale Mabry.

>> Tony always gives us the restaurants.

Where is the KFC?

>>> I'm sorry, I don't know. This is a bar and liquor

store on the corner.

And there's a bank --

>>ROSE FERLITA: Out on your end, let me just tell you

that.

(Laughter).

>>> I have to practice and take notes.

But you know where this is, I'm sure. The current

plan designation again is residential 6.

The areas along Dale Mabry, Henderson are all CMU 35.

There's a lot of amenities including schools, you have

the library, and you have the fire station less than a

block away from this particular site.

Again, the request is to change to the community mixed




use 35.

This is the particular site.

The subject site.

And we have got some photographs.

That wasn't supposed to show up anyways, but -- I'm

sorry, hello?

Did I go faux too fast?

This particular site, I just want to go through this a

little bit.

This particular block, this is Neptune, Dale Mabry,

Estrella, church, the Publix is just directly to the

north.

This particular site, this particular block, has been

affected by the south town center, there's a rezoning

that you approved a few years ago.

So this particular area has redeveloped with

commercial uses.

This is a previous aerial.

So we do not have a current aerial showing exactly how

this commercial development built out.

But back in this particular area, there's parking for

the retail operations, and in this particular site is




the retention area for this commercially zoned areas.

And you have got commercial along the frontage.

And way wanted to draw your attention to is the zoning

lines for this particular area.

This amendment site is located in proximity and

adjacent to commercially zoned lands in this area.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is near stake and shake.

>>> Steak 'n Shake is much further to the south. This

is Palma Ceia west.

>> I know, but Steak 'n Shake is only a block or so

south of there?

Three blocks south?

Oh.

>>> We found you a restaurant.

And the petitioner will go into a little more detail

on that.

The Planning Commission when they examined this

particular amendment, they were looking at policies --

the goals, objectives and policies that related to the

stability of neighborhoods, as well as to the activity

centers of the corridors and the activity centers that

have been created in this particular area.




Because of the configuration of this particular land

area, and those particular factors, the Planning

Commission had to weigh the various policies of the

plan.

The vote that was taken this past Monday, there were

six members in attendance. The vote was 4 to 2 to

find it consistent with the long-range comprehensive

plan.

The aspects of how this particular site relates to the

commercial along Dale Mabry, the commercial to the

north and northwest of this particular amendment site,

the conditions of this particular along Estrella,

there are residential uses along Estrella in this

area, but they are built at densities higher than 60

units to the acre.

The Planning Commission did find it consistent with

the goals, objectives and policies of the

comprehensive plan.

And that concludes my presentation.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

All the nonresidential uses relate to Dale Mabry.

This doesn't.




And this appears to be a relatively small parcel and

appears to have a couple of big trees on it.

Did you all take that into consideration or did you

just look abstractly at the map?

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: No. We went out on this particular

site and drove this particular site, and there's a

couple of other factors that really kind of pushed it

for us, regarding the applicability of the goals,

objectives and policies. This particular site -- and

I believe the petitioner will probably talk to the --

this particular site is really kind of severed from

the residential that is beside it.

I'm trying to find another graphic.

I don't know if this is going to show up.

It's very difficult to show these particular factors

without going into a rezoning.

But let me just talk to it a little bit here.

This particular amendment, the western edge of this

plan amendment site, there is a wall that was built --

>>: Isn't this eastern?

>>> The western.

No.




Let me just go over here.

This is looking north. This is the plan amendment

site.

It's about 70 to 75 feet in width and it's deep.

On the western edge of this plan amendment site, there

is a concrete block wall that was built as a result of

the south town central and it comes all the way down

to the streets, separating the this site from the

residential to the west.

In addition, there is an area here that appears to be

like a driveway to the parcel.

In actuality it is a traffic access easement that

permits all cars to go driving down along this subject

site, further to the north, to access parking behind

the commercial uses that front Dale Mabry.

This is the amendment area.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about across Estrella?

Can you bring the map up higher?

>>> Across the site from -- across -- the subject

amendment site across Estrella to the south, this is

the parking lot area of the bank.

>> And then the next one to the west?




>>> And then to the west has single family.

There's four single-family homes with 50 foot

frontages in here but this amendment site is severed

from the residential here by a concrete block wall,

and a traffic access easement that goes all around the

subject site, all the way to the back, all the way

back up in here, to service the back end of these

commercial uses that front Dale Mabry.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Petitioner?

>>> Good evening.

Madam Chair, members of the council, my name is Graham

Carruthers, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, suite 2800,

appearing this evening on behalf of the applicant in

matter.

If you weren't able to gather it by rose's comments,

this property is in a very unique situation in terms

of its location, the surrounding properties.

Just to make sure that everybody understands and is

aware of exactly where we are talking about here, this

is south Dale Mabry here.

This is Neptune street where it intersects Dale Mabry.




The large Publix development is located here at this

corner.

The large new retail and commercial development known

as south town center is situated between church Avenue

and Dale Mabry facing Neptune and Dale Mabry.

This area are the retail and commercial businesses

which face Dale Mabry.

The subject site is located in the block immediately

west of Dale Mabry, just behind the commercial uses

and retail uses that face Dale Mabry.

As indicated before, to the north is the large retail

and commercial center.

That property is zoned as a PD.

The properties which face Dale Mabry are zoned for

commercial general, including the site to the south

and the subject which is currently occupied by a bank,

and the associated parking.

To the west of the subject property are residential

uses.

The lot measures 70 by 201 feet which makes it right

at one-third of an acre.

And it is currently improved with a small structure




located at the northern end of the property.

You may get a better idea of how the property lays out

by looking at the boundary survey which is included in

the materials that I just distributed behind tab

number 1.

Is that right side up?

No.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 180.

>>> Okay.

This is the existing future land use map that Rose

also showed just a minute ago.

The existing land use map, I'm sorry.

The property is currently zoned for single-family

residential use, and the land use designation is res

6.

Res 6 is one of the most restrictive land use

designations in the comp plan, in that it only allows

single-family residential attached structures.

Nothing else is permissible under this land use

category.

The subject property is the only property with a

designation of res 6, which as you can see on this




picture, the res 6 is yellow, CMU 35 is this pink

color.

The only property within these couple or three blocks,

which kind of juts out into the CMU, 35 area, the

proposed amendment would straighten that line,

dividing the res 6 from the CMU 35, in the area where

the wall that Rose began to describe a minute ago is

located.

And there are some photographs in the packet that was

distributed.

I know you can't see this very well.

There are copies of it in the pamphlet.

The wall that Rose was describing is a 6-foot tall

masonry concrete block wall located along the western

side of the property, which was built at the time the

town center was constructed.

The construction of that wall was to physically severe

this property from the residential properties to the

west, and essentially walled in with nothing else but

commercial properties that are used for commercial and

retail purposes.

The subject property is also physically severed from




the residential properties located to the west by this

right-of-way that Rose described to you.

That right-of-way has existed since 1957.

The property of the instrument which created the

right-of-way, and underlying easement is included in

your materials behind -- the body of the easement

document is behind tab 2.

That sets forth the purposes of the grant.

The first is for right-of-way.

The second is for a utilities, stormwater easement.

Those two physical features, none of which can be

taken away, physically operate to isolate this

property together with the commercial uses, rather

than connected with the residential uses.

Prior to the construction of south town center, this

property was immediately adjacent to the residential

properties to the west, and as soon as that wall went

in, it changed.

And it changed because when that center went in,

there's no other access to the rear of the properties

located north of the subject property which face on

Dale Mabry Highway.




This right-of-way is used by the business and property

owners whose businesses are located in that area for

additional parking.

And there is currently no other physical access for

vehicular ingress and egress available to the rear of

their sites.

So there are some physical issues and unique problems

with respect to this property, which I think make it

an interesting one for purposes of future land use

planning.

Also interesting, I think, to note is that

historically this property for 40 or 45 years based on

the research we have done dating back to the early

1950s was in fact used for commercial purposes.

If you look behind tab 3 in the materials, there are

some copies of the City of Tampa directory for back in

the 50s and 60 and 70s and 80s which we reflect

the prior lives of this property as an auto repair

shop, a fruit market, for years and years it was the

Tampa Sod and Grass Company, was a trucking company

for awhile, then switched back to a sod and grass

company.




Based on what we have been able to tell, it was not

until the late 80s, early 90s that this property

was used for residential purposes.

With respect to the surrounding residential properties

in the neighborhood, which were located on the far

eastern edge of the Palma Ceia west neighborhood

association, every effort has been made over the past

several weeks to work with and address the concerns

that have been raised by the neighborhood association

during face to face meeting as well as numerous

follow-up communications.

This is evidenced by the number of letters written by

me to the various representative associations since

the beginning of January.

Copies of those letters are behind tab 6 in the

materials.

The neighborhood association has expressed very

clearly that they do not wish and would strenuously

object to any multifamily residential use that may be

proposed in the subsequent rezoning for this property

which would be allowed under the CMU 35 designation.

The applicant, in an effort to address those concerns,




as well as some other specific uses that the

residential property located immediately west of the

subject property, has gone so far as to offer to

execute and record in the public records a declaration

of restrictive covenants which would prohibit

multifamily residential, and the several other uses

that have been raised to us as objectionable, by the

neighborhood association and the surrounding property

owners, which restrictive covenant would run in

perpetuity with the land and be binding upon any

subsequent owners of the property.

I think that the applicant's willingness to do this,

and to significantly limit the future use of the

property, is certainly an indication and evidence of

his good faith efforts and my good faith efforts to

work with the neighborhood.

I know that a number of neighborhood association

representatives are here tonight, I believe to object,

and I'll certainly let them speak for themselves.

The message that I'd like to convey to the council is

that -- and it's very important to both me and my

client -- is that we have done everything that we can




to work with the neighborhood and the surrounding

property owners.

We had some difficulties getting in touch with them.

And no matter what happens tonight we are certainly

committed to continue working with them in an effort

to address those concerns.

And again, I think the applicant's willingness to

encumber his property with a restrictive covenant, to

limit the uses that they have identified as being

objectionable, is a good indication of that.

Good faith.

Having said that, there are a number of property

owners in the area that do support this project, and

at this time I'd like to submit into the record a

number of letters from people in the neighborhood.

There are a total of 43.

A question was brought to my attention earlier this

week by one of the neighborhood association people

about how many of these letters came from residents,

owners of residential properties versus owners of

commercial properties.

I have that break down.




13 of the 43 are from commercial property owners.

The remaining 30 are from residential property owners.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm kind of curious.

If you indicate to the neighborhood associations that

they don't want the multifamily, which actually kind

of surprises me that they might be leaning more

towards the commercial, are you leaning more towards

the commercial, and what type of commercial

opportunities would you see there on that side street?

>>> Sure.

Because of the geographic orientation of this

property, that's a bit of a quandary, quite frankly.

As it exists now, this single-family residential zoned

and land use designated property has no buffer between

the general commercial and row tail sites that

surround it to the north, east, and south.

The proposal that we have in mind, and as you know,

CMU 35 gives a pretty wide variety of potential zoning

in categories that we would be able to seek.

I think we are somewhat limited in that regard just

based upon the locational criteria that would apply,

the requirement that is would apply to a number of




those.

What the applicant has suggested, and we have shared

this with the surrounding property owners, is more of

a neighborhood commercial, residential office,

storefront office type use, you know, the ideas of

professional office such as a lawyer, CPA, accountant,

an architect, for example, that doesn't necessarily

need the frontage of Dale Mabry in order to be

successful.

I think it would be appropriate even without the

frontage and would also provide a transitional use

between the very heavy commercial and retail uses that

face Dale Mabry and the residences to the west.

So those types of transitional uses are what we have

been talking about.

I would point out that what's required -- and I

realize we are not supposed to get into conversations

about zoning.

What the City of Tampa required, the City of Tampa

code requires in terms of separation between

residential and nonresidential uses, is a six-foot

concrete block masonry wall which already exists along




the western boundary of this property.

Does that answer your question?

Okay.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are you done with your presentation?

>>> Just a couple more things if that's okay.

And it really is just wrap-up stuff.

The bottom line here is that given the geographical

orientation, the unique location of this property, and

in light of the fact that there is no buffer between

it and the commercial general uses which surround it

to the north, east and south, it's just not a viable

or appropriate parcel for development as single-family

residential use.

Approval of our amendment would make the future land

use designation for this property consistent with the

surrounding properties to the north, east and south.

And with the masonry wall which already existing along

the western side of the property, and with the

applicant's willingness to substantially limit any

proposed development of the subject property, such

that it will never be used for those purposes that the

surrounding neighborhood has identified as being




objectionable, I think that the buffer that one would

expect to see between single-family residential and

that type of very intense commercial would be created,

and would be supportive of our proposal to convert to

CMU-35.

I have one other brief note.

No reviewing agencies which were asked to take a look

at this made any objection.

I did hear from two surrounding property owners that

received notice.

Both of those happen to own properties which face Dale

Mabry.

They are both in support of the proposal.

The contact that we had with the neighborhood

association was initiated by me.

As Rose mentioned a moment ago the Planning Commission

did vote on Monday to recommend approval of the

proposal, and in doing so determined that the proposal

is in fact consistent with the goals, policies and

objectives of the comprehensive plan.

One last thing with respect to the discussions that

transpired earlier this evening and what I anticipate




may transpire when you hear from the neighboring

property owners, this is only the first step in the

process.

And this council will have an opportunity to weigh in

one further time in the context of the rezoning.

And again to make sure that those neighboring property

owners to the west are adequately protected, and that

what the proposal for the property is creates a

meaningful and an acceptable buffer to those

residential properties.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions and would

like to reserve any remaining time for rebuttal.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mrs. Saul-Sena?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When did your client purchase the

property?

>>> 1999.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So that was prior to the large

rezoning, the large commercial rezoning to the north

which totally affected this person's property.

>>> Yes.

And he in fact was here before this council to object

the construction of that wall all the way down to




Estrella.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Uh-huh.

>>> I mean knowing that by constructing that wall he

would be severed from all the other residential in the

neighborhood.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a real consideration.

But my next question is, you discussed the possibility

of putting in a small office-related use.

Isn't there a land use category that you can be

applying for that would allow you to do that and would

be more appropriate to the residential next door

rather than what you're asking for, which is pretty

intense land use category?

>>> Sure.

We did look at that.

And before we filed anything, we started this process

probably a year ago.

And before we filed anything on that, on a number of

occasion was several folks at the Planning Commission,

as well as Gloria Moreda and others in the planning

group management, just to gauge their advice on that,

and to seek their advice on that.




The answer to your question is yes, there are other

land use categories, which are more limited and

provide less density.

The reason that we are seeking CMU 35, quite frankly,

is the recommendation of planning and growth

management, to look at the existing future land use

map, and because everything else in line with that is

CMU 35 and said, Graham, this is a no brainer, in

order to get consistency you ought to be seeking CMU

35.

So that's what we found we have done.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just quickly, Rose.

Didn't you think that a lesser category would provide

greater transition?

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: Again we were looking at -- again, if

you are looking at the properties that are in this

area again long-range comprehensive plan looking at

potential future, there would be the possibility that

if someone acquired all of these properties, you might

be able to do a very good redevelopment project to

take care of some of those problems that are on Dale

Mabry, where you just have frontage parking.




In other words, you have got redevelopment all the way

occurring on that block.

But it's if it's residential 35 you can possibly pick

up a number of those properties and do a real good

project that would work much better.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do any other council members have

questions?

Is there anyone in the puns audience that would like

to speak on item number 15?

If there are several people that would like to be

speak, why don't you all go ahead and stand up and

line up along the seats here.

>>> The people from Palma Ceia west.

>> Please state your name and address for the record.

>>> I'm Frank Miller, president of the Palma Ceia West

Neighborhood Association.

Good to see all of you again.

It's been quite awhile since I have been down here.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It has been awhile.

>>> At the general meeting held this past us the

evening we had along discussion about this proposal.

As you all know this area of south Dale Mabry has seen




a great deal of redevelopment in the past several

years -- several months.

We are very desirable neighborhood to be living in.

We have concern that any more encroachment of

commercial would impact the neighborhood in a negative

way.

The motion was made and a vote was taken on this

proposal.

The vote was 99% to opposing the land use change.

This proposal to change the land use from residential

CMU is just detrimental to the neighborhood.

We request you give this your utmost attention and

disapprove the request.

Mr. Carruthers put in some letters. We found that

every single one except one, I think, had a commercial

address either on Henderson or Dale Mabry.

The petition I turned in a minute ago are members of

the Palma Ceia west neighborhood association.

And they are all members, and residents of the

neighborhood.

Mr. Carruthers mention add few minutes ago about

putting some caveats in the declaration of the




covenants of his proposal.

I received the draft this morning after talking on the

telephone several times yesterday.

We are not able to come to a decision on whether

accepting this one way.

In fact I asked him if he would go ahead and request a

continuance of this meeting.

And as we stand right now, and several of the

neighbors are going to talk in a minute, we definitely

oppose the change.

It's not the brightest star in the neighborhood as far

as property appearances go.

And it could be cleaned up very, very much.

And he would look forward to a nice house to be built

there, right next door to the is a very expensive,

beautiful home. Across the street facing this

property are several very, very nice homes.

And one is in rehab right now.

As it stands right now, without any consideration, we

would appreciate your disapproval of this proposal.

Thank you very much.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, sir?




>>KEVIN WHITE: I'm assuming, everyone here with you,

I'm assuming you probably know better than I, are they

in opposition to this?

>>> I have only been the president of the organization

for a month.

Well, three weeks.

And I have only lived in this particular neighborhood

for six months.

They know more --

>>KEVIN WHITE: That's not what I asked you.

I said are they here to oppose this as well along with

you?

>>> Yes.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I guess the question would be from Mr.

Carruthers, rather than listening to 15 people in this

point in time that's all against you, would you prefer

to try to meet with them and then work this out?

Or -- just trying to make it easy one way or the

other.

>>> Carruthers: I guess there are a couple here who

are actually to speak in favor.

Could I be wrong.




>>KEVIN WHITE: Just asking if you preferred to

continue.

A continuance may help you.

And if that were the case, we could do that at this

point in time if that's something you wanted to do

rather than at 9:00.

>>> In the interest of time.

I understand.

I think we would prefer not to request a continuance

at this time for reasons which I will explain in my

rebuttal.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Carruthers, in the letter that you

wrote to -- at the time to Gayle Cochran, January

31st, you said the association's secretary

indicated on the record at the last evening's Planning

Commission hearing that the association did not object

to the commercial uses on the subject property.

>>> That's true.

I don't have the transcript in front of me because

that meeting was just held this past Monday evening.

And I don't believe it's available.




And if I'm misparaphrasing, hopefully she'll correct

me.

Hopefully she's here. The statement was that they

object strenuously to multifamily residential and

don't necessarily object to commercial.

>> It's very strange to me that they would rather have

commercial right next to a beautiful home like we saw

on the picture.

The other question was if and when that happens if it

goes to multifamily, I'm sure you couldn't put more

than five or six unit.

Would that wall come down?

Because that's a detriment to that --

>>> I don't think the wall is on my client's property.

>> Oh, it's not?

>>> No.

And he's agreed to file this restrictive covenant

which would run with the land in perpetuity and

prohibit the construction of multifamily residential

development on that site voluntarily in an effort to

address the concerns of the property owners.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.




>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

If you're going to speak, please come up and line up

so we can hear you.

>>> My name is Debbie.

And I live at 3819 Estrella street.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you have a last name?

>>> Debbie Troys.

By the way, that beautiful house is mine.

So thank you so much.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: You're welcome.

>>> And that wall is mine.

Now it had become mine -- didn't become min overnight.

The people at south town plaza when they were

developing this were just gracious and wonderful to

work with and they knocked on my door and said, how

can we make this work for you?

We had meetings in my kitchen and their offices.

And we came up with solutions to help them get their

project moving forward.

The wall was not built to severe the land owner from

the residents.

The residential area. The wall was built because I




pay a high tax bill, as most of you do, and next door

to me is a shanty shack.

Would you define it as a shack because I do in order

to give people to my home.

I'm the house next to the shack.

And people always, oh, yes, I know where you're at.

It sound funny but it's true.

Now here's part B of this.

Had the land owner been a good neighbor and painted

the house or fixed it up or pretended that he cared

about the neighborhood, guess what, there would be no

wall.

But the wall is my way of not seeing the deplorable

conditions next door in which the city allowed and the

land owner encouraged by not doing anything about it.

So I want to make sure we clarify why the wall was

built.

It was a peace offering from the fine folks at south

town plaza to let me not have to look at that.

Now I am between a rock and a hard place and this

decision gives me great consternation because I have

to challenge my neighborhood association, who are very




well attended people, and my next door view of the

shanty shack.

It's the worser of two evils.

Keep the shanty shack, because as a property owner, if

it keeps a residential property do you want to live

there, seriously, no matter what we build there?

Probably not.

Or medical commercial, which of course no one in my

neighborhood really wants.

So in speaking with Mr. Carruthers, I said to him,

show us something that looks residential.

The look of the home or building flows with the

neighborhood, my neighborhood, my home, and if you

want to do a limited use -- and I believe Mrs.

Saul-Sena used a phrase, you guys are slaves to maps,

I agree.

Because I don't see a map of what happens in the

future.

I see my daughter's playground.

I saw where my grandfather and grandmother held their

anniversary.

I see 30 years of family history.




Those are my -- that's my grandparents' house.

I don't know what's going to come with of this

property in 10, 20 years.

Today I live there.

I celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving, birthday parties,

you name it.

My house is the center of my family and my friend's

memories for years to come and hopefully many more.

However, don't want to stop progress.

If the only way to get rid of the shanty shack is to

create a commercial zoning that is limited to -- I

wish I had a phrase -- limited commercial use, I would

be okay with that, with many restrictions on what

could go there, like a CPA or a doctor or a

chiropractor.

However, high retail density, no way.

Multifamily, we don't know if that's feasible.

The neighborhood association is opposed to it.

And I support that decision as well.

(Bell sounds).

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Next.




>>> Steve Vernon, 1507 south Clark Avenue.

I am a resident -- native resident of that

neighborhood.

In fact, after being away 25 years I came back and

living in my childhood home on Clark Avenue.

So like the owner of the property that I grew up, and

in fact we grew up on the corner of from each other, I

know the history of that property like it was

presented before.

It was until the late 80s or early 90s it did

serve a commercial purpose.

Remember the sod grass and the trucking and all that

stuff.

I am in a sensitive position as well because I also

serve on the board of the neighborhood association.

I was that dissenting 1% in opposition to this.

Since some of my statements here will reflect but not

all reflect the views that they never understood from

the board and from the neighborhood in general.

And one of the things that our neighborhood board does

and one of the main purposes we serve is to protect

the character of our neighborhood.




A large reason, the big reason people move into our

neighborhood and the big reason that section of South

Tampa is probably so -- those wide lots which is why

it was classified.

We don't want multifamily coming into the

neighborhood.

Way were very much against that.

And I appreciate the fact that the property owner has

put forth that limitation within the deed

restrictions.

So I do very much appreciate that.

But I do agree, I do support this amendment, the land

use amendment with a couple of caveats.

But I support the land use amendment for the very

reasons they stated. The piece of property juts into

commercial area.

It's been cut off from residential -- I mean, I speak

also as a role tore.

If from a market standpoint it will never sell as a

single-family property again.

It just never will.

As it stands now it's a totally useless piece of




property.

So I think something has to be done with it, like the

property, the owner next door said, it's a choice

between looking at shanty, which is about the only

thing that can be left there because nobody is going

to come in and build a house, property owners are not

going to build a single owner there.

So some change needs to be there.

I think where we need to step in, and I think we need

to make sure that the property owner -- and I feel

comfortable that the property owner and his attorney

are willing to work with us to when the time comes

whether it be the current property owner or future

property owners, that when the time comes to redevelop

that property, that we are able to step in, that the

City Council make sure that the neighborhood

association is kept informed of any future development

of that property, able to step in and work with the

developer to make sure that whatever goes in that area

meets our standards and our wishes for the

neighborhood.

And I think that would be the wishes of the entire




board.

If from a practical standpoint, yeah, I agree that it

needs some change.

And the only thing that the R S-6 just does not allow

the changes that need to be made on that property.

In all practicality.

Even with than the caveat of the multifamily, the town

homes going in there, again from a practical market

standpoint, don't sigh that ever happening because of

the location.

And the size of the property, the setbacks and all

this stuff.

(Bell sounds).

>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, thank you, sir.

>>> So I support it.

>>GWEN MILLER: Next.

>>> John Adkinson, I live two blocks away.

I can't say that something will never happen.

Like the previous person has because things do happen.

We all know that.

I'm looking at the maps.

And you are talking about a piece of property that




runs down and this one happens to stick into kind of

the commercial line.

Well, if you go further down the street, a couple of

blocks, you will see another one that does that.

Is that going to happen to them too?

Is it going to be the same thing?

We are going buy that property.

Well, it follows this line. We are going to change

that one.

Told you that we had problems at Neptune and Dale

Mabry with the flooding.

We tried to stop the town center.

The town center has been built.

They say there's more green space now than there was

before.

This may be true.

There may be a tree that's got concrete around it with

so much mulch on it that water can't get into it.

I went to the town center through the last rain.

Granted, we had a lot of rain. The drains that they

have in their parking lot were this deep above their

drains.




The retention pond which is very small as compared to

the big piece of land that was back there before with

tens of thousands of dollars of water going in, will

now come into my driveway, into my garage and my

neighbor's, and plans have been sent to the mayor

about this.

They say they are going to put in drainage.

It's never going to happen in my lifetime.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: They are spending $20 million.

>>> Not going to happen in my lifetime.

We were told about sumps or whatever this thing they

are supposed to turn out that goes out to the canals.

Nothing has been done with that yet.

Not even started.

My thing is, we can't afford the to lose the green

space.

It will happen right on down the line, if you start

following what they are saying is going to happen.

The fence, some of the block fence, she agreed to have

that there.

Why can't that be put on this other piece of property?

Then it would build right into the rest of it.




What they are doing, they want to take the whole

block.

They have already approached buying another house next

to the town center that is a rental property, to buy

it.

They are working on that whole block.

Next thing we are going to have is businesses coming

up church, forcing the neighborhood out.

>>GWEN MILLER: Keep on.

>>> That's it.

We have to stop.

There's too much asphalt, too much water coming in the

neighborhood.

We have 8-inch culverts from Dale Mabry to church.

San Rafael gets flooded.

They build up the road to try to stop that.

We still get flooded.

Where does it stop?

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.

Mrs. Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After hearing from the public.

>>GWEN MILLER: Next.




>>> My name is Karen Gay.

I'm secretary of the association.

I was -- 3916 San Nichol street.

I was responsible for taking the minutes that they are

speaking of.

We talked long and hard about this.

We thought that because of the location that it did

make sense to be commercial.

And then everything would be uniform.

But several things came to light that we didn't know

about.

One was neighbors along that street have been

contacted about selling their property.

The property in question that's owned by a man that

owns a portion of Baxter liquor, which is sitting

right in front of it.

(7:21)

So something is going on that's probably going to

affect the whole area there, that once this property

gets changed, then there's going to be major changes

and that is our concern.

What is going to happen and what we can do about it.




--

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Next.

Lawrence Barber, South Lawrence Avenue.

Joan McNabb.

I have been a resident of Palma Ceia west for 31

years.

We are real concerned about the encroachment in our

neighborhood of anything that's going to affect the

drainage, anything that's going to affect traffic, on

Dale Mabry there's no light there.

We have four lanes of traffic going very, very fast.

Those are all areas of concern.

But beside all that, we just feel that there needs to

be a buffer between the -- what is commercial, and you

know we all live there.

We like the fact that we have all these commercial

businesses close to us.

That's wonderful.

We don't want it moving into our residential area.

That's the bottom line.

We feel like some things have not been exactly said in




truth.

In regards to some of those letters that were sent

out, for example, because those people do not reside

in Palma Ceia west.

They are business owners.

And also, there seemed to be a little bit of an

underlying attempt to try to upset the neighborhood

association and to act like the neighborhood

association was to blame.

There happened to have been a terminal illness for one

member.

And that's the reason she was hard to reach.

You know, there are reasons for things.

It's not that we were ignoring the whole situation.

But, anyway, those are our main concerns.

And I hope you will consider opposing this change for

us.

Thank you.

(7:24).

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

Are you familiar with Neptune a block north and block

east of you, there's a commercial strip where the




orthodontist is.

And right next to that is like a driveway and wall.

>>> And then you get into the Parkland Estates area.

>> It strikes me as being very similar in terms of you

have got commercial to the south, and commercial to

the west of it.

And the lot is not as big as those lots you are

talking about now.

They told us at the Planning Commission they could

put -- by the way, the idea of not having town homes,

that wasn't really said.

That was a discussion.

But it wasn't said that we absolutely don't want that.

That's Mr. Carruthers words.

Okay.

You know, there may be something.

You said tonight that there's a possibility of a

different zoning.

That's something lesser.

Like that dentist office, orthodontist office that's

low and has plenty of drainage, so that we don't add

to our flooding problem, that keeps the trees, and




something small, on a 60-foot wide piece of property,

I think the neighborhood association might have some

discussion in that regard.

But they are asking for the max.

And I think throws something else in the plan that we

won't have any way to discuss it at all.

And we would like to have that open where we can

discuss if something else is happening.

(7:29 p.m) --

You don't have to have the locational criteria.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you saying you have looked at

the R20?

>> I took the dimension and it's --



>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Petrucha, how deep is the lot?

>>> How deep is the lot?

What's the dimension?

>>> What would be the classification if we wanted to

do a small, stand alone office buildings that looked

like homes, what you see popping up all over the place

and there's this little park.

>>> Could you do that within this planned




classification.

>> Yes, but could they do that with a lower planned

classification?

>>> There is a plan classification known as the -- but

it's limiting.

It is the suburban 6 -- suburban 6, SMU 6 category

that limits to an office use on-site.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here's my problem.

And this owner may not be able to recover his

investment, his intended investment with one office.

But if would you allow them to do maybe 1500, 2,000

square foot buildings, attached, office, so you have a

nice transition, and the neighborhood would probably

never know, I mean, it probably wouldn't be any more

impact than if it was just going to be a couple of

single-family homes there.

So I don't know, if that's a possibility.

>>> Yes, it's very limiting to a very small office,

development.

The purpose of this planned classification allows for

consideration of a variety of uses.

You do have a commercial zoning all the way to the




south of the site, the bank is zoned CG, so that CG

line actually goes all the way to the western edge of

that property, which is directly to the south of this

property.

So there is commercial zoning already to the south of

the property.

For purposes of plan classification and for purposes

of rezoning -- and we emphasize this to every one of

the petitioners for each one of these amendments, we

stated to them the classification is -- plan

classification is one thing but the zoning is a

different process and you will need to work with the

neighborhood as to specific uses when you come

through.

If it's approved for the rezoning.

Because getting the plan classification is not a

guarantee that you will get maximum allowable uses of

that plan classification.

We look at the conditions of that site when the zoning

comes.

>> Right.

And everyone understands that.




The concern that Mr. Dingfelder raised earlier with

the large development over in West Tampa, I think, is

much more of a concern here for me, because if you do

change this to community mixed use 35, and whatever

happens at the zoning -- it sound like there's a lot

more interest in this project than there was in the

last one, and we are going to have a much harder time

at the zoning, it sounds to me like.

So changing this to CMU 35 with -- sounds like a

pretty tough row to hoe at the rezoning, whereas if we

leave this residential 6 at least it's residential.

So what his concern was earlier about that other

project in West Tampa which I didn't necessarily

share, I'm a bit concerned about us doing that here.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

I just find the logic completely counter to this

little piece of land isn't close enough to Dale Mabry

to do the SMU 6, but it could go CMU 35.

>>ROSE PETRUCHA: You can't do the SMU 6.

It was the residential 20.

To do an office in a residential 20, you have to meet

locational criteria.




>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And it seems to me that developing

your recommending, you are looking at the relationship

between this and the commercial property that faces on

Dale Mabry.

But this is a stand-alone parcel.

And this face I go a residential street.

And you didn't mention the width of the street.

But do you know what --

>>> I don't have those dimensions but it is a little

bit narrower.

(7:34)

Again we are looking at 20 years down the road and

UCMU 35 on the front F.someone were to purchase all

those properties on Dale Mabry it provides the

opportunity for redevelopment of all those parcels.

That's what was being looked at.

It's long-term, 20 years.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, you can come back on

rebuttal.

Thank you.

Petitioner, you are up for rebuttal.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Will you tell me the dimension of




your parcel?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: 75 by 205.

>>> Graham Carruthers: 201.

We own the 15 feet that is the subject of the

easement.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you sell that to the town

center?

>>> No.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's a historical easement.

>>> Yeah, the 15 feet over which that right-of-way

exists was granted in 1957 along the property owner.

The former property owner.

Mr. Dingfelder, I may have something, and councilman

Harrison as well may have.

The issue, the other issue that we haven't gotten into

yet about why we are seeking CMU 35 is that it goes to

something a bit less dense than this.

And the neighborhood association at our meeting on

January 5th. The property owner also owns a gun

shop and garden shop and nursery business.

That's considered a specialty retail garden shop under

the City of Tampa zoning code.




A specialty retail for a garden shop is allowed under

CMU 35 with a special use permit.

It is not allowed under res 20 or SMU 6.

The garden and nursery business is currently operated

on a property that's leased.

And looking long-term to the expiration or

determination earlier of that lease, the property

owner was considering perhaps relocating that business

to this site.

When we spoke about that to the neighborhood

association, they seemed very pleased with it.

In fact the past president indicated he would be the

first customer to buy 15 plants.

So that's the other issue that I didn't get into

before about why we didn't apply for a bit lesser

category.

(7:37)

I guess this is my rebuttal time.

>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

>>> Just a couple of other things.

I guess a number of issues raised by the surrounding

property owners, his comments we certainly understand




and appreciate and are willing to take into account in

the context of a rezoning.

As I stated earlier assuming this is approved this

evening we will continue to do our best to work with

the surrounding property owners.

We'll get that declaration signed and recorded and at

that point come up with site plans and more specific

proposals about exactly what we want to do. We

understand exactly that this is a very active

neighborhood association.

And it's very important to us as well that we are able

to work together with them.

>>> It came up in one of the property owners comments

that he just got the letter from me today.

If you look in your -- and if my earlier comments came

across as me trying to blame the neighborhood

association for a lack of communication, I didn't mean

that.

I certainly didn't intend that.

But I did write -- I think it was five, perhaps six

letters over the past six weeks, five letters over the

past six weeks, and didn't get a response to them




until Tuesday, this past Tuesday, after the hearing.

I didn't realize until I got that phone call that the

reason for it was because the prior president had a

terminal illness and wasn't able to respond.

I had no way to know.

Again, the message here is that we want to work with

the neighborhood association.

I think that the concerns that they have raised,

again, are more appropriate in the context of a

rezoning where we can talk about details, about

exactly what we are doing.

And there also seems to be some suspicion of either me

or the applicant.

There were several comments made about owning other

property in this block, and making offers to other

people in the block to purchase the property.

I can assure you with 100% certainty that the only

property that this applicant owns, in this block, is

the property that we are talking about right now.

That's a matter of public record.

It's indisputable.

This is the only real estate that he owns in this




neighborhood.

In terms of other residents being approached, that may

very well be true.

I can assure you that that was not done by me or my

client and we are not aware of anyone else seeking to

assemble a larger parcel of property on that block.

I'm not saying that it's not happening, but if it is,

we are not aware of it, nor are we involved in it.

With that, I think I'm probably done.

And I'm not sure what the rules will allow, Mr.

Shelby, but I think the applicant himself would like

to say a few words as well, if that's acceptable.

Oh.

>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

Go ahead.

>>> Good evening.

My name is Angel Martinero.

Mr. White, you rang a bell.

I grew up in this neighborhood.

About two blocks from here, when my dad was -- I was a

kid.

We went there, and it was a sod farm and bought sod.




I lived on Santiago.

And moved to Davis Island.

Moved back to Bay to Bay to be close to them.

I have operated a business two blocks down the street

on Henderson for 26 years.

I went to the hearing.

And you won't remember, but I didn't want the wall put

up because on the other side of me, what you are

talking about green space was a huge field.

And that was zoned residential.

But when -- that's why I came now because now the wall

has been built there. Was never any -- in other

words, it could have been a home at one time because

there would have been other homes besides Mrs. Torres,

back there.

But now I'm right next to the commercial.

I consider myself being raised in this neighborhood --

and rile hurt by the neighborhood association, because

I joined Virginia park when I moved to Bay to Bay.

We talked about John wanted money from the city to put

a flagpole up and it was $1200 so the kids could raise

their flag at friendship park every day. The city




didn't have the money to do it so I paid for it.

The Sunset Park homeowners association, where their

building is and the garden club is, had to put in a

sewer line.

They tore up a lot of landscaping, and they came to me

and said, will you donate that for us?

So I gave to the them.

Because this is part of the neighborhood I grew up in.

Just happens today Lowry Park called me and when they

have their fund raiser in September I'm donating my

employees, my time and resources to do the front of

Lowry Park because I remember when I was a kid you

could put a dime and nickel in and watch the chicken

hit the piano.

And Lowry Park has come a long way since then.

They don't want development.

It was --

>>KEVIN WHITE: I missed the chicken.

>>> You missed that?

When the library wasn't built.

>>DICK: I miss the chicken.

I was there.




>>> Well, I miss the monkey, too.

They are in a better place, now.

(7:42)

>>> When they say there's this grand plan I bought

this piece of property.

Like the van shell, it's a bank now.

I do not have a million and a half dollars to buy my

landlord's property and keep my business there for

another 26 years.

So I bought this, and my mistake, because when I was a

kid, it was used as commercial, I assumed it was

commercial.

My mistake.

I figured if it was a sod farm, when I went and got

letters, which I can read those letters.

30 of those letters are from people in the

neighborhood.

They live in the neighborhood.

I went to 13 commercial owners that were there when I

was a kid.

I didn't know that being commercial and supportive of

the community let the funeral home which was there,




and I grew up with them as kids, these are the people

that make the community.

They have been there.

I'm 49 years old next month.

I don't think I'm trying to do anything bad.

Unfortunately, they also don't understand -- and it

took me awhile to understand -- when you apply to the

county for this zoning, which you're bringing up, and

you know a little more about it, I can only do certain

things unless I ask for the bigger thing.

That I volunteered to do and that's why I don't want a

continuance and the letter is here and I'll sign it,

is the deed restrictions.

I understand that people don't want multifamily.

First of all nobody is going to live there.

So that's an easy thing to sign. The garbage truck

goes down the easement to pick up garbage for all the

businesses.

This is just not a place where you want to build a

Howe home, which some of them said.

I will even put restrictions that ask for restrictions

on certain uses.




I don't have a problem signing that.

My intention is what I want to build, I don't want to

build.

I want to keep that in reserve, because if I have to

move my business, I will be able to move it there.

And that was my whole intent for from day one, and all

I tried to work with, the neighborhood, and I'm

getting fought at every turn and angle and I'm not a

developer coming to try to redevelop the block.

I just want to use my land for something that I can

use it for, for my business.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Dingfelder?

(7:45 p.m.)

19:44:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Torres expressed some concern

19:44:58 and I think it's been confirmed by the photograph that

19:45:01 the existing structure is not in the greatest shape.

19:45:04 It looks like maybe you have a tenant in there.

19:45:07 >>> I pay a city license.

19:45:09 And let me explain something here.

19:45:10 So let's get the truth out, okay?

19:45:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I looked at the picture.




19:45:15 >>> No, I want some truth out, Mr. Dingfelder.

19:45:17 If you are going to be fair then let's be fair to

19:45:19 everybody.

19:45:20 Ms. Torres was not my designing neighbor.

19:45:23 Her property was not -- she did not belong next to me.

19:45:28 What you need to understand is Ms. Torres's property

19:45:31 was as deep as mine.

19:45:33 When they were going to do the south town center, skid

19:45:36 her husband, Mr. Pines --

19:45:37 You: Didn't let me finish my question.

19:45:42 >>> Okay.

19:45:42 There's some fairness to this.

19:45:42 >> Okay.

19:45:42 Let me finish my question.

19:45:44 >>> Okay.

19:45:44 >> I'll try and be fair.

19:45:45 My question is very simple.

19:45:49 A, is there a tenant in there right now?

19:45:51 >>> Yes, sir.

19:45:51 >> Okay.

19:45:52 B, do you feel that it's being kept up to really the

19:45:57 standards of the neighborhood?




19:46:00 And I know it's an old, small little house, but --

19:46:04 >>> I have repainted the house.

19:46:05 Yes, Mr. Dingfelder.

19:46:06 >> And it's all kept up to appropriate standards,

19:46:09 consistent with the rest of the neighborhood?

19:46:10 Because the picture didn't look -- and I recall

19:46:13 driving by there, and, you know, I'm not saying

19:46:17 there's anything wrong with a small little house

19:46:19 that's existing there.

19:46:19 But, you know, if you're not planning on doing

19:46:23 anything with it right now, I have concern about

19:46:27 keeping it --

19:46:28 >>> The city code inspector was there one year ago

19:46:30 because I paid for a city license that you have to pay

19:46:33 to be a renter, meaning to rent to someone you have to

19:46:35 pay for a city license.

19:46:36 >> Right.

19:46:37 >>> And everything was up to code one year ago when he

19:46:40 came to inspect the property.

19:46:41 >> Okay.

19:46:42 Thank you.

19:46:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?




19:46:46 Need to close.

19:46:47 >> So moved.

19:46:48 >> Second.

19:46:48 (Motion carried).

19:46:49 >>CHAIRMAN: What's the pleasure of council?

19:46:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is really -- this is really a

19:47:01 tough one.

19:47:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It is a tough one.

19:47:04 7:47).

19:47:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The neighborhood wants a another

19:47:11 use they say the only one they can apply for is this

19:47:15 greater use and yet we aren't able to tie them to any

19:47:19 particular zoning.

19:47:19 And it's now 20 years in the future and the neighbors

19:47:23 are looking at, you know, next year.

19:47:29 I am comfortable with the greater use so I'm going to

19:47:32 move for either denial or continuance to allow the

19:47:37 petitioner to explore more with the planning staff if

19:47:40 there's a lesser use.

19:47:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If it's a motion for denial I'll

19:47:49 second it.

19:47:49 I won't second the motion for continuance, though.




19:47:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not sure, either a continuance

19:47:58 or denial.

19:47:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?

19:48:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I share everyone's, you know, this

19:48:03 quandary that we are all in here.

19:48:05 Because we would like to help out.

19:48:07 But I agree that the CMU 35 sounds to me like it's

19:48:12 just too intense.

19:48:13 Residential 6 is what it is now.

19:48:15 I didn't even know we had residential 6 other than on

19:48:18 the subgroups.

19:48:19 So that's pretty nonintensive.

19:48:21 And we are going -- we are making a major change.

19:48:24 And I appreciate the fact that we are probably going

19:48:29 to have to tear another house down, build another

19:48:31 house just because where it's at.

19:48:33 But it sounds to me like there can be some middle

19:48:35 ground that can be reached that will allow this

19:48:38 petitioner to develop this property without going to

19:48:40 such an intense land use category.

19:48:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I am going to support the denial,

19:48:46 because I can't see a garden shop coming into this




19:48:49 neighborhood like that.

19:48:53 That was a shock to me when I heard about it.

19:48:56 And I was about ready to support the amendment.

19:49:02 But I don't think a garden shop just goes into this

19:49:06 area.

19:49:06 It seems to me Luke you would have to have a different

19:49:08 type of zoning for that.

19:49:13 So I won't.

19:49:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I make a motion for denial.

19:49:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I second that.

19:49:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second for denial.

19:49:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe we should do a continuance.

19:49:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, I mean, I would lean towards

19:49:33 a continuance instead of a denial, mainly so some of

19:49:38 these issues can be continued to be explored with the

19:49:41 Planning Commission staff and with the neighborhood.

19:49:44 Because if we deny, it is a huge process in the plan

19:49:50 amendment.

19:49:50 And therefore you gist just leave it R-6 and put it

19:49:54 off for another day.

19:49:55 Because you know what?

19:49:56 I think one thing we all agree on, is R-6 is not going




19:49:59 to work in that location.

19:49:59 So all we are doing by denying it is just putting it

19:50:03 off for another day.

19:50:03 Now maybe that's what some people want.

19:50:05 But I don't think that's productive.

19:50:07 I think it's more productive to continue it, let the

19:50:10 discussion continue for a couple of months.

19:50:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

19:50:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And then bring it back to us in

19:50:18 another form.

19:50:19 7:50)

19:50:21 I think Marty is going to tell me I can't do that as a

19:50:23 substitute motion.

19:50:24 But I just --

19:50:26 >>CHAIRMAN: We have to reopen the public hearing?

19:50:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the things that concerns me

19:50:30 greatly is this is one-third of an acre and if we

19:50:33 approve CMU 35 that comes out to a potential eleven

19:50:37 units of multifamily.

19:50:39 That concerns me greatly.

19:50:41 And I recognize there's been an offer, you know, not

19:50:43 to do that but that's sort of a side offer that is not




19:50:47 necessarily enforceable by the city.

19:50:49 So, anyway, I'm not thrilled about a denial.

19:50:55 I would rather do a continuance.

19:50:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Madam Chair, thank you very much.

19:50:58 As I stated, an hour ago, I was listening to Mr.

19:51:03 Carruthers in the back while I was back here.

19:51:06 I didn't know about the death either but I know we had

19:51:10 15 people out here who were deathly opposed to this

19:51:13 and I knew there was going to need to be some

19:51:17 compromise made.

19:51:19 That's why an hour ago I offered to see if he wanted

19:51:23 to work with the people that were here.

19:51:26 Didn't want to work with them then.

19:51:29 No reason for me to think he wants to work with them

19:51:32 now.

19:51:32 I am going support Mrs. Saul-Sena and Mr. Harrison for

19:51:35 the denial.

19:51:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: I just have a question.

19:51:39 Mr. Carruthers, what is it exactly -- I'm sorry, never

19:51:43 mind.

19:51:43 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to reopen the public hearing.

19:51:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you tell me how to do a




19:51:48 substitute motion to continue, I will.

19:51:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone).

19:51:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let's not do that.

19:51:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I do a motion to reopen while

19:52:03 there's a motion pending?

19:52:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.

19:52:05 We have a motion on the floor.

19:52:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just trying to get it

19:52:09 clarified.

19:52:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Get a clarification.

19:52:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: N-0.

19:52:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Didn't Mr. Massey say he would always

19:52:28 be available to us?

19:52:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, the hearing is closed.

19:52:34 If you wish to continue, then you will have to reopen

19:52:37 the public hearing.

19:52:38 However, a motion to continue is a subsidiary motion,

19:52:43 as long as it's seconded, it is debatable, it can be

19:52:46 voted upon.

19:52:47 If you choose to do that, then by the very nature you

19:52:49 are going to have to make the motion -- assuming that

19:52:54 motion passes, that subsidiary motion, then you would




19:52:57 have to make a motion to continue it to a time

19:52:59 certain.

19:52:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: Which is the subsidiary motion?

19:53:01 Now we have the motion to --

19:53:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion to continue.

19:53:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: That is not the primary motion.

19:53:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No. If that motion fails again then

19:53:12 you go back to the motion.

19:53:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's on the table as well.

19:53:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We definite make it yet.

19:53:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: Make it so we can deny it.

19:53:19 Let's go.

19:53:20 (Laughter).

19:53:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think I'll make it.

19:53:25 I move to continue on the grounds as I stated before.

19:53:28 I just think that, Kevin, I don't think we should hold

19:53:32 it against him just because he didn't agree to it an

19:53:35 hour ago.

19:53:35 I think for the betterment of the entire community

19:53:37 let's just deal with this property and move on.

19:53:41 Three months.

19:53:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Call for the question.




19:53:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't see what on earth a

19:53:47 continuance achieves here tonight.

19:53:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison, call for the question

19:53:51 and go from there.

19:53:52 >>GWEN MILLER: On the motion to continue.

19:53:57 All in favor of that motion say Aye.

19:53:59 Opposed, Nay.

19:54:13 (.

19:54:13 (Motion carried) fails).

19:54:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Now the motion to deny.

19:54:17 (Motion carried).

19:54:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open number 16.

19:54:25 (7:54 p.m.)

19:54:32 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Plan amendment.

19:54:34 The next item, I think it's the last of the evening,

19:54:37 is plan amendment 05-32.

19:54:40 It's located in the Palma Ceia area that you are very

19:54:45 familiar with.

19:54:49 (7:55) --

19:54:51

19:59:07 This is Mississippi Avenue and Habana.

19:59:07 If the plan were amended it would change this




19:59:07 residential 10 to residential 20 on these sites.

19:59:08 I just show this particular graphic.

19:59:08 (7:56).

19:59:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just out of curiosity, is there

19:59:08 anybody opposed to this tonight?

19:59:08 We can speed this up.

19:59:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: How do you know?

19:59:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Might be a tree they want to take down.

19:59:08 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: These buildings were built in 1947.

19:59:08 These on the west side are all two-family units.

19:59:08 This is res 20.

19:59:08 The two on the east side are res 10.

19:59:09 They are all exactly alike.

19:59:09 And it's requested to change to the residential 10.

19:59:09 So you can then just rezone it and bring it into

19:59:09 conformance.

19:59:09 That concludes my presentation.

19:59:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

19:59:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Going to res.

19:59:09 >>> Res 10 to res 20.

19:59:09 Planning Commission did here this on Monday night

19:59:09 February the 13th and found it comprehensive with




19:59:09 the residential plan.

19:59:09 >>> I'm Leo, the petitioner.

19:59:10 If you all want to pass me I won't even speak so we

19:59:10 can get out.

19:59:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if there's anyone in the

19:59:10 public that wants to speak.

19:59:10 >>> Just trying to make it in conformity.

19:59:10 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't blame you.

19:59:10 I wouldn't speak either.

19:59:10 Okay.

19:59:10 Anybody in the public want to speak on item 16?

19:59:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.

19:59:10 >> Second.

19:59:10 (Motion carried).

19:59:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, let's do this again.

19:59:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move an ordinance amending Tampa

19:59:10 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future

19:59:11 land use map for property located at 2701, 2703 and

19:59:11 2705, 2707 west Mississippi Avenue from residential 10

19:59:11 to residential 20 providing for repeal of all

19:59:11 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,

19:59:11 providing an effective date.




19:59:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

19:59:11 (Motion carried)

19:59:11 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all documents.

19:59:11 >> Second.

19:59:11 (Motion Carried)

19:59:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?

19:59:12 We stand adjourned.

19:59:12 (7:59 p.m.)

20:00:30