Tampa City Council
Thursday, February 16, 2006
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
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
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
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 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 In Jesus name we pray.
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
17:13:19 >>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 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
17:16:39 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
17:17:22 >>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.
17:18:48 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 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
17:22:29 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
17:25:25 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
17:26:03 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 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
17:27:03 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
17:27:38 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
17:28:11 We have several neighborhood and civic associations
17:28:13 there that have initiated neighborhood clean-up
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
17:29:30 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
17:29:49 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
17:30:41 I want to kind of close out on a couple things.
17:30:44 Number one, Planning Commission staff report was
17:30:46 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 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
17:33:13 That closure would be state street, which is between
17:33:15 the top two blocks that's currently developed -- I'm
17:33:22 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
17:33:34 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
17:34:55 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
17:35:18 There's a lot of industrial.
17:35:19 Throws a lot of jobs that could possibly be lost up in
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
17:36:11 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
17:37:42 From a neighborhood perspective, of being a
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
17:38:13 >>> 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 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 >>MARY ALVAREZ: My question, Mr. Cypress, if you
17:40:30 already purchased this land, or are you just in
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
17:41:11 We have had three meetings with three different
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
17:41:52 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 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
17:43:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. White brings up an interesting
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
17:47:17 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
17:47:32 >>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,
17:48:20 >>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 What if we approved you on first reading tonight, but
17:49:24 deferred the second reading until you brought the PD
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?
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
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm being really creative.
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
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Our legal staff wouldn't let us do
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
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
And it's very difficult to make the decision on the
land use, which at this point is wide open, very
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
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
>>> 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.
A variety of different comprehensive planned
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
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
>>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
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
We have to have a little trust.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: My concern, I appreciate Mr.
But what happens if we come in, and we don't approve
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
So if we -- you know, it's an industrialized area
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
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
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
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)
A small scale plan amendment for future land use plan.
What you are doing is you're mixing
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>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 --
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
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
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
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
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.
>>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
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
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison, would you read it?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, I will.
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.
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?
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
Just look at the colors, and they speak very loudly.
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.
>>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
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
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
>>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
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
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
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
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
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that the answer is that you
can waive the rules for this particular meeting and
>>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.
>>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
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
They were very much aware of the West Tampa
They looked at the economic plans for guidance as
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
>>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
>>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
>>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.
>>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
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
About a block east of Himes Avenue.
It is an existing nonconforming duplex.
The current comprehensive plan is residential 10 in
The Ned to recognize the use will be a change to
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
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?
>> Switched over?
>>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
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
would like to speak on item 12?
>> Move to close.
>>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.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 13.
>>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
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
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
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 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
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
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?
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
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's see what happens at second
>>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
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
would like to be speak on item 13?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's called the Cuban American
manufacturing cigar company.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in saver say Aye.
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.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dingfelder, you see if you behave
you get to read more.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to open
>>ROSE FERLITA: Absolutely second.
>>ROSE PETRUCHA: You're going faster than I
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
A new residential home was built and this area lies
It lies at a medical office located at the southwest
corner of Woodlawn and MacDill.
The current plan designation on this site is
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
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Will you move it down, please?
There you government.
>>ROSE PETRUCHA: The owner of the vacant lot owns this
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
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?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is just to add additional
office or town homes?
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.
>>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.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.
>>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
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.
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
>>> 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
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
Did I go faux too fast?
This particular site, I just want to go through this a
This particular block, this is Neptune, Dale Mabry,
Estrella, church, the Publix is just directly to the
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
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?
>>> We found you a restaurant.
And the petitioner will go into a little more detail
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
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
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
And that concludes my presentation.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
All the nonresidential uses relate to Dale Mabry.
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.
Let me just go over here.
This is looking north. This is the plan amendment
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.
>>> 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
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
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
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
Is that right side up?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 180.
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
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
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
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
And there are some photographs in the packet that was
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
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
And there is currently no other physical access for
vehicular ingress and egress available to the rear of
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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?
>>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
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
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
Both of those happen to own properties which face Dale
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
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
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
>>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.
And he in fact was here before this council to object
the construction of that wall all the way down to
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Uh-huh.
>>> I mean knowing that by constructing that wall he
would be severed from all the other residential in the
>>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?
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
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
>>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
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
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
The motion was made and a vote was taken on this
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
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
>>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
>>> 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
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 think we would prefer not to request a continuance
at this time for reasons which I will explain in my
>>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
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?
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 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
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
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
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?
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,
Because I don't see a map of what happens in the
I see my daughter's playground.
I saw where my grandfather and grandmother held their
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
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.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Steve Vernon, 1507 south Clark Avenue.
I am a resident -- native resident of that
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
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
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
Way were very much against that.
And I appreciate the fact that the property owner has
put forth that limitation within the deed
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
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
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
And I think that would be the wishes of the entire
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
And the size of the property, the setbacks and all
>>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
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
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
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
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
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
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
They have already approached buying another house next
to the town center that is a rental property, to buy
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
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.
>>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
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
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.
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.
Lawrence Barber, South Lawrence Avenue.
I have been a resident of Palma Ceia west for 31
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.
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
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
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
>>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
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.
You know, there may be something.
You said tonight that there's a possibility of a
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
>> 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
>> Yes, but could they do that with a lower planned
>>> There is a plan classification known as the -- but
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,
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
So there is commercial zoning already to the south of
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
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
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
>>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
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
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
Petitioner, you are up for rebuttal.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Will you tell me the dimension of
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 75 by 205.
>>> Graham Carruthers: 201.
We own the 15 feet that is the subject of the
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you sell that to the town
>>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
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
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
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.
This is the only real estate that he owns in this
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.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
>>> 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
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,
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
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.
>>> 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
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
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
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
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.
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
19:45:20 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.
19:47:05 >>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 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 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.
19:50:21 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 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 >>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 >>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 >>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.
19:53:22 >>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 (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) --
19:59:07 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 >>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 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 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.)