Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:30 p.m. session

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

17:44:33 >>GWEN MILLER: City Council is called to order. The
17:44:34 chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
17:44:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It gives me great pleasure to
17:44:39 introduce the Reverend Earl Smith.
17:44:41 He's the pastor of the St. John Presbyterian church
17:44:44 and John Calvin Presbyterian church.

17:44:50 Please stand for the invocation.
17:44:52 And continue standing for the pledge of allegiance.
17:44:58 >> Let us pray.
17:45:03 Most gracious God, we give you thanks for this special
17:45:06 time and these special people that are here this
17:45:10 night.
17:45:11 We know from the words of apostle Paul that
17:45:18 magistrates are caused to serve -- to serve for you
17:45:22 and for your people.
17:45:24 We pray, Lord, that as they meet this evening that you
17:45:28 will be with them, that you will watch over them.
17:45:32 We pray, Lord, that they might have the faith of
17:45:35 Abraham and wisdom of Solomon, that they might know
17:45:39 the justice of Amos and Micah and have the compassion
17:45:45 and love and care of Jesus Christ.
17:45:47 Continue to bless them and be with the Holy Spirit as
17:45:53 they continue the business of the city as we pray in
17:45:56 your most holy name.
17:45:59 Amen.
17:46:01 (Pledge of Allegiance).
17:46:13 >>> If I may have a couple of second to share some
17:46:16 words about some projects that are near and dear to

17:46:19 me.
17:46:19 The first one -- and I'll leave these with you -- is
17:46:22 about the Judeo Christian Health Center.
17:46:25 They are fund-raising dinner is coming up in just a
17:46:28 little over a month, as you probably know, without the
17:46:31 Judeo Christian health center, most poor people in our
17:46:35 community and City of Tampa would have nowhere to turn
17:46:37 for their health needs.
17:46:41 The other project I would like to share with you is
17:46:43 about the St. Johns Presbyterian Learning Center.
17:46:46 As Mary knows, just a little over a year ago, we
17:46:49 opened a brand new building, 6,000 square feet
17:46:53 building that allowed us to double our outreach from
17:46:58 50 children to over 100 children.
17:47:00 That program is now full and our board has authorized
17:47:03 us to seek funding to expand that evening more.
17:47:09 This has been judged by Hillsborough County Department
17:47:11 of Education as one of the top ten preschools in our
17:47:15 city.
17:47:16 And we are very proud of what it's doing.
17:47:18 Our mission and the mission statement is here.
17:47:21 I ask for each of you to read it.

17:47:23 It's to provide quality early childhood education to
17:47:26 the children of working poor people in our community,
17:47:33 and to do that we have to raise scholarships for these
17:47:36 families in order to do that.
17:47:38 So we also have a fund-raising program for them coming
17:47:43 up in May.
17:47:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, reverend.
17:47:47 I'm very aware of the Judeo Christian health clinic
17:47:50 and everything that they have done.
17:47:52 And we appreciate Dr. Campbell for being the president
17:47:56 of the Judeo Christian clinic for so many years.
17:48:00 She's done a great job and so has the learning center.
17:48:03 You all have done a great, great job and we're proud
17:48:06 to have that type of institution in our area.
17:48:11 Thank you so much for coming.
17:48:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for coming.
17:48:15 Roll call.
17:48:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
17:48:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:48:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
17:48:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
17:48:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

17:48:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:48:23 Mr. Shawn Harrison won't be with us tonight.
17:48:26 He's away on business.
17:48:28 Before we begin we have some unfinished business from
17:48:30 this morning.
17:48:32 We have the Italian Heritage Day event.
17:48:38 >> So moved.
17:48:39 >> Second.
17:48:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
17:48:41 (Motion carried)
17:48:42 And we have some more unfinished business, March
17:48:47 30th, the Channelside Drive CRA meeting at 6:00.
17:48:54 We have two members who are going to check their
17:48:58 calendars to see if they can attend on that day.
17:49:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, Madam Chairman, that's fine.
17:49:03 >>GWEN MILLER: March 30th at the port at 6:00.
17:49:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's not the one I'm talking about.
17:49:11 You confused me again.
17:49:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: April 20th.
17:49:18 >>GWEN MILLER: April the 30th we go to the port.
17:49:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: That one I will be able to go to.
17:49:25 >>GWEN MILLER: I need a motion.

17:49:31 We have already done that.
17:49:32 For March 30th.
17:49:34 Everybody will be there.
17:49:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.
17:49:41 We were talking about spending a working lunch for the
17:49:44 other issue.
17:49:45 The 30th I said I had a commitment that I made
17:49:48 well in advance.
17:49:51 Who's on second base?
17:49:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: I will be able to make the 30th but
17:50:00 the other one I have a previous commitment.
17:50:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The 20th has not been voted on.
17:50:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to
17:50:10 ask you to join us anytime now.
17:50:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move we set the meeting on April
17:50:16 20th between 12:00 and 1:30 in the mass Scott
17:50:17 room.
17:50:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is this for the closed session
17:50:19 meeting?
17:50:19 I ask it be set for the conference room and we'll post
17:50:25 appropriate documentation.
17:50:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

17:50:28 (Motion carried)
17:50:30 I have a memo from Bonnie Wise who would like to
17:50:34 appear before council next Thursday, March 30th,
17:50:37 to go over the process of the CIT, and it will be only
17:50:41 five minutes.
17:50:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
17:50:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
17:50:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is she doing it at staff time?
17:50:52 >>GWEN MILLER: She can if you put her there.
17:50:54 Five minutes, staff reports.
17:50:56 All right.
17:50:58 Now is Marty Boyles here?
17:51:01 Out there.
17:51:03 We need to open the public hearing.
17:51:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's the issue of the motion that
17:51:07 was made this morning with regard to the legal
17:51:15 department.
17:51:15 Did you want to take care of that first?
17:51:22 For council's recommendation the council made a motion
17:51:25 that Mr. LaMotte and Mr. Pardo be present and let the
17:51:29 legal department prepare a response to the issue of
17:51:33 the approval for brick streets, and alleys.

17:51:42 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
17:51:43 In response to council's motion this morning, I have
17:51:45 prepared a memo and attached a copy of what we
17:51:49 commonly refer to as the brick streets ordinance,
17:51:52 adopted by council in 2001, with the intent of
17:51:54 preserving brick streets, which includes alleys.
17:51:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
17:52:06 Mr. LaMotte?
17:52:07 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Transportation manager.
17:52:13 We did look into the course of events that was raised
17:52:17 earlier this morning, and I'm happy to report that we
17:52:20 are not paving over any brick alleyways and that they
17:52:25 were actually asphalt in content to begin with and
17:52:27 this was a repair project that was being undertaken.
17:52:30 We have also entered into conversations with Mr. Pardo
17:52:34 about any work being done in the barrio that we would
17:52:37 consult on an ongoing basis about any work that needed
17:52:41 to be done, and how that could be accomplished, and
17:52:44 that we would try to apply brick where possible in any
17:52:47 of our Gateway treatments.
17:52:49 I'll let Mr. Pardo fill you in on exactly the activity
17:52:52 that was taking place.

17:52:54 But the good news is there are no brick alleyways that
17:52:57 would be repaved.
17:52:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Good news.
17:53:00 >>VINCE PARDO: Ybor City Development Corporation.
17:53:04 Just to reiterate, we have scheduled on a TIF funding
17:53:08 six alleys which were in problems either because of
17:53:12 major potholes or transportation problems or
17:53:15 sanitation problems, and some just a nuisance to the
17:53:20 merchants, who had trouble by solid waste, so we
17:53:24 identified six of them two years ago.
17:53:26 We had them reviewed.
17:53:27 Actually had them engineered by stormwater to make
17:53:30 sure we were not creating any stormwater retention
17:53:33 problems and also get a good flow to the inlets.
17:53:36 Every one of them were -- and so far we have four that
17:53:42 are not but all were asphalt covered so strictly a
17:53:45 resurfacing project, as far as we saw that, and we
17:53:47 have taken an opportunity to look at some of the
17:53:50 aprons and where there's opportunity to put brick in
17:53:52 the aprons, then we are having a contractor take a
17:53:55 look at that.
17:53:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank all of you for

17:53:58 responding so quickly.
17:53:59 We normally give you two weeks to respond to a
17:54:02 request.
17:54:02 But because I had understood that this paving was
17:54:05 taking place, you know, immediately, I wanted to make
17:54:07 sure that we weren't doing anything inappropriate.
17:54:09 And we're not.
17:54:10 And I really appreciate the effort you've put into
17:54:13 developing your responses to this.
17:54:15 And I'm reassured we are not paving over brick alleys
17:54:18 and we won't do it in the future because we understand
17:54:20 that the barrio has to be consulted and they have to
17:54:24 get a certificate of appropriateness, and we won't do
17:54:26 that.
17:54:27 So I'm really pleased that you are doing what's right
17:54:31 and perhaps going to get some brick aprons out of it.
17:54:34 Thank you very much.
17:54:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm glad this was resolved, gentlemen.
17:54:39 But my concern was a little different than the nature
17:54:41 of Mrs. Saul-Sena's concern.
17:54:42 I just simply think that the works better when we go
17:54:45 through the proper procedures, and Mr. Pardo, if Mr.

17:54:48 LaMotte is in charge of transportation, then you guys
17:54:50 need to communicate so he can be on board so it
17:54:52 doesn't catch him by surprise and it doesn't catch us
17:54:55 by surprise and somebody up here react.
17:54:57 So I think if we appreciate and respect the chain of
17:55:01 command, and if it's the transportation problem, he
17:55:04 should be talking about it.
17:55:05 And I think Mr. LaMotte has always been very
17:55:07 cooperative in terms of my relationships with him.
17:55:10 So if we do that, you communicate before we have to
17:55:13 communicate, it just works better.
17:55:15 I think that was the issue.
17:55:16 So thank you to both of you.
17:55:17 >>VINCE PARDO: The public works, they are the ones
17:55:19 that actually contracted to do that which is part of
17:55:22 transportation, the other side of Mr. LaMotte's
17:55:26 department that actually has been involved.
17:55:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then somebody needs to communicate to
17:55:30 him.
17:55:30 I guess that's the point of my concern.
17:55:31 So whatever works for us, so long as we, now, complete
17:55:35 that circle.

17:55:36 Thank you both.
17:55:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
17:55:38 Questions from council members?
17:55:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank that legal also.
17:55:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 1.
17:55:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
17:55:47 >> Second.
17:55:47 (Motion carried).
17:55:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would also ask that you open item
17:55:50 number 2 at the same time since it's related.
17:55:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
17:55:55 >> Second.
17:55:55 (Motion carried).
17:55:55 >>GWEN MILLER:
17:56:01 >>GLORIA MOREDA: No swearing in?
17:56:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's quasi-judicial.
17:56:04 Number one is not.
17:56:05 So I guess for the sake of it, why don't we just, if
17:56:08 council wishes, we can do that, swear everybody in.
17:56:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll have -- we'll swear everybody.
17:56:18 Anyone in the public that's going to speak on item 1
17:56:21 through 6.

17:56:28 Want to do all of them?
17:56:29 1 through 15.
17:56:30 Anyone that's going to speak on any items 1 through
17:56:33 15, please stand and raise your right hand.
17:56:35 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
17:56:39 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
17:56:44 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I have been sworn.
17:56:45 Gloria Moreda, Land Development Coordination.
17:56:49 Council, I'm sure you're aware that a number of people
17:56:51 have requested that these items be continued.
17:56:54 There are also a number of people in I think the
17:56:57 audience that would like to see it proceed.
17:56:59 I would like to go over the options that are before
17:57:03 City Council before I get into my presentation.
17:57:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of clarification.
17:57:09 In my packet, on number 1, all it says is resolutions
17:57:14 setting public hearing, amending chapter 27, and then
17:57:20 it shows -- I don't know.
17:57:22 I don't understand what number 1 is.
17:57:26 I don't have any ordinance language or anything.
17:57:28 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
17:57:31 The resolution setting public hearing for tonight's

17:57:34 hearing was approved by council at the beginning of
17:57:38 February.
17:57:39 At that time we finalized the ordinance.
17:57:41 I do not know why -- it was placed on doc agenda but
17:57:45 not received in the clerk's office and I refiled it
17:57:47 yesterday.
17:57:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we have copies?
17:57:50 Do you have copies?
17:57:53 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I confirmed this morning that the
17:57:54 clerk's office had it and it would be uploaded for
17:57:58 your accessibility.
17:58:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'll get copies.
17:58:06 >>GWEN MILLER: He's going to get copies.
17:58:08 Go ahead.
17:58:08 >>GLORIA MOREDA: The first hearing is the height
17:58:11 amendment, which my proposal to amend the height limit
17:58:14 that the YC-6 district 2, a 60-foot height.
17:58:21 But let me tell you -- let me explain to you your
17:58:24 options in terms of the request for continuance that I
17:58:27 think you received. The first one is that you could
17:58:29 continue this case.
17:58:31 I do want to advise City Council, however, that there

17:58:35 has been a text amendment filed concerning the Adamo
17:58:39 corridor, to be designated as a redevelopment corridor
17:58:44 through the comprehensive plan.
17:58:46 That amendment process for approval will take about a
17:58:50 year.
17:58:51 The process next that would follow would be that a
17:58:55 land use plan amendment, future land use map amendment
17:58:58 would have to occur along the corridor.
17:59:01 That's another six months.
17:59:09 Given the modifications that may happen it's very
17:59:11 likely a new YC district would have to be developed, I
17:59:14 suspect that the YC-6 would not be appropriate.
17:59:18 That's another six months.
17:59:19 So any continuance that council does tonight, really
17:59:23 you're looking at about two years to get it all done.
17:59:27 I don't think that that's a reasonable amount of time
17:59:30 to continue any case.
17:59:32 New hearings will have to have them, as well as new
17:59:35 advertising would have to occur.
17:59:41 The second option, if council is inclined to delay it,
17:59:45 that length of time, I think is to direct staff to
17:59:48 just basically withdraw these petitions.

17:59:51 And then at the end of the time where the Adamo
17:59:54 corridor study is complete, we can come back before
17:59:56 you with another recommendation.
18:00:01 That is in line with the amendments to the
18:00:03 comprehensive plan.
18:00:05 The third option is to proceed.
18:00:09 And this process began in 2002 when City Council
18:00:14 approved the expansion of the historic district, which
18:00:17 at that time, certainly my understanding, the city
18:00:24 administration and council saw that the expanded Ybor
18:00:27 City historic district was going to be under the YC
18:00:31 districts.
18:00:33 During the 2004 area-wide rezoning, I heard two
18:00:38 complaints along the Adamo corridor.
18:00:42 They wanted the visioning plan to be completed, that
18:00:45 the YCDC was preparing.
18:00:48 That process has been completed.
18:00:50 And I think everyone agrees that more study is needed.
18:00:54 The other complaint that I heard was that the
18:00:57 individuals that had properties that were IG zoning
18:01:01 district were able to build on a 60-foot height limit.
18:01:06 The YC-6 has a 45-foot height limit.

18:01:11 That's why the text amendment is before you, to
18:01:14 suggest that we amend the YC-6 district to a 60-foot
18:01:18 height that. Way, we are really not taking any
18:01:20 development rights.
18:01:22 In fact, the YC-6 allows twice the FAR than the IG
18:01:28 district, or the IH district.
18:01:33 The YC-2 is also allows for a higher density than the
18:01:38 current RM-16 district.
18:01:40 There is no taking of development rights under the
18:01:43 proposed rezonings
18:01:48 If this rezoning is approved, it doesn't mean
18:01:50 everything stops.
18:01:52 You know as well as anyone that planning is something
18:01:59 that happens always.
18:02:00 We never stop planning.
18:02:02 And council can, at the completion of the Adamo
18:02:05 corridor study, direct staff to amend the zoning code
18:02:09 again.
18:02:11 This is not the end.
18:02:12 But it is a good first step.
18:02:15 It is allowing the properties in the Ybor City
18:02:17 historic district to develop to their highest and best

18:02:21 potential given the current Tampa comprehensive plan.
18:02:26 And for that reason, I would like council to give me
18:02:29 some guidance as to whether or not we should proceed
18:02:31 with this public hearing or at your direction either
18:02:36 continue or withdraw.
18:02:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Many months ago, maybe six months
18:02:41 ago, Mrs. Alvarez and I, as well as a great number of
18:02:44 other people, attended a workshop that you held at the
18:02:46 children's board where you explained this potential
18:02:49 change.
18:02:49 It made a lot of sense then.
18:02:51 It makes a lot of sense now.
18:02:52 So Madam Chairman, it would be my wish that we proceed
18:02:55 and have this public hearing and look at putting this
18:02:57 on first reading.
18:03:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?
18:03:01 Mr. Dingfelder?
18:03:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I defer.
18:03:05 Did you want to say something?
18:03:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You go ahead.
18:03:09 I'm thinking right now.
18:03:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.

18:03:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
18:03:19 I don't want to, you know, waste everybody's time, but
18:03:21 we have already spent a lot of time on this so I don't
18:03:23 think it's really a waste of time.
18:03:26 I'd kind of like to hear maybe not everybody.
18:03:30 I don't know how many people are here to speak for or
18:03:32 against.
18:03:32 But I'd like to hear some of what the representative
18:03:35 comments on why people feel strongly one way or the
18:03:38 other about putting this in place tonight as opposed
18:03:41 to possibly continuing it or, I don't know, one of
18:03:47 those other options continuing or killing it for two
18:03:50 years until we study it.
18:03:53 Because I've read some of the letters.
18:03:55 I've read editorials, et cetera.
18:03:57 But it's nothing like hearing the same thing in
18:04:01 person.
18:04:05 I probably need to make a motion to continue at least
18:04:11 to get the discussion going, and at least that way we
18:04:14 could hear comments from the audience on the issue of
18:04:18 a continuance.
18:04:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If it's by consent if that's what

18:04:31 council wishes to do if there are no objections.
18:04:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: To open it up?
18:04:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For discussion.
18:04:37 And to limit the time council can do that at the
18:04:39 outset, limit the amount of time for discussion, both
18:04:41 for and against.
18:04:42 Could you rotate, each side, up until a certain limit
18:04:45 of time.
18:04:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ten minutes for each side?
18:04:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If there is no objection by council
18:04:53 members.
18:04:53 Council can set it up anyway it wishes.
18:04:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, the way I feel about this right
18:04:58 now is that we have waited this long.
18:05:02 And probably the thing to do is have some public input
18:05:08 at this point.
18:05:09 And then we'll see where it goes from there.
18:05:14 I think we have a study that's going on right now.
18:05:18 I believe someone has said that the USF is going to be
18:05:22 studying this, too.
18:05:23 So I don't believe it would take that long.
18:05:26 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I believe that's part of the

18:05:27 testimony.
18:05:28 And as to the comprehensive plan I asked Mr. Garcia
18:05:33 the time frames of those amendments and you're looking
18:05:35 at a text amendment typically takes about a year to go
18:05:38 through.
18:05:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mrs. Moreda, we want to do this right.
18:05:43 And how long it takes, if it takes a year, but we want
18:05:47 to do it right.
18:05:48 It's not going to stop anything in the YC district
18:05:53 now.
18:05:53 And people -- developers are still developing.
18:05:57 They are doing the construction.
18:05:59 They are going on just like it's been.
18:06:04 The way I feel right now is I want to hear public
18:06:07 input.
18:06:08 But I also want to see where it goes.
18:06:10 And if we need to continue it, then we will.
18:06:13 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Well, again, remember, a continuance,
18:06:19 two years, we'll have to renotice.
18:06:23 We'll have to probably come back with something
18:06:25 different than what's before you today.
18:06:28 I don't see where that is an appropriate continuance,

18:06:33 to continue a petition that long.
18:06:34 It's just -- and council, when that public hearing
18:06:38 process and amendment to the comp plan is complete,
18:06:41 you certainly can direct land development at that time
18:06:44 to come forward with the area wide rezoning at that
18:06:47 time.
18:06:48 But that's just my opinion as to a continuance.
18:06:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I respect your opinion.
18:06:55 And what we'll do then --
18:06:59 >>GWEN MILLER: With colleagues, if you want to come
18:07:03 forward and listen to the audience then we will do.
18:07:06 So what is the consensus?
18:07:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe we should go forward.
18:07:10 I move that we go forward, that we open the public
18:07:13 hearing, and that we hear this this evening.
18:07:16 Going forward and moving on this doesn't preclude
18:07:18 doing other things in the future.
18:07:20 Ms. Moreda said we have we started this in 2002.
18:07:24 It's 2006.
18:07:24 Why don't we take the step of making the height 60
18:07:27 feet, and then proceed with the planning that's been
18:07:30 requested?

18:07:34 69 there is a motion D. we get a second?
18:07:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I don't mind listening
18:07:40 but I'm supporting going forward meaning going forward
18:07:43 to have input.
18:07:44 Because if somebody has an argument that's persuasive,
18:07:48 that's certainly going to --
18:07:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We can continue --
18:07:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: Oh he Y. I'm not meaning moving
18:07:55 forward get on with it.
18:07:56 I mean a lot of people are out there and their time is
18:07:59 as important as ours.
18:08:00 >>GLORIA MOREDA: You would like to hear the
18:08:03 presentation.
18:08:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: I do, yes.
18:08:05 I want people here to have the opportunity to tell us
18:08:07 what they think.
18:08:08 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I wasn't hear if you wanted to hear
18:08:10 their justification for continuance before we get into
18:08:13 the public hearing.
18:08:13 It's up to you.
18:08:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, Mr. Shelby, if we do something
18:08:17 in terms of a reason to continue or not, then correct

18:08:20 me if I am wrong, if we do that, then when people come
18:08:22 up to respond it's simply whether or not they are in
18:08:26 favor of or in opposition of the continuance, is that
18:08:28 right?
18:08:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
18:08:29 But --
18:08:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes what?
18:08:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, but ... the issue is, I believe
18:08:36 Ms. Moreda cited, if it's a continuance, a continuance
18:08:40 after a certain period of time, affect due process
18:08:44 rights.
18:08:44 So I believe it's Ms. Moreda's recommendation -- I
18:08:47 would agree -- that if council wishes to not go
18:08:49 forward on it, rather than continue it for a period of
18:08:53 years, which I believe would be inappropriate it would
18:08:56 cause it to have to be renoticed.
18:08:58 I believe the recommendation would be to defeat it or
18:09:02 withdraw it.
18:09:03 One of the two.
18:09:04 Withdraw the application.
18:09:04 But the question -- I'm sorry- but the question, I
18:09:08 guess, was whether council wants to address the issue,

18:09:11 maybe limit to one minute of time, set a time period
18:09:14 for, let's say, 15 minutes or 10 minutes or 20 minutes
18:09:18 or whatever council wishes, for the issue of where the
18:09:20 public stands for the issue, if that's what council
18:09:23 wishes, as a threshold question.
18:09:24 You can set that forward or just make a determination
18:09:28 as to what you wish to the be.
18:09:30 >>CHAIRMAN: Let's just go into that.
18:09:33 Don't need a motion.
18:09:34 Let's just go into the hearing.
18:09:36 We already opened the public hearing.
18:09:37 We are going to go ahead and listen.
18:09:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
18:09:40 I need to do this with regard to this public hearing
18:09:42 and all public hearings tonight, that all written
18:09:46 communications that have been available to the public
18:09:48 at council's office be received and filed into the
18:09:50 record at this time.
18:09:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Already done that.
18:09:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Not if there's not a motion to do
18:09:59 that.
18:09:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

18:10:01 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I would like people doing the slide
18:10:03 presentation --
18:10:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, Ms. Moreda, a reminder if
18:10:08 any member of City Council has any written
18:10:10 communication was the petitioner, excuse me, with
18:10:12 anybody in support or opposition, or any members of
18:10:16 the public in connection with any of the petitions
18:10:18 that are going to be heard tonight that member should
18:10:21 disclose the identity of the person, or entity with
18:10:24 whom the verbal communication occurred and the
18:10:25 substance of that communication prior to the vote,
18:10:28 please.
18:10:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone?
18:10:30 Okay.
18:10:30 Ms. Moreda.
18:10:31 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I think the cable people are running
18:10:33 the slide presentation.
18:10:37 I asked some staff to go out on the parking structures
18:10:39 to take photographs of this area of Ybor City.
18:10:42 These are shots basically standing on the top of the
18:10:45 parking garages, both the one on Palm Avenue and on
18:10:52 6th Avenue, looking in either direction.

18:10:57 Some of the buildings that you will see include the
18:11:00 Florida brewing company, which is the -- can you stop
18:11:04 this for a second?
18:11:10 >> It's on a set.
18:11:12 I don't believe they can stop it.
18:11:17 >> The Florida brewery company.
18:11:18 Oh, they are doing it for us now.
18:11:20 Okay.
18:11:22 In the right-hand side of the picture is an old silo
18:11:26 of some kind that's on Ybor channel.
18:11:30 How tall is that?
18:11:32 >>> Well, I can tell you this. I did ask myself to go
18:11:34 out and check out the height of certain buildings in
18:11:37 the historic district.
18:11:40 The building, the cigar factory, the brick building in
18:11:44 the picture --
18:11:45 >> On the left?
18:11:47 >> Yes.
18:11:47 The cigar factory is 62 feet.
18:11:49 That's the approximately height.
18:11:51 About five stories.
18:11:53 I think you could go ahead and run the -- oh, I guess

18:11:57 I can do it now since we stopped.
18:12:03 The flag, the building with the tower, the Florida
18:12:06 brewery, I have information that the top of that tower
18:12:11 is 90 feet.
18:12:15 The Hampton Inn.
18:12:17 Now, this parking structure that they are standing on
18:12:19 is the one on Palm Avenue.
18:12:20 So you get a view of 7th Avenue there.
18:12:23 That is the Palm Avenue -- the hotel, New Hampshire
18:12:29 ton Inn went up.
18:12:30 That is 57.
18:12:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How tall is the brewery?
18:12:38 >>> The brewery is 90 feet.
18:12:38 That's to the top of the tower.
18:12:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Not to the flag.
18:12:42 >>GLORIA MOREDA: no.
18:12:45 To the top of the tower structure.
18:12:50 Stop.
18:12:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How tall are the garages?
18:12:54 >>GLORIA MOREDA: The garages.
18:12:55 One on 15th and 6th.
18:12:57 That is 59 feet to the top of the parapet wall.

18:13:02 It is 69 feet.
18:13:03 Because they have two tower elements as well.
18:13:05 The top of the tower element is 69 feet.
18:13:10 This gives you, I think, a good idea of what the
18:13:12 height in that area is.
18:13:16 I think that's all through the slide show.
18:13:24 I would like to hand out these.
18:13:28 The first thing is the matrix, that shows you
18:13:35 basically where the options are.
18:13:38 I am going to put this on the Elmo.
18:13:45 The Ybor City expanded historic district, this area,
18:13:50 has a variety of zoning districts.
18:13:52 Primarily, heavy commercial, light industrial, and
18:13:57 general mixed use.
18:14:00 Those districts are conducive to the YC-6 district.
18:14:04 The YC-6 district will allow for -- let me get this
18:14:13 little example.
18:14:16 YC 6 district allows for zero setbacks as it relates
18:14:23 to --
18:14:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do we have a copy of that?
18:14:33 >>> No.
18:14:34 It allows for zero setbacks, where the commercial

18:14:37 districts require setbacks from street right-of-way of
18:14:40 ten feet.
18:14:41 The maximum height with the proposed amendment makes
18:14:44 this equal to the IG district.
18:14:48 The CI currently has a 45 height limit.
18:14:53 The maximum floor area ratio -- and I think this is a
18:14:56 real important point.
18:14:57 The YC-6 district allows for the building of twice the
18:15:02 building area than you would in an industrial zoning
18:15:05 district.
18:15:06 It is giving development potential twice as what it
18:15:12 currently is under IG and IH district.
18:15:15 CI currently has that 1.5 floor area ratio.
18:15:23 In density if you are in the land use, for example, if
18:15:26 you are in the general mixed use land use
18:15:28 classification, that allows for residential
18:15:31 development for 24 units to the acre.
18:15:34 Under the YC-6 you would be able to do that
18:15:37 residential development without any further rezoning.
18:15:41 The ability to do residential in the YC-6 is dependent
18:15:45 on what land use category you are.
18:15:48 So the properties that still have the light industrial

18:15:51 land use classification, they won't be able to develop
18:15:55 for residential, not until their land use is changed.
18:16:00 But this does give the ability to people that have
18:16:02 heavy commercial or general mixed use land uses be
18:16:05 able to go ahead and develop residential uses.
18:16:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, I think that's really
18:16:11 critical what you just said.
18:16:12 You're saying if somebody who has the IG doesn't
18:16:15 change this YC-6 that they are not able to develop it
18:16:19 residentially?
18:16:21 >>GLORIA MOREDA: If you are a light industrial
18:16:24 district right now and you are in a general mixed use
18:16:27 district, land use classification, you are not able to
18:16:31 develop a residential.
18:16:33 You would have to rezone that property to be able to
18:16:36 develop for residential.
18:16:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse my ignorance on an Ybor
18:16:44 issue.
18:16:44 But are PDs or planned developments available within
18:16:48 Ybor?
18:16:49 >>> Yes, they are.
18:16:49 You can apply for a YC-9 which is a site plan

18:16:53 controlled district.
18:16:53 That will allow for consideration for a product that
18:16:58 might be a little different than what these
18:16:59 classifications allow for.
18:17:03 >> Does YC-9 have any restrictions?
18:17:05 >>> It's similar to a PD.
18:17:06 It's based on being able to demonstrate compatibility,
18:17:11 as well as compliance with the comprehensive plan.
18:17:14 >> But nothing finite?
***
No numbers?
>>> No numbers, that's correct.
>> What.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What is the YC-8?
>>> YC-8 was designed top allow for larger
single-family homes.
It was the minimum lot size was 40 feet wide.
It was intended for the area that was in the north
side of the expanded area.
It's not included in this study right now.
There is one residential part that is in question,
though. The property is at 1901 north 24th street

that is currently zoned RM-16.
The RM-16 is in an R-20 land use classification.
I am rezoning that the rezoning occur there to a YC-2.
YC-2 would allow for development as under the maximum
density of that land use.
So a higher development than the RM-16 or allows for
20 units per acre.
In terms of other use as loud under YC-2 above and
beyond what an RM-16 can do, you're talking about
neighborhoods serving and office uses.
So it gives you a greater ability to do different
uses.
And it also allows for a comparable heights, it allows
for reduced setbacks.
These YC districts were designed to fit the character
of the Ybor City district, and that's why staff is
recommending that we move forward with the YC
rezoning.
It just makes sense being in the historic district.
I think really those are the primary points that I
wanted to make to council.
There is no taking of the development rights in this

rezoning.
There is one parcel, and I will mention that briefly,
too, that is located at 2101 and 2103 east 2nd
Avenue.
It's the parcel in the Ybor Historic District that is
zoned IH.
IH is a heavy industrial district.
And it became an IH zoning district there as a result
of the flex provision in the comprehensive plan.
That property, my staff went out and checked it.
It was vacant.
There is a sign there that says for lease for
warehouse.
Warehouse use is an allowed use in the Ybor City
district.
In the YC-6 district.
I don't feel that the change to the YC-6 given is a
negative effect on that property as well.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What address did you say that was?
>>> That is 2101 and 2103 east 2nd Avenue.
>> So it's on 21st.
I see it but I can't tell.

21st and 2nd.
>>> That's correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Got it.
>>> Does council have any questions?
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Moreda, you're saying if the
person wants to do something other than what's allowed
in the proposed YC-6 that they have the opportunity of
applying for a PD, which is YC-9 or something?
>>> That's correct.
>> On developing something differently.
So council members, I would -- I want -- Ms. Ferlita
and Mr. White, this is really important.
I think it's important to understand that if an
individual wants to do something differently with
their property, they have the option if we move ahead
with this tonight to apply for a PD under a YC-9 and
ask for a very specific thing for their particular
parcel. What this would do is it actually raises the
height.
That's really the issue is raising the height from the
previous industrial -- I mean to the height allowed

under the previous industrial zones from 45 to 60
feet.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: It's not only the height.
It is also allowing for a better use of the
intensities they are granted by the comprehensive
plan.
We are giving development rights to these individuals.
We're not taking any of their development rights.
The people that have IG now would be able to build
twice the building area under the YC-6 zoning
district.
They will be able to utilize YC-6 if they have the
appropriate land use class.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: When you say 06 feet, is that five
stories?
>>> Approximately, yes.
>> Is there anything any provision in our code that
says we can give them more density?
Or do they have to.
>>> Can't give them any more density than what the
plan allows.
I think that's what the corridor study is determining.

What is the appropriate land uses along the Adamo
corridor?
I think everyone agrees that that area is going
residential.
Mixed use.
Commercial, office, residential.
It is no longer an appropriate residential area.
>> When we talk about the Adamo corridor, we are
talking about the north side of it?
Or the south side of it?
>>> I'm not sure what was filed in terms of the text
amendment that's being studied, the parameters of the
boundaries.
But I know that it includes the extended Ybor City
historic district.
And that the area that is being reviewed now is on the
other side of -- south of Adamo.
>> So it would be north of Adamo?
>>> Right.
>> North of Adamo.
>>> Right.
>> See, that's my dilemma.

When we talk about the Adamo corridor -- the south
side I see as higher density.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's not before us.
>>> I understand but I am trying to get it in my mind.
>>> This area we are studying tonight is north of
Adamo.
>> Gotcha.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's nothing that con strains
us, Mary, if and when anybody does an Adamo corridor
study, I think both north and the south side needs
studying together.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I do too.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can't have blinders and say we
are only going to study the north side.
That doesn't make any sense.
I know it's not totally relevant to the rezoning we
are dealing with today.
But I think that down the road, clearly, anybody who
studies it needs to study both sides.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are we going to have a time limit?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A hand count.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: On the issue of the continuance or

the issue of this area wide rezoning?
If it's an area of the area wide rezoning, council
does not necessarily have a rule limiting the time for
the hearing.
>> Three minutes per person.
Would anyone like to speak?
If you are going to speak please get up and come to
speak.
If you are not going to speak we are going to move on.
>> My name is Eric Shaw.
4133 salt water Boulevard, SCHILLER.
I have two points to make.
>> Before you begin, have you been sworn in?
>>> Yes.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder.
I am going ask people to speed things along when you
step up there's a little sign that reminds you, please
state for the record that you have been sworn in.
Thank you.
>>> Yes, I have been sworn in.
I came here to speak about Ms. Moreda had something to
say about a small piece of property in Ybor City

that's not consistent with what she wants to do, and
that happens to be me, which is not an unusual
position for me to be in.
>> Which one is your property?
>>> 1901 north 24th street.
Vacant property.
She mentioned that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Industrial heavy?
>>> No, it's RM-16.
>> Oh, RM-16.
Okay.
>>> I would like to leave that RM-16.
In the past 15 years I have been through this twice
where I have been forced to come here and defend my
zoning.
Both times, I have had to accept the zoning the city
proposed and both times I have been injured.
So I have no trust that this is for the good of the
property owners.
And I would like to be left out of that.
I don't know why.
But I just have this feeling that one more time it's

going to be a problem for me.
So I would like to be left out of that.
And I can't tell you in terms any stronger than that.
Please, leave me alone.
I'll be fine.
Two, as long as people are talking about the Adamo
corridor, if I could have another 09 seconds left I
would like to tell you my thoughts on that. I don't
believe we can do anything too dense on the Adamo
corridor including the north side of Adamo, because in
Ybor City -- and I own businesses in Ybor City, and do
business in Ybor City, and it's quite frankly a
struggle.
18:27:05 And if we were to have hotels 200 or 300 feet high and
18:27:10 huge luxury condominiums on the first block north of
18:27:13 Adamo it would be a good thing in my opinion for the
18:27:16 health of Ybor City and our historic district.
18:27:20 I see I'm out of time and that's my opinion.
18:27:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time will be up and it will beep.
18:27:28 >>> That's my piece.
18:27:31 >>KEVIN WHITE: Your address again?
18:27:33 >>> 1901 north 24th.

18:27:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:27:36 Next.
18:27:36 Would anyone else like to speak?
18:27:38 Come up.
18:27:42 >> My name is David Bailey, 1609 east 5th Avenue
18:27:46 in Ybor City.
18:27:48 I'm going to read what I have to say.
18:27:54 I had the privilege of living in Ybor City.
18:27:56 And I have been sworn in.
18:27:58 I'm sorry.
18:27:59 I had the privilege of living in Ybor City and living
18:28:01 and working in downtown St. Petersburg.
18:28:03 And I like most am very pleased with the success of
18:28:06 downtown St. Pete.
18:28:07 I have seen the benefits of this vibrant urban area.
18:28:10 And the ingredients of the success. The main
18:28:14 ingredient is residents.
18:28:19 Some will tell you that they need more study.
18:28:22 I say let the rezoning go forward as a rational
18:28:25 minimum for growth.
18:28:26 And do a study to consider a higher development along
18:28:29 the first block just north of Adamo.

18:28:35 By approving this rezoning request, he will encourage
18:28:38 a higher and better use for properties currently at
18:28:41 the yards and dumping grounds.
18:28:43 Also cap the height of future growth at 60 feet which
18:28:46 seems ample for the project developed in Ybor City
18:28:49 today.
18:28:50 This is the rational next step for Ybor.
18:28:53 If you deny this request, you risk slowing Ybor, that
18:28:58 Ybor needs to be a successful urban village.
18:29:06 You also revoke the -- I have a different opinion of
18:29:12 that.
18:29:12 Experts would agree that a successful urban village
18:29:16 thrives only if it has an adequate number of
18:29:18 residents. In my opinion Ybor does not have enough
18:29:21 residents to sustain its shops, restaurants, and movie
18:29:24 theaters during the workweek.
18:29:28 At the time when we are concerned about the viability
18:29:29 of Ybor can we not afford to take the next rational
18:29:33 step?
18:29:33 As an Ybor resident, architect and developer, I ask
18:29:36 City Council to approve the proposed rezoning, as a
18:29:39 minimum for future development, and to study the

18:29:42 prospect of upzoning the density along the Adamo
18:29:46 corridor.
18:29:46 Thank you.
18:29:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:29:47 Next.
18:29:49 Anyone else speaking?
18:29:57 >>> Good evening.
18:29:58 My name is Anna Thomas.
18:29:59 I reside at 821 south Orleans.
18:30:03 I am president of Tampa Preservation and I have been
18:30:05 sworn in.
18:30:05 Tampa Preservation asks that City Council support the
18:30:08 east Ybor historic and civic association's desire to
18:30:13 see appropriate and beneficial YC zoning designation
18:30:17 made.
18:30:18 This group is the voice of the neighborhood.
18:30:20 They take very seriously the impact that appropriate
18:30:23 zoning will have on the quality of life for these
18:30:26 residents for the ability of Ybor's businesses to
18:30:31 thrive and the protection of Ybor's extended historic
18:30:32 district.
18:30:33 We also ask that consideration be given such that the

18:30:38 neighborhood and the preservation community can be
18:30:41 allowed to give input into any land use studies that
18:30:44 are undertaken for the best possible outcome for all
18:30:47 parties concerned.
18:30:48 Thank you.
18:30:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:30:49 Next.
18:30:50 Anyone else speaking?
18:30:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you can line up on deck it would
18:30:57 make things go faster.
18:30:59 Thank you.
18:31:00 I don't know if that's on deck or batter's box.
18:31:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Speaker waiver form.
18:31:11 If you are, please acknowledge that you are here.
18:31:15 Stella Lowders?
18:31:17 I don't know if I pronounced that correctly.
18:31:19 Stella Lowders?
18:31:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Please raise your hand if you're here.
18:31:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you're here.
18:31:25 Thank you.
18:31:25 Lahta Doering.
18:31:29 Sorry if I mangled your name.

18:31:31 Did I pronounce that, is it JUNTA?
18:31:38 And Laura Roberts.
18:31:40 That's four additional minutes.
18:31:42 >>CHAIRMAN: 7 minutes.
18:31:44 >>> Fran Costantino, Ybor City historic and civic
18:31:49 association.
18:31:49 I want to thank you for your time tonight.
18:31:51 I want to read a letter into the record to Ms. Miller
18:31:56 in response.
18:31:57 I want to convey to council that this isn't a Fran
18:32:00 versus Fran issue.
18:32:04 That's what it seems like and I apologize.
18:32:05 This letter is being sent to you with the unanimous
18:32:07 consensus of our Board of Directors in response to
18:32:10 your e-mail from Fran Williams via Vince Pardo
18:32:14 regarding the request for continuance of the above
18:32:16 referenced petition.
18:32:17 And please notice also, we are not the petitioners.
18:32:19 The petitioner is the City of Tampa.
18:32:22 The letter reads: Adamo corridor civic association,
18:32:26 which would lead to you believe he represents an
18:32:29 actual civic association, which in fact he represents

18:32:32 approximately 24 -- and I found out today it's 22 --
18:32:36 property owners along Adamo drive and north to third
18:32:39 Avenue.
18:32:39 It is disingenuous to think he represents any
18:32:43 residential neighborhoods in the expanded district and
18:32:44 the neighborhood and community relations office does
18:32:47 not recognize the Adamo corridor civic association.
18:32:51 Our civic association did not initiate this process,
18:32:54 but we are very much in support of the rezoning and do
18:32:57 not support the continuance of it.
18:33:01 Again.
18:33:01 We have been involved in the process from the
18:33:03 beginning and trust that your knowledgeable and
18:33:06 dutiful staff knows what they are doing.
18:33:08 They have matched everyone's existing zoning and lined
18:33:13 them up with the appropriate YC designation.
18:33:15 From what I have read the property owners are the
18:33:17 recipients of more intensity and uses than they
18:33:20 originally had.
18:33:23 Should counsel set a side the 45 feet restriction for
18:33:27 being included in the historic district and grant them
18:33:28 their additional 60 feet, they will be made whole.

18:33:32 Council actually praised the process and said it was
18:33:36 about time when someone came forward to extend the
18:33:38 district and protect the little historic fabric of
18:33:41 homes that is left in Ybor City.
18:33:42 They understood the dilemma the residents were facing
18:33:44 and trying to get mortgages for sales and refinancing.
18:33:47 Council recognized that this was the same problem that
18:33:50 the west side faced years earlier and there was
18:33:53 resolve with YC designations.
18:33:55 Residents that owned homes that were built in 1905 and
18:33:58 1908 could not get bank loans with IG zoning.
18:34:02 It appears the planners believe prior to expansion
18:34:05 that the future would probably have resorted to all
18:34:07 commercial industrial.
18:34:08 Who would have believed that homes would be restored
18:34:11 to the secretary of interior standards and would have
18:34:14 homes with preservation awards now being appraised at
18:34:18 250 to 300,000 east of 22nd street.
18:34:22 It appears that approximately 200 property owners will
18:34:24 be affected.
18:34:26 Please refer to the map.
18:34:28 The 24 commercial property owners represent large

18:34:31 parcels on Adamo drive, but are not in the majority
18:34:34 when compared to the number of residential owners that
18:34:36 will be affected if this gets shelved for months to
18:34:39 come.
18:34:41 We will be right back at square one.
18:34:43 To my knowledge there is absolutely nothing that the
18:34:45 commercial industrial property owners can do -- cannot
18:34:50 do that a YC designation ---thank you -- that they
18:34:54 could do with the present zoning.
18:34:56 We do agree that a study is appropriate, and we do
18:34:59 want to cooperate and give our input, just as we did
18:35:02 with the Ybor City vision statement.
18:35:04 It is ludicrous to think that we don't care about the
18:35:08 Adamo corridor property owners and what they want to
18:35:13 put there. Right next to Kimmins property is a nude
18:35:16 bar at 17th and Adamo drive.
18:35:18 Guess what.
18:35:19 Nobody knows how it got there.
18:35:20 The big question is, who is going to pay for this
18:35:23 study?
18:35:23 The city lead neither has the time nor the money.
18:35:27 Our TIF funds should not be considered because they

18:35:29 are not located within the boundaries of the CRA nor
18:35:31 the CRA-1 nor CRA-2. The Tampa Tribune article dated
18:35:38 1-24 quotes Kimmins owner Fran Williams owns about
18:35:39 five ache areas long Adamo drive, preliminary plans
18:35:43 include building two hotels on 2nd Avenue and
18:35:46 16th street, as well as restaurants and clubs.
18:35:48 The east Ybor historic civic association, Inc., does
18:35:52 not share his vision that this kind of development
18:35:54 will help Ybor City as a whole, much less help the
18:35:57 struggling 7th Avenue businesses.
18:35:59 Instead just the opposite may occur and creating
18:36:02 competition for them as well as the hotels and bed and
18:36:05 breakfasts already northbound Ybor City.
18:36:07 We do support a study.
18:36:10 We would appreciate and participate in a study, and we
18:36:14 do expect a compromise on height, mass and scale, and
18:36:19 whatever is appropriate on the Adamo corridor.
18:36:22 However, we request that you consider the hardship
18:36:25 that this postponement has caused in the past, and
18:36:28 recommend that you do not continue this rezoning.
18:36:31 Ladies and gentlemen, also in your petition to rezone,
18:36:36 it states all your departments on here, there is not

18:36:38 one objection.
18:36:39 Land development, no objection.
18:36:42 Hillsborough County city planning, no objection.
18:36:44 Fire, no objection.
18:36:45 Stormwater, no objection.
18:36:47 Transportation, no objection.
18:36:49 Wastewater, no objection.
18:36:51 Solid waste, water, commercial services center, and
18:36:54 park and recreations have no objection.
18:36:58 You know I would not come to you and ask you something
18:37:02 that would not be appropriate.
18:37:03 But this has continued and continued and continued.
18:37:07 I don't for the life of me can understand why they are
18:37:10 getting more benefits than what they have now, and if
18:37:13 anything wants to change, they are going to have to go
18:37:16 through the same process now as they would with a YC-6
18:37:19 and we are giving them more.
18:37:20 And we realize, we will probably have to compromise.
18:37:23 The Adamo corridor is the only place to get some
18:37:26 height.
18:37:26 So we know that.
18:37:27 And a study should be done.

18:37:29 But these people cannot wait two years for the study
18:37:32 to get done.
18:37:32 If you're not taking away any property rights, grant
18:37:36 be the YC-6.
18:37:37 Let them come back with whatever it is.
18:37:39 Then we'll come and voice our opinion for whatever and
18:37:41 support it.
18:37:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Fran, thanks for coming down as
18:37:48 always.
18:37:48 Very articulate and well informed.
18:37:52 It's interesting, I didn't realize that some of this
18:37:55 IG zoning, I guess, toward the east, was what you
18:37:59 described, I guess, as single-family homes that
18:38:02 happened to have fallen into IG over the years?
18:38:05 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, I think the description even goes,
18:38:07 it says south of 9th Avenue.
18:38:08 So I mean it affects a lot of poor people that can't
18:38:11 get money to rehab their houses.
18:38:13 >> Right.
18:38:14 Mr. White had dealt with that issue further up in East
18:38:17 Tampa awhile back, as had we all.
18:38:19 But anyway, my question to you is, I hate to use this

18:38:25 term, because it seems to have a strange connotation
18:38:29 these days.
18:38:30 But would there be a harm from your perspective about
18:38:35 the possibility of letting some of these property
18:38:38 owners opt out of tonight's solution?
18:38:44 Some of the commercial industrial folks, the larger
18:38:47 land owners, perhaps, seem to be indicating very
18:38:49 strongly that they are not too teen on what we're
18:38:52 doing in advance of the planning effort.
18:38:55 So just as long as you're up at the podium -- and I'm
18:38:58 going to keep asking this question throughout the
18:39:00 evening -- as long as you're up at the podium, do you
18:39:03 see -- what harm would you see, if any, in allowing
18:39:06 them to opt out, keep their IG zoning until such time
18:39:10 as a year from now that -- a year, year and a half
18:39:14 from now that we come up with a plan for something
18:39:16 else?
18:39:18 >>> Well, because we know.
18:39:21 We know each other I'll be frank with you.
18:39:23 You know I hate the word "opt out."
18:39:26 >> I couldn't think of a better word.
18:39:28 >>> I know.

18:39:29 But if I can approach the bench I want to give --
18:39:31 these are copies of my letters.
18:39:35 And the petition that we have.
18:39:38 These are all the 22 land owners.
18:39:40 And into the historic neighborhood as far north as
18:39:45 third Avenue.
18:39:45 But if just those 22 wanted to opt out where the other
18:39:51 poor people can get their bank loans and do what they
18:39:53 want, if that's the compromise for those 22
18:39:55 commercial, I would talk to my board but I'm sure they
18:39:58 would have no objection to that.
18:40:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:40:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:40:02 Next.
18:40:02 Next.
18:40:05 Anyone else speaking?
18:40:08 If you're going to speak, please get up and come and
18:40:10 speak so we can move.
18:40:11 We have a long agenda to go.
18:40:13 We have to be here a long time.
18:40:15 >>> Good evening, council.
18:40:17 I'm Geraldine Williams Smith, a resident of

18:40:19 2504-12th Avenue in east Ybor.
18:40:23 And, yes, I have been sworn in.
18:40:25 I am here representing the interest of others who are
18:40:28 in east Ybor, and we are property owners, we are
18:40:34 business owners, and some of us are residents.
18:40:37 That's the Carlton restaurant, and Matt Ernst, who
18:40:37 owns property there, an investor on 12th Avenue.
18:40:46 Home Vestors also own property there in east Ybor.
18:40:52 Edison Realty owns property there, and Moses Wells at
18:40:54 the Tampa auto stylists.
18:40:56 We want to say that we'd like to be a part of whatever
18:41:00 planning there is going to be that will impact those
18:41:03 of us who own property, and especially me because I
18:41:07 live there in east Ybor.
18:41:09 And the property that you're discussing this evening
18:41:13 borders on the south side of the east Ybor community.
18:41:16 We think that it seems to be a bit logical and
18:41:19 rational to plan first, and we also would like to be a
18:41:23 part of that planning.
18:41:25 We have a waste treatment system that's there.
18:41:30 I think it's at 3rd and 25th.
18:41:33 What kind of impact will this development have on

18:41:37 that?
18:41:37 And on us?
18:41:38 Because we are the ones who have the owners that are
18:41:44 roaming through the community.
18:41:46 We have one north-south access.
18:41:49 That's 26th street that goes from Adamo drive
18:41:52 further north.
18:41:54 And you are aware that we now have a playground that's
18:41:58 there, and -- thank you very much -- and it is
18:42:05 bordered on the east side by 26th street.
18:42:07 When don't have sidewalks at this time for the
18:42:10 children to get there safely, and I'm thinking that we
18:42:14 need to consider the impact of traffic flow that may
18:42:18 come as a result of whatever is being planned for the
18:42:22 Adamo corridor.
18:42:24 We want to be a part of the planning.
18:42:26 We think that the planning should come first.
18:42:29 And we support the efforts of the Adamo corridor
18:42:33 association to have the planning first, and then have
18:42:36 the decisions, appropriate decisions about the zoning.
18:42:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:42:43 Next.

18:43:12 >>> Good evening.
18:43:17 My name is Francis Williams, 1501 second Avenue.
18:43:22 I represent the Adamo corridor civic association.
18:43:26 There are many of us here to support what I am going
18:43:27 to say.
18:43:29 We decided not to -- we decided not to speak
18:43:32 separately.
18:43:34 Would all those in the room that support the Adamo
18:43:36 corridor position please stand up?
18:43:38 Thank you.
18:43:50 On January 12, 2006, we came before you and stressed
18:43:52 the need for comprehensive planning to be done to help
18:43:56 encourage and direct development in Ybor City.
18:43:59 Before the council proceeded with additional zoning.
18:44:03 During that meeting, the council voted 5-1, and
18:44:06 councilwoman Alvarez's motion to direct the staff to
18:44:11 institute a planning study to determine that the Adamo
18:44:15 corridor should be designated a redevelopment
18:44:17 corridor, and secondly to do a study to determine the
18:44:21 zoning categories being proposed for the Adamo
18:44:23 corridor properties were appropriate. At the time,
18:44:27 there was some concern if the city or county planning

18:44:33 staff had time to do the studies needed to determine
18:44:35 the question of redevelopment corridor status for
18:44:37 Adamo.
18:44:40 To address this issue, we filed a plan amendment
18:44:43 requesting designation of the Adamo corridor as a
18:44:46 redevelopment corridor.
18:44:47 Ethel Hammer filed the petition on March 1st, '06,
18:44:52 the petition will be reviewed by the Planning
18:44:54 Commission and submitted with the necessary
18:44:57 information to council to make a decision on the issue
18:45:01 by September of this year.
18:45:05 You will vote on it and send it on to the state.
18:45:09 But the information relative to make those decisions
18:45:12 relative to the Adamo corridor being designate add
18:45:15 redevelopment corridor will be available to you at the
18:45:18 end of the summer.
18:45:19 That's one set of plans and one set of information.
18:45:24 In addition to facilitate the necessary planning, to
18:45:28 determine if the zoning categories proposed for Ybor
18:45:32 are appropriate for the Adamo corridor, we contacted
18:45:36 the University of South Florida graduate school of
18:45:38 architecture and urban design, and asked them to

18:45:41 consider taking on a planning study for Ybor City, the
18:45:46 Adamo corridor and our property, as a civic project.
18:45:52 They have agreed, and inside the book you have a
18:45:56 letter of their commitment.
18:45:57 They have agreed and will have over 20 planners
18:46:00 working on four strategic approaches for making Ybor
18:46:04 the successful urban village outlined by the City of
18:46:08 Tampa's long-range strategic plan.
18:46:13 They will propose zoning categories customized for
18:46:17 each plan and review the zoning and recommended
18:46:20 changes.
18:46:20 They will supply visuals to support their findings.
18:46:23 This will be done at no cost to the city and will
18:46:27 solve the concerns of some of the council members
18:46:29 expressed of having ourselves pay for the planning
18:46:34 council.
18:46:34 The university professors will be above local
18:46:37 political considerations or provincial interests of
18:46:40 the land owners.
18:46:43 Their work will be completed by August 31st, 2006.
18:46:46 (Bell sounds).
18:46:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll continue to read it.

18:46:52 We have it here and we were following and we'll
18:46:54 continue reading.
18:46:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
18:46:56 You heard me ask "the other Fran" about opting out.
18:47:04 Would that be something that you and your organization
18:47:08 members would lean toward?
18:47:11 >>> I'd like to give a provincial answer, then I'd
18:47:13 like to give a nonprovincial answer.
18:47:17 Provincially it's fine for us.
18:47:19 It's -- provincially that's fine.
18:47:23 On a nonprovincial level it bothers me that we go
18:47:26 ahead and zoning these types of projects without a
18:47:29 comprehensive plan for Ybor.
18:47:32 The problem is there's no plan for Ybor.
18:47:34 It isn't how much more money I make or I don't make.
18:47:37 And that's a fact.
18:47:38 If you ask basic planning questions about Ybor, such
18:47:41 as, how many acres are available to develop in Ybor?
18:47:45 You would get zero answer.
18:47:48 I mean those are very -- and I have been giving all of
18:47:51 you those questions for a long time now.
18:47:53 I mean, I have been doing this now for at least three

18:47:56 or four months.
18:47:57 I called urban planners, and Ethel will be up in a
18:48:00 movement but I called urban planners and said what
18:48:03 answer should we give?
18:48:05 I'm not an urban planner.
18:48:06 And they say, why aren't these answered? We spend
18:48:09 millions and millions of dollars there. How come we
18:48:11 don't know these things?
18:48:12 So provincially take us out.
18:48:14 I mean, it's the right structural thing to do.
18:48:17 It probably could have been separated into zoning in
18:48:19 the first place.
18:48:20 Adamo corridor is certainly distinctive piece of
18:48:22 property from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to
18:48:26 4th with respect to the corridor and a whole raft
18:48:29 of things.
18:48:29 But with respect to proceeding the zoning before we
18:48:32 plan, my personal belief and the belief of almost
18:48:36 every planner I talked to is it's a big mistake.
18:48:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only other question I have is,
18:48:43 it looks like you're moving forward on this USF issue
18:48:46 regardless, which is fine.

18:48:47 It's your prerogative.
18:48:49 And I also think -- I'm glad that it's a group that I
18:48:53 think we would receive as being objective, hopefully
18:48:56 university professors.
18:49:00 Well, it's professors.
18:49:04 >> Supervision.
18:49:06 >> Professors.
18:49:07 I think you get that at TGH when they operate on you,
18:49:11 too.
18:49:13 (Laughter).
18:49:13 But anyway, what was my question?
18:49:16 You messed me off, Linda. It will come to me.
18:49:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
18:49:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Aid question and I guess Ms. hammer
18:49:27 is the right person to address if you could address
18:49:29 this when you get up.
18:49:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, I remember my question.
18:49:33 I'm going to interrupt.
18:49:33 I remember it.
18:49:35 You messed me up.
18:49:36 Okay.
18:49:37 Here's my question.

18:49:38 My question is, will your study include, on the south
18:49:44 side of Adamo, to truly include the corridor north and
18:49:48 south?
18:49:49 I mean there's not a lot of property on the south side
18:49:52 but there's some.
18:49:53 And I would hope --
18:49:55 >>> The university was very excited, the dean came
18:49:57 down and his right hand fellow and was very excited
18:50:00 about some way of from a planning perspective to tie
18:50:04 16th street into, now, which runs right into
18:50:07 central Ybor, into the port.
18:50:10 He had some interesting concepts that he came up with.
18:50:13 >> Trying to tie in Palmetto Beach into Ybor.
18:50:16 >>> Yeah.
18:50:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:50:18 I'm sorry.
18:50:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Actually, my question was about
18:50:21 that.
18:50:21 And --
18:50:25 >>> Should I sit down?
18:50:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
18:50:26 Thank you.

18:50:28 My question is, Ms. Hammer, when you come up to
18:50:31 discuss this, it seems to me that and Ms. Alvarez
18:50:36 alluded to the earlier, what is very confusing is some
18:50:38 of us are talking about what is before us, which is
18:50:41 this particular piece of land which is from Adamo
18:50:44 drive to the north, is part of the historic district,
18:50:47 it's been addressed as part of the vision plan, and
18:50:50 what Mr. Williams is speaking about are both the north
18:50:55 and south sides of Adamo drive, and so it's confusing,
18:50:59 because what is before us tonight is from Adamo drive
18:51:04 to the north.
18:51:04 So if you could, when you're speaking, be clear on
18:51:07 what exactly you're talking about.
18:51:08 It would be really helpful.
18:51:11 >>> Certainly.
18:51:11 My name is Ethel Hammer.
18:51:13 Yes, I have been sworn.
18:51:14 And I do have a waiver form.
18:51:16 I don't want to scare you.
18:51:17 I don't think I need all my time.
18:51:18 But I will just put it in the record.
18:51:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Candice.

18:51:33 Douglas Adrien.
18:51:35 Debra Williams.
18:51:36 Thank you.
18:51:37 Jeremiah.
18:51:42 Okay.
18:51:42 And Alex Gabrielle.
18:51:44 Thank you.
18:51:45 That's five additional minutes.
18:51:46 Total of eight.
18:51:49 >>> Ethel Hammer: Thank you.
18:51:51 First I would like to say that I do agree with Mr.
18:51:53 Williams' comments about the appropriateness of
18:51:59 waiting for these studies to be done.
18:52:01 My firm has filed the application for the
18:52:03 redevelopment corridor, and it does in fact, in the
18:52:06 graphics that we submitted, we are looking at both
18:52:08 sides.
18:52:09 The north side and the south side of the Adamo
18:52:12 corridor, because, as Ms. Alvarez has pointed out it
18:52:15 is a corridor so you need to look at both sides and
18:52:18 see what the appropriateness and the future is for
18:52:20 land uses that will come in future development.

18:52:27 I'm also very excited about the fact that USF has
18:52:29 agreed to take on the study of Ybor, and I think we'll
18:52:33 all benefit from some independent thoughts on that
18:52:37 usual you.
18:52:37 One of the major concerns I have with the zoning area
18:52:42 zoning that is before you this evening, I would like
18:52:44 to show you the future land use map.
18:52:58 My concern centers around the Adamo corridor and I am
18:53:01 here this evening representing Adamo corridor civic
18:53:05 association.
18:53:05 Most of the property that is in the Adamo corridor,
18:53:09 that is the subject of the rezoning, that fronts on
18:53:13 Adamo, is shown on the comprehensive plan as light
18:53:16 industrial.
18:53:20 The next thing we want to do is hand out some excerpts
18:53:24 from your future land use element.
18:53:28 >> What's the darker brown above?
18:53:31 The gray?
18:53:31 >>> That is the general mixed use category.
18:53:36 That is not necessarily going to be the issue of what
18:53:38 I'm talking about.
18:53:39 The problem that I have is with the properties that

18:53:43 front on Adamo that are light industrial on the
18:53:45 comprehensive plan.
18:53:46 So if I might just pass this out, the first page is an
18:53:51 excerpt from the comp plan, the text, and then the
18:53:53 next three pages are excerpts from your Land
18:53:57 Development Code, the zoning district YC-6.
18:54:02 The problem with the YC-6 district is that it creates
18:54:12 some significant facially inconsistent problems with
18:54:16 those properties that are shown on the comprehensive
18:54:19 plan as light industrial.
18:54:22 And here's where we have the problem with the
18:54:24 interface between the existing comp plan category and
18:54:27 the YC-6 zoning.
18:54:31 The industrial category does not permit residential
18:54:34 zoning, period.
18:54:36 YC-6, a major component of the YC-6 zoning category,
18:54:40 allows residential.
18:54:42 Now, I know what the staff is going to say.
18:54:44 They are going say, well, that's not a problem because
18:54:47 you wouldn't be able to get a permit because, in
18:54:50 essence, the comprehensive plan trumps the zoning
18:54:53 district.

18:54:54 But it's inconsistent.
18:54:56 And Wan we're creating is confusion.
18:54:59 If you look at pages 2 through 4 of my handout, I have
18:55:04 highlighted all of the uses that are not permitted in
18:55:08 the industrial -- light industrial planned category.
18:55:13 As you can see, there's a significant number of them.
18:55:16 Now, my concern is that all of us know that most
18:55:21 people understand zoning.
18:55:23 Most people do not understand the comprehensive plan
18:55:26 and how it affects their property.
18:55:28 And they certainly don't understand the relationship
18:55:33 between the comprehensive plan and zoning.
18:55:35 So if we zone all these properties that have a
18:55:38 comprehensive plan category of IG, to YC-6, people
18:55:43 will assume that these uses are permitted on their
18:55:48 property.
18:55:48 They are not all permitted.
18:55:50 All of the uses that I have highlighted are not
18:55:52 permitted at all.
18:55:54 Because you would need to change the comprehensive
18:55:58 plan, which is why we're suggesting that at least the
18:56:02 IG properties be extracted out to eliminate the

18:56:06 confusion, so that those categories can have some sort
18:56:10 of appropriate plan district placed on them. The YC 6
18:56:15 zoning district was meant to be a mixed use category.
18:56:18 You know, it allows residential.
18:56:20 It allows commercial.
18:56:21 It allows light industrial.
18:56:22 It allows office.
18:56:23 It allows a broad range.
18:56:25 And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with
18:56:28 necessarily that district on some of the properties in
18:56:31 Ybor.
18:56:31 It does not belong on the properties that are shown as
18:56:36 light industrial on the comprehensive plan.
18:56:40 Now, Mr. Williams has talked about delaying.
18:56:45 You know, when the growth management act was adopted
18:56:47 in 1985, the dictate was everybody had to do planning,
18:56:50 and then they had to do zoning, and that's why we went
18:56:53 through the zoning conformance in 1989 and 1990.
18:56:57 We kind of are deviating from that now.
18:56:59 We are trying to do zoning before we do the planning
18:57:02 for Ybor.
18:57:03 So I think what we need to do is get back to the

18:57:07 principles of doing planning before we Zo Do zoning.
18:57:10 The issue that was brought up earlier, I wanted to
18:57:13 just clarify.
18:57:14 This is not going to cure those peoples problems who
18:57:18 have residential uses in IG zoning, if they are in a
18:57:24 light industrial comprehensive plan category.
18:57:27 They still won't be able to get a bank loan because
18:57:29 they are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and
18:57:31 banks are sensitive enough to understand that so that
18:57:35 doesn't cure their problem.
18:57:37 As my fallback position, and I think Mr. Williams has
18:57:40 said, this issue would not be an issue if the IG
18:57:43 property were taken out of this request.
18:57:45 Thank you.
18:57:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena has a question.
18:57:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to you address the
18:57:51 question of Adamo corridor civic association.
18:57:55 It's an organization of people who whose property is
18:57:57 basically on the north or south side of Adamo, to a
18:58:02 depth of one block?
18:58:05 Or do you have a map showing --
18:58:09 >>> Williams: In 04, we were taken in the district --

18:58:13 we actually thought -- or I actually thought that I
18:58:15 was remiss in not being more proactive and involved.
18:58:18 I got involved at the last minute.
18:58:20 I asked you to lay, and should have been that the a
18:58:23 year ago, and I recognized I was at fault.
18:58:27 Or I would have petitioned probably at that time -- I
18:58:30 might or might not have been petitioned to be out of
18:58:32 the district.
18:58:33 Just telling you the history, that's all.
18:58:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want add map showing where
18:58:37 people belong --
18:58:39 >>> Yeah, we took the IG -- we took the YC-6 zoning
18:58:42 that parallels Adamo.
18:58:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She wants to know your membership.
18:58:50 >>> Oh, yeah, well it's all the people that own
18:58:52 property on Adamo.
18:58:54 Whenever there was a resident inside this rezoning,
18:58:56 this YC-6 we knocked on the door.
18:58:59 By the way most of the residentials are next to me.
18:59:02 They aren't at the other end.
18:59:03 Most of the residences in this zoning that's being
18:59:06 considered today are next to Kimmins.

18:59:08 They are part of sort of our business family in that
18:59:11 neighborhood.
18:59:12 When you get on the other side of 20th street, all
18:59:15 we are talking about in this rezoning on the other
18:59:17 side of 20th street is from 2nd to Adamo.
18:59:20 The map that was distributed to indicate it was up to
18:59:24 third Avenue but it's not.
18:59:25 We previously --
18:59:26 >>: You answered my question.
18:59:27 Thank you.
18:59:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
18:59:30 Ms. Alvarez.
18:59:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I just wanted to ask.
18:59:34 Ms. Hammer, before you go, you were saying that the IG
18:59:39 district should be cut out of the YC-6 district,
18:59:43 right?
18:59:45 >>> Hammer: Because of the inconsistency with the
18:59:47 comprehensive plan and the confusion that I believe
18:59:49 it's going create.
18:59:51 Yes.
18:59:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you -- apparently did you -- you
18:59:57 filed a petition on March 1st to do that with the

19:00:00 Planning Commission?
19:00:01 >>> No.
19:00:02 What I filed on March 1st was a text amendment for
19:00:06 the comprehensive plan to request consideration of the
19:00:09 Adamo corridor, both on the north and south sides, to
19:00:12 be considered to be a redevelopment corridor.
19:00:15 >> So how do we accomplish getting the plan to not be
19:00:26 inconsistent, by going to the Planning Commission?
19:00:29 How do we do that?
19:00:31 >>> The comprehensive plan is going to have to be
19:00:33 changed to something that would be like a mixed use
19:00:36 district that would be consistent with the YC-6
19:00:39 zoning.
19:00:39 >> So how do we do that?
19:00:43 >>> I think first we go through the redevelopment
19:00:46 corridor assessment.
19:00:48 And then we look at changing what is appropriate for
19:00:52 the corridor itself.
19:00:54 You know, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
19:00:57 >> That's all right.
19:00:58 >>> There are some properties on the corridor already
19:00:59 that are he, for example, community mixed use.

19:01:02 There's one that was recently approved to 100.
19:01:07 So there's a mix of uses.
19:01:09 There needs to be a study to determine what the level
19:01:11 of intensity is that's appropriate for all these
19:01:14 different uses that are permitted in the zoning.
19:01:18 That's an issue for a different day.
19:01:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
19:01:22 Thank you, Ms. Hammer.
19:01:23 I'm going to ask Mr. Garcia the same question.
19:01:29 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:01:36 I have been sworn in.
19:01:42 Could you repeat your question for me?
19:01:43 You: Don't want me to repeat the question.
19:01:45 >>TONY GARCIA: Yes, I do.
19:01:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to know, how do we get an
19:01:49 amendment to this comprehensive plan when Ms. Hammer
19:01:54 says it's inconsistent?
19:01:56 >>TONY GARCIA: Okay.
19:01:58 I was listening to her presentation.
19:02:00 She's basically referring to the light industrial
19:02:02 category right over here on the north side of Adamo.
19:02:06 YC-6 basically, the YC-6 would allow residential use.

19:02:10 Any industrial category whether it's heavy industrial,
19:02:12 light industrial, prohibits residential use.
19:02:14 So in essence what YC-6 would be doing is offering
19:02:17 more uses, it would only be inconsistent in her view
19:02:25 in that there would be more uses that would be allowed
19:02:28 for zoning district and what the comprehensive plan
19:02:30 would be currently allow.
19:02:33 So in essence if someone wanted to come in and change
19:02:37 their LI to a mixed use category, they would then be
19:02:41 able to go ahead and build residential uses.
19:02:44 >> So would they have to go through a text amendment
19:02:47 to do that?
19:02:48 >>> No, ma'am.
19:02:48 They just have to go through a land use change.
19:02:51 Something like Ms. Hammer referred to.
19:02:53 The RMU 100, I must also point out that over here on
19:02:56 the eastern side, also, you do have two parcels that
19:02:59 are CMU 35, that this council approved for adoption a
19:03:04 couple of years ago, from LI to CMU 35.
19:03:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Garcia, do you support this
19:03:15 proposal?
19:03:15 >>TONY GARCIA: That is being proposed by your staff

19:03:17 this evening?
19:03:18 >> Yes.
19:03:19 >>> Let me give you a little bit of history on that.
19:03:21 Yes, the Planning Commission had two presentations
19:03:25 made to them regarding amendments to chapter 27. The
19:03:27 first was a majority of changes that were made, text
19:03:30 changes that were made regarding establishment of the
19:03:34 two new YC districts that they were talking about.
19:03:37 Those were to find the Ybor City area compliant with
19:03:41 the expanded historic guidelines.
19:03:43 That was the purpose of that.
19:03:44 Then of course subsequently -- that was in 2005.
19:03:47 And Planning Commission found that tint.
19:03:51 The -- consistent. The second one was the request to
19:03:54 change the YC-6 to height limitation to from 45 feet
19:03:58 to 06 feet which would in essence recognize the
19:04:00 existing height of the current IG district which is 60
19:04:04 feet in height.
19:04:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You all supported that?
19:04:08 >>> Planning Commission found that consistent with the
19:04:11 comprehensive plan also.
19:04:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Moreda?

19:04:13 You need to come up.
19:04:14 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Just wanted to clarify consistency
19:04:16 with the comprehensive plan.
19:04:17 I handed out to council our consistency matrix.
19:04:21 You will see on there that the LI district shows that
19:04:26 the YC-5, YC-6 and YC-9 are appropriate zoning
19:04:32 districts within that land use classification.
19:04:38 This consistency matrix was reviewed Britt Planning
19:04:41 Commission as well as City Council in its adoption.
19:04:46 The establishment of a YC district and the LI
19:04:50 district, land use, is consistent with the
19:04:51 comprehensive plan.
19:04:53 There are footnotes in our tables related to
19:04:57 developments within the Ybor City district table 8-1
19:05:01 and table 8-2 that have footnotes related to
19:05:05 appropriateness of uses, and whether or not a use can
19:05:09 be applied for or approved.
19:05:11 There's always that caveat that it has to be
19:05:14 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
19:05:17 Our staff is aware of this.
19:05:20 To my knowledge, there has not been any confusion in
19:05:23 the permitting process.

19:05:25 It is consistent with the comprehensive plan to have
19:05:28 the YC-6 district.
19:05:31 And I don't know if there's anybody else here.
19:05:33 But Mr. Williams did make a statement about -- let me
19:05:42 zoom in close here.
19:05:44 I don't know if you can see.
19:05:45 But right now, the YC-7 district extends to the south
19:05:53 side of fourth Avenue.
19:05:55 The property, either side of third Avenue to Adamo
19:06:01 currently is not in the YC designations.
19:06:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Tell me again?
19:06:09 >>> The properties from 3rd Avenue, either side of
19:06:12 3rd Avenue, there's a packet of the YC-4 that was
19:06:16 requested.
19:06:17 But that area is industrial general currently.
19:06:19 It does not extend from south to Adamo as Mr. Williams
19:06:25 said.
19:06:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So just to clarify what you said
19:06:29 currently somebody in this area who has a house, but
19:06:34 the zoning is industrial, they would not be able to
19:06:38 get a mortgage because they don't have residential
19:06:41 uses allowed in that category. If we go with what's

19:06:44 proposed today they will be able --
19:06:46 >>> They will be considered a conforming use and it
19:06:48 would be much easier for them to get financing, yes.
19:06:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Council members, I have to tell you
19:06:53 15 years ago when we did this giant plan amendment for
19:06:55 this area, and that was the start of this whole thing,
19:06:58 property owners came up who had houses.
19:07:00 Mr. Williams wanted to rezone the whole thing
19:07:03 industrial at the time.
19:07:04 He wanted to expand the industrial zoning.
19:07:05 And those homeowners were being stuck and we start add
19:07:09 whole land use study to reflect and allow the
19:07:13 residential uses.
19:07:14 And that was 15 years ago.
19:07:15 Now, because of popularity of condos, want something
19:07:20 different.
19:07:20 But the point is, currently, the individual property
19:07:24 owners with small houses in this area are stuck.
19:07:26 And if we approve this, they will be allowed to
19:07:29 respect their existing residential uses.
19:07:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
19:07:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't mean to put Mrs. Hammer on the

19:07:37 spot.
19:07:37 But Mrs. Hammer, explain to me again what your
19:07:40 position was, just hypothetically if we did do this,
19:07:44 and the residential components were no longer
19:07:47 classified RG.
19:07:48 Is that going to give them clear sailing for the
19:07:50 insurance they want?
19:07:51 >>> No, because they are still going to be
19:07:53 inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
19:07:55 Those properties that are in the light industrial plan
19:07:58 category.
19:07:59 Now if they were in a mixed use category but zoned
19:08:02 light industrial then that won't be an issue. But if
19:08:04 they are in the light industrial planned category,
19:08:08 it's still a problem.
19:08:09 I do a lot of due diligence work, and it will be a
19:08:13 problem.
19:08:15 >> So Ms. Hammer, does that mean that these people
19:08:20 that are in -- the IG area that -- that will become
19:08:26 the YC-6, they would have to go for a text amendment
19:08:30 to change that, to change their -- go to the planning
19:08:37 commission to change in a?

19:08:37 >>> Correct.
19:08:37 In order to make them whole, they need to be
19:08:41 consistent with the comprehensive plan, and have a
19:08:43 YC-6 zoning.
19:08:46 >> Ms. Moreda says it would become whole if we went
19:08:50 with YC-6.
19:08:52 >>> Only if they are in a planned category that is not
19:08:55 light industrial.
19:08:55 I would agree with that.
19:08:56 If they are not in light industrial.
19:08:58 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I just want to clarify one more time.
19:09:05 There is much of the property.
19:09:09 You look at the land use map.
19:09:13 It's this area from 20th to 15th.
19:09:20 The block north of Adamo.
19:09:22 That's in light industrial.
19:09:24 Land use.
19:09:25 Okay?
19:09:26 That area would not allow for residential development.
19:09:30 Even with the YC district.
19:09:32 It would not allow for it.
19:09:34 I don't know that there are any residents in that

19:09:36 strip.
19:09:38 The area that has more residential development is this
19:09:43 area in pink.
19:09:47 That area is in a general mixed use land
19:09:50 classification.
19:09:50 And that land use does allow for residential
19:09:53 development.
19:09:56 It doesn't if you were IG zoning.
19:09:58 This rezoning to a YC-6 would allow for those
19:10:02 residential uses to continue and be considered a
19:10:06 conforming use on the property.
19:10:08 But that one block north of Adamo, there is not much
19:10:12 residential on that strip if any that I'm aware of.
19:10:16 >> I can't think of one either.
19:10:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
19:10:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
19:10:22 I had a quick question for -- for Fran cos stand tin
19:10:28 O. could you address that question for residential
19:10:30 use?
19:10:33 >>> Yes.
19:10:33 I wanted to correct Mrs. Hammer.
19:10:35 She obviously has a lot more experience than I but we

19:10:37 know reality.
19:10:38 And we have investors that have bought house that is
19:10:41 have restored them that have won preservation banners,
19:10:44 have used their own money and then they went back to
19:10:47 pull the money out so they can reinvest.
19:10:49 They could not get a bank loan.
19:10:51 And I don't know, maybe the administration doesn't
19:10:53 want me to say it but they do have costs to cover so
19:10:56 these people are asked to take a check down for $100
19:10:59 to get a letter that clarifies this, and this has
19:11:03 happened on three occasions, that they need to go get
19:11:05 a letter, and regardless of what the comprehensive
19:11:07 plan says, if they get a letter saying that the
19:11:10 zoning will be changed to whatever, then they can get
19:11:12 a bank loan.
19:11:13 So that's just reality.
19:11:14 That's fact.
19:11:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Costantino, do you agree that
19:11:22 waiting for the study, say till September, would
19:11:25 hinder anything?
19:11:26 I mean we are looking at both sides of the corridor
19:11:28 here.

19:11:29 It's just not all about the YC-6 district.
19:11:31 It's about the corridor.
19:11:33 Do you agree that maybe waiting till September till we
19:11:36 get some --
19:11:37 >>> I think it's hurt ago lot of people, Mrs. Alvarez.
19:11:40 >> How many people are we talking about?
19:11:43 >>> All the residential people.
19:11:45 >> In the industrial area there?
19:11:48 >>> It goes all the way to 9th Avenue.
19:11:50 On the map.
19:11:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's the pink people.
19:11:58 >>> I just don't understand what the wait is going to
19:11:59 accomplish.
19:12:00 It's not going to give them anything more or less and
19:12:02 not taking anything away.
19:12:04 We are giving them something more.
19:12:05 So we want to participate.
19:12:08 I want my input heard.
19:12:09 You know that.
19:12:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So why not wait until we get the study
19:12:14 going?
19:12:16 >>> Why do you want to wait?

19:12:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The gray people want the --
19:12:20 >>> They are always going to come back and we are
19:12:22 going to help them.
19:12:23 We are going to give them our input.
19:12:25 We want what's best for Ybor and you know that.
19:12:29 Don't have a dog in this fight.
19:12:30 I don't own anything.
19:12:31 I am here because of Ybor City and that's what I have
19:12:33 worked for from '99 is to bring the property values up
19:12:36 there.
19:12:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: we aren't talking about the Ybor
19:12:41 corridor.
19:12:41 I don't see we are talking about third Avenue or
19:12:44 anything like that.
19:12:46 >>> It affects 200 property owners and there's only
19:12:48 200 on the petition.
19:12:49 So you do the math.
19:12:51 200 versus 22.
19:12:55 I just don't understand, anybody that has IG is going
19:12:59 to want to do, they are going to have to come back for
19:13:02 you and I'm going to be here supporting them or here
19:13:05 against them to but nothing is going to change.

19:13:08 You are giving them more benefits today to agree to go
19:13:11 ahead and do it rather than continue.
19:13:14 I don't see any point in it.
19:13:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So you don't agree with the study?
19:13:20 >>> Yes, I very much agree with the study.
19:13:22 I just want to go through today.
19:13:25 Then yes, we have participated in the vision
19:13:27 statement.
19:13:27 Why wouldn't the most important -- the people come,
19:13:31 Fran, we want either a target, Wal-Mart or K-Mart, we
19:13:35 need a store, they need a grocery store, they don't
19:13:39 want to go to Nebraska or 50th street.
19:13:42 They need drycleaners.
19:13:44 They need drug stores.
19:13:44 They need groceries.
19:13:46 We want to be part of all that.
19:13:48 Palmetto Beach is here.
19:13:49 They want to be part of it because north and south of
19:13:52 Adamo is going to affect all of us there. But by
19:13:55 passing it today you are hurting no one.
19:13:57 >> And then continue the study?
19:14:00 >>> Yes, of course.

19:14:01 It is ludicrous for all, knowing how I come here week
19:14:04 after week after week, to think I wouldn't want to be
19:14:07 very active.
19:14:07 >> I want to be sure we are doing the correct thing.
19:14:10 >>> Mary Alvarez, now that I would not be here asking
19:14:12 if I did not think it was the right thing to do.
19:14:15 >> I know that, Fran.
19:14:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: With V we heard from everybody?
19:14:18 >>GWEN MILLER: One more.
19:14:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
19:14:21 >>> Make this very brief.
19:14:22 Harry hedges.
19:14:23 I have been sworn in.
19:14:25 One of the issues, and the issues as far as doing
19:14:31 mortgage loans in that area, that's not what I'm here
19:14:33 to discuss.
19:14:35 5744 Ramore.
19:14:40 And I have been property in east Ybor and I have
19:14:43 property at 22nd street corridor as well.
19:14:47 A couple of things, I just participated recently in a
19:14:50 workshop with another city in our community where we
19:14:53 were talking with planners who had looking for total

19:14:58 development area, similar to what we're talking about
19:15:00 here.
19:15:02 We sat through the third workshop.
19:15:05 We realized that with one broad brush you're not going
19:15:09 to address all of the issues.
19:15:11 You need to have an economic study.
19:15:13 You need to know what the impact of each parcel is, as
19:15:17 far as residential.
19:15:18 And I'm concerned a lot of the residential that we're
19:15:21 talking about right now may be owned by investors,
19:15:24 where they are rented to people in Ybor City.
19:15:27 You are going to find that difficult to finance on
19:15:30 either program.
19:15:32 I'm just merely saying, I have been in this community
19:15:35 a long time.
19:15:38 Taking a brush to say, okay, we are going to zone you
19:15:41 today without a plan, I don't think 20 years from now
19:15:46 year going to look back and say, wow, we zoned it,
19:15:49 then we planned it.
19:15:52 I just think -- I hate to see anybody wait until
19:15:55 September.
19:15:56 I think you're looking for a lot longer term resolve

19:15:59 than just a one broad stroke.
19:16:03 I think the plan has to go in to see how each
19:16:06 component benefits that area, and benefits our city.
19:16:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
19:16:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
19:16:15 I recall, when we looked at this mortgage issue, and N
19:16:20 Mr. White's district, that even though it took us a
19:16:22 long time, at the end of the day, we actually went for
19:16:26 an opt-out approach.
19:16:29 Because a handful of the residents up there, for
19:16:34 whatever reason, said they wanted to be included in
19:16:37 the area-wide rezoning that we were proposing.
19:16:40 And we found we were doing the right thing.
19:16:43 Thom Snelling put a huge amount of time into working
19:16:45 with that neighborhood, and trying to figure all this
19:16:48 out.
19:16:49 At the end of the day it was a handful of people who
19:16:51 said they didn't want to be part of it.
19:16:52 They showed up at our meeting.
19:16:54 And we all opt out of that area for rezoning.
19:16:58 I think that's what we are looking at tonight.
19:16:59 Obviously for much different reasons.

19:17:01 But we still have apparently a handful of 20-something
19:17:06 property owners, in that area, who don't think that
19:17:11 right now is the time to do this rezoning until we
19:17:14 finish this plan.
19:17:17 And, therefore, I support that.
19:17:21 It has nothing to do with historic preservation.
19:17:26 This is a different opt out.
19:17:27 And in this particular situation, in light of the fact
19:17:29 that we will be -- somebody is going to be studying
19:17:32 this district over the next year, I may go ahead and
19:17:34 move that --
19:17:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Just a minute.
19:17:37 Is there anyone else in the public that would like to
19:17:39 be speak?
19:17:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought we did that.
19:17:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
19:17:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think mine is related more to a
19:17:49 continuance.
19:17:51 But I think -- I would like to direct staff to do a
19:17:55 notice to all the property owners giving them --
19:17:58 letting them know the process is going on, this is the
19:18:01 final thing, your property is about to be rezoned but

19:18:04 you have the ability to opt out and leave it, and we
19:18:06 will be revisiting this within the next two years, or
19:18:10 something like that.
19:18:11 And I think in light of all of this, it's the most
19:18:14 fair way to do it.
19:18:15 If the single-family residential folks want to move
19:18:18 forward and get the YC-6 they can.
19:18:21 They will opt out.
19:18:22 They don't have to do anything.
19:18:24 They just stay quiet.
19:18:25 Therefore, they are opting in, by staying quiet.
19:18:28 If the industrial property owners Mr. Williams and his
19:18:31 group, want to opt out, they'll be the first ones
19:18:34 knocking on staff's door with their letter saying we
19:18:37 want to opt out.
19:18:38 And then at least we can move forward and get off the
19:18:41 dime on this, and make some progress.
19:18:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I appreciate your trying to --
19:18:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's my motion.
19:18:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel it's a nice gesture but I am
19:18:55 not going to support it.
19:18:56 I think obviously from tonight's discussion, many

19:18:58 people are confused about the difference between
19:19:01 what's before us tonight, the future plan, many people
19:19:04 are confused about whether we are talking about the
19:19:05 north side of Adamo, or both sides.
19:19:08 And the majority of the property owners and residents
19:19:12 in this area recognize that the YC-6 before us is a
19:19:17 good one.
19:19:17 That doesn't mean we are not going to go ahead with
19:19:19 the plan.
19:19:20 Of course we are going to do a plan.
19:19:21 Of course we are going to make changes in the future.
19:19:23 This conversation started in 2002.
19:19:25 So I'd like to make a motion -- and it goes up or
19:19:28 down -- that we move ahead with what is before us.
19:19:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to close the public hearing.
19:19:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I move we close the public
19:19:36 hearing.
19:19:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So nobody seconds my motion.
19:19:39 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I just think, council, it's not a
19:19:43 good position to be in, to evaluate rezonings of this
19:19:48 magnitude and say, okay, who wants in, who wants out?
19:19:52 It is not a good precedent.

19:19:55 You should be basing your decision on the competent
19:19:58 substantial evidence that you've heard before you, and
19:20:01 if you feel that Ms. Hammer and Mr. Williams are
19:20:07 correct, this is too early, then you should be
19:20:11 directing me to withdraw this petition.
19:20:13 But don't say, okay, who wants in, who wants out?
19:20:15 It makes sense to move forward.
19:20:17 We are not taking anyone's development rights.
19:20:20 We are giving them development rights.
19:20:22 And it's going to -- we are going to revisit this when
19:20:26 they come back and complete the study.
19:20:28 And I have to say that study is not going to be over
19:20:31 in September.
19:20:33 It's an adoption process that takes about a year.
19:20:36 And after that, a plan amendment.
19:20:39 You're looking at approximately two years before
19:20:42 something will be coming back to you on this, this
19:20:45 subject.
19:20:46 So, council, I just feel like I have to say that.
19:20:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:20:51 Ms. Ferlita.
19:20:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: This is obviously been a very

19:20:53 emotional, very heated discussion about who thinks
19:20:56 what's right and what preserves historic Ybor City and
19:21:00 what doesn't.
19:21:01 I was going to respond to your comments, Mrs.
19:21:04 Saul-Sena, but then you walked out.
19:21:06 The fact that you have a passion for the side you're
19:21:09 on masks the fact that some of us perhaps want that
19:21:13 same protection for both sides, but maybe look at it a
19:21:16 little bit differently. The accusation awhile ago
19:21:19 that we were not aware of the fact that it was
19:21:21 important is certainly not accurate.
19:21:25 That being said, some of the council members here want
19:21:28 to look at this and resolve it by zoning and planning.
19:21:32 Some of us want to look at it by planning and then
19:21:34 zoning.
19:21:36 One of the big issues last time was we wanted a study.
19:21:39 This city couldn't afford that study.
19:21:41 Mr. Williams on his side said USF is coming up and
19:21:45 they are willing to do this.
19:21:47 Mrs. Saul-Sena's comment was it was going to be the
19:21:49 students.
19:21:49 Mr. Dingfelder very accurately said, well, you get the

19:21:53 same thing at Tampa general.
19:21:55 I was in their white coat program and I did see some
19:21:57 of those residents do surgery.
19:21:59 It was amazingly successful.
19:22:01 So that answers that analogy.
19:22:04 I think that the opting out process would be okay if
19:22:08 we were satisfied with a Band-Aid type fix.
19:22:12 It's not going to get us to where we are, regardless
19:22:15 of what side wins on how we get there.
19:22:18 The fact that Ms. Hammer tells us that perhaps doing
19:22:21 this, changing that status is still not going to get
19:22:24 those residents the protection they want.
19:22:26 I'm not comfortable about maybe it will and maybe it
19:22:29 won't.
19:22:30 I think that we need a plan.
19:22:31 I think Mr. Williams has said let's wait till
19:22:34 September.
19:22:35 Ms. Costantino said we waited for this a long time.
19:22:38 And this brought us to here which means we don't have
19:22:41 to wait as much time as before.
19:22:43 Ms. Moreda, you're right.
19:22:44 We can't just continue to float this and fix it by opt

19:22:48 in, opt out, you want it, you don't.
19:22:50 I think it's crazy.
19:22:51 So I think we have to just move on.
19:22:55 And I think I'm more comfortable getting that study
19:22:57 before I make a decision, for this council member,
19:23:02 planning and then zoning makes more sense than zoning
19:23:04 and then planning.
19:23:05 And Mr. Dingfelder, please correct me if I am wrong.
19:23:08 That's what you were saying?
19:23:10 Is that what your motion -- what was your motion?
19:23:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion was the opt out, allowing
19:23:16 the single-family residential folks to fix their
19:23:19 mortgage issue that Fran Costantino was talking about
19:23:24 because if we deny the rezoning today to allow the
19:23:26 planning process to go forward, as has been advocated
19:23:30 by Mr. Williams, then my concern is for the little
19:23:34 single family folks who Ms. Costentino tells us, they
19:23:40 want the YC-6.
19:23:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.
19:23:41 I thought your motion was reflective of my opinion,
19:23:45 but it's not, so I can't support it.
19:23:47 I'm still concerned because I think Ms. Hammer is a

19:23:49 very well respected planner and she says that's not
19:23:51 going to fix it so I am not going to support your
19:23:53 motion and I am not going to support her motion.
19:23:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Want to make a motion?
19:23:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: I was trying to.
19:24:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
19:24:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: I was listening to Mr. Dingfelder's
19:24:04 motion.
19:24:05 One of the distinct differences in the other opt-out
19:24:08 provision for the neighborhood in East Tampa was that
19:24:12 it was a total commercial area.
19:24:16 It had been designated a commercial site for 75 years,
19:24:21 and they happened to just build residential homes
19:24:23 there, and one happened to burn down, and they found
19:24:27 out that they could no longer insure property as long
19:24:30 as it was designated commercial.
19:24:34 That we were not trying to create a YC-6 or any other
19:24:38 type of development, it's just whether the people
19:24:41 wanted their property to stay commercial, or whether
19:24:43 they wanted to take it to residential.
19:24:47 And there was a lot of speculation, going on in that
19:24:50 area because most of the area over there is vacant

19:24:53 property and has not been redeveloped at this point in
19:24:56 time.
19:24:56 It's all just been brought up by land speculators, and
19:25:00 then the development process starts moving that way.
19:25:04 That's what they are hoping to capture on.
19:25:07 The list that we got here, the Adamo corridor property
19:25:12 owners, which basically depicted most of the
19:25:16 commercial area, one of the things that we were
19:25:19 talking about, and Mrs. Saul-Sena brought up about the
19:25:21 22 -- and Ms. Costentino brought up about the 22
19:25:26 homeowners in the area -- I'd like to know personally
19:25:31 if the people that live there are actually
19:25:35 stakeholders that own the property, or if they are
19:25:37 renters in the property, and commercial developers who
19:25:42 are speculators that bought these to rent them out for
19:25:46 the meantime.
19:25:48 With that, if we end up noticing the actual owners of
19:25:52 the property, and have an opportunity to get buy-in
19:25:58 from them, I think that might make up a little bit of
19:26:01 a difference one way or the other.
19:26:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I just want to better
19:26:07 understand.

19:26:08 You're asking if those property owners that are
19:26:10 concerned about the IG classification or YC-6 are
19:26:13 owner occupied or investors?
19:26:19 >> That's a good question.
19:26:20 That's what I would like to know too.
19:26:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The --
19:26:24 >>KEVIN WHITE: I'm looking -- Ms. Costentino was
19:26:32 talking about 22 residents.
19:26:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 22 of 200 residents.
19:26:37 >>KEVIN WHITE: Oh, I'm sorry.
19:26:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are they residents or renters? That
19:26:42 was a good question, Mr. White.
19:26:43 I think we deserve an answer on that.
19:26:45 Because if they are investors that are coming in and
19:26:50 buying up these properties and they are renting, you
19:26:54 know, that makes a difference to me, too.
19:26:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Can Ms. Costentino come and address
19:27:01 that? I don't know where you are.
19:27:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you know the answer?
19:27:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The question was whether these 200
19:27:07 property -- the pink area that we're talking about,
19:27:10 are they renters or are they investor-owned?

19:27:15 >>> Fran: Some of them are investors coming into Ybor
19:27:17 City but you have to realize that these people are
19:27:19 putting 80 to $100,000 into these. In fact, one of
19:27:22 them is being leased to Mr. Miller as his campaign
19:27:27 office.
19:27:28 >>CHAIRMAN: He has two of them.
19:27:32 >>> There you go. They both got preservation awards.
19:27:35 So investors are buying them.
19:27:36 They are putting over 100,000 in them, getting
19:27:39 preservation awards, and then want to get their money
19:27:41 out so they can fix others but they can't get a bank
19:27:44 loan. The one who couldn't come tonight who I really
19:27:46 wanted to come is one that is on our board, and her
19:27:48 mother is on oxygen in a wheelchair and too much to
19:27:52 bring her out. This lady has been trying to get a
19:27:54 loan to fix their house at 25th street and cannot
19:27:57 get a bank loan.
19:27:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I understand that.
19:28:00 But what I'm asking, do you know whether a lot of
19:28:04 these are properties that is residential, that they
19:28:08 own these homes, or are they investor --
19:28:10 >>> In this area I think there are a lot of owner

19:28:12 occupied.
19:28:13 Up in my area more and north of 7th, you have
19:28:17 residential people there, but we do have a lot of
19:28:20 absentee owners there like do you in Sulfur Springs.
19:28:23 But in that area there's a lot of of owner occupied
19:28:27 houses there.
19:28:28 >> It seems there's two issues.
19:28:29 One issue is the pink area.
19:28:31 And the IG area.
19:28:32 The IG corridor.
19:28:34 To me, that would be a separate I shall you.
19:28:39 >>> It is apples and oranges.
19:28:39 But unfortunately, when the national historic came in
19:28:41 to designate and the national parks did the survey,
19:28:45 they never expected this to turn into residential.
19:28:48 In fact, I'm even more upset with the city because
19:28:51 when I went to extend the historic district, Annie
19:28:55 Hart with Historic Preservation Department at the time
19:28:57 gave me three reasons why I couldn't go to
19:29:00 Channelside.
19:29:00 One, it was commercial industrial.
19:29:02 And there were no landmark historical industrials in

19:29:05 the world, she said.
19:29:06 What we found some African-American, Sweet auburn out
19:29:10 of Atlanta, that are national landmark historic
19:29:14 districts that are commercial industrial.
19:29:17 That answers that one.
19:29:18 The second one she said, it wasn't recognized by the
19:29:20 national.
19:29:21 Well, no.
19:29:22 When the national was done, what was Ybor City back
19:29:24 then?
19:29:25 East of 22nd was a disaster before I got there in
19:29:28 '99 so I'm sure nothing would have happened east of
19:29:31 the Columbia restaurant before 1999.
19:29:34 And her third reason was it hasn't been surveyed yet.
19:29:37 So people came to me and said, okay, Fran, I think you
19:29:40 ought to drop it, in two years they'll survey the rest
19:29:43 of it.
19:29:43 I said, no, I'm going to grab what I can now and
19:29:46 here's where we are at.
19:29:47 But I do agree the study should be south of Adamo
19:29:49 because that's going to impact Palmetto Beach.
19:29:51 So when the Adamo corridor gets studied it should be

19:29:54 north and south of Adamo but for right now I just
19:29:58 don't see any point in postponing anything again.
19:29:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: If we do rezoning before we do
19:30:09 planning -- (off microphone)
19:30:11 >>> If you do rezoning you're giving them more
19:30:12 property --
19:30:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I understand that, Fran.
19:30:15 I understand that.
19:30:17 >>> What's the drawback?
19:30:18 If you all can tell me one negative, I would
19:30:20 understand.
19:30:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a problem with the IG corridor
19:30:23 being in the same plan as the pink area which is the
19:30:27 residential.
19:30:27 I really have a problem with that.
19:30:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's just do the pink.
19:30:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That might be a good idea because I'm
19:30:37 having a problem with this.
19:30:38 I really am.
19:30:39 I want to do what's right.
19:30:40 I've only got one more year to do this and I want to
19:30:43 do it right before I leave.

19:30:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder is next.
19:30:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: If we can do that, if we can separate
19:30:49 the residential, the pink from the gray, I would
19:30:53 support something.
19:30:55 >>> So I would.
19:30:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I was going to
19:30:58 mention before -- thanks, Fran.
19:31:02 As Fran Costentino mentioned, the battle over the
19:31:07 Frans.
19:31:07 The only thing these two Frans agreed on, on behalf of
19:31:11 their constituencies tonight, was the fact that they
19:31:13 were both okay with the opt-out approach.
19:31:17 And I just wanted to remind council of that.
19:31:19 It's absolutely true.
19:31:21 Yes, she did.
19:31:22 Ms. Cos sten tin oh, I asked her point blank, are you
19:31:26 okay with the opt out approach?
19:31:27 And let the industrial guys continue on with what they
19:31:30 had?
19:31:30 She said yes.
19:31:31 She's nodding her head back there again.
19:31:33 I asked Mr. Williams the same thing.

19:31:35 He said it's not the greatest thing but he can live
19:31:37 with it, too.
19:31:38 But both agreed that that's something we could live
19:31:40 with and at least get us to have dime and allow to us
19:31:44 move forward and get on with the rest of this evening.
19:31:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm not convinced that his body
19:31:50 language is telling us yes.
19:31:51 Are you okay with this?
19:31:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Make it short.
19:31:59 Make it short.
19:32:00 Yes or no?
19:32:02 >>> Williams: No, I'm not okay with that.
19:32:04 I'm not.
19:32:06 The issues are bigger than my provincial issues.
19:32:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: So we get to pick zoning prior to
19:32:12 planning, planning prior to zoning.
19:32:17 >>> It isn't the money.
19:32:17 >> That's the bigger issue.
19:32:19 >>> Yes, that's the wig bigger issue.
19:32:21 By the way, as part of that, the variety majority of
19:32:24 people in Ybor are supporting the position.
19:32:26 There's a big misunderstanding here.

19:32:28 80%, 80% of the land in Ybor is represented by the
19:32:34 historic Ybor neighborhood association.
19:32:37 They sent you all a letter saying they support us.
19:32:39 This business that the majority of the people don't
19:32:42 support us is inaccurate.
19:32:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry, it was a very inopportune
19:32:52 time but I had to walk out. What was the answer?
19:32:54 We are talking about the commercial owners on the
19:32:56 Adamo corridor.
19:32:57 What was the answer to the pink houses?
19:32:59 Are they all owner occupied?
19:33:02 Nobody was able to answer that or what?
19:33:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't think there is a clean
19:33:07 answer.
19:33:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We didn't survey them to discover.
19:33:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That bothers me.
19:33:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, that's right because we are
19:33:16 talking about these owners and these house that is
19:33:17 can't get their insurance versus these commercial guys
19:33:20 on Adamo drive.
19:33:21 They are trying to get this for the benefit of
19:33:23 commercial benefit

19:33:26 I am not sure that from the evidence we have got
19:33:27 there, it substantiates the fact that the pink houses
19:33:31 are not other type of investors that are there as well
19:33:37 so he would don't know that.
19:33:38 It doesn't matter that. Was just additional
19:33:40 information.
19:33:41 We are still back to the same issue.
19:33:42 Each council member has to decide if they want to go
19:33:44 with zoning and planning, or planning and zoning, and
19:33:47 wait for the study.
19:33:49 I would be more than happy to make a --
19:33:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have to close.
19:33:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to ask Mrs. Saul-Sena if she
19:33:57 has an answer how we can separate the two.
19:33:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to ask staff that question.
19:34:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Let's ask staff.
19:34:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question would be if we are all
19:34:05 looking at the map, general mixed use 24, and the
19:34:08 gray, which -- this is not addressing what is existing
19:34:12 there.
19:34:12 This is underlying future land use.
19:34:17 Could we say that the YC-6 that we are discussing

19:34:20 applies to the GMU 24, but not apply it to the areas
19:34:28 that are light industrial gray?
19:34:31 Could we do that?
19:34:32 An effort to get this off the dime?
19:34:36 >>GLORIA MOREDA: If you are wanting me to exclude any
19:34:37 rezoning of any properties that are zoned industrial,
19:34:41 okay?
19:34:41 And I would include the IH in that.
19:34:44 Those are the properties that border Adamo from
19:34:48 22nd to 15th.
19:34:51 That block stretch.
19:34:53 Then we could rewrite the ordinance to delete those
19:34:56 properties.
19:34:58 All other properties would go forward under the YC-6
19:35:01 and that YC-2.
19:35:03 And I know there was an objection to the petition.
19:35:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you want to make a motion?
19:35:12 I move to close.
19:35:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Close the public hearing and direct
19:35:18 legal --
19:35:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
19:35:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.

19:35:22 No, no, no.
19:35:23 I have a question before we do that.
19:35:24 Mr. Williams, you shouldn't sit down.
19:35:28 Doesn't your property go beyond 2nd Avenue?
19:35:33 >>> Williams: We go to 3rd.
19:35:35 >> You go to 3rd.
19:35:36 You have some of the pink, right?
19:35:38 >>> Yes.
19:35:39 I don't know fits pink or not.
19:35:41 But.
19:35:41 >>: Looks like it's pink on here.
19:35:45 >>> Yes.
19:35:46 >> In other words, now they are going to split knew
19:35:47 half.
19:35:48 >>> And I see that.
19:35:49 >> And make your southern property that fronts on
19:35:52 Adamo, leave it industrial, and then the next block of
19:35:57 your property to north they are going to go YC-6.
19:36:02 >>> And I have to live with it that I have so much
19:36:05 property.
19:36:05 I don't know.
19:36:06 I mean, don't --

19:36:09 >>: that's why I asked you up there.
19:36:11 >>> I would say, I think almost universally the
19:36:14 members of the associates, whatever negative happens
19:36:18 to us by virtue of the fact we don't -- we get the
19:36:21 planning done, they are ready to bite the bullet.
19:36:23 All these people, now, in the corridor, are saying,
19:36:27 and I don't know what the outcome of this will be.
19:36:29 But they are ready to go with the chance that it's
19:36:32 better for all of us and for them if we get the
19:36:35 planning done before it's zoned.
19:36:37 So I see what you're saying about the property.
19:36:40 But, yeah.
19:36:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need to clarify. The corridor
19:36:44 plan that Ethel hammer is talking about, that Mr.
19:36:47 Williams is talking about --
19:36:48 >>> Do I sit down?
19:36:49 I do stay?
19:36:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
19:36:51 Thank you.
19:36:52 Is just the one block fronting on Adamo drive, north
19:36:56 or south.
19:36:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How do you know that?

19:36:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, how do you know that?
19:37:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a good -- I assumed because
19:37:08 asking to do this as a redevelopment corridor.
19:37:10 How deep is it?
19:37:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It says third Avenue on the north.
19:37:16 That's two blocks.
19:37:18 USF letter says third Avenue on the north as the
19:37:21 northern boundary.
19:37:24 It says it right here.
19:37:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How does that study take in the Adamo
19:37:32 corridor on the south, which takes in Palmetto Beach,
19:37:36 if it's only two blocks?
19:37:39 >>> It didn't say just two blocks.
19:37:40 It said to the north it was two blocks.
19:37:48 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:37:50 I have been sworn in.
19:37:50 Two trains of thought here. The request has been made
19:37:52 by Mr. Williams to the USF school of architecture.
19:37:57 It's a separate study they are going to be doing
19:37:59 independently.
19:38:00 What's been submitted to the Planning Commission for
19:38:02 request for redevelopment corridor will extend from

19:38:07 2nd to 34th street, from west to east.
19:38:11 As far as the boundaries to the north and to the
19:38:13 south, all the properties that abut Adamo drive on the
19:38:16 north and south will also be taken into consideration
19:38:18 as far as the study area for the Adamo redevelopment
19:38:21 corridor that has been submitted.
19:38:23 >> What is that?
19:38:25 >>> The depth, it's pretty deep because the parcels
19:38:27 are large as you have articulated, Ms. Alvarez.
19:38:31 On the north side, they T study area was determined by
19:38:35 the applicant.
19:38:37 Since I'm not really the -- the Planning Commission
19:38:44 isn't going to be doing the study I can't recall if it
19:38:44 goes deeper to the north than 3rd.
19:38:44 I can't honestly give that you answer right now
19:38:46 because I don't have that data because it's actually
19:38:48 something that we recently received and I am not going
19:38:50 E even going to be the planner.
19:38:53 Actually Ms. Hammer will give you a better idea as to
19:38:56 how far north their study area goes.
19:38:58 I don't really know.
19:39:01 If you can shed some light on that.

19:39:03 Just for purposes of clarity.
19:39:05 To 3rd.
19:39:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: To 3rd.
19:39:10 Going from Channelside all the way -- to --
19:39:16 >> The corridor study area.
19:39:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
19:39:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved Inc.
19:39:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
19:39:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
19:39:28 (Motion carried).
19:39:30 I am going to give this a whirl.
19:39:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yipe sorry to interrupt.
19:39:34 I want council to be clear.
19:39:35 There are two issues before council.
19:39:37 Number one and number two should be considered
19:39:39 separately.
19:39:41 It requires two readings, two different ordinances.
19:39:46 So you might be -- if you choose to, you can separate
19:39:51 them if you want to but they both have to be voted on
19:39:54 and considered separately.
19:39:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am going make my motion and have
19:39:58 staff respond.

19:39:58 My motion would be to request legal and planning to
19:40:02 come back to council with a consideration of a change
19:40:07 to YC-6 of the areas, not including the areas that
19:40:12 have future land use of heavy industrial and --
19:40:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a point of order.
19:40:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: it would be GMU 24.
19:40:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
19:40:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was my motion.
19:40:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?
19:40:28 >> Second.
19:40:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
19:40:30 It's just a point of order.
19:40:32 I think we need to do the ordinance number 1 first.
19:40:39 Ms. O'Dowd, if you feel strongly feel free to chime N.
19:40:43 but I think we need to do it first because this
19:40:45 ordinance changes the height, changes the YC-6 to
19:40:48 include 60 feet of the height.
19:40:55 >>> You're correct.
19:40:55 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
19:40:57 I agree and that's why it was placed as item number 1.
19:40:59 That would have to be approved prior to the rezoning.
19:41:02 If council is supportive of moving forward with the

19:41:05 rezoning and amending the legal description, I would
19:41:07 ask that you place the ordinance amending the text of
19:41:12 the code on first reading this evening.
19:41:15 There is no change to that.
19:41:17 It's not necessary for both of these ordinances to be
19:41:20 read on the same night.
19:41:21 It's just necessary that the ordinance amending the
19:41:23 code be approved prior to the ordinance for the
19:41:26 rezoning.
19:41:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Item number 1.
19:41:34 Move an ordinance amending chapter 27 zoning, City of
19:41:37 Tampa code of ordinances, amending article VIII,
19:41:41 section 27-177, historic district established, table
19:41:44 8-2 schedule of dimensional regulations, providing for
19:41:49 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
19:41:51 severability, providing an effective date.
19:41:52 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
19:41:55 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:41:56 Opposed, Nay.
19:41:57 Now number 2.
19:41:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to request that we ask
19:42:02 legal and planning to exclude the areas with the

19:42:08 future land use of heavy or light industrial from the
19:42:12 proposal that's listed in number 2.
19:42:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a second?
19:42:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Which is GMU-24.
19:42:17 Right?
19:42:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, GMU is good.
19:42:21 Pink is good.
19:42:23 We are excluding --
19:42:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The heavy industrial.
19:42:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Light industrial.
19:42:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the motion would be to go to
19:42:34 rezoning as proposed by staff excluding any industrial
19:42:37 areas.
19:42:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perfect.
19:42:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
19:42:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
19:42:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To be clear so that council
19:42:45 understands, right now, the public hearing is closed.
19:42:50 >> Correct.
19:42:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You are asking for substantive
19:42:53 changes to come back before council for a first
19:42:56 reading.

19:42:57 And then I guess be scheduled for a public hearing.
19:42:59 So I just want to be clear that whatever comes back to
19:43:05 council with specific changes would be set to a date
19:43:07 certain or come back for first readding?
19:43:10 >> Just come back for first reading.
19:43:11 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I am going to do this quickly.
19:43:13 I would like council to go ahead and place it on first
19:43:15 reading next week so that I can -- I'm hoping that we
19:43:19 can -- I'll get it done.
19:43:24 Next week for first reading, daytime.
19:43:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We don't have a night meeting next
19:43:31 week, do we?
19:43:32 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
19:43:33 10:00?
19:43:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 10:00.
19:43:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Next week at 10:00 on first reading.
19:43:38 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
19:43:39 Opposed, Nay.
19:43:42 Thank you, council members.
19:43:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Also, I guess the study will continue
19:43:49 on.
19:43:51 Right, Ms. Hammer?

19:43:52 It will continue with the study?
19:43:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
19:43:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, may I remind -- thank you so
19:43:58 much.
19:44:00 >>> Hammer: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
19:44:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We are continuing with the study?
19:44:04 >>> Absolutely.
19:44:05 Thank you very much.
19:44:05 >>GWEN MILLER: we need to open number 3.
19:44:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What appears on the agenda next week,
19:44:10 the public hearing will be closed, but the public will
19:44:13 get to speak -- my recommendation will be to wait till
19:44:17 the second hearing.
19:44:17 Otherwise council would have to reopen it and take
19:44:20 testimony.
19:44:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's open number 3, please.
19:44:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to open number 3.
19:44:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
19:44:28 (Motion carried).
19:44:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would everybody please leave
19:44:35 quietly?
19:44:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Actually it's approximate T people

19:44:38 in the hallway there.
19:44:40 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation.
19:44:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Ladies and gentlemen, we still have
19:44:51 business to take care of.
19:44:52 Please be quiet as you are going out.
19:44:55 >>> Manager of historic preservation.
19:44:56 I have been sworn in.
19:44:57 I'm here on item number 3 which is the landmark
19:45:00 designation for the historic structures of MacFarlane
19:45:07 park.
19:45:07 I have a short PowerPoint.
19:45:09 Located in MacFarlane park, dealing with the two
19:45:14 structures, the historic pavilion, built in 1924, and
19:45:19 the historic gateway built in 1930.
19:45:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me one second.
19:45:24 Dennis, I think -- I think you gave the presentation
19:45:28 and we just carved some of the park out, and we are
19:45:33 left with these two structures?
19:45:34 >>> You are left with the two structures.
19:45:36 >> I think if the presentation is what you gave us in
19:45:38 writing that's probably adequate, if you don't mind.
19:45:41 >>> That's not a problem.

19:45:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay?
19:45:44 Let's see if anybody on council has any questions.
19:45:47 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
19:45:49 on item number 3?
19:45:53 >> Move to close.
19:45:53 >> Second.
19:45:54 (Motion carried).
19:45:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance of the city of
19:46:03 Tampa, Florida designating the property known as the
19:46:05 historic structures of MacFarlane park located at 1801
19:46:10 north Lincoln Avenue Tampa, Florida as a local
19:46:12 landmark repealing, providing for severability,
19:46:15 providing an effective date.
19:46:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:46:17 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
19:46:19 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
19:46:23 We will have a five-minute break and be in recess for
19:46:25 five minutes.
19:46:26 (city Council in recess)
20:08:16 [Sounding gavel]
20:08:17 69 Tampa City Council is called back to order.
20:08:19 Roll call.

20:08:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
20:08:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
20:08:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
20:08:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
20:08:30 Marty Boyle.
20:08:31 >>MARTY BOYLE: I have been sworn.
20:08:36 So we can clear the agenda.
20:08:38 Item number 6, V 06-11, they have asked for a
20:08:43 continuance in writing.
20:08:45 They would like to continue actually to the first
20:08:47 meeting in September.
20:08:48 I believe that's September 14th.
20:08:53 6 p.m.
20:08:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public here to
20:08:56 speak on item number 6?
20:09:01 The only thing you can speak on is the continuance,
20:09:03 whether you want a continuance.
20:09:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you have any objection to the
20:09:06 continuance come forward.
20:09:07 >>GWEN MILLER: That's the only thing you can speak on.
20:09:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
20:09:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I hope the petitioner gave you the

20:09:22 Curt easy to know that they were going to ask for a
20:09:27 continuance and you didn't spend the last two hours
20:09:29 sitting here waiting to hear that.
20:09:31 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to continue to the first week of
20:09:35 September.
20:09:36 >>MARTY BOYLE: September 14th.
20:09:41 >>GWEN MILLER: At 6 p.m.
20:09:42 We have a motion and second.
20:09:43 (Motion carried)
20:09:45 Next one.
20:09:45 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 9.
20:09:48 Z 06-19.
20:09:49 The petitioner is here.
20:09:50 They are asking for a continuance.
20:09:54 One of the first continuance dates would be May
20:09:58 25th at 6 p.m.
20:09:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public here to
20:10:03 speak on item number 9, on the continuance only?
20:10:06 If you object to the continuance.
20:10:07 Okay.
20:10:08 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
20:10:11 >>> Second.

20:10:11 (Motion carried).
20:10:12 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 10 there is a misnotice, it
20:10:17 cannot be heard.
20:10:18 They have paid their amendment fee.
20:10:20 And the first available date that they could go to, to
20:10:24 make notice again, would be on April 27th, '06.
20:10:28 At 6 p.m.
20:10:31 >> So moved.
20:10:31 >> Second.
20:10:31 (Motion carried).
20:10:32 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 12 also misnoticed.
20:10:37 They have come in with the amendment fee.
20:10:39 The first available date would be not until July
20:10:44 27th at 6 p.m.
20:10:46 >> So moved.
20:10:46 >> Second.
20:10:46 (Motion carried).
20:10:47 >>MARTY BOYLE: Oh, I am so sorry.
20:10:51 The petitioner did want to speak.
20:10:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On item 12?
20:10:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: As to the continuance?
20:10:59 Buoy Boyle as to the continuance.

20:11:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner for number 12, you may come
20:11:03 up and speak.
20:11:06 >>> I just want --
20:11:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.
20:11:09 >>> Jose Alonzo.
20:11:10 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
20:11:13 I'm sorry.
20:11:13 This was improperly noticed for this evening so I
20:11:16 don't know that it's appropriate to even be hearing
20:11:19 it.
20:11:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
20:11:20 You cannot speak.
20:11:21 Sorry.
20:11:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We just set a new date, that's all.
20:11:24 >>GWEN MILLER: We set the date already.
20:11:26 Okay.
20:11:27 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 15.
20:11:28 Z 06-30.
20:11:30 Also misnoticed.
20:11:32 They came in immediately a month ago with an amendment
20:11:36 fee, and they were requesting -- and at that time we
20:11:40 had a slot for May 11th, 06 at 6 p.m.

20:11:45 >> So moved.
20:11:46 >> Second.
20:11:46 (Motion carried)
20:11:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We go back to item number 4.
20:11:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
20:11:53 >> Second.
20:11:54 (Motion carried).
20:11:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public going to
20:11:59 speak on item 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14?
20:12:05 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
20:12:07 >>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
20:12:14 the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
20:12:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Please, when you state your name
20:12:19 there's a sign to remind you, state whether you have
20:12:23 been sworn.
20:12:24 Thank you.
20:12:27 >>MARTY BOYLE: Before you, you will not have a site
20:12:29 plan.
20:12:30 This is a Euclidean request.
20:12:32 They are requesting to go from an RS-50 designation to
20:12:35 an RM-24.
20:12:38 The property is located, on the Elmo, if you look, the

20:12:42 property is located south of Broadway, west of 62nd
20:12:48 and north of 10th street.
20:12:50 Surrounding RS-50 designation.
20:12:54 There is IG.
20:12:55 There is CI.
20:12:56 There is RM-24.
20:12:59 And we have CI down below along with IG.
20:13:04 An aerial view of the site.
20:13:08 Surrounding the site, do you have a lot of different
20:13:13 uses within the RS-50.
20:13:17 You used to have some uses that seemed to be
20:13:20 nonconforming but then you also have a lot of other
20:13:23 type of zoning districts, which showed on the zoning
20:13:27 map as CI.
20:13:29 This is the property.
20:13:29 It is vacant.
20:13:35 The subject site.
20:13:39 Staff has no objection to this petition.
20:13:42 We find it is consistent.
20:13:47 The lot dimensions are 105 by 110.
20:13:55 The request is for Euclidean.
20:13:56 Therefore you will not have a site plan.

20:13:58 The proposed construction must also adhere to the City
20:14:02 of Tampa development code.
20:14:06 On the table, if you will look on page 3, staff made a
20:14:13 mistake.
20:14:13 Under Solid Waste, you'll see under Conditions: At
20:14:16 time of permitting developer must provide one inch
20:14:19 retention entire site. That is not Solid Waste.
20:14:22 That should be moved up to stormwater.
20:14:24 My apologies on that.
20:14:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No objections?
20:14:30 >>MARTY BOYLE: No objections.
20:14:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
20:14:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you finished?
20:14:35 >>MARTY BOYLE: Yes.
20:14:35 >> All right.
20:14:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It appears, looking at the aerial,
20:14:43 where you do have on that street, it appears you might
20:14:47 have some single-family residential.
20:14:52 Obviously, you have probably some other issues going
20:14:57 on in the area.
20:14:59 And perhaps some illegal dumping and other issues.
20:15:04 But I'm seeing some roof tops.

20:15:06 Single-family roof tops immediately adjacent to the
20:15:11 north.
20:15:13 And your report seems to indicate that this could
20:15:17 change the character of RS-50, the entire 20 lots
20:15:22 around this is RS-50.
20:15:25 And that could change and allow six monthly --
20:15:29 multifamily units to be built on this parcel.
20:15:32 And that seems to be out of character with sort of a
20:15:36 rural feel to that neighborhood.
20:15:42 >>> I think staff when we looked at this noted the
20:15:45 different uses, some of that might be nonconforming,
20:15:47 some is grandfathered.
20:15:52 >> All multifamily in that kind of density?
20:15:54 >>> There is RM-24 right here.
20:15:58 Then right below it, it's surrounded by industrial.
20:16:02 And you have got the RM-24 above Broadway, you have
20:16:08 RM-16.
20:16:09 You have RM-16 to the north.
20:16:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Put up that zoning map.
20:16:16 There you go.
20:16:17 That's where I was looking at.
20:16:19 So that green, the subject property, is surrounded by

20:16:23 like 20 or 30 RS-50 lots.
20:16:28 So why isn't this a bad precedent to allow it to start
20:16:32 tumbling toward a multifamily area?
20:16:38 >>> We didn't feel, with the different uses that were
20:16:40 going on in the neighborhood, that it would create --
20:16:43 we felt it was still compatible with the neighborhood.
20:16:47 There were, if you look to the north, there were
20:16:49 several single-family dwellings on one lot, several of
20:16:54 those lots consisted that you have some CI uses with
20:17:00 an RS-50 designation.
20:17:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have questions about the
20:17:08 industrial uses, even though the property to the east
20:17:11 is zoned RS-50, it's obvious from the aerial that you
20:17:16 have industrial uses.
20:17:18 And my question is, the reason that we normally
20:17:21 separate industrial uses and residential uses is
20:17:23 because the industrial uses are dusty, they are noisy,
20:17:26 they are a pain in the neck and they drive people
20:17:29 crazy.
20:17:29 So why would we not knowingly allow somebody to build
20:17:33 new residential uses next to industrial uses that will
20:17:36 drive them crazy?

20:17:38 >>> Well, they have made the request.
20:17:39 And staff didn't find it inconsistent.
20:17:42 >> I normally really always agree with staff.
20:17:45 In this case, I don't think it's -- right to the
20:17:49 people who are going to live on this property.
20:17:51 I just -- it doesn't make sense to me.
20:17:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
20:18:05 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:18:07 I have been sworn in, Mr. Shelby.
20:18:10 It pretty simple, you know, when you see the land use
20:18:14 designation for the area, it's pretty much all
20:18:16 transition use 24 with some heavy industrial here,
20:18:20 light industrial here.
20:18:25 Let's go to the aerial.
20:18:26 I can understand the concern for this -- this area is
20:18:29 a very unique area.
20:18:31 It's an Oak Park area.
20:18:35 If you were to really take a very careful look at this
20:18:39 aerial, there are scattered uses.
20:18:41 We have driven these streets I don't know how many
20:18:43 times.
20:18:46 This is one of the few areas when you actually have

20:18:50 residential use that is coexist with industrial uses
20:18:52 and commercial intensive uses, one of the very few
20:18:54 areas, a lot of the people who live in this area work
20:18:57 close by in this area.
20:18:59 If you notice, there's a trailer park up here.
20:19:03 You can see some right there.
20:19:08 You do have a residential component here, and a higher
20:19:12 density.
20:19:13 There's a residence here, here, here.
20:19:17 They do have potential of putting six multifamily
20:19:20 units on the site.
20:19:20 But considering the nature -- and we really can't even
20:19:23 see that there's a residential unit here.
20:19:25 So it's a unique area in that you do have commercial
20:19:28 intensive uses, light industrial uses, heavy
20:19:31 industrial uses interspersed with residential uses.
20:19:35 You all remember about a year and a half ago or two,
20:19:38 we did a land use change for Kimmins, to bring Kimmins
20:19:44 up again, the railroad track where is they want to do
20:19:47 most of their processing, their recycling business.
20:19:52 Just to the north of there, to the west, there's a
20:19:55 trailer park there.

20:19:56 And there's some little almost like houses in that
20:20:02 area that are rented to people. So this area for the
20:20:04 people that do live there, the residents, a large
20:20:07 percentage of them are renters in this particular
20:20:09 case.
20:20:09 But nonetheless they are -- there is a residential
20:20:13 component here and there is a residential presence
20:20:15 that has been here for many decades that's been able
20:20:18 to coexist with the industrial uses in the area.
20:20:21 Planning Commission staff has no objections to this
20:20:23 request.
20:20:23 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
20:20:25 >>> Tamela Hartsfield.
20:20:35 Do I have to be sworn in again?
20:20:36 >>GWEN MILLER: If you have been sworn, that's fine.
20:20:38 Just one time.
20:20:40 >>> Okay.
20:20:40 Again, we request to have the zoning changed to RM-24.
20:20:45 Our goal is not to put six actual units on there.
20:20:49 We had a builder give souse site plans.
20:20:51 And we are looking to do four units on that particular
20:20:54 area in the form of attached villas.

20:20:57 And we are very excited about it.
20:20:58 We think it's going to bring a lot of property
20:21:02 appreciation to the area, because there are a lot of
20:21:04 similar use properties in that area.
20:21:06 And so when we looked at it that's what we noticed,
20:21:09 that there are some similar use properties and it
20:21:11 seemed to blend very well with the area.
20:21:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:21:13 Mr. Dingfelder?
20:21:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you plan on doing it as a rental
20:21:17 or to sell?
20:21:19 >>> What we are doing, I am a mortgage broker and I
20:21:21 have been in the mortgage business for quite some
20:21:23 time.
20:21:23 What we are doing is trying to target single mothers,
20:21:25 our church has a big push to get people to own homes.
20:21:29 And we are building it such that it can be subdivided
20:21:31 so the person who is living there can rent one unit
20:21:34 and own one unit and that's our goal over the next
20:21:36 12-24 months with the units.
20:21:38 They'll start out as renters because they have to
20:21:40 develop rental history to get a mortgage.

20:21:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two quick questions.
20:21:46 Do you plan to keep what appears to be a grand tree on
20:21:48 the property?
20:21:50 >>> We were notified there were no grand trees.
20:21:51 I have a notice here from the Parks Department when we
20:21:56 received comments.
20:21:58 And there is a large tree in the back.
20:22:00 I do have that dated October 10 from -- but it just
20:22:06 says when we do build.
20:22:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want top see this, Mrs.
20:22:11 Saul-Sena?
20:22:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm listening.
20:22:14 >>> There are no grand trees on the site.
20:22:15 There's a large tree on the back.
20:22:17 Based on our site plan it's not going to be a problem.
20:22:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, so I guess my question is, do
20:22:24 you plan to keep the tree that's on the property?
20:22:27 >>> Yes.
20:22:27 >> And my other question is, I was really looking out
20:22:30 for the people that are going to be living there in
20:22:32 terms of the industrial uses that sometimes people
20:22:37 come down here who are really frustrated because the

20:22:40 industrial uses are noisy and dirty and miserable and
20:22:44 big trucks driving down the streets.
20:22:47 Have you been on the property when the industrial uses
20:22:49 are going on?
20:22:50 Are you aware of their impact?
20:22:52 >>> Yes.
20:22:53 What we did was we spent a lot of time over in that
20:22:55 area and going on Broadway and going down the street.
20:22:58 The property is about two-thirds of the way down
20:23:00 61st street so it's well away from Broadway.
20:23:03 And what we were doing is listening and we also had an
20:23:07 environmental study done to find out if there are any
20:23:09 huge environmental issues like poison in the land or
20:23:12 anything of that nature, so we did all of that in
20:23:14 terms of our due diligence to find if we could build
20:23:18 on that area there didn't seem to be any -- we talked
20:23:21 to the people who are like two lots to the north of
20:23:25 the property.
20:23:25 And we talked to people across the street who actually
20:23:27 have some multifamily or they are renting something,
20:23:29 and someone with a regular house.
20:23:32 And they had indicated they didn't have any problem

20:23:34 with the industrial on the broad wayside of the
20:23:38 street.
20:23:39 Their main concern was if they are going to run city
20:23:41 water down the street, and we have had some hopes for
20:23:44 that as well.
20:23:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:23:46 would like to be speak on item number 4?
20:23:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
20:23:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
20:23:51 (Motion carried).
20:23:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning the property
20:23:55 in the general vicinity of 2017 north 61st street
20:23:59 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
20:24:00 described in section 1 from zoning district
20:24:02 classifications RS-50 residential single family to
20:24:06 RM-24 residential multifamily, providing an effective
20:24:08 date.
20:24:09 I would like to thank you for your innovation for
20:24:12 trying to redevelop that area, potentially plighted
20:24:15 and commercial area and bring some potential home
20:24:18 ownership to an area and for people that need it.
20:24:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

20:24:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll support the petition.
20:24:28 I had some hesitations because it sounded like six
20:24:30 units was going to be putting a lot on there.
20:24:32 Then I perceived it was just going to be rental which
20:24:34 I don't think would necessarily help that area.
20:24:36 But it sounds like you are insincere, you are going to
20:24:40 do four units and build some attainable housing.
20:24:42 Keep on keeping on.
20:24:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
20:24:47 In our staff report, it says -- it says there are
20:25:01 several trees located on this parcel.
20:25:04 They may restrict the future development.
20:25:06 Any grand trees would need park's approval.
20:25:09 You have come in for Euclidean zoning so you don't
20:25:11 have a site plan or anything.
20:25:13 But I'm pleased to hear that you are going to build
20:25:15 around the trees because that's what's going to
20:25:17 protect you from the noise and give the area some
20:25:19 character.
20:25:20 And four units are better than six.
20:25:21 >> I have a motion and second.
20:25:23 All in favor say Aye.

20:25:24 Opposed, Nay.
20:25:26 Thank you.
20:25:26 (Motion carried).
20:25:28 Number 5 is a continued public hearing.
20:25:50 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
20:25:51 I have been sworn.
20:25:53 The case before you came first to you, I believe it
20:25:57 was the end of February, in meeting the -- the
20:26:01 February 23rd meeting.
20:26:02 At that time, the petitioner asked for a continuance.
20:26:07 It was originally a Euclidean request.
20:26:11 They work with the neighborhood and concerns with the
20:26:16 neighborhood.
20:26:16 The neighborhood really was concerned about with it
20:26:18 being Euclidean they wouldn't have much of a say as to
20:26:22 what would be placed on this site.
20:26:25 I'll familiarize you with the site.
20:26:34 This is east of van Hatten, south of Bay to Bay,
20:26:38 located within an RS-50 designation.
20:26:43 We have off of there a PD.
20:26:46 Other than that, there's another PD across Bay to Bay.
20:26:53 And the aerial.

20:26:56 The existing structure on-site would be removed.
20:27:02 And this is what the house looks like.
20:27:05 Another view.
20:27:07 And another.
20:27:10 And thirdly, one close-up.
20:27:17 This would be looking west on Obispo.
20:27:24 Just another view of the street.
20:27:29 Actually the view looking east.
20:27:32 Some of the homes in the neighborhood.
20:27:38 Another.
20:27:38 And just another street view.
20:27:42 The property is located at 4209 west Obispo.
20:27:46 And it would be to create two buildable zoning lots
20:27:49 for single family detached structures.
20:27:53 The site does consist of two 50-foot platted lots,
20:27:56 lots 19 and 20.
20:27:58 And the west 15 feet of lot 21, block 26, Marilyn
20:28:04 manor. The lots will be 57.6 feet.
20:28:07 So they are approximately two and a half feet short of
20:28:11 what the RS-60 designation allows.
20:28:15 The standard setbacks for RS-60 are 25 feet front
20:28:18 yard, 20 rear and seven side yard.

20:28:21 The site plan in front of you does show those
20:28:24 setbacks.
20:28:25 The proposed plan shows that these criterias will be
20:28:28 met.
20:28:29 The homes along west Obispo appear to maintain that
20:28:32 25-foot setback.
20:28:37 At the time of the staff report, you have a caveat
20:28:39 there, no elevations have been provided.
20:28:42 We still have not received any elevations.
20:28:45 Therefore, it's hard for staff to speak to
20:28:48 compatibility, what they are going to be putting on
20:28:51 the site is compatible with the rest of the
20:28:53 neighborhood.
20:28:54 A new PD site plan was submitted March 9th.
20:29:00 And at the time of staff report we hadn't received any
20:29:03 comments back.
20:29:05 We have since received initial -- excuse me.
20:29:13 And stormwater has an objection.
20:29:17 Their comments are, the property with over 50%
20:29:21 impervious will require stormwater retention.
20:29:24 They want that added to the plan.
20:29:26 You will note on your table number 4, page number 4,

20:29:30 your table.
20:29:32 I do believe our staff report indicates the Planning
20:29:34 Commission has an objection.
20:29:37 I do think -- and Tony will speak to this -- that when
20:29:41 I originally submitted the staff report I have had I
20:29:46 had not received Planning Commission's report.
20:29:47 And they have no objection now.
20:29:51 Staff's objection mainly rests on -- the site plan we
20:29:57 found was bear minimum for a PD and we did not receive
20:30:01 any elevation so it hard for to us make a
20:30:03 determination as to compatibility with the
20:30:05 neighborhood.
20:30:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
20:30:08 It appears from what we received that there are some
20:30:10 significant trees, not grand trees, but significant
20:30:13 trees on the property.
20:30:14 Why do we have no comment from parks?
20:30:20 It appears there's no tree table attached.
20:30:25 It appears the majority of the trees are being
20:30:27 removed.
20:30:27 >>MARTY BOYLE: Let me flip through my notes real quick
20:30:30 to see if I see their comments.

20:30:37 >> I think Mr. Graham is here.
20:30:41 >>> Mary might be more familiar with the site.
20:30:44 >> Mary Daniels wise, Land Development Coordination.
20:30:47 I have been sworn.
20:30:48 Basically there are some significant trees on-site.
20:30:53 The petition came through as a Euclidean zoning
20:30:56 without a site plan.
20:30:57 And at the time, I did make a report that Land
20:31:02 Development Coordination had reviewed the reference
20:31:05 rezoning petition with respect to the tree and
20:31:07 landscape issues.
20:31:08 And has no objection.
20:31:09 Petitioner needs to be aware.
20:31:11 However, there are many protective trees on-site.
20:31:13 Development will need to work around the trees and
20:31:16 comply with chapter 13 landscape tree removal, and
20:31:20 site --
20:31:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me but I'm not happy with
20:31:25 the fact this is exactly parallel to the previous
20:31:27 petition, except that this one at least notes the
20:31:29 scale of the trees.
20:31:31 You said they need to work around it.

20:31:33 If we approve this, we have absolutely no comfort
20:31:37 level, say, well, the building envelope presented as
20:31:41 part of this show that three out of the four trees on
20:31:45 one lot, and one, two, three out of four trees on the
20:31:48 other lot were being either eliminated or severely
20:31:52 compromised by the building.
20:31:53 So how can you say it's okay?
20:31:56 >>MARTY BOYLE: I think in Mary's defense, these
20:31:58 comments were based on Euclidean.
20:31:59 We should have had revised comments based on this new
20:32:03 site plan.
20:32:05 It's one of staff's objections that we didn't feel
20:32:08 like this site plan -- and I indicated to the
20:32:11 petitioner when he turned it in that it was sufficient
20:32:15 for PD, that there would be objections based on that.
20:32:19 So that's one of our objections, that we don't feel --
20:32:24 it's just a building envelope.
20:32:27 It doesn't show what we normally get in a PD.
20:32:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it would be helpful in the
20:32:33 future -- I didn't mean to be angry.
20:32:35 I just felt like it wasn't addressed.
20:32:37 There's no place where it said we had concerns about

20:32:40 the loss of canopy, because of this proposed rezoning.
20:32:45 It seems to me a really obvious potential.
20:32:47 In fact, if you protect the trees, there's nowhere to
20:32:50 build the house.
20:32:51 So I think that in the future, you need to call that
20:32:54 out specifically to alert us that we are looking on
20:32:57 this complete loss of tree canopy in this proposed
20:33:00 rezoning.
20:33:01 Thank you.
20:33:04 >>> Mary: I think the problem was it came in as
20:33:06 Euclidean.
20:33:06 And when the plans got resubmitted, it was still
20:33:13 looked at as Euclidean zoning as opposed to PD.
20:33:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I have a question for legal.
20:33:28 In the future figure out a way so something that's
20:33:30 Euclidean but we are losing the tree canopy there's a
20:33:34 way it can be addressed in the staff comments.
20:33:36 >> We're looking at it.
20:33:37 Thank you.
20:33:38 >>
20:33:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission.
20:33:41 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:33:51 I have been sworn in.
20:33:56 This is the Virginia park area which you are all
20:33:58 familiar with, and of course the objection was mainly
20:34:04 due to the effect that was a Euclidean request.
20:34:06 Just as you had stated, we felt that our main
20:34:11 objection was for them to come back with the PD to
20:34:13 afford the protections that was required for the lots,
20:34:16 regarding the tree issues.
20:34:17 Now as to the degree of the amount of protection that
20:34:19 they had agreed to on the PD, that's something that
20:34:22 the city Parks Department would have had to negotiate
20:34:25 with them through the PD process.
20:34:27 We were satisfied that we submit the PD that would
20:34:30 allow the restraint which that could be provided by
20:34:32 the Parks Department, and the other reviewing agency,
20:34:36 while having the PD there.
20:34:36 The one thing that I think I do have a bit of an issue
20:34:39 with still, to the point that there was not an
20:34:42 elevation that was provided, that I think would
20:34:47 probably totally appease the neighbors in the
20:34:50 surrounding area as far as would what would be placed
20:34:53 on the site.

20:34:53 I know that's a difficult thing in some cases because
20:34:57 I don't think the applicant is going to be developing
20:34:58 the site.
20:34:59 So that's an issue that I guess would have to be
20:35:01 resolved once the representative for the applicant
20:35:03 gets up here to make his presentation to you all.
20:35:10 Primarily due to the fact that they did come in for a
20:35:13 PD which would allow a little more stringent use of
20:35:19 the site.
20:35:19 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
20:35:20 proposed request.
20:35:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:35:27 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 south Franklin street.
20:35:31 Hopefully I can alleviate some of this confusion.
20:35:33 It's definitely not our intention to remove the trees
20:35:36 on-site.
20:35:36 What we are trying to show -- and this was kind of
20:35:39 what came out of the hearing the last time -- is we
20:35:41 are in a situation where it's two feet four inches
20:35:44 away on each lot from meeting the requirements for the
20:35:48 RS-60.
20:35:50 And a concern was raised that I think it was voiced

20:35:53 here again tonight that most of the setbacks along
20:35:56 these streets are 25 feet.
20:35:57 So this was a creative solution that we tried to come
20:36:00 up with, where we did the PD route, and subjected ours
20:36:04 to the RS-50 setbacks which would be 25 feet as
20:36:08 opposed to RS-60 with 20, and we're hoping that that
20:36:11 would achieve what everybody was looking for, which we
20:36:15 have got -- doing this a little backwards, but my
20:36:23 client is here, and McNulty and his wife Casey, and
20:36:30 others in the McNulty clan.
20:36:34 Lives two doors down from this site.
20:36:38 And did a pretty good job of canvassing the
20:36:40 neighborhood.
20:36:41 And a letter of support saying they would basically
20:36:45 much rather have two homes as opposed to one large
20:36:48 home, and so what we were trying to do is come up with
20:36:51 a creative way of providing additional setbacks and be
20:36:54 consistent with the neighborhood and remove the trees.
20:37:03 I'll take a question and continue from there.
20:37:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a tree table?
20:37:08 Can you speak to the tree issue?
20:37:11 >>> What we did there was we showed all the trees and

20:37:18 then under the general notes, the second note, third
20:37:22 note, and next note we were aware the trees would
20:37:27 become an issue.
20:37:28 So what we were trying to do was subject ours to code
20:37:31 just like this was the Euclidean route, but we were
20:37:35 increasing the setback from 25 to -- 20 to 25 feet.
20:37:38 >> But you didn't make a commit environment your notes
20:37:40 to directly, according to the building envelopes which
20:37:44 you submitted, the trees are all going with the
20:37:48 exception of one in the very back of the western lot.
20:37:52 And you said in your notes very general things don't
20:37:57 comply.
20:37:57 Well, if you do what you say you are going to do, you
20:38:00 need to remove all the trees except for one.
20:38:03 Can awe dress that?
20:38:04 >>> Yes.
20:38:05 What we were saying there is we wanted to show all the
20:38:08 trees. But just like if this was an RS-50 zoning
20:38:12 district, and we wanted to remove a tree, we wanted to
20:38:14 subject ourselves to the city standards there.
20:38:17 So all we are doing is showing the envelope for the
20:38:19 purpose of showing the setback.

20:38:21 Not for the purposes of getting around tree codes or
20:38:23 anything of the like there.
20:38:26 Wanted to subject ourselves fully to the code like any
20:38:30 lot if they were to remove the tree but show we were
20:38:33 reducing set back from 20 to 25 feet.
20:38:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of things.
20:38:41 For one thing, 99% of the time when I have seen PDs
20:38:45 come in, I think Ms. Saul-Sena is right.
20:38:47 They have a tree table that says this tree is going,
20:38:49 this tree staying, here's the calculations.
20:38:52 Blah-blah-blah.
20:38:53 I think we have a problem here.
20:38:54 And I think the other thing is, it's been pointed out
20:38:57 two or three times now, there's no elevations.
20:39:00 The PDs we have been seeing, and I think we reference
20:39:03 it in our code,.
20:39:06 >>> Actually the code does not require elevations.
20:39:08 The reason we did this --
20:39:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe it's just practice.
20:39:11 But most of the time we have been seeing building
20:39:13 elevations.
20:39:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To see if things are compatible.

20:39:16 >>MARTY BOYLE: The code does not require elevations.
20:39:19 However PDs speak to when you decide to approve a PD
20:39:23 as to compatibility and design.
20:39:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you're no stranger to these
20:39:30 chambers.
20:39:31 Now usually PDs show elevations.
20:39:33 Most of yours do when you bring them to us.
20:39:37 >>> I wholeheartedly agree there but this is a
20:39:40 situation where my client is not going to end up
20:39:42 building these, and didn't want to --
20:39:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: More reason why we should bind
20:39:47 something to the approval if there is an approval.
20:39:50 And the third question, the question I have is this,
20:39:54 is when and how, it not enclosure to me on these
20:39:58 documents, when and how did your client come up with
20:40:00 the additional 15 feet of property that took this from
20:40:04 two 50-foot lots that total 100 feet and now you have
20:40:08 115 feet which is, now, more power to them.
20:40:11 But when did somebody acquire the 15 feet?
20:40:16 >> I'll confirm with him but I believe it's always
20:40:19 been in this condition.
20:40:20 That's correct.

20:40:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the original property owner who
20:40:24 had that, looks like sort of a big ranch house, had
20:40:28 already purchased this side yard 15 feet?
20:40:31 >>> By no means was it purchased to increase the size.
20:40:34 >> I just want to make sure of that because that would
20:40:36 perhaps affect my decision.
20:40:39 >>> And I think also on the issue of elevations, we
20:40:42 would be willing to agree to some sort of conditions.
20:40:45 I know that garages in the front aren't deemed to be
20:40:49 great.
20:40:49 We would move those in the rear.
20:40:51 Agree to do a front porch.
20:40:52 But my client just didn't want to bear the cost of
20:40:55 doing architectural renderings when they are not going
20:40:58 to be the ones that are going to be doing this.
20:41:01 If I could just, a couple of things on the staff
20:41:04 report.
20:41:06 I know it says that the house is in good condition.
20:41:08 I just wanted to flip through a couple pictures of the
20:41:13 condition of the house.
20:41:13 This is one of the bedrooms.
20:41:16 This is the side of the house.

20:41:20 The window.
20:41:21 Here's a little bit of a mold issue.
20:41:24 And crack in the interior.
20:41:28 The picture says a thousand words and it's a little
20:41:30 bit of a different picture than what was previously
20:41:33 shown.
20:41:35 Also, I know a lot of times when you look at these,
20:41:39 you look at the majority or the block face as a whole,
20:41:42 and we did a study there.
20:41:49 The green is the subject property.
20:41:51 And one of the things we look at, the majority on that
20:42:00 block are actually nonconforming and a lot more
20:42:02 nonconforming than this.
20:42:04 Again this is two feet four inches is all we are
20:42:06 asking for on both of the lots.
20:42:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
20:42:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How long was your client on the
20:42:17 property?
20:42:18 >>> Since July.
20:42:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:42:22 would like to speak on item number 5?
20:42:27 >>MARTY BOYLE: I will concede that the pictures, when

20:42:31 I said in good condition, just from the exterior. I
20:42:34 did not go in, had no record of that.
20:42:36 Just wanted to concede to Truett on that.
20:42:42 >>> John wise, 3707 west Santiago street.
20:42:46 I received a couple of mailings from neighbors that
20:42:49 lived in this block that were concerned.
20:42:52 And they couldn't be here tonight so I want to briefly
20:42:55 read their letters into the public record.
20:42:57 First one is from Paul Palero, 3206 west Obispo street
20:43:04 across the street from the property if question, he
20:43:06 says we specifically chose to purchase our property
20:43:09 because the 100-frontage of his property had ample
20:43:14 space for his property and all but one of the homes
20:43:17 were single story. The typical boxed-in feel some
20:43:21 South Tampa streets are -- on the South Tampa street
20:43:24 was not apparent.
20:43:25 He speaks to the PD issue, says with all the necessary
20:43:28 design plans and site elevations for the proposed
20:43:31 structures, there is no basis to know whether the
20:43:32 developer will build homes that conform to the
20:43:34 character of the Virginia park neighborhood.
20:43:38 While I do understand that these are not necessarily

20:43:40 for constructing designation requesting change to PD
20:43:46 and should submit these designs in good faith.
20:43:49 The recent completion of two new homes on the 4100
20:43:53 block of Bay to Bay is a real experience of this
20:43:56 concern, in my opinion the design of the two homes on
20:43:58 Bay to Bay is nearly identical in, no way
20:44:00 representative of the Virginia park neighborhood, and
20:44:02 may be indicative of the new homes planned for 4209
20:44:07 Obispo.
20:44:09 Site designs for the proposed homes have been
20:44:10 submitted with elevations representative of the
20:44:12 Virginia park neighborhood, I may not have had strong
20:44:15 opposition to this rezoning request.
20:44:17 However, as a concerned neighbor of the property and
20:44:19 the 4200 block of Obispo I cannot agree with what is
20:44:22 currently being proposed for the site.
20:44:24 Another one comes from Fred rock, 3910 west Obispo
20:44:32 street writing to you with regards to 4209 Obispo.
20:44:36 We are worried about this rezoning request if approved
20:44:39 will continue to do fought character of our
20:44:40 neighborhood.
20:44:41 We would like to express our objections to this

20:44:43 rezoning.
20:44:44 We have already seen where one house was torn down on
20:44:47 Bay to Bay Boulevard to speak again about the house on
20:44:49 Bay to Bay, and how two identical homes were built
20:44:52 looking like track homes.
20:44:54 She says, I have lived in South Tampa all my life and
20:44:57 in the 30 years I have owned my home on Obispo I have
20:45:00 seen many changes come to the neighborhood some of
20:45:03 which I feel have not been good.
20:45:05 We are very concerned about increased density in our
20:45:07 neighborhood.
20:45:09 The cost of construction of two homes where one stood
20:45:12 is adding up.
20:45:13 We would appreciate any help you could offer in this
20:45:15 matter.
20:45:16 I quickly want to show you some more photographs of
20:45:18 the block that's in question.
20:45:23 These are the homes that are on that block.
20:45:25 >>KEVIN WHITE: I thought that was not the trend of the
20:45:47 neighborhood.
20:45:50 I see about 70, 80% of your pictures are --
20:45:55 >>> I don't think I said anything.

20:45:57 >>KEVIN WHITE: No, I'm saying, it was said.
20:46:00 >>> Okay.
20:46:00 The petitioner gave me some photographs tonight and
20:46:04 said, would this be acceptable to the residents in
20:46:05 that area?
20:46:06 I have had no chance to show them these photographs.
20:46:08 This is what they are proposing, they said, the style
20:46:12 of home to build.
20:46:14 That. Or this one.
20:46:16 Or that one.
20:46:18 From meeting with these two letter writers I can tell
20:46:21 you that's probably not what they would prefer to see.
20:46:25 They prefer a bungalow style home.
20:46:26 When we were here back in February and I spoke with
20:46:31 Cassie McNulty, she said we can go with the PD and
20:46:34 maybe offer up some bungalow style homes in your
20:46:37 neighborhood.
20:46:38 Is it okay if I finish?
20:46:40 (Bell sounds).
20:46:42 Just a couple more.
20:46:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Please show us a few more pictures.
20:46:48 >>> Just a couple of the bungalow styles on the

20:46:50 street. This one is not on the street.
20:46:51 It's on San Pedro.
20:46:53 I guess the concern is, when you go for a PD zoning,
20:46:59 for it to be characteristic of the neighborhood, it's
20:47:02 something that we are used to seeing where there would
20:47:04 at least be an elevation more in character with the
20:47:07 keeping of the neighborhood.
20:47:08 The neighbors specifically said if you can't find
20:47:11 something that's within the character of the
20:47:12 neighborhood.
20:47:12 We would be more than happy with one large home
20:47:14 because they also have issued with the density.
20:47:17 And that's happening --
20:47:19 >>GWEN MILLER: wrap it up.
20:47:20 >>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
20:47:21 That's all I have.
20:47:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:47:23 Next.
20:47:28 >> Al McNulty, 4217 West Obispo. I have been sworn.
20:47:31 I'm the petitioner.
20:47:32 I just wanted to kind of point out to you guys that I
20:47:34 do live three doors down from, you know, the lot that

20:47:38 we bought.
20:47:39 And ultimately want to develop.
20:47:40 So, you know, I do have some vested interest in what's
20:47:43 going to go up there, although I can't control it,
20:47:46 because, you know, I'm not the builder, and whoever we
20:47:50 do sell the lot to, the only thing I can say is we
20:47:54 would know they are a reputable build theory does
20:47:56 build a good quality product, and to address maybe
20:48:01 some of the neighborhood's issues about I guess
20:48:03 characteristics of the neighborhood, or keeping it in
20:48:08 keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
20:48:09 Every house was different, now.
20:48:11 There's Mediterranean.
20:48:12 There's porches.
20:48:15 There are a lot of them -- all of them are single
20:48:17 story.
20:48:17 There's two.
20:48:19 Well, the one directly next door is two-story.
20:48:22 Two of them are two story now.
20:48:23 Then the house next door just got purchased by a
20:48:26 builder.
20:48:26 And they are going to raise that -- razz that building

20:48:29 and likely construct a two-story property there, too.
20:48:33 Again, it's five feet, you know.
20:48:35 2.4 on each two and a half feet on each, you know,
20:48:40 lot.
20:48:40 We only don't want to take down every tree on the lot,
20:48:45 you know.
20:48:46 And the other thing that I would want to point out is
20:48:49 that, now, he's got two letters from people.
20:48:52 And I know, I did speak to Mr. Palero and he said he
20:48:58 would not split it, he would put one house up there,
20:49:00 and that's in his right to do so.
20:49:05 But all of the letters that I have from people that
20:49:09 Truett put up there are outlining the people that I
20:49:11 had gone around and talked to and said they would
20:49:13 rather see two homes versus one.
20:49:15 So it seems like ultimately, you know, aside from Mr.
20:49:18 Palero, nobody else has said to me they don't want to
20:49:22 see two homes and they actually prefer, you know, two
20:49:24 homes.
20:49:25 And the other issue, the other person is, you know,
20:49:30 four blocks, I guess three, four blocks to the east.
20:49:33 So.

20:49:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Would you excuse me for a second?
20:49:39 Mr. Shelby, can you tell me what we are doing here?
20:49:41 >>>
20:49:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, I was out of the room.
20:49:45 Are you the petitioner?
20:49:47 >>> Yes.
20:49:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you sworn?
20:49:49 Is there anybody else who wanted to speak?
20:49:51 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't know. He just came up.
20:49:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, I guess it counts as rebuttal
20:49:57 time.
20:49:57 The question is, is there anybody else who wishes to
20:49:59 speak?
20:50:00 Or this is rebuttal?
20:50:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anybody else from the public wish
20:50:04 to speak?
20:50:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: Is this going to be rebuttal then?
20:50:11 Is that it?
20:50:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Take -- whatever time this
20:50:15 gentleman needs, take as rebuttal time.
20:50:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone else want to speak?
20:50:22 Okay, that's it.

20:50:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sorry for the confusion.
20:50:28 >>> I want to speak on behalf of not having an
20:50:30 elevation.
20:50:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.
20:50:32 >>> Casey McNulty, petitioner, and I have been sworn
20:50:34 in.
20:50:37 We were under the understanding that we just needed a
20:50:40 footprint of what we were going to -- I guess the area
20:50:44 that we were going to adhere to all the setbacks
20:50:47 necessary for the property.
20:50:48 As far as the elevation, since we are not -- we do not
20:50:53 have -- we are not the ones actually building, what
20:50:58 you talked about, the pictures that they presented,
20:51:00 the types of homes that we would like to build, the
20:51:02 types of building we are going to look forward to
20:51:04 build, aren't going to be the types of builders that
20:51:06 built the two homes on Bay to Bay.
20:51:09 We want to keep the integrity of the neighborhood.
20:51:11 We want homes that don't stick out like a sore thumb,
20:51:16 that don't make the neighbors upset.
20:51:18 We are going to be a neighbor of this home.
20:51:20 But when you talk about the characteristics of the

20:51:21 neighborhood, I ask you what is the characteristic of
20:51:24 the neighborhood?
20:51:25 That's what makes the area so great, is that there's
20:51:27 not one characteristic of the neighborhood.
20:51:29 It's diverse.
20:51:30 It's unique.
20:51:31 That's what draws people to South Tampa.
20:51:33 You don't have homes, you know, where you have a
20:51:37 20-foot plot of grass, a mailbox and a tree, and every
20:51:41 home looks alike.
20:51:42 So our goal was not to find it would be houses on Bay
20:51:47 to Bay where they mirror each other.
20:51:48 The two we actually have in those photos, same
20:51:51 builder, different looks.
20:51:53 And that's kind of the goal.
20:51:54 And also, to the comment about Terry's letter, I
20:52:00 actually did speak with her personally and she's our
20:52:03 dog walker so we have kind of rapport with her and I
20:52:06 told her our conversations and at the end of the
20:52:08 conversation she felt a little better and said I wish
20:52:10 I could talk to you before I submitted my letter the
20:52:12 first time.

20:52:13 If I had known this.
20:52:13 I would have been okay with it.
20:52:16 But again, for dawn to say they probably -- that these
20:52:21 aren't the types of houses, that they probably
20:52:23 wouldn't want, again, number one, it's subjective.
20:52:26 It's an opinion.
20:52:28 And number two, Terry does live in a two-story home,
20:52:32 not a bungalow.
20:52:33 So I don't think it would be far from what she would
20:52:35 approve.
20:52:36 It's very similar.
20:52:38 And that's really -- you know, we can define the
20:52:42 character of the neighborhood that we are trying to
20:52:43 conform to.
20:52:44 That might help us.
20:52:45 But I think anyone is going to have a hard time
20:52:47 talking to the characteristic.
20:52:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Gardner?
20:52:58 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 south Franklin.
20:53:01 Again all we ask for is two feet four inches on each
20:53:03 lot.
20:53:04 And in addition to that with respect to the

20:53:05 elevations, the whole reason we twenty PD route was to
20:53:11 self-impose for stringent regulation was respect to
20:53:14 the set back, not to get around tree regulations or
20:53:17 anything like that, solely to move the setback back
20:53:20 and keep in the conformance with the neighborhood.
20:53:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am very concerned that this
20:53:29 petition is before us prematurely.
20:53:30 I see one of two opportunities.
20:53:32 One is to deny it flat out. The other is to continue
20:53:34 it to give you the opportunity to come back, and let
20:53:37 us know exactly what is proposed here.
20:53:40 So why you are up here chatting with us I would like
20:53:43 you to think, maybe confer with your client, which you
20:53:45 would rather us, do have us deny it or have us
20:53:48 continue it.
20:53:50 >>> You mean deny it or vote it up or down?
20:53:53 >> Vote it up or down.
20:53:55 But what's before us is a completely incomplete
20:53:58 proposal.
20:54:01 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dingfelder?
20:54:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were you done, Mr. Gardner?
20:54:08 Because I would agree.

20:54:09 And I don't know exactly -- I would with
20:54:14 wholeheartedly agree this needs to be continued
20:54:16 just -- as far as I can see, before we should vote it
20:54:20 or down, we need two more things.
20:54:22 We need the tree.
20:54:23 I think we need to know which trees are not going to
20:54:27 stay definitively so it's not left up to staff, and at
20:54:31 a later point trying to figure out what we meant
20:54:33 during the PD, because that gets very murky.
20:54:36 And I think Mr. Graham is here to agree with that.
20:54:40 And then the other thing that needs to be done is, if
20:54:44 you are not going to show elevations, I think we need
20:54:46 to clearly -- the photos of what type of homes are
20:54:53 being proposed.
20:54:53 Because you said rear garages.
20:54:57 But one of the photos that you put up showed front
20:55:00 garage.
20:55:01 So there's an inconsistency there.
20:55:05 We need to mail down those inconsistencies on the
20:55:07 conditions, if it's going to be rear garages, I think
20:55:10 that's much better, you know, put the garage in the
20:55:13 rear.

20:55:13 Otherwise, it's big double garages on the front, which
20:55:16 really take over, you know, these 57-foot lots.
20:55:21 So with all due respect, Mr. White, this one is a
20:55:27 little premature.
20:55:28 I think it needs to be tightened up because it is a
20:55:31 PD.
20:55:32 Then we should vote for it one way or the other.
20:55:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
20:55:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, Mr. Gardner, I think
20:55:41 that's probably good advice.
20:55:44 In the conversation, or testimony that Mr. McNulty
20:55:51 came up and said Mr. Ross' opinion is just that, an
20:55:51 opinion.
20:55:51 Well, the speculation that this be is going to be
20:55:53 built in keeping what's there is also an issue that is
20:55:57 not defined here.
20:55:58 So not to say she's not going to do something.
20:56:02 But I think if we see something more definite, that
20:56:03 will give us a little more comfort, as I go on, I'm
20:56:07 pulling for you but it's --
20:56:10 >>> I would like to confer with my client.
20:56:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think that's a good idea.

20:56:13 Okay.
20:56:46 >>GWEN MILLER: While they confer, Marty, would you
20:56:48 come up to the mike?
20:56:50 Mrs. Alvarez has a question.
20:56:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Would you explain to me why some --
20:56:57 some rezonings, they might be, say, in some areas, you
20:57:05 would have a house that's existing, and they tear it
20:57:09 down, and they are putting two homes in there without
20:57:13 coming to City Council?
20:57:14 Could you explain that to me?
20:57:15 Was it because of the change in the zoning?
20:57:23 >>MARTY BOYLE: You're asking they had one home, they
20:57:26 have torn it down and built two?
20:57:29 To do that, they have to be within -- meet the minimum
20:57:32 standards, without coming through a rezoning, they
20:57:34 would have to meet the minimum standards of that
20:57:36 zoning district.
20:57:37 So if there's always 50, they need to have -- they
20:57:40 might have had a lot with 100 feet wide by 100 feet
20:57:44 deep.
20:57:44 They could without coming through zoning, and they
20:57:46 were RS-50, divide that in half.

20:57:49 They would have 50 feet of frontage.
20:57:51 That gives them a minimum parcel size of 500 square
20:57:55 feet and the minimum frontage.
20:57:56 >> Is that what you would consider an 80% rule?
20:57:59 >>> We no long very the 80% rule.
20:58:01 >> I understand that.
20:58:01 That's why I'm asking.
20:58:03 >>> No.
20:58:04 I'm not sure, now, which sites you're referring to.
20:58:07 But the only way they could not come forward with a
20:58:10 rezoning whether it's Euclidean or PD or to an RM-24,
20:58:16 is if they already have a minimum parcel size, and the
20:58:18 minimum frontage on public right-of-way.
20:58:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thanks.
20:58:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Gardner?
20:58:27 >>> We are leaning towards the continuance.
20:58:30 They wanted to have one thing clarified.
20:58:32 And wanting staff to clarify.
20:58:35 Which I think is a fair question.
20:58:36 If they were to remain as they are in the RS-60 they
20:58:41 could go and build within those regulations and within
20:58:43 the setbacks of RS-60.

20:58:45 I think they are just trying to weigh their options.
20:58:49 The one lot under RS-50 under its current designation,
20:58:53 or whether they proceed with the PD.
20:58:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Boyle?
20:59:04 >>MARTY BOYLE: I need some clarification on the
20:59:05 question.
20:59:10 >>> If they could develop that today.
20:59:12 >>MARTY BOYLE: They could develop that today without
20:59:14 any -- just going through construction services.
20:59:17 Build one house?
20:59:22 >> Sure.
20:59:24 >> And it wouldn't affect any trees?
20:59:26 >>> They just want clarification on that.
20:59:28 But we'll take everything you said into consideration.
20:59:30 We'll go the continuance route.
20:59:33 More than happy.
20:59:33 John, I think your suggestion was a good one, stapling
20:59:37 some sort of renderings of homes and texture of those
20:59:40 homes, and that would be a good way to go.
20:59:42 And so with that, I would ask for a continuance.
20:59:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want top clarify that what I
20:59:50 would like to see, what you submitted so far is a

20:59:52 building envelope that appears like four or five trees
20:59:57 on one or all the trees on the other getting removed.
21:00:01 I want to see a site plan submitted that shows us what
21:00:04 trees remain and what trees get removed.
21:00:06 I think that's really important to my decision.
21:00:10 And then I'd like staff to review it before it comes
21:00:13 back to us.
21:00:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I definitely support the
21:00:17 continuance, obviously.
21:00:18 But I just want to point out, I did some math.
21:00:20 And, you know, we all talk about the 80% rule.
21:00:24 This actually comes off the 96%.
21:00:27 In other words, they have 96% of the street frontage
21:00:32 that they need in an RS-60, because instead of 60 feet
21:00:36 they have 57.6 feet which is 96% of what they
21:00:42 otherwise would need.
21:00:43 So normally I'm not too keen on this type of thing but
21:00:47 it doesn't look like they did it.
21:00:49 It looks like the prior owner picked up the additional
21:00:51 15 feet, which took them to this point where they are
21:00:54 today, which is 96%.
21:00:57 So that's pretty darn close.

21:00:58 So --
21:01:00 >>> I was going to say that in inverse, we are lacking
21:01:02 4%.
21:01:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Lacking 4%.
21:01:06 Anyway.
21:01:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to continue.
21:01:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
21:01:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Whatever Ms. Boyle suggests.
21:01:14 >>MARTY BOYLE: The next available date nighttime would
21:01:17 be May 25th.
21:01:18 6 p.m.
21:01:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
21:01:22 (Motion carried)
21:01:26 Need to open item number 7.
21:01:30 >> So moved.
21:01:31 >> Second.
21:01:31 (Motion carried)
21:01:54 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
21:01:56 Another Euclidean.
21:01:57 This is going from RS-60 to RS-50 designation.
21:02:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 7?
21:02:04 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm so sorry, am I on the wrong one?

21:02:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think so.
21:02:11 >>MARTY BOYLE: I just skipped.
21:02:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 7 is not a big project.
21:02:43 >>MARTY BOYLE: Okay, let's get on the right page here.
21:02:45 This is item number 7.
21:02:47 Z 06-01.
21:02:51 You can see on the Elmo, this request is going from a
21:03:02 PDA to PDA.
21:03:05 Originally, this project was called Imperial yacht
21:03:11 basin.
21:03:11 If you look at the Elmo, it is south of Gandy, north
21:03:16 of -- it's what you see in the blue on the Elmo.
21:03:21 And it is west of Westshore.
21:03:25 You see it in old Tampa Bay.
21:03:27 Originally this was Imperial yacht basin.
21:03:30 And I want to give you a little bit of background to
21:03:32 bring you up to speed if I could.
21:03:34 It is originally improved, Z 058 for 500 residential
21:03:44 units and miscellaneous commercial uses.
21:03:45 That included the boat slips and dry slips on old
21:03:49 Tampa Bay.
21:03:51 Then in 2004, a new developer, a PDA, came through,

21:03:56 and they requested 750 units, miscellaneous commercial
21:04:01 uses, 250 units, it was a 250 unit increase from the
21:04:05 2001.
21:04:07 The main reason for the rezoning case was to increase
21:04:11 that 250 units.
21:04:15 At rezoning they excluded the boat slips and the dry
21:04:18 storage, and they had not been bought by that new
21:04:23 developer.
21:04:24 Before you know, we have V 06-01, a new developer.
21:04:29 They are now going to call it New Port.
21:04:32 It is proposed -- 750, single units, miscellaneous
21:04:37 commercial uses.
21:04:38 This is the same that was approved as approved under Z
21:04:41 04-90.
21:04:43 They added boat slips and dry storage on old Tampa
21:04:47 Bay.
21:04:48 And simply put, the difference between this rezoning
21:04:52 and Z 04-90 that was rezoned before it, was to allow
21:04:59 the buildings -- and I'll show you on the Elmo to
21:05:03 cross the property line between the previous Imperial
21:05:05 yacht basin rezoning, and the Hendry rezoning and to
21:05:09 add Bridge Street cross section approved in Hendry and

21:05:12 moody rezonings.
21:05:13 If you look at the Elmo, you'll see in blue the
21:05:17 Imperial yacht basin.
21:05:19 And you'll see the Hendry piece that was previously
21:05:24 approved.
21:05:26 And one of the reasons they came through is to create
21:05:29 a zero lot line as they had in the Hendry rezoning
21:05:32 that was previously approved.
21:05:34 Under the Hendry rezoning -- and I'll just let now
21:05:37 about those.
21:05:37 This is all going to be one project, that they had
21:05:41 come in under different rezonings.
21:05:43 The Hendry was approved as rezoning Z 05-66.
21:05:49 It was the New Port developers that are developing
21:05:52 this current request.
21:05:55 It was approved in 2005.
21:05:58 And it was proposed to link up to the Imperial yacht
21:06:02 basin property as one unified development.
21:06:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is pretty confusing.
21:06:09 Do you have a matrix that shows the number of units,
21:06:12 the office that kind of shows how things evolved?
21:06:21 >>> I can give you the years -- the blue --

21:06:24 >>: That would be great so we can make a copy.
21:06:28 When you're done.
21:06:28 >>GWEN MILLER: When your done, Marty.
21:06:30 When you're done.
21:06:32 >>MARTY BOYLE: Thank you.
21:06:35 And I might be making it a little more confusing.
21:06:38 I was trying to make it less confusing.
21:06:41 But basically what has happened is you have on the
21:06:44 Elmo, I don't know if it's showing, you have the moody
21:06:48 piece.
21:06:48 And it was approved in 2005 for 150 residential units.
21:06:54 And you have the 100 piece that was approved under
21:06:58 05-66 as approved in 2005, it was approved for 850
21:07:04 residential units.
21:07:07 And the yacht basin came in in 2001, and then was for
21:07:13 500 residential units, and miscellaneous commercial
21:07:16 uses.
21:07:17 And I can give you that breakdown.
21:07:19 Then it came in in 2004 for an additional 250
21:07:24 residential units.
21:07:24 That was the only change.
21:07:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that was Mr --

21:07:31 >>> And they also left off the boat slips, whether
21:07:33 purposely or accidentally, I don't know.
21:07:35 But in this new rezoning it throws back in the boat
21:07:37 slips and has the same amount of residential units.
21:07:43 It's 16 acres.
21:07:44 The professional office use is 70,000 square feet
21:07:48 that. Was the same as the previous PDA, the
21:07:50 professional office of 25,000 square feet, same as the
21:07:53 previously approved PDA, and 750 residential units,
21:07:57 and 200 hotel units, same approval as it was.
21:08:03 The petitioner -- and I'll let hymn him explain more
21:08:06 the reason they are coming forward is to, as they did
21:08:10 in the Hendry piece, there's a zero lot line setback.
21:08:15 And they also wanted to do the same on in so they
21:08:18 could make this one unified project.
21:08:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So my biggest concern is, I know
21:08:24 that staff has combed this over carefully.
21:08:27 And to make sure that the units are the same, the
21:08:30 office space is the same, all that's the same, right?
21:08:34 >> Right.
21:08:35 >> My biggest concern is, which conditions are they
21:08:38 going to?

21:08:39 Are they going to the Hendry conditions?
21:08:41 >> Yes.
21:08:41 They wanted to mirror the Hendry -- the conditions
21:08:45 that were approved under Hendry.
21:08:48 >> In staff's opinion are those the best conditions we
21:08:50 have ever approved from the city's perspective?
21:08:54 >>> Best ever?
21:08:54 I don't know --
21:08:55 >>: No, the best as any of these three parcels.
21:08:58 >>> Yes.
21:08:59 They brought to the table a lot of things that
21:09:02 Imperial yacht basin had not taken in consideration
21:09:05 previously.
21:09:06 And things that the petitioner is willing to do.
21:09:10 And I will let them speak to those more, as of this
21:09:14 date, we have a staff report, and I don't know if you
21:09:18 have the latest that we have revised from the doc
21:09:22 agenda, there were several conditions previously --
21:09:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How will we know?
21:09:28 >>> At the top it will say revised in bold, under
21:09:31 petition number.
21:09:32 Does yours have that?

21:09:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
21:09:37 >>> They worked out all the objections staff had.
21:09:40 And that's why staff revised to make it a clean copy
21:09:43 for you.
21:09:43 There are no staff objections to this petition.
21:09:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
21:09:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
21:09:51 Are we going to get a presentation by our
21:09:53 transportation people now?
21:09:54 Is this the right time to ask for it?
21:09:56 >>> They are here to answer any questions.
21:10:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Now.
21:10:08 To hear from staff.
21:10:14 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Transportation manager.
21:10:18 Here tonight to tell you that the Tampa transportation
21:10:21 staff has agreed with the conceptual design for the
21:10:25 construction of Bridge Street as a local road.
21:10:31 However, the approved Bridge Street design will result
21:10:33 in the need to accommodate additional traffic
21:10:35 elsewhere.
21:10:40 It needs to go to another corridor.
21:10:42 We have met and gone over all the points that were

21:10:46 discussed relative to transportation in this area.
21:10:50 And we believe that the developer will need to enter
21:10:53 into a separate legal binding agreement with the city
21:10:58 to make the changes necessary to accommodate traffic
21:11:02 off-site.
21:11:05 Again we believe the west corridor is affected by this
21:11:09 traffic.
21:11:09 It can't utilize Bridge Street, obviously the most
21:11:12 obvious corridor would be Westshore.
21:11:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're inferring that the
21:11:22 developer, you believe -- I don't know exactly how you
21:11:24 believe but the developer will sign on to doing
21:11:28 improvements to Westshore?
21:11:30 >>> That's correct.
21:11:31 >> And how do we guarantee that?
21:11:34 >>> That would be through a developer agreement with
21:11:35 the city.
21:11:37 And that will be signed off with the legal department.
21:11:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
21:11:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
21:11:47 Mr. LaMotte, I don't believe you were here when this
21:11:50 first started, when it was in its Imperial yacht basin

21:11:54 days.
21:11:54 You have been here for the last couple of iterations.
21:11:58 If we were starting with this from scratch, which we
21:12:02 are, it's before us as a request, do you believe that
21:12:05 when this proposal is constructed that traffic coming
21:12:10 from the south of here heading north, that the impact
21:12:14 of the proposed redevelopment before us is going to
21:12:19 negatively impact that traffic?
21:12:23 Is this -- I feel so thwarted because the study that
21:12:28 we asked you for update on this morning isn't going to
21:12:30 be completed until May, I believe.
21:12:34 >>> That's correct.
21:12:34 >> And we are being asked to approve this in March.
21:12:38 And we don't have the information of that study.
21:12:44 >>> This is true.
21:12:45 >> Well, I have a question for our legal department.
21:12:49 Are we allowed to continue this till we have adequate
21:12:51 transportation information, which will be in May when
21:12:54 we get the results of the study?
21:12:57 By the way, I have asked for the study way before -- I
21:13:00 asked for the study like nine months ago and it's just
21:13:03 taken awhile to hire people, go through the scope,

21:13:07 blah-blah-blah.
21:13:07 My question is can we hold this up until we get the
21:13:10 results of the study in May?
21:13:12 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
21:13:13 I have been sworn in.
21:13:14 What is before you is a revised PDA.
21:13:20 You are not being asked to look at the entire project.
21:13:24 This is not before you on a oh holistic fashion.
21:13:27 What is before council is simply the changes that the
21:13:30 developer is requesting from the previously approved
21:13:33 PDA that was approved by council in 2004, and we would
21:13:37 ask council to focus on those changes.
21:13:40 There has not been a transportation analysis submitted
21:13:44 that would indicate that additional changes need to be
21:13:46 made elsewhere off-site that. Is going to be
21:13:49 discussed separately with the developer, through a
21:13:51 development agreement that will come back before
21:13:53 council for approval.
21:13:54 But to tie that into the re zoning, I believe, would
21:13:57 be inappropriate, because we don't have a
21:13:59 transportation analysis that would suggest the need
21:14:02 for additional transportation impact fees.

21:14:06 We don't know until we get the report in May that.
21:14:11 Report is separate and apart from the PDA request that
21:14:12 is before you.
21:14:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?
21:14:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Another question.
21:14:21 Roy, I'm sure you've looked at, seems when they are
21:14:25 done building Bridge Street, that we want to take
21:14:28 ownership.
21:14:29 That's what it says?
21:14:32 >>ROY LAMOTTE: We were continuing to hold that as a
21:14:34 public roadway.
21:14:35 >> And I'm just wondering, I think it clearly needs to
21:14:40 be publicly accessible by perhaps in the easement, you
21:14:46 know, perpetual easement of public use, so that way we
21:14:49 can get through from Tyson all the way across Gandy.
21:14:55 But is it wise for to us take ownership of that road
21:14:58 and then have to maintain it?
21:15:01 >>> Any type of enhancements that are given that are
21:15:04 up above our stands would -- standards would obviously
21:15:06 be a requirement that we would ask the developer to
21:15:08 continue to maintain.
21:15:09 It's no different than when we do work for the state,

21:15:12 and we make enhancements on their roadways, they ask
21:15:16 us to enter into an agreement, binding with them.
21:15:21 >> But why won't wouldn't we just let them keep
21:15:25 ownership, since it's right in the middle of their
21:15:27 project, and we'll just return an easement, a cross
21:15:31 easement so the public can always use it?
21:15:34 >>> That may be possible.
21:15:35 But I would have to suggest to you that they liked to
21:15:40 consider this their private road and have a gate
21:15:43 entrance to the but I don't believe that's correct,
21:15:44 and the city retains the right that we want this as a
21:15:47 public road, and as an escape valve, if I can say it
21:15:51 for west Westshore, have traffic get up to Gandy.
21:15:56 >> So it's never been insinuated to me that this was
21:15:59 going to be gated.
21:16:00 You've heard that stated?
21:16:02 >>> Well, let me suggest that they have indicated that
21:16:04 they would like to have it as a private road, but we
21:16:07 as a staff did not --
21:16:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
21:16:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. LaMotte, it's going to be like
21:16:18 3,000 units, in this area here?

21:16:24 When we do the transportation study will you be taking
21:16:27 into consideration the hurricane evacuation routes,
21:16:29 too?
21:16:30 >>ROY LAMOTTE: We were considering all factors in our
21:16:32 evaluation.
21:16:32 And we know how important Gandy is to that evacuation
21:16:36 route.
21:16:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 3,000 units are already approved.
21:16:43 >>> I understand that, but I don't know what we asked
21:16:45 about the hurricane evacuation routes.
21:16:48 >>CHAIRMAN: Planning Commission staff?
21:17:04 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:17:05 I have been sworn in.
21:17:07 I'm going to be succinct because I know we have gone
21:17:10 through two big rezonings on this particular area and
21:17:13 one plan amendment for the moody piece.
21:17:16 To be succinct we all know the land use is the
21:17:20 Westshore area, southwest part of Gandy.
21:17:23 Basically, Mr. Dingfelder, the request is to approve a
21:17:30 petition to amend the existing PD, which currently is
21:17:33 approved as a mixed use project to maintain
21:17:36 consistency with the previously approved Hendry-moody

21:17:41 rezoning approvals which they are basically wanting to
21:17:43 extend northward up into the Imperial yacht basin
21:17:47 segment.
21:17:47 That is a request that is before you this evening.
21:17:49 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
21:17:52 proposed request.
21:17:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:18:01 >>> Vin Marchetti, suite 2700 representing applicant.
21:18:06 If we could apply for a minor, minor, minor
21:18:10 modification to the PD we would have done that.
21:18:12 The iteration that staff just went through relative to
21:18:15 the approvals, previous approvals of where we ended
21:18:18 up, it's really irrelevant, because we are here for
21:18:21 really one purpose only, that's to make sure we have a
21:18:24 unified plan for the entire New Port Tampa Bay
21:18:28 project.
21:18:29 I'm going to show you.
21:18:31 It's my version.
21:18:36 This is the Imperial yacht basin piece for the last
21:18:41 rezone petition, I guess you might say.
21:18:43 At that point, did not have any concept of developing
21:18:47 a unified project, New Port Tampa Bay, the entire 54

21:18:52 acres of property.
21:18:54 What happened was of course he obtained his
21:18:57 entitlements.
21:18:58 He also paid a million dollar, by the way, to the City
21:19:00 of Tampa for transportation improvements.
21:19:02 He maintained his entitlements.
21:19:05 My client came in, contracted for this property.
21:19:08 My client also contracted for the Hendry property and
21:19:11 the moody property as well, separate contracts,
21:19:13 separate gates, et cetera.
21:19:16 That resulted in three separate rezoning petitions.
21:19:20 The sole purpose really for this petition before you
21:19:24 this evening is to allow for a couple of buildings
21:19:30 here to be placed over lot lines.
21:19:32 Unfortunately within the city limit, you're not
21:19:36 allowed to place buildings over lot lines without
21:19:38 having zero setback provided for within that
21:19:42 particular zoning. The previous zoning that Mr.
21:19:44 Purgen did required certain setbacks from the lot
21:19:50 lines.
21:19:50 Of course now there's a common ownership interest
21:19:52 between all 54 acres.

21:19:54 We are building one single project.
21:19:59 That's the project we're building.
21:19:59 So and the reason for the changes to the conditions
21:20:03 and notes, there are no entitlement changes.
21:20:05 Our traffic analysis that was done for the two prior
21:20:09 petitions still remains in place today. There is a
21:20:12 discussion earlier by transportation director saying
21:20:15 that we are in discussion was staff, which is true,
21:20:18 relative to the design of Bridge Street, being a local
21:20:21 road, where staff I believe agrees with that.
21:20:24 We are talking to staff about Westshore improvements,
21:20:28 at this point in time.
21:20:29 We will have a separate development agreement
21:20:31 outlining those improvements at the appropriate stage,
21:20:34 probably a couple of months from now.
21:20:36 The key factor is that we could not include in this
21:20:39 zoning condition improvements to Westshore because
21:20:43 they would then be inconsistent with the other two
21:20:46 prior petitions approved by council.
21:20:47 So the purpose of the conditions before you is to
21:20:50 outline the same entitlements and the same exact
21:20:53 conditions that we have on the Hendry piece, which is

21:20:56 basically the properties here, to make it a consistent
21:21:00 unified development, which I think was the goal of
21:21:02 everyone in starting a New Port Tampa Bay project.
21:21:08 By the way, Randy Coen is here if some transportation
21:21:12 issue arises.
21:21:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only transportation question I
21:21:20 had, Mr. Marchetti, is this question of public road
21:21:23 versus private road and now there's a question of a
21:21:24 gate --
21:21:26 >>> No.
21:21:27 >> What's that about?
21:21:28 >>> It's never been a gate.
21:21:30 It's a pedestrian friendly, open to the public
21:21:32 project.
21:21:32 That's from day one.
21:21:34 Virtually all mixed in --
21:21:35 >> From Tyson all the way to Gandy?
21:21:37 >>> Yes.
21:21:38 Yes.
21:21:39 We raised the question, since it will be a local road,
21:21:43 our question was, does the city want to us take over
21:21:46 the road instead of having it become a public road

21:21:49 because we had so many improvements within this
21:21:51 right-of-way, much higher standard than provided for
21:21:53 in the city.
21:21:54 Also, it was a set of having separate easements
21:21:57 agreements and whatnot with the city, it might be
21:21:59 easier to make it all road and the city would
21:22:01 obviously still have utilities and other easements
21:22:03 within the roadway.
21:22:06 But thus far the city said, no, we are fine leaving it
21:22:09 public.
21:22:09 We are fine leaving it as public as well.
21:22:11 It will remain open to the public.
21:22:13 >> The problem I have is there's a condition,
21:22:16 condition 32 clearly says that -- and I would think
21:22:19 from an economical perspective it would be better for
21:22:22 the city not to own this road, that we would just have
21:22:24 a perpetual easement.
21:22:26 I see transportation staff in the back seems to have
21:22:28 an opinion on this, that perhaps they might want to
21:22:31 come up and share.
21:22:32 But the minute you get this condition nailed in, we're
21:22:36 done with that discussion.

21:22:37 Because I know you don't want to come back again.
21:22:39 >>> I prefer not to.
21:22:41 Not that I have anything against the council here.
21:22:43 But the Hendry rezoning petition, we discussed this
21:22:46 item at staff before that petition came to council and
21:22:48 they asked to us include that condition, being a
21:22:52 public roadway, in the last condition for Hendry.
21:22:54 So that's why it's indicated here.
21:22:57 We are not intending on changing any conditions from
21:22:59 the Hendry rezonings.
21:23:01 These duplicate what Hendry has.
21:23:03 So if there's a change in staff opinion we would
21:23:06 certainly be willing to hear it but we haven't heard
21:23:08 it this far.
21:23:12 There is one factor, however, on that public versus
21:23:14 private roadway issue and that is potential
21:23:17 signalization at Gandy and Bridge Street and the
21:23:20 feeling is generally that maybe D.O.T. would be more
21:23:24 receptive to the signal, private road versus public.
21:23:28 That's one factor to be considered.
21:23:30 Happy to answer any questions you may have.
21:23:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two questions that were staff

21:23:33 comments on the report, on page 3.
21:23:36 On the stormwater, directly discharging into old Tampa
21:23:41 Bay.
21:23:42 Will you provide stormwater retention?
21:23:44 Or did I --
21:23:47 >>> I think that was a prior report.
21:23:50 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
21:23:53 All of stormwater's objections have been clarified.
21:23:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What about parks and rec?
21:24:00 >>> All objections have been removed from staff.
21:24:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
21:24:04 Okay.
21:24:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
21:24:06 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
21:24:08 on item number 7?
21:24:11 Come up and speak.
21:24:17 >>> Good evening.
21:24:17 My name is Linda McCumbey.
21:24:22 I have been sworn in. I have a unit at 4934 West
21:24:25 Gandy which is Westshore club condominiums unit.
21:24:27 Right next door to the proposed construction.
21:24:32 And first I'd like to say that when hurricane Elena

21:24:38 came many years ago, but some of you may remember it,
21:24:44 my parking lot was under water by three feet and I
21:24:48 couldn't get to park there for my unit.
21:24:51 And they had evacuated, of course.
21:24:53 But my point being that the whole section from the bay
21:24:58 to my unit was under water.
21:25:01 And for quite awhile.
21:25:04 So that area that they are proposing for tower one and
21:25:08 two is a flooded area during the hurricane season,
21:25:13 when the bay comes up.
21:25:13 It would be like building a high-rise on top of
21:25:15 Bayshore Boulevard, where you know the bay comes up
21:25:20 whenever there's high tide.
21:25:22 And, okay, noise, dirt, dusty conditions have started
21:25:26 already, outside my front yard.
21:25:32 We have the huge trucks, the bulldozers, the pile
21:25:35 drivers sinking in the pylons for this huge tower.
21:25:38 And I have allergies.
21:25:40 And these conditions make it impossible to live next
21:25:42 door.
21:25:44 Had to wear a mask entering and leaving my condo.
21:25:46 And the breeze blows in from the bay, and it blows all

21:25:50 that right in at you.
21:25:52 So also the rear view of the sales center is something
21:25:58 to be desired.
21:26:00 Leaves something to be desired.
21:26:01 It's comparable to the back end of the retail building
21:26:03 that has four air conditioners and it's a box.
21:26:06 And it's just plain ugly.
21:26:09 So I invite you to come and see my condos, the view,
21:26:17 all of you.
21:26:19 Okay, next, I figure about two cars per family would
21:26:26 give you roughly 5,000 cars.
21:26:30 Plus there's shops and three restaurant patrons going
21:26:35 in and out of Bridge Street.
21:26:36 And Gandy is the main hurricane evacuation route.
21:26:39 I see you're concerned about that also.
21:26:41 And right now the traffic is bumper to bumper just
21:26:45 going home from work every day.
21:26:47 Every time the power goes out in that area, sewage
21:26:50 pump stations stop working and the people keep
21:26:52 flushing, people keep taking showers.
21:26:56 Sewage backs up into homes when that happens, as you
21:26:58 know, because some people are at the low end of the

21:27:02 gravity sewer lines.
21:27:07 A tower will greatly add to the sewage burden and the
21:27:10 infrastructure for sewage and water as well.
21:27:13 When you provide emergency generators for this purpose
21:27:16 to protect those one-story buildings, that might be
21:27:21 affected by the sewage backup when electricity goes
21:27:27 out after the storms.
21:27:28 The heritage and character of Tampa are not found in
21:27:30 the tower design as they are in the Westshore club
21:27:34 marina development which is south on Westshore.
21:27:37 The building tower does not seem to conform to the
21:27:40 area as far as I can see.
21:27:41 I don't see any Spanish tile, don't see anything like
21:27:48 what I see in the area.
21:27:49 (Bell sounds).
21:27:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:27:51 Time is up.
21:27:51 Next.
21:27:58 >>> Good evening, Madam Chair.
21:27:59 My name is Al Steenson.
21:28:03 I have been sworn.
21:28:04 I'm here tonight representing the Gandy civic

21:28:07 association.
21:28:10 I've had several conversations with Mr. Marchetti.
21:28:13 I have had several conversations with Mr. Gunn.
21:28:17 I do send them an e-mail.
21:28:19 And I would like -- I will put that in the record
21:28:24 before I leave.
21:28:26 I'm not here to cover ground that's already been
21:28:32 plowed. The indications are that this development is
21:28:34 going on as planned.
21:28:35 It doesn't look like it right now because you go out
21:28:37 there now and it's just a level piece of land.
21:28:40 But I understand some things -- and I'm not surprised
21:28:47 that some of you are confused.
21:28:50 If you go total backup, there's 209 pages of it and I
21:28:53 didn't read all 209 pages.
21:28:56 So I am not surprised that you're confused.
21:28:59 We did ask, but we won't get, because I had extensive
21:29:05 conversation was Ms. Boyle and Ms. O'Dowd today.
21:29:08 We would love to have a guarantee.
21:29:10 Now and in the future.
21:29:12 But we can't get those because there's no Avenue for
21:29:15 to us get them.

21:29:16 What I am here tonight is to reiterate the
21:29:19 association's desire that the previously agreed to and
21:29:24 approved rezonings, 750, 850 and 150, expressly remain
21:29:32 in place.
21:29:35 And that's all I have to say.
21:29:36 I'd like to put this in the record.
21:29:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, sir?
21:29:44 Al?
21:29:46 When you say those numbers remain in place, you mean
21:29:49 not to exceed?
21:29:52 >>> Excuse me?
21:29:53 >> When you mention those three numbers, you said you
21:29:54 want them to remain in place.
21:29:57 You mean the residential upper-most numbers, units,
21:30:01 unit numbers not to be exceeded?
21:30:03 Is that what you want?
21:30:05 >>> Right.
21:30:06 >> Okay.
21:30:07 >>> 750, 850, 150.
21:30:09 A total of 1750.
21:30:11 We want that strictly adhered to.
21:30:12 That's the residential.

21:30:15 The commercial I don't even know what they are talking
21:30:18 about, 428,000 square feet.
21:30:21 Don't have a clue on it.
21:30:22 But we want that 750 to remain in place.
21:30:25 We would love a guarantee on it but there's no Avenue
21:30:29 available to us to get that guarantee.
21:30:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's ask legal.
21:30:33 >>> I talked to Ms. O'Dowd this afternoon.
21:30:39 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
21:30:40 When I spoke with Mr. Steenson this afternoon, what he
21:30:43 was looking for was a confirmation of the site plan
21:30:46 that in the future there would be no request for
21:30:48 additional units and I told heme him that was not a
21:30:51 promise we could make or a note that we could include
21:30:53 on the site plan.
21:30:56 It's the underlying land use and the zoning permit,
21:30:58 additional units.
21:30:59 This owner and future owner can always petition this
21:31:02 council for those additional units permitted by the
21:31:05 underlying land use.
21:31:06 So that was not a condition that we felt we could
21:31:11 lawfully include in a rezoning.

21:31:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. As we go forward into
21:31:17 the future, as we develop a comprehensive plan with
21:31:21 some teeth, that requires concurrency, right now the
21:31:23 entire City of Tampa virtually is where you don't have
21:31:26 to have concurrency in terms of transportation, my
21:31:29 understanding is we actually might be able to be more
21:31:32 stringent in what we demand of people before they are
21:31:35 allowed to build, before they are allowed -- they have
21:31:37 to prove that the schools are adequate, roads are
21:31:40 adequate, et cetera.
21:31:41 So there might be an opportunity in the future perhaps
21:31:44 to address his concerns.
21:31:47 Isn't that true?
21:31:48 >>> That is something that we are currently looking at
21:31:50 through our evaluation and appraisal report of the
21:31:53 comprehensive plan, yes.
21:31:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:31:57 Next.
21:31:58 Ms. O'Dowd?
21:32:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The only thing we are supposed to be
21:32:01 looking at tonight is the provision of the zero lot
21:32:05 line, though, right?

21:32:06 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: That is my recommendation that you
21:32:08 focus on what is changing from the previously approved
21:32:10 PDA to this one.
21:32:12 >> So prior -- we already approved the 3,000 units?
21:32:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It not 3,000.
21:32:20 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I think it's 750.
21:32:22 By this PDA 200 hotel units and the square footage for
21:32:25 commercial space and retail space.
21:32:27 That is not changing in this PDA.
21:32:32 >> If I add up all the one that is Marty gave me, you
21:32:36 will add up to 3,000 units?
21:32:38 >>> Yeah, my comments are limited to the petition
21:32:40 that's actually on council's agenda this evening and
21:32:42 not counting up the units included in the previously
21:32:45 approved PDAs.
21:32:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're adding 1, 2 and 3.
21:32:53 All you have to look at is 3.
21:32:54 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
21:32:58 With the three, the moody, Hendry and Imperial, or New
21:33:00 Port now, it would be a total of 1750 residential
21:33:04 units.
21:33:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It was a little confusing there.

21:33:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other question.
21:33:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita.
21:33:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: I just wanted to ask another question
21:33:18 to Cate O'Dowd.
21:33:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question to Marty.
21:33:22 This notion of zero lot line, that only pertains to
21:33:24 where they pump up to their own property.
21:33:29 >>> That's correct.
21:33:29 >> Not as related to other people's property?
21:33:32 >>> No.
21:33:32 >> Is there some appropriate buffer built in to the
21:33:34 other people's property?
21:33:36 >>> Under the PDA they don't have to show the buffer.
21:33:38 But it comes in for incremental review and during
21:33:41 incremental review they have to meet the codes.
21:33:44 For those buffers.
21:33:46 The chapter 27.
21:33:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which code?
21:33:56 >>> They come in for incremental review and they would
21:33:59 have to meet the buffering screening from whatever --
21:34:02 the buildings, on the commercial building to
21:34:04 residential it would be one buffer, one setback.

21:34:07 Fountain was residential-residential it would be one
21:34:10 setback.
21:34:11 >> If it's multifamily to single family --
21:34:16 >>> And as it comes in, it will have to come back in
21:34:18 for incremental review to land development.
21:34:22 And at that time is when you look at it in smaller
21:34:24 pieces and you address all of the code requirements.
21:34:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. O'Dowd.
21:34:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: I understand your explanation awhile
21:34:33 ago about no opportunity for written guarantees here.
21:34:35 But when you were talking to a neighborhood
21:34:37 representative, Mr. Steenson seemed comfortable if
21:34:43 they want more units they have to come back to some
21:34:46 board up here, right?
21:34:47 >>> Yes.
21:34:47 Thank you for clarifying that.
21:34:48 We had that conversation this afternoon.
21:34:54 >> I was just trying to clarify while we can't
21:34:57 guarantee it's going to stay, I wanted Ms. O'Dowd to
21:35:00 reiterate to you, if they want some more units they
21:35:02 have to come back and get them approved.
21:35:04 They can't just decide they want more on the same

21:35:06 property.
21:35:07 >>> Al Steenson: Oh, yes, I understand ...
21:35:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks, Kate.
21:35:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
21:35:19 >>> My name is David Stickley, I live at 4918 Gandy
21:35:23 Boulevard.
21:35:24 I have been sworn.
21:35:27 I am also a person who lives at Westshore Club II, I'm
21:35:34 on the Board of Directors there.
21:35:38 The primary concerns that I had, one, I believe, has
21:35:41 just been answered that the buffers and setbacks
21:35:45 adjacent to properties that are adjacent to this
21:35:47 project would not change by this, and that is already
21:35:52 satisfied.
21:35:55 The other one -- actually, there were two other ones.
21:35:58 But one primary problem we are having is with
21:36:03 pedestrian traffic on McElroy Avenue.
21:36:10 The original plan called for a sidewalk to be built
21:36:13 down there. We have a handicapped facility directly
21:36:17 across from Westshore club 2 and we also have
21:36:20 handicapped individuals in, that own and live in
21:36:23 Westshore club 2.

21:36:28 It seems that we are going round and round on getting
21:36:30 that sidewalk built.
21:36:33 It has been brought to my attention that Ecogroup
21:36:38 agrees for sure to build it, but they propose to build
21:36:41 a boardwalk type approach to the sidewalk elevating it
21:36:46 above an existing drainage ditch.
21:36:49 I have spoken to the city in regard to that.
21:36:53 They don't like that idea, because they don't really
21:36:57 maintain that, nor do they have specifications for it.
21:37:01 They would prefer that a storm sewer be put in on the
21:37:06 south side of McElroy, and then a standard sidewalk
21:37:11 put on top of that.
21:37:14 I have spoken with the gentleman from Ecogroup, and
21:37:17 they say that that sound all right to them, except
21:37:21 they don't want the liability for deciding what
21:37:25 diameter that pipe should be.
21:37:28 They need stormwater department of the City of Tampa
21:37:32 to establish that size of a pipe.
21:37:36 And then they appear as though they are probably ready
21:37:38 to do it.
21:37:39 But since this has gone back and forth and back and
21:37:42 forth, the latest thing that I'm hearing is that the

21:37:45 entire idea of doing anything on McElroy to take care
21:37:50 of those handicapped people will be just set aside
21:37:55 until after they have constructed Bridge Street, and
21:37:58 what they want to do there.
21:37:59 I really feel that that is an unsatisfactory approach
21:38:02 to it.
21:38:04 Particularly since it was one of the leading things
21:38:06 and the very first petition that was approved.
21:38:09 Thank you.
21:38:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:38:11 Would anyone else like to speak?
21:38:13 Petitioner?
21:38:15 Do you want to rebut?
21:38:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Address the question just raised
21:38:20 about McElroy because I remember that conversation.
21:38:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: I remember it very well.
21:38:26 >>> Vin Marchetti for the record.
21:38:30 Ms. Cumbey had issues way beyond where we are tonight
21:38:36 so I am not going to address those.
21:38:37 Mr. Steenson, the zoning process, obviously you know,
21:38:41 this process has been so excruciating to us, literally
21:38:45 six months in the process, I don't see us coming back

21:38:51 anytime soon.
21:38:55 Note 36 covers the setback for the project,
21:38:58 conditions, and Marty was correct that section 26 --
21:39:03 27 is going to be required to be met for anything
21:39:06 beyond, along the east side boundary of our property
21:39:11 abutting the other sites, the other residential.
21:39:14 And I'll let Donna dress a couple other issues.
21:39:19 >>> Don Gunn, 601 Bayshore Boulevard, Tampa.
21:39:23 I have been sworn.
21:39:26 I'd like to address a couple of the comments that were
21:39:28 made.
21:39:29 Number one, Mr. Steenson and I have been in
21:39:32 communication for the last year and a half.
21:39:35 We have had significant discussions with the Gandy
21:39:38 civic association as well as a number of the other
21:39:41 associations in the area, and our neighbors to the New
21:39:46 Port project.
21:39:48 You know, we have indicated that the entitlements that
21:39:51 have been granted under the three PDAs that comprise
21:39:55 New Port Tampa Bay total 1750 residential units.
21:40:00 Mr. Steenson and the association had asked that we
21:40:04 guarantee that we will not go over that.

21:40:07 We can't go over that without coming back to the
21:40:09 council and going through the same process again.
21:40:12 We have no intention of exceeding what has been for
21:40:17 the three parcels and I have expressed that to Mr.
21:40:19 Steenson, and we agree with city attorneys' approach
21:40:25 to go beyond what you folks have already granted from
21:40:28 the entitlement standpoint to state that we won't go
21:40:31 beyond that, it seems a little superfluous.
21:40:36 We have no intention of going beyond that.
21:40:41 There is an earlier comment regarding 5,000 cars for
21:40:43 the residential component.
21:40:46 That's nowhere near.
21:40:49 If we had 17 ooh 50th units there would be nowhere
21:40:52 near 5,000 cars.
21:40:54 Again I think it's confusion about the maximum amount
21:40:56 of residential density allowed by the already-approved
21:41:00 PDA zoning.
21:41:04 Another comment was made that the proposed proposal
21:41:09 does not conform to the Tampa Bay rooms and what have
21:41:11 you, and that's actually right, it's our intention to
21:41:14 come up with an architectural style that is a little
21:41:20 bit fresh, a little bit contemporary.

21:41:24 Mr. Marchetti is putting on the Elmo, this is a view
21:41:31 across the proposed marina park.
21:41:35 A significant park along the peninsula in the center
21:41:38 of the village that will be New Port Tampa Bay.
21:41:41 In the background are some of the towers that are
21:41:44 proposed.
21:41:47 Here's a shot of tower one and two which are the first
21:41:51 two towers to be developed on the project.
21:41:53 It's a contemporary design.
21:41:56 It is in keeping with the nautical theme of New Port
21:42:00 Tampa Bay which is a marina-based development.
21:42:11 This is a rendering from just to the west of the urban
21:42:16 village center.
21:42:17 Just before going out onto the peninsula looking at a
21:42:20 retail space, an esplanade is along the water, and
21:42:25 that esplanade when it's fully completed will run from
21:42:27 the northern part of the property to the southern part
21:42:34 of the property.
21:42:34 It is open to the public.
21:42:34 It allows the public to come back to the water, to
21:42:37 take the benefit of the water that exists in this area
21:42:42 that we are already capturing.

21:42:44 Another shot of the esplanade.
21:42:46 This one from just to the east of the first two towers
21:42:50 that will be built.
21:42:52 Again, opening up the waterway to the public.
21:43:00 Quite frankly, we think that sometimes the
21:43:05 Mediterranean style is a little overused and a little
21:43:08 bit of a fresh approach, well done, well conceived,
21:43:11 well executed, will be an enhancement, as we intend
21:43:15 for New Port Tampa Bay.
21:43:18 With regard to the sidewalk, there is a condition, the
21:43:25 original condition in the Imperial PDA zoning that
21:43:27 came before the council in October of 2004 and was
21:43:31 approved.
21:43:32 That same language is in the petition that we have
21:43:35 before you.
21:43:36 It is a commitment.
21:43:38 We have met with the freedom village folks on a number
21:43:40 of occasions.
21:43:42 We had discussions with the city with regard to what
21:43:46 can effectively be done.
21:43:49 Currently along both the north and the south
21:43:52 right-of-way of McElroy, on the side of the road, are

21:43:57 deep drainage ditches.
21:44:00 We had discussions with the city with regard to how
21:44:05 best to accommodate the desired walkway from the ACLF
21:44:12 freedom village to Westshore Boulevard.
21:44:16 And while it would be, I think, desirable to culvert
21:44:25 that, we cannot assume what is out there. We know
21:44:28 there are conditions and heavy rain where that part of
21:44:31 McElroy, the water is on the roadway.
21:44:33 It's not all confined to the ditches.
21:44:35 A lot of that water comes from the east of Westshore
21:44:37 Boulevard.
21:44:40 And we would be happy to work with the city, but it's
21:44:43 not the developer's obligation to determine where
21:44:47 these off-site waters come in, what the flow is.
21:44:50 The last thing in the world we or anybody else should
21:44:52 want to do is to assume something and put in some kind
21:44:55 of a drainage system that does not help but
21:44:58 exacerbates the current problem.
21:45:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Gunn, in regard to -- is it
21:45:07 McElroy?
21:45:09 I don't know.
21:45:09 In regard to that issue, that's an important issue

21:45:13 that needs to get resolved quickly.
21:45:15 And in part, I have heard at least anecdotally there
21:45:21 is increased truck traffic now because, you know, in
21:45:25 closing off your project, and bulldozing and
21:45:28 everything, which is fine, I think a lot of the
21:45:30 traffic is sort of now using McElroy.
21:45:34 At least that's what I have been told.
21:45:36 But regardless you all committed to building a
21:45:39 sidewalk there, and I think that that sidewalk needs
21:45:44 to be done before you do your -- pull your first
21:45:48 permit.
21:45:49 Now, if you need help on the city side of that, you
21:45:51 know, the stormwater is one of the departments that I,
21:45:55 you know, look after as chairman of public works, and
21:45:58 I'll be glad to help you with that.
21:46:00 >>> We need all the help we can get.
21:46:02 >> And I have helped with you other issues in regard
21:46:03 to transportation.
21:46:05 But we need to get that pipe sized.
21:46:08 And you all need to build that sidewalk and make it
21:46:10 safe for all those folks who do live along there.
21:46:14 So I'm not looking for a change in condition.

21:46:20 I'm just looking for verbal commitment, you know, that
21:46:22 that's going to be a priority.
21:46:23 And like I say, if it's a city issue, we'll resolve
21:46:27 that quickly.
21:46:28 >>> It has been.
21:46:29 It is a priority.
21:46:29 We have had a number of discussion was various groups
21:46:31 within the city staff on the T sidewalk.
21:46:35 Because of the uncertainty with regards to the
21:46:37 drainage issue.
21:46:39 We have looked into, developed, designed and proposed
21:46:42 an elevated boardwalk structure that has been put in
21:46:46 place by the D.O.T., as well as elsewhere in the city.
21:46:49 We were told by transportation that that particular
21:46:52 sidewalk does not have enough D.O.T. standard,
21:46:55 therefore they cannot approve it, even though it --
21:46:58 >>: I think a culvert and a hard sidewalk would be
21:47:01 better.
21:47:01 We just need to figure out what the size of the pipe
21:47:04 would be.
21:47:06 >>> That's an issue that we have been working with the
21:47:08 staff for quite awhile, councilman.

21:47:10 We would be happy to do it sooner rather than later.
21:47:17 >>> Marchetti: That concludes our presentation.
21:47:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close the public hearing.
21:47:27 >> Second.
21:47:27 (Motion carried)
21:47:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move to approve this rezoning,
21:47:37 and I'll just clarify, there is no increased density.
21:47:41 There is -- we are not changing, we are not adding to
21:47:44 the number of units.
21:47:45 We are not adding to the commercial.
21:47:46 We're just tweaking this, so this project can work
21:47:50 with the other projects that have already been
21:47:52 approved. With that I'll move to approve an ordinance
21:47:55 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5000 West
21:47:59 Gandy Boulevard from zoning district classifications
21:48:02 PDA office retail restaurant, hotel residential, to
21:48:06 PDA office retail hotel residential, providing an
21:48:08 effective date.
21:48:09 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
21:48:10 (Motion carried).
21:48:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: I move for a five-minute break. The
21:48:17 clerk indicated she needs a break.

21:48:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll be in recess for five minutes.
21:48:20 (city Council recess)
21:57:20 >>CHAIRMAN: Tampa City Council is called back to
21:57:21 order.
21:57:22 Roll call.
21:57:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
21:57:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
21:57:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
21:57:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
21:57:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
21:57:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 8.
21:57:31 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to open
21:57:33 number 8.
21:57:33 (Motion carried).
21:57:38 >>MARTY BOYLE: Marty land, development -- Marty Boyle,
21:57:42 land development.
21:57:43 It's late.
21:57:45 >>GWEN MILLER: It's time to go home.
21:57:47 >>> I have been sworn.
21:57:50 Z 06-16.
21:57:51 I hope you have aerials in front of you.
21:57:54 I gave them out before.

21:57:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have them.
21:57:56 >>MARTY BOYLE: This request is Euclidean.
21:57:58 You will not have a site plan in front of you.
21:58:01 It is requesting to go from RS-50 to RS-60
21:58:04 designation. The address is 3609 Ohio Avenue.
21:58:09 And they are asking to create two -- sorry, three
21:58:12 buildable zoning lots for single family detached
21:58:15 structures.
21:58:16 The standard setbacks for RS-50 are 20-front yard, 20
21:58:22 rear and 7 side yard setbacks.
21:58:26 If you look at your aerial, the homes along Ohio
21:58:29 Avenue within block 30 appear to maintain varying
21:58:33 front setbacks.
21:58:35 There is an existing home on the site that will be
21:58:38 removed.
21:58:40 If you look at the aerial, there are no objections to
21:58:45 this Euclidean request.
21:58:47 If you look at the aerial, the lots in blue are
21:58:54 nonconforming.
21:58:55 I think in my staff report you have 90% on the face of
21:59:01 block 30.
21:59:02 Then across the street, there's almost a 90%

21:59:06 nonconforming setback.
21:59:09 Stormwater did want a note.
21:59:11 It's not an objection.
21:59:12 But they just stated that to provide 300 CF of
21:59:20 retention on-site for each lot, the developer will use
21:59:24 underground infiltration system.
21:59:25 This goes on record.
21:59:27 And when it goes to construction services, it is made
21:59:29 note of.
21:59:31 I will quickly show you pictures of the site.
21:59:48 This is the subject site.
21:59:50 I don't know if you can see it on the Elmo.
21:59:55 Below is also the subject site.
22:00:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Haven't we done a few of these
22:00:02 right here on this block?
22:00:03 Haven't we done a few?
22:00:07 >>> Let me look at the rezoning map.
22:00:09 This is my first one on this block.
22:00:28 I'm not sure, Mr. Dingfelder, but I can find out.
22:00:31 >> Maybe the petitioner knows.
22:00:32 >>> This is a picture of the home across the street.
22:00:37 Another one looking east.

22:00:39 And this bottom picture is looking west.
22:00:46 As I said before, staff has no objections to this
22:00:50 rezoning petition.
22:00:51 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
22:00:59 I have been sworn in.
22:01:04 The predominant land use category for this area is
22:01:06 residential 10 which is where the subject property
22:01:11 designation is.
22:01:12 The brown, this is a piece of CMU 35 to the west.
22:01:18 There's a school located to the north.
22:01:24 There is a percentage of nonconforming lots.
22:01:27 As far as your question to other rezonings on this
22:01:29 specific street, Mr. Dingfelder, not on this specific
22:01:35 segment of Ohio but further to the east there have
22:01:37 been some rezoning, also on Ohio, also on Day, that
22:01:43 council has approved in the past on this particular
22:01:46 side.
22:01:46 And west side of MacDill between MacDill and
22:01:54 Dale Mabry.
22:01:57 So there have been quite a few in this area.
22:01:59 The request is, she has stated also, is to allow three
22:02:06 buildable lots which would be the result of the

22:02:09 rezoning request if approved for three single family
22:02:12 detached residences.
22:02:14 This is consistent with the housing element which
22:02:17 talks about providing varying innovative housing and
22:02:22 creation.
22:02:22 This does indicate the city's desire for compatible
22:02:26 integrated development.
22:02:27 It is considered appropriate in-fill and consistent
22:02:29 with the existing character of the neighborhood.
22:02:32 If you recall, the residential that she showed you
22:02:35 across the street is a fairly new residence and there
22:02:38 have been residence as long the street that have been
22:02:41 recently approved existing residence.
22:02:43 The proposed rezoning we feel the consistent with the
22:02:46 intent and permitted densities of the land use
22:02:49 category designation and surrounding residential
22:02:51 development.
22:02:52 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the
22:02:53 proposed request.
22:02:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
22:03:01 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Basically, the property in
22:03:06 question, let me show you on this.

22:03:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
22:03:16 >>> I have been sworn.
22:03:18 This is the plat. The yellow highlighted areas of the
22:03:21 three lots in question.
22:03:24 As indicated by the Planning Commission, 50-foot lots.
22:03:28 These are extremely deep.
22:03:29 147 feet deep and 50 feet wide.
22:03:35 The X'es that you see on there, we have letters of
22:03:38 support from all those neighbors, plus from some
22:03:41 neighbors that are outside of what you're seeing here.
22:03:47 This is the existing style of development that's up
22:03:52 and down the street.
22:03:56 This is also similar to what's there.
22:03:59 This is what is beginning to happen.
22:04:05 It is being replaced by two-story homes for the most
22:04:10 part.
22:04:12 And they are increasing substantially the property
22:04:15 values in the area.
22:04:21 I'd like to have these petitions received and filed
22:04:24 and made part of the record.
22:04:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Any chance that they could have
22:04:34 garages in the rear with that kind of depth?

22:04:36 >>> The problem is not the depth, it's the width.
22:04:39 >> You can slip a driveway down anything.
22:04:44 >>> Well, I'd like to try to belief you can do that
22:04:46 but it's very difficult to get back in there.
22:04:50 Anyway, with a two-lot configuration which is what
22:04:53 they could build on the property, now you would have
22:04:56 4100 square feet of green space.
22:04:59 In a 3-lot configuration because you're adding two
22:05:02 additional side yard setbacks.
22:05:04 You increase the green space by 2,000 square feet.
22:05:07 It goes up to 6,100 square feet.
22:05:10 And with a two-lot configuration you have 7300 square
22:05:14 feet of lot coverage versus a three-lot configuration
22:05:18 which yields 6100 square feet of lot coverage.
22:05:22 So you get more green space.
22:05:24 You have a development that's more compatible in size
22:05:27 and scale with what's already there.
22:05:29 Instead of much larger scale homes which would be
22:05:32 incompatible.
22:05:34 The petitioners have met and discussed this with the
22:05:38 homeowners association, Al Steenson transmitted an
22:05:42 e-mail to you earlier, and he's here to speak about

22:05:45 the issue.
22:05:47 I believe that we have a broad range of support for
22:05:50 this project.
22:05:51 And I certainly reserve any time necessary to address
22:05:54 and rebut any questions, answer any questions you
22:05:57 might have.
22:05:58 And Al Steenson is here to speak on behalf of the
22:06:00 homeowner association.
22:06:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
22:06:03 Is there anyone in the public that would like to be
22:06:05 speak on item number 8?
22:06:17 >>> Al Steenson: I have been sworn.
22:06:20 My reason for being down here this evening is I did
22:06:22 send each of you an e-mail, copied the petitioner, and
22:06:25 I'm merely here to see that it is read into the record
22:06:28 and let you know that at the presentation that they
22:06:32 made to our association on the 13th of this month,
22:06:36 it was very well accepted, and a motion was made, and
22:06:42 passed, that as a neighborhood association, having
22:06:45 seen the names -- the surrounding neighbors that were
22:06:50 not objecting and were supporting, that we as a
22:06:52 neighborhood association should in fact support our

22:06:56 neighbors and not take a position contrary to that.
22:07:02 Having said that, I think I can easily say that the
22:07:07 civic association has no objection to this petition.
22:07:10 But if I may add one little item.
22:07:12 You may remember that this same gentleman, Mr. Martin,
22:07:15 was denied a petition down on Paxton, and I have to
22:07:19 give the man credit because this time around he
22:07:21 listened.
22:07:23 He listened to the neighbors, and he listened to us,
22:07:28 instead of putting in two Monday stores, which there's
22:07:31 a few bunch of them down there, he came back with a
22:07:34 flan was very, very well received by the membership.
22:07:37 So I have to give the man credit for that.
22:07:39 And seeing how involved we are with the neighborhood,
22:07:44 and he is a property owner around there, he is now a
22:07:48 member.
22:07:48 So we picked up one member.
22:07:50 And we picked up a better, in my opinion, a better
22:07:55 project.
22:07:56 So we have no objections.
22:07:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
22:08:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.

22:08:05 Mr. Michelini, is your client here this evening?
22:08:08 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes.
22:08:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could he come forward?
22:08:30 >> Paul Martin, I have been sworn.
22:08:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, stand behind him.
22:08:43 You've got hi his back.
22:08:45 No, it's not that tough.
22:08:49 In my opinion, a lot of projects can be greatly
22:08:54 improved with rear garages, because all over South
22:08:58 Tampa we drive down the street and when see the gnaw
22:09:00 houses and all you see are two huge garages, and
22:09:04 incidentally have a house behind them.
22:09:06 And in this case, you have some depth to work with.
22:09:09 So is it possible that you could do rear garages?
22:09:14 >>> It is possible, yes.
22:09:16 I mean, and porches on.
22:09:20 I know you like the front porches on the street.
22:09:22 And it is possible because we can actually put the
22:09:25 driveway down the side and put it on the back.
22:09:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: it's so much nicer.
22:09:31 >>> I have no problem doing that.
22:09:33 >> I know it's a Euclidean zoning.

22:09:35 >>> Right.
22:09:36 >> But if you give us your verbal commitment on that,
22:09:38 then I'll support it.
22:09:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You recognize it is Euclidean.
22:09:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Mart sin going to come in front
22:09:52 of us many, many times because he's building in this
22:09:55 community.
22:09:55 I'll let the chips fall where they may.
22:10:00 I appreciate your concern, counselor.
22:10:06 Thank you, Mr. Martin.
22:10:07 Thank you, Mr. Michelini.
22:10:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second to close.
22:10:10 (Motion carried).
22:10:13 Mrs. Alvarez.
22:10:15 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
22:10:17 vicinity of 3609 west Ohio Avenue in the city of
22:10:21 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
22:10:23 section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60
22:10:28 residential single family to RS-50 residential single
22:10:31 family providing an effective date.
22:10:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
22:10:35 (Motion carried)

22:10:40 Need to open number 11.
22:10:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's open.
22:10:46 Continued.
22:11:15 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
22:11:16 I have been sworn.
22:11:18 This rezoning request is going from an RS-50 to a
22:11:21 planned development single-family semi detached.
22:11:25 The petitioner proposes the to rezone the property at
22:11:28 4033 north River View Avenue.
22:11:33 It's PD single family semi detached.
22:11:38 The four units will be housed in two buildings that
22:11:41 are designed in a Mediterranean revival style.
22:11:44 Each unit will have a private courtyard and access to
22:11:47 a large common area that will be controlled by a
22:11:50 homeowners association.
22:11:52 I will show you the aerial that we have.
22:11:57 The subject site is just west of the river.
22:12:03 This is Hillsborough River.
22:12:05 This is River View Avenue.
22:12:07 This is Woodlawn.
22:12:08 River View Avenue actually dead-ends right here.
22:12:14 And this is the subject site.

22:12:26 This is the subject site, a picture of the home that's
22:12:28 currently there.
22:12:29 The structure that's currently there.
22:12:30 This is, as you will see later, there will be some
22:12:34 discussion on this tree.
22:12:37 Staff will point out a grand tree and there will be
22:12:39 discussion on that.
22:12:40 This is town homes across the street.
22:12:47 This is a single-family structure in the neighborhood.
22:12:50 It's actually across River View.
22:12:53 And it's more town homes.
22:12:57 Subject site again.
22:12:59 This is the multifamily.
22:13:01 If you look at the aerials, this is a multifamily
22:13:07 complex right here.
22:13:08 This is a view of it.
22:13:12 Some more shots of the neighborhood.
22:13:18 This is what the petitioner is proposing.
22:13:21 The street view.
22:13:23 This is the river view.
22:13:27 This is an overall concept plan.
22:13:31 A new PD site plan was submitted on March 10th.

22:13:35 And our caveat at the time that you have the staff
22:13:39 report in front of you was that we had not received
22:13:41 all the comments back at that time, that there would
22:13:45 either be alleviated comments or additional comments
22:13:49 from DRC members.
22:13:57 This was a continued case, by the way.
22:13:58 I failed to mention that.
22:14:00 And one of staff's objections originally had been
22:14:04 under section 27-324-2-A that in the siting of the
22:14:10 structures when there's flexibility in setbacks
22:14:13 requires that aesthetics of the projects are maximized
22:14:15 and staff originally didn't feel that that was the
22:14:18 case here.
22:14:19 That there had been an overwhelming amount of concrete
22:14:21 along the street, and a facade characterized by
22:14:25 garages on the streetscape.
22:14:27 We felt that they didn't maximize the aesthetics.
22:14:30 Several things have happened.
22:14:32 They are not asking for a waiver of setbacks, number
22:14:34 one.
22:14:35 Number two, they did add a feature to the elevation
22:14:43 showing the garage doors, carriage doors.

22:14:47 And then they also came in with a new elevation
22:14:51 showing us how the front would be -- they would use
22:14:58 impervious pavers.
22:15:00 And I will show you that.
22:15:03 If the Elmo can be zoomed out, please.
22:15:08 In this area previously had been concrete.
22:15:10 And they are coming in with impervious pavers to make
22:15:13 it more aesthetically pleasing.
22:15:16 So that really alleviated staff's concern of
22:15:18 aesthetics.
22:15:20 Parks and rec, they will probably be having further
22:15:25 discussion.
22:15:25 There is a grand tree on-site.
22:15:28 And I showed you a picture of it earlier.
22:15:33 This is one view of it.
22:15:41 This tree right here.
22:15:46 It is not being shown to be saved on the site plan.
22:15:50 The language that parks and rec wanted me to add
22:15:55 into -- that it is not on your staff report but would
22:15:58 like me to add in to the record is from Steve Graham.
22:16:03 He stated I evaluated the live oak on River View
22:16:06 Avenue and have determined that it is a healthy grand

22:16:08 tree.
22:16:09 The petitioner has not explored alternative designs
22:16:11 that would reasonably provide the space necessary to
22:16:14 preserve this specimen.
22:16:15 The environmental aesthetic contributions of this
22:16:18 grand oak makes would take a generation to replace.
22:16:22 Accordingly, the department steadfastly objects to
22:16:25 this rezoning in its current form.
22:16:28 Also, transportation.
22:16:30 The first two bullets under transportation under their
22:16:33 objections, they did remove.
22:16:36 However, the last objection they still have on.
22:16:40 It's a T-type turn around cannot be provided under
22:16:46 existing driveways.
22:16:48 Transportation had let that be known since October
22:16:51 2005 that they had a problem with that.
22:16:53 I do think that before this meeting there might have
22:16:56 been something about it might have been worked out
22:16:58 with transportation.
22:16:58 But the petitioner -- I'll let petition area dress
22:17:02 that.
22:17:03 Also, we received additional notes from Mary Bryson.

22:17:09 And I did copy or staple Steve's comment and Mary
22:17:15 Bryson.
22:17:17 I don't know if you have it, if you passed those
22:17:19 around.
22:17:19 Those are her additional comments.
22:17:21 One is there needs to be a correct tree table of
22:17:23 credit and debits to reflect all trees being removed.
22:17:28 She noted a total of 14 trees will have to be removed.
22:17:30 Additionally, 22-inch maple in the rear would be an
22:17:34 effective removal.
22:17:35 And that this is more than 50% of the trees.
22:17:39 They asked to provide for on-site tree production to
22:17:42 preserve the existing trees, to provide a minimum
22:17:45 recommended tree of one to 1500 square feet or major
22:17:50 fraction portion thereof, provide depth of retention
22:17:53 area if two inches or more in depth.
22:17:55 It cannot be counted as green space.
22:17:57 And the 14-inch, 20-inch and 17-inch that is shown on
22:18:02 the site plan as such is actually a grand tree.
22:18:05 And she asked to please coordinate with the review of
22:18:08 this tree with Dave Riley.
22:18:10 As now we got comments from Steve Graham on it.

22:18:13 Units number 3 and 4 are not maintaining a 20-foot
22:18:17 wide set back approved by D.E.P. DEPAR and EPC, will
22:18:21 be required to do that. And they are asking that the
22:18:24 petitioner remove the invasive species on the south
22:18:26 property line.
22:18:27 Those are additional comments since they submitted
22:18:30 their site plan.
22:18:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
22:18:33 Did you do a calculation of the amount of impervious
22:18:39 surface?
22:18:40 >>> We assess it for green space.
22:18:42 Yes.
22:18:43 There is a green space requirement.
22:18:45 And we make sure that that is being met.
22:18:50 >> Has it been met?
22:18:51 >>> I believe Mary's comments were, she was
22:18:56 questioning the depth of the retention area, and to
22:18:59 find out if they were counting that in green space.
22:19:01 So there's some clarification that's needed.
22:19:05 If the retention pond is two feet in depth, you cannot
22:19:10 count that towards your green space.
22:19:12 >> Well, my question -- I really feel like the site

22:19:16 configuration is awkward.
22:19:18 Profoundly awkward.
22:19:20 And it appears from the pictures that they sloped
22:19:23 toward the river which would mean you have to do
22:19:25 something to capture the on-site water so that it
22:19:28 doesn't go into the river, because there's so much
22:19:31 pavement.
22:19:32 And I just don't see that this site plan provides us
22:19:35 that information.
22:19:41 >>> I do know that stormwater had no objection to this
22:19:44 site plan.
22:19:45 >> Would this be the appropriate time to ask
22:19:47 stormwater to explain their understanding where the
22:19:51 stormwater is going to go?
22:19:57 My understanding, it's not supposed to go to the river
22:20:00 till because it has all the fertilizer.
22:20:03 >>ALEX AWAD: Stormwater department.
22:20:05 I have been sworn in.
22:20:08 I haven't seen a final plan of what they want to do.
22:20:12 But our requirement is they do provide water quality
22:20:15 treatment on-site prior to discharging into the river.
22:20:18 So the ideal site location for that treatment is on

22:20:23 the downstream side which is closer to the river.
22:20:25 But they would have to provide it somewhere on-site.
22:20:28 At this point I do not see that on the plan.
22:20:32 >> This is a question.
22:20:33 If you don't know where the drainage retention is, and
22:20:36 they are unable to calculate they have enough green
22:20:38 space not counting the retention, so we don't really
22:20:41 know if they are asking for a waiver of green space
22:20:44 because we don't know where the green space is
22:20:47 supposed to be, right?
22:20:49 >>ALEX AWAD: You're right.
22:20:49 The problem is if they do not meet the green space or
22:20:52 the provision for stormwater at the Construction
22:20:56 Services Center, then they do not a plan approved.
22:21:00 Now, they would have to come back to you for that.
22:21:04 So at this point, I do not see that to be an issue.
22:21:08 If it's reviewed at the Construction Services Center
22:21:11 and they do not meet that provision, then they do not
22:21:13 get their permit.
22:21:14 The site plan is not approvable.
22:21:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have never had anyone come back
22:21:21 to us because they didn't meet it.

22:21:26 >>> I'll let Marty answer that one.
22:21:29 >>MARTY BOYLE: I don't know if they haven't come back
22:21:31 to you, but they have had to come back to stormwater
22:21:33 and work issues out once they have noticed a
22:21:39 discrepancy or maybe not meeting the site plan, they
22:21:41 are not sure what the site plan shows.
22:21:42 I think they have come and worked out with you and had
22:21:46 them look at that again.
22:21:48 But I don't know about having to come back to you for
22:21:50 stormwater.
22:21:53 >>ALEX AWAD: For that matter, the groan space, also.
22:21:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You show on one of the site
22:22:04 plans -- and I'm having trouble finding it -- where
22:22:06 the grand oak is that is being proposed to be taken
22:22:11 out as related -- I have this site plan.
22:22:15 But I can't tell where the grand oak is.
22:22:18 I know it's there somewhere.
22:22:24 Or I know it's not there somewhere.
22:22:25 >>MARTY BOYLE: It's hard to see because it's a triple
22:22:30 tree.
22:22:34 >> 36, 19 and 26?
22:22:39 >> 14, 20 and 17.

22:22:41 >>MARTY BOYLE: It is this tree right here.
22:22:53 >> 14, 20, 17?
22:22:55 How about the other grouping that's 26, is it, and 36
22:22:58 and 12?
22:23:01 >> Those are single trees.
22:23:04 They didn't meet the grand tree criteria.
22:23:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?
22:23:13 >>MARTY BOYLE: One other thing.
22:23:14 At the very end of your staff report, it should also
22:23:18 read, the land use is not correct.
22:23:21 It should end R-35.
22:23:30 If you can make that note.
22:23:31 Thank you.
22:23:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for Mr. Graham.
22:23:38 Mr. Graham, could you speak to us about the grand
22:23:41 tree?
22:23:43 >>STEVE GRAHAM: Yes, ma'am, I can.
22:23:45 Steve Graham, Tampa urban forester for the Parks and
22:23:48 Recreation Department and I have been sworn in.
22:23:55 I have a supplemental report because I know that
22:23:56 council has been interested in more detail.
22:23:59 So we have come up with a new form this month to

22:24:01 provide additional detail and hopefully answer some of
22:24:05 your questions in advance and clarify in general.
22:24:09 I also have a site plan marked up to make it a little
22:24:41 clearer where the trees are located so that you can
22:24:43 see distinctly the trees that are in conflict.
22:24:48 And I'll put those on the Elmo.
22:24:53 Can you zoom out?
22:25:01 Okay.
22:25:01 This is river view.
22:25:05 And pointing north.
22:25:07 And you can see color coded the trees that are
22:25:12 on-site.
22:25:13 And just a point of clarification.
22:25:18 Mrs. Saul-Sena, typically, the Parks Department does
22:25:20 not review for protected trees.
22:25:24 We review just for grand trees.
22:25:26 I know that you discussed that earlier.
22:25:30 However there are times when we are requested by BHC
22:25:34 to do so and on this particular project we have worked
22:25:36 hand in hand to come up with a comprehensive site plan
22:25:39 review so that we can opt myself the best tree
22:25:42 preservation on-site.

22:25:44 And so what you see on the site plan the way it's
22:25:46 depicted, the three green areas are the three best
22:25:50 trees on-site.
22:25:51 There is a grand tree that's off site.
22:25:53 It's over in this direction.
22:25:56 And it does not appear to be in conflict.
22:25:59 However, the three trees that are shown are.
22:26:03 The tree in the center is a grand tree, measures 40
22:26:06 inches in diameter.
22:26:07 And 200 points on our grand tree scale.
22:26:12 Typically 175 is the threshold for grand tree
22:26:24 I can go to that now if you like.
22:26:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Probably easier than bouncing back
22:26:28 and forth.
22:26:29 >>STEVE GRAHAM: I'm trying to figure out the best way
22:26:32 to do this.
22:26:33 I want to show you an aerial to make it a little bit
22:26:36 clearer.
22:26:38 What we might want to do now, can you see that again
22:26:40 okay?
22:26:41 Okay.
22:26:45 The tree at the very top is a 26-inch specimen.

22:26:49 The tree that's delineated in red is the grand oak.
22:26:53 The 40-inch.
22:26:54 The tree at the bottom of the property
22:26:56 In light blue is the 30-inch protected tree.
22:27:00 And I'll show you photographs of each of those.
22:27:02 You can see the canopy that they represent.
22:27:05 They are substantial.
22:27:12 First, the 26-inch tree.
22:27:15 You can zoom out with that.
22:27:17 This tree is not directly in conflict.
22:27:19 It's not in the building envelope.
22:27:20 It's right on the property line.
22:27:22 However, with the proposed design, and three stories,
22:27:27 you take off half the canopy and effectively remove
22:27:31 it.
22:27:37 In the sent sister grand tree and I'll show you a
22:27:39 photograph of the trunk of that.
22:27:41 It's a little difficult to see.
22:27:46 It was difficult to take a photograph.
22:27:48 Presently, they are driving and parking around it, the
22:27:51 surface.
22:27:52 I'm not real sure what the surface is.

22:27:54 But apparently there is some permeability because the
22:27:56 root system is doing very well.
22:27:58 And we have some suggestions and remedial measures to
22:28:02 help preserve this tree.
22:28:04 Then finally the tree that's just barely within their
22:28:11 site plan, you can see it right here on the corner of
22:28:13 the house, an easy adjustment to the site plan, and
22:28:18 preserve a beautiful 30-inch live oak.
22:28:21 And on that site where you see Kathy Beck, they have
22:28:28 plenty of clearance to accommodate a 3-story
22:28:30 structure, at least a two-story structure with some
22:28:32 modifications.
22:28:34 And it too is in excellent condition.
22:28:37 I would like now to go to the condition assessment
22:28:40 form that we passed out to you.
22:28:44 And try to explain that in more detail.
22:28:51 This is a deviation from what we used in the past
22:28:53 which is a little more general.
22:28:54 But I think, hopefully it gives you a little bit more
22:28:57 explanation of our reasoning process when we evaluate
22:29:00 the condition of grand trees.
22:29:03 The pertinent information is at the top.

22:29:07 And we also included the diameter and the points that
22:29:10 qualified it as a grand tree.
22:29:12 The way we rated certain key considerations in
22:29:16 evaluating the condition of the tree, we changed to a
22:29:19 grading system not unlike what they use in the school
22:29:22 system.
22:29:23 So A is excellent.
22:29:24 F is failing.
22:29:25 And we are very critical graders.
22:29:28 And when we go out and evaluate trees because we real
22:29:31 advertise importance of it.
22:29:35 But overall we rated this tree a "B" so it's in good
22:29:38 condition.
22:29:38 And we think that with some very simplistic measures
22:29:42 those trees, all three of those trees can be
22:29:44 preserved.
22:29:46 Now you will also note if we can go back to the Elmo,
22:29:48 and the color coded site plan, there are a number of
22:29:52 trees marked in red.
22:29:53 Those represent the ones that are proposed for
22:29:56 removal.
22:29:57 And in addition to that, I did not mark the three

22:30:02 trees that I spoke to as being removed or candidates.
22:30:05 But you can see there's a substantial number of trees
22:30:07 proposed for removal.
22:30:09 Ironically the only trees that they are proposing to
22:30:11 preserve are a declining 34-inch at the rear of the
22:30:18 property, which we would work with them to -- we would
22:30:23 work with them, they would commit to preserving the
22:30:25 best trees on the site.
22:30:27 We would work with them to remove the ones that are
22:30:30 not quite as -- not quite specimen trees.
22:30:34 And there are a number of those.
22:30:35 And they would afford space.
22:30:37 Really what this comes down to is space.
22:30:40 Space, big trees take up a lot of space, and that
22:30:43 equates to economic liabilities.
22:30:48 The maple tree, there's not sufficient offset and that
22:30:52 tree could be effectively removed so that is one that
22:30:54 we would include in the removal table, or ask that it
22:30:57 be included in the removal table.
22:31:00 The other trees that they are preserving, to preserve
22:31:03 ironically are the invasive species, Australian pines
22:31:08 that run along the south property line, and you'll be

22:31:11 gratified to know that in the amendment that you
22:31:13 passed this morning, chapter 13, that that would
22:31:16 provide for their removal at time of permit.
22:31:21 And I think that that's all I have for you unless you
22:31:23 have specific questions.
22:31:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a great new form.
22:31:32 Big improvement.
22:31:32 Thank you.
22:31:35 >>> You're very welcome.
22:31:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission.
22:31:43 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
22:31:45 I have been sworn in.
22:31:48 A couple of additional comments before the applicant
22:31:50 comes in to make their presentation.
22:31:55 This site is in the Riverside Heights Neighborhood
22:31:58 Association, at least within those boundaries.
22:32:02 It is located just to the west of the Hillsborough
22:32:04 River.
22:32:06 Right off of Armenia Avenue and Tampa Bay Boulevard,
22:32:10 as you can see here, Tampa Bay Boulevard.
22:32:14 Come out over here and be right on Armenia.
22:32:18 Here's Howard Avenue as it goes to north-south street,

22:32:21 in the area.
22:32:23 Most of the houses in the area in this particular area
22:32:26 consist of single-family detached uses.
22:32:29 This particular location, since it is located on a
22:32:33 dead-end street, there are some unique characteristics
22:32:36 regarding the context of the general area.
22:32:40 Right over here, and let me go ahead and show you in
22:32:42 the area very quickly, the two land use categories are
22:32:45 residential 10 and residential 35 which is brown on
22:32:51 future land use map.
22:32:55 Apartment complex directly abuts the site to the
22:32:58 south.
22:32:58 And you have several town homes which have been in
22:33:00 this area for I would say at least 25 to 30 years,
22:33:05 have been in existence for quite a few years.
22:33:08 Everything else, large lot, single family detached
22:33:11 homes.
22:33:13 What makes this an interesting candidate for
22:33:15 consideration of this, this particular house, going
22:33:17 back to the future land use map, this particular lot
22:33:22 has two land use designations on it, R-35 and R-10.
22:33:27 With the potential density that would allow up to nine

22:33:30 units.
22:33:30 The applicant is asking for four.
22:33:34 Attached units.
22:33:34 The only reason why Planning Commission staff does not
22:33:38 have any objections to this particular request is due
22:33:42 to its unique location being on a dead-end.
22:33:44 There would not be any additional transportation
22:33:46 impacts to the area being on a dead-end street to the
22:33:50 other houses in the surrounding area.
22:33:54 As access would have to come directly out onto
22:33:57 Woodlawn and directly out onto Armenia Avenue for
22:34:00 access to the north.
22:34:03 It does have close proximity to the nearest arterial
22:34:07 which is Armenia Avenue.
22:34:10 Also, it is adjacent to town homes.
22:34:12 It does have town homes adjacent to the directly to
22:34:15 the west and it does have the apartment complex
22:34:17 directly to the south.
22:34:19 I do know that there were some issues regarding the
22:34:21 trees that were going to be tried to work out and
22:34:24 hopefully they can reach some type of common ground
22:34:27 between the applicant and the Parks Department

22:34:30 regarding that particular issue.
22:34:31 As far as compatibility of surrounding uses, an area
22:34:35 of like uses, impact to the surrounding neighborhood
22:34:38 as far as negative impact, Planning Commission staff
22:34:41 overall finds the proposed request consistent with the
22:34:43 comprehensive plan.
22:34:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
22:35:19 >>MARK BENTLEY: 201 North Franklin Street, Tampa
22:35:22 33602.
22:35:23 I represent the property owner Joseph and Jill
22:35:26 deCapitano along with our development team which
22:35:28 consists of Michael Mesra, Mike David Capitano, Alan
22:35:35 Kahana and our architect Rick Hampton.
22:35:39 What you have is a exhibit of various code sections
22:35:42 renderings that I intend to discuss during the course
22:35:45 of our presentation.
22:35:46 Just up front in terms plaintiff Graham's presentation
22:35:49 this is the first time that he's actually weighed in
22:35:51 from our perspective and this project has been going
22:35:54 on for as a lot of you know a very long time and some
22:35:57 of the things he said, obviously we are a little bit
22:36:00 surprised.

22:36:00 We didn't have the benefit of the information before
22:36:02 we walked in the door. But from our perspective a lot
22:36:05 of things he said are inconsistent with his colleague
22:36:07 at the Parks Department who analyzed this project.
22:36:09 But we'll deal with the tree issue in the latter part
22:36:13 of the presentation.
22:36:15 I think as a lot of you know on February 9, I came
22:36:19 before council requesting a continuance for two
22:36:21 reasons, one to make some design changes and
22:36:23 secondarily had the opportunity to meet with some of
22:36:25 the opposition that we weren't aware of.
22:36:26 You might recall that at the hearing there were
22:36:30 actually 23 people who showed up in opposition, and
22:36:33 what we did on March 8th, went to the West Tampa
22:36:36 convention center, convened a neighborhood meeting,
22:36:38 and explained the project, presented new renderings,
22:36:42 landscape plans and so forth, and alleviated their
22:36:45 concerns.
22:36:48 And they were concerned, for example, they thought
22:36:50 they were rental properties, and a fee simple town
22:36:53 homes with the homeowner association.
22:36:55 We advised them that the pricing, for example, at the

22:36:58 low end is $800,000, that we could put more units on
22:37:06 the property than we are proposing and so forth.
22:37:09 I think Tony Garcia mentioned under the comp plan,
22:37:12 assuming you can get proper zoning you can have nine
22:37:15 units.
22:37:15 We are proposing four.
22:37:16 So if you look at exhibit A, in the information I
22:37:21 provided you, there's a letter here from neighbors
22:37:27 that live on River View a few doors down.
22:37:29 There's an e-mail directed to Mrs. Alvarez from one of
22:37:31 the persons who are perceived to be a leader of the
22:37:36 neighborhood, VICARY, indicating support for the
22:37:43 project.
22:37:45 I would also like to advise council that there are two
22:37:49 letters in the clerk's file in opposition that don't
22:37:51 relate to our case, they relate to a proposed
22:37:53 townhouse project on Rome.
22:37:55 I want to let you know there's a mistake in the
22:37:57 clerk's file on that.
22:37:58 And finally, as I promised council last February, we
22:38:01 sent a courtesy notice of the hearing tonight to all
22:38:03 the property owners advising them of the hearing.

22:38:07 I think Tony picked up on the word that I think is
22:38:10 very important to describe this property, and that is
22:38:14 unique.
22:38:15 The property is unique for a number of reasons, from
22:38:19 our perspective.
22:38:23 First of all, it's size, it's larger than any property
22:38:26 on River View, it's 24,242 square feet, .56 acres.
22:38:32 It's 3 times as large, for example, as the
22:38:34 single-family property located directly to the north.
22:38:37 It's also unique.
22:38:38 It's the only property in the neighborhood that's
22:38:40 surrounded on two sides by multifamily.
22:38:42 As Tony indicated there is a townhouse project located
22:38:45 directly to the west and the density for that project
22:38:48 is 11.2 units per acre.
22:38:50 Then the apartments are RM-24 to the south and they
22:38:53 are built out at 24 units per acre.
22:39:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair?
22:39:05 I don't know if it's a point of order or personal
22:39:09 prerogative or whatever.
22:39:10 But anyway, I need to recuse myself from this.
22:39:14 I have a conflict.

22:39:15 And I pledge of allegiance for not announcing it
22:39:18 earlier.
22:39:18 And I'll do the appropriate paperwork.
22:39:21 >> The basis of the conflict, counselor?
22:39:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a business conflict with the
22:39:28 petitioner.
22:39:33 >>> We'd like to know more specifically.
22:39:34 My clients or --
22:39:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
22:39:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Dingfelder, I'm sorry, just for
22:39:42 point of clarification, the record does require if you
22:39:44 announce the nature of your conflict, with some sort
22:39:47 of specificity.
22:39:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Related to business relationship
22:39:50 with the petitioner.
22:39:51 >> You have a business relationship with the
22:39:53 petitioner presently?
22:39:59 >>> The family.
22:40:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, I'm not disputing whether
22:40:03 or not he has a conflict.
22:40:04 But I think we have to clarify specifically.
22:40:06 I mean, if he has a relationship or business

22:40:08 relationship with the petitioner, it has nothing to do
22:40:11 with this project or something, I think that needs to
22:40:14 be defined.
22:40:14 Just not necessarily for the sake of Mr. Dingfelder
22:40:16 recusing himself, but I think it is your
22:40:19 responsibility to make sure that it is a conflict, and
22:40:23 that he is giving you ample information that makes you
22:40:25 decide or deem that that is the case.
22:40:28 You know, I don't think that's appropriate.
22:40:32 I'm very sorry.
22:40:37 Will this particular project inure to his benefit?
22:40:40 I don't think it's appropriate.
22:40:41 I don't think it's good practice or good policy for
22:40:44 somebody to just say we have a -- I think it has to be
22:40:47 defined.
22:40:50 If anybody -- I don't think anybody can stretch
22:40:53 anything and say I have a relationship with somebody
22:40:55 and say I'm walking out of this project.
22:40:57 If there's a reason, then it needs to be clarified and
22:40:59 that's fine.
22:41:00 But in the meantime that handicaps Mr. Bentley who has
22:41:04 four.

22:41:04 If one of us doesn't vote that's tough.
22:41:07 That's that is something that has to be determined by
22:41:09 our attorney.
22:41:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, ultimate lit, I can't pass
22:41:13 judgment based on what he told me, as to whether he
22:41:17 should proceed or not.
22:41:19 Mr. Dingfelder has made a determination that based
22:41:22 upon the facts as he knows, his relationship to be
22:41:25 with the petitioner, he believes it to inure to his
22:41:28 special private gain or loss, and with some degree of
22:41:32 specificity, he still has to file a form within 15
22:41:36 days that sets forth that conflict.
22:41:38 Now with regard to Mr. Bentley's client, the fact that
22:41:41 Mr. Dingfelder has left requires a unanimous vote of
22:41:46 this council.
22:41:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's what I'm saying.
22:41:49 I think he said it was with his family.
22:41:52 But if it doesn't inure to his benefit --
22:41:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, if it relates to somebody
22:41:57 within his family and inures to the special private
22:42:00 gain of somebody who is a relation --
22:42:02 >> With this particular project.

22:42:04 I was just speculating because he was telling about
22:42:10 he's contractually agreed to do something and Mr.
22:42:13 Capitano is intimately involved with that.
22:42:15 This has happened before, not necessarily with this
22:42:16 particular council member, but I think there needs to
22:42:20 be some clarification.
22:42:21 Because any of us can determine broad spectrum or
22:42:24 specifically, that we are in conflict with a vote and
22:42:28 just get up and leave.
22:42:29 I just don't think it's fair to the whole process.
22:42:32 And I'm sorry, Mr. Bentley, but all of a sudden,
22:42:34 you're looking at four of us.
22:42:36 So there you go.
22:42:36 >>MARK BENTLEY: I understand.
22:42:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I could just state that
22:42:42 Mr. Dingfelder made his statement and has left the
22:42:46 dais.
22:42:46 It is not possible to have this discussion.
22:42:50 He does still have to file his form.
22:42:52 Obviously, it's going to -- whatever happens is
22:42:56 Mr. Bentley's choice.
22:42:57 It's going to have to come back at least for second

22:42:59 reading.
22:43:00 And with more specificity, I can't -- I can't extract
22:43:03 it, from Mr. Dingfelder being gone, but I do need to
22:43:08 state that right now there are four council members,
22:43:10 with regard to this issue.
22:43:11 It has to be unanimous.
22:43:13 And the question is whether this being a recent
22:43:19 development, whether the petitioner wishes to proceed
22:43:22 tonight.
22:43:22 >>MARK BENTLEY: If I could to address that for a
22:43:24 second.
22:43:25 I have consulted with my client, Joseph Capitano and
22:43:27 also the Radiant Group.
22:43:30 It's our understanding the alleged conflict relates to
22:43:33 some work that Mr. Dingfelder is doing for the Italian
22:43:38 club, which a lot of us are members of.
22:43:40 So there's no work being done for the Capitanos, nor
22:43:45 the petitioner, The Radiant Group.
22:43:47 That's our perspective on it.
22:43:49 And we would encourage Mr. Dingfelder to participate,
22:43:51 if that's the basis of the conflict.
22:43:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you explain that to him?

22:44:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The chair's request?
22:44:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
22:44:08 >>MARK BENTLEY: May I address council?
22:44:51 Mark Bentley once again.
22:44:53 It's getting late and there's a lot of confusion.
22:44:55 Believe me it's going to take awhile for me to put on
22:44:57 my case.
22:44:58 I think the better course here --
22:45:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Keep on?
22:45:03 >>MARK BENTLEY: No, what I would like to do is
22:45:05 continue the hearing till hopefully next Thursday.
22:45:09 Can we have a morning meeting?
22:45:12 >>CHAIRMAN: Do you have any opposition?
22:45:13 Is anyone here in opposition to item number 11?
22:45:18 Okay, we can take it to the morning.
22:45:19 >>MARK BENTLEY: Then we will have a full board,
22:45:21 hopefully.
22:45:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
22:45:22 Continue to next Thursday morning.
22:45:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Whoa, whoa.
22:45:28 We have that thing at 10:30.
22:45:30 Tony has to leave at 11.

22:45:33 We should make it like 11:15.
22:45:37 >>MARK BENTLEY: That's fine.
22:45:39 I really appreciate it.
22:45:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Bentley, in the event it is
22:45:45 determined that he has a valid reason to recuse
22:45:47 himself, at least there is the expectation that the
22:45:50 other two council members will continue.
22:45:52 You will have six.
22:45:54 >>MARK BENTLEY: That's good.
22:45:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
22:45:56 We have a motion and second to continue item number 11
22:45:58 to next Thursday morning, March 30, 11:15.
22:46:05 We are going to continue to next Thursday morning at
22:46:07 11:15.
22:46:10 There is no opposition.
22:46:12 >>MARK BENTLEY: Is it possible to get the materials
22:46:13 back and hand them out again?
22:46:15 Not that I don't trust you.
22:46:18 >>CHAIRMAN: We have been sworn in, too.
22:46:20 (Laughter)
22:46:23 11:15.
22:46:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Next Thursday, March 30th.

22:46:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, Mr. Shelby, nothing to
22:46:45 do with this.
22:46:46 But in times past, not to do specifically with this,
22:46:50 but in times past, if we have had a concern about
22:46:55 whether or not the reasons are valid or not, we have
22:46:59 always gone to you or to Ms. Grimes before you or
22:47:03 whoever to determine what the reason is and is it
22:47:07 appropriate or is it valid.
22:47:08 What is the actual policy?
22:47:10 We each make our own determination?
22:47:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ultimately it is each council
22:47:15 member's individual responsibility to make the
22:47:18 determination.
22:47:19 You can ask me for advice some would rely on the
22:47:26 advice that is received.
22:47:28 But it is not a requirement or state law.
22:47:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: That seems like it's a flaw in the
22:47:34 system.
22:47:34 Again, let me just reiterate nothing to do with just
22:47:38 recurred.
22:47:38 But if I had some reason write don't want to vote on
22:47:42 something and I can pick some remote reason for not

22:47:44 wanting to vote, then I am just going to say, I think
22:47:47 I have a relationship with this guy, and I'm going to
22:47:50 have to recuse myself.
22:47:52 It seems to be -- there should be some criteria.
22:47:56 So I'm just asking, would that be possible for to you
22:47:59 research it, to reassure me that the criteria is just
22:48:03 self-determined?
22:48:06 That's my request.
22:48:06 And a motion.
22:48:07 I don't know if anybody is going to object.
22:48:10 But if not I will ask you to do it for me on my own.
22:48:14 I just want to understand it.
22:48:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
22:48:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm pretty familiar with the ethics
22:48:25 laws.
22:48:26 As a matter of fact, my law partner is chairman of the
22:48:28 state ethics commission.
22:48:29 And the bottom line is, at the end of the day, it is
22:48:33 totally up to the elected person to decide for him or
22:48:37 herself, as Marty indicated, Mr. Shelby indicated,
22:48:40 when there's a conflict.
22:48:42 Because at the end of the day, if you make the wrong

22:48:46 decision, it's you who is going to get called up to
22:48:48 the ethics commission.
22:48:49 It's not your cohorts.
22:48:51 It's not anybody else in the city.
22:48:52 It is you.
22:48:53 So, therefore, everybody's own conscience needs to be
22:48:57 their guide.
22:48:57 And I know you're not questioning any decision in
22:49:02 particular, you are just asking generically, Rose.
22:49:07 But in that regard, everybody has to make up their own
22:49:09 minds about what is a conflict or what isn't a
22:49:11 conflict.
22:49:12 And that's what we all have to live with.
22:49:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, Mr. Shelby, if I don't get the
22:49:18 support of my colleagues on that motion that's
22:49:19 perfectly fine.
22:49:20 But at some point I guess I can request to you to give
22:49:23 me some reiteration.
22:49:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I second your motion.
22:49:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Not to discount what Mr -- I know him
22:49:29 as a friend, and it's not that.
22:49:32 I would just like to better understand that.

22:49:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second your motion.
22:49:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second on the floor.
22:49:37 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
22:49:40 Opposed, Nay.
22:49:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.
22:49:42 Nay.
22:49:43 >>GWEN MILLER: It passed.
22:49:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What was the --
22:49:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just to clarify what the criteria is.
22:49:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, what is the vote?
22:49:56 >>GWEN MILLER: 4 to 1.
22:49:59 >> I said 3 to 2.
22:50:01 Dingfelder and Miller.
22:50:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I voted yes.
22:50:04 Mary voted no.
22:50:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Alvarez said no.
22:50:08 Fine.
22:50:10 These people want to go home sometime.
22:50:11 What do I do to get you to better explain to me what
22:50:14 criteria you use to decide?
22:50:17 Mrs. Saul-Sena, you know, you talk about being rude.
22:50:19 You're just as rude.

22:50:21 I'm asking him, not the attorney.
22:50:23 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
22:50:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's what I'm trying to determine.
22:50:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If the chair --
22:50:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm tired of her interrupting. That's
22:50:31 what I'm tired of.
22:50:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The if -- if the chair approves of me
22:50:34 providing this information for Ms. Ferlita, that would
22:50:36 be sufficient.
22:50:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: That would be okay with you?
22:50:39 He can tell me that one on one.
22:50:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez, did you vote no?
22:50:46 She said yes.
22:50:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm sorry.
22:50:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: At least give me that.
22:50:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, stop, I'm sorry.
22:50:55 I know it's getting late but if there's one thing I
22:50:57 cannot allow is unclear voting.
22:51:01 The clerk, who is the recorder of votes, recorded a 3
22:51:05 to 2 vote.
22:51:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: Which it passed.
22:51:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, it isn't.

22:51:16 If there's an error we can correct the error but I
22:51:19 cannot allow to the go on unless it's clear for the
22:51:21 record.
22:51:22 Do you want to have a revote for clarification?
22:51:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: She said it was an error.
22:51:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So you are correcting your vote?
22:51:34 Council, can we just revote again, please, on this
22:51:37 issue?
22:51:37 I'm so sorry.
22:51:40 >>GWEN MILLER: I can't repeat the motion.
22:51:41 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
22:51:42 Opposed, Nay.
22:51:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
22:51:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 4 to 1.
22:51:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As we move to item 13 I will again
22:51:51 recuse myself because Mr. Russell Versaggi is a client
22:51:57 of our firm and I can't participate.
22:52:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry but before you leave you
22:52:03 have filed the appropriate paperwork with the clerk on
22:52:05 this issue, on this particular one?
22:52:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
22:52:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

22:52:11 We need to open item number 13.
22:52:15 Motion and second.
22:52:16 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
22:52:17 Opposed, Nay.
22:52:18 (Motion carried).
22:52:19 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
22:52:24 I have been sworn.
22:52:26 The petition, they are requesting to rezone the
22:52:30 property at 3603 and 3605 MacDill Avenue from
22:52:37 RS-60 single family to a PD single family attached.
22:52:42 The petitioner will construct seven single family
22:52:45 attached residential units and two single family
22:52:49 detached units, all units will have an attached
22:52:52 two-car garage.
22:52:54 The petitioner has designed the site plan to be
22:52:56 pedestrian friendly, the units are designed in a
22:52:59 historic brownstone style.
22:53:02 Setbacks are as follows: Seven feet 6 inches to 8
22:53:06 feet 9 inches along the MacDill frontage.
22:53:08 And 13 feet 5 inches on Waverly Avenue.
22:53:14 Four feet 2 inches to 7-foot 3 inches on the south and
22:53:17 20-foot 8 inches on the east.

22:53:19 The units along MacDill Avenue will have the front
22:53:22 doors facing MacDill and will be walk-up units.
22:53:26 The petitioner has designed a detached single-family
22:53:29 residence on Waverly Avenue.
22:53:31 If you look -- I'll put it on the Elmo.
22:53:33 You probably have a site plan.
22:53:36 Petitioner before we submitted to this rezoning worked
22:53:46 with parks and recreation extensively to identify
22:53:52 these trees, and how to stay away from them.
22:53:57 Two of the units are detached.
22:53:59 This is one of the detached.
22:54:01 And this is attached unit.
22:54:04 The large 37-inch oak in this area and a 47-inch oak
22:54:08 in this area.
22:54:09 Petitioner also worked with staff to try to pull these
22:54:14 units off of the adjacent residential line.
22:54:21 20 feet 8 inches away from this residential unit.
22:54:27 The buildings will be three stories with a maximum
22:54:30 proposed height of 41.5 feet.
22:54:33 The petitioner is providing five guest parking spaces.
22:54:37 Finally, 1750 square feet of green space has been
22:54:40 provided per proposed town homes.

22:54:44 This far exceeds the required 350 square feet required
22:54:47 per unit.
22:54:48 In addition, like I said showing the site plan, two
22:54:52 grand trees will be preserved and protected.
22:54:56 Staff has no objections to this petition.
22:54:58 I would like to show you pictures of the subject site
22:55:01 and actually show you the aerial.
22:55:06 Provided subject site is south of El Prado and
22:55:10 Waverly, and is on the west side of MacDill
22:55:13 Avenue.
22:55:16 On the rezoning map, it is an RS-60, to the north we
22:55:24 do have RM-16.
22:55:26 To the south you have a PD, a town home unit, and
22:55:31 commercial general.
22:55:37 The subject site at the corner, this is on the corner
22:55:41 of MacDill and Waverly
22:55:51 Top picture is looking south on MacDill.
22:55:55 Bottom picture actually looking west on Waverly.
22:56:02 Top picture shows.
22:56:08 North on Swann.
22:56:10 South on Swann.
22:56:12 And this is MacDill.

22:56:16 The top picture is part of the property, the subject
22:56:22 home as existing.
22:56:24 Another picture of the subject site.
22:56:28 Again, top picture, portion of the subject parcel.
22:56:32 Bottom picture, same.
22:56:36 Top picture is a picture of the multifamily across the
22:56:39 street.
22:56:40 And the subject site.
22:56:43 Bottom picture shows multifamily apartment, rental
22:56:49 units across a street.
22:56:52 Just to -- to reiterate, staff feels petitioner came
22:56:56 in and tried to design a project that would meet code
22:56:58 criteria plus exceed some of them.
22:57:01 And as far as the design goes, the style with the
22:57:08 walk-up units is a design we feel is compatible with
22:57:11 the area and something we have been looking for.
22:57:17 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
22:57:19 I have been sworn in.
22:57:20 Some additional comments.
22:57:28 The predominant land use category in this particular
22:57:31 area, with Euclid as the southern -- in South Tampa,
22:57:39 MacDill is your primary north-south collector road

22:57:42 in the area.
22:57:43 Predominant land use category is residential 20 along
22:57:46 this segment of MacDill.
22:57:49 On the east and the west.
22:57:51 Residential 10 is the other predominant land use
22:57:54 category.
22:57:59 Looking at the surrounding area, this particular set
22:58:05 over here has actually been developed with town homes,
22:58:09 condos, and town homes.
22:58:11 There's a single family attached.
22:58:14 I note there are other parcels.
22:58:15 I think this parcel may be coming in for
22:58:17 consideration, also.
22:58:23 Applicants come in this evening.
22:58:25 We have the Waverly participants directly interfacing
22:58:29 the site.
22:58:29 Single family detached.
22:58:31 Single family detached on these corners.
22:58:36 What's interesting is that you do have a significant
22:58:38 integration of use, anything from apartments, of a
22:58:43 much higher density to many town homes and
22:58:47 developments.

22:58:48 And what's important to note is we are talking about
22:58:50 MacDill itself, and directing the growth of this
22:58:53 type of density, where the land use categories are
22:58:57 allowing it to go.
22:58:57 You have residential 20 along this particular segment,
22:59:00 MacDill, directing the intensity of uses away from
22:59:03 where we established residential needs.
22:59:05 So fur going to direct intensity or density, this is
22:59:08 your T appropriate place to do it.
22:59:10 Because in doing so would you preserve the character
22:59:12 of the residential neighborhoods that are external
22:59:15 over here, and not degrade the residential oaf here
22:59:21 along Kensington, along all the other streets.
22:59:29 All should remain residential, as they are in today's
22:59:33 character.
22:59:33 Land use category of residential 20 allows for this,
22:59:36 and also supports the comprehensive plan which talks
22:59:40 about directing and housing population of certain
22:59:44 intensities for -- along collector roads which we have
22:59:47 discussed in past conversations with council, and in
22:59:52 establishing future goals for the comprehensive plan
22:59:55 update that we have been talking about. B.

22:59:58 So in housing, we feel this is a logical transition of
23:00:01 intensity directing this type of more dense growth
23:00:05 directed to MacDill Avenue, and not impacting
23:00:09 other residential character of the neighborhood.
23:00:13 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the
23:00:15 proposed request.
23:00:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
23:00:16 Petitioner, before you begin, I want to let you know,
23:00:23 we don't have full council members.
23:00:26 Would you like to just go with four?
23:00:33 >>> I know there's a lot of people here both for and
23:00:37 against.
23:00:37 I think it might help everybody to kind of understand
23:00:41 the sensitive approach that we used in trying to
23:00:44 design this.
23:00:48 So I would like to at least have the opportunity.
23:00:50 I have not been sworn.
23:00:52 I think there may be a number.
23:00:53 >>GWEN MILLER: does anyone else in the audience need
23:00:56 to be sworn in?
23:00:57 Please stand and raise your right hand.
23:00:59 You have to stand.

23:01:03 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth,
23:01:06 the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
23:01:14 >>> Thank you.
23:01:14 Council members.
23:01:15 Please excuse my voice.
23:01:17 I have taken a decongestant.
23:01:19 I'm a little bit dry.
23:01:21 And I'll try to read this statement that I prepared.
23:01:24 And hopefully be able to get through it.
23:01:29 Thank you very much for the opportunity to describe a
23:01:31 project that we are very excited about.
23:01:34 This Waverly project has been in progress for the last
23:01:36 ten months, getting back in -- beginning back in June
23:01:41 2005 when we met with city staff and spoke with the
23:01:43 Bayshore Beautiful neighborhood association president,
23:01:46 sue Lyons.
23:01:47 We learned that this neighborhood in particular had
23:01:50 already endured zoning battles with developers as well
23:01:53 as had been impacted by the construction related
23:01:55 congestion from the high-rise projects on Bayshore.
23:02:01 I hope to show the council tonight how we diligently
23:02:04 met with the neighborhood, listened to their concerns,

23:02:07 and continually modified our plan to address these
23:02:10 concerns to the best of our ability.
23:02:14 As a small developer, I know that any successful
23:02:17 development must be a win-win scenario for both the
23:02:21 private sector and for the neighborhood.
23:02:24 So we took to heart what Sue Lyons conveyed to us.
23:02:28 For starters, we hand delivered a letter to our
23:02:31 neighbors introducing ourselves, and I have a copy of
23:02:33 that which I would be happy to give members of
23:02:37 council.
23:02:56 As I mentioned, we hand delivered those letters,
23:02:58 introducing ourselves along with our proposed site
23:03:00 plan and elevations.
23:03:03 And we invited the neighbors within a 250-foot radius
23:03:07 to join us at the Jan Platt library for an informal
23:03:11 meeting to discuss the proposed development.
23:03:14 You can see from that sign-in list there were a pretty
23:03:16 good number of folks that came that night, and met
23:03:19 with us and spoke to us about their concerns and had
23:03:23 comments.
23:03:24 From that evening in September of 2005 and over the
23:03:27 past six months, we have continued to meet informally

23:03:31 with our neighbors in groups, one on one, through
23:03:35 e-mails, telephone conversations, always aiming to
23:03:41 resolve any differences.
23:03:43 Our project evolved to its current form.
23:03:49 I have a number of signed petitions which I can also
23:03:55 give to council if you like.
23:03:56 There's about 60 that have been signed.
23:03:59 I'd like to share with council a list of concerns that
23:04:19 were expressed by the neighborhood, and how we
23:04:21 modified our plan to accommodate those concerns.
23:04:26 Concern one, the neighbors said we only want single
23:04:29 family houses on these lots.
23:04:32 Well, in order to make any project feasible, you need
23:04:35 to satisfy a market's demands.
23:04:38 When we looked at what our land cost was, and what
23:04:43 construction costs would be for single-family detached
23:04:43 houses, we knew that in order to build those houses in
23:04:48 an economically feasible way, in other words, meeting
23:04:50 the market demands, we would have to construct them at
23:04:54 4,000 square feet each, and then sell them for
23:04:57 $1.3 million each.
23:05:01 We asked ourselves, would you buy a $1.3 million house

23:05:04 on MacDill Avenue?
23:05:07 Or the bankers answered that question for us.
23:05:10 And apparently the private sector agrees with the
23:05:13 bankers, which is basically the reason the property
23:05:15 has sat dormant for so long.
23:05:18 I have a copy of a letter from jabber homes whose
23:05:23 president could not be here tonight explaining his
23:05:25 thoughts on single-family homes in the area.
23:05:28 I would be happy to give that as well.
23:05:30 To council.
23:05:43 It's dated today to the Tampa City Council.
23:05:46 Dear council members: My name is John Solomon and I
23:05:48 am accustom home builder in South Tampa.
23:05:51 I own the property located at 3510 south Waverly place
23:05:55 which is behind the subject property to the west.
23:05:59 My first objective with this letter is conveyed -- to
23:06:03 convey my analysis of building single-family homes on
23:06:06 MacDill properties between San Pedro and Euclid.
23:06:11 My second objective is to convey my support of
23:06:14 multifamily development on these properties such as
23:06:15 the proposed versus commercial development.
23:06:19 My firm JAVIC homes exclusively built single-family

23:06:24 homes in South Tampa.
23:06:25 We do not build town homes or condos.
23:06:28 I personally reviewed the subject property and several
23:06:30 other properties fronting MacDill Avenue between
23:06:33 San Pedro and Euclid.
23:06:36 My review was done with the intent of building
23:06:38 single-family homes in these specific locations.
23:06:41 After reviewing the economics and after speaking with
23:06:44 several perspective home buyers I came to the
23:06:46 conclusion that single-family home development on
23:06:49 these properties is not viable.
23:06:52 This was based on the fact that the economics and
23:06:55 profit margin were well below industry benchmarks, and
23:06:59 more importantly every home buyer objected to the
23:07:01 location due to ingress and egress on MacDill
23:07:05 Avenue.
23:07:06 With that analysis, I believe the only viable
23:07:09 development on these properties is multifamily
23:07:10 residential or commercial.
23:07:14 As both a homeowner and home builder in this area I
23:07:17 strongly prefer multifamily development over
23:07:19 commercial development for these properties.

23:07:22 Given the residential nature of this area of Bayshore
23:07:25 Beautiful and the other neighboring residential homes,
23:07:28 I believe that it is best for the area.
23:07:32 I have reviewed the proposed plans for this property
23:07:34 and believe that they are of compensationally high
23:07:36 quality and I'm very supportive of this project.
23:07:40 Very truly yours, John Solomon, president, JAVIC
23:07:48 homes.
23:07:48 One of the other concerns neighbors had, concern 2,
23:07:51 was we don't want to be look at a big ugly concrete
23:07:54 wall.
23:07:55 Many townhouse developers will separate their
23:07:57 communities from the neighborhood by constructing a
23:08:00 wall around the property.
23:08:03 I would like to put on the Elmo a couple of shots in
23:08:08 the neighborhood, walls.
23:08:13 I don't know how well you can see that but there's
23:08:15 walls on both of those.
23:08:16 Those are both on MacDill.
23:08:18 Approximately a block north of Waverly.
23:08:30 We are not doing that.
23:08:31 We want to reinforce and add to the neighborhood

23:08:33 design rather than stand apart from it.
23:08:36 The first way we address this issue was to place a
23:08:39 stand-alone residence along Waverly Avenue and
23:08:44 separated it from the others.
23:08:45 You can see it from the site plan, and from the 3-D
23:08:51 rendering that we have, that's to the far right, a
23:08:55 stand-alone unit.
23:08:59 We did that to mimic the rhythm of the existing
23:09:02 single-family homes on Waverly Avenue.
23:09:04 We also provided this unit with its own separate
23:09:07 driveway.
23:09:09 Additionally, we are opening up green spaces between
23:09:11 the buildings on MacDill to provide open vistas
23:09:18 between them both looking in and out.
23:09:19 These openings provide a maximum view of the grand oak
23:09:23 trees from the public right-of-way.
23:09:28 I am not going to comment on these developments, but
23:09:30 this is not what we are about and this is not our type
23:09:33 of product.
23:09:34 We very much are trying to open this community up so
23:09:38 that the public right-of-way isn't blocked off.
23:09:43 Another concern of the neighborhood is that

23:09:44 building -- that buildings themselves will have a
23:09:47 concrete wall separating them from the sidewalk.
23:09:49 That is not the case here.
23:09:52 One of the reasons we like the brownstone design is
23:09:55 because as you can see from the 3-dimensional
23:09:57 rendering, each unit is multi-faceted with setbacks
23:10:01 and outjutting terraces.
23:10:04 Historically the brownstone architectural style has
23:10:07 become synonymous with neighborhoods and a community
23:10:09 which further helps our project to enhance Bayshore
23:10:12 Beautiful.
23:10:14 A brownstone greets the public right-of-way with its
23:10:20 majestic stairways and Landings.
23:10:21 If you look at the dimensional drawings, you will see
23:10:23 that there are steps up to a landing at the front door
23:10:27 and the front door face is stepped back from the main
23:10:30 front wall.
23:10:32 The heavy masonry base windows, doors and balconies
23:10:37 are historically inspired in keeping with the more
23:10:39 traditional style seen in many of South Tampa's best
23:10:43 neighborhoods.
23:10:44 And terrace gardens in the front units along

23:10:47 MacDill will add green space making the pedestrian
23:10:50 experience along the sidewalks more colorful.
23:10:55 Concern 3.
23:10:55 The neighbors say we don't want our privacy invaded
23:10:59 with three-story units looking down on our smaller one
23:11:02 and two-story homes.
23:11:05 Neighbors often are concerned with two and three-story
23:11:07 construction staring down on their back yards.
23:11:10 So city staff, as Marty pointed out, suggested that we
23:11:13 maintain a 15-foot setback from the rear property
23:11:16 line.
23:11:18 By minimizing the density we are able to accomplish a
23:11:20 20-foot setback from the rear property owners, and a
23:11:24 30-foot setback from the home most affected by our
23:11:28 project owned by Andy Hazakawa who is here tonight and
23:11:34 I believe supports our project. The result is three
23:11:36 stories but on the positive side the balconies and
23:11:39 other gathering places are facing east so that no
23:11:43 property owner on the westerly side will have folks
23:11:46 looking down at them.
23:11:49 Three-story height will also serve as a noise buffer
23:11:51 for the homes to the west of MacDill Avenue.

23:11:55 Finally, this community is designed to have an inward
23:11:58 orientation and have a pedestrian friendly environment
23:12:03 where the brick paved drive aisle will be in harmony
23:12:06 with the attractively landscaped green space.
23:12:09 All that interior drive aisle is decorative pavers,
23:12:12 and there's an enormous amount of green space, and it
23:12:16 is very lush, takes a maximum advantage of the grand
23:12:20 trees, which is the next point.
23:12:23 Concern number 4, the neighbors said we want all the
23:12:26 trees to stay, especially the Banyan.
23:12:31 As Parks Department mentioned, or Marty mentioned and
23:12:34 Mary, who is sitting behind us, we met with Parks
23:12:37 Department on several occasions in order to find out
23:12:39 the best way to preserve and protect the trees,
23:12:42 including ASA certified arborist whose report has been
23:12:47 made an integral part of this PD.
23:12:50 We love trees on this property, too.
23:12:53 In fact we have made every effort to feature them in
23:12:55 our community's design.
23:12:57 The grand oaks, I'm happy to say, play a very
23:13:00 important part in the community's ambience and are
23:13:03 featured at the drive I'll entrance on MacDill.

23:13:07 We agreed to further protect the grand trees by
23:13:09 maintaining a 30-foot setback instead of the required
23:13:13 20 and 25, giving them more green space than they
23:13:17 currently have.
23:13:19 The Banyan tree was determined to be a nonnative
23:13:23 species and is not cold tolerant.
23:13:25 In fact a portion of the tree used to stretch out over
23:13:28 the current owner's house, and after severely damaged
23:13:35 the homeowner had to cut down dead limbs hanging over
23:13:39 the roof.
23:13:40 We have cut down density and gone above and beyond by
23:13:43 creating five times as much green space per unit as is
23:13:46 required.
23:13:47 As you see, green space is an integral part of this
23:13:51 community.
23:13:52 Concern number 5 was -- there's just a couple more.
23:13:56 The neighbors said we don't want all the added traffic
23:13:59 this will bring.
23:14:01 None of us wants more traffic.
23:14:03 We want to extraordinary lengths to create a drive
23:14:07 aisle that will provide enough room for all vehicles,
23:14:10 including fire trucks, solid waste trucks, to enter

23:14:13 and exit from MacDill, and that will keep cars
23:14:17 from entering the Waverly Avenue and Waverly circle
23:14:19 neighborhoods.
23:14:21 We also know that with traffic lights on MacDill
23:14:24 that are one block away from our site in each
23:14:27 direction -- there's one on Euclid and one on
23:14:30 El Prado -- there will be opportunities for cars to
23:14:33 safely enter and exit between red light changes.
23:14:36 Not only does each of the residents have a two-car
23:14:39 garage, but the community will also have five guest
23:14:42 parking places.
23:14:46 Concern number 6.
23:14:47 Neighbors said, when don't want construction workers
23:14:50 parking all over the neighborhood, particularly in
23:14:52 front of our houses.
23:14:55 When one of the Waverly neighbors approached me about
23:14:57 the working conditions and parking situation, it was a
23:15:00 problem that I fully understood, and I am sympathetic
23:15:04 toward.
23:15:04 This concern is one I personally lived with at my home
23:15:08 as both the Alagon and Bellamy had their workers park
23:15:15 in front of my house, too.

23:15:16 She asked me if we would agree to limit all
23:15:18 construction vehicles and equipment to the boundaries
23:15:20 of the PD, and post a hotline phone number where
23:15:24 neighbors can report vehicles that are not abiding by
23:15:26 this rule.
23:15:28 I immediately said yes.
23:15:32 Her request has now been made a part of this PD.
23:15:34 I'd like to conclude my presentation and turn it over
23:15:37 to my wife who is the architect for this project by
23:15:40 saying that we live in the Bayshore Beautiful
23:15:42 neighborhood, six blocks away from this site.
23:15:44 We drive by the site every day and would not do
23:15:47 anything to negatively impact this neighborhood.
23:15:51 We have taken a very thoughtful and sensitive approach
23:15:53 to our design and have tried to the best of our
23:15:56 ability to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors,
23:15:59 most affected by our project.
23:16:02 Those who accepted our sincere offers to meet and
23:16:04 discuss the project have had a hand in helping to
23:16:08 design it.
23:16:09 And for that we are grateful.
23:16:11 We believe it will be a truly outstanding contribution

23:16:13 to the neighborhood and reflect what urban
23:16:16 redevelopment is supposed to be, a collaborative
23:16:19 effort between the development community, the
23:16:22 neighborhood, and the city.
23:16:24 Thank you.
23:16:31 >>> Thank you.
23:16:32 I'm Leigh Wilson Versaggi.
23:16:36 A lot of thought has gone into the design of these
23:16:39 town homes.
23:16:40 My design is based on historical research and
23:16:42 classical and traditional methods of design.
23:16:46 Our buildings will be very much responding to the
23:16:48 needs of 2007 and beyond.
23:16:50 We will give attention to detail while using both
23:16:53 traditional and new technology to create buildings
23:16:56 that are beautiful, substantial, energy efficient, and
23:17:01 technology smart.
23:17:03 Bee we wanted to create an urban response to the
23:17:07 street at this location, Euclid, MacDill, Waverly,
23:17:12 because we feel that -- we felt it was a chance to
23:17:16 enliven the street, create pedestrian-friendly
23:17:20 corridors, and take advantage of the necessity and

23:17:24 specialty retail, restaurants, ice cream parlors, that
23:17:28 create commercial and leisure activity a few blocks
23:17:31 south.
23:17:32 The intersections of MacDill at Euclid and
23:17:36 El Prado are traveled by many, many cars, thousands of
23:17:39 cars a day.
23:17:42 We will be a drop in the bucket for what the traffic
23:17:48 studies have shown.
23:17:50 This is a high density region of MacDill Avenue.
23:17:55 Our project will take advantage of this location and
23:17:57 create a pathway between MacDill Avenue and the
23:18:02 smaller single-family homes in close proximity to
23:18:05 MacDill. With this in mind we wanted to address
23:18:07 the context.
23:18:09 My greatest criticism -- and obviously my husband's --
23:18:13 of recent residential development on MacDill
23:18:16 Avenue has been that they do not meet and greet the
23:18:19 street, but instead place privacy walls between
23:18:23 MacDill and its residents.
23:18:25 A street can be a wonderful feature in a city.
23:18:28 Instead of embracing it, we wall it off and avoid it,
23:18:33 and neither the street nor the residences contribute

23:18:36 anything to the character of the neighborhood.
23:18:37 This has served to deaden the experience of driving
23:18:40 and especially of walking down MacDill Avenue.
23:18:43 We would like to provide something extra in our
23:18:45 project that will give back to the community
23:18:48 character.
23:18:49 The class classical brownstone has traditionally
23:18:53 contributed greatly to the character of urban streets
23:18:55 in this country.
23:18:56 I researched the urban brownstone.
23:18:59 The term has come to include the entire category of
23:19:02 19th century row houses and actually just row
23:19:05 houses, European as well.
23:19:11 Brownstones developed in large cities as they
23:19:14 prospered to the -- as they prospered to respond to
23:19:18 the increasing price of land.
23:19:20 Price of land still drives development projects today.
23:19:24 South Tampa land is becoming scarce and more densely
23:19:27 populated.
23:19:31 Our research took us from New York, upper east side,
23:19:35 upper west side, to Boston, to Charleston, to
23:19:37 Savannah.

23:19:39 We went from the English to the French neoclassic
23:19:43 because the way they interact with their context.
23:19:48 Our house, our town homes, will be different from
23:19:55 these, in that they address the context.
23:20:00 But they are a combination of all of these things that
23:20:04 we found.
23:20:05 Most of the brownstones that I researched engaged the
23:20:10 street because of the massive steps leading to the
23:20:12 second level front doors and because of the base
23:20:15 projecting toward the street.
23:20:16 The northern brownstones don't integrate porches into
23:20:19 their design for obvious reasons -- climate.
23:20:22 We looked at Charleston and Savannah houses as
23:20:26 southern example of urban row houses, the side houses
23:20:31 predominantly a walled and urban structure.
23:20:34 Our brownstone is a combination of porches, terrace
23:20:37 terraces and urban row house. The most enduring
23:20:40 characteristic of a brownstone is the way the stairs
23:20:46 leading to them creates visual texture and massing
23:20:48 along the sidewalk lined with pavers and creates scale
23:20:52 with planters, railings and planter gardens beyond the
23:20:56 wrought iron.

23:20:59 Our brownstone versus square base and very much a
23:21:03 class I can part of the brownstone.
23:21:07 Brownstones were narrower and taller than the single
23:21:10 family detached home. Interior white was necessary
23:21:13 because of gas lighting used at the time. Lights
23:21:13 serve several purposes today.
23:21:21 High ceilings and tall windows will allow light to
23:21:24 penetrate through the depth of the building when they
23:21:26 are side to side.
23:21:27 The proportion and height is critical to the
23:21:34 aesthetics of the classical brownstone design that
23:21:37 adds value not only to the units but to the
23:21:39 neighborhood.
23:21:41 The 19th century brownstone had its living
23:21:44 quarters above the noise and pollution of the street.
23:21:47 The service area was located below street level and
23:21:51 today still serves us well.
23:21:55 Two car garage down below and living quarters up
23:21:59 above.
23:22:00 For pedestrian interests and a curb appeal we want to
23:22:04 create a pleasant atmosphere and drive atmosphere.
23:22:08 We want every facet of the buildings to be attractive.

23:22:12 Open terraces with planters will provide an
23:22:14 opportunity for green space and color above street
23:22:17 level.
23:22:18 It is our hope that we have the opportunity to create
23:22:22 elegant structures with integrity.
23:22:24 We not only want to fit into the context, we want to
23:22:29 improve them.
23:22:29 >>GWEN MILLER: That concludes your presentation?
23:22:39 >>> Yes, it does.
23:22:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
23:22:42 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
23:22:44 on item number 13?
23:22:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the record you were sworn
23:22:53 in, is that correct?
23:22:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say that given the
23:22:58 conversations we have had tonight about protecting
23:23:00 trees and grand trees, that going beyond what our
23:23:05 requirements are and making the trees a feature of
23:23:08 your site plan is very, very impressive and very
23:23:11 sensitively done.
23:23:14 As well as the rest of the design.
23:23:15 But that in particular, in contrast to other cases

23:23:20 tonight stands out.
23:23:20 >>GWEN MILLER: You may start.
23:23:22 Come up and speak.
23:23:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A reminder when you state your name
23:23:29 please state whether oven sworn.
23:23:31 >>> I'm Amy Presakar.
23:23:35 I have been sworn in.
23:23:36 3104 west Waverly Avenue.
23:23:39 My property is one that is shown.
23:23:43 It's wrapped around by the development.
23:23:47 Right where the blue map is showing where this is in
23:23:50 Tampa.
23:23:50 That's where my house is.
23:23:52 And I have met with them on several indications and
23:24:00 talked about privacy and setbacks and all that sort of
23:24:03 stuff and I believe he has taken my considerations, my
23:24:06 concerns into consideration.
23:24:08 And I think that the brownstone design is good for the
23:24:16 neighborhood.
23:24:17 I'm also sensitive to the need to move upward instead
23:24:21 of outward when we are working on the density of our
23:24:25 downtown Tampa in terms of development.

23:24:28 And I am appreciative of the developers' track record
23:24:34 with century lofts as an artist and with historic
23:24:38 properties, our studios in Ybor City.
23:24:41 So I am very familiar with the walkable streets and
23:24:45 how that changes when people can walk down them.
23:24:48 And you guys all have a letter from me with the pros
23:24:56 and cons that my husband and I came up with.
23:24:59 And some of the issues that are crucial to us and to
23:25:04 the neighborhood.
23:25:04 And after going through these, we feel that we will
23:25:09 support the project.
23:25:11 We do not want to set a precedent for supporting
23:25:15 planned developments in the area, because we are very
23:25:18 closely knit single family neighborhood but I believe
23:25:22 the intent of the developer and the concern that he
23:25:24 has put towards green space makes -- that makes us,
23:25:30 you know, more amenable to the development.
23:25:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:25:35 Next.
23:25:40 >>> My name is Lori Ann Burton, I live at 3603 Waverly
23:25:44 court and I have been sworn in.
23:25:46 Just to clarify.

23:25:48 On the corner of Euclid that is a PD that they thought
23:25:51 was a townhouse, that is a single-family residence PD.
23:25:59 Also when you look at this 3-dimensional drawing where
23:26:01 they show the trees along the sidewalk, the palm
23:26:06 trees, I think that's a really great idea.
23:26:08 But it's important to know that that street is strewn
23:26:12 with power poles where all those trees are.
23:26:16 Also, they said they wouldn't be having a wall.
23:26:19 And according to the site plan, there's a two-foot
23:26:21 masonry wall that will then have two-foot of wrought
23:26:27 iron which will directly abut the sidewalk.
23:26:32 I am opposed to these townhouses.
23:26:37 Waverly Avenue currently has two gated townhouse
23:26:40 projects.
23:26:41 The apartment complexion on the corner and the
23:26:43 24-story going up at Bayshore.
23:26:47 I think wife done our share on the density.
23:26:48 And I would like to see single-family homes here.
23:26:52 I'm concerned of the setback from MacDill.
23:26:55 These -- it's only discounting the wall of the fence.
23:27:02 These are only eight feet back from the sidewalk which
23:27:04 is extremely close to MacDill and I think it's

23:27:06 going to create sort of a tunnel effect in that
23:27:08 section.
23:27:10 When they say who wants to live on MacDill?
23:27:14 Well, outside of the commercial district and one
23:27:16 townhouse project, everything from Euclid all the way
23:27:18 to Gandy is single-family homes.
23:27:24 This height 31 feet 6 inches I think is a dramatic
23:27:28 departure of what is currently in the neighborhood.
23:27:29 The town homes that are across the street have very
23:27:33 large setbacks.
23:27:34 And I they are only two-story, with, like I said, the
23:27:41 close to the street is my major concerns, the
23:27:43 massiveness of it.
23:27:44 And I think that we have huge drainage problems on
23:27:46 this corner that are going to just put additional
23:27:50 strains on the drainage, the water pressure, our
23:27:54 roads, and the further reduction of impervious ground.
23:28:01 And I believe single-family homes are involved on
23:28:04 these lots and all the homes, if they think they are
23:28:07 not, I think they overpaid for the lots.
23:28:09 Currently there are single-family homes being built on
23:28:11 Euclid, El Prado, Bay to Bay, further north on

23:28:16 MacDill towards Swann and even Dale Mabry at
23:28:19 Barcelona they are building a single-family home.
23:28:22 I think these are -- I think it's viable to have
23:28:26 single-family homes here.
23:28:27 Thank you.
23:28:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:28:29 Next.
23:28:32 >>> My name is John Spicola and I have been sworn in.
23:28:35 I live at 3115 Euclid.
23:28:37 I think density of this project is a little much for
23:28:41 our little tiny neighborhood especially since it abuts
23:28:44 Waverly park and Waverly circle.
23:28:46 It's a beautiful little neighborhood.
23:28:47 It shouldn't be compromised by all these phase one,
23:28:51 phase two of these projects.
23:28:53 I just ask you not to approve it.
23:28:55 Thank you.
23:28:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:28:56 Next.
23:28:58 >>> My name is April and I have been duly sworn in.
23:29:05 I live at 3141 west Euclid Avenue and I have an issue
23:29:09 with you the traffic, the street that I live on does

23:29:13 have much traffic and this would only increase
23:29:15 traffic.
23:29:15 The gentleman and lady that proposed this project said
23:29:17 they talked to the neighborhood.
23:29:19 I live within ten houses of the proposed project, and
23:29:23 no one other than one of the ladies in the
23:29:25 neighborhood and the signs that were about this
23:29:28 meeting.
23:29:29 I have not heard any other word about whether or not I
23:29:31 would approve, or what my concerns were.
23:29:35 My biggest concern here is the increase in traffic on
23:29:40 this neighborhood.
23:29:41 Because when you come out of these -- this proposal,
23:29:45 you are going to have two ways to go, possibly right
23:29:47 or left.
23:29:48 The cut-through to Dale Mabry Highway is going to be
23:29:52 Waverly, or Euclid Avenue.
23:29:55 Thank you.
23:29:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:29:56 Next.
23:30:00 >>> Ted chapman.
23:30:01 I have been sworn in.

23:30:02 I too am skeptical of the claim that the only possible
23:30:06 viable economic use of the now zoned single family
23:30:11 properties is a $1.4 million house, 4,000 square feet
23:30:15 that isn't going to sell because it's on a busy
23:30:17 street.
23:30:19 The developer's own proposal has two single-family
23:30:23 houses on his proposal here.
23:30:28 I'm also concerned about the increase in traffic.
23:30:30 And on Euclid Avenue.
23:30:31 And already have heavy traffic problems there with a
23:30:34 lot of illegal trucks going up and down on the
23:30:37 construction.
23:30:39 This is only going to make it worse for the
23:30:41 construction of this proposed townhouse.
23:30:44 In short I would like to keep this zoned single-family
23:30:48 the way it is now.
23:30:49 I think it's overly dense and inappropriate for the
23:30:53 neighborhood.
23:30:53 Thank you.
23:30:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:30:54 Next.
23:30:56 >>> My name is Jeffrey Jones, 2907 west Euclid Avenue

23:31:02 here to ask you to continue your support for our
23:31:05 neighborhood and turn down this rezoning request and
23:31:08 help us preserve the single-family home neighborhood
23:31:11 that Bayshore Beautiful is presently.
23:31:15 Petitioner's efforts to communicate with so many
23:31:18 neighbors is news to many of us.
23:31:22 The single family detached homes, there are a number
23:31:25 of single family detached homes currently being built
23:31:27 on MacDill further south, and as was already
23:31:31 mentioned, large ones on both Euclid and El Prado.
23:31:37 So we feel that this area is quite viable for
23:31:41 single-family homes. In fact the whole Bayshore
23:31:43 Beautiful neighborhood is pretty much in demand.
23:31:45 This is not an inner city neighborhood in need of
23:31:51 redevelopment.
23:31:52 Thank you.
23:31:52 It's quite -- doing quite well with single-family
23:31:54 homes on the properties as they exist currently.
23:31:59 You will forgive my skepticism of staff approval and
23:32:02 some of developers promises. Staff approved the
23:32:05 12-foot wall that the developer showed us on one of
23:32:08 the slides, surrounding a development of single-family

23:32:13 homes at El Prado and MacDill.
23:32:17 In which there's not even room for a sidewalk there.
23:32:19 And it completely impassable.
23:32:22 But yet it passed staff approval in the past.
23:32:26 The few town homes at the corner of MacDill and
23:32:30 El Prado currently under construction were place --
23:32:34 replace add former garage there, a commercial unit.
23:32:38 So effectively the town homes was better than
23:32:39 certainly.
23:32:40 But that doesn't mean we want town homes to line
23:32:43 MacDill Avenue from El Prado to Euclid, which is
23:32:46 what we feel would occur with this precedent.
23:32:49 That's phase one.
23:32:50 You see phase two would take it down to Euclid.
23:32:53 I think phase three is coming.
23:32:55 That's the property currently for sale north of this
23:32:58 proposed development, currently apartments.
23:33:02 It's for sale.
23:33:03 And I can foresee a wall of town homes stretching a
23:33:08 two-block area on that side of the street.
23:33:13 , that the three-story town homes that developer calls
23:33:17 majestic I find is towering and would create a canyon

23:33:22 effect down MacDill.
23:33:26 The developer talked about adding green space.
23:33:29 He's not adding green space.
23:33:30 He's taking away green space.
23:33:32 There are four homes and a vacant lot on this stretch
23:33:34 from phase one and phase two.
23:33:39 Proposing 17 residents.
23:33:40 That's much higher development.
23:33:42 Townhouses, there's too little land in front to set --
23:33:55 the setback on MacDill is too narrow to have a
23:33:58 canopy of trees, which would be a lovely idea but just
23:34:03 doesn't look feasible.
23:34:04 It looks pretty in the picture but fear it's not
23:34:07 what's going to take place.
23:34:09 Phase two is also too close to the traffic light at
23:34:12 Euclid for traffic to egress and turn left.
23:34:18 The petitioner made mention of the fact that these are
23:34:21 brownstones.
23:34:22 Now brownstones to me refers to cut brown limestone
23:34:26 building blocks used in construction.
23:34:28 Don't see anything in the materials that say they are
23:34:30 going to be built of that material.

23:34:34 Finally if everyone can stand who is in opposition
23:34:36 here.
23:34:36 Some people are unable to speak.
23:34:38 If you would stand I would like you to be represented.
23:34:40 Thank you.
23:34:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record, were you sworn?
23:34:46 >>> Yes, sir, I was.
23:34:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
23:34:48 >>> Deanne Roberts.
23:34:49 I have been sworn in. I'm at 3528 village way,
23:34:52 which is one of those walled townhouse communities.
23:34:55 It's right catter-corner to this development.
23:34:58 And maybe because I have chose tone live in kind of a
23:35:00 tight, dense, tall, I didn't like the wall either,
23:35:03 community, I actually think this is very nice project.
23:35:06 And I think he has done a very good job.
23:35:09 And the context and the character of the neighborhood.
23:35:11 But the real reason I came down tonight is because I'm
23:35:13 the one that called the developer and said, we will
23:35:16 have a riot if we have another year and a half of
23:35:19 construction traffic along this area.
23:35:23 And I want to thank you, Ms. Ferlita, and you, Mr.

23:35:27 Dingfelder, because what little relief we have gotten
23:35:29 in the last year with some signage and stuff is
23:35:32 because you all have interceded in a very
23:35:35 uncooperative contractor, who has built Alagon, and
23:35:42 it's a nightmare.
23:35:43 We can't get out of our driveways without hoping no
23:35:46 one is coming.
23:35:46 You go to turn on MacDill and there are these big
23:35:49 trucks, and these are pickup trucks, and van was no
23:35:53 windows, and SUVs.
23:35:54 I'm in the on coming traffic lane trying to turn onto
23:35:58 MacDill, hoping that nobody is going to turn in,
23:36:00 because they can't see me in this lane.
23:36:02 So we have really been through it.
23:36:04 So I called Mr. Versaggi and said, you have got to do
23:36:08 something about this.
23:36:09 I think he went above and beyond.
23:36:11 We did was he promised to put all of the construction
23:36:13 worker traffic on his site, the entire time.
23:36:17 He also agreed to put this as a condition of zoning.
23:36:21 And he agreed to put a sign on the site during the
23:36:23 whole construction period so that if some of these

23:36:27 subs don't follow the rules we can call Mr. Versaggi
23:36:30 and tell him.
23:36:31 Because we don't want to call the police we don't want
23:36:34 to bother the police with things like this.
23:36:36 I think he's been exemplary in the way he's Delta with
23:36:40 this.
23:36:40 I wanted to come down and commend him for that but
23:36:42 also throw out the challenge to you all because we
23:36:46 have this colonnade site.
23:36:48 That F that is built into high-rise we are back into
23:36:51 another 18 months, two years of construction traffic
23:36:53 again.
23:36:53 So I hope that you would look at what he's done, and
23:36:57 on some of these other in-fill projects and these
23:37:01 tight residential areas of Tampa that you would ask
23:37:03 that they would do the same thing.
23:37:04 Thank you.
23:37:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:37:06 Next.
23:37:09 >>> My name is Robert PRADO, 3106 Waverly Avenue.
23:37:15 And I have been duly sworn in, Mr. Attorney.
23:37:19 I bring a somewhat different perspective to this.

23:37:23 I've sat where you sit right now.
23:37:26 I served as a mayor.
23:37:27 I served as a councilman.
23:37:29 I also served as the chairman of the Tampa Bay
23:37:32 Regional Planning Council.
23:37:34 I'm appalled at this project.
23:37:40 It is changing basically the nature of our
23:37:43 neighborhood.
23:37:44 I'm going to disagree with staff, respectfully, when
23:37:50 they said that the block there west of MacDill
23:37:53 Avenue is mixed use.
23:37:55 It is not.
23:37:56 Every single lot is single-family.
23:37:59 There is no multifamily usage.
23:38:01 You have one vacant lot.
23:38:03 That's one of the subject lots.
23:38:06 Okay?
23:38:07 You have every single one, single-family home.
23:38:11 You are talking about four single-family homes that
23:38:14 are going to be replaced.
23:38:16 If you do phase one and phase two, and we all know how
23:38:19 phase one and two phase works.

23:38:21 You get phase one and then that opens the door for
23:38:23 phase two.
23:38:24 Not to mention what the gentleman just said about the
23:38:26 other property right down the street.
23:38:28 It's going to come before you.
23:38:31 The tunnel effect is a reality.
23:38:35 I have some real serious problems with this.
23:38:37 I can't endorse it.
23:38:40 I've heard from developers, I've looked at some of the
23:38:43 biggest DRIs in this neighborhood.
23:38:45 And I'm talking about Manatee, Pinellas, Pasco and
23:38:50 Hillsborough Counties.
23:38:50 And I've got real skepticism.
23:38:54 Nine town homes in the first section, phase one.
23:38:58 Eight in the second one.
23:38:59 17 units replacing four.
23:39:02 Three stories.
23:39:04 I don't want to look at that.
23:39:05 I don't want to look at from the my backyard because I
23:39:08 live basically backing onto that.
23:39:11 Sort of catter-corner.
23:39:12 My neighbor is in favor of it.

23:39:15 I am not.
23:39:15 The traffic issues, ALA begun GON hasn't come on line
23:39:22 yet.
23:39:22 And you look at egress from that property. The egress
23:39:25 the developer mentioned relative to single-family
23:39:26 homes is still an issue with these.
23:39:31 I guess what it really comes down to, you saw the
23:39:36 people that stood up here.
23:39:38 I don't see 60 people here left tonight.
23:39:42 But if you noticed, the majority of the people that
23:39:45 stood up were in opposition.
23:39:48 And I guess the real question, I'm going to ask you,
23:39:50 the people used to ask me as a public official, is who
23:39:55 are you looking out for?
23:39:56 The developer who comes in, buys property, and has a
23:40:00 profit in selling?
23:40:01 Or those of us who lived for years in our homes, and
23:40:04 really care about our neighborhoods?
23:40:06 And I think that's up to you.
23:40:08 You have to look at the issue.
23:40:09 Thank you.
23:40:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

23:40:11 Next.
23:40:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I just want to be remind
23:40:14 council especially considering there are four council
23:40:17 members and regardless of what happens tonight, as you
23:40:21 know, your decision has to be based on competent
23:40:23 substantial evidence.
23:40:24 I would ask that whatever decisions you do make, do
23:40:27 you put forth that competent, substantial evidence.
23:40:29 I would surely remind you as I'm sure council does
23:40:32 know, that courts do not look to how many people are
23:40:35 in the audience and it is not a popularity vote with
23:40:38 regard to a project.
23:40:40 It has to be viewed on the merits.
23:40:41 I would ask when the time comes if you weigh your
23:40:43 decisions that you do put that forth.
23:40:45 Thank you.
23:40:46 >>> I'm David, 3103 west Waverly Avenue across the
23:40:51 street from this development and I am sworn in
23:40:52 tonight.
23:40:53 I'm opposed to this development primarily because of
23:40:56 the height.
23:40:58 I don't like the three-story height.

23:40:59 I also think the density has gone too far.
23:41:03 It's too dense.
23:41:04 So if there were less units and if they were two
23:41:07 stories high I would probably not oppose this.
23:41:10 Thank you.
23:41:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:41:11 Next.
23:41:13 >>> My name is Jason Brewer.
23:41:16 I have been sworn in.
23:41:17 I have a house located at 3014 Waverly Avenue, down
23:41:23 Waverly Avenue.
23:41:24 I first met Russ and Lee about six months ago at the
23:41:27 initial meeting at Jan Platt library in September.
23:41:31 I just wanted to get up here first and say I fully
23:41:34 support the project.
23:41:35 And secondly thank you, Mr. Shelby, for your comments
23:41:37 regarding judging a project on merits.
23:41:40 And outside of the context, the voices of the majority
23:41:45 that's represented here, which may not represent the
23:41:47 feelings of the community, certainly don't represent
23:41:49 my feelings.
23:41:51 I've communicated with Rus and Lee over the past six

23:41:53 months since that meeting in September.
23:41:55 And I have to say that my concerns as a land owner
23:41:57 were the same as many that have been addressed here
23:41:59 tonight.
23:41:59 Certainly I have concerns about the height of the
23:42:01 project, the unit density.
23:42:04 Don't want more of a corridor or tunnel effect than
23:42:06 anybody else and the traffic that would burden the
23:42:08 roads.
23:42:08 In some cases it's already burdened especially along
23:42:11 MacDill.
23:42:11 I have to say that every concern I have had has been
23:42:13 addressed, and the plans than we see here not only on
23:42:17 the site plan but also the rendering, and I
23:42:20 communicated with Rus and Lee regularly.
23:42:23 I make my money as a real estate lender.
23:42:26 From Pasco County all the way down to Bradenton,
23:42:28 Sarasota, and into Naples, for $120 million plus
23:42:31 commercial projects which include office, industrial,
23:42:33 retail, and residential.
23:42:35 And I have to say that on a weekly basis I'm looking
23:42:39 at a lot of different financing packages.

23:42:40 And there's some good people doing good business here
23:42:42 but I think this represents the best of a potential
23:42:45 product in the neighborhood.
23:42:46 Frankly, I can item you the alternative uses are not
23:42:50 feasible and for those who say the corridor from south
23:42:52 of here to Gandy on either side are populated by
23:42:55 single-family homes, I would ask how many lots are
23:42:57 vacant in that same corridor.
23:42:59 The answer is none.
23:43:00 And the reason is because those are economically fees
23:43:04 international.
23:43:05 I'm a fairly strong believer in market efficiency and
23:43:10 if it could be single-family homes they would be here
23:43:14 now.
23:43:15 I was born and raised in Tampa.
23:43:16 Like many of you I have traveled abroad and lived in
23:43:19 different cities in Europe and elsewhere.
23:43:21 I think a project like this represents a true urban
23:43:23 environment that as a young professional excites me
23:43:26 greatly.
23:43:26 I think the brownstone concept, while it may not be
23:43:29 represented by limestone materials is faithfully

23:43:31 represented here in spirit.
23:43:33 And finally, properly executed, I think this is the
23:43:35 best of what can happen in urban development.
23:43:38 And if this does not represent the best of what can
23:43:41 happen the conscientious developer, a good product,
23:43:44 very sensitive to the neighborhood, I don't know what
23:43:45 can.
23:43:46 Thank you.
23:43:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:43:47 Next.
23:43:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to clarify because I
23:43:50 don't want anybody to think that I would take a
23:43:52 position for or against.
23:43:53 I guess this would be to either position whether
23:43:56 you're an opponent or proponent.
23:43:58 When I say council should look to competent,
23:44:01 substantial evidence, in other words, with your
23:44:04 testimony you can assist them by giving council facts
23:44:07 based on your personal knowledge, experience or
23:44:08 expertise, rather than the swaying by a weighted vote.
23:44:14 In other words, when you testify, I'm asking council
23:44:17 look to the competent, substantial evidence that is

23:44:20 deduced by the testimony and you can assist by
23:44:23 informing council of that information that you have.
23:44:25 Thank you.
23:44:27 >>> I'm Wanda brewer.
23:44:29 I live at 305 east Park Avenue in Tampa.
23:44:32 I have been sworn in.
23:44:33 I just wanted to reiterate staff's position on this.
23:44:38 Your technical experts in this matter.
23:44:41 And this is a transitional zone that is appropriate
23:44:46 for a higher density product.
23:44:48 The Waverly product that is adjacent and across the
23:44:52 street is a compatible use.
23:44:54 You need to be asking yourself the questions, if this
23:44:57 is a compatible use, if it's appropriate within a
23:45:00 transitional zone, if the architectural style is
23:45:03 consistent with that of the neighborhood, the things
23:45:06 that make South Tampa wonderful is that it has a
23:45:08 diversity of styles and product within a given
23:45:12 neighborhood.
23:45:13 I would also like to state that they have done a
23:45:15 wonderful job with the nature aspects of it offering
23:45:18 more than what they needed to do, being sensitive to

23:45:20 the tree canopy, and I would like to personally attest
23:45:27 to the fact of the concerns that some residents have
23:45:29 about their property values maybe not being realized
23:45:32 because it would be higher density, I happen to live
23:45:35 in a neighborhood where this particular developer came
23:45:38 in, and did multifamily.
23:45:40 And I can tell you that our property values have
23:45:43 increased and it's been a great amenity and asset for
23:45:46 our community.
23:45:47 So I support the project.
23:45:48 I think they have done an -- this is an example of
23:45:51 what developers should be doing and I hope you will
23:45:54 approve it.
23:45:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:45:55 Next.
23:45:57 >>> My name is David crew, I'm across the street.
23:46:02 And we saw the notices going up.
23:46:04 And I asked my son let's go to the meeting.
23:46:07 And we saw Rus for the first time explain this
23:46:11 project.
23:46:13 Found him very professional, committed, open to
23:46:17 everybody's suggestions, handled himself very well,

23:46:21 and then this end product is so impressive.
23:46:25 I also submitted a petition with the 23 people that
23:46:28 live across the street all supporting it.
23:46:31 I would look very forward every day to looking across
23:46:35 at that project as opposed to what's there now.
23:46:38 It would be an enhancement that is hard to describe.
23:46:45 And the height, you know, that's an issue.
23:46:47 Some people say it's an issue.
23:46:48 But we do live in a city.
23:46:50 We don't live in Lutz.
23:46:51 It's a city.
23:46:52 It's a different perspective, you know?
23:46:55 I think in the end that everybody benefits from this.
23:47:01 The seller, the people who are selling their property,
23:47:03 they are going to make some money.
23:47:04 They are going to be out of the houses that they want
23:47:08 to get rid of and they are going to probably move
23:47:09 around in South Tampa.
23:47:11 The city is going to have increased taxes.
23:47:15 And the grand trees are going to be protected and they
23:47:18 are going to plant little teenage trees to grow with
23:47:22 them.

23:47:22 Thank you.
23:47:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn?
23:47:25 >>> Yes, I was.
23:47:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
23:47:29 >>> Good evening.
23:47:29 My name is Marcus Lopez.
23:47:31 I have been sworn in.
23:47:32 I live at 3124 Waverly park which is about six houses
23:47:35 down from the proposed project.
23:47:39 The gentleman said that he passed out letters and he
23:47:41 contacted neighbors and did due diligence and knocked
23:47:44 on doors.
23:47:45 I live six houses from this gentleman.
23:47:47 The first time I heard about this project was about
23:47:48 two weeks ago when one of the neighbors passed out the
23:47:52 fact that this monstrosity was going up on
23:47:57 MacDill.
23:47:58 I'm not opposed to development.
23:47:59 It's a beautiful project.
23:48:00 They did a great job with that thing.
23:48:02 But I think there's some other viable options for
23:48:04 single-family homes.

23:48:05 A lot of you are familiar with the corner of Lois and
23:48:08 Swann.
23:48:09 Busy street.
23:48:11 Busier street than MacDill.
23:48:12 I have a picture here of the developer on that street,
23:48:22 they have a private driveway in the back.
23:48:25 If you can see the homes this way, they are very nice
23:48:29 homes.
23:48:30 That take up four lots with a driveway in the back.
23:48:33 Again it's just a better option.
23:48:35 It keeps a single-family home neighborhood the way it
23:48:39 is.
23:48:40 And we have got some very beautiful homes in that park
23:48:42 area.
23:48:42 And I guarantee you nobody on that petition that
23:48:45 signed that petition is any of the neighbors that live
23:48:48 in our park area, which is where some of the bigger
23:48:50 national homes have been built in that area in that
23:48:52 neighborhood.
23:48:53 So again I would just like to let you know that I am
23:48:58 opposed to this project and hope you consider keeping
23:49:01 the single-family residential, and I would like to

23:49:05 find out from the developer if they considered doing
23:49:08 something like this.
23:49:08 Because if it worked on Lois why wouldn't it work on
23:49:11 MacDill?
23:49:12 Thank you very much for your time.
23:49:16 >>> Kathryn coward, 3602 south Waverly place.
23:49:19 And I have been sworn in.
23:49:21 I'm right on the corner of Waverly Avenue and Waverly
23:49:25 place.
23:49:25 And I'm opposed to this project because of the size
23:49:29 and density of it.
23:49:30 I'm also opposed because of the cut-through traffic
23:49:33 that currently happens from Euclid to get to
23:49:36 MacDill.
23:49:37 They always cut through Waverly place to get to
23:49:39 Waverly Avenue onto MacDill.
23:49:41 And I think this would highly increase that traffic.
23:49:43 And cause detriment to our neighborhood.
23:49:47 Thank you.
23:49:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:49:48 Next.
23:49:51 >>> I'm Susan lane and I live at 3010 Euclid Avenue

23:49:54 and I have been sworn in.
23:49:55 I'm opposed to this project mainly because of the
23:49:57 density and also the height of 41 feet.
23:50:01 50s oops there's nothing else around there that's
23:50:04 that tall unless you count the Alagon and that is
23:50:08 still an ongoing nightmare with the parking on the
23:50:10 street.
23:50:11 I don't know about brownstones, the brown stones that
23:50:13 I have ever seen or heard of are in New York City.
23:50:15 Also the comment about, you know, the light at Euclid
23:50:20 and MacDill and the light at El Prado and
23:50:24 MacDill.
23:50:25 You know, all the traffic that's coming east of
23:50:28 Euclid, most of it makes the left-hand turn and goes
23:50:32 north.
23:50:33 I have a terrible time trying to get across the street
23:50:36 there.
23:50:37 So, you know, I don't know how the lights at either
23:50:40 end of the blocks are going to make a difference
23:50:44 helping traffic get across the street.
23:50:48 My part of Euclid which is between Bayshore and
23:50:52 MacDill, we don't have near as much traffic as the

23:50:54 traffic coming east on Euclid because most of it makes
23:50:57 a turn and goes north.
23:50:58 I'm just opposed to the project in general because of
23:51:00 the density, and also the height.
23:51:02 I'm not necessarily opposed to townhouses there.
23:51:05 But one of the reasons that they are going to have
23:51:07 extra green space is -- and one of the reasons they
23:51:10 have to have it 41 feet tall is because they have got
23:51:13 to put the parking underneath.
23:51:15 And the other thing is, these lots have been vacant --
23:51:20 not vacant but they haven't had anything else because
23:51:23 they didn't come on the market.
23:51:25 They weren't put on the market for sale until just
23:51:27 recently.
23:51:28 Also the townhouses that are on the southeast corner
23:51:33 of El Prado and MacDill, those were built years
23:51:36 ago.
23:51:36 And yes, that was terribly ugly.
23:51:38 And also, a whole lot of us had to come down here and
23:51:41 fight the townhouses and the wall for the ones that
23:51:45 are on the southwest corner of El Prado and -- the
23:51:51 ones that are all the different colors, the pea green

23:51:54 and black stuff like that.
23:51:55 The only reason they aren't having a real tall wall is
23:51:59 because we had to come down here and fight against
23:52:01 that wall, too.
23:52:01 So anyway, I am opposed to it mainly because of the
23:52:05 density and the height.
23:52:06 41 feet is very tall.
23:52:08 Thank you.
23:52:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:52:10 Next.
23:52:11 >>> My name is Thomas Sherill, 3116 Waverly park, and
23:52:16 I am sworn.
23:52:18 I came here a little over six hours ago and listened
23:52:22 to this and listened to this and everything that's
23:52:24 been said for the last 30, 35 minutes.
23:52:30 I see absolutely no redeeming characteristics
23:52:30 whatsoever in this project other than to the
23:52:33 developer.
23:52:34 I think the townhouses are probably attractive.
23:52:37 We have had a nice tour of New York, Atlanta, Chicago,
23:52:41 other places.
23:52:42 I thought I was on lakeside drive in Chicago look just

23:52:45 like some townhouses I have seen by the Drake hotel
23:52:48 there.
23:52:48 South Tampa is not Chicago.
23:52:50 South Tampa is South Tampa.
23:52:52 No, it's not Lutz.
23:52:53 But it's closer to Lutz than it is to New York City.
23:52:57 And I think that -- I'm out every morning before
23:53:00 daylight walking.
23:53:01 I'll tell you, Waverly has no sidewalks anywhere
23:53:04 around there except on MacDill and Bayshore
23:53:06 Boulevard.
23:53:07 The traffic is horrendous at that time of morning.
23:53:11 It's dangerous.
23:53:12 And you know where I end up walking.
23:53:14 Not on MacDill that has a sidewalk.
23:53:17 I go to Bayshore.
23:53:18 Famous Bayshore.
23:53:19 You read about it in the Tribune all the time how
23:53:21 dangerous it is.
23:53:22 It's safer than walking on Bayshore than to cross
23:53:26 Bayshore, believe me, than it is to cross MacDill
23:53:28 and walk on MacDill.

23:53:30 I do it every morning, seven days a week.
23:53:33 And Bayshore isn't known for its safety.
23:53:37 South Tampa doesn't need three-story townhouses, 17 of
23:53:41 them, two-car garages, it's 34 garages with five
23:53:45 spaces.
23:53:47 I hope no two units are going to have part of the same
23:53:50 evening.
23:53:50 I mean we'll have cars spill all over the
23:53:52 neighborhood, I mean with, five parking spaces for 17
23:53:55 units?
23:53:56 I think the project needs a lot more thought.
23:53:59 And I'm very much against it.
23:54:01 Thank you.
23:54:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:54:02 Next.
23:54:07 >> My name is Heidi birder and I have been sworn in.
23:54:11 I live at 3105 west Waverly Avenue.
23:54:15 I'd like to just bring up a couple of points.
23:54:18 One being that the term true urban environment kept
23:54:23 coming up.
23:54:24 And I don't really consider our nice close-knit
23:54:29 neighborhood and urban environment.

23:54:30 And I think when you put such a huge structure in
23:54:33 front of it that it's sort of -- it creates a wall
23:54:37 even though that wasn't the intention.
23:54:40 You know, it's been called also a buffer zone,
23:54:43 transitional area, and I want to instead looking look
23:54:48 at it, it seems to be more of a gateway.
23:54:51 That's where all of our neighbors come into the
23:54:53 neighborhood off of MacDill.
23:54:54 And what I am also worried about is potential phase
23:55:02 three coming across the way there on Waverly Avenue.
23:55:09 A company that can also become available for
23:55:12 development.
23:55:12 And that would totally create both sides of the large
23:55:17 wall to this area.
23:55:20 And another client, if we wanted to have, you know,
23:55:25 big townhouses like this, I think we would have chose
23:55:28 tone live in a place like Soho, or there's a lot of
23:55:31 condo-friendly neighborhoods such as Channelside or
23:55:36 downtown, Harbor Island, those are all great places
23:55:40 for that.
23:55:40 But I know my family and many others in our
23:55:43 neighborhood chose Waverly park, because of our close

23:55:47 knit single-family homes, and, you know, there's over
23:55:51 40 kids in this neighborhood.
23:55:53 And I think that this added traffic is going to be,
23:55:57 you know, it will cause definitely impact and all of
23:56:01 that.
23:56:01 And another question I have for Russ, I think I
23:56:09 brought it up to him before the meeting.
23:56:11 It seems that there is a -- on Waverly or at least one
23:56:17 of the condominiums on our corner, and it looks like
23:56:21 it could potentially be sort of a main artery, even
23:56:26 though there aren't pavers all the way across.
23:56:28 And I wanted to make sure that it didn't become that
23:56:33 either through some sort of structure, or something,
23:56:35 because I know there is a tree, and guest parking.
23:56:39 And one could easily just go across and head north
23:56:43 onto Waverly.
23:56:44 And head out there.
23:56:48 That's all.
23:56:49 For these reasons, I oppose this project.
23:56:51 Thank you.
23:56:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:56:52 Next.

23:56:58 >>> I'm Craig, I have a house at 3014 Waverly Avenue
23:57:03 directly across from the property.
23:57:06 First I just want to be say, you know, I look at the
23:57:08 facts.
23:57:08 It's R-20 zoning. I did get a petition notice.
23:57:11 I was within the 200 feet of this project.
23:57:14 So anybody outside of that wouldn't have gotten
23:57:17 notice.
23:57:17 The signs are in the yard at the subject property for
23:57:20 a month, at least, prior to that.
23:57:22 So people in the area driving by, they are not going
23:57:25 to see those signs.
23:57:27 I'm here as a homeowner and historian and one that
23:57:30 works very hard to make Tampa a better place, a
23:57:34 supporter of this project.
23:57:34 I am a supporter of this project.
23:57:36 I met Rus Versaggi about a year ago and new this guy
23:57:41 was about creating urban living, something that was
23:57:44 deteriorating, into a wonderful work of art like the
23:57:50 century lofts.
23:57:54 The design of true brownstone as designed by Leigh
23:57:54 Wilson Versaggi showed the amount of detail in these

23:57:57 renderings.
23:57:58 I spent time in Boston, Chicago and Charleston areas
23:58:01 and these brown stones are identical to those northern
23:58:03 homes and we should be proud of the amount of research
23:58:05 and hard work that this developer and architect has
23:58:09 spent on trying to capture the green space, the look
23:58:11 of these, the ingress, the egress, and the open yards,
23:58:15 the parks, the fences, all that beautiful stuff that
23:58:18 we see.
23:58:20 I don't see a tunnel vision.
23:58:22 I see something that there's nothing there now except
23:58:24 dirt, empty lots, tree limbs on the ground.
23:58:27 There's a lot of debris, and older homes that are
23:58:30 falling down, that this is definitely -- definitely an
23:58:33 improvement.
23:58:34 As a homeowner, I would be proud to have these across
23:58:36 from my home and when I enter the area from Bayshore
23:58:39 Boulevard or Euclid, I can see the family activity, I
23:58:42 can see the people walking dogs more, and so on.
23:58:48 If I'm not successful -- if I'm not successful with in
23:58:54 the Tampa Bay area I know I have a place I can buy,
23:58:56 hopefully a Bayshore brownstone over there.

23:58:59 But I'm in favor of this because it's multifamily,
23:59:02 it's beautiful, it's open, and not commercial property
23:59:08 which could be something that comes here.
23:59:09 But looking at the underlying land use of R-20, this
23:59:12 could be a lot denser along the corridor.
23:59:15 As we go down Euclid or down MacDill from El Prado
23:59:19 we do see a lot of commercial, a lot of retail, a lot
23:59:22 of homes, or a lot of multifamily, I guess I should
23:59:28 say, retail.
23:59:30 So again, I just ask that we look at the facts.
23:59:32 And I know it's not a popularity.
23:59:35 But there's been a lot of people here tonight that
23:59:37 left, that were in favor of this.
23:59:39 And if I could, I don't know if it matters, I could
23:59:41 ask people at Hoyer homes that are probably not going
23:59:46 to get up and speak because they don't have time.
23:59:49 The people that haven't spoke yet, could you stand up?
23:59:52 Again, we have got -- in favor.
00:00:00 Thank you.
Again we have a petition that was put in before.
00:00:02 We had over 65 names and we have about another ten
00:00:04 people I know left.

00:00:05 So again not a popularity contest.
00:00:08 We are just trying to do the facts, multifamily,
00:00:11 something we see as a lot of neighbors told us in the
00:00:13 last couple weeks talking to people, that this is a
00:00:17 great thing.
00:00:17 This may be the best that we get, even though that
00:00:20 sounds bad.
00:00:21 This may be the best that we get and it's a beautiful
00:00:23 thing.
00:00:23 I appreciate your time.
00:00:24 Thank you.
00:00:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
00:00:26 Next.
00:00:30 >>> I have been sworn in.
00:00:31 My name is Michelle Jordan, 1529 south Dale Mabry.
00:00:35 I drive through the area all the time as I work in
00:00:38 South Tampa.
00:00:39 And I think the brownstone project would be a great
00:00:43 addition, and improvement in the area.
00:00:46 Thank you.
00:00:51 >>> My name is Rae Castanini.
00:00:56 I have been sworn in.

00:00:57 I am in support of this project.
00:00:58 I think the neighborhood needs something to beautify
00:01:00 itself.
00:01:01 I think the brownstones are very unique.
00:01:04 I think that it will help a lot of the businesses in
00:01:07 the area.
00:01:08 I can see people walking from their brownstones going
00:01:11 to restaurants in the area.
00:01:13 And just improve the look of it right now.
00:01:17 So I'm definitely in support of that.
00:01:18 Thank you.
00:01:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
00:01:20 Next.
00:01:21 >>> Tom Tomly, 3122 Fairoaks.
00:01:28 Many here over 32 years, past president, very
00:01:32 sensitive to what's going on in the neighborhood.
00:01:37 I think this is a great and exciting addition to the
00:01:39 neighborhood.
00:01:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, were you sworn in, for the
00:01:42 record?
00:01:43 Were you sworn in?
00:01:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.

00:01:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You were not.
00:01:51 (Oath administered by Clerk).
00:01:55 >>> And you told the truth, sir, is that correct?
00:01:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you coming to speak?
00:02:02 Please come on.
00:02:03 Anybody else that's going to speak, please come and
00:02:06 get up so we can get out of here.
00:02:07 >>> I just couldn't help myself.
00:02:09 Marsha prior, 3106 Waverly Avenue and I have been
00:02:12 sworn in.
00:02:14 Of the people who have spoken in favor of this
00:02:18 project, I've lived in this neighborhood 30 years on
00:02:21 the same street, same house.
00:02:24 I've seen only one of those speakers in 30 years.
00:02:28 I would know the neighbors.
00:02:29 And none of them are familiar.
00:02:31 Thank you.
00:02:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
00:02:33 Petitioner, do you want a rebuttal?
00:02:48 >>> Council members, just a couple things I wanted to
00:02:50 clarify.
00:02:53 We did, I personally hand delivered door to door about

00:02:59 250 or greater radius when we handed out the letters
00:03:04 that were given to you back in September.
00:03:08 And a number of people said first that they heard of
00:03:11 this.
00:03:16 We didn't go outside that area because we wanted to
00:03:20 get a feel for the neighborhood, truthfully.
00:03:22 You know, we would be happy to try to readdress some
00:03:27 of these concerns.
00:03:28 I get the impression, at least in some cases, that
00:03:32 single-family home is the only thing that they would
00:03:35 be in favor of.
00:03:38 And I think you would really struggle greatly with
00:03:41 single-family home there.
00:03:45 El Prado, Euclid, Bay to Bay, one other street, I
00:03:49 forget which one, they are all four lane roads.
00:03:53 You can back out onto a four lane road more easily
00:03:56 than you can a two-lane road because there's another
00:03:58 lane for the same traffic to merge over into to allow
00:04:02 to you back in.
00:04:04 That's not the case on MacDill.
00:04:05 It's a two-lane road.
00:04:07 It's a busy road.

00:04:08 There's about 13,300 cars a day on average to go
00:04:13 through that area.
00:04:16 Our development had less than one-third of one
00:04:19 percent, the difference between single-family homes
00:04:22 there, and our townhouse development.
00:04:26 We showed phase two with phase one.
00:04:29 The PD is not for the 17.
00:04:31 We showed that because we believe in disclosure.
00:04:35 We've come to the neighborhood from the very get-go
00:04:39 with our, you know, hand out, asking for help to
00:04:44 design something that would work.
00:04:47 We have had a number of wonderful people in the
00:04:49 neighborhood step forward and help us design what we
00:04:52 think is a very exciting project.
00:04:56 I'm not involved whatsoever with the property to the
00:04:58 north.
00:04:59 I know that there's some for-sale property just to the
00:05:02 north on MacDill, and not in any way affiliated
00:05:06 with that.
00:05:10 We showed phase two because we wanted people to see
00:05:16 the vision, this is what we like people to see if we
00:05:20 are successful here tonight.

00:05:22 It was pointed out that the full land use density
00:05:27 would allow 13 residences on this site, because it is
00:05:30 a transitional area, and it does have a res 20 land
00:05:33 use.
00:05:35 We are asking for nine.
00:05:39 And this is again phase one that I'm referring to.
00:05:48 We have talked to transportation department, Melanie
00:05:50 Calloway, about putting in a crosswalk.
00:05:53 I didn't bring that up.
00:05:55 We haven't gotten past phase one, much less phase two.
00:05:58 But if we were successful in our project, we would
00:06:01 hope to put a four-Way crosswalk.
00:06:03 It's about a $25,000 expense, being a block from
00:06:08 Bayshore.
00:06:08 We think it would be a wonderful amenity to have
00:06:11 people to be able to cross.
00:06:12 I know one young lady said it's challenging to cross
00:06:15 the roads there.
00:06:17 We would be willing to do that.
00:06:19 We're not unreasonable.
00:06:20 We're not money hungry.
00:06:22 We do have to make a profit.

00:06:27 I guess, you know, to conclude, the city staff had no
00:06:32 objections, zero, no variances requested.
00:06:39 There were zero.
00:06:44 If this isn't an example of neighborhood friendly,
00:06:50 public design friendly, with the rights-of-way and the
00:06:54 streets and the sidewalks, environmentally friendly,
00:06:58 and sensitive, I'd like to know what is.
00:07:03 I'd be happy to meet with the neighbors if council
00:07:05 thinks that it would be better to stay.
00:07:10 My personal impression is if there's an element that
00:07:14 will not come forward to work and try to do anything
00:07:19 because they are only looking for single family houses
00:07:21 here, I don't think it will work.
00:07:22 Downtown know how to make it work.
00:07:24 My bankers don't know how to make it work for
00:07:26 single-family.
00:07:28 And I guess I'd like to ask council if they think that
00:07:31 we should ask for a stay or press, because I'm
00:07:35 comfortable going either way.
00:07:39 That's the front answer.
00:07:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Council members.
00:07:43 Mrs. Saul-Sena?

00:07:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
00:07:46 I know what my feelings are.
00:07:48 I don't know -- I don't know what the other council
00:07:51 members feel.
00:07:55 We have heard a lot of testimony tonight.
00:07:57 We've heard a lot of concerns raised by neighbors.
00:08:02 I personally feel the staff recommendation, which is
00:08:05 to support this, is appropriate because of its
00:08:08 location.
00:08:09 It's not on an interior street.
00:08:11 It's on the juncture of two very busy streets.
00:08:17 MacDill is very busy.
00:08:18 And I think that what's proposed is very attractive.
00:08:20 It's sensitive to the trees on the site, the design is
00:08:24 lovely, and it would be a positive addition.
00:08:27 So I'm supportive of it.
00:08:29 But, you know, you only have four votes tonight.
00:08:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, Mr. Shelby, if it looks like one
00:08:39 council member is supportive, this type -- if three
00:08:44 are not supportive, I don't know if that's the case,
00:08:47 what would be the option for the petitioner?
00:08:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, the petitioner has the right to

00:08:51 have the vote -- not to continue but to have the
00:08:55 public hearing tonight, and it has been heard.
00:08:58 It hasn't been closed yet.
00:09:00 But whatever action council takes tonight, your
00:09:06 official action has to be unanimous.
00:09:08 It has to be four votes in support or four votes to
00:09:12 deny but if either way failure to get four votes to
00:09:15 require to the come before the next council meeting at
00:09:16 the next regular meeting when there's a full council
00:09:19 present.
00:09:20 And of course the council would have the opportunity
00:09:22 to have to review this record and N advance of that
00:09:25 hopefully.
00:09:26 So the answer is, if the petitioner wishes to continue
00:09:31 this to the point where the rest of the council is
00:09:36 present, and keep the public hearing open, that is
00:09:39 possible.
00:09:39 Or council can move to close the public hearing and
00:09:42 take the vote.
00:09:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: I was trying to give him some
00:09:51 determination.
00:09:51 I know where I am with it but I was just trying -- Mr.

00:09:55 Versaggi was kind of looking to us for an answer.
00:09:58 And I know --
00:10:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The only answer that I can give to
00:10:02 council is whatever action it has to take either
00:10:04 tonight, has to be unanimous, or will be continued to
00:10:09 next --
00:10:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Hopefully that helps him a little bit.
00:10:13 I'm going to make some comments, and then that will
00:10:17 certainly show where I am.
00:10:19 Mr. Versaggi, I think some of your support here came
00:10:23 up with some issues that I don't think anybody in room
00:10:25 will dispute in terms of your integrity.
00:10:28 I think your reputation in this community for those
00:10:31 that know you well and some that don't know you as
00:10:33 well, your integrity is not at all the issue.
00:10:37 It's a pattern of development.
00:10:38 And that's wherein we get into problems.
00:10:41 Even the developers with the most integrity have to
00:10:43 look at the bottom line.
00:10:44 And this is a hard nut to crack in terms of what the
00:10:49 bottom line yield determining on what you propose.
00:10:53 I understand that.

00:10:53 That's a business issue as opposed to a compatibility
00:10:56 issue.
00:10:57 So I can appreciate all of that.
00:10:58 I know that someone else came up and supported you and
00:11:02 said this is not Lutz, this is Tampa.
00:11:03 Well, Tampa has places for high-rises and 41 foot
00:11:08 projects and also places for one-story.
00:11:12 As I went through this, I tried to go through some of
00:11:16 the problems that I see with it.
00:11:17 And not to blame your project, but it's certainly
00:11:23 going to exacerbate some of the problems we already
00:11:25 have.
00:11:26 Transportation is an issue at the Bayshore side and
00:11:29 certainly the MacDill side and people that Deanne
00:11:32 Roberts mentioned was in support of your project.
00:11:34 She is well referenced the problems that they are
00:11:36 having on Waverly.
00:11:37 And that Waverly-Bayshore project is not even
00:11:40 complete.
00:11:40 Again that's not your fault.
00:11:42 But that total plus the next total plus this project
00:11:44 is going to cause some more traffic congestion.

00:11:47 In my mind there's no way to get around that
00:11:49 particularly on MacDill.
00:11:51 The pattern of the houses adjacent to it or behind it
00:11:53 rather are mostly single story, single residences.
00:11:58 Although isth is on MacDill.
00:12:01 I understand the reasons you have explained why it has
00:12:02 to be this type of pattern and development.
00:12:05 Still it's just not compatible with the majority style
00:12:08 of that single-story, single residence.
00:12:14 Certainly it's going to add some drainage.
00:12:16 And I know you are trying to do the best you can with
00:12:18 green space.
00:12:18 But with that size of a project, obviously there are
00:12:21 going to be some additional drainage and green space
00:12:23 problems.
00:12:24 Mr. Sherrill, I believe, talked about the fact that
00:12:27 you had a two-car garage for each resident but at the
00:12:30 same time, I took to heart what he said because I was
00:12:34 thinking of that quietly.
00:12:35 But I think if any two residents had more than one
00:12:39 guest, then your guest parking spaces is going to be
00:12:45 overloaded and you are going to have overflow parking

00:12:47 of that into the neighborhood.
00:12:48 So although it's an incredible project and the best
00:12:52 that I think anybody can do, once the gentleman that
00:12:54 has an apartment across the street, says, well, you
00:12:56 know, it's a win-win. The person that's selling the
00:12:59 property makes his money and runs, and that's right.
00:13:01 You make your project and hopefully make a profit.
00:13:04 But the people that are left to realize the problems
00:13:06 this is going to cause, and the compatibility issues
00:13:11 they are going to have to tolerate, are going to be
00:13:13 the neighbors that are behind it.
00:13:14 So at this point in time you are going to have to --
00:13:19 all the testimony for or all the testimony against.
00:13:21 Although I commend you on the integrity and the effort
00:13:23 you and your wife went through to come through with a
00:13:26 nice project, that's not the site in terms of my
00:13:28 support.
00:13:28 I think it's too dense, too tall, too close to single
00:13:31 residence, and at this point I don't see a good reason
00:13:34 to go from RS-60 to PD.
00:13:36 So this particular council member, with all duo
00:13:38 respect to you, will not be supporting it.

00:13:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez?
00:13:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: first thing that came to my mind as I
00:13:47 was listening to the testimony was incompatibility.
00:13:51 Height.
00:13:53 Had a problem with that.
00:13:56 And the density of it.
00:13:56 This is single-family residential area.
00:14:02 I'm afraid that this would start a precedence in that
00:14:05 area.
00:14:08 With the three-story type on MacDill Avenue.
00:14:13 Even though your project is beautiful, I can't dispute
00:14:16 that.
00:14:16 It's very, very lovely.
00:14:21 And I think it would enhance -- if it wasn't right on
00:14:25 MacDill Avenue, I just can't support that.
00:14:29 And I know that you do a great project, Mr. Versaggi,
00:14:35 because I've seen your work.
00:14:36 And I know you're going to do a great project for my
00:14:40 area.
00:14:40 And I want to thank you for that.
00:14:42 But this project at this point here, with as many
00:14:46 people that have come -- and it's not just because

00:14:51 they are in opposition to you.
00:14:52 It's -- what they are opposing is the incompatibility
00:14:56 of it, the trance transportation, everything that
00:15:00 Mrs. Ferlita has said is exactly right on target.
00:15:02 So I too will not be able to support it at this point.
00:15:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion to
00:15:10 continue this to next week to allow our colleagues a
00:15:12 chance ton see it, and to encourage everyone to go and
00:15:15 look at this on the site, because when you go to see
00:15:20 it, you will recognize that there's a lot of
00:15:22 multifamily catter-corner from this and down the
00:15:25 street from this and in the neighborhood.
00:15:27 So I think that might change everyone's thinking.
00:15:29 Anyway, my motion would be not to close the public
00:15:32 hearing but to continue it till next Thursday at
00:15:36 10:00.
00:15:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, two things before you
00:15:39 entertain that motion.
00:15:40 First of all, the petitioner does have the right to
00:15:42 make the decision as to whether or not he wishes to
00:15:46 have an up or down vote based on the number of council
00:15:49 members that are here today.

00:15:51 And number two, council for the things that you have
00:15:53 already added on for next week on top of all the
00:15:55 things you have for time certain for next week on top
00:15:58 of the public hearings you have for next week, just so
00:16:02 you know, that that will make today look like a
00:16:06 picnic.
00:16:07 So just to give you fair warning that based on the
00:16:10 schedule for next week.
00:16:12 Of course, if there is a vote taken, and it is not
00:16:19 unanimous, then it does, by council rules, have to
00:16:22 come back next week.
00:16:23 If the petitioner wishes to have a continuance but not
00:16:25 necessarily for next week, but for another day, he can
00:16:28 request that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a
00:16:32 vote taken and the hearing can remain open.
00:16:34 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
00:16:37 >>> It's at the recommendation -- accept the
00:16:39 recommendation to do a continuance.
00:16:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For two weeks.
00:16:44 >>> And council, I know these meetings get backed up.
00:16:46 So first available opening that there is that we might
00:16:49 be able to come in and present our case for the

00:16:54 remainder of council, we would like the opportunity to
00:16:56 do that.
00:16:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby?
00:17:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm wondering when would be the
00:17:02 appropriate time.
00:17:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Our next date?
00:17:12 >>MARTY BOYLE: Scheduled for daytime, two weeks?
00:17:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I have another
00:17:17 concern.
00:17:18 Both for people that were before and against that had
00:17:20 to go home because it took too long, I'm not sure a
00:17:24 day meeting is going to be fair to the other side.
00:17:26 I don't know how many people left that were in favor
00:17:27 of it and I don't know how many people left that were
00:17:30 against it.
00:17:30 But I think their frustration was the lateness of the
00:17:34 hour made them go home and if we are going to make it
00:17:36 a daytime meeting again that's not fair.
00:17:38 So --
00:17:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would just like to suggest that
00:17:45 we have discussed it thoroughly this evening.
00:17:47 And what I would like for the council members who

00:17:50 weren't here, which is only two, because Mr.
00:17:53 Dingfelder can't vote, that they review the tape and
00:17:57 that perhaps -- can we close this and then continue
00:18:00 it?
00:18:04 I guess what I would like to do then is because our
00:18:07 evening meetings are so intense that maybe we continue
00:18:10 to the a day meeting.
00:18:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Or if council does choose -- well,
00:18:14 petitioner is asking for a continuance.
00:18:17 But if -- council can entertain that but if council
00:18:22 does choose to vote then it would automatically come
00:18:24 back the next meeting with a closed public hearing,
00:18:26 with the opportunity for the absent members to review
00:18:32 the tape, and then come back without any further
00:18:35 testimony, and based on the record that's before you,
00:18:37 to vote as a full council minus council member
00:18:41 Dingfelder, who can't vote.
00:18:42 >>GWEN MILLER: You're saying just to close the public
00:18:45 hearing?
00:18:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, if the petitioner is requesting
00:18:49 a continuance, the thing is, obviously if the hearing
00:18:53 remains open, I don't know whether it's council's

00:18:56 decision to allow -- obviously those people that
00:19:01 testified normally council custom doesn't allow them
00:19:04 to testify again.
00:19:05 But do you want to have the opportunity for the whole
00:19:08 topic to be rehashed for the other two council
00:19:13 members?
00:19:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what would be the fairest
00:19:16 would be for the two council members to be able to --
00:19:21 and maybe we could limit it in terms of time.
00:19:23 But to have the staff -- well, to have the staff make
00:19:31 their recommendation, hear from the petitioner, and
00:19:34 then hear from -- I don't know.
00:19:37 You know, I'm so tired.
00:19:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: We have two choices.
00:19:40 I am not going to support a continuance unless it's on
00:19:43 an evening meeting, so that -- I'm not talking
00:19:45 about -- I don't know who left in favor and I don't
00:19:47 know who left not in favor.
00:19:49 But obviously those people came here, paid their dues
00:19:52 and had to leave.
00:19:53 So in terms of Mr. Versaggi asking for a continuance,
00:19:57 that's fine.

00:19:58 I think he obviously sees he's not going to get four
00:20:01 votes.
00:20:01 So that's fine.
00:20:02 But only for a night meeting.
00:20:04 Now, if -- if we go ahead and vote -- and obviously he
00:20:09 doesn't have four, then it automatically goes to next
00:20:11 week.
00:20:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
00:20:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then I am forced to support it but
00:20:15 otherwise I won't support it for a day meeting.
00:20:18 And that would mean we discount, I guess, anybody
00:20:20 else's comments, because of the lateness of the hour
00:20:23 they left.
00:20:24 Whether that's fair to them or not, I don't think it
00:20:26 is, but of course as a body beef to decide that.
00:20:28 That would be the only way, at least to my
00:20:31 understanding, the only way this would be voted up or
00:20:33 down next week.
00:20:34 Now, if Mr. Versaggi -- I'm just trying to give you a
00:20:39 suggestion so you can continue the conversation or you
00:20:41 can listen, whatever you want to do -- if he feels
00:20:44 like he needs more than one week to continue it,

00:20:46 whether it is a remote possibility to work something
00:20:49 out with the neighbors in opposition, I don't know. I
00:20:51 can't say.
00:20:51 I'm not trying to determine that.
00:20:52 But if that's the case, one week is not going to give
00:20:55 him enough time, I can tell you that.
00:20:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a suggestion looking at our
00:21:01 calendar.
00:21:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: I guess I'm finished, Mr. Shelby,
00:21:04 because Mrs. Saul-Sena wants to talk.
00:21:06 I guess I wasn't through.
00:21:07 Take the floor.
00:21:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mrs. Ferlita --
00:21:12 >>> I was trying to get some idea so the audience
00:21:15 could understand where we are going and Mr.
00:21:16 Versaggi -- now I'll forget about the fourth question
00:21:20 and yield to her, Madam Chairman.
00:21:23 Geez.
00:21:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yield to me.
00:21:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.
00:21:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't think Mr. Versaggi is going to
00:21:31 go back into the neighborhood and tell them he's going

00:21:33 to make his project two stories.
00:21:36 I don't think he's even thinking he's going to go try
00:21:40 and talk to people that are opposing it.
00:21:42 It's up to us now.
00:21:43 It's up to us to whether we are going to vote it up or
00:21:46 down.
00:21:46 To me, whether he changes whatever he changes, it's
00:21:51 going to be -- we are going to be the ones that decide
00:21:54 on it.
00:21:55 Not the neighbors.
00:21:55 We are not listening to the neighbors.
00:21:57 We are listening to the concerns and the complaints.
00:21:59 But that's not facts.
00:22:00 That's emotion.
00:22:02 Right, Mr. Shelby?
00:22:04 That's emotion.
00:22:05 So we are not listening toe motion.
00:22:06 We want facts.
00:22:08 The facts as far as I'm concerned is that it's
00:22:11 inconsistent with the -- and there's no -- it's not
00:22:16 compatible to the neighborhood.
00:22:17 That's what I'm looking at.

00:22:18 I'm looking at the height.
00:22:19 And I'm looking at the density of it.
00:22:22 If you can't change that, there's nothing you can do
00:22:24 about it.
00:22:24 I can't change my vote.
00:22:27 So that's where I'm at with this.
00:22:29 The thing to do then is either we vote it up or down
00:22:33 now and then let the --
00:22:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Close the hearing and do it.
00:22:38 >>> I'd like to have an opportunity to meet with the
00:22:40 neighbors if they'll meet with me and see in if there
00:22:42 may be something that can be done.
00:22:48 We like the area.
00:22:49 We live in the neighborhood.
00:22:52 We are sensitive to their situation.
00:22:54 I know there's no development that's going to make
00:22:57 everybody happy.
00:22:58 I've never seen one.
00:23:02 I'd like the opportunity.
00:23:03 So I would like to request a continuance rather than
00:23:08 vote it up or down tonight.
00:23:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: April 27th at 6:00.

00:23:12 That's an evening meeting.
00:23:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that open?
00:23:15 >>MARTY BOYLE: Let me remind staff -- I'm sorry.
00:23:18 Staff.
00:23:18 It's late.
00:23:19 I apologize.
00:23:22 There are ten -- you would be having to waive your
00:23:26 rules.
00:23:26 There are ten new and three continues already.
00:23:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: What's the next?
00:23:34 >>MARTY BOYLE: April 13th has one available.
00:23:38 Then not again until March 25th.
00:23:41 >>GWEN MILLER: April --
00:23:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you say March 25th?
00:23:49 >>MARTY BOYLE:Dy?
00:23:50 May 25th.
00:23:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May 13th.
00:23:53 >>GWEN MILLER: The clerk is saying something.
00:23:55 >>THE CLERK: I want to remind council that you have
00:23:59 the seven map amendments and the two text amendments
00:24:01 on that date.
00:24:04 That's April 13th.

00:24:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you say May?
00:24:15 >>MARTY BOYLE: Next available would be May 25th.
00:24:17 >>GWEN MILLER: At 6 p.m.
00:24:19 >> So moved.
00:24:19 >> Second.
00:24:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue to May
00:24:22 25th at 6 p.m.
00:24:24 All in favor say Aye.
00:24:25 Opposed, Nay.
00:24:28 (Motion carried).
00:24:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I guess -- I think
00:24:31 they understand.
00:24:32 Never mind.
00:24:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's move to the next one.
00:24:43 >> Did I get a second?
00:24:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
00:24:44 (Motion carried)
00:25:32 >>GWEN MILLER: She needs a recess.
00:25:34 We don't need to take a recess.
00:25:36 Mr. Dingfelder is here.
00:25:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Where is Mr. Dingfelder?
00:25:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, we need you up

00:25:44 here.
00:25:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Come up here, Mr. Dingfelder.
00:25:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's 12:30 at night.
00:26:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, we need you so we can
00:26:12 start.
00:26:16 Mrs. Alvarez, come back in here.
00:26:17 Mrs. Alvarez.
00:26:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby?
00:26:25 Mr. Shelby?
00:26:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You're in recess, council.
00:26:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
00:26:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's too late.
00:26:44 She's already gone.
00:26:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't leave.
00:27:04 >>GWEN MILLER: City Council is called back to order.
00:27:08 Roll call.
00:27:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
00:27:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
00:27:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
00:27:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
00:27:21 [Sounding gavel]
00:27:21 Ladies and gentlemen, pleas be quiet.

00:27:22 We still have one more to could do.
00:27:24 We are not going home with you.
00:27:26 We have to stay.
00:27:27 Okay, Ms. Boyle.
00:27:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Madam Chairman, I have to object.
00:27:33 I mean, here we are getting too many of these big
00:27:36 projects at one time every night, every time we are
00:27:40 here.
00:27:40 It's 12:30 at night.
00:27:41 By the time we get through with this it will be 1:30
00:27:44 in the morning.
00:27:44 >>GWEN MILLER: There may not be anybody to object.
00:27:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yeah, well, we'll see about that.
00:27:51 But, you know, got to have some compassion for us.
00:27:56 We start it at 5:30 in the afternoon.
00:27:59 We have been here since 8:00 this morning, now?
00:28:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's been noticed.
00:28:03 We have to.
00:28:03 >>GWEN MILLER: All right, Ms. Boyle.
00:28:09 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
00:28:12 I have been sworn.
00:28:13 This is a project that is going from heavy industrial

00:28:16 to planned development, multifamily residential.
00:28:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me one second.
00:28:22 Shhh.
00:28:23 Is there anyone here in opposition to this project?
00:28:30 >> No.
00:28:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That lays out some of the ground
00:28:32 rules for everybody who is going to be speaking.
00:28:35 Go ahead.
00:28:35 >>MARTY BOYLE: Okay.
00:28:40 Subject site.
00:28:41 It is west of McKinley.
00:28:45 This is Bougainvillea.
00:28:46 We have Busch Gardens.
00:28:48 Adventure island.
00:28:50 FDOT.
00:28:53 Right here.
00:28:55 Staff originally had objections.
00:28:56 The staff report will show that.
00:28:58 However, they have removed our objections,
00:29:04 transportation objections, except we do have an
00:29:07 objection from landscaping, chapter 13, 50% of the
00:29:12 protected trees are being removed, approximately 60%

00:29:16 they are removing.
00:29:17 This is -- I'm sorry.
00:29:19 They have r