Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, April 13, 2006
5:01 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.

[Sounding gavel]

17:10:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
17:11:01 It is my pleasure to have council member Shawn
17:11:06 Harrison to invite Dr. Christian nicer from Episcopal
17:11:15 church.
17:11:15 Would you please stand and remain standing for the
17:11:17 pledge of allegiance?
17:11:22 >> Let us pray.
17:11:25 Almighty God, shine down upon those who hold out for
17:11:30 this city and this Tampa City Council, wisdom, charity
17:11:34 and justice.
17:11:37 That the purpose they may faithfully serve to promote
17:11:41 the well-being of all people.
17:11:43 Teach our people to rely on your strength, and to
17:11:46 accept the responsibilities for their fellow citizens.
17:11:50 Give us grace, that in all we do, direct us to the
17:11:54 fulfilling of your purpose.
17:11:56 In God's name we pray.
17:11:57 Amen.
17:11:59 (Pledge of Allegiance)
17:12:12 >>CHAIRMAN: Roll call.
17:12:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
17:12:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

17:12:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
17:12:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:12:26 Now we need to open item number 1.
17:12:28 >> So moved.
17:12:29 >> Second.
17:12:29 (Motion carried).
17:12:32 >> Good evening, council.
17:12:34 Rose Petrucha, planning council staff.
17:12:37 Before we get into the very first amendment I would
17:12:38 like to do some introductory comments.
17:12:41 We have nine plan amendments which were scheduled for
17:12:43 public hearing tonight.
17:12:44 Seven of those amendments are city-initiated.
17:12:47 Two are privately initiated.
17:12:49 The purpose of tonight's hearing is for consideration
17:12:52 of the amendments, and for consideration of
17:12:55 transmitting these amendments for review by the state
17:12:58 and the regional agency.
17:13:00 If approved for transmittal, the amendments will be
17:13:02 sent as a group to the appropriate agencies for the
17:13:06 required state and regional consistency reviews.
17:13:09 Tonight's hearing are for purposes of transmittal, not

17:13:13 adoption.
17:13:14 We anticipate that the amendments will be back before
17:13:16 Tampa City Council for consideration of the various
17:13:20 state and regional comments as well as for
17:13:21 consideration of adoption, in July or August of this
17:13:25 year.
17:13:26 After hearing these items tonight, the Tampa City
17:13:29 Council will vote to transmit or not to transmit each
17:13:32 item.
17:13:34 State statute provides the opportunity for interested
17:13:36 citizens to receive a courtesy information statement
17:13:39 regarding the Department of Community Affairs notice
17:13:42 of intent.
17:13:43 The notice of intent is the final action of the
17:13:45 department after these amendments proceed completely
17:13:50 through the amendment process.
17:13:52 Any citizen wishing to receive this citizen statement
17:13:54 from the department should provide their names and
17:13:56 addresses on the sign-in sheet which is located
17:13:59 outside in the chamber's vestibule behind the security
17:14:05 officer.
17:14:06 Thank you.

17:14:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
17:14:10 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
17:14:16 Presenting the first of a series of amendments, part
17:14:23 of the August plan amendment cycle.
17:14:25 The first one you have before you is a city initiated
17:14:27 plan amendment, a text amendment to the future land
17:14:29 use element.
17:14:30 Basically, this is a proposed text change that
17:14:32 addresses chapter 163 requirements, which requires
17:14:35 local governments to amend their comprehensive plans
17:14:38 by June 30, 2006, to include appropriate criteria for
17:14:42 achieving compatibility of adjacent lands with
17:14:46 military installations.
17:14:49 I am going to read into the record for you the two
17:14:51 proposed changes that were made by city staff to the
17:14:53 Planning Commission for review and subsequently were
17:14:56 adopted unanimously by Planning Commission.
17:15:01 3. will 8 which says including MacDill Air Force
17:15:03 Base and Hillsborough County aviation authority and
17:15:05 the development review committee to obtain open
17:15:08 communication channels between city staff and these
17:15:10 entities regarding all petitions for rezoning and

17:15:12 special use.
17:15:13 Also, policy A-3.9 which states the city shall
17:15:16 complete the joint land use study to identify studies
17:15:20 that will achieve the compatibility of approximately
17:15:23 lands within MacDill Air Force Base.
17:15:25 As most of you I'm sure are well aware, and you do
17:15:28 have your representative from Tampa City Council, Mr.
17:15:30 Dingfelder, as a member of the advisory committee that
17:15:34 is currently under way, express joint land use study,
17:15:39 hopefully will be concluding the study at the end of
17:15:43 this summer.
17:15:44 Based on those recommendations that we will receive as
17:15:51 a result of recommendations made by the committee, the
17:15:52 study will be considered in the comprehensive plan
17:15:54 update, which will be expected to be completed by the
17:15:58 year 2007, 2008.
17:16:01 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed request
17:16:02 at this point in time regarding the proposed changes
17:16:05 to the future land use element consistent with the
17:16:08 land use plan.
17:16:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
17:16:11 Would anyone in the public like to speak on item

17:16:13 number 1?
17:16:15 >> Move to close.
17:16:16 >> Second.
17:16:16 (Motion carried).
17:16:16 >>GWEN MILLER: pleasure of count?
17:16:22 Motion and second to transmit.
17:16:24 (Motion carried).
17:16:26 >> Move to open number 2.
17:16:28 >> Second.
17:16:28 (Motion Carried).
17:16:29 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
17:16:33 The next item plan amendment 05-33 is an amendment to
17:16:37 the capital improvements element.
17:16:40 This is an annual update.
17:16:42 And the amendment is to add the schedule of projects
17:16:47 for year 06 through fiscal year 11 into the
17:16:50 comprehensive plan.
17:16:51 The Planning Commission heard this amendment at a
17:16:54 public hearing on February 13th, 2006, and found
17:16:58 the amendment consistent and recommended your
17:17:00 approval.
17:17:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Tony, do you have to speak?

17:17:16 Question by council members?
17:17:17 Anyone in the public to speak on item 2?
17:17:19 >> Motion to close.
17:17:20 >> Second.
17:17:20 (Motion carried).
17:17:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to transmit.
17:17:24 >> Second.
17:17:24 (Motion carried).
17:17:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to open number 3.
17:17:31 >> Second.
17:17:31 (Motion Carried).
17:17:31 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
17:17:35 The next amendment is plan amendment 05-19.
17:17:38 It is the privately initiated amendment.
17:17:42 The amendment is located in the vicinity of memorial
17:17:45 highway, independence Parkway and George road.
17:17:50 This particular plan amendment is located in the like
17:17:53 the Western Area of the City of Tampa, and the
17:17:57 requested amendments total approximately 44 acres.
17:18:00 It is developed with a three-story professional office
17:18:03 building.
17:18:04 This site was annexed into the City of Tampa in 1981,

17:18:10 and at that time the area was designated as planned
17:18:13 industrial for what was known as the Citocon project.
17:18:20 Ownership has changed over time and in the plan
17:18:23 updates the area was designated as light industrial.
17:18:31 As a result of an approved DRI known as independence
17:18:35 park DRI but all of the entitlements have not been
17:18:38 built.
17:18:39 Petitioner is requesting an amendment from light
17:18:41 industrial to community mixed use 35 to allow for
17:18:45 future consideration of residential use of part of
17:18:51 this project which is currently prohibited under the
17:18:54 light industrial plan classification.
17:18:56 Again, the site -- I just put some of the graphics
17:19:01 down.
17:19:05 Again the site lies on the western edge of the City of
17:19:07 Tampa.
17:19:09 It's about a mile west of Tampa International and this
17:19:15 site really relates a lot to the town and country area
17:19:19 which has a mixture of different types of residential
17:19:21 land uses.
17:19:22 There are offices and hotels located along the eastern
17:19:25 edge.

17:19:27 And this particular amendment again is to change the
17:19:30 area from light industrial to community mixed use 35
17:19:34 for the consideration of residential land uses.
17:19:40 The town and country community plan was developed over
17:19:45 the course of approximately two years, and was adopted
17:19:48 by the Board of County Commissioners into the
17:19:50 Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.
17:19:52 This particular amendment to community mixed use 35
17:19:58 supports the efforts of the town 'n country community,
17:20:02 community plan.
17:20:02 The Planning Commission did review this particular
17:20:05 amendment at a public hearing on December the
17:20:08 12th, 2005, and found it consistent with the Tampa
17:20:12 comprehensive plan and recommended its approval.
17:20:16 That completes our presentation.
17:20:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Question from council members?
17:20:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the petitioner going to make the
17:20:22 presentation?
17:20:24 Petitioner.
17:20:25 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Petitioner is here.
17:20:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
17:20:39 >>> My name is Dick Greco, 1108, Tampa, Florida.

17:20:44 It's been awhile since I have done this.
17:20:54 Steve Kirkland, David Mechanik represent this project.
17:20:57 I want to say most of you are familiar with this
17:21:00 property.
17:21:00 And light industrial is not what it should be today.
17:21:03 But I want you to know that also with us is the
17:21:08 president of the Dana shores civic association.
17:21:14 It is city property.
17:21:16 The only other city property is the golf course across
17:21:19 the street.
17:21:20 Everyone else is in the county.
17:21:21 Dana shores, point, all of these areas.
17:21:25 We have from the very beginning let everyone know what
17:21:28 we are attempting to do.
17:21:29 There's a lot to be done as you know between now and
17:21:31 the time when come back several months from now.
17:21:33 But I will keep all the neighbors apprised.
17:21:36 We met with about 60 people the other evening.
17:21:40 Everyone would rather have this than light industrial.
17:21:43 What it's zoned for is 675,000 square feet of office
17:21:47 space.
17:21:50 We would hope that you all would be proud of and we

17:21:54 would be proud of but we will keep all the neighbors,
17:21:56 everyone though they are county folks, appraised of
17:21:58 what we are doing all along.
17:21:59 And if anybody has any questions along the way or
17:22:02 anything you hear, we are getting input from them, and
17:22:06 hopefully when we come back it will be something that
17:22:08 we'll all be very proud of.
17:22:10 Thank you again for hearing us this evening.
17:22:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder had a question.
17:22:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Go ahead, I'll follow you.
17:22:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, that's all right, go ahead.
17:22:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not how to refer to you.
17:22:23 Mr. Greco.
17:22:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Honorable.
17:22:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just about anything.
17:22:29 First of all you didn't name Dana shores after your
17:22:32 daughter, did you?
17:22:36 Actually, my question is to Mr. Cohen since you have
17:22:38 him here as your transportation guy.
17:22:49 >>> Randy Coen, West Cypress street.
17:22:52 >> Good evening, Mr. Cohen.
17:22:55 What I was curious about was page one of the staff

17:22:58 report.
17:23:01 The project has the potential of going from zero
17:23:04 residential units up to 1533 residential units.
17:23:08 >>> Yes.
17:23:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And obviously there's a lot of
17:23:12 buildings on the property right now, and apparently
17:23:16 potential buildings that were never built. Anyway,
17:23:19 how does all that relate to traffic and
17:23:22 transportation?
17:23:23 That's got to be one of the most snarlly messy
17:23:26 transportation areas today in the city and in the
17:23:30 county.
17:23:32 And I'm a little bit disappointed actually that our
17:23:36 transportation staff seems to have taken a pass on any
17:23:39 analysis in the staff report.
17:23:42 And they just said, you know, they haven't reviewed
17:23:47 this at all.
17:23:48 Tell me what your take is.
17:23:49 >> Let's go to it very quickly.
17:23:51 Since we are dealing with the comp plan amendment, the
17:23:54 charge is to look at what is the worst case set of
17:23:57 land uses and maximum intensities and densities that

17:24:00 could possibly be put on the property under this land
17:24:02 use plan amendment designation, CME 35.
17:24:07 In this particular case as in the report you can build
17:24:10 about 2,000 square feet of office or build up to 1,533
17:24:15 residential units.
17:24:15 Those are exclusive -- exclusive of each other or some
17:24:20 combination thereof.
17:24:20 The real porn -- there's a DRI on this property
17:24:23 already.
17:24:24 It has approval for phase one which is a total of
17:24:26 650,000 square feet of office.
17:24:28 That's what's approved and buildable today on the
17:24:30 property.
17:24:31 For to us move forward with any development on the
17:24:33 site, with residential, we'll have to not only amend
17:24:37 the DRI but we'll also have to come before you with a
17:24:40 rezoning petition as well.
17:24:41 The intent would be that whatever ends up being built
17:24:43 on this property, that it would not exceed the
17:24:48 transportation that was already approved on the
17:24:49 project in the existing DRI, that being 650,000 square
17:24:53 feet of office or the equivalent thereof.

17:24:55 The DRI already includes a trade-off mechanism that
17:24:57 allows conversion from office to retail and some other
17:25:00 things.
17:25:01 The real intent here is to leave the existing building
17:25:04 which is 165,525 square feet of office in place and
17:25:10 simply build the remained area round the office.
17:25:13 With that, the amount of residential will be
17:25:14 substantially less.
17:25:16 There will be retail on the property as well to be
17:25:18 supportive.
17:25:19 What we are trying to accomplish here literally, a
17:25:22 typical urban in-fill development where there's a
17:25:24 place to work, there's a place to live and there's a
17:25:27 place to shop as well as having some recreation
17:25:29 on-site.
17:25:29 So the impact of this project will not exceed what was
17:25:32 already approved in the DRI.
17:25:34 But in order to accomplish that, we had to change it
17:25:36 from a light industrial designation which frankly
17:25:39 makes little sense at this point.
17:25:40 That designation was originally put on the property in
17:25:45 developing the site and they were actually going to do

17:25:46 research, and through the research limited
17:25:50 manufacturing on the property.
17:25:51 So anything other than office and industrial to the
17:25:54 site, and some small retail, we need the land use plan
17:25:58 amendment and frankly I think it's a very good one
17:26:01 because it makes it much more compatible with all the
17:26:03 residential around the development plus the golf
17:26:06 courses.
17:26:07 But the traffic impact would be no greater than what's
17:26:10 already approved in the DRI.
17:26:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Cohen, that brings up an
17:26:15 interesting point to me because George road, I
17:26:17 believe, is like a two-way road there?
17:26:20 And you're trying to put in 1500 more units in there
17:26:27 on that road.
17:26:29 >>> There's no way to put in 1500 units.
17:26:32 That's simply a theoretical maximum.
17:26:36 The jury is out on that, probably something
17:26:38 substantially less than that.
17:26:39 Perhaps two-thirds at the most.
17:26:40 Perhaps even something less than that.
17:26:43 George road adjacent to this site was recently

17:26:45 widened, five-lane section, substantial improvements
17:26:48 here.
17:26:49 You're absolutely correct, though, George road to the
17:26:51 north of memorial highway is a two-lane road.
17:26:54 And we have to deal with that.
17:26:55 That was actually dealt with quite a bit in the DRI
17:26:57 approval that currently exists on the property.
17:27:00 And as we move forward with amending the DRI and
17:27:03 perhaps the zoning as well, we'll certainly have to
17:27:06 look at that issue once again in detail and have it
17:27:08 reviewed by your transportation staff.
17:27:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you want to say something?
17:27:15 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Very quickly.
17:27:18 305 south Boulevard on behalf of property.
17:27:24 We are not asking for increase in intensity on this
17:27:27 site.
17:27:27 The site already allows a 1.5 F.A.R., and with the CMU
17:27:32 35 is also 1.5 F.A.R.
17:27:35 So really the net effect of the change is only so we
17:27:38 can add residential as a component use to make it a
17:27:42 real mixed use project.
17:27:44 And I think it's pretty clear that the light

17:27:47 industrial is really an anomaly in that area, and this
17:27:51 would actually facilitate a much more compatible
17:27:54 development with no more intensity than what's already
17:27:57 allowed out there.
17:27:58 Thank you.
17:27:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to
17:28:00 speak on item number 3?
17:28:02 >> Move to close.
17:28:03 >> Second.
17:28:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
17:28:04 (Motion carried).
17:28:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to say that I'm
17:28:13 optimistic about this project.
17:28:15 Obviously we all know that that's a major traffic
17:28:18 nightmare over there.
17:28:19 But we also know that the D.O.T. is in the process of
17:28:21 spending who knows, probably 50 or 1$00 million to
17:28:26 hopefully fix it.
17:28:27 So my guess is that this project will probably track
17:28:30 along behind that D.O.T. improvement.
17:28:32 The last time I saw these folks was attending the
17:28:37 urban land institute meetings, which is a very

17:28:42 progressive national organization that stretches mixed
17:28:46 use development.
17:28:46 My guess is they are probably out there to find out as
17:28:49 much as they can about really positive mixed use
17:28:52 projects that are going on around the country.
17:28:54 So hopefully they brought back that wisdom, they are
17:28:58 going to do a great project and I look forward
17:29:02 optimistically to seeing how this progresses.
17:29:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:29:06 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:29:08 Opposed Nay.
17:29:09 (Motion carried).
17:29:10 >> Move to open number 4.
17:29:12 >> Second.
17:29:12 (Motion carried).
17:29:12 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
17:29:24 >> You have before you now Tampa comprehensive plan
17:29:28 amendment 25-2, a fought land use change to your
17:29:30 future land use map.
17:29:32 This is an area south of Adamo drive, east of 22nd
17:29:36 street.
17:29:38 I have the future land use map for your information on

17:29:40 the Elmo currently.
17:29:41 As you all can see and I'm sure you are very familiar
17:29:44 with this area, this has been discussed quite a bit in
17:29:46 the last couple weeks.
17:29:50 First I'll show you that Crosstown expressway is south
17:29:54 of the proposed site.
17:29:55 Here's the proposed site also known as the
17:29:57 international center.
17:29:58 We have a photograph.
17:30:01 There it is.
17:30:02 Tampa international center.
17:30:04 Which is on the southeast corner of 26th street
17:30:06 and Adamo drive.
17:30:10 Between 22nd and 26th.
17:30:13 As you can see right here.
17:30:15 22nd and 26th.
17:30:17 26th goes all the way down to Palmetto Beach.
17:30:20 I also have a map that shows you of the different
17:30:22 areas that are in proximity.
17:30:26 It's approximately 38 sites that request to go to
17:30:31 heavy mixed use 35 which results in map change like
17:30:33 this.

17:30:34 You'll also notice on this map, we have had some
17:30:38 changes in the trend along Adamo drive.
17:30:41 You will notice that we have right over here two
17:30:44 similar land use designations of CMU 35.
17:30:51 These are known as the -- I have a photograph.
17:30:58 Right there on the corner of 22nd, and I
17:31:00 believe -- anyway, I think what we are seeing, we have
17:31:06 seen a continued evolution of Adamo drive into a mixed
17:31:10 use type of corridor.
17:31:11 As to what will be developed still remains to be seen.
17:31:14 We'll be looking at them in the upcoming months.
17:31:25 I have a couple more photographs.
17:31:26 Relative to where it's located, a couple of regional
17:31:30 attracters, the Channel District to the west, directly
17:31:35 to the south, the residential development of Palmetto
17:31:38 Beach which has been around for many years also in
17:31:40 close proximity to the central business district and
17:31:42 Ybor City directly to the north.
17:31:48 This follows in the area of the comprehensive plan.
17:31:50 I think what we have been talking about in our
17:31:52 comprehensive plan discussions for the update as far
17:31:54 as directing housing and growth in close proximity to

17:31:57 major employment centers.
17:32:00 This is in very close proximity to the Channel
17:32:02 District in Port Tampa and of course Ybor City as I
17:32:05 said before is in the central business district which
17:32:07 is one of our major areas for employment besides the
17:32:09 University of South Florida and the Westshore
17:32:11 district.
17:32:13 We already have proof that there has been change.
17:32:16 As I have already stated with the apartments that have
17:32:20 been built.
17:32:23 Here are a couple more at Adamo drive.
17:32:29 This is on the south side.
17:32:32 Regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan, the
17:32:35 site is in proximity to several activity centers.
17:32:38 They will promote redevelopment in the urban area.
17:32:41 And it does support mixed use development in proximity
17:32:43 to major employment centers.
17:32:46 The proposed plan amendment is supported by many of
17:32:47 the policies contained in the City of Tampa
17:32:49 comprehensive plan, specifically policy 8-701 which
17:32:54 talks about maximizing planned development within the
17:32:56 mixed use categories and concentrating redevelopment

17:33:00 in the areas of adequate infrastructure.
17:33:03 The site is located in the coastal high hazard area.
17:33:12 It is within the coastal high hazard area boundaries.
17:33:16 I'll show you that very quickly on the future land use
17:33:19 map.
17:33:26 Here's the line of the coastal high hazard area which
17:33:28 is this red lane here.
17:33:30 Can you all see that?
17:33:32 It contains -- I think what's significant in this
17:33:35 particular instance, this property is directly
17:33:38 abutting Adamo drive which is -- will allow for easy
17:33:42 access of the city eastward into Brandon and other
17:33:47 points east, in close proximity to the expressway and
17:33:51 to the interstate to the north.
17:33:54 So we do not feel that a development of this sort
17:33:56 would actually diminish based on where it's at.
17:34:02 Also, the school board noted that the elementary
17:34:06 school does not have adequate capacity to serve the
17:34:10 students generated by the proposed project.
17:34:12 Currently there are no level of service for schools in
17:34:15 accordance with chapter 163. The city as you know is
17:34:17 required to adopt a public school facilities element,

17:34:20 which will establish levels of service standards for
17:34:23 schools in implementing school concurrency.
17:34:25 So that is something that is a work in project, I'm
17:34:28 sure will be addressed during the time when this is in
17:34:31 different phases of development.
17:34:33 The Planning Commission found the proposed request
17:34:35 consistent and unanimously voted its approval and
17:34:39 found it consistent.
17:34:40 Planning Commission staff has no objections.
17:34:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the petitioner here?
17:34:48 >>TONY GARCIA: Yes, he is.
17:34:52 Looks familiar.
17:34:53 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 south Boulevard, Tampa, Florida,
17:34:58 here on behalf of the applicant Panatoni development.
17:35:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not familiar with that entity.
17:35:09 And I've looked through 100 pages of documents.
17:35:12 And never identified who the petitioner was.
17:35:17 What is the suggested use for this other than CME 35?
17:35:22 >>DAVID MECHANIK: The plan is evolving.
17:35:24 They are studying a number of options -- option bus
17:35:28 the purpose is to allow a mixed use development.
17:35:30 It would not be an exclusive residential project.

17:35:34 And not actually speaks to the school board issue.
17:35:37 There is a capacity issue.
17:35:39 But the way they do their analysis, they have seen the
17:35:43 entire site would be developed as residential.
17:35:45 We are not planning on doing that.
17:35:47 It would be a mixed use retail residential, with
17:35:51 residential as a component of the development.
17:35:54 So we would not anticipate a problem with the school
17:35:58 capacity.
17:35:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Previously within the last year,
17:36:03 maybe even longer ago than that, this is the location
17:36:07 of a proposed giant Wal-Mart or something?
17:36:10 Is that still on the plans?
17:36:13 >>DAVID MECHANIK: At this point there is nothing
17:36:16 specific being considered.
17:36:18 I mean, we are still in the very conceptual drawing
17:36:21 stage at this stage.
17:36:23 There's in a specific plan for a particular use.
17:36:30 >> As your client progresses, I hope that there are --
17:36:36 the fact it's very close to Ybor, even though it's not
17:36:39 in the historic district, and I'm sure that all -- all
17:36:42 my council members share that sentiment but the

17:36:45 architecture and flavor would reflect Ybor City.
17:36:48 >>> Right.
17:36:48 We actually met with Del Acosta and indicated our
17:36:52 intent to continue to work with his office to ensure
17:36:56 that we address those issues.
17:37:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.
17:37:03 Thank you.
17:37:04 On page 6, it says MPO findings, and it says Adamo
17:37:09 drive has an available capacity of zero vehicles?
17:37:13 >>> Correct.
17:37:20 >> What would the strategy be in the future to
17:37:21 accommodate -- I mean, whatever happens here, it's
17:37:24 going to generate traffic.
17:37:26 Would there be the ability for the petitioner to fund
17:37:31 transit, or what kinds of --
17:37:35 >>> I think once we get down into the zoning aspect of
17:37:37 it, we are able to come ahead and try to negotiate
17:37:41 additional amenities.
17:37:42 At this stage it's kind of difficult to do that since
17:37:45 we don't really know what they are going to come into,
17:37:47 what degree they are going to come in the project.
17:37:49 >> I personally think that CME 35 makes a lot of sense

17:37:54 here but I just wondered philosophically, you know,
17:37:58 what your thinking is in terms of approving something
17:38:00 that's going to generate traffic when we have zero
17:38:02 capacity.
17:38:03 >>TONY GARCIA: It's not something that's unique to any
17:38:07 other areas that we have similar constraints.
17:38:10 Sometimes -- and I know you're aware of this, too --
17:38:14 we have seen this similarly down in the South
17:38:17 Westshore area, with all the development that's
17:38:19 occurred.
17:38:22 By having the development come into the area, it would
17:38:25 assist in trying to provide you alternatives --
17:38:28 alternate modes of transportation, improved pedestrian
17:38:31 connections, hopefully as far as bus traffic, there's
17:38:39 a lot of other things that could be taken into
17:38:42 consideration by having new development come into the
17:38:43 area to provide those new tax dollars, amenities that
17:38:47 provide off-site improvement as well as on-site
17:38:49 improvements.
17:38:50 So that's something that needs to be taken into
17:38:51 consideration once they come in, into the negotiating
17:38:54 aspect of it when they look further down which is what

17:39:01 they are going to come to the board with.
17:39:04 >> A whole different spin on transportation
17:39:06 concurrency.
17:39:07 >>TONY GARCIA: Yes, it does.
17:39:08 The actual TCBA and to follow the provisions of the
17:39:12 TCBA, what you are supposed to be doing is other modes
17:39:15 of transportation besides just the regular vehicles.
17:39:19 And also I think what's a God point about this
17:39:21 project, going back and talking about its proximity to
17:39:23 the employment centers, your trips are reduced
17:39:26 significantly.
17:39:27 We are not having people to drive from Brandon to
17:39:29 south county.
17:39:30 Let's not forget that we are the largest commuter city
17:39:34 in the United States so we do have people driving a
17:39:36 long distance into the City of Tampa so by shortening
17:39:39 their trips we are creating a much safer environment
17:39:42 also by doing that.
17:39:43 So I think it is, from that aspect, a very good
17:39:46 proposal.
17:39:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: According to your -- on page 6 with
17:39:54 the transportation that you're talking about with the

17:39:57 FDOT putting in the improvements, that would be taking
17:40:01 the traffic from 21 and 22nd street that should
17:40:06 alleviate according to what you're saying over here,
17:40:10 that would probably give some capacity once traffic is
17:40:16 out of there.
17:40:19 >>TONY GARCIA: That's a good point, as far as 22nd
17:40:22 street and what's been happening on 22nd street,
17:40:24 we don't want to see the Columbia restaurant get hit
17:40:28 anymore.
17:40:29 So I think the expansion on the 30th street
17:40:31 crossover that you are talking about, the transit
17:40:33 authority will be working on, I don't know how long
17:40:35 it's going to take to actually come to fruition but
17:40:38 yes, I believe it will help alleviate the truck
17:40:41 traffic which has been a major bone of contention
17:40:43 along Adamo drive.
17:40:44 So that will be of great assistance.
17:40:48 >> The other question I have, I should know this but I
17:40:52 don't.
17:40:54 This piece of property on the Ybor City side or
17:40:59 Palmetto Beach side?
17:41:01 >>> On the Palmetto Beach side.

17:41:02 It's on the south side of Adamo.
17:41:05 >> So it has nothing to do with Ybor City?
17:41:08 >>> Well, I think it really does.
17:41:10 It's across the street.
17:41:12 You could throw a rock and hit Ybor City.
17:41:15 It's not in the historic district if that's what you
17:41:17 are concerned about.
17:41:18 But it does interface, and I think Mr. Dingfelder was
17:41:22 at least inferring to the applicant that when they
17:41:25 come in in the future for their re zoning that they be
17:41:28 sensitive to at least the design aspect as to the
17:41:31 character and history of Ybor City, which it will be
17:41:33 interfaced.
17:41:34 >> And I agree with that.
17:41:35 Thank you.
17:41:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to
17:41:38 speak on item number 4?
17:41:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
17:41:41 >> Second.
17:41:42 (Motion Carried).
17:41:45 >> Motion and second to transmit.
17:41:48 >> Second.

17:41:48 (Motion carried).
17:41:50 >> Move to open number 5.
17:41:52 >> Second.
17:41:52 (Motion Carried).
17:42:00 >> Patricia Fleming, Planning Commission staff.
17:42:02 These are five items that have been city initiated.
17:42:06 And you may want to open them --
17:42:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Open items 56, 7, 8, 9.
17:42:14 >> So moved.
17:42:15 >> Second.
17:42:15 (Motion carried).
17:42:17 >> 05-26 is approximately 40 acres, at the west end of
17:42:23 Cypress Street on Tampa Bay.
17:42:24 The site was originally slated for commercial
17:42:27 development Watt acquired with ELAPP land and Florida
17:42:31 community trust money.
17:42:32 The park includes natural beach wetlands, shaded
17:42:36 upland forest, and the Parks and Recreation Department
17:42:41 received a land and water conservation grant from the
17:42:45 federal government to construct a .5 multi-use trail
17:42:49 through the park.
17:43:04 The plan map shows the area is located in an area of

17:43:07 municipal airport compatibility, with primarily office
17:43:12 uses.
17:43:17 The site is not associated with any neighborhood
17:43:20 association but is located in proximity to the
17:43:22 Westshore business district, the Culver city, Lincoln
17:43:24 Gardens and Westshore Palms neighborhood.
17:43:27 The site is adjacent to Tampa Bay on the west and
17:43:31 office uses on the north, south and east.
17:43:34 The request is to change 2 current -- the current land
17:43:37 use of municipal airport compatibility to recreation
17:43:42 open space.
17:43:44 That concludes PA 05-26.
17:43:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
17:43:51 Would anyone in the public like to speak on item 5?
17:43:53 >> Move to close.
17:43:54 >> Second.
17:43:54 (Motion carried).
17:43:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to transmit.
17:43:59 >> Second.
17:44:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to transmitted.
17:44:01 (Motion carried).
17:44:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.

17:44:04 The description in the agenda, the amendment to the
17:44:10 fought land use element, are these just strictly map
17:44:14 amendments to add these?
17:44:16 >>> Map amendments.
17:44:17 >> Okay.
17:44:18 There's no text changes on each of these.
17:44:20 >>> No, sir.
17:44:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
17:44:23 >>> PO-0-27 and 05-28 are part of the parks system
17:44:29 which compromise the Tampa downtown riverwalk project.
17:44:33 It continues to be a key component of the riverwalk
17:44:36 which runs along the east side of Hillsborough River
17:44:39 from North Boulevard bridge to the Channelside area on
17:44:43 Garrison Channel.
17:44:52 PO 05-127, Cutanchobee Fort Brooke part is east of the
17:45:03 Marriott waterside, features the state's only memorial
17:45:07 to the Seminole wars.
17:45:14 The aerial shows the location of the site along the
17:45:17 Garrison Channel, the future land use designation is
17:45:19 central business district, and it is city owned vacant
17:45:23 land.
17:45:24 It is significant of the national historic Fort Brooke

17:45:28 park, and an early 19th century fortification
17:45:34 considered one of the largest and most important basis
17:45:37 of operation in its time.
17:45:48 And that concludes PA 05-27.
17:45:52 >> Question from council members?
17:45:55 >> Did we just decide to go through and clean up our
17:45:58 parks that hadn't been designated officially?
17:46:08 >> I believe that we are going to officially designate
17:46:11 them park lands.
17:46:11 >> Would anyone in the public like to speak on item 7?
17:46:16 >> Move to close.
17:46:17 >> Second.
17:46:18 (Motion Carried).
17:46:19 >> Move to transmit.
17:46:20 >> Second.
17:46:20 (Motion Carried).
17:46:23 >> Next is PA 05-28, located along Ashley drive, and
17:46:29 will provide a two-parcel connection to the existing
17:46:31 park site along the riverfront and the riverwalk.
17:46:35 The north parcel which will pay tribute to the
17:46:37 military of our community is located between Whiting
17:46:40 and Washington street.

17:46:41 The south parcel honoring the University of South
17:46:43 Florida is located at the northwest corner of Ashley
17:46:47 and Channelside Drive.
17:46:56 The site was occupied by industrial uses and are
17:47:00 located on Ashley drive.
17:47:02 They are divided into a north and south parcel.
17:47:04 The future land use designation is central business
17:47:06 district, and they are city owned parcels.
17:47:10 The request is to change the current land use
17:47:12 designation of central business district to public
17:47:14 semi-public.
17:47:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
17:47:20 Would anyone in the public like to speak on item
17:47:21 number 7?
17:47:22 >> Move to close.
17:47:23 >> Second.
17:47:23 (Motion carried)
17:47:27 >> Move to trance -- transmit.
17:47:30 >> Second.
17:47:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to transmit.
17:47:32 (Motion carried).
17:47:34 >>> Item 05-29, river tower park, is a 13-acre,

17:47:38 city-owned city purchased in 2002, located on the
17:47:42 Hillsborough River in Sulphur Springs.
17:47:47 The 214-foot tower was built in 1927, and served as a
17:47:52 principal water supply for the area until the early
17:47:55 1970s.
17:47:56 It is designate add local historic landmark in 1989,
17:48:00 protecting it from demolition.
17:48:10 The site is located on the southeast corner of Florida
17:48:13 Avenue and bird street along the Hillsborough River in
17:48:16 Sulphur Springs.
17:48:17 It is surrounded by parcels designated urban mixed use
17:48:21 60 in proximity to residential uses and areas
17:48:24 designated residential 10, residential 20, and
17:48:27 community mixed use 35.
17:48:30 The site will provide a significant connection for the
17:48:33 green light system connecting the neighborhood with
17:48:35 Sulphur Springs and Seminole Heights.
17:48:37 The future land use designation is urban mixed use 60,
17:48:41 and it is city-owned land.
17:48:43 The request is to change the future land use
17:48:45 designation to recreation open space.
17:48:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?

17:48:50 Would anyone in the public like to speak?
17:48:52 >> Move to close.
17:48:53 >>: Second.
17:48:53 (Motion carried)
17:48:56 >> Move to transmit.
17:48:57 >> Second.
17:48:57 (Motion carried)
17:49:03 >>> PA 05-30 runs along the northern border of I-75
17:49:13 south of Bruce B. Downs.
17:49:14 The New Tampa nature park is the city's largest green
17:49:17 space in gnaw Tampa.
17:49:19 It was purchased in 2001 for $3 million as part of
17:49:23 Hillsborough County's ELAPP program and will include
17:49:26 restroom, picnic shelters, a small parking lot, hiking
17:49:30 trail, that will link up with the county's flat woods
17:49:34 trail park.
17:49:44 The aerial shows the location of the site, the future
17:49:48 land use designation is suburban mixed use 6 is city
17:49:53 owned land, the request is to change the future land
17:49:56 use designation of urban mixed use 6 to open space.
17:50:01 -- mixed use open space.
17:50:03 >> Move to close.

17:50:04 >> Second.
17:50:04 >>CHAIRMAN: Would anyone in the public like to speak?
17:50:07 >> Move to close.
17:50:08 >> Second.
17:50:08 (Motion carried)
17:50:10 >> Move to transmit.
17:50:12 >> Second.
17:50:12 (Motion carried).
17:50:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
17:50:19 We have some unfinished business from this morning.
17:50:22 Clerk.
17:50:28 >>THE CLERK: I'm not sure if the representative from
17:50:30 land development is present.
17:50:35 When asked for it to be referred to them to be looked
17:50:37 at.
17:50:51 >>> Thank you, Madam Chairman.
17:50:52 I'm thrilled that we just designated all these parks
17:50:55 as officially residential open space.
17:50:59 I'm not sure if they are protected.
17:51:01 I would like to ask legal to report back in a month,
17:51:04 whether the five parcels that we identified tonight
17:51:07 are officially park recreation space, are in our

17:51:11 official park roster.
17:51:13 A written report will suffice.
17:51:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't know if T answer but if they
17:51:20 were bought by the Florida trust, don't you suppose
17:51:22 that they would be?
17:51:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would just lake to know.
17:51:25 A written report will suffice.
17:51:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The motion is --
17:51:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are they protected --
17:51:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Dedicated?
17:51:35 >> That's if right word.
17:51:37 Are they dedicated parks.
17:51:39 The request of legal is to give us a report back
17:51:42 within 30 days of the five we just identified of
17:51:45 residential.
17:51:46 If they are officially dedicated and therefore
17:51:48 protected.
17:51:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think what they do, with the ELAPP
17:51:55 funds, actually -- I think you probably have to have
17:51:59 an ordinance to put them into park land.
17:52:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
17:52:06 (Motion carried).

17:52:08 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Moreda, the clerk has a question for
17:52:11 you.
17:52:11 >>THE CLERK: I was just checking to see whether or
17:52:13 not --
17:52:20 >>GLORIA MOREDA: The wet zoning petition?
17:52:22 Yes, it's actually two petitions.
17:52:24 They are going to have it for two days.
17:52:26 It's concerning property at 3005 west Columbus drive
17:52:33 to the Tampa Convention Center for the king cobra
17:52:36 enterprises.
17:52:39 He has submitted applications and did the mailing for
17:52:41 the notice today.
17:52:43 They are considered complete at this point.
17:52:45 Council would basically be waiving and not be under a
17:52:51 time constraint.
17:52:53 >> So moved.
17:52:54 >>THE CLERK: So you're waiving the 15 day notice.
17:53:00 >> Second.
17:53:00 >>GLORIA MOREDA: This is the temporary wet zoning.
17:53:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the motion to approve it?
17:53:10 >>GLORIA MOREDA: My understanding is you all made the
17:53:12 motion this morning to have us come tonight to verify

17:53:15 that the application was complete.
17:53:21 Complete and the mailing of the notice was done today.
17:53:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?
17:53:25 We have a motion and second.
17:53:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I second it.
17:53:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Question and motion.
17:53:34 -- motion and second.
17:53:37 Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder.
17:53:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We seem to be bending our rules
17:53:41 tremendously, and --
17:53:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: I was out of the room so I would like
17:53:49 some clarification, too.
17:53:50 What is it?
17:53:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Given at the West Tampa convention
17:53:57 center.
17:54:02 >>> Yes, it would be this weekend.
17:54:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record for us.
17:54:06 Your name.
17:54:10 >>> My name is Daniel.
17:54:13 >> What kind of charitable event is this?
17:54:16 >>> For king cobra enterprises, a lot of comics, in
17:54:20 the comedy jam.

17:54:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Who is the charity that's going to
17:54:28 benefit?
17:54:28 >>> King cobra enterprises.
17:54:32 King cobra enterprises.
17:54:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that a 5:01 nonprofit?
17:54:38 >>> Yes, it is.
17:54:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Somebody from maybe, maybe Mr. Shelby
17:54:48 or Ms. Cole, don't we have some comments from police?
17:55:00 >>GLORIA MOREDA: He has submitted everything that
17:55:01 shows that he's complying with requirements.
17:55:04 The one thing he didn't do was turning it in 15 days
17:55:06 prior to the event rose.
17:55:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You verified this is actually
17:55:15 501(c)3?
17:55:17 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Cathy Coyle reviewed the file and
17:55:19 verified that it was correct.
17:55:22 In terms of staff, our concern is the short time
17:55:25 frame.
17:55:27 We are not happy about walk-ins, these types of
17:55:31 temporary special events.
17:55:32 In fact, we have told -- individually told this
17:55:35 individual that we were not walking this in, it is too

17:55:38 late.
17:55:40 My concerns for council is that we have got to be very
17:55:45 careful, because we process probably two to three of
17:55:48 these a week.
17:55:49 And if every one all of a sudden realizes that council
17:55:53 takes this the day of the event, then it's going to be
17:55:56 very burdensome to have to go through these files that
17:55:59 day.
17:56:00 And so we do ask for caution in you doing this.
17:56:05 And I think staff is getting the word out that there
17:56:09 is this time frame.
17:56:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (off microphone)
17:56:13 So I didn't hear this morning -- or just now is, what
17:56:17 happened?
17:56:20 Obviously you were sort of proceeding along in the
17:56:23 process and somebody dropped the ball.
17:56:25 What happened?
17:56:26 >>> Well, what I tried to do, I was aware of the 15
17:56:31 day notice of the temporary wet zoning, and that was
17:56:36 due to the delay, and --
17:56:43 >> You didn't inform of what you needed to do?
17:56:47 >>> Exactly.

17:56:48 >> Have you ever put on one of these in the City of
17:56:50 Tampa before?
17:56:52 >>> Yes.
17:56:52 But we didn't go through the zoning for whatever
17:56:54 reason.
17:57:01 >> Where did you have the event?
17:57:02 >>> In the same facility.
17:57:05 >> Tampa Convention Center.
17:57:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Was there alcohol served?
17:57:09 >>> Yes.
17:57:10 >> And you didn't go through a temporary one day
17:57:12 zoning?
17:57:13 >> It's my understanding -- no, no, we didn't.
17:57:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I don't ever recall us
17:57:36 approving a wet zoning like this one day before, or
17:57:41 two days before the event.
17:57:44 I'm very uncomfortable with it.
17:57:46 I'm not saying that the event can't go forward, but
17:57:49 just the selling of alcohol pursuant to our code.
17:57:52 I think Gloria is right.
17:57:54 I think once word gets out that you can do it this
17:57:57 way, we might have a stampede on these sorts of

17:58:01 things.
17:58:04 So I have a bit of a discomfort level.
17:58:07 If we were waiving the 15 days that it was a week away
17:58:10 so that people would at least get notice before the
17:58:12 event, I suppose I would have less problem.
17:58:14 But no one even got notice of this.
17:58:17 If it was mailed today, it's not going to arrive in
17:58:20 time for the event.
17:58:27 >>>
17:58:33 >>> Everything is in process already.
17:58:38 All the documents are in order.
17:58:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Harrison makes a really good
17:58:45 point.
17:58:45 The fact that this is going to be within the West
17:58:48 Tampa convention center or in the parking lot?
17:58:51 >>> In a, no, in a, inside the building.
17:58:53 Police officers and everything.
17:58:54 >> I'm familiar with this.
17:58:55 I think we are all familiar with this venue.
17:58:57 And the truth is it's sort of a contained event that's
17:59:01 got commercial corridors all around it and has
17:59:04 adequate parking.

17:59:05 So I have less concern than if it was something being
17:59:09 held to potentially aggravate neighbors.
17:59:15 So I will move it.
17:59:18 >>> I spoke with Carmen.
17:59:23 So there's people there as well.
17:59:25 >>KEVIN WHITE: I spoke with the gentleman who came to
17:59:31 me on Monday or Tuesday of this week.
17:59:34 I did not know him until then and I directed him to
17:59:41 land development and told him he needed to get with
17:59:43 Ms. Moreda and her staff and she related exactly what
17:59:46 she told us.
17:59:53 This is not frequent of council and the only reason I
17:59:57 would be supportive of it is Madam Chair a lot of this
18:00:01 is walk-on is due to the actual venue itself.
18:00:06 Really in a surrounding neighbors, just a brick wall
18:00:10 contained, there is so much parking available.
18:00:13 But if this ever happens again -- and I guess we need
18:00:17 to put the petitioners on notice.
18:00:19 And we have, granted, waived the 15 day rule before.
18:00:25 But you're right, Mr. Harrison, in a, it's not lake
18:00:27 the day before or two days before.
18:00:29 But knowing some of the events that do go on in the

18:00:35 West Tampa convention center and knowing that alcohol
18:00:37 is served there on a regular basis, I won't have a
18:00:41 problem supporting this particular petition at this
18:00:46 time.
18:00:48 In the future I would personally not be able to --
18:00:52 >>> Oh, definitely.
18:00:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was just wondering how many people
18:00:57 you expect there.
18:00:59 >>> Well, about 2 or 300.
18:01:02 It's kind of hard to say.
18:01:03 About 2 or 300.
18:01:04 It's kind of hard to say.
18:01:06 But right now, about 250 at this point right now.
18:01:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 250?
18:01:11 >>> Yes.
18:01:12 >> How many people does the Conn convention center
18:01:14 hold?
18:01:15 >>> I think you can set up for like 350 people.
18:01:19 You can set up the tables.
18:01:21 >> You're having tables or just a stand-up?
18:01:25 Is it a sit-down din er?
18:01:27 >>> No, a comedy, like have comedy central.

18:01:35 You know, so many people involved to come together and
18:01:45 definitely make it happen.
18:01:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm going to monitor.
18:01:49 I don't live too, too far from there.
18:01:51 >>GWEN MILLER: She's going to police you.
18:02:05 >>> It was brought to my attention and unaware.
18:02:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Moreda, may I ask you a question?
18:02:11 The notices were sent out today.
18:02:12 And that would be to whom?
18:02:14 >>> The neighbors.
18:02:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: Excuse me for a second.
18:02:26 Go ahead.
18:02:28 >>GLORIA MOREDA: It was the president of the
18:02:30 neighborhood association.
18:02:31 >> So depending on how the mail goes she may or may
18:02:33 not get this notice before Saturday.
18:02:41 >>> My guess is she probably wouldn't because she has
18:02:44 to go to the post office to pick it up.
18:02:48 >> My weighing in is this.
18:02:49 Obviously we always have heartburn about saying no to
18:02:52 a charitable event.
18:02:54 The first time this chairman did it he didn't even

18:02:59 have wet zoning for one day.
18:03:00 How that happened I have no idea.
18:03:02 And we are always saying we are putting people on
18:03:04 notice, putting people on notice and we are not going
18:03:06 to do this again.
18:03:07 So what we continue to do is do it again, and say we
18:03:09 are not going to do it again.
18:03:12 I think that Ms. Moreda is right about --
18:03:16 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I just want to clarify something.
18:03:18 I don't know how she signed the green card but she has
18:03:28 received it.
18:03:29 >> It was mailed today?
18:03:31 >>> It's signed.
18:03:33 >>ROSE FERLITA: This was mailed today?
18:03:39 How did you get this lady's signature?
18:03:43 >>> Excuse me?
18:03:44 >> How did you get this lady's signature?
18:03:46 >>> I have her address and everything.
18:03:47 >> When was that mailed?
18:03:50 >>> We done it today.
18:03:51 >>: And how did you mail it today and get it signed
18:03:53 today?

18:03:54 >>> I took it to her home.
18:03:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You didn't mail it.
18:04:00 You hand delivered it.
18:04:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Listen to all the different
18:04:06 complications we are going through and all of the
18:04:08 contortions we are trying to go through to get this
18:04:11 done.
18:04:11 The fact is, the fact is -- this is going to set a
18:04:19 precedent.
18:04:20 And I'm sorry that we have again pen -- again been put
18:04:24 in a position where something is walk on and we have
18:04:27 to support it because.
18:04:28 I agree with Mr. Harrison. This gives me a lot of
18:04:30 concern.
18:04:30 Because we are, this counsel or the next council if we
18:04:34 make this a situation where everybody can walk through
18:04:36 at the last minute.
18:04:37 And Ms. Moreda is correct, too, in terms of them, it's
18:04:40 a lot of difficult for them.
18:04:41 We spent a lot of time already trying to figure out
18:04:43 how this is okay, if it's not okay, Mrs. Alvarez is
18:04:47 going to monitor it.

18:04:48 I can't support it from the standpoint of position.
18:04:55 It's something that should not occur. The gentleman
18:04:57 went through this once, didn't get a license.
18:05:00 Sir, excuse me.
18:05:01 And it probably will go because it looks lake most
18:05:03 people are supportive.
18:05:04 I can't.
18:05:05 I can't from a philosophical position, because we
18:05:08 continue to threaten the next person that comes up,
18:05:11 and when the next person comes up, if a charity we say
18:05:15 it's okay.
18:05:15 It's not okay.
18:05:16 Because there are rules and procedures.
18:05:18 And we often are too lenient in breaking them.
18:05:21 So I'm very sorry, but I don't feel comfortable
18:05:24 approving it.
18:05:25 Perhaps my colleagues will.
18:05:26 Those are the reasons and I am stating them on record
18:05:28 and I hope it's successful but I can't support it.
18:05:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I feel the same way.
18:05:36 I feel we have done this.
18:05:38 Gone through this once before.

18:05:39 Once too many times.
18:05:40 And so I won't support it either.
18:05:44 Sorry.
18:05:49 >> Somebody has to learn a lesson and it happens to be
18:05:52 you.
18:05:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Procedurally there was a motion on
18:05:54 the floor to waive the rules. If we waive the rules,
18:05:58 procedurally, is there another motion after that?
18:06:00 Is there a motion to approve?
18:06:06 >>THE CLERK: For council's information to waive the 15
18:06:07 day notice, it requires a super majority by council.
18:06:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.
18:06:16 There's a motion on the floor.
18:06:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.
18:06:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second.
18:06:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to waive the rules.
18:06:34 >>GWEN MILLER: It fails so we cannot give the license.
18:06:43 Anything else?
18:06:44 >>MARTY BOYLE: Let me start by saying this was not my
18:07:04 night to do all of the rezonings, it was Heather
18:07:08 Lamboy.
18:07:09 But I have taken over tonight so please be patient

18:07:11 with me.
18:07:12 Some of these case I am not as familiar as I would be
18:07:15 if I had had them the whole way through.
18:07:17 So let's go through the agenda, if we can.
18:07:21 This first team is not on your agenda.
18:07:24 It is case number V 06-40 and they misnoticed.
18:07:28 And they are requesting, the petitioner is here, if
18:07:32 they can go to a May 25th, 6 p.m. hearing date.
18:07:36 We do have two slots open, two new slots open, we have
18:07:41 had a couple of withdrawals for that night.
18:07:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
18:07:45 >> Second.
18:07:45 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
18:07:46 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:07:49 Opposed nay.
18:07:50 (Motion carried).
18:07:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just one second.
18:07:53 Folks, you can use those chairs that are in the back
18:07:56 corner.
18:07:57 Pull them out and line them up and just make sure it's
18:08:00 not a hazard.
18:08:04 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 12.

18:08:06 Z 05-165.
18:08:08 They are asking for a continuance.
18:08:11 Z 05-165.
18:08:12 They have requested a date of June 8th at 6 p.m.
18:08:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing
18:08:17 first.
18:08:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
18:08:20 >> Second.
18:08:20 (Motion carried).
18:08:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that would like to
18:08:29 speak against continuing item number 12?
18:08:31 Would anyone like to speak on the continuance for item
18:08:34 number 12?
18:08:35 >> Move these be moved to June 8th.
18:08:38 >> Second.
18:08:38 (Motion carried).
18:08:39 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 13.
18:08:44 They have not asked for a continuance.
18:08:45 V 06-15.
18:08:47 But there have been some issues with trees that staff
18:08:53 is concerned about, to be able to protect the trees
18:08:56 they would need to lose some parking spaces which

18:09:00 would be a graphical change.
18:09:03 It's up to council whether we move forward and hear it
18:09:06 and maybe they can come back with those graphical
18:09:08 changes.
18:09:08 I needed to let now about that item.
18:09:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did they let now about these 13
18:09:17 days ahead?
18:09:18 >>MARTY BOYLE: In a.
18:09:19 It's a small church.
18:09:20 At first we thought they were going to have to move
18:09:22 the building to protect the 36-inch tree, that's
18:09:26 actually off-site but Mr. Riley of parks went out
18:09:31 there today and discovered the tree was in decline.
18:09:34 So no longer would be -- they have in a objection to
18:09:39 the building where it was.
18:09:40 But still to protect the other trees that are on-site
18:09:42 probably -- they are overparked, if you will.
18:09:47 And to pro tech those trees on-site, they would need
18:09:51 to leave some of those parking spaces.
18:09:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's noticed.
18:09:57 People here.
18:09:58 We should hear it and then send it back for graphical

18:10:01 changes.
18:10:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Any others?
18:10:04 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 14.
18:10:05 This is another case, Z 06-31.
18:10:10 Petitioner is requesting waiver of the 13 day rule.
18:10:12 They submitted a plan that didn't match their
18:10:15 elevation.
18:10:17 It's a minor change.
18:10:18 There were no other objections on the staff report.
18:10:20 It's a minor change on the site plan.
18:10:22 They did submit that plan to us today.
18:10:26 We reviewed it.
18:10:28 It is consistent with the elevation and removes our
18:10:30 objection.
18:10:31 So I didn't know, it's up to the will of council if
18:10:33 they want to hear the case tonight, and waive the
18:10:36 13-day rule, and then maybe have a first reading on it
18:10:41 in a week or two.
18:10:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll waive the rule when we get to
18:10:48 number 14.
18:10:49 >>MARTY BOYLE: Continuing.
18:10:50 Item number 18.

18:10:51 They are asking for a continuance.
18:10:54 They have asked for a continuance to a May 18th
18:10:58 date at 10 a.m.
18:11:00 They wanted to come back sooner but transportation --
18:11:03 the reason why they have to continue is because
18:11:05 transportation hasn't had a chance to review
18:11:07 thoroughly their traffic analysis.
18:11:09 >>KEVIN WHITE: It says May 11 on here.
18:11:14 Which is it?
18:11:15 >>> Transportation said they would object to May
18:11:17 11th so the petitioner has submitted a formal
18:11:20 letter changing that request to May 18th at
18:11:23 10 a.m. they are requesting.
18:11:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.
18:11:26 >> So moved.
18:11:27 >> Second.
18:11:27 (Motion carried).
18:11:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone forth in the public
18:11:30 that would like to speak on item number 18 on the
18:11:32 continuance?
18:11:36 >>> Are we going to have the first reading at 10 a.m.?
18:11:39 >> It is a downtown building.

18:11:40 There have been daytime meetings for a downtown
18:11:45 building.
18:11:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: Is that correct, Mr. Shelby?
18:11:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council can set a daytime meeting if
18:11:54 it wishes.
18:11:55 But it would be custom.
18:11:58 But there's nothing in the rules that says different
18:12:01 for downtown buildings.
18:12:05 >>> Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street for the applicant.
18:12:08 We had hoped to go tonight with the second tower that
18:12:11 you approved the first tower about a year ago.
18:12:14 It's a block from here.
18:12:16 Washington and Marion to Morgan.
18:12:19 It will be a second tower, 630 feet tall, 472
18:12:23 additional units.
18:12:27 The connection of the two towers.
18:12:28 And we hoped to go tonight.
18:12:31 But as much as the traffic department asked for more
18:12:33 time and the fact that several different applicants
18:12:36 over the course of time, if they are right in the
18:12:38 middle of opportunity, better for people who have an
18:12:44 interest to come in in the workday rather than at

18:12:46 night, rather than areas where the nature meetings are
18:12:48 better, it has occurred before, we respectfully
18:12:53 request more people can come in the morning of the
18:12:56 18th of May, we ask.
18:12:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Don't people work in the daytime?
18:13:04 >>> That's true, it is a two edged sword.
18:13:06 It's a two edged sword.
18:13:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: Something that was noticed for tonight,
18:13:11 I think it should be representative of what we have
18:13:16 here tonight, whether we move forward for a day
18:13:19 meeting or not.
18:13:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And waiving the rules to May 11.
18:13:24 A night meeting instead of a night meeting.
18:13:28 It's up to you.
18:13:29 Night or day.
18:13:31 As soon as reasonable possible.
18:13:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two things.
18:13:35 Normally we want to have at least one meeting at
18:13:37 night.
18:13:38 However, the reason we do that is typically to
18:13:40 accommodate neighborhoods.
18:13:42 And that sort of thing.

18:13:43 Since this is a downtown project -- and I don't know.
18:13:47 Is anybody here on number 18 at all?
18:13:49 Number 18 at all?
18:13:51 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
18:13:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You asked if anybody was hear to
18:13:54 speak on 18 about the continuance.
18:13:58 So I'm comfortable with moving this is May 18, waive
18:14:05 the rules, number 18.
18:14:17 >> Second.
18:14:20 >> 10 a.m
18:14:21 5-18.
18:14:24 (Motion carried).
18:14:26 >>> Thank you for your time.
18:14:27 >>MARTY BOYLE: One last item, item 20.
18:14:30 Just asking the council what they would wish to do on
18:14:33 this.
18:14:35 V 06-21 originally had misnoticed and they had to
18:14:38 reschedule for this night.
18:14:40 Their misnotice was not their fault.
18:14:42 There had been a misprint in the paper and that caused
18:14:45 the misnotice.
18:14:49 Staff is asking at the very end of the night if maybe

18:14:52 they might reschedule this to maybe have it at the
18:14:54 beginning of tonight.
18:14:57 It's totally up to you.
18:15:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This has been rescheduled twice.
18:15:08 They have changed the project because they want to are
18:15:19 heard first tonight.
18:15:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there anyone here on 20 other
18:15:23 than the petitioner?
18:15:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Any opposition on 20?
18:15:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you in opposition?
18:15:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone here in opposition to item 20?
18:15:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In that case I would delete it to
18:15:40 the end of the night.
18:15:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: If there's in a opposition, it's
18:15:44 reverse.
18:15:47 >>GWEN MILLER: It's not going to be long.
18:15:49 Some of these others -- so we make a motion to move it
18:15:53 up?
18:15:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: So moved.
18:15:58 >> Second.
18:16:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The clerk has brought to my attention
18:16:03 rightfully so the number would be the first one heard

18:16:08 that night.
18:16:09 So consistent with that motion, it would be proper to
18:16:14 have it the second, after number 10.
18:16:18 >>CHAIRMAN: So motion.
18:16:26 Number 20 we are going to hear after number 10.
18:16:30 Number 10, then 20.
18:16:33 >>MARTY BOYLE: Thank you, council.
18:16:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open 10.
18:16:43 Anyone in the public, 10 through 20, would you please
18:16:46 stand and raise your right hand?
18:17:06 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:17:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I forgot my red hat tonight to state
18:17:12 when that you were sworn when you state your name.
18:17:16 There is a sign to remind you.
18:17:18 Secondly, council, I would ask that all written
18:17:23 communications that have been available to the public
18:17:24 at council's office be received and filed into the
18:17:26 record at this time.
18:17:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby, I received four
18:17:34 e-mails.
18:17:36 I have asked Della to make copies.
18:17:44 That will take a couple of minutes.

18:17:47 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 10.
18:17:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
18:17:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A motion to receive and file?
18:17:53 >> So moved.
18:17:54 >> Second.
18:17:55 (Motion carried).
18:17:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Finally I would ask if any member of
18:17:59 City Council has had any verbal communications with
18:18:01 any petitioner, his or her representative or any
18:18:03 members of the public in connection with any of the
18:18:05 petitions tonight, that member should disclose the
18:18:07 identity of a person, group or entity with whom the
18:18:10 verbal communication occurred and the substance of
18:18:12 that verbal communication.
18:18:13 Thank you.
18:18:14 >>GWEN MILLER: You need to open item 10.
18:18:18 >> Move to open.
18:18:19 >> Second.
18:18:19 (Motion carried).
18:18:20 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
18:18:22 Petitioner is requesting to rezone the property
18:18:24 located the southwest corner of Bayshore Boulevard and

18:18:28 Bay to Bay Boulevard rezoning from RM-35.
18:18:33 I was sworn.
18:18:34 To planned development district.
18:18:36 The petitioner is proposing to construct 40 dwelling
18:18:39 units in a building that will be 195 feet tall.
18:18:44 The front setback of the property will be at 94 feet 3
18:18:50 inches, in order to preserve adequate public open
18:18:53 space at the site of the patriot's park.
18:18:57 The proposed property line is he back westbound 20
18:19:05 feet, the north 15 feet, the rear is 25.
18:19:07 The petitioner is proposing extensive landscape
18:19:10 treatments including water features, drinking
18:19:15 fountains and decorative landscape elements.
18:19:17 In the open space in the front of the building.
18:19:20 Furthermore, the petitioner is constructing covered
18:19:24 parking, 35 spaces, to be open to the public, with
18:19:28 access off Bay to Bay Boulevard.
18:19:30 And will help serve the public need related to
18:19:36 Bayshore's linear park.
18:19:38 There will be a proposed agreement that would follow
18:19:42 these public amenities.
18:19:46 Staff has -- those agreements with not been finalized,

18:19:50 though.
18:19:51 Petitioner has agreed to place on the site plan the
18:19:54 statement that says the developer owner shall maintain
18:19:57 the community park known as patriot's park as public
18:20:02 open space and shall make community parking area no
18:20:05 less than 35 vehicular parking spaces available to the
18:20:10 public, as provided in a developer's agreement or
18:20:14 other instrument to be approved by the city, and the
18:20:17 developer, owner, prayer to the issuance of its first
18:20:22 building permit.
18:20:25 I did explain to Mr. Grandoff, the agent for the
18:20:29 property owner, that I did have a concern of that
18:20:33 statement going on the site plan, and that the
18:20:37 agreement between the city and the property
18:20:39 owner/developer does not get approved, then it very
18:20:43 well will be determined to be a substantial deviation
18:20:47 of the development and will have to come back before
18:20:49 City Council.
18:20:50 There is an additional note that was added on the site
18:20:52 plan as well that says the driveway on Bay to Bay will
18:20:55 be right in, right out, for the raised channelized
18:21:01 median.

18:21:02 I did want to also indicate that staff has reviewed,
18:21:10 has in objection to the proposed development.
18:21:12 I did want to point out, because I think it's a little
18:21:14 confusing, in Heather's report on page 3, setbacks
18:21:19 that are clearly identified on the site plan as
18:21:22 required by the code, are consistent with the RM-35
18:21:29 district, up to about the 7th floor, and then
18:21:32 there is encroachment in the setback.
18:21:37 I think petitioner will go through the design of the
18:21:39 building with you.
18:21:40 But staff does feel that it is compatible with the
18:21:44 area in terms of the proposed development.
18:21:52 I have on the Elmo you can see there are other PD
18:21:54 zoning districts as well as RM 50.
18:21:56 RM 50 has height limitations about 200 feet in the
18:22:01 area.
18:22:07 The aerial that I have is the intersection of Bay to
18:22:09 Bay, and Bayshore.
18:22:12 You can see there are structures very near to this
18:22:16 property that are approximately the same height as the
18:22:20 proposed development.
18:22:24 There is one other thing that I was going to say.

18:22:27 The bonus density.
18:22:29 This development is being developed at 4124 units per
18:22:35 acre.
18:22:36 Under the R-50 land use designation which it is does
18:22:39 require that developer show the bonus provisions being
18:22:44 satisfied in our code.
18:22:46 More than 50% of the required parking will be
18:22:48 structured parking, and they satisfy that requirement.
18:22:51 I just wanted to clarify that in the sense that the
18:22:55 provision -- the projection that they are providing,
18:22:59 the public park and the covered parking is at the
18:23:05 suggestion of the developer.
18:23:06 He is wanting to contribute that as part of the
18:23:10 justification for the development.
18:23:11 But it is not a requirement to satisfy bonus density.
18:23:16 This property is just -- really just 1.4 units over
18:23:21 what the code would allow for.
18:23:23 And the manner which they are providing the parking
18:23:27 satisfies to achieve that additional density.
18:23:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
18:23:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:23:34 As I was reading the report, Gloria, what I'm trying

18:23:38 to find is, where are we today?
18:23:41 Okay, this is an RM 35.
18:23:42 >>GLORIA MOREDA: This is RM 35 zoning.
18:23:46 >> Based on RM 35 and based upon the acreage that's
18:23:49 there, what is the number of units that they could be
18:23:53 allowed to use, allowed built today?
18:23:56 In other words, what is the entitlement today?
18:23:59 It's important to know where we are starting from.
18:24:01 When was that -- when was that place on the parcel?
18:24:05 And is there any height limitation currently on the
18:24:07 parcel?
18:24:09 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Well, the RM 35 has a height limit of
18:24:12 120 feet.
18:24:13 They are asking for about 75 feet of building height
18:24:16 additional.
18:24:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't see that on the report.
18:24:20 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I don't believe she's giving you the
18:24:23 difference between the two districts.
18:24:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, for future reference it's
18:24:29 always gad to know where we are starting from.
18:24:33 >>GLORIA MOREDA: They are asking for an additional 75
18:24:36 feet in building height.

18:24:38 There is going to be a penthouse which our code
18:24:43 exempts you out of building height requirement.
18:24:46 You think the building plan shows it to be overall 125
18:24:49 feet in building height.
18:24:50 However, what we measure would be to the 195-foot
18:24:55 height.
18:24:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many additional feet over the
18:24:58 195 is the actual building?
18:25:02 >>> Top of the penthouse I believe is 225.
18:25:09 So your question in terms of a density, what could
18:25:15 they build today?
18:25:17 RM 35, 35 units per acre, they are just shy of an
18:25:21 acre.
18:25:22 I believe they are asking with this approval
18:25:26 additional nine units.
18:25:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So right now, there would be about
18:25:33 33 units to the acre theoretically?
18:25:36 >>> Right.
18:25:37 >>: Could they get 33 units at the 125-feet height
18:25:43 that is currently approved?
18:25:44 I guess it depends on the property.
18:25:47 >>> Yes, it would depend on the size of the unit.

18:25:50 >> Thank you.
18:25:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think Mr. Dingfelder answered my
18:25:58 concerns.
18:25:58 Based on the zoning, RM 35, 195, and at the top of the
18:26:04 penthouse 225.
18:26:05 Okay.
18:26:05 Something else you did earlier that I didn't
18:26:07 understand when you were talking about at the 7th
18:26:13 floor there's some sort of encroach: Is that a
18:26:17 waiver?
18:26:18 >>> Under the planned development district, setbacks
18:26:20 are something that the developer needs to demonstrate
18:26:23 to City Council, that they are compatible with the
18:26:26 surrounding area.
18:26:27 In terms of staff's review, we feel that the proposed
18:26:30 design is compatible with the character of the area,
18:26:34 and pattern of development in the area.
18:26:36 We are not objecting to the proposed setbacks.
18:26:38 I'm sure their presentation is going to go in detail
18:26:42 up to the design of the building.
18:26:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you very much.
18:26:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was one of the questions.

18:26:49 The RM 35, what would be the setback on the Bayshore
18:26:56 for the RM 35?
18:26:58 >>GLORIA MOREDA: The required setback is 25 feet.
18:27:00 And then once the building exceeds 30 fate, you divide
18:27:04 that additional height by two, and you have to add an
18:27:08 additional setback for each.
18:27:12 >> So as we go up.
18:27:16 >>> I have to do the math.
18:27:17 >> No, no, that's not my question.
18:27:19 This drawing is way too big to be --
18:27:25 >>> I have an illustration.
18:27:26 >>: What is the setback rate now?
18:27:28 >>> Oh, they are proposing 94 feet 3 inches.
18:27:32 From Bayshore.
18:27:34 The setback that they are in are indicating 94 feet 3
18:27:39 inches.
18:27:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ:
18:27:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How tall is that building?
18:27:55 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Actually, I think Citivest, 255 is
18:28:00 what I'm hearing.
18:28:02 >> 24 stories?
18:28:03 >>> Pretty tall.

18:28:04 I believe Citivest did that as well.
18:28:08 >> And that's the only building in that piece of
18:28:14 driveway there, I guess at Bayshore, the only one
18:28:18 right now, other than --
18:28:22 >>> The property here, this is Isabella and Bay to
18:28:24 Bay.
18:28:25 I believe council is reviewing a request for a
18:28:27 high-rise in that area.
18:28:29 Right now, I believe ten stories, maybe 100 feet.
18:28:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We need clarification.
18:28:47 We don't want to get anything wrong on the record.
18:28:49 The building that attaches right there, I think four
18:28:52 or five stories.
18:28:53 >>> Really?
18:28:54 >> Yes.
18:28:54 I thought it was taller too.
18:28:56 But during the hearing we had on the view apartments I
18:28:59 asked that question.
18:28:59 And they said, no, four or five stories.
18:29:02 I know.
18:29:04 >>> Well, I think maybe that's one thing, the approved
18:29:07 PD is for 100 feet rate now.

18:29:10 >> And then the other building I think is a bit
18:29:12 taller, that U shaped building there.
18:29:18 >>> You know, this is the area of the property.
18:29:21 You'll see RM 35.
18:29:25 All this area here is zoned RM-35 and it does allow
18:29:29 for 120 feet of height.
18:29:31 The areas that are RM-50, 200 feet of height.
18:29:37 The RM 75 has no height limit as long as you're able
18:29:42 to design it to meet the required setbacks for that
18:29:45 height.
18:29:46 You know, this area historically has been an area that
18:29:52 allows for the high-rise development.
18:29:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How many in that area --
18:30:00 >>> I don't think there are many that exist there
18:30:02 except for the --
18:30:06 >> And then going through --
18:30:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For downtown?
18:30:14 >>> For downtown
18:30:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Moreda, the plan that was done
18:30:31 when I was a young planner which was awhile back like
18:30:33 the mid 70s, actually 76, 77, and we had a lot of
18:30:38 development on Bayshore at the time.

18:30:39 And it identified certain sites as appropriate for
18:30:41 high-rise development.
18:30:43 And the other areas stay in single-family homes or
18:30:49 lower development.
18:30:50 Have you been able to research and find out?
18:30:53 >>> I contacted the Planning Commission at your
18:30:55 request.
18:30:57 Their librarian was not available and has been out, I
18:31:00 guess for the holiday possibly.
18:31:02 But I was not able to track that document.
18:31:05 I did ask Del Acosta if he recalls working on that,
18:31:09 and he did indicate -- he remembered the study, many
18:31:14 years ago.
18:31:16 Council, this area, there was a large area of Bayshore
18:31:19 that did have a high-rise designation, residential
18:31:23 high-rise under the old zoning code, and there were
18:31:26 areas that have been down-zoned, you know, from those
18:31:30 early days.
18:31:35 But this RM 35 has been in place since 1987.
18:31:39 So if there was a study back in the 70s, I would
18:31:44 suspect that the -- through zoning and the properties
18:31:49 that were given the RM,.

18:31:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
18:32:08 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:32:10 I have been sworn in, Mr. Shelby.
18:32:18 Ms. Moreda has done a very good job giving you the
18:32:21 particulars and I will give awe few things in the
18:32:23 interest of the people approximate in the audience
18:32:25 this evening. The CMU 35 as you all referred to, and
18:32:29 of course you already told them about the eating
18:32:33 place, Mr. Dingfelder, so I am not going to go there.
18:32:36 R-35, R 50, the area over here, R-83.
18:32:42 So you have two of the land use territories here,
18:32:48 R-50, which is the apartment complex and this has a
18:32:58 site height of about 255 feet.
18:33:01 Proposed request would go up to 225 feet as Mrs.
18:33:04 Moreda had stated.
18:33:06 There's low density office directly to the north of
18:33:08 this.
18:33:09 Of course we know if there's a couple of uses to the
18:33:12 north.
18:33:13 The synagogue, the school, the women's garden club,
18:33:17 the apartment, the Crosstown expressway directly to
18:33:20 the west and Bayshore to the east.

18:33:24 The request as you know is for a high-rise.
18:33:28 The request is consistent with policies regarding
18:33:31 development of like uses and mitigation.
18:33:36 Also talks about exceeding the requirements of all
18:33:38 land development regulations which is contained in
18:33:41 policy of the land use element, as the project
18:33:44 proposes retention of a community park component on
18:33:47 the site which is currently serves as, which the
18:33:52 developer says will maintain at their own expense,
18:33:55 with the development city.
18:33:56 I know the development being it is up for negotiation
18:33:59 at this point in time.
18:34:00 But what would be the intent of the time this report
18:34:05 was written.
18:34:06 The applicant has also agreed to additional funding,
18:34:08 as Ms. Moreda had stated, for intersection
18:34:11 improvement, some of which can be used for aesthetic
18:34:14 features and pedestrian amenities, providing community
18:34:17 parking area within the proposed structure as well as
18:34:19 drinking fountains, bike stands, and additional public
18:34:21 facilities for members of the general public who take
18:34:24 advantage of the Bayshore for recreational views.

18:34:27 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed request
18:34:29 consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not
18:34:31 object.
18:34:34 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:34:37 Within the -- pursuant to what was before you this
18:34:42 morning in terms of setting a public hearing, there
18:34:44 was a development agreement that was moving forward
18:34:47 with this rezoning.
18:34:49 However, that was thought to have been required as a
18:34:52 result of a belief that there was a bonus density
18:34:55 required but also required a development agreement.
18:34:57 In looking at it, that's the condition which Ms.
18:35:02 Moreda red saying we would work toward the development
18:35:07 agreements which would have to be approved prayer to
18:35:09 first building permit that would allow us the
18:35:11 opportunity to review and negotiate with the developer
18:35:14 as to what the appropriate method is to preserve the
18:35:17 open space and the parking and allow those rezoning to
18:35:20 go forth.
18:35:21 I wanted to clarify that for the record.
18:35:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:35:25 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: My address is suite 3700 Bank of

18:35:37 America Plaza.
18:35:39 And I have the pleasure of representing Citivest
18:35:43 construction and bill Robinson, and we are also joined
18:35:49 by Joe Palalia, architect of record, the architect,
18:35:56 Steve Henry, transportation engineer.
18:35:59 They are all available to make a presentation to you
18:36:01 this evening and answer any questions that you may
18:36:03 have.
18:36:04 And we also have some set-up to answer many of the
18:36:10 questions that Mr. Dingfelder raised already.
18:36:12 We anticipated a break between the 5:30 and 6:00
18:36:16 agenda and after I do my opening comments Bill will
18:36:18 come after me and we'll show you some boards to show
18:36:20 you the project that we are very proud of and we
18:36:22 appreciate your approval this evening.
18:36:28 Obviously now where it is, on Bay to Bay and Bayshore.
18:36:32 And we have put together a development agreement to
18:36:37 solidify the park improvement which will occupy the
18:36:43 first 90 feet of the frontage on Bayshore, where the
18:36:47 required setback is 25 feet.
18:36:49 To give you some basic figures, the current zoning of
18:36:54 the RM 35 provides an entitlement of 31 units.

18:36:59 Our request this evening is for 40 units.
18:37:04 RM 35 provides a height of 120 feet with a two-to-one
18:37:13 ratio setback beginning at 30 feet.
18:37:17 This evening we are going to ask for approval at 195
18:37:20 feet, which will be the top of the living area.
18:37:25 So you have a difference of 75 fate.
18:37:30 To visualize that, think of in a horizontal
18:37:33 perspective a single-family zoning lot in the RM-75 is
18:37:38 75 feet of width.
18:37:39 If you look down the street 75 feet, that's the
18:37:42 increase in height.
18:37:43 Put it another way, could you stack two houses on top
18:37:46 of each other, 35 feet and 35 feet, would give you 70.
18:37:49 So you're almost at 75 feet.
18:37:52 That will give you a perspective of putting two,
18:37:56 two-story houses on top of each other.
18:37:58 That's the extra hate we are asking for, to give you a
18:38:00 vertical and horizontal perspective.
18:38:04 The planned category R-50 which allows the density, we
18:38:10 are not maxing out the project.
18:38:11 We are going to 40 units.
18:38:13 Above 195 feet, the project will have the mechanical

18:38:17 area which is called nonregulated height under chapter
18:38:22 27, section 97.
18:38:26 So the top of the building would be 225 feet.
18:38:32 To try to give you some figures to evaluate this
18:38:36 evening.
18:38:37 Some general items in no particular order, the project
18:38:43 would require 67 parking spaces, we are putting in 125
18:38:46 parking spaces.
18:38:48 35 of those will be dedicated to the public for the
18:38:53 park we are going to build.
18:38:54 They will have a dedicated right in, right out
18:38:56 driveway on Bay to Bay.
18:38:59 There's a note on the site plan that provides for
18:39:01 that.
18:39:01 Marty Boyle has that.
18:39:04 The residential and access will be on Isabella
18:39:08 access -- Avenue which is the access behind it.
18:39:11 There are two front yards on the project.
18:39:13 One on Bayshore and one on Isabella.
18:39:17 The Isabella front yard will be 25 feet, and then it
18:39:21 will set back as the building rises.
18:39:30 Transportation impact fee will be paid on a per unit

18:39:34 basis.
18:39:35 We are also providing mitigation at the rate of $1,000
18:39:38 per unit for $40 that you mitigation for Bayshore and
18:39:41 Bay to Bay.
18:39:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you pork chopping that right
18:39:49 in, right out?
18:39:51 >>> No.
18:39:52 I don't know the condition in front of me.
18:39:54 It will be a channelized right in, right out.
18:39:56 You probably could put a pork chop.
18:39:57 They call it a road channelization, I believe, to
18:40:00 force that turn to the right.
18:40:05 There will be a contribution part of the project cost
18:40:08 which the developers will be funding that also.
18:40:13 Those are the nuts and bolts of the project.
18:40:15 If you go into the staff report, Mr. Garcia
18:40:24 comprehensively handled his report.
18:40:26 I would like to mention to you that he has found the
18:40:28 project is in compliance with the goals, objectives
18:40:30 and policies of the comprehensive plans.
18:40:34 He's also made a finding when he had the planned
18:40:37 development such as this, that you review that on a

18:40:39 case-by-case basis.
18:40:41 And the plan policy says verbatim during the rezoning
18:40:46 process this is negotiable, and that is applied on an
18:40:49 individual case-by-case basis.
18:40:51 I have worked on countless planned development
18:40:54 projects before you, and I could tell that you this is
18:40:57 one of the most innovative projects I have worked on
18:41:01 as far as give and take with the city and trying to
18:41:03 achieve a public purpose and a quality residential
18:41:07 project.
18:41:07 And I think that's being achieved with the public park
18:41:09 and the dedication of parking to the citizens of
18:41:12 Tampa.
18:41:13 When bill comes forward he's going to give you more
18:41:16 details, also David Connor who has done a marvelous
18:41:19 job on the landscape architecture will give you more
18:41:22 detail.
18:41:22 I think you will find it very impressive.
18:41:24 City staff has found no objections.
18:41:28 Hartline has in a objections.
18:41:30 Tampa Police Department.
18:41:31 You can go all down the line.

18:41:33 The Bayshore patriots have taken an active position in
18:41:37 this project because they have an interest in the
18:41:40 park.
18:41:41 Julie is going to speak to you, has a statement in
18:41:44 support of the project.
18:41:45 They have also spearheaded, along with our clients, a
18:41:50 petition drive, literally at the park, showing folks
18:41:54 reduced copy of the site plan, and requesting a
18:41:57 signature of the petition.
18:41:58 That petition says, quote, I am not in opposition to
18:42:02 the accompanying site plans that provide for community
18:42:05 park, called patriot park, with 35 dedicated parking
18:42:08 spaces under an 18-story, 40-unit residential
18:42:12 condominium.
18:42:13 In addition, shall have is 50,000 public art element
18:42:18 to be funded by developer, and then attached to the
18:42:20 site plan is a detailed petition page with 35
18:42:25 signatures per page.
18:42:26 These total 336 signatures.
18:42:29 I would like to provide these to Mr. Shelby and ask
18:42:32 they be filed in the record.
18:42:42 I would like to introduce bill and Rae serve the

18:42:44 remainder of our comments for rebuttal.
18:42:47 Bill, if you will come forward, please.
18:42:49 A few moments to set up.
18:42:56 >> This counts towards the petitioner's time?
18:42:59 And you reserve whatever time you don't reserve for
18:43:02 rebuttal.
18:43:03 That's what you meant?
18:43:04 >>> Yes.
18:43:06 Bill: I need to be sworn.
18:43:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else that needs to be sworn in,
18:43:12 would you please stand and raise your right hand?
18:43:18 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:43:24 >>> William Robinson, Citivest construction at 3014
18:43:27 west Palmetto Avenue, suite 300.
18:43:35 We are hear on a petition to rezone.
18:43:39 But that describes our administrative process.
18:43:43 Rather, I belief ware hear to present a design
18:43:45 solution, combining both the community and the key
18:43:52 interests of this site, within a -- what I would call
18:43:56 a living residential context.
18:44:05 It is usually a more difficult proposition but in this
18:44:07 instance I believe we have managed to balance the two

18:44:10 successfully.
18:44:12 We have been guided by design principles and with that
18:44:17 we have come up with as I say a design solution to
18:44:21 this site honoring not only the residential component,
18:44:25 but also to provide a secure parking area for the
18:44:32 residents and community, to enter into the garage.
18:44:38 I think the hours of operation are going to be from
18:44:40 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. at night.
18:44:43 And then onto an element that is preserved in
18:44:48 perpetuity and maintained by the developer and then
18:44:56 beyond that to the condominium association through
18:44:58 their monthly dues.
18:45:00 I have a short PowerPoint I would like to show, which
18:45:03 might help with some of the other questions and we
18:45:08 have some boards that we would like to show after
18:45:10 that.
18:45:16 This is going over the existing uses.
18:45:21 And the design challenges that we have with regard to
18:45:24 what the existing uses are, how it's being used
18:45:29 currently in the sketch of the design solutions to
18:45:36 those challenges.
18:45:40 Here's the existing uses.

18:45:42 If you are not familiar with this site it's basically
18:45:44 a parking and arrival and departure access to Bayshore
18:45:49 and linear park element, in our mind.
18:45:53 But it's being used as well for passive enjoyment, for
18:45:58 recreation purposes, and for celebration demonstration
18:46:05 menu, namely Bayshore patriot group and others.
18:46:14 To show you what's going on with the parking and the
18:46:17 departure element, accessing Bayshore, as you can see
18:46:21 in this slight there's a great Dale of cars on this
18:46:24 site.
18:46:27 I've spent many hours on-site Mace, and believe that
18:46:31 the 35 spaces that we are providing, I'd say 98% of
18:46:38 the time the cars that are parked there right now on a
18:46:43 daily basis.
18:46:44 Here's another shot of the site, vantage point from
18:46:48 the corner of Bayshore and Bay to Bay.
18:46:57 >> Can you go back one?
18:46:59 Go ahead one.
18:47:01 That's the corner that everybody refers to as the
18:47:03 Bayshore patriot corner, correct?
18:47:05 >>> Yes, sir.
18:47:06 >> That's at the corner of Bay to Bay and -- okay, and

18:47:09 Bayshore.
18:47:12 >>> At the corner of the two streets.
18:47:14 >> The little monument and the flag is in public
18:47:18 right-of-way, correct?
18:47:21 >>> Maybe not the flag but the sign is, I believe.
18:47:25 There's an easement or right-of-way created for a
18:47:30 future turn lane, I believe, to the right.
18:47:33 Coming off of Nebraska.
18:47:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does anybody on staff have a sure
18:47:41 answer to that?
18:47:42 But the flag is at the end of that sidewalk?
18:47:46 >>> Yes, it's on the property. The flag I believe is
18:47:50 on the property.
18:47:51 Okay, by the survey.
18:47:52 >> Just inside the property line?
18:47:54 Okay, thank you.
18:47:56 >>> Here's another shot showing the parking on the
18:48:04 site right now.
18:48:04 >> Are there any pictures that show the grand tree
18:48:07 that you are having removed?
18:48:10 >>> That right there.
18:48:11 You see the tree in the background there?

18:48:14 >> Which one?
18:48:16 >>> In the center of the three trees.
18:48:21 >> The one with the flag at the top?
18:48:23 >>> No, sir.
18:48:35 To the left.
18:48:35 >>: The one in the sent?
18:48:50 >>> This is another shot showing how the cars are
18:48:53 aligned.
18:48:54 Normally around the perimeter.
18:49:08 The 6th story at the top.
18:49:14 The parking lots, some people use it for passive
18:49:16 enjoyment.
18:49:18 There's one park bench on the site right now, when
18:49:22 people come to read, and pass the day, have discussion
18:49:35 There's some Rick ration.
18:49:38 I caught a shot of a couple boys playing bunt ball on
18:49:42 the site.
18:49:45 Then there's a celebration and demonstration menu.
18:49:48 This is of course a larger shot of Bayshore, from
18:49:54 Gasparilla.
18:49:55 This is the Bayshore patriots that councilman
18:49:59 Dingfelder was just referring to.

18:50:01 And this is a demonstration, a celebration, if you
18:50:05 will, along the Bayshore, right at the front of the
18:50:12 property.
18:50:13 And this is the day that President Bush came by.
18:50:18 Then we come onto the design challenges.
18:50:24 I looked at this and said is there a way at the to
18:50:27 continue to provide for these existing uses?
18:50:31 And are there any ordinances that would support this
18:50:36 concept, and if so how to apply them to the site?
18:50:44 This is the design solution that utilizes the design
18:50:48 district and incorporate public as well.
18:50:58 Unfortunately that is tough to read.
18:51:00 But this is chapter 27-328, which sketches the same
18:51:05 bonus provisions in the elements and the site plan
18:51:09 zoning district that staff alluded to earlier with
18:51:13 regard to providing a bonus provision for additional
18:51:20 units.
18:51:20 And we comply with the you don't just comply with one,
18:51:27 you comply with the three.
18:51:29 And providing a public facility, park, or structured
18:51:37 parking, and also access to water elements, water
18:51:42 resources.

18:51:43 So on those three counts, we believe we comply and I
18:51:49 belief staff concurs, chapter 27-328.
18:51:55 And this subpoena the first conceptual site plan.
18:52:00 You see the green area and the community park element.
18:52:09 As appointed out in setbacks that you see, 94 feet 3
18:52:13 inches, and the parks element itself is greater than
18:52:18 15 that you square feet.
18:52:22 About 40% of the total site.
18:52:26 So this was the initial, conceptual approach to how to
18:52:34 accomplish the design challenges, vis-a-vis our design
18:52:41 solution, and that we have used this original concept
18:52:44 and modified the course over time with the staff.
18:52:48 And I wanted you to see and understand for the first
18:52:51 time the amount of elements that is -- the amount of
18:52:57 elements, and just the red is the green space itself
18:53:02 through these various routes.
18:53:08 Here's statistics for the site, that people are
18:53:11 interested in.
18:53:12 The area of the site is 38,886 square feet.
18:53:17 38,886.
18:53:21 The total open space is 25,276, which brings to a
18:53:30 total of 65% of the total site which is open.

18:53:48 The community park as I said earlier is 15,264.
18:53:53 And residential F.A.R., going on in the Channel
18:54:03 District with the plans going on there.
18:54:07 2.3 to one, the residents to F.A.R.
18:54:12 Then we come to another element of our design solution
18:54:15 which is the public art element.
18:54:22 Again the Tampa code in chapter 4 supports the public
18:54:26 art element.
18:54:28 And it discusses generally where the public art
18:54:32 element is required.
18:54:34 I apologize.
18:54:35 I thought this would come up a little better.
18:54:37 It did on my computer.
18:54:39 But it really discusses office buildings, mals and
18:54:49 these kind of places.
18:54:50 What's happening is residential condominium.
18:54:52 There is no provision for public art in a residential
18:54:54 condominium context.
18:54:56 We have decided to go ahead and incorporate one in the
18:55:01 site.
18:55:02 I met with Robin Nigh, David and I did, and she was
18:55:08 very receptive to the idea that we were basically

18:55:10 volunteering the public art element as opposed to
18:55:13 being required to.
18:55:16 And actually we discussed a lot of conceptual ideas
18:55:19 and how we have a call to artists and things like
18:55:22 that.
18:55:22 And she gave public art promotions, this is the one
18:55:33 they like on downtown buildings.
18:55:37 And of course a number of initiatives.
18:55:41 And the procedure for how we are going to go about the
18:55:44 public art element, which is Ms. Neigh's suggestion,
18:55:48 is to issue a call to artists, and then they would use
18:55:51 what she describes as a best practice public arts
18:55:54 process.
18:56:01 We would reach out to qualified artists to submit
18:56:04 proposals.
18:56:05 The intent is to award a $50,000 public art
18:56:08 commission, to be incorporated in the park element.
18:56:17 That is the end of the slide show and the PowerPoint.
18:56:23 I'm going to take a minute now to introduce Joe Delao
18:56:30 who is the architect of the project and will get into
18:56:32 some of the boards and things like that.
18:56:35 And thank you very much.

18:56:36 >>CHAIRMAN: Before you leave we have a question for
18:56:38 you from Mrs. Alvarez.
18:56:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: My question is, on the park that
18:56:48 you're planning to do and so on, who is going to
18:56:50 maintain that park?
18:56:52 >>> The residents of the condominium.
18:56:55 Through their fees.
18:56:57 >> But you're going to have a landscape person there
18:57:00 all the time, cleaning the restrooms and so on?
18:57:03 >>> Yes, ma'am.
18:57:03 There would also be a restroom provided.
18:57:06 >> How many restrooms?
18:57:08 >>> There will be one restroom embedded into the
18:57:13 parking garage on the way out to the park.
18:57:15 >> And so they will be maintained by the association?
18:57:20 >>> Yes, ma'am.
18:57:21 That's the intent of the developer.
18:57:23 We drafted a 53 page development agreement under the
18:57:27 notion that we had to have it ready.
18:57:29 And that was changed at the last second.
18:57:32 So just merely put a note on the plan.
18:57:34 But we are well into, as I say, a detailed development

18:57:38 agreement and description of how all the amenities
18:57:43 would be maintained by the association in perpetuity.
18:57:47 >> Okay.
18:57:48 And according to this it's under review?
18:57:58 >>> A draft version was submitted to Land Development
18:58:01 Coordination for their review and for legal
18:58:04 department's review, and we were in the middle of that
18:58:10 review, then what came through to me was that there
18:58:15 had been really a note that we needed to put on the
18:58:18 plan, is that correct?
18:58:25 >>JULIA COLE: We are in the process of reviewing with
18:58:28 the Parks Department.
18:58:29 We haven't had an opportunity to look at it.
18:58:32 We did receive it maybe a week or two weeks ago and we
18:58:35 were in the process of reviewing it in order to have
18:58:36 something to move forward with the public hearing, you
18:58:38 were going to schedule this morning.
18:58:40 However, we felt in order to allow them to move
18:58:43 forward today without continuance the note that was
18:58:46 added to the site plan allowing us the opportunity to
18:58:49 take more review Mrs. Alvarez is asking now to allow
18:58:55 us that time to have that reviewed appropriately. The

18:58:58 note allows us that opportunity so we can bring it
18:59:01 back to you.
18:59:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When did you purchase this
18:59:10 property?
18:59:11 >>> Approximately a year ago.
18:59:13 >> One year ago?
18:59:14 >>> Yes, sir.
18:59:15 >> And I guess I'm confused because everybody keeps
18:59:19 referring to it as a park.
18:59:21 Did you purchase it from the city, the city has been
18:59:22 using it as a parking lot?
18:59:25 >>> No, sir.
18:59:29 I bought it from a private citizen.
18:59:32 The city has a lease.
18:59:34 And there was a surviving lease which is basically a
18:59:37 60-day lease.
18:59:40 There was an original lease created a long time ago.
18:59:43 The initial lease expired.
18:59:45 60-day lease.
18:59:50 >> So the city had been merely a tenant there for the
18:59:53 last X number of years?
18:59:55 I don't know.

18:59:55 Does anyone know how many years it's been, Julia?
18:59:58 Five years?
19:00:01 >>> The lease was executed in 1998 and has a five-year
19:00:05 initial time with an automatic renewal of one year.
19:00:09 >> So it's been about eight years.
19:00:11 >>> So since 98 has been the initial time and on a
19:00:14 year to year lease with a 60-day termination clause.
19:00:16 >>: So you purchased it a year ago?
19:00:21 >>> Yes, sir.
19:00:21 >> When you purchased it, were you aware of the zoning
19:00:27 that was on there?
19:00:33 >>> RM 35, yes.
19:00:36 >>: Were you aware of the limitations on the zoning
19:00:40 that was there?
19:00:41 >>> I reviewed the RM 35 zoning district, yes.
19:00:44 >> You were aware of the height limitations that were
19:00:46 on there?
19:00:47 >>> Yes, sir.
19:00:48 >> The reason I ask is some people come in to us and
19:00:50 say I wasn't aware of it, I was an innocent purchaser,
19:00:53 and that sort of thing
19:01:00 And how about the density?

19:01:01 Were you aware under the RMU 35 that you were limited
19:01:04 to only approximately 31 units?
19:01:08 I just wanted to get that clear.
19:01:10 >>> The so-called as-of-right entitlement.
19:01:16 >>CHAIRMAN: You may call up your next person.
19:01:19 >>> Joseph.
19:01:25 >> Could you give a check on the time remaining
19:01:27 please?
19:01:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just asking the question to
19:01:31 make sure.
19:01:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Grandoff, can I ask you a
19:01:46 question?
19:01:47 When these petitions were signed, were the people
19:01:57 signing them under the impression it was going to be
19:01:59 an 18 story or were you going to ask for an additional
19:02:02 75 feet?
19:02:06 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: The plan is the actual plan.
19:02:09 Yes, it is.
19:02:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other question about the
19:02:13 petitioner.
19:02:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I thought you said -- I was under the
19:02:25 impression it was going to be like 24 stories.

19:02:32 >>> No.
19:02:32 No.
19:02:33 18.
19:02:33 >> Including the 75 feet?
19:02:35 >>> Yes.
19:02:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
19:02:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the majority of those
19:02:40 petitions --
19:02:41 >>> The majority were signed actually on the property.
19:02:44 >> Recently?
19:02:45 >>> Yes.
19:02:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: how many petitions did you say you
19:02:48 had there?
19:02:49 >>> 336.
19:02:50 >> What is the zip code for this property?
19:02:52 Is it 33629?
19:02:55 >>> It may be 29 or 11.
19:02:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 29.
19:03:00 I wanted to clarify.
19:03:01 Because I counted 36 of those 300 were 33629.
19:03:06 I wanted to clarify that.
19:03:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: A lot of them from the Clearwater

19:03:10 Largo area.
19:03:11 >>> This is the park concept.
19:03:13 People are coming from across the street and as far
19:03:16 away as Sulphur Springs to come use the park so
19:03:19 there's a definite need for it.
19:03:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you ready?
19:03:33 >>> Joe Galaia, FACC architects, and I want to go
19:03:42 through with you the shape of the building.
19:03:44 In looking at the site, I noticed it's a corner site.
19:03:50 The most important thing to me about it was it was on
19:03:52 Bayshore Boulevard which is on the Hillsborough.
19:03:58 So I thought what would be an ideal or aesthetic
19:04:03 metaphor that could apply to this building that would
19:04:05 be somewhat unique and innovative, and I thought of
19:04:09 the idea of ways of coming together, and the idea here
19:04:16 is that three would come together in an ideal shape
19:04:19 that would create a plan where three apartments would
19:04:25 be laid out within that ideal shape.
19:04:29 The curves and the crest that you see actually are
19:04:34 three apartments.
19:04:42 Become, say, balconies in front and rear.
19:04:46 Taking that one step further I thought how would it

19:04:48 look in 3-D?
19:04:50 I have pictures to explain the idea.
19:04:59 Taking a plan three ways and extruding it up to create
19:05:02 a building became a challenge.
19:05:03 But what happened is that it creates a very soft
19:05:10 profile on the skyline, and also curving the shapes,
19:05:14 and some reflectivity would allow for different
19:05:21 reflections of different views of the area so the
19:05:23 curve form would be a soft silhouette that I think
19:05:27 would be very exciting and I think different skyline
19:05:30 am and my feeling is that it would create really a
19:05:34 landmark to the intersection of Bay to Bay and
19:05:39 Bayshore Boulevard.
19:05:48 >>GWEN MILLER: That's it?
19:05:49 Okay.
19:05:49 Does council have any questions?
19:05:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:05:54 When you were looking at pictures of one that was
19:05:56 along the facade, what direction at the southwest
19:06:01 corner, the upper left-hand corner.
19:06:08 I Psalm that's the parking structure?
19:06:09 >>> Yes.

19:06:10 This is the Isabella south, which has parking to three
19:06:16 levels.
19:06:17 There's actually an entrance, residential.
19:06:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: (off microphone).
19:06:28 >>> I'm sorry?
19:06:29 35.
19:06:31 I'm sorry.
19:06:34 Public.
19:06:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I guess I would be calling it visitor
19:06:42 parking spaces?
19:06:49 >>> We have 125 cars total.
19:06:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that only for the residents there?
19:06:54 Or --
19:06:58 >>> 55 of that is for public.
19:07:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
19:07:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:07:02 would like to speak on item number 10?
19:07:07 Mr. Grandoff, do you have some more?
19:07:12 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: David Connor the landscape architect
19:07:16 will have a brief presentation for us.
19:07:28 >>> It's always exciting when a developer comes to you
19:07:30 with something that's got something to give to the

19:07:34 community.
19:07:34 And what's really exciting about this is not only is
19:07:37 it a park opportunity but the context of the design
19:07:41 that Joe has created gives an environmental concept,
19:07:44 which really appeals to me.
19:07:46 And it's something that we wanted to take advantage of
19:07:49 when we began to design the site.
19:07:52 There's natural occurrences with arrivals at buildings
19:07:57 like this.
19:07:57 We have to elevate the front of the building.
19:07:59 And this building would set up slightly above Bayshore
19:08:04 Boulevard.
19:08:05 It's actually 14 is the ground level where we are at 7
19:08:11 at the road, which is a nice 7-foot differentiation
19:08:15 between the road.
19:08:16 It's a very nice pedestrian scale and it allowed us
19:08:19 the opportunity to create a really beautiful park-like
19:08:24 setting that is really a pocket park for Bayshore, a
19:08:28 place where one photograph which I haven't seen as
19:08:31 really compelling is where all of the patriots stood
19:08:34 along the road and raised their flag.
19:08:36 And we have wanted to maintain that throughout this

19:08:40 project.
19:08:40 So the park, which is now pretty much concentrated
19:08:44 with a flagpole at the intersection, we maintained
19:08:48 that but extend the park along the front of the
19:08:54 property and we have used the grade separation through
19:08:56 here to incorporate our public art element.
19:09:01 So we are going to take the public park and actually
19:09:04 collaborate together to use functional art as a part
19:09:07 of our grade separation and we are going to take the
19:09:11 idea of this being environmentally oriented concept,
19:09:16 and we are take those down to the space and we brought
19:09:21 the waves of the building down into the space and ware
19:09:24 going to use the water as an element to communicate
19:09:27 the idea of the importance of the environment, and the
19:09:30 importance of water on our properties.
19:09:33 And to the extent possible, will we use any of the
19:09:37 rain water that we have within the property as a part
19:09:39 of this water feature?
19:09:43 A water feature is on a raised platform which will
19:09:48 give outstanding views out to the bay, and to Bayshore
19:09:51 Boulevard, and then there is a water wall which
19:09:55 actually you kind of can't see it because of the tree.

19:09:59 But this connects the water from the building out to
19:10:01 this linear wall.
19:10:03 So as you drive down Bayshore Boulevard, you'll see
19:10:05 this public art element that is an elevated wall.
19:10:10 And you will have this space where there are seating
19:10:14 elements in here that allow you the opportunity to sit
19:10:17 here and either look back.
19:10:25 Also elevated about here so you can look at and we
19:10:28 have incorporated more seating near the intersection.
19:10:31 It's really related to the flagpole, which is not
19:10:35 exactly the same location but it's very closely placed
19:10:38 to where it currently sits.
19:10:42 We've worked with Robin Nigh.
19:10:44 We talked about this cone September of an artist
19:10:46 collaboration.
19:10:47 It's something I actually worked with in the past.
19:10:50 Robin.
19:10:50 And we have a history of that.
19:10:52 And she's very excited about it.
19:10:53 The developers have been extremely supportive with the
19:10:58 idea of including that and funding it.
19:11:01 We've also talked about the type of landscape and the

19:11:06 impact of existing trees.
19:11:07 And you saw the one tree that's on-site that's a grand
19:11:10 tree that's really unfortunately in a very highly
19:11:15 stressed state.
19:11:18 So we are committing to replacing that tree with
19:11:23 oversized trees.
19:11:24 We are actually replacing it inch per inch, even
19:11:27 though it is declining, with minimum size 12-inch
19:11:31 trees which we are replace ago round the building.
19:11:35 So the ultimate project we see as being something that
19:11:39 is very much related to the idea of the environment,
19:11:42 public art, and people space is all coming together.
19:11:45 Thank you.
19:11:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
19:11:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sir, what was your name again?
19:11:52 >>> David Connor.
19:11:53 I'm sorry.
19:11:54 >> Mr. Connor, the patriot park looks lovely.
19:11:58 The public art is nice.
19:11:59 The flagpole is patriotic.
19:12:03 Could you do all of these things with a building
19:12:05 that's 100 feet shorter?

19:12:07 >>> Probably not.
19:12:09 Well, I don't know.
19:12:10 >>: Physically, that's what I mean.
19:12:17 >>> That would be dependent upon how much land I was
19:12:19 given am.
19:12:20 >> That's what I'm saying F. the building were 100
19:12:23 feet shorter just lopped off and you were still given
19:12:25 the same amount of land you could still build the same
19:12:28 park, correct?
19:12:29 >>> If you give me an acre land I'll use an acre of
19:12:32 land.
19:12:33 Whatever you give me.
19:12:34 I think that frankly, I know that the building setback
19:12:39 allows for buildings to come out pretty close.
19:12:43 >> I wasn't asking to you go beyond the realm of your
19:12:46 expertise.
19:12:47 I was just saying if given that same amount of land
19:12:49 and the building behind it is 100 feet shorter you
19:12:52 could still build the same --
19:12:54 >>> Oh, absolutely.
19:12:55 Absolutely.
19:12:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: One more question for you.

19:12:58 Could you point out on your illustration, where is the
19:13:02 restroom we were talking about?
19:13:04 Where is that going to be?
19:13:05 >>> That's a great point.
19:13:06 The public parking is accessed through this driveway
19:13:10 right here.
19:13:11 And so everybody will be parking here and coming out
19:13:14 and going through the park through this area.
19:13:17 And the restroom is located right there at the
19:13:19 building in that entrance point.
19:13:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't have a real problem with that.
19:13:29 Conceptually will be there signage for people using
19:13:32 the park showing there is a public restroom?
19:13:36 For the joggers, the walkers that are enjoying the
19:13:39 Bayshore, that they would even know that there is a
19:13:41 restroom facility in a public park anywhere along the
19:13:44 4. some odd miles of the Bayshore?
19:13:49 >>> That's another great point.
19:13:50 Because in the preparation of the document we have
19:13:51 been referring to, whatever-page document, we have had
19:13:55 a number of discussions, and one point specifically is
19:13:58 that we provide for a sign that tells the people that

19:14:03 are using the park about the parking and about the
19:14:07 restroom space, and we also have incorporated a doggy
19:14:14 station and drinking for pets, and also provided for
19:14:20 public drinking fountain these in the park area.
19:14:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have more speakers?
19:14:30 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yes.
19:14:30 Are you finished?
19:14:32 Madam clerk, time, please?
19:14:35 Okay.
19:14:35 Ware going to show you some models that bill and Joe
19:14:40 prepared to give you some three dimensional
19:14:42 perspective.
19:14:42 If you give us one moment.
19:16:26 >>> We have the two scale model here.
19:16:29 To scale is 1 to 30.
19:16:32 We are showing from Bay to Bay Boulevard, the first
19:16:40 site there.
19:16:47 The next building, beyond that next to that --
19:17:10 This is a town whose project.
19:17:13 These are the Bay Oaks apartments.
19:17:16 This is single-family home.
19:17:18 This is the Monte Carlo.

19:17:24 Our building will be the context as you see hear now.
19:17:32 What we are trying to graphically show is how we are
19:17:40 compatible pursuant to site plan, PD zoning district,
19:17:43 which calls for and allows for increased height.
19:17:50 If you show compatibility with the properties, there's
19:18:00 a graphic example of how it fits in with the
19:18:03 streetscape from Bay to Bay on Monte Carlo.
19:18:10 At that point
19:18:20 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: that concludes our presentation at
19:18:23 this time.
19:18:24 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make a conversation.
19:18:29 As said before models make a --
19:18:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:18:34 would like to speak on item 10?
19:18:36 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: We appreciate your attention.
19:18:40 We request your approval.
19:18:42 >>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak, please come
19:18:45 up and speak.
19:18:47 Don't sit down and wait.
19:18:48 Get up and speak.
19:18:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: an and don't be shy.
19:18:52 We have a long night.

19:18:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again please reaffirm you have been
19:18:58 sworn.
19:18:59 >>> My name is Gary Hexly, I have been sworn in,
19:19:03 address 2401 Bayshore.
19:19:11 I'm also the president of the homeowners association.
19:19:29 I have a couple of comments.
19:19:30 First of all, I'd like to speak as a resident of the
19:19:34 neighborhood and I have a few questions regarding the
19:19:42 public park.
19:19:45 I would first like to say I'm very sad that this
19:19:50 property is being developed at all, as it appears to
19:19:52 be the very last vacant property of what is an
19:19:57 historic area, and it's a shame that that's not
19:20:01 preserved for the type property, but I understand
19:20:07 these not the topic.
19:20:26 What are the park hours?
19:20:28 Is this park property public property or private
19:20:31 property?
19:20:32 And assuming it's private property, is the city not
19:20:37 concerned about public use of that?
19:20:43 And are there any restrictions in the use of that
19:20:47 property?

19:20:50 Will security be provided?
19:20:53 Whose problem is security?
19:20:54 Is it a private security problem or city security
19:20:58 problem?
19:21:01 And just generally what would be the rules?
19:21:05 Will residents be locked out at sunset?
19:21:11 I think there's quite a lot of questions that should
19:21:13 be addressed before a public access to that property
19:21:21 would be endorsed.
19:21:27 Now as president of our homeowners association, we
19:21:30 have eleven owners, or actually eleven units.
19:21:33 There's ten owners, of eleven units, that are in the
19:21:37 two-story condominium complex, townhouse.
19:21:41 It's located on the same property, the same block, and
19:21:47 the only property located on that block.
19:21:53 The owners have -- I'm sure you have heard this before
19:21:56 from next door neighbors -- have concerns about the
19:22:01 construction phase, noise, hours of noise, dust and
19:22:07 debris, the subsequent, you know, any statement about
19:22:22 the run-off of water to our property.
19:22:26 We have we haven't investigated anything like that,
19:22:28 but it's certainly a concern.

19:22:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
19:22:34 >>> Thank you very much.
19:22:46 >> Question.
19:22:46 You never really got to what they are asking for is an
19:22:50 increase in height of about, I don't know, it's hard
19:22:52 to figure 70 to 100 feet.
19:22:54 And also an increase in the number of units.
19:22:59 Has your association taken a position on either of
19:23:02 those requests by the developer?
19:23:05 You are the closest neighbor.
19:23:07 I'm looking at this map that appears you have the
19:23:11 units that line up perpendicular with the Bayshore.
19:23:15 >>> Right.
19:23:15 We are very concerned about the traffic.
19:23:17 And on the additional traffic on that corner is -- you
19:23:20 cannot get out of Isabella on Bay to Bay during rush
19:23:29 hour morning as it is now.
19:23:30 >> And that's what they would use as the residents?
19:23:36 >>> Pretty much.
19:23:36 There's a back way you can get out through onto
19:23:39 MacDill, down Santiago.
19:23:42 That's usually, you know, just as congested.

19:23:48 We are pretty much boxed in during traffic situation.
19:23:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was just going to ask what the
19:23:55 height of your development is.
19:23:57 >>> Two story.
19:23:58 I don't know the feet.
19:23:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you know if you're RM 35?
19:24:03 >>> I do not know.
19:24:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
19:24:05 Next.
19:24:08 Is anybody going to speak?
19:24:09 If you are not going to speak we are going to move on.
19:24:13 >>> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
19:24:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
19:24:20 >>> Yes, I have.
19:24:21 And I have one minute of time before I get started,
19:24:23 I'm sorry, one minute of additional time.
19:24:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
19:24:32 Ann Crinella, would you raise your hand?
19:24:36 Thank you.
19:24:38 >>> Some of the comments I heard this evening are park
19:24:40 elements, a park opportunity, utilizing the rain
19:24:45 water, a water well, communicating the idea of an

19:24:50 impact with the environment.
19:24:54 Impact of the environment is going to be another
19:24:57 high-rise on beautiful Bayshore Boulevard.
19:24:59 And this is now zoned RM-35.
19:25:04 And I would think very seriously before you would ever
19:25:08 entertain a pristine, beautiful, scenic, one of a
19:25:13 kind, Bayshore Boulevard to succumb to another tall
19:25:18 building when you don't have to do that.
19:25:21 Now is the time to really pause and think.
19:25:25 I realize that Ms. Cole said there are some issues
19:25:29 that the legal needs to review.
19:25:31 I'm not really sure how you all can decide tonight
19:25:34 before legal reviews all these issues.
19:25:37 There are so many issues associated with this proposed
19:25:42 agreement that raises questions.
19:25:43 And the reason why park element is important is
19:25:47 because what does that many?
19:25:49 Mr. Dingfelder was correct.
19:25:51 This has always been a lease arrangement.
19:25:54 It will be a lease arrangement.
19:25:56 And the lease arrangement has thus far been lawyered
19:26:00 by Citivest lawyers, and based on the review I have

19:26:03 done -- and I have not lawyered it but there are a lot
19:26:05 of significant questions that I would have.
19:26:09 There is again provision where is the city would
19:26:11 indemnify their owners, there's 10 p.m. use
19:26:19 restrictions, there's default termination provisions
19:26:22 in the proposed agreement, and maybe some of this was
19:26:25 going to be changed and looked at.
19:26:28 But your serious responsibility is to say what kind of
19:26:33 situation do we have there, what kind of situation do
19:26:37 we have there, and do we really need to do this?
19:26:41 I dare say that if you all want to make a park, have
19:26:45 at it.
19:26:46 There's a new Supreme Court case right now that
19:26:48 everybody is talking about.
19:26:50 Your rights are pretty strong right now.
19:26:53 Communities can get involved, can help you, we can
19:26:56 create bathrooms, we can create restrooms, we can work
19:26:59 together.
19:27:01 But I dare say that this is not the solution.
19:27:05 I think you know I'm passionate about our city.
19:27:07 I'm not appearing on anybody's behalf tonight but my
19:27:11 own.

19:27:13 And I've got my kids here.
19:27:15 And I just feel very strongly that this is your
19:27:20 legacy.
19:27:20 Thank you.
19:27:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:27:21 Next.
19:27:22 Anyone else want to speak?
19:27:32 >>> Good evening.
19:27:33 I'm George Deek an.
19:27:34 I live at 1408 south Sitella and I have been sworn.
19:27:40 I'm a professional engineer.
19:27:42 And I'm not opposed to the development of this
19:27:45 property.
19:27:46 I'm just concerned about the precedent in terms of
19:27:50 height and density, that if you approve this, the
19:27:56 notice it's going to send.
19:27:59 This is -- they talked about a proposed height of 195
19:28:05 feet, the maximum column, the difference of 75, an
19:28:10 increase of 62.5%.
19:28:13 It's not just a small part.
19:28:15 It's a huge increase.
19:28:25 Approved currently for 31, or to build 31.

19:28:28 The difference is 9, or a 29% difference.
19:28:34 I'm concerned about the message that this will send to
19:28:38 other multifamily property owners.
19:28:44 This is just a small section of the zoning.
19:28:55 Staff knows how many property owners are but for the
19:28:58 sake of the discussion let's say there are a thousand.
19:29:03 The zoning in the city was established for a reason.
19:29:06 It's plan is to enable a planned, orderly development
19:29:11 of the city.
19:29:12 And if you allow these large increases over what is
19:29:16 the current zoning, you're getting important,
19:29:20 long-standing basic elements of the zoning code.
19:29:29 The zoning code or the scheduled area height in the
19:29:35 zoning code, we might as well just take it and tear it
19:29:38 up.
19:29:40 If you approve this, you're sending the message out to
19:29:43 other multifamily owners that they can come in with
19:29:47 their special and unique project and get in.
19:29:53 Thank you for your time.
19:29:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
19:29:56 At the beginning you said something and I wasn't clear
19:29:58 on your intent.

19:29:59 Do you support this proposed rezoning because it's
19:30:02 compatible with the surrounding land uses?
19:30:05 Or do you not?
19:30:06 I wasn't clear.
19:30:07 >>> I support development of the property but under
19:30:09 the current zoning, without the variances of height
19:30:12 and density.
19:30:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:30:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Does that mean that would you
19:30:18 support the current zoning if they never had to come
19:30:22 before this council and they could build whatever they
19:30:24 wanted, however they wanted, whatever?
19:30:28 I mean, there's in a control whatsoever?
19:30:32 >>> The current zoning is RM 35.
19:30:34 And I believe they have a right, a right to develop
19:30:38 their property according to that zoning to the
19:30:41 standards and entitlements of RM 35.
19:30:44 And I have no concern over developing within those
19:30:55 requirements.
19:30:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Next?
19:30:57 Anyone else want to speak?
19:31:00 >>> Julie whitby, Bayshore patriots.

19:31:05 And I have been sworn in.
19:31:08 The Bayshore patriots are deeply appreciative of a
19:31:16 city for first responders and for the U.S., coalition
19:31:20 military personnel based at MacDill Air Force Base
19:31:25 which he would support. The existing Bayshore and Bay
19:31:27 to Bay Boulevard offers a uniquely convenient public
19:31:30 and scenic location for the activities of the Bayshore
19:31:32 patriots, as well as providing the only convenient
19:31:36 public access for recreational use of linear park
19:31:41 which is Bayshore Boulevard waterfront.
19:31:45 In light of these considerations it is unfortunate the
19:31:49 City of Tampa does not require.
19:31:54 While the Bayshore patriots do not have a position in
19:31:57 regard to the many issues associated with the zoning
19:32:01 such as water supply, sewage capacity and area wide
19:32:04 traffic impact, the patriots greatly appreciate and
19:32:08 support the proposal by the new land owners to provide
19:32:11 public parking as a part of the proposed development,
19:32:14 which will allow the patriots to continue their
19:32:17 activity on the general public to continue their
19:32:21 access to running a park.
19:32:22 The Bayshore patriots believe that the development as

19:32:25 proposed incorporates features that that support key
19:32:30 components of the coastal zone management element for
19:32:32 the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the State
19:32:35 of Florida comprehensive plan, mainly the maintenance
19:32:38 and enhancement of public access to waterfront area.
19:32:43 Thank you.
19:32:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have you ever been to Fred
19:32:48 ballpark?
19:32:49 >>> Have I?
19:32:50 >> Yes.
19:32:51 >>> It's about, would you say, two blocks from this
19:32:53 site?
19:32:53 >> Yes.
19:32:54 >>> And it has public parking and it's on Bayshore,
19:32:56 and it's a city park on Bayshore.
19:32:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Julie, thanks for coming down.
19:33:09 I beep at you and wave at you regularly.
19:33:16 And I appreciate all that you all are doing out there.
19:33:21 The question I have to start with, you gave your
19:33:23 address on Bayshore Boulevard, it sounded like you
19:33:25 were down toward Ballast Point?
19:33:27 >>> I am.

19:33:28 >> I just want to clarify.
19:33:32 The other question I had was, were you shown these
19:33:35 plans, the drawings and that sort of thing?
19:33:37 >>> Yes.
19:33:38 >> Did you have any response or reaction to the fact
19:33:40 that the guest parking for the public was going to be
19:33:43 in the basement of this building?
19:33:45 >>> No.
19:33:48 >> I thought it was great that we would have public
19:33:50 parking and that we were going to continue to be able
19:33:52 to use that, and not get rid of the flagpoles.
19:34:00 >> But you were aware it was going to be in the
19:34:03 basement?
19:34:03 >>> Yes.
19:34:05 >> Thank you.
19:34:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:34:06 Next.
19:34:21 >>> (off microphone)
19:34:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: One extra minute.
19:34:40 >>> Good evening.
19:34:41 Madam Chairman, members of the board.
19:34:43 Council.

19:34:44 My name is Augustene weekly, Jr.
19:34:49 I'm I practice law.
19:34:51 So I'm a lawyer.
19:34:52 Mostly in the health care field.
19:34:54 So this is not my standard venue.
19:34:58 I'm a native of Tampa.
19:35:00 I have lived on Bayshore since birth.
19:35:03 What I put in the record is a draft development
19:35:05 agreement between Citivest and the City of Tampa.
19:35:11 Proposed lease agreement between the same parties and
19:35:13 a brief cover letter.
19:35:25 I think the city should be buying these locations for
19:35:29 parks.
19:35:29 We would like to preserve the Bayshore and its scenic
19:35:37 beauty and I think every high-rise destroys this.
19:35:39 I think the patriots are great but they already have
19:35:42 places in which they can meet and park and display
19:35:46 their wonderful symbols of our country.
19:35:48 The proposed development agreement would change the
19:35:51 zoning to PD and permit a height of 195 feet, plus the
19:35:57 architectural buildings above it.
19:35:59 I submit this is too high.

19:36:01 But what the lease describes as, quote, the Bayshore
19:36:04 linear park.
19:36:05 And we know it as a scenic corridor.
19:36:07 That scenic corridor is deteriorating, and it's the
19:36:11 duty of this City Council to preserve it as being
19:36:17 scenic.
19:36:17 Rezoning should be for the community benefit, not for
19:36:19 the benefit of the developer.
19:36:21 In addition, this project increases the density even
19:36:24 more, although the infrastructure is now overburdened,
19:36:28 stormwater floods, and the Bayshore traffic is such a
19:36:31 problem, the city has just seen fit to signalize
19:36:37 Bayshore.
19:36:37 Respectfully, I would like to remind the City Council
19:36:41 that some of the traffic studies submitted in the past
19:36:44 have been found to be flawed.
19:36:46 There's a big problem in this proposed lease which
19:36:49 unduly burdens the rest of the city.
19:36:52 Let's not forget that the residents are the city.
19:36:55 And we are looking to you as our City Councilmen to
19:36:58 protect, and women, to protect our rights as our
19:37:03 representatives.

19:37:04 The developer offers to transfer the rights and duties
19:37:07 to the condominium association.
19:37:09 But there is no condominium association.
19:37:12 So the condominium association is not at this time and
19:37:15 cannot be a party to this proposed agreement.
19:37:18 And it may choose not to be.
19:37:21 I've submitted to you the proposed lease.
19:37:26 I call your attention to paragraph 8 on page 16 in
19:37:30 which the tenant, which is the city, agrees
19:37:32 toindemnify, defend and hold harmless the landlord
19:37:37 from and against all liability, loss, claims, damages,
19:37:41 costs, attorneys fees, and expenses of whatever kind
19:37:44 or nature which the landlord may sustain by reason of
19:37:49 allowing the tenant -- that's the city again -- and
19:37:52 the people of the City of Tampa to use this facility.
19:37:59 Also, paragraph 9 requires that for 99 years the city
19:38:03 maintain $100 million worth of insurance.
19:38:08 Now I understand that the city is currently
19:38:10 self-insured but in the event they are not
19:38:12 self-insured, that's an additional expense to the City
19:38:14 of Tampa.
19:38:16 On the next page, and it's citizens.

19:38:18 On the next page, 17, paragraph 12, I call your
19:38:23 attention to the fact the tenant, again the City of
19:38:26 Tampa, shall bear financial responsibility for any
19:38:30 damage to said premises including all buildings and or
19:38:33 improvements located thereon arising out of the use of
19:38:38 the premises by the tenant or the general public.
19:38:40 Now, I just believe that you should take knowledge,
19:38:44 take acknowledgment of the fact that this is not a
19:38:48 proper burden to be placed on the city citizens.
19:38:52 There are conditions in this proposed rezoning and
19:38:55 lease.
19:38:55 Or unnecessarily to increase the height or density of
19:38:59 this location.
19:39:00 Thank you.
19:39:07 >> So, in other words, are you saying that paragraph
19:39:09 12 in your interpretation says that if the general
19:39:13 public pulls into this garage and parks in the garage,
19:39:15 and then their car catches on fire and burns the
19:39:18 entire building down, somehow the city could have
19:39:20 responsibility for that?
19:39:22 Is that what you're saying?
19:39:33 >>> I can't read it any other way.

19:39:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:39:35 Next.
19:39:41 >>>
19:39:35 >>>
19:39:41 >>>
19:39:42 >>> The.
19:39:43 >>JULIA COLE: We have now reviewed that.
19:39:52 I stated earlier there is a condition on the zonings
19:39:57 toe negotiate and approve an agreement prior to the
19:39:59 first building permit being issued.
19:40:07 That is the agreement sent over by Citivest.
19:40:10 And the reason it was included was because at the time
19:40:12 it was included, it wags thought that the development
19:40:15 pursuant to code, and in order to get a bonus density
19:40:18 credit would require to be heard concurrent with its
19:40:21 rezoning.
19:40:22 We reviewed it but it is not required to be reviewed
19:40:24 concurrent with this rezoning.
19:40:26 And that's why we recommend a note on the site plan,
19:40:29 so that's something we can negotiate and review later
19:40:32 and bring back to you.
19:40:38 >>> My name is Terry rock, Obispo street and I have

19:40:46 been sworn.
19:40:49 I go in and out of these condos all the time.
19:40:53 Some of the condos have as little as ten parking
19:40:57 spaces for public parking for people like myself to
19:41:00 come in and out.
19:41:04 I hear 125 slots for parking in this building.
19:41:09 They are going to get 35 slots to the guests of the
19:41:14 park.
19:41:15 How that's going to be monitored, I don't know.
19:41:18 There's 80 slots for the people who live there.
19:41:24 The 40 units that they are asking for, which leads ten
19:41:27 slots for anybody else that comes in to visit someone
19:41:31 in the building.
19:41:32 So I don't even take clients in the high-rises
19:41:37 anymore.
19:41:38 I have been here 14 years.
19:41:40 Because my staff and myself have got to take and park
19:41:44 on the street and walk to the condo to get into them
19:41:48 to take care of the animals.
19:41:50 The 345 Bayshore building is atrocious, you know.
19:41:55 It just doesn't happen.
19:41:56 And as a part of thinking about this, I think that

19:42:01 people have been told that these 35 spots are going to
19:42:05 be there but who are they really for?
19:42:07 You know, are they really for the Bayshore patriots
19:42:09 and the people of the park?
19:42:11 Or are they for all the guests coming in for the
19:42:19 condos?
19:42:19 Or are the ten additional lots left over really for
19:42:23 people like myself who have to come in and out,
19:42:26 whatever, interior decorators, I don't care.
19:42:29 When I go to the condos, there is no parking for us.
19:42:33 And that's why I don't take clients there.
19:42:37 Thank you.
19:42:38 >> Thank you.
19:42:38 Next.
19:43:20 >>> My name is Marilyn weekly.
19:43:23 I have been sworn in.
19:43:23 I live at 2619 Bayshore Boulevard.
19:43:28 >> Would you give a copy to Mr. Grandoff?
19:43:32 Does Mr. Grandoff have a copy of this?
19:43:34 >>> No.
19:43:34 It's public record.
19:43:35 I can give him a copy.

19:43:39 >> Just out of courtesy.
19:43:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to ask for a point of
19:43:51 order real quick for Mrs. Koval, and Mr. Shelby, just
19:43:57 bear with me because I don't want to taint this
19:43:59 record.
19:43:59 I want -- Ms. Cole, would you look at this for a
19:44:03 second?
19:44:06 Maybe discuss with her what she's --
19:44:11 And maybe ask Mrs. Weekly what her purpose is because
19:44:14 I don't want this record to be tainted whatsoever.
19:44:18 >>GWEN MILLER: The next person may come up and speak.
19:44:21 Next person who is going to speak, come up, please.
19:44:26 >>> My name is Sue Lyon, 3233 west Fairoaks Avenue.
19:44:39 You don't like cutting down a grand oak tree putting
19:44:42 up a Bayshore that's going to be 70 to 100 fate higher
19:44:45 than the zoning allows.
19:44:49 They say they are going to put a park in there.
19:44:52 And maybe they will, maybe they won't.
19:44:54 But you all are judging it on this park, this
19:44:57 wonderful representation, which hasn't been negotiated
19:45:01 altogether.
19:45:01 It's all voluntary.

19:45:04 We are going to do it when we build the building.
19:45:07 We have lived through two condos in my neighborhood.
19:45:16 We are going to do it again.
19:45:20 But if you keep doing this, I said it before, you are
19:45:25 going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
19:45:31 You are going to ruin all of South Tampa by too much
19:45:34 development.
19:45:34 People can't get in, they can't get out.
19:45:36 And they'll say, oh, well, it's only ten more here,
19:45:39 ten more there.
19:45:42 It's consistent with the neighborhood.
19:45:43 Well, I hate to say it but Citivest -- it's way taller
19:45:53 than Monte Carlo towers.
19:45:55 So he's saying it's consistent with the --
19:46:05 I got permission to do this.
19:46:07 So then give me permission again.
19:46:10 So it just seems like too much.
19:46:13 It's always somebody pushing for a little bit more.
19:46:17 And the park is great.
19:46:18 But when you look at the front of the STOVALL and they
19:46:22 are saying it's 90 feet back, there's in a room.
19:46:27 You can't get necessary it.

19:46:28 And they are going to put a 90-foot -- a park that's
19:46:31 90 feet is not very big.
19:46:33 And you are taking down a grand tree.
19:46:36 They are going to put up a 16-inch tree.
19:46:40 Well, next to 170-foot building?
19:46:45 That's a miniature.
19:46:48 It's just too much.
19:46:50 And I know the man can take under the present zoning
19:46:54 conditions and build a high-rise.
19:46:56 It's his right.
19:46:57 Do it.
19:46:58 And the reason he's doing a park is not out of the
19:47:01 goodness of his heart.
19:47:03 It's so he can get more money out of this deal.
19:47:07 I'm sorry to say that.
19:47:08 But those are the facts of life.
19:47:11 Thank you very much.
19:47:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
19:47:14 Thanks for the coming down.
19:47:16 I wasn't here when the Stovall was approved.
19:47:19 I'm sure you were.
19:47:22 In terms of being there, did you say a minute ago

19:47:25 that -- was that a rezoning?
19:47:27 Did that go to a DV?
19:47:32 >>> I really don't know, John.
19:47:34 >> I see Mr. Grandoff saying yes so I assume it was.
19:47:38 Thank you.
19:47:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Next?
19:47:40 >>> Are Harry Lee Coe IV, unit A, and my neighbor --
19:47:49 I'm the president of the Bayshore square condominium
19:47:51 association.
19:47:52 And just to reference where we are, this is the
19:47:57 proposed development.
19:48:04 So we are somewhere between 50 and 100 feet away from
19:48:07 this project.
19:48:08 I've lived there for ten years.
19:48:11 >> I have been there for nine years this year.
19:48:14 >> You will get your chance in just one minute.
19:48:17 (Laughter).
19:48:17 We had a meeting and we talked about the project.
19:48:19 We watched this empty lot be used as a quasi-public
19:48:24 parking, it's maintained in a way by the city.
19:48:29 The city has fallen short in my opinion in maintaining
19:48:32 it properly.

19:48:34 And we feel as though some type of mid level
19:48:37 development is warranted there and would be an
19:48:38 improvement over the existing condition that exists
19:48:41 there.
19:48:43 It creates a lot of dust.
19:48:45 There's transient activity.
19:48:46 It's dark and it's not properly lit.
19:48:48 So some type of mid-level, mid-height development
19:48:54 would be appropriate and as far as we are concerned as
19:48:56 joining neighbors, that would be superior to what we
19:48:58 have there right now.
19:49:00 The issue on this particular rezoning petition, I am a
19:49:03 lawyer and member of the Florida Bar, is in my opinion
19:49:08 height.
19:49:08 It's traffic.
19:49:09 And it's density.
19:49:12 My position, not to speak on behalf of the
19:49:15 association, this is a group that I think we can work
19:49:17 with.
19:49:18 If this council is not inclined to approve what they
19:49:20 have in front of you at this time, for whatever
19:49:22 reason, perhaps the height is a little too high,

19:49:24 perhaps the bonus density went a little too far on
19:49:27 some of those issues, I would suggest working with
19:49:29 this developer.
19:49:30 They have shown an inclination to do that on behalf of
19:49:33 this community, and the fact that they are willing to
19:49:36 come and make this investment, granted they are asking
19:49:39 for a number of waivers, but I think the message is,
19:49:42 let's work with them and give them a chance.
19:49:44 Because this could be the ticket to that mid-level,
19:49:47 mid-height development that will serve the public, the
19:49:49 Bayshore aesthetically and still allow the park to be
19:49:52 retained, the Bayshore patriots.
19:49:55 So with those things being said, I want to say about
19:49:58 the Stovall, that they did, which is the next
19:50:02 designing building, they executed it beautifully.
19:50:06 It is a very clean, well maintained, it is a little
19:50:11 higher than maybe we would be happy with, but it is a
19:50:13 mid-level, upscale development, and if this is
19:50:17 anything like what they have done with the Stovall, I
19:50:20 would be pleased with that.
19:50:22 I walk by the Stovall two or three times a day with my
19:50:26 dog and it's a beautiful building, one of the nicest

19:50:28 buildings on Bayshore.
19:50:30 I have lived here my whole life.
19:50:33 That would be the next building, which is right hear.
19:50:37 So I think this is a developer and a petitioner, that
19:50:39 if this particular project doesn't work, that I would
19:50:43 encourage council to let's work with them, and let's
19:50:46 get something in there that's a big improvement, not
19:50:48 only for them but for the community.
19:50:50 Something is going to be built there.
19:50:52 It is zoned for a high-rise up to 120 feet.
19:50:55 And if what's on the table now perhaps they can scale
19:51:00 it back and incorporate the best of both world in this
19:51:03 petition.
19:51:03 That's really all I have to say.
19:51:08 >>> Good evening.
19:51:09 Thank you for listening to us.
19:51:11 My first time hear.
19:51:12 A little nervous.
19:51:14 But I have been a resident at this address at 3015
19:51:17 south Isabella for nine years.
19:51:20 I am in agreement with Harry Coe, my neighbor.
19:51:25 Also the association there.

19:51:28 And like the lady said too much is too much.
19:51:31 You have to realize the height.
19:51:32 What if a category 3, category storm hurricane,
19:51:37 25-foot surge comes in, it's going to swallow all of
19:51:41 us.
19:51:41 And, you know, we are in agreeance with the height.
19:51:48 Just don't go any higher than what it should be zoned
19:51:51 for.
19:51:52 And the park, it's great.
19:51:54 There should be some hours and control.
19:51:58 The bums come out there.
19:51:59 They stay all hours of night, party.
19:52:02 We hear the beer cans being thrown.
19:52:05 Walking public in our area, walking public parks and
19:52:12 private property.
19:52:13 What can we do with all of that?
19:52:15 And it's not -- it's just not safe back there at
19:52:18 times.
19:52:19 So it needs to be lighted to slow traffic and all of
19:52:23 the above needs to be addressed a little more.
19:52:26 Because there will be more flow of traffic coming on
19:52:29 and off of our street.

19:52:30 As it is now it just gets very congested at height
19:52:34 times.
19:52:35 So thank you for your time and have a good evening.
19:52:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:52:37 Next.
19:52:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mrs. Weekly, I apologize.
19:52:44 >>> Oh, no, no.
19:52:45 I wish to do things in the best way possible for our
19:52:48 need.
19:52:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you talk if I can address
19:52:52 council.
19:52:53 Normally, council, I do not scrutinize the things that
19:53:00 are passed council but Mr. councilman Dingfelder, for
19:53:07 catching it earlier on, I had the opportunity to
19:53:09 discuss with Ms. Weekly the items that she was going
19:53:13 to distribute to council and referenced in her
19:53:16 testimony.
19:53:17 My understanding is that it has been returned to her,
19:53:21 council does not have any of them in their possession,
19:53:24 is that correct?
19:53:24 So you don't have it in their possession.
19:53:29 Council, it is my determination that that discussion

19:53:32 is relevant -- irrelevant, excuse me, irrelevant to
19:53:36 tonight's discussion, the matter before council.
19:53:39 And before Ms. Weekly talks just as a general
19:53:43 observation for the purposes of the record, and I'm
19:53:45 sure council is well aware of this but I want it to be
19:53:49 reiterated so it's quite clear.
19:53:51 The issue before you tonight is to be decided on the
19:53:56 basis of evidence adduced at this hearing and the
19:53:59 decision regardless of whether it has to be supported
19:54:03 by competent, substantial evidence.
19:54:05 Which should be clear on the record of this
19:54:08 proceeding.
19:54:10 With regard to any development, who is developing,
19:54:15 what other things may be going on, concurrent with
19:54:17 this, is not relevant to the determination that's
19:54:20 before council this evening.
19:54:21 And I just want to caution council and also caution
19:54:24 the audience that what is before council tonight has
19:54:27 to be decided by the competent, substantial evidence
19:54:31 relative to the fact of the issues before us on this
19:54:35 particular parcel and property.
19:54:38 And with that being said, Ms. Weekly, I thank you for

19:54:42 retracting those documents.
19:54:43 And I ask that you continue your testimony.
19:54:47 >>> That's okay.
19:54:48 This is a wonderful learning experience here.
19:54:50 I always enjoy come before City Council.
19:54:52 Thank you for the opportunity.
19:55:01 I am quite distressed and pained over the type that
19:55:07 has been put on this rezoning request.
19:55:10 And I feel that an outstanding group of people known
19:55:17 as the Bayshore patriots is being utilized to create a
19:55:22 bigger bottom line and a higher building.
19:55:26 I do not believe that patriotism should be equated
19:55:32 with land use and rezoning.
19:55:36 The Bayshore patriots, as you can see from the very
19:55:39 pictures presented by Citivest, were all standing on
19:55:43 the sidewalk waving the flag.
19:55:47 This is public domain.
19:55:48 This is not the Citivest property.
19:55:51 I live on Bayshore Boulevard.
19:55:52 I see them all the time waving the flags on the
19:55:57 sidewalk, in the median, and even across the street
19:56:00 and the waterside.

19:56:02 So to equate patriotism to that particular street
19:56:08 corner, patriotism can take place anywhere in the City
19:56:16 of Tampa and certainly even if Citivest were to build
19:56:19 out completely, there would still be room for all the
19:56:22 Bayshore patriots to wave the flag and to do the
19:56:26 wonderful work that they do on that corner, if that is
19:56:31 exactly where they wanted to stay.
19:56:36 You have the power tonight to say, in a, we are going
19:56:39 to hold the line.
19:56:41 We are not going to be granting a higher building than
19:56:47 what is absolutely necessary.
19:56:48 And this decision is one that is not controversial.
19:56:52 It is simply holding the line on zoning.
19:56:56 I took some pictures.
19:56:57 I am not a photographer.
19:57:00 And I certainly --
19:57:08 But this is my attempt.
19:57:10 This is what is happening to Bayshore Boulevard.
19:57:15 Every time a building goes up for the zoning, it's
19:57:18 changed in order to accommodate greater height.
19:57:21 This is what is happening.
19:57:28 Right here is where it is going to be.

19:57:29 So once again it object lit rates more trees, and it's
19:57:33 another connect the dots, for another wall of
19:57:36 high-rises.
19:57:37 We might as well change the name to ocean drive now
19:57:39 and call it Miami Beach.
19:57:42 If we keep going in this direction.
19:57:44 Further down here, you will see the site of the
19:57:50 colonnade, for another condominium.
19:57:53 I'm will go at Bayshore Boulevard as an entire
19:57:56 project.
19:57:56 But we do it one building at a time.
19:57:59 And by holding the line tonight, maybe when could
19:58:03 avoid another precedent set for another developer.
19:58:07 Tonight the words were used, using this very model,
19:58:12 that it's compatible with the other structures.
19:58:17 With every other structure, every structure we say
19:58:20 yes, it gets bigger.
19:58:23 Thank you.
19:58:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:58:24 Next.
19:58:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Weekly, you mention you live on
19:58:27 the Bayshore.

19:58:27 Are you in a hey raise or single family?
19:58:31 >>> I am here one of two single-family homes left
19:58:35 between Howard and Bay to Bay.
19:58:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
19:58:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
19:58:50 >>> My name is Carl, I live at 2913 west Santiago in
19:58:55 the barracks, as they were referred to earlier,
19:58:57 adjacent to the proposed property.
19:59:02 I have the same concerns as everyone else with the
19:59:06 additional units, what will that do with additional
19:59:09 traffic?
19:59:10 And also how much longer will the construction phase
19:59:13 be that will impact the area around it?
19:59:17 Another question I had is that if the rezoning is not
19:59:21 approved, what happens to the proposed park plan?
19:59:27 Is the proposed park only if they get the rezoning and
19:59:32 get additional height?
19:59:33 I just wanted to bring up that point.
19:59:35 Thank you.
19:59:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:59:37 Next.
19:59:40 Would anyone else like to speak?

19:59:49 >>> Good evening.
19:59:49 I'm Rosemary --
20:00:04 >>> Rosemary Henderson, 2001 Bayshore Boulevard and I
20:00:08 have been sworn in.
20:00:09 And I just wanted to say first of all I have the
20:00:12 utmost respect for Bayshore patriots, as we all do.
20:00:16 And I think our whole community owes them a great big
20:00:20 thank you for finding such a great way to express
20:00:23 their appreciation of the whole community for our men
20:00:26 and women in armed services.
20:00:28 I also want to thank them for the interest that they
20:00:30 have shown in this project, in the time and effort
20:00:33 that they have put in.
20:00:35 And I want to say I think the developer through his
20:00:38 creativity and his offers to do some good things for
20:00:41 the community has highlighted some problems that
20:00:44 really do need to be addressed.
20:00:47 So I said either way they have been working together.
20:00:51 I think we need so much more of that, for citizens
20:00:54 groups to maybe work with the developers.
20:00:56 So I applaud all of them for that.
20:01:01 I see a lot of gad things there.

20:01:03 I love the idea of art in public places.
20:01:06 It's a 35 -- as a 35 year resident of Bayshore I can
20:01:09 tell you that parking is horrendous.
20:01:11 It's awful.
20:01:12 We need more parking.
20:01:13 The idea of the public bathroom, I tell you, I
20:01:19 probably have a bathroom that is used more by the
20:01:22 general public than anybody on Bayshore.
20:01:27 There's a little 3-foot by 4-foot room that has just a
20:01:30 toilet in it and a light with a string.
20:01:32 No sink.
20:01:33 Nothing else.
20:01:33 That is used every day by somebody.
20:01:36 Anybody who has ever worked at my house on the yard or
20:01:40 rev or something knows it's available.
20:01:42 Anybody that's a friend, that jogs, knows they can
20:01:46 come anytime.
20:01:46 There's in a lock on it.
20:01:48 I mean, it's used probably more than anywhere else.
20:01:52 And I even question, if one bathroom would be enough.
20:01:57 I may still have to keep MI mine open.
20:02:00 But there are a lot of good things that have come out

20:02:02 and a lot of things that need to be addressed.
20:02:06 My question is just is this the best way?
20:02:10 Should we sacrifice this height to be able to get
20:02:14 these things?
20:02:14 Is there any other way to make it happen?
20:02:20 I was watching you and the riverwalk came up.
20:02:23 And I thought about that.
20:02:24 What a great thing that's going to be for this city.
20:02:26 It's going to be raised with private funds, which I
20:02:29 understand is a S 40000000 or 50 million.
20:02:32 I have forgotten the amount.
20:02:34 And I'm sure it will be a tremendous asset but I
20:02:36 thought if we can raise the money to build that, there
20:02:39 should be some kind of way we can come together,
20:02:42 whether it's private, public, neighborhood fund-raiser
20:02:45 or whatever, to come up with the funds that when need
20:02:48 to provide these things that have been highlighted by
20:02:51 the developer.
20:02:53 I just think that this should be.
20:02:54 I hate to see it sacrificed, something really
20:02:57 important on Bayshore Boulevard.
20:03:02 In the Tribune article on January 15th, it says

20:03:05 condo towers jeopardized by shore Boulevard's beauty.
20:03:11 Bayshore Boulevard, Tampa's landmark street is in
20:03:13 danger of becoming a concrete drive of high-rise
20:03:17 condominiums.
20:03:21 I'm skipping around.
20:03:22 The city has countless places where condominiums can
20:03:24 be built with great views.
20:03:26 It only has one Bayshore.
20:03:28 The Bayshore -- that Tampa has long known and loved
20:03:32 might not be the Bayshore of the next generation.
20:03:35 If this classic piece of Tampa's heritage --
20:03:40 (Bell sounds).
20:03:41 We need farsighted action now.
20:03:43 I just encourage you to really think it through and
20:03:45 see if this is the very best for our community.
20:03:47 Thank you.
20:03:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Henderson, thanks for coming
20:03:51 down.
20:03:51 You said you are a 35 year resident, you live on the
20:03:54 Bayshore.
20:03:55 Are you -- are you nap single-family home or
20:04:04 high-rise?

20:04:05 >> Single-family home.
20:04:06 >> Thank you.
20:04:08 >> Next.
20:04:08 Would anyone else like to speak?
20:04:10 Petitioner, you may come up now for rebuttal.
20:04:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could raise your hand.
20:04:36 Francis.
20:04:36 And John Greensley.
20:04:39 Two additional minutes.
20:04:42 >>> My name is Vicki Pollyea, south Maddy Avenue.
20:04:46 I have been sworn in.
20:04:47 I am the president of Bayshore Gardens neighborhood
20:04:50 association which I thought Bay to Bay.
20:04:59 I just want you to know that before the directors met
20:05:02 with Mr. Robison on February 24th, there were some
20:05:07 very impressive things about this plan that we were
20:05:09 really pleased to see.
20:05:11 We mentioned a couple of our primary concerns, which
20:05:14 of course awaits results, as far as traffic, and the
20:05:19 demand thans of this development, especially Isabella.
20:05:25 We have made a few suggestions, including the idea
20:05:28 limiting the right-in, right-out from public parking

20:05:31 and the channeling which he graciously created in the
20:05:36 plan.
20:05:39 We as an association did not take a vote.
20:05:41 We had a meeting four days.
20:05:49 We did not take the official vote.
20:05:50 However we did present the ideas, make the plans
20:05:52 available.
20:05:53 Quite a few of my neighbors are here.
20:05:55 I sent out two remainders this time to make sure that
20:05:58 everybody knew to come and share their feelings.
20:06:03 I think the basic feeling is that the Board of
20:06:04 Directors feels that this development is already going
20:06:09 to contribute to a very significant traffic problem.
20:06:15 I was just able to get the very, very raw traffic
20:06:18 count numbers that were generated from the last tame I
20:06:21 was before you.
20:06:22 The section of Isabella between Bay to Bay and
20:06:26 Barcelona on the average, I just gained 2100, 2300,
20:06:33 2400, 2200 cars a day on Isabella between Barcelona
20:06:39 and Isabella.
20:06:43 There were two vehicles going over 65 miles per hour
20:06:47 stretch of road.

20:06:48 So I think what we need to keep in mind is this
20:06:51 development right here will be exiting onto Isabella.
20:06:54 This is where the speed studies, the numbers that I
20:06:57 talked to you about, were taken.
20:07:04 It's just raw numbers.
20:07:06 This development will increase traffic on Isabella
20:07:11 specifically.
20:07:13 With the increased density it will be 374 trips
20:07:20 adjusted per day -- I'm sorry, it's late for me -- and
20:07:23 without it it will be 84
20:07:32 I really believe that the basic issue here -- I
20:07:42 believe the project in regards to the higher density
20:07:44 and the height in exchange for the access to Bayshore
20:07:50 and the park space needs to be resolved by council and
20:07:54 by the legal side and not something the neighborhood
20:07:58 can really understand and comprehend.
20:08:02 The little bit that I did see in the developer's
20:08:05 agreement, I saw a red flag.
20:08:07 I don't know what -- I think that Mr. Robinson will do
20:08:11 his best to protect your interests now but in 20 years
20:08:15 from now when it's the homeowners association, are
20:08:18 they going to want to have Gasparilla cars in a public

20:08:22 part in front of their multi-million dollar
20:08:25 condominiums?
20:08:25 And we cannot project that future, but we'll make an
20:08:31 exchange for height and density for public space.
20:08:35 That ballpark is right down the street.
20:08:40 I had to rent porta-lets for the event next weekend.
20:08:43 So there are other places, other ways of exploring
20:08:46 this and encouraging it.
20:08:49 I just think that 110 feet and 31 units is a
20:08:53 reasonable use of this property.
20:08:55 Thank you.
20:08:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:08:56 Would anyone else like to speak?
20:08:57 Mrs. Alvarez has a question.
20:09:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't know whether you're for or
20:09:08 against the project.
20:09:12 >>> It's a difficult thing.
20:09:13 We did not vote on that personally.
20:09:15 You want my personal opinion?
20:09:17 I think that we are giving up hate and density that's
20:09:23 going to impact the neighborhood significantly.
20:09:25 >>: Then the other question I have is that other

20:09:28 project that was on Isabella, I think your association
20:09:32 was for that one?
20:09:34 What's the difference?
20:09:36 You're having the same traffic problems.
20:09:40 >>> Vicki Pollyea: The difference for me in my maned
20:09:44 is that he has the zoning to build a 120-foot, 31
20:09:50 structures now.
20:09:51 That other piece of property we were looking at a
20:09:55 110-foot structure that would generate 1700 car trips
20:10:00 per day or 350 car trips a day.
20:10:03 That's the difference.
20:10:04 The cars trips.
20:10:06 It's the traffic.
20:10:07 And the infrastructure.
20:10:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That was my point.
20:10:14 >>> Right.
20:10:15 Yes.
20:10:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That kind of confused me.
20:10:22 To me, you're going to have the same amount of traffic
20:10:25 going on Isabella than you are on Bayshore and it's
20:10:30 going to increase the amount of traffic on Bay to Bay
20:10:33 and Bayshore.

20:10:35 This is just around the corner from Isabella.
20:10:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You would prefer to just leave it at
20:11:10 120?
20:11:12 >>> I'm telling you that we are concerned about the
20:11:14 impact of traffic.
20:11:16 And the way it will be mitigated.
20:11:21 And the development.
20:11:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just explain the difference between
20:11:30 the two and please correct me if I am wrong.
20:11:32 I was under the impression when we looked at the one
20:11:34 on Isabella that there was an existing PD that allowed
20:11:37 them to do either-or so the neighborhood voted in
20:11:39 favor of what they thought would impact them less.
20:11:43 Is that right?
20:11:45 >>> Can I just first say that the purpose behind this
20:11:47 discussion just for the record is clear relating to
20:11:50 the credibility of your testimony versus relating to
20:11:54 this project specifically and I want to say that for
20:11:56 the record.
20:11:57 However, what I recall of that project is there was an
20:12:01 existing -- I think it was a PD rezoning that was a
20:12:04 commercial development, 110, 120 feet, versus what

20:12:08 they were coming forward with, which is a PD which
20:12:12 would remove the commercial element and make it a
20:12:14 residential use with a higher tower, and I can't
20:12:19 recall what the hate of that tower was but it was a
20:12:21 change in the type of use, not just the density of the
20:12:25 development.
20:12:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: And the other thing certainly whatever
20:12:28 happened at that other site which is not germane to
20:12:31 this, but because of what Mrs. Alvarez brought up, I
20:12:35 think it was a different situation.
20:12:39 If I'm hearing this correct, they are not opposed to
20:12:43 this.
20:12:44 If it were in keeping with the height limitations as
20:12:47 it is now.
20:12:51 If when were coming in here, Vicki, and say RM 35,
20:12:54 this is what you can do at 120 --
20:12:59 >>> that is the --
20:13:02 >>> I think the park atmosphere and the --
20:13:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: I understand.
20:13:14 Thank you.
20:13:14 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20:13:15 Would anyone else like to speak?

20:13:17 Petitioner?
20:13:18 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: John Grandoff on rebuttal.
20:13:23 Nine units is really the difference as far as traffic
20:13:25 is concerned.
20:13:26 It's a nine unit, ask Melanie Calloway, traffic
20:13:37 engineer.
20:13:37 We are providing mitigation and impact fee.
20:13:40 I think the traffic is a phantom issue, if you
20:13:43 consider nine units are really what we are talking
20:13:45 about in the balance.
20:13:54 This is R-50 planned property so the density of a
20:13:57 50-unit per acre density is less than an acre.
20:14:04 The park hours will be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
20:14:07 It will Rae main private property, security will be
20:14:09 provided.
20:14:10 These documents have been provided to the city
20:14:12 attorney's office.
20:14:13 The current lease agreement that the city is now
20:14:15 operating under has a $1 million life insurance policy
20:14:20 requirement, has a hold harmless.
20:14:23 They are absolutely exact terms in the current
20:14:26 documents.

20:14:27 The lease is now operating under.
20:14:28 We are using the same.
20:14:32 We are not doing anything different.
20:14:33 These are very typical landlord tenant conditions and
20:14:37 allocations of risk in the landlord tenant
20:14:41 relationship.
20:14:43 The property next door here is RM-35.
20:14:52 That's RM-35.
20:14:54 Julie Whitney, please consider her testimony that she
20:14:57 brought forward and the 336 signatures from next door
20:15:01 and as far away as Pinellas County and people that are
20:15:05 interested in using this park.
20:15:07 Mr. Weekly said to you that a rezoning should be for
20:15:10 the community benefit.
20:15:11 We agree 100%.
20:15:13 That's why you do a PD.
20:15:14 You tray to be innovative.
20:15:16 You try to have a give and take.
20:15:17 You tray to negotiate something when both sides win
20:15:19 and it's not a one-side deal.
20:15:21 Both sides will win in this project.
20:15:23 Especially the public.

20:15:26 On the developer versus the homeowners association,
20:15:29 when the project is finished and all the units are
20:15:31 sold, it is turned over to an association.
20:15:33 They are told before they purchase the unit that they
20:15:35 will have the responsibility for this park.
20:15:37 So they come in with their eyes wide open.
20:15:40 That would be part of their community association fee
20:15:43 and they would be responsible for the park. The front
20:15:45 door to the project opens into the park.
20:15:47 So they understand what the project is going to be
20:15:50 shown.
20:15:50 The 35 spaces will be dedicated to the public under
20:15:54 the agreement that we have proposed.
20:15:57 They will be very vent to the public, whether it's
20:15:59 basement or whether it's first floor.
20:16:01 I think that's semantic.
20:16:03 It will be a convenient location.
20:16:04 I venture to say where else would they want to park
20:16:07 but in the basement or first floor?
20:16:10 The Stovall was a PD.
20:16:11 We did several years ago and Citivest built that.
20:16:15 Remember that the city attorneys explained the

20:16:18 decision must be based on competent, substantial
20:16:20 evidence.
20:16:21 Not to consider anything extraneous.
20:16:23 I will also offer to you that in the staff report the
20:16:26 weekly property is shown down the street, and they
20:16:29 have RM 50 zoning.
20:16:32 RM 50.
20:16:33 They have better zoning on their property than the
20:16:36 project involved.
20:16:38 And they are objecting.
20:16:44 As to the development agreement issue, when we would
20:16:46 suggest a solution, we provided a draft to the city on
20:16:48 March 27th which we would prefer the solution be
20:16:53 approved this evening, and then the second reading
20:16:55 would be held in abeyance until we can bring forward
20:16:59 the finalized documents and you can have a full
20:17:02 explanation on all these documents, the park easement,
20:17:05 the development agreement.
20:17:06 You have a condition that created a final spot that
20:17:09 Citivest cannot obtain a good permit until that
20:17:12 document is finished.
20:17:15 For the sake of everyone involved we would like to get

20:17:17 that finished before second reading that can be put to
20:17:19 rest in one document.
20:17:21 I have nothing further to add.
20:17:22 I will ask Bill if he has anything he wants to
20:17:24 mention.
20:17:31 Let me ask Steve Hubbard to come forward to address
20:17:35 the traffic issue that I mentioned a moment ago.
20:17:38 >>> Steve Henry, professional engineer.
20:17:40 >>> Steve Henry, Smith associates, 5023 west Laurel,
20:17:44 33607.
20:17:45 I have been sworn.
20:17:48 I was talking briefly about the impact of the project
20:17:50 on Isabella.
20:17:52 Talking again approved for 31 units, up to 40, which
20:17:56 is an additional nine units.
20:17:59 A peek difference would be in the a.m. peak hour about
20:18:03 9 cars additional and in the p.m. hour about six cars.
20:18:07 Isabella north of Bay to Bay, if you are going down
20:18:12 there you are going to Howard Avenue.
20:18:13 Our projection, you might see one or two more cars
20:18:17 during the a.m. peak hour on that section of Isabella
20:18:20 with the additional traffic.

20:18:21 So the impact is negligible on that section of
20:18:25 Isabella from a traffic standpoint.
20:18:30 If there are any other questions I will be glad to
20:18:32 answer them.
20:18:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Are there any questions by council
20:18:35 members?
20:18:39 Mrs. Ferlita has a question.
20:18:40 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: That concludes our remarks and we
20:18:43 respectfully request your approval this evening.
20:18:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: Gloria, the petitioner talked a little
20:18:52 about transportation whether the impact is as big as
20:18:55 some people think, et cetera.
20:18:57 I would like to talk about something else.
20:18:58 I know Mr. Deacon who was here earlier is comparing
20:19:01 what could be and what is known in terms of height,
20:19:04 and referred to that as a 62.5% increase.
20:19:08 Actually, when we talk about all the mechanisms at the
20:19:10 top that goes up to 225, and it comes out to about
20:19:13 87.5% higher increase.
20:19:17 My question is, we have talked a little bit about that
20:19:22 compatibility but I don't think we have zeroed in on
20:19:24 that issue enough.

20:19:25 And I wonder if you might consider perhaps elaborating
20:19:28 on that a little bit for me, if you would.
20:19:40 >>> Let me see if I can find it.
20:19:44 The property is at the corner of Bayshore, Bay to Bay.
20:20:04 RO 1 is directly to the side of this property, maximum
20:20:07 height of 35 feet.
20:20:08 The property on the south side is similarly zoned.
20:20:13 When you are talking redevelopment it would be 120
20:20:16 feet.
20:20:17 The PD across the street for the office building, it's
20:20:24 basically on a two-story office building.
20:20:28 You have residential single family.
20:20:33 This area has a variety of different zoning districts
20:20:36 that will have a lot of different heights limitations.
20:20:41 It's really council's call to determine the
20:20:42 compatibility.
20:20:45 Staff's recommendation as long as the Planning
20:20:47 Commission -- as well as the planning department
20:20:51 recommendation, land use recommendation, that this is
20:20:53 an appropriate development.
20:20:57 They are offering, you know, certain amenities that I
20:21:03 think are in the public good.

20:21:05 The park, additional parking on Bayshore.
20:21:08 If I have one concern, though, it is that the
20:21:12 agreement is not yet prepared.
20:21:14 In a form that the city is agreeable to.
20:21:18 And that is something that council also needs to
20:21:23 decide whether it's appropriate to approve this level
20:21:25 of rezoning, when that agreement isn't finalized.
20:21:29 Because there are issues.
20:21:31 And there is a condition placed on the site plan that
20:21:35 basically is saying if that agreement is not approved,
20:21:39 then it will be it will have to come back through the
20:21:43 public hearing process.
20:21:45 The concern there, though, is why would -- was this
20:21:52 not approved?
20:21:54 Does City Council feel uncomfortable with the
20:21:56 increased density and increased height because of the
20:21:58 trade-off that is being provided because of the public
20:22:01 improvements that are being suggested?
20:22:03 And if that's the case, then until we have that
20:22:06 agreement adopted, these not the situation.
20:22:10 Because that agreement may never be adopted.
20:22:14 >>GWEN MILLER: may never be approved?

20:22:18 >>> It depends if all parties agree to it.
20:22:20 There are many issues.
20:22:21 Rate now the Parks Department is not agreeable to many
20:22:22 of the conditions in those agreements.
20:22:24 There are a lot of things that have to be worked out.
20:22:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just as a follow-up, Madam Chairman,
20:22:29 Gloria, in your first comment you are telling me,
20:22:31 well, it's really up to council, and we know that the
20:22:34 RM 35 just allows 120.
20:22:37 You talked about the different descriptions up and
20:22:38 down the section.
20:22:41 So we are looking at either giving up, holding the
20:22:44 line on height, versus amenities.
20:22:47 And at this point, the amenities may not even be what
20:22:52 we expect them to be.
20:22:56 So we have to -- that's what our judgment is going to
20:22:59 have to be.
20:22:59 Whether or not we want to allow higher building, more
20:23:03 density, versus an amenity of a park.
20:23:06 And we are not sure where that's going at this point.
20:23:08 Okay.
20:23:09 Basically.

20:23:10 And I have one more follow-up question, Madam
20:23:12 Chairman.
20:23:16 I know that Mr. Grandoff addressed this but I want
20:23:18 some confirmation from you.
20:23:20 When we talk about the fact that this park is going to
20:23:23 have to be maintained and supported by the condo
20:23:25 association, he seems to tell us that as soon as they
20:23:28 saw on the dotted line, that's what you have got to
20:23:31 do.
20:23:31 That means never, regardless of what the majority of
20:23:34 that condo association agrees to, can't they remove
20:23:38 that responsibility to the level or the degree that we
20:23:42 might enter into it?
20:23:45 And that is going to be held in perpetuity and they
20:23:48 can't decide, well, this is not what we thought it's
20:23:51 going to be.
20:23:51 When don't want to do this anymore.
20:23:54 Is he saying correctly that this can never be altered,
20:23:57 never be changed, and hover lives there has to take
20:24:00 ownership of taking that park forever?
20:24:04 >>> That's something that would need to be spelled out
20:24:05 in the agreement.

20:24:06 I think that's what he's saying and that's what he
20:24:08 believes is in the intent of the agreement.
20:24:11 But the point is, and that's what I said at the
20:24:13 beginning, this is something that does need to be
20:24:16 worked out.
20:24:17 At this point, we are not comfortable with the
20:24:20 agreement.
20:24:21 We wanted to allow --
20:24:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Julia, even before you go forward I'm
20:24:29 not sure if I would be agreeable to a height of what's
20:24:35 agreed to now and if you remember I said this morning
20:24:38 we are going to talk about stuff and we are not even
20:24:40 sure where that's going.
20:24:41 What I feel already uncomfortable with, we may not
20:24:45 agree to what those pretty documents showed this
20:24:47 morning.
20:24:47 So I don't even understand why we went to this point
20:24:52 this evening.
20:24:53 Because we are not looking at something that's
20:24:56 solidified versus what we are being asked to approve
20:24:58 and increase the height waiver.
20:25:00 So that was my point today, after two and a half

20:25:03 hours, it's still my point.
20:25:09 >>> I'm saying it may be appropriate to see if
20:25:11 petitioner wants to continue to the allow us the
20:25:12 opportunity to negotiate the development agreement,
20:25:15 and bring that back.
20:25:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to close the public hearing.
20:25:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No, not yet.
20:25:24 I have a question.
20:25:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?
20:25:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Julia, I have I guess sort of a
20:25:30 similar concern to Mrs. Ferlita, and that is the open
20:25:33 endedness of the park.
20:25:36 And if we are going to have second reading in two
20:25:39 weeks, other than everybody sitting down and spending
20:25:43 the next, you know, 80 hours for the next two weeks to
20:25:47 tray to hammer out these details, can you do it?
20:25:51 Are there too many unanswered questions for us to be
20:25:55 able to have a second reading?
20:25:57 I'm assuming this would pass tonight.
20:25:59 When would we do that?
20:26:00 And what would be -- what would be the good of doing
20:26:04 that if what ultimately ends up at the second reading,

20:26:13 the agreement, could it substantially change what we
20:26:16 are approving here tonight so wave to go back to first
20:26:19 reading again?
20:26:21 Or are we just saying that you make your decision
20:26:24 based on everything other than the park here tonight,
20:26:27 and we'll see if we can work the park out?
20:26:31 If we can't work it out, I mean, it's a substantial
20:26:34 change, I guess, which we would have to go back to
20:26:37 first reading.
20:26:38 But I don't want to even get to that point.
20:26:42 If I don't have some comfort level that we are going
20:26:44 to be able to address the park situation I don't know
20:26:46 why we need to do anything with this tonight.
20:26:55 >> A legal one given that there was a determination
20:26:57 made originally that legally from the code perspective
20:27:03 you have to go simultaneously with the rezoning that.
20:27:07 Is no longer the case. The question of whether or not
20:27:09 it would be more appropriate to have rezoning, the
20:27:11 first reading of this rezoning heard simultaneously
20:27:14 with the development agreement, for council's comfort,
20:27:16 is certainly appropriate.
20:27:18 And something council -- certainly had the right to

20:27:23 have up or down on this.
20:27:25 I think what's in front of you is really a question of
20:27:28 whether or not the height is appropriate and whether
20:27:30 or not the density is appropriate, given part of what
20:27:35 the petitioner is saying they are willing to do, on a
20:27:38 voluntary basis, this park.
20:27:41 What this means in terms of whether or not it's simply
20:27:43 open space, whether or not it's a parks facility is
20:27:46 something that we have done that we can legally
20:27:49 negotiator whether or not you want to negotiate it
20:27:52 later from your comfort.
20:27:53 I think it's a separate question.
20:27:58 >>> We just heard that parks isn't comfortable with
20:28:00 some of the language in this.
20:28:01 But yet there's no objection from staff.
20:28:04 So we are getting mixed signals here.
20:28:09 We still have several unanswered questions.
20:28:13 And I guess we are all taking a leap of faith for
20:28:17 second reading or else this thing may have a different
20:28:21 vote at the second reading if these things don't get
20:28:23 worked out.
20:28:23 >>JULIA COLE: I think the last objection leads to

20:28:26 whether or not there is any kind of requirement that a
20:28:29 petitioner moving forward with this kind of
20:28:30 development is required to give park space available
20:28:34 to the public, and is required to give parking
20:28:38 available to the public.
20:28:38 That is something that petitioner has volunteered, but
20:28:41 not something typically would you see the Parks
20:28:44 Department or land development request on this type of
20:28:47 development.
20:28:48 It's an amenity that they are voluntarily providing,
20:28:52 and I would say similar to development where there was
20:28:57 a question which came before you a couple weeks ago,
20:28:59 and Mr. Smith dealt with, and basically stated that
20:29:03 there may be a voluntary effort on the developer's
20:29:06 part to give certain moneys for Westshore, but that
20:29:08 should be a separate development agreement.
20:29:11 I think from a legal perspective that's an appropriate
20:29:14 way to handle it.
20:29:15 But I hear what your concern is.
20:29:17 They have offered this up as a voluntary thing, that
20:29:21 they want to give to the city, and if the Parks
20:29:23 Department has some concern, should we hear the

20:29:26 concerns about that voluntary aspect of what they are
20:29:29 requesting and what they are saying they want to get
20:29:31 before we make a decision on the zoning?
20:29:34 And that's something, if that's council's will, we can
20:29:41 go ahead and request it be continued.
20:29:43 But there's in a legal requirement, which is what I
20:29:46 think the distinction is.
20:29:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But it's all part of compatibility.
20:29:51 In other words, the park makes this more compatible
20:29:55 because there's sort of a park there now, and it's
20:29:57 being used in a certain way.
20:29:58 And so that is a give and take for the additional
20:30:01 height.
20:30:02 And if the park is not there, it's a very different
20:30:05 analysis as to compatibility.
20:30:07 So it seems to me like it's all intertwined.
20:30:13 I'm not arguing for continuance.
20:30:17 I'm just trying to figure out what we are going to
20:30:19 really be able to accomplish in the next two weeks
20:30:21 when we come back hear for second hearing.
20:30:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: I want to echo some of the seventh same
20:30:30 sentiments.

20:30:31 I don't think we should necessarily go for a
20:30:33 continuance either but quite frankly at this point in
20:30:36 time I think there's too many unanswered questions,
20:30:38 for the legal ramifications of the agreement that are
20:30:41 unanswered.
20:30:43 You know, some audience members bring up some very,
20:30:47 very valid points.
20:30:49 One thing that Mrs. Weekly said that hit home is
20:30:52 compatibility.
20:30:53 And while we have two or three other condos there now,
20:30:56 well, it's not compatible until you add another one
20:30:59 and add another one and add another one and everyone
20:31:03 becomes more compatible.
20:31:05 But it's six of one, half dozen of another.
20:31:09 It's a wonderful project that's proposed.
20:31:11 It's wonderful that the developer is offering to do a
20:31:17 park.
20:31:18 I just think there's too many unanswered questions
20:31:20 here as far as the legal ramifications of what we are
20:31:24 trying to do.
20:31:25 Unless Ms. Cole from legal, you're telling me that
20:31:32 those entities should not come into play?

20:31:34 Although second reading because of tomorrow being a
20:31:36 holiday, second reading won't be for three weeks, it
20:31:39 won't be two weeks.
20:31:40 >>JULIA COLE: Let me just say, I'm sorry to interrupt
20:31:43 you, but if we need more time, he's willing.
20:31:46 He's not going to say, okay, he's willing to go ahead
20:31:51 and have this continued for six weeks so that wove
20:31:55 that opportunity.
20:31:56 >> The only reason I hired motioning that way or
20:32:02 posturing that way it gives the petitioner time to
20:32:04 work out all of the details with city staff, with
20:32:07 legal.
20:32:08 It also gives them an opportunity to try and maybe
20:32:10 come up with something that's amenable to the
20:32:14 neighborhood, whether it's a height issue, trying to
20:32:17 get nine extra units and trying to work out something
20:32:19 all the way around.
20:32:20 It's been two and a half hours, you know, and we are
20:32:23 at this point.
20:32:24 And we can't allow so many unanswered questions in the
20:32:28 very beginning.
20:32:30 Sorry to get to this point after two and a half hours.

20:32:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
20:32:40 >> We have a habit of not making decision and putting
20:32:43 things off and putting things off.
20:32:44 In this case it's a threshhold issue that Mrs. Ferlita
20:32:47 alluded to before. The threshold issue is do we want
20:32:51 to grant the bonus for a tall building with nine more
20:32:58 units in return north park -- park and the parking
20:33:01 spaces? Frankly, we should be voting on that tonight
20:33:04 because we have heard all the evidence.
20:33:05 These people have come down here and spent their
20:33:07 valuable time.
20:33:08 And we can vote on that tonight.
20:33:13 Okay?
20:33:13 Because vote on it and then we can even put off the
20:33:16 official first reading.
20:33:18 We have done that before, until the legal issues get
20:33:20 voted on.
20:33:22 If it fails, okay, or if there's a motion to deny this
20:33:29 project then there's no point in belaboring the
20:33:32 details of the park and the lease and all of that.
20:33:34 So it's like let's get past that first threshold
20:33:38 issue.

20:33:40 And we are not committing ourselves.
20:33:41 Let's take a vote that's not even a vote for first
20:33:44 reading.
20:33:45 Let's just take a vote on whether or not we think that
20:33:47 this project and the trade-off that they are proposing
20:33:49 should or shouldn't go.
20:33:51 And then, when we get past that point, then we can
20:33:54 start on first reading another day with the lease
20:33:57 details and everything else hammered out.
20:34:04 If it didn't pass then it dice tonight. The other
20:34:07 thing I want to mention is I gave council copies of
20:34:10 the agreement when he came personally into my office.
20:34:13 And I wanted to read a few in the record because these
20:34:15 people obviously didn't come down.
20:34:20 But he said, this is an outrage, you people are
20:34:25 ruining the Bayshore by allowing so many high-rises,
20:34:28 enough is enough.
20:34:30 Bill Wilson says, I hope the council denies this
20:34:33 extra -- he lives in South Tampa, by the way -- I hope
20:34:36 the council denies this extra 75 feet and makes
20:34:39 Citivest comply with every development including most
20:34:42 importantly impervious area.

20:34:44 Developers have had a tremendous effect on our area
20:34:46 over the last decade.
20:34:47 There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way it is,
20:34:50 unless you are a developer who gets off on looking at
20:34:52 hey rises.
20:34:56 Two more.
20:34:57 Kathryn crayer said, I want you to know, she lives on
20:35:00 Fairoaks.
20:35:01 I want you to know that I am very opposed to the
20:35:03 variance request for the increased hate at Bayshore
20:35:07 and Bay to Bay F. developers cannot make it more
20:35:09 feasible without increase in height, great, one less
20:35:12 high-rise on the Bayshore is a good thing.
20:35:14 And there was one other that I must have misplaced it.
20:35:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Council members, I think the models
20:35:24 are great and I think the models before speak directly
20:35:27 to one of the key issues which is compatibility, and
20:35:29 what we see is that the majority of development in
20:35:32 this area is low rise and that the existing zoning on
20:35:36 this property allows the property owner to go up to
20:35:38 120 feet.
20:35:39 And I think even that is questionably compatible

20:35:42 because I think allowing any more would be to put the
20:35:51 compatibility of the townhouse as round it and
20:35:53 therefore I encourage us to take action tonight.
20:35:59 >> Move to close.
20:36:00 >> Second.
20:36:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This is another precedent-setting
20:36:14 building, 225 fat on either side.
20:36:20 Isabella is already trying to put in another 20-story
20:36:24 unit in there.
20:36:26 It's just starting all over again.
20:36:29 And this.
20:36:34 This council has to hold the line on this.
20:36:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, give me some help on this.
20:36:39 This morning I was concerned about where we are and we
20:36:41 are obviously where we are and I think Mr. Dingfelder
20:36:43 reemphasized that.
20:36:44 The issue hear is that the developer is offering the
20:36:49 park for the right to build -- everybody keeps saying
20:36:55 75 feet.
20:36:56 I calculated 105 feet over what's allowed now, with
20:36:59 everything included.
20:37:01 The point is, do we want to negotiate over the park?

20:37:05 I am not going to support anything over 120 feet
20:37:09 regardless of what the details are.
20:37:12 The legal department hammers out next week.
20:37:14 Because I think that's something that would be
20:37:16 something that's a negotiating tool between a buyer
20:37:18 and a seller of a house.
20:37:20 I would throw the furniture in if you pay me this.
20:37:23 That's not what we are doing here.
20:37:24 We are looking at negotiating an approval to increase
20:37:27 something over the height that is allowable now simply
20:37:31 for a park.
20:37:32 And I think that there are going to be some issues
20:37:34 with that park later on.
20:37:36 That would be a wonderful thing if this developer was
20:37:38 so intent on offering that to the city with a 120-foot
20:37:46 development but I don't think that's where he wants to
20:37:48 go.
20:37:48 So to me, regardless of those details, I am not going
20:37:52 to support anything that's more than we has now
20:37:56 because I think that ware compromising what is
20:38:01 happening to the Bayshore because of the park.
20:38:02 And I think the fact we have brought in the Bayshore

20:38:04 patriots put us in a little bit of a compromise
20:38:07 situation.
20:38:07 Nobody up here is less patriotic than anybody out
20:38:11 there who brings up the issue but the Bayshore
20:38:13 patriots.
20:38:14 Absolutely.
20:38:14 We adore what they have done, support them and
20:38:16 continue to support them.
20:38:17 But there are other issues that can be looked at if we
20:38:20 want to continue to allow them to do what they are
20:38:22 doing.
20:38:23 People have talked about Fred ballpark.
20:38:26 That's one thing.
20:38:27 There's maybe not as much parking at Fred ballpark.
20:38:30 Separate and divorced from this would there be an
20:38:32 opportunity for the City of Tampa to negotiate with
20:38:34 the expressway authority to see if we could use that
20:38:37 portion back there to have ancillary parking?
20:38:40 I don't know.
20:38:41 But to me, when we look at here's a park, not sure of
20:38:44 the condition, and let's pump this up from 120 feet to
20:38:49 200 -- E -- whatever it is, I am not going to support

20:38:52 it not tonight, not next week, not after the legal
20:38:56 department talks about the good and the bad, where the
20:38:59 guests park their cars.
20:39:00 I just think it's bad precedent.
20:39:02 Because we have been given this park or this park
20:39:05 conference and it's kind of dangling here so we can
20:39:08 get the developer more than he's allowed.
20:39:10 Not going to support it.
20:39:11 Period.
20:39:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
20:39:13 >>: So moved.
20:39:14 >> Second.
20:39:14 (Motion carried).
20:39:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to move to deny this
20:39:21 project.
20:39:22 >> Second.
20:39:22 >>: If you can bear me I think it's important to make
20:39:25 the record 100% clear.
20:39:27 Based on the competent substantial evidence that I
20:39:29 heard here tonight from numerous people -- and Yale
20:39:32 mention some of them and what they had to say.
20:39:34 First off, I believe that competent substantial

20:39:37 evidence says that today there is a reasonable
20:39:38 beneficial use on that property, and that is a 10, 12
20:39:44 stories, 120-fat building with 30-something units.
20:39:47 That's a reasonable beneficial use of the property.
20:39:49 That's what the law requires that we approve.
20:39:52 That got approved many years ago.
20:39:53 That's what they can build today as a matter of right.
20:39:57 I believe the competent substantial evidence, however,
20:40:00 says that we do not have to approve and we should not
20:40:02 approve the bonus height and the bonus density of the
20:40:05 project.
20:40:06 The competent substantial evidence that I relied on
20:40:09 came from numerous citizens and professionals who
20:40:12 happened to be in our citizenry, including Mr. Weekly,
20:40:17 an attorney, and Ms. Henderson, who is an artist, and
20:40:22 many others, Sue Lyons, the president of our city-wide
20:40:29 association.
20:40:29 Ms. Henderson testified about the Tampa tribune
20:40:32 article that said we don't need a concrete cliff of
20:40:35 high-rise condominiums along the Bayshore.
20:40:38 Ms. Pollyea, at the end of the day, although she was
20:40:42 trying to be care, I think she indicated as somebody

20:40:46 who has been very involved in these kind of issues,
20:40:49 that the existing density and height is appropriate on
20:40:53 this property, and consistent and compatible with the
20:40:57 neighborhood.
20:40:57 And that is her neighborhood and her neighborhood
20:40:59 association is the closest to this project who in fact
20:41:04 had concern about the grand oak and also indicated
20:41:09 that she alluded to the Alagon and BELL amue about
20:41:16 five, ten blocks up the road, that enough is enough.
20:41:20 Let's see, Ms. Weekly, who lived in a single-family
20:41:22 home very, very close, said that we should hold the
20:41:26 line on zoning, and not grant any more petitions for
20:41:30 high-rises.
20:41:32 Ms. Johnson also indicated that we do not need another
20:41:35 high-rise on the Bayshore, and we don't need to
20:41:38 approve this project.
20:41:42 Mr. Weekly indicated that -- and I believe he's
20:41:45 correct -- that this is a scenic stretch of road, and
20:41:48 we have designated as it as a scenic highway or scenic
20:41:52 byway or linear park along the bay, and that this
20:41:59 project is too tall for a scenic corridor and it sets
20:42:04 a bad precedent.

20:42:05 Mr. Weekly also spoke to traffic, and his concerns
20:42:12 generally about the rezoning.
20:42:13 Numerous other people spoke.
20:42:14 I didn't mention them all for those reasons, among
20:42:17 others, I believe there's competent, substantial
20:42:20 evidence to deny the project.
20:42:21 And I would so move.
20:42:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
20:42:25 (Motion carried).
20:42:27 Okay.
20:42:31 Want to take a break?
20:42:32 Five minutes.
20:42:33 (city Council recess)
21:05:41 [Sounding gavel]
21:05:41 >>CHAIRMAN: Tampa City Council is called back to
21:05:42 order.
21:05:43 Roll call.
21:05:43 [Roll Call]
21:05:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms.
21:05:47 >>JULIA COLE: Cole prior to moving forward with your
21:05:50 agenda an item that was held over from this morning
21:05:52 was an item setting the public hearing from the

21:05:54 development agreement from the -- at the end of the
21:05:57 previous rezoning.
21:05:58 I think we just need a vote to withdraw that.
21:06:03 >> Move to withdraw.
21:06:04 >> Second.
21:06:05 (Motion carried).
21:06:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 20.
21:06:09 Need to open.
21:06:10 >>: So moved.
21:06:11 >> Second.
21:06:11 (Motion carried).
21:06:12 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
21:06:25 Item 10--- item 20.
21:06:32 Item 20.
21:06:32 It's V 06-21.
21:06:40 This is a request to go from an RS-50 residential
21:06:44 single family to a PD single family semi detached.
21:06:48 There are no waivers associated with this application.
21:06:52 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property
21:06:55 located -- excuse me, trying to find the address here.
21:07:00 It is at 509 south Willow Avenue for construction of
21:07:07 two single family detached units and they will all be

21:07:09 housed in one building.
21:07:11 The units will front Wall Street and the garages will
21:07:14 access the alley.
21:07:16 The building is designed in a Mediterranean revival
21:07:19 style and incorporates design elements found at the
21:07:22 Woodrow Wilson middle school and other Mediterranean
21:07:25 revival style buildings in Hyde Park.
21:07:29 If you look at the Elmo, rezoning map, Willow Avenue.
21:07:46 Thank you.
21:07:50 Planned development with town homes.
21:07:52 Behind it RM-24.
21:07:54 And this is RM 50.
21:07:59 If you will look at the area, this is DeLeon street,
21:08:05 Willow.
21:08:06 PD, town homes, across the street, RM-24, multifamily,
21:08:11 multifamily, and this is two single-family homes.
21:08:15 However, they appeared to be nonconforming lots.
21:08:22 >> This came originally to you, for unit structure,
21:08:29 and because of neighborhood objection and council's
21:08:31 objection, they came back with two units.
21:08:37 And your staff report will reflect objections.
21:08:41 Objections from land development landscaping

21:08:44 specialist, and from Dave Riley.
21:08:48 During the two-hour rezoning request before you, I was
21:08:52 able to get with the petitioner.
21:08:54 We went over the objections.
21:08:56 And he was willing to add -- all these requests, all
21:09:01 these objections were adding notes to the site plan.
21:09:03 And he was going to add those notes to the site plan,
21:09:05 which we have done.
21:09:06 We have given the clerk a copy, and also the legal
21:09:10 department has a copy.
21:09:11 And what those notes were, the objections were, in
21:09:14 showing all the off site trees they noticed they were
21:09:17 the 24-inch oak that needed to be protected to
21:09:20 maintain the protective radius and there was a 26-inch
21:09:24 oak in the right-of-way and they were concerned about
21:09:25 the pruning when it takes place, with Dave hey rye at
21:09:31 parks and rec.
21:09:32 Dave Riley had a note to be added the site plans will
21:09:36 be reviewed and approved by parks and rec at the time
21:09:39 of permit issuance.
21:09:41 We have -- land development has no objections and
21:09:44 there are no other objections.

21:09:54 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:09:55 I have been sworn in.
21:09:56 Just a couple of additional comments.
21:09:58 You have all seen this. The request is to go from
21:10:03 four units down to two units.
21:10:06 The land use category for you, the site is residential
21:10:08 35, adjacent to the property.
21:10:13 These were all 35.
21:10:15 This is R-10.
21:10:16 And this is R-20.
21:10:27 One won goes north of DeLeon you can't see the
21:10:29 character in this area.
21:10:31 The three block area is a little different than this
21:10:34 block over here where you do have a mixture of uses
21:10:36 primarily multifamily attached uses.
21:10:39 South of DeLeon, you do have a much more prevalent
21:10:43 use of single family detached homes.
21:10:46 Just to go back to the building issue, it is oriented
21:10:49 to the street.
21:10:49 It's a very nice design project, access to the
21:10:53 project, access would be accessed from the alley to
21:10:56 the rear.

21:10:56 Planning Commission staff had in a objections of the
21:11:00 request and has in a objections.
21:11:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:11:12 >> Graham Carruthers, Bank of America, here in Tampa,
21:11:17 and my applicant has -- representing petitioner.
21:11:24 This is in the north Hyde Park neighborhood, here in
21:11:27 the City of Tampa.
21:11:28 The current zoning is for RS-50 residential
21:11:31 single-family.
21:11:32 The current land use designation for the property is
21:11:37 res 35 which would potentially allow up to six units,
21:11:42 I believe.
21:11:43 The request is to rezone from RS-50 to planned
21:11:45 development to allow for a proposed two-unit semi
21:11:49 detached residential structure.
21:11:51 Council initially reviewed a petition to rezone the
21:11:54 same property in November of 2005.
21:11:56 At that time the request was for a four-unit building.
21:12:01 And at that time the Planning Commission and land
21:12:04 development staff called the proposal a quote-unquote
21:12:08 model for development in this area of north Hyde Park.
21:12:11 Not withstanding that, the proposal did draw

21:12:13 objections from a group of surrounding property
21:12:15 owners, and based on that, members of the council
21:12:18 denied the application and made a suggestion that we
21:12:20 come back with a proposal for only two units.
21:12:24 Since then, we have extended invitations to all of
21:12:28 those surrounding property owners who spoke in
21:12:30 opposition to the four-unit proposal back in November.
21:12:35 We have had two meetings with those five or six people
21:12:41 who elected to come and talk to us, and initially,
21:12:48 based on the objections that were raised in the
21:12:51 November hearing, based on the original site plan,
21:12:55 made an effort to address those issues on -- on the
21:13:00 four units.
21:13:01 What we heard from them and what we heard from council
21:13:03 during our motion for reconsideration was that two
21:13:07 units was really what the neighborhood and the council
21:13:09 preferred.
21:13:09 We listened to that.
21:13:11 And the plan before you is from two units.
21:13:16 And in the process, we have reduced the overall size,
21:13:19 square footage and footprint of the proposed building.
21:13:22 We have brought in the setbacks a little bit in order

21:13:24 to address concerns that were raised by some
21:13:27 surrounding property owners regarding line of sight
21:13:30 and view issues from surrounding properties.
21:13:32 We have also significantly reduced the number of
21:13:35 windows, and entirely eliminated the balconies located
21:13:38 on the sides of the buildings, which face the adjacent
21:13:41 residential uses.
21:13:45 All in response to the comments and the concerns
21:13:47 raised by surrounding property owners.
21:13:50 And I think that we in this plan for two have come to
21:13:55 a consensus with all of the surrounding property
21:13:58 owners about the acceptability and appropriateness of
21:14:02 this plan.
21:14:03 In addition the suggestion that some of the
21:14:04 surrounding property owners, we expanded the scope of
21:14:06 the public notice that we are required under the code
21:14:09 to give of this hearing, and in doing so, also
21:14:14 provided some information regarding the site plan and
21:14:17 the elevations of the proposed building.
21:14:20 Again that's something that we were not required to do
21:14:23 under applicable code requirement but at the request
21:14:26 of some of the surrounding property owners who

21:14:28 previously objected we were pleased to do that.
21:14:30 I received no calls or any indication of any questions
21:14:33 from any of those folks to whom we sent notices.
21:14:41 As was indicated to you earlier there with are no
21:14:43 objections from staff or the Planning Commission on
21:14:44 the site plan before you.
21:14:45 But for a couple of notes from landscape, staff and
21:14:49 the tree department folks relating to trees that are
21:14:55 located off-site and in the public right-of-way, not
21:14:57 withstanding that they are located off-site, we had
21:15:00 agreed to comply with the request of the staff
21:15:02 members, and include those on the revised plans that
21:15:06 were submitted to you.
21:15:11 With that brief introduction I would like to ask Ethel
21:15:14 Hammer, a professional land planner and principal with
21:15:17 Englehart and associates to come up and speak for just
21:15:20 a moment.
21:15:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in opposition to number
21:15:27 20?
21:15:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the record, sir, were you
21:15:34 sworn in?
21:15:36 >>> I apologize.

21:15:36 I was.
21:15:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
21:15:38 Thank you.
21:15:39 >>> Good evening.
21:15:39 My name is Ethel Hammer and I have been sworn.
21:15:44 I would like to talk for just a few minutes about some
21:15:46 planning issues associated with this request.
21:15:49 First I'd like to put the comprehensive land use plans
21:15:51 back up on the Elmo.
21:15:56 And the purpose of me showing that is to talk about
21:15:59 the density that we are requesting.
21:16:01 This property is located in the residential 35 plan
21:16:07 category.
21:16:07 And when he talked to you he talked about how there is
21:16:10 a very large amount of residential 35 in the immediate
21:16:13 area.
21:16:13 With two units on this property, ten units to an I can
21:16:20 acre which is less than a third of what's allowed in
21:16:23 that plan category for this parcel.
21:16:24 When we were hear for four units per acre, that was
21:16:27 consistent with the comp plan.
21:16:29 That this of course is far under the density that's

21:16:31 permissible.
21:16:33 And as you can see, some of the surrounding planned
21:16:36 categories are residential 10.
21:16:39 We would be consistent with those areas as well, with
21:16:42 the density that ware requesting.
21:16:50 We also did a little study on height.
21:16:59 The darkest brown is those structures in the area that
21:17:02 are three stories.
21:17:02 As you can see the property or the project to the
21:17:04 immediate north and adjacent to the site is three
21:17:07 stories.
21:17:08 Those three story townhouse condominiums.
21:17:11 Very attractive project but they are three stories.
21:17:13 Then catter-corner to the north is another project
21:17:15 that is three stories.
21:17:16 The other kind of brown color are projects that are
21:17:20 two stories.
21:17:21 We are asking for two stories.
21:17:23 We feel that first of all we are consistent with the
21:17:27 predominant height of other structures within the
21:17:29 immediate area. The structures to the south of us are
21:17:31 one-story homes.

21:17:34 But I believe that this project creates a transition
21:17:37 from the three-story to the north.
21:17:40 We are asking for two-story.
21:17:41 And one thing that Graham forgot to show you is the
21:17:45 elevation.
21:17:50 This project looks very much like a single-family home
21:17:53 in its design.
21:17:54 It does not have two separate answers -- entrances.
21:17:57 It has one main entrance into the project even though
21:17:59 it is two units.
21:18:01 And one of the things I'd like to quote from the
21:18:04 Planning Commission's written report, it says the
21:18:06 orientation of the proposed site plan should be
21:18:08 considered a standard for future types of development
21:18:11 of a similar nature.
21:18:13 And I believe the architect for this project, the
21:18:15 developer is an architect, and he has gone to great
21:18:19 lengths to make this project consistent with
21:18:21 architectural themes that he has found in Hyde Park,
21:18:24 as well as some of the surrounding area.
21:18:27 So we believe it's such a beautiful project that would
21:18:30 be an asset to the surrounding area.

21:18:32 So I'd like to just sum up by saying first of all I
21:18:35 believe this is compatible with the policies and the
21:18:38 densities that are allowed in the comprehensive plan.
21:18:41 It is certainly consistent with the height and the
21:18:45 land use development pattern in the surrounding area.
21:18:48 And again one of the things that the staff pointed out
21:18:51 is on the block face that we are in, everything except
21:18:55 that single-family house to the south is all attached
21:18:59 multifamily units.
21:19:01 So they are shall I say the exception rather than the
21:19:06 rule.
21:19:06 And on the site currently is an old duplex.
21:19:10 So we are not really asking for any more units than
21:19:13 currently exist on the property.
21:19:15 And certainly this is consistent with the surrounding
21:19:19 zoning pattern.
21:19:20 And we would ask for your support.
21:19:22 Thank you very much.
21:19:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A quick question.
21:19:27 Is access to the parking lot the alley?
21:19:29 >>> Yes, it is.
21:19:30 And I'm glad you brought that up.

21:19:31 One of the things that we did address now that we are
21:19:34 down to only two units, there's absolutely no concern
21:19:37 whatsoever about parking in the alley.
21:19:39 Each unit will have two garages.
21:19:41 And then there will be parking behind the garages for
21:19:44 guests.
21:19:45 So there should be no concern about parking in the
21:19:47 alley.
21:19:48 Thank you.
21:19:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Speaking of alleys, are the alleys
21:19:54 paved or do they need to be worked on?
21:19:58 What condition are the alleys?
21:20:01 >>> It is paved.
21:20:02 I don't know what condition it's in but it is a paved
21:20:05 alley.
21:20:06 >> It is paved.
21:20:07 Thank you.
21:20:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
21:20:09 would like to speak on item number 20?
21:20:11 If you want to speak on 20, please come up and speak
21:20:14 now.
21:20:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anyone on item 20 that has

21:20:24 not been sworn in?
21:20:26 Has everyone been sworn?
21:20:27 >>> I have not been sworn in.
21:20:28 >>GWEN MILLER: If you have not been sworn in, please
21:20:30 raise your right hand.
21:20:31 Anyone else in the audience that has not been sworn
21:20:33 in, please raise your right hand.
21:20:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you are going to be testifying, if
21:20:46 you could pleas stand up.
21:20:47 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to stand up and raise your
21:20:50 right hand.
21:20:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you are testifying on any item
21:20:52 tonight and have not been sworn please stand up and
21:20:55 raise your right hand.
21:20:56 (Oath administered by Clerk).
21:20:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When you state your name please
21:21:04 reaffirm you have been sworn.
21:21:05 >>> My name is Marvin boon.
21:21:07 I have been sworn in.
21:21:08 In the 20 years I have lived at 1303 west galleon
21:21:13 street just south of the property in question where
21:21:14 the single-family homes that apparently doesn't fit in

21:21:17 the neighborhood anymore.
21:21:20 Since I have lived there I have seen nearly empty
21:21:22 square foot in South Tampa turn into a condominium,
21:21:26 not because it makes the neighborhood or because it
21:21:28 adds to the quality of life but because apparently
21:21:31 there is a lot of money to be made.
21:21:33 An 8-unit condo is being erected directly northwest of
21:21:38 my -- is my time up?
21:21:40 (Laughter).
21:21:41 An 8 unit condo is being erected northwest of my 1927
21:21:51 bungalow, and they did wide ten alley.
21:21:54 And I tell you what happened.
21:21:55 My fence was destroyed.
21:21:57 My plants have been torn up.
21:21:59 And my yard was destroyed.
21:22:02 They took about three feet of my yard and just put an
21:22:06 alley there.
21:22:08 I called the city.
21:22:10 That was the people that were constructing the 8-unit
21:22:14 condo.
21:22:14 I called a bunch of people in the city.
21:22:16 I called Mr. Dingfelder's office.

21:22:17 They came out and looked at it.
21:22:19 And I was told that it is a civil matter.
21:22:26 So basically I was told I had to give my hard earned
21:22:28 money to an attorney just so I could retain my
21:22:31 property and I wondered what I pay my taxes for.
21:22:35 Luckily, I got together with the owner and we worked
21:22:37 it out ourselves, and she took it upon herself to put
21:22:40 a curb in and give me back my land, which I thank her.
21:22:45 But that was just because the owner did that herself.
21:22:48 Nobody helped me on that from the city.
21:22:51 And I was on my own on that.
21:22:53 It was only by the graciousness and the grace of the
21:22:56 owner who saw what wrong had been done that that was
21:22:59 taken care of.
21:23:00 It's an alley.
21:23:01 It's not a street.
21:23:02 It seems like they are turning it into a street.
21:23:04 And that alley is now actually wider than DeLeon.
21:23:10 And the block of gallon that I work on is not wide
21:23:13 enough to park cars on either side of the road.
21:23:16 It's just not that wide.
21:23:17 So now this alley is now being turned into a street.

21:23:22 Like I said, it is an 8-unit condo that is already
21:23:26 there.
21:23:27 I'm just about done with that so we are going to have
21:23:29 that.
21:23:29 And here comes another condo.
21:23:33 Now, see what kind of destruction before I hire a
21:23:41 lawyer, see what kind of problems, or should I hire
21:23:43 one now?
21:23:44 I feel instead of attorneys my city should protect me
21:23:47 and my neighborhood or what's left of it.
21:23:50 I've seen property values skyrocket.
21:23:52 And the quality of life plummet on my block.
21:23:55 I would like to see a single-family home behind my
21:23:58 house, preferably one that doesn't block out the sun.
21:24:03 I know there's a lot of money to be made by replacing
21:24:05 neighbors with temporary tenants.
21:24:08 That doesn't make it right.
21:24:10 Thank you.
21:24:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:24:11 Next.
21:24:15 >>> My name is Linda Smith and I have been sworn.
21:24:18 I have reviewed the city's file.

21:24:20 There have been several letters written to the city
21:24:23 that were to be kept in your file.
21:24:25 One is missing.
21:24:26 One letter was from me.
21:24:28 One was from a neighbor Laura Pulian.
21:24:34 Also I have taken some pictures to show you a better
21:24:37 idea of what's going on on the property.
21:24:42 >> What was your name?
21:24:46 Oh, Linda Smith, okay.
21:24:54 >>> I live at 511.
21:24:58 I am one of the of the people that are directly
21:25:01 affected.
21:25:01 I'm right next to the property between Mr. boon and
21:25:04 Mace, we will have the most impact.
21:25:05 I would like to make a couple of corrections.
21:25:07 The city mentioned that this is detached housing
21:25:11 development.
21:25:12 It is not. The developer mentions it's semi detached.
21:25:15 It is not.
21:25:16 It is attached.
21:25:19 These are my main objections.
21:25:20 The building is too large and does not fit in with the

21:25:23 style of the neighborhood. The building does not
21:25:25 allow enough green space and is removing existing
21:25:28 trees that don't protect my property.
21:25:29 The building adds to existing overcrowding and adds a
21:25:33 poor resident mix by adding more multifamily.
21:25:37 And in my opinion, single-family homes make better
21:25:41 neighbors.
21:25:41 I'm opposed to any change in the use of this property.
21:25:43 We need fewer condos and more houses.
21:25:46 Just because condos have been pushed through and
21:25:48 pushed through in the past should not be reason to
21:25:52 push more through now.
21:25:54 The applicant's design shows this two-story building
21:25:56 only seven feet from my property line.
21:26:00 He is removing the -- three palms that border our
21:26:06 lots.
21:26:12 -- the plan that you have with two palms, there's
21:26:15 three.
21:26:15 The plan that you have completely forgets the mature
21:26:17 oak in the back that the city found after we called
21:26:20 them and gave them know that the plan was in error.
21:26:25 The applicant previously told me there isn't room on

21:26:28 the seven feet between my fence and his new building
21:26:31 to replace the palm with anything.
21:26:33 He's removing two oaks in the middle of the lot, one
21:26:36 oak from the side, and had planned to remove the large
21:26:39 oak in the back before the city found out.
21:26:42 Even the oak on the property of the city will be
21:26:44 trimmed to accommodate the building.
21:26:46 Never mind the construction equipment that will be
21:26:49 coming and going between Citi-Median.
21:26:55 Remember it's only alley access.
21:26:56 We are going to have big huge pieces of equipment
21:26:58 trying to get up and down that alley and come in
21:27:01 through there.
21:27:01 They are going to be going over the curb.
21:27:03 They are going to be coming between the two city oaks.
21:27:05 If you look at picture 6 that I provided, it shows the
21:27:09 city trees that are on the property currently, if I
21:27:15 could find it.
21:27:19 Of course I can't.
21:27:20 But anyway, picture 6.
21:27:22 That shows the oaks and how much is going to have to
21:27:26 be chopped off from the sidewalk on.

21:27:29 Picture 3 shows my yard.
21:27:33 Now, I guess I can put it on this, you said?
21:27:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
21:27:46 >>> This is the view from my backyard currently.
21:27:48 It may not look like a lot but I have taken care of
21:27:50 those trees for 25 years.
21:27:52 I have trimmed them.
21:27:53 I have taken out vines.
21:27:54 And I have kept the privacy up.
21:27:56 One of those palms is partially on my property because
21:27:58 my fence is well inside my property line.
21:28:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
21:28:02 You are going to have to stop.
21:28:07 Ms. Saul-Sena would like to ask a question.
21:28:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is your property the one that's
21:28:12 rate here, or is it back where the trees are?
21:28:19 >>> Standing on my property, taking the pictures to
21:28:21 the new development, where the new development --
21:28:24 >> The proposed development.
21:28:25 >>> Right.
21:28:26 So where there are trees now, there will be a 30-foot
21:28:30 red stucco building designed to look like a school.

21:28:35 And I don't understand why the developer gets to get
21:28:37 up here and have unlimited time and we are limited to
21:28:39 our time especially when this is going to be impacting
21:28:42 my property more than anyone else's.
21:28:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:28:45 Next.
21:28:45 >>> Thank you for your time.
21:28:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
21:28:52 >>> I'm Sarah gray.
21:28:54 I have been sworn in.
21:28:55 I live at 607 South Orleans Avenue.
21:28:58 I am going to be very brief.
21:28:59 There are a number of houses in the area and a number
21:29:01 of condos in the area.
21:29:02 I know all of my neighbors that live in houses.
21:29:04 I don't know anybody that lives in a condominium.
21:29:06 And I would ask that you please stop chipping at the
21:29:09 foundation of my neighborhood by putting in more and
21:29:11 more higher density houses.
21:29:13 The people that participate in the neighborhood are
21:29:16 people that own homes.
21:29:18 Thanks.

21:29:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:29:19 Next.
21:29:24 >>>
21:29:49 >>> My name is Pam Kanella, 604 South Orleans and I
21:29:55 have been sworn in.
21:29:56 And I was here the first time to object to the four
21:30:00 buildings, four units.
21:30:03 I haven't changed my objection.
21:30:05 I still believe we should have a single-family
21:30:08 dwelling.
21:30:12 There's a lot of problems in the neighborhood.
21:30:13 You have heard them all nature.
21:30:16 South Tampa, we all have the same problem.
21:30:17 We all share in the same problems.
21:30:22 I learned one thing, and that's to build a home, good
21:30:25 home, you have to have a good foundation.
21:30:28 And I think that South Tampa, its foundation is
21:30:33 crumbling and we need to stop with the building, or,
21:30:36 you know, take a better look at where they are
21:30:38 building.
21:30:39 I don't want any more condos or town homes in my
21:30:42 family area.

21:30:46 I also want to say one more thing really affecting
21:30:49 school systems.
21:30:49 My granddaughter goes to gory.
21:30:53 She's in first grade.
21:30:57 Parents were called in because they are having
21:31:00 problems with the first graders.
21:31:03 They are the worst first grade class they ever had.
21:31:06 The reason for that is because there's one teacher to
21:31:09 26-plus, four, five, six, seven-year-olds.
21:31:14 And that's why the teachers are really going berserk.
21:31:19 And Gorrie has in a more RM to build.
21:31:23 They can't even put portables.
21:31:25 Before we add any more homes other than single family
21:31:28 dwelling in that area we need to think about our
21:31:30 children.
21:31:30 They are our future.
21:31:32 That's it.
21:31:34 Thank you.
21:31:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:31:35 Next.
21:31:41 >> My name is Angela wood, 616 south Willow Avenue.
21:31:44 I have been sworn in.

21:31:46 And I come tonight to object to the condominium plans,
21:31:50 namely because we would like to see a single-family
21:31:54 home.
21:31:55 My husband and I bought our home last year in January
21:31:58 2005 because we really appreciated the craftsman style
21:32:01 single-family home that is present all the way down
21:32:03 Willow Avenue until you reach DeLeon where it turns
21:32:06 into more condominiums.
21:32:08 Where we chose to raise our two-year-old daughter.
21:32:10 We have spent many, many dollars on restoration, and
21:32:14 renovating our homes back to the original look, that
21:32:21 it did have in the past and we are making it much more
21:32:24 like it belongs.
21:32:27 I would like to see a single-family home on that
21:32:30 property.
21:32:32 I am also a little concerned about traffic in that
21:32:34 area.
21:32:36 I have raised a couple of complaints with the traffic,
21:32:39 with the city, and they have done several studies.
21:32:43 I spoke to Keenan brawn this morning at traffic.
21:32:46 He had actually told me to follow up and let me know
21:32:48 that they are approximately 2400 cars a day traveling

21:32:52 down the avenue.
21:32:55 I was shocked.
21:32:56 I didn't know it was that many.
21:32:57 So they are actually going to do another study for
21:33:00 cut-through.
21:33:01 And also speeding.
21:33:04 And that is one of my main concerns with a lot of
21:33:06 children in the area, a lot of children crossing the
21:33:08 street in the afternoon, leaving Wilson or Gorrie.
21:33:11 And since our own daughter lives there too I'm
21:33:14 concerned about traffic and additional traffic.
21:33:16 Thank you.
21:33:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:33:17 Would anyone else like to speak?
21:33:21 If you are going to speak, please come up and speak.
21:33:23 We have a long night.
21:33:25 Would you please come speak if you want to speak?
21:33:31 >>> I'm Flo call and I live at 606 south oral means
21:33:35 and I have been sworn in.
21:33:36 And I did speak before when they asked to have this
21:33:41 rezoned to PD.
21:33:42 And at that time, we still have the same issues that

21:33:48 we have before.
21:33:49 I'm asking you to vote against the zoning change and
21:33:52 keep it as a single-family location.
21:33:58 One of the problems that we are having in our area
21:34:00 is -- and I'm sure you have heard a lot of this -- is
21:34:03 that when we had our neighborhood condos, become a
21:34:07 condo community in our area.
21:34:09 When the property was purchased by the owner, he knew
21:34:12 the zoning was single-family and we feel that he
21:34:16 should abide by those restrictions.
21:34:20 Within four blocks of us, of this property, there are
21:34:25 160 condos that are under construction now that have
21:34:27 not -- that people have not moved into.
21:34:31 There is South Orleans.
21:34:34 There are 64 units at Horatio.
21:34:37 And Boulevard.
21:34:38 There's 27 units at Valencia, which is DeLeon and
21:34:42 Rome.
21:34:42 There's 61 at the old bakery at Horatio and Oregon.
21:34:48 When you look at the impact of these 160 units of
21:34:53 people that have not moved in yet, that's part of our
21:34:55 concern.

21:34:56 Plus the proposed 280 units at Hyde Park which would
21:34:59 have a huge impact on us.
21:35:01 Within a mile, there are also condos at Armenia and
21:35:06 Cleveland, Howard and Cleveland, the brownstones of
21:35:09 Soho, and 807 Howard is turning to condos.
21:35:13 So as you see our single-family neighborhood is
21:35:16 changing to condos.
21:35:18 Right now, our neighborhood, we know each other.
21:35:22 We protect each other.
21:35:25 We are very protective of our children going to
21:35:28 schools, and the school being overcrowded.
21:35:32 Part of the problems that we are concerned about, and
21:35:34 also children walking back and forth to school with
21:35:37 all the traffic and so on.
21:35:40 So, again, I'm going to keep it short, because we have
21:35:45 gone through a lot of already.
21:35:46 But we would like for you to keep this as
21:35:49 single-family zoning, and we welcome single-family
21:35:53 households.
21:35:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: I forgot the young lady's name that had
21:35:58 the pictures.
21:35:59 I think I missed it.

21:36:01 Was there supposedly a picture in here of the existing
21:36:03 structure that they are talking about now?
21:36:05 Dy hear you mention that?
21:36:06 And also for clarification, one other thing.
21:36:09 You said you wanted to keep this single-family.
21:36:11 I thought I heard earlier that what they are trying to
21:36:14 replace is an existing duplex.
21:36:17 Is that what it is now, a duplex that's there now?
21:36:21 >>> Well, what it is, it's a building that's about 400
21:36:24 square feet that has two doors on it.
21:36:26 And it's really not an existing duplex.
21:36:30 Right now it's a vacant building that's about 400
21:36:33 square feet.
21:36:33 But evidently it was divided so that there were two
21:36:36 people living in it.
21:36:39 >> And is there a picture of that structure?
21:36:40 I thought I heard you say that.
21:36:42 I may be mistaken.
21:36:47 >>> I don't have it.
21:36:48 One of the pictures you can see it in is picture
21:36:50 number -- picture number 4 shows one part of it.
21:36:54 And picture number -- number 1 shows the other part of

21:36:58 it.
21:36:59 >> Is that the roof of it, the one that's on the
21:37:01 overhead now, is that the roof?
21:37:04 >>> Yes, sir.
21:37:09 >> That's fine.
21:37:10 I wanted to make sure.
21:37:13 >> It's just a little block building that's probably
21:37:16 not even the size of a single-car garage.
21:37:19 One-story.
21:37:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:37:24 Does anyone want to speak?
21:37:33 >>> My name is Martin Strom.
21:37:35 I have been sworn in.
21:37:36 A resident at 608 South Orleans Avenue.
21:37:39 I was wondering if I could ask the council to give my
21:37:42 time to Linda Smith to cover some additional --
21:37:46 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
21:37:48 Your time is your time.
21:37:49 >>> Okay.
21:37:49 Again, I am a resident of 608 South Orleans Avenue
21:37:53 which is right behind the property in question.
21:37:56 And we know that the traffic is getting worse.

21:38:01 And the alleyway is right behind my house.
21:38:05 And it may be paved, but it's -- it would need a fresh
21:38:14 coat of asphalt to having construction-type vehicles
21:38:18 go by and work on this property.
21:38:20 And it's a very narrow alley.
21:38:22 And on top of that, we just request single-family
21:38:26 dwelling.
21:38:27 We think we have enough condos, enough town homes,
21:38:31 and, you know, the more that we allow these townhouses
21:38:35 and condos to come into the development area at Hyde
21:38:37 Park, I think we are just going to see a lot more
21:38:40 people move out and maybe I'll be one of them up here
21:38:43 asking for a rezoning of my property to go conned O. I
21:38:49 don't want to do that.
21:38:50 But I think I want to keep it as a neighborhood and
21:38:55 single-family dwelling homes.
21:38:57 Thank you.
21:38:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:38:58 Next.
21:39:06 >>> My name is Morgan Klein.
21:39:09 I have been sworn in.
21:39:10 605 South Orleans.

21:39:12 Basically here to reiterate what everyone else said.
21:39:16 Too many cars.
21:39:16 Too many people.
21:39:18 Traffic is getting ridiculous.
21:39:20 I lived in my home for 16 years.
21:39:22 And severally stated, like Carol said, the guy that
21:39:30 bought the property knew it was single-family.
21:39:34 So I think that's the issue.
21:39:36 Still make a nice profit.
21:39:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:39:38 Would anyone else like to speak?
21:39:46 >>> My name is Georgerina and I have been sworn in.
21:39:55 We are a neighborhood.
21:39:56 Very strong neighborhood.
21:39:57 As Carol said, we help each other, protect each other,
21:40:00 look after the kids.
21:40:03 And the destiny of an additional condo in the
21:40:05 neighborhood is going to decrease that neighborhood.
21:40:12 I walk down the street from Gorrie Elementary and
21:40:15 looked at that property with that house on it.
21:40:17 I knocked on the door of that house.
21:40:19 And there's trees around it.

21:40:21 And we need to increase the density of the greenery in
21:40:26 Hyde Park.
21:40:27 Not the density of the houses.
21:40:30 The building would look lovely someplace else.
21:40:33 But it's going to end up being an eyesore with all the
21:40:37 properties that have been described here.
21:40:39 And I oppose it.
21:40:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
21:40:43 >>> Say again?
21:40:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
21:40:45 >>> Oh.
21:40:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:40:50 >>> Graham Carruthers on behalf of the applicant.
21:40:53 I will do my best to be brief.
21:40:54 I would like to ask to come up in a minute to make
21:41:01 comments regarding the planning and some of the
21:41:03 professional planning issues, that she can comment on
21:41:05 better than I.
21:41:06 But I would like to make a few points and make a few
21:41:09 things very perfectly clear.
21:41:12 We heard a lot from these folks about what other
21:41:15 developers have done, what else is happening in town.

21:41:18 All that's irrelevant for purposes of this
21:41:20 application.
21:41:23 We are not exceeding the height limitation.
21:41:25 We are not requesting any variances.
21:41:30 We are not removing any protected trees from the site.
21:41:33 In fact we have agreed to help protect some of the
21:41:35 off-site trees located in the public right-of-way
21:41:38 based on the agreements that we have agreed to
21:41:40 undertake.
21:41:42 We are not responsible for school overcrowding.
21:41:45 We are not responsible for increased density or
21:41:47 increased traffic.
21:41:48 We are replacing a duplex with a duplex.
21:41:54 Councilman White asked us, is it a duplex?
21:41:57 The young lady indicated, it's a house that's been
21:41:59 divided into two units and there are two people living
21:42:01 there.
21:42:01 That's a duplex.
21:42:02 That's all we are doing.
21:42:04 No increase in density.
21:42:07 Finally, I would like to express my surprise and some
21:42:15 frustration frankly.

21:42:17 And I think it's important for the council to
21:42:19 understand how frustrating it is for a developer who
21:42:21 is trying to do the right thing and be a good
21:42:23 neighbor.
21:42:24 We extended an invitation to every single one of the
21:42:27 people who objected at the last meeting.
21:42:30 Only favor or six of them decided to come.
21:42:32 We had two meetings in our office.
21:42:35 This developer was listening to and welcomed any
21:42:40 insight that they had to bring to the project.
21:42:41 What we heard was, we don't like four units.
21:42:44 We don't like four units.
21:42:45 We don't like four units.
21:42:47 We listened to them.
21:42:48 We made modifications to the plan.
21:42:51 We made modifications to the elevation, the proposed
21:42:53 elevation of the building.
21:42:55 All based on the comments of the people who found it
21:42:58 important enough to come to our meeting.
21:43:00 And I think an outstanding indication of the
21:43:03 commitment that this developer has made to being a
21:43:06 good steward of this community and a good neighbor to

21:43:09 the people in that neighborhood.
21:43:12 A number of the people who are here and spoke tonight
21:43:14 were here the first go-around.
21:43:16 They received letters inviting to come and give us
21:43:19 input and I haven't heard from them.
21:43:21 I didn't get one single call from any of the folks who
21:43:23 were provided public notice to, asking questions,
21:43:26 expressing concerns.
21:43:29 The opportunity was there.
21:43:30 We did everything that we could to reach out and make
21:43:32 this a project that was acceptable to the community.
21:43:37 And I think that's very important.
21:43:38 It's very important for us.
21:43:40 It's very important to our client that you all
21:43:42 understand that.
21:43:43 Rather than belabor the point any further, I would
21:43:46 like to submit -- I have a stack of cases here from
21:43:49 all over the State of Florida, including the second
21:43:51 district court of appeals here in Tampa, as well as
21:43:53 the Florida supreme court.
21:43:56 They all essentially hold that basically the same
21:43:58 thing.

21:43:59 And I'll paraphrase the holdings of these cases.
21:44:03 Opinions of neighbors, of residential property, that
21:44:06 the proposed use of such property would cause traffic
21:44:09 problems, would cause light or noise pollution, or
21:44:13 would have generally an unfavorable impact on the
21:44:15 area, does not constitute competent, substantial
21:44:19 evidence to support the denial of a zoning
21:44:23 application.
21:44:25 The City of Tampa and the city-county -- Planning
21:44:28 Commission have professionals who are trained in these
21:44:31 things.
21:44:31 All of them have indicated this is consistent with the
21:44:33 comp plan category.
21:44:35 It's an appropriate project for this neighborhood.
21:44:38 The applicant has submitted expert testimony from
21:44:41 Ethel Hammer, a professional land planner, very well
21:44:44 regarded one in this area, and I didn't hear any more,
21:44:48 I dare say, than opinion from any objecting
21:44:52 surrounding property owners.
21:44:53 Had they come with any competent, substantial
21:44:55 evidence, we would be happy to respond to it.
21:44:58 With that, I'll let Ethel Hammer --

21:45:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are these fee simple or are they going
21:45:07 to be rentals?
21:45:08 >> Fee simple.
21:45:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Good.
21:45:14 >>> Ethel Hammer: When Mr. Garcia was up here giving
21:45:18 his presentation on behalf of the Planning Commission
21:45:19 I think one of the things did he was draw a
21:45:21 distinction between those properties on the north side
21:45:24 of DeLeon and those properties on the south.
21:45:27 And if you recall, he said that once you get south of
21:45:30 DeLeon, it becomes a single-family neighborhood.
21:45:34 Virtually all of the people who spoke this evening
21:45:37 gave an address in the 600 block, except for the first
21:45:40 two people.
21:45:42 Those people live in the single-family neighborhood.
21:45:44 This property is not the appropriate place to draw the
21:45:48 line.
21:45:48 The appropriate place is DeLeon.
21:45:51 We also enjoy the res 35 plan category.
21:45:56 If you notice on my graphic, everything south of
21:45:58 DeLeon on this block is residential 10 reflecting
21:46:03 the single-family character of that neighborhood.

21:46:05 So this property is different.
21:46:08 It shares the same plan category as the multifamily
21:46:13 projects to the west, to the north, and both of them
21:46:17 to the east.
21:46:18 And again I'd lake to point out that with the
21:46:20 exception of the one single-family home, there are no
21:46:23 other single-family homes on this block face.
21:46:27 I believe this is very different from a planning
21:46:29 perspective.
21:46:30 And if there's a concern about a precedent, if in fact
21:46:33 a long time ago by all of the other projects that have
21:46:37 been approved on this block.
21:46:38 Thank you.
21:46:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I could ask our staff.
21:46:46 But if you were to build a large single-family home on
21:46:49 this property under an RS-50, the five yard set back
21:46:55 seven feet?
21:46:56 >>> Yes, sir.
21:46:57 It sits in the exact same footprint as what we are
21:46:59 proposing.
21:47:00 We are building a structure that has two units half
21:47:02 the size of one single-family home that could be built

21:47:05 on the property.
21:47:06 >> Side yard setback, side yard setback, rear setback
21:47:12 the same?
21:47:12 >>> Correct.
21:47:13 >> The height is the same?
21:47:14 >>> Correct.
21:47:15 And we designed it to look like one single-family
21:47:18 home.
21:47:22 >> The setbacks shown on the site plan are actually
21:47:25 inside, where -- in other words, we have accommodated
21:47:30 a larger setback on the front and the rear as allowed
21:47:33 in the code.
21:47:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The next door neighbor indicated
21:47:36 you refused to plant trees on the side yards.
21:47:38 Can you clarify that?
21:47:43 >>> I don't know that that's true.
21:47:45 My understanding is we offered to plant palm trees.
21:47:48 I don't know that you can plant a big canopy tree in a
21:47:52 7-foot side yard setback.
21:47:57 >> Showing the palm trees you want to put on the
21:47:59 project.
21:48:08 >>> Kind of hard to see to scale.

21:48:09 But this is existing what will need to be removed.
21:48:15 These are proposed.
21:48:22 We are replanting some trees in the side yard setback.
21:48:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are you saving that oak tree in the
21:48:28 back?
21:48:29 >>> Yes.
21:48:29 That was the one that I believe some of the neighbors
21:48:32 said was going to be retained as part of the revised
21:48:37 site plans.
21:48:39 >> Is it shown on or indicated in text on the site
21:48:42 plan that it will be retained?
21:48:53 Marty talked about during the two hours the previous
21:48:55 meeting, it was placed on the site plan.
21:49:03 >>> I can show you with 100% certainty that no
21:49:06 protected tree is being removed from the site.
21:49:08 I don't know if any of the city staff is here to speak
21:49:11 to that.
21:49:13 >>> If I might, I can show you where the oak tree is
21:49:15 in the backyard.
21:49:17 It's actually on the property corner.
21:49:19 And will be retained.
21:49:23 >>DICK: The three trees on the site plan, your site

21:49:28 plan, and indicate a size, or substantial palm trees,
21:49:35 maybe three palm trees of substantial size.
21:49:38 I don't know what substantial size is.
21:49:40 >>> Certainly.
21:49:42 >> Maybe you can work that out.
21:49:43 >>> That's fine.
21:49:43 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
21:49:48 >> Second.
21:49:48 (Motion carried).
21:49:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: After hearing all the pertinent
21:49:56 testimony from the neighborhood as well as the
21:49:57 developer, we did sit through the long and arduous
21:50:03 hearing in November and listened to the neighborhood
21:50:06 concerns, not wanting four units in the neighborhood.
21:50:11 I think the developer has come up with way would
21:50:14 consider reasonable compromise based off of the
21:50:19 substantial evidence that has been drawn in this
21:50:22 stair-step concept going from three to one.
21:50:25 I realize that most of the residential or all of the
21:50:28 residents that have spoken tonight are tired of and do
21:50:31 not want condos, and or townhouses in their
21:50:35 neighborhood.

21:50:36 But with this particular project, there was another
21:50:41 picture in the file that showed a corner that the
21:50:45 clerk gave me of the existing structure.
21:50:49 From what I can see just from that particular corner I
21:50:52 would welcome anything but what is there.
21:50:55 Now, with two units that are there now versus two
21:50:59 units pending, I don't see how that's going to impede
21:51:04 traffic anymore.
21:51:04 I don't see how that's going to impact your
21:51:07 neighborhood anymore other than aesthetically bringing
21:51:12 beauty to the neighborhood unless you just don't lake
21:51:14 condos, but that's fine. The one thing that Mr.
21:51:17 Carrothers did say that I don't agree with is that
21:51:20 neighborhood input is not competent substantial
21:51:23 evidence.
21:51:24 There wasn't anything tonight that swayed me but I
21:51:28 wholeheartedly believe that neighborhoods know and
21:51:31 want what is best for their neighborhoods, and they
21:51:33 know what impacts their neighborhood.
21:51:36 The only reason I can truly stand up and support this
21:51:40 tonight is because it's replacing a duplex with two,
21:51:44 fee-simple, single-family units.

21:51:46 There's nothing more being added other than a larger
21:51:51 structure.
21:51:51 But there's in a more density as far as people are
21:51:54 concerned, there's no more traffic.
21:51:55 Still two units, two families that can live there, and
21:52:00 I would move for approval, Madam Chair.
21:52:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
21:52:05 >> Second.
21:52:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
21:52:06 Would you read that, please?
21:52:08 >>> I move an ordinance rezoning property in the
21:52:10 general vicinity of 509 south Willow in the city of
21:52:13 Tampa, Florida more generally described from zoning
21:52:16 districts classification single family to PD single
21:52:18 family semi detached providing an effective date.
21:52:20 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
21:52:22 (Motion carried).
21:52:30 >>CHAIRMAN: Item number 11 is a continued public
21:52:33 hearing.
21:53:07 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
21:53:08 I have been sworn.
21:53:11 This rezoning case request is to go from RS-50 to a

21:53:16 planned development.
21:53:16 There are no waivers with this request.
21:53:19 The petitioner proposes to rezone the property at 4519
21:53:23 west Fig street to a single family attached PD.
21:53:28 Petitioner is proposing the construction of six
21:53:30 single-family attached units from the site.
21:53:33 The two buildings will be accessed by a common drive
21:53:36 in the middle of the property.
21:53:38 The front setback is 15 feet. The side set back is 6
21:53:42 and the rear is 28. The maximum hate will be 35 feet.
21:53:46 Guest parking and retention will be on-site at the
21:53:50 rear.
21:53:50 The site has been designed to avoid impact on a
21:53:53 cluster of trees on the northern portion of the site.
21:53:58 In response to the comments at the last council
21:54:00 meeting, this is a continued case, I'm sorry.
21:54:03 The petitioner has redesigned the project to have a
21:54:05 more street-friendly design.
21:54:08 The end units on the south elevation will have direct
21:54:11 access to the street and will be adorned with a front
21:54:14 porch similar to those found in Historic Hyde Park.
21:54:19 The depth of the front porches will be five feet.

21:54:28 The subject site, it is south of Gray Street.
21:54:32 This is Westshore and Fig.
21:54:38 Fig Street dead-ends right to the point east of the
21:54:42 subject site.
21:54:45 There is a planned development behind the subject
21:54:49 site.
21:54:49 Planned development at the dead-end.
21:54:52 I'll show you that area.
21:54:57 If you look at the aerial, this is Fig Street.
21:55:02 At the end of Fig Street is a dead-end, and has
21:55:06 approximately ten town homes, circular drive.
21:55:13 Single-family home, and the rest of the on there are
21:55:16 single-family.
21:55:24 There is an objection on the staff report noted.
21:55:28 The stormwater objection.
21:55:29 The City of Tampa stormwater requires one half inch
21:55:34 retention and a pre-five-year, post 25-year stormwater
21:55:38 accumulation for the entire property.
21:55:40 We were able to contact the petitioner prayer to the
21:55:43 meeting, and they are willing to place a note on the
21:55:46 site plan saying they will comply with that standard.
21:55:52 Land development has in a objection.

21:55:53 We find the area of town is undergoing transition of
21:55:56 single family residents, replaced with town home
21:55:59 developments.
21:55:59 There are many recent town home projects within a
21:56:02 three-block radius of the site.
21:56:04 Let me just show you pictures I neglected to do that.
21:56:09 This is the subject site.
21:56:12 This is the dead-end of 6th street.
21:56:16 Just approximately three homes down.
21:56:17 And these are the town homes, circular drive.
21:56:23 The residents across the street.
21:56:25 This is another view.
21:56:28 This site is at the corner of Fig and Westshore.
21:56:34 Multifamily unit.
21:56:35 And you have before you, you see the elevations.
21:56:40 Other than placing the note on the site plan, which
21:56:43 they have agreed to do, there are no further
21:56:46 objections from staff.
21:56:46 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:56:59 I have been sworn in.
21:57:00 Very quickly to the Elmo to show you the future land
21:57:02 use categories for this area. This is known as the

21:57:05 Westshore Palms neighborhood association area.
21:57:07 This is just east of Westshore mall, land use
21:57:13 designation is RMU 100, residential 35, and
21:57:18 transitions into residential 20 which is predominant
21:57:22 land use category for this area of Westshore Palms.
21:57:26 Looking at the arrow, you can see the apartments over
21:57:31 here association condo development, town homes to the
21:57:35 north of the proposed site over here, at the terminus
21:57:40 of this segment of Fig Street.
21:57:43 It goes right into the multifamily development that we
21:57:45 were talking about, another town development.
21:57:49 Basically, and you all are pretty well aware of this,
21:57:52 we have had a variety of town home developments that
21:57:55 have been submitted and approved in the Westshore
21:57:57 Palms area, that seems to be a pretty integrated area
21:58:00 as far as residential uses are concerned.
21:58:02 The request has been continued several times mainly
21:58:05 due to site plan issues and design issues.
21:58:09 As Ms. Coyle has stated, applicant was able to go
21:58:12 ahead and provide a site plan that will be more
21:58:17 residential in character as it would have to interface
21:58:21 with residential houses.

21:58:24 So that the project is oriented from a residential
21:58:27 aspect to properly interface with single family
21:58:31 residential uses to the south.
21:58:32 Planning Commission staff has in a objections to the
21:58:34 proposed request.
21:58:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to ask a question of Marty.
21:58:47 Could you put the map back up?
21:59:00 And could you show us the subject property in the
21:59:05 green subject property?
21:59:06 Okay.
21:59:06 It appears to me other than the PD that all around it
21:59:09 if we go in closer, from what the photographs you
21:59:17 have, you have multifamily to the north one block away
21:59:20 from the northwest.
21:59:21 You have multifamily to the southeast.
21:59:25 But all around is single-family.
21:59:28 When you talk about compatibility, it sort of depends
21:59:31 on how you are defining your area.
21:59:33 But if you look at the block face on Fig to the north
21:59:36 and south, you have got single-family all around.
21:59:39 And I just -- I thought it was kind of peculiar that
21:59:42 you thought that it was multifamily that really

21:59:47 appears to be single family.
21:59:49 >>> Talking to Gloria when she wrote the report she
21:59:51 indicated, I think the reason she decided that it
21:59:54 was -- could be deemed compatible is because at the
22:00:00 dead-end of Fig, there is they're was allowed a PD
22:00:03 that brought in -- there was a single-family home
22:00:07 there and it brought in ten single-family town homes.
22:00:11 And because of that, she felt that maybe that it was a
22:00:16 compatible request.
22:00:22 I do need, before we go to the petitioner, I do
22:00:25 apologize.
22:00:26 In working with Mary dryson just a seconding ago it
22:00:30 appears there were comments left out of the staff
22:00:32 report.
22:00:33 So I need to read them into the record.
22:00:35 And then I will have to see if petitioner is willing
22:00:38 to comply with those in the site plan.
22:00:40 I don't know if I have to read through them.
22:00:43 But one of them is meeting an accurate tree survey.
22:00:47 And they are requesting that they adjust to reflect
22:00:52 removal of the palms.
22:00:53 Apparently that wasn't done.

22:00:57 Also, in providing a minimum recommended tree, they
22:01:00 are noting that four additional trees need to be
22:01:03 planted.
22:01:05 And under providing one tree per 40 feet of equal use
22:01:13 area one additional tree needs to be added.
22:01:15 They need to provide for three-foot buffer to separate
22:01:17 the vehicle use area from adjacent parcel along the
22:01:21 north property line, and retention areas more than two
22:01:24 inches in depth cannot be counted as green space
22:01:27 calculation.
22:01:29 The tree cluster on the northeast portion of the
22:01:31 property should be preserved.
22:01:33 However, of the 12 and 28 inches trees are removed the
22:01:38 proposed vehicle use area should be at least six feet
22:01:40 away from the remaining trees.
22:01:43 These are new comments that are not in your staff
22:01:45 report and I don't believe that petitioner has been
22:01:47 privy to them.
22:01:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So does that mean, for example,
22:01:50 that they are asking for a waiver of green space?
22:01:58 >>JULIA COLE: I think we need to clarify that because
22:02:00 I understand the petitioner is aware of this, it is

22:02:02 not included on their site plan and therefore there is
22:02:05 an objection that does remain from staff.
22:02:12 >>> Land Development Coordination, tree and
22:02:14 landscaping.
22:02:15 The comments are almost identically reflect the
22:02:19 comments that they received back in December.
22:02:24 November.
22:02:24 And the gnaw plan does not address.
22:02:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In other words --
22:02:49 So they are asking for a waiver, or --
22:02:54 >>> The actual request for additional trees can be
22:02:57 handled with a note on the site plan.
22:03:01 There was a three-foot buffer to separate the vehicle
22:03:04 use area from the adjacent parcel.
22:03:06 They can handle that with a note.
22:03:09 And they are removing some palms from the front of the
22:03:12 property, and in fact I did talk to the petitioner at
22:03:18 one point in the past.
22:03:20 And they said that they didn't think they had to put
22:03:23 the palm trees on the plan.
22:03:27 I said if it's part of the parcel they have to be
22:03:29 counted.

22:03:30 And there's a cluster of trees in the back.
22:03:36 I relented and said, okay, they can remove two of
22:03:39 those trees but I wanted them to maintain a radius
22:03:44 from the cluster, with some impervious concrete or
22:03:48 some kind of impervious surface.
22:03:52 >>: Are your comments reflected anywhere on the site
22:03:55 plan?
22:03:57 >>> No.
22:04:00 >> Well, it's nice that you said -- if it's not
22:04:06 reflected on the site plan.
22:04:07 Well, let's just see.
22:04:08 Thank you.
22:04:11 >>> Marty indicated previously the -- that is not the
22:04:17 case because not all the objections have been removed
22:04:20 so you are reviewing this under staff objections.
22:04:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for the clarification.
22:04:30 >>CHAIRMAN MILLER: Petitioner?
22:04:33 Petitioner?
22:04:33 >>> Michalina Ostrowski, 4515 Fig Street, and I have
22:05:00 been sworn in.
22:05:17 We do have the site plans.
22:05:20 And did have a way to the front door to the sidewalk.

22:05:34 And I am going to show you my new elevation.
22:05:40 >>CHAIRMAN: Let me ask Marty.
22:06:01 Do we need to listen to this?
22:06:05 >>> Yes, do you need to listen to it.
22:06:08 (Laughter).
22:06:11 >> Not from you.
22:06:11 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
22:06:13 I believe Mary indicated that all of those are
22:06:17 objections.
22:06:18 If the petitioner will agree we could add them via a
22:06:22 note from the -- to the site plan so it wouldn't be a
22:06:25 graphical change.
22:06:25 We could handle it through notes.
22:06:27 It would be several notes but you would have to agree
22:06:30 to those.
22:06:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you know what the notes are?
22:06:38 Tell us which ones you agree to.
22:06:44 >>> About the retention pond.
22:06:54 Okay, I'll do that.
22:06:56 >> Actually five additional trees.
22:06:58 Four in one.
22:07:00 >>> Okay.

22:07:04 >> And you will agree to a three foot buffer on the
22:07:08 north property line.
22:07:11 >>> Wait a minute, a three foot -- to separate the
22:07:15 vehicles.
22:07:17 At the north property line.
22:07:21 Okay.
22:07:29 >> I think if she could go ahead with the
22:07:31 presentation.
22:07:31 And then during -- I think there are people here to
22:07:34 speak.
22:07:35 She and I can go over what those are and then she can
22:07:37 come back on rebuttal, as to whoa whether she agrees
22:07:44 or not.
22:07:47 >>> Okay.
22:07:48 Well, I would like to submit to you as the signatures
22:07:50 that I got of people in my area that were on my list
22:08:02 that I sent certified letters to that approved of my
22:08:07 development.
22:08:09 I know you have this but I made more copies of it.
22:08:12 And I would like to submit to you because I wanted to
22:08:17 discuss on it.
22:08:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Give them to the clerk.

22:08:25 Mr. Shelby?
22:08:33 >>> We did receive them, but I want to discuss that
22:08:36 Barbara Byrd, who is the president of our neighborhood
22:08:44 association, because there was a meeting before, to
22:08:52 sign my petition that you approved what I was doing,
22:09:00 the majority of the people, they approved of the
22:09:03 townhouses.
22:09:11 So why not?
22:09:12 Because they are increasing the value of their homes.
22:09:21 I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
22:09:25 Now, I did take the pictures here of the townhouses
22:09:31 that somebody mentioned that was a gated area
22:09:46 A gated area.
22:09:48 It's townhouses that are just two house as way from
22:09:52 me.
22:09:52 These are just 100 feet away from me.
22:09:55 It's not a gated area.
22:09:59 I don't recall ever seeing a gate there.
22:10:02 And I've lived in my house since March of '85.
22:10:12 The entranceway is as wide as this tree.
22:10:18 Maybe they should have a gate there.
22:10:20 But they don't.

22:10:20 They never had one as far as I can ever remember
22:10:24 seeing.
22:10:25 Now, these houses over here show the houses that are
22:10:32 there, very close together, high density.
22:10:37 There are ten there.
22:10:39 And back in '84 there was only one house there.
22:10:44 And there was very little landscaping there.
22:10:51 Three of the houses have only one-car garages.
22:10:55 The other seven have two-car garages.
22:11:03 Very limit guest parking.
22:11:05 There's very little landscaping around it.
22:11:11 And that is 100 feet away from me.
22:11:16 Now behind me, these townhouses behind me, you have
22:11:19 seen this before.
22:11:20 But I took another picture of what they looked like on
22:11:23 Gray Street.
22:11:28 The garages face the street.
22:11:31 And the driveway.
22:11:38 I have enough parking for six guest parking.
22:11:42 We are going to have two-car garages.
22:11:46 We are not going to create any traffic.
22:11:49 Not that much.

22:11:54 And 100 feet away.
22:11:58 And I'm just a block away from Westshore.
22:12:00 When I'm in the middle of my street I can see it.
22:12:05 This is a high density area.
22:12:07 And hey density.
22:12:13 Ten houses where right behind it was townhouses, six
22:12:23 on gray.
22:12:24 I can go on and on.
22:12:25 Right now the building is 15 and Hubert.
22:12:29 They cover Hubert and gray.
22:12:31 They are going to be building another 30 at Hubert
22:12:37 between gray and state.
22:12:42 They have already built six from the corner.
22:12:44 It's a high density area.
22:12:56 Actually, 4th street, north of gray, and it
22:13:02 would -- from Westshore to Dale Mabry it's just a
22:13:07 little over a mile.
22:13:08 I walked there every day.
22:13:12 And the house as round me are not very expensive.
22:13:23 Just recently like last June, a house next door to me
22:13:27 goes for 195,000.
22:13:34 A house sold for 195,000 last May.

22:13:38 A house across the street like ten years ago sold for
22:13:42 43,000.
22:13:43 On a lot and a half.
22:13:45 The only thing, they came to put a new rev on it.
22:13:52 A lot and a half for 43,000.
22:13:55 That was sold in April of '95.
22:14:03 That's my area.
22:14:18 These recently sold for 815 that you.
22:14:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me stop you.
22:14:23 Let's see if there's anyone in opposition and you can
22:14:25 come back and rebut them.
22:14:27 >>> Okay.
22:14:27 >> Is there anyone in the public to speak on item
22:14:29 number 11?
22:14:30 Please get up and come -- would the rest of the
22:14:34 chambers like to come, too?
22:14:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Where did the council go?
22:14:49 >> They left.
22:14:50 >> The women are here.
22:14:51 >>> My name is Susan and I live at 4210 west Fig
22:14:56 Street and I have been sworn in.
22:14:58 Let me clarify something.

22:14:59 Because I'm the proud owner less than 3030th days
22:15:03 ago of one of the houses around here.
22:15:05 And what I want to show, I live in the PD development
22:15:12 at the end of the street that she's talking about.
22:15:14 And even though it is considered condominiums because
22:15:18 it's development legally, those are totally
22:15:21 free-standing houses.
22:15:22 Those are totally detached.
22:15:23 When I brought mine, it didn't -- it was less when I
22:15:32 bought it.
22:15:32 But free standing houses.
22:15:34 Those are not attached in any way.
22:15:36 I just want to make that clear.
22:15:37 And I have a few other things I'm just going to go
22:15:41 through some pictures and I would like to put them in
22:15:43 the file. This section of Fig Street is a dead-end
22:15:45 and I am going to say it again and again and again,
22:15:48 it's a dead-end, it's a dead-end, it's a dead-end.
22:15:51 Every single house leading up from Trask down through
22:15:56 the PD totally detached houses at the end are
22:15:59 one-story single-family homes.
22:16:02 The pictures I have up here are me standing at Trask

22:16:08 looking down fourth that dead-ends into our
22:16:13 neighborhood.
22:16:13 The house in question is right in here and I'll show
22:16:16 you additional pictures of that.
22:16:18 Again this is looking west from the end of our
22:16:21 cul-de-sac where it dead-ends.
22:16:23 You can see the nature of the street.
22:16:25 And actually here is a question for rezoning where my
22:16:30 finger is.
22:16:31 Again just another picture of the dead-end.
22:16:34 The dead-end is important because we have to maintain
22:16:38 our own street in our neighborhood.
22:16:41 It is not city-maintained.
22:16:43 You add development on that street, it's going to
22:16:46 cause traffic.
22:16:47 There's in a way public turn-around on that street and
22:16:51 if there's construction, normal traffic, my
22:16:53 understanding, I did go on your archivally and I
22:16:56 pulled up the entire 74-page file from the last two
22:16:59 continuances.
22:17:01 There was no site plan here.
22:17:03 When I looked, I understand she only had two guest

22:17:07 space.
22:17:10 Guest parking spaces.
22:17:11 Again these are just other pictures to show -- that's
22:17:15 the house across the street from hers.
22:17:17 And again this is her house in question.
22:17:22 Her current square footage is 1712 square feet.
22:17:26 She's asking for rezoning up to 10,200 square feet of
22:17:30 living space, me looking at the petition on that
22:17:35 property.
22:17:35 So again to summarize, this portion of state street is
22:17:39 a local road.
22:17:41 The rezoning is in the middle of a dead-end block with
22:17:46 completely single-family homes leading up to all
22:17:49 development at the end, which again I stress is a
22:17:51 privately maintained road.
22:17:53 Yes, we have a pal in the middle, the cul-de-sac.
22:17:56 So there are some safety issues for additional traffic
22:17:58 coming in there.
22:18:00 There is no other public turn around on that portion
22:18:03 of Fig being a dead-end street.
22:18:05 Most PD zonings, I have been watching your meetings,
22:18:09 are approved on corners where density and access may

22:18:12 not have the same effect, granting additional hey
22:18:15 density development in the middle of the street.
22:18:20 Again, I know it's in a flood zone.
22:18:22 I really can't tell the stormwater issues but that was
22:18:27 originally also.
22:18:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It looks like a proposed rezoning
22:18:32 creates a lot more impervious surface.
22:18:36 >>> Yes.
22:18:37 Issues with flooding.
22:18:42 >> Within the last 30 days.
22:18:45 >>> Exactly.
22:18:45 That's why I can't answer.
22:18:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:18:49 Next.
22:18:58 >> Robert Jones.
22:18:59 I have been sworn in.
22:18:59 I live at 4509 west Fig Street, unit B.
22:19:07 I made a little sketch to show you a little bit.
22:19:10 This is contained of a unique area.
22:19:14 One block dead-end or ten free standing townhouses and
22:19:19 eight regular residences along this stretch of Fig
22:19:21 Street.

22:19:22 Now city vehicles now, the waste trucks and the
22:19:27 recycling units, come up here and have to turn around
22:19:30 and back up in here because they can't turn around
22:19:33 here now.
22:19:35 So we have a very congested situation here right now.
22:19:40 The city vehicles can't pull in.
22:19:43 And I hate to see what would happen if we had a fire
22:19:46 up in here.
22:19:47 The fire truck would have to back in, and the nearest
22:19:50 fire hydrant is almost two blocks away on the corner
22:19:53 of Gray and Trask up here.
22:19:57 So there is definitely a problem with congestion here.
22:20:00 We feel like we just have all the use of this area
22:20:05 that we can stand right now.
22:20:08 This is the house that is to be rezoned to six
22:20:12 additional units.
22:20:13 And we just don't feel the area can stand that type
22:20:15 of -- on this street now if a landscaper parks on the
22:20:22 side of it, can't hardly get by to get in and out and
22:20:26 it's -- we are tight right up what the density in this
22:20:31 area can stand.
22:20:32 And wave very serious concerns about adding any more.

22:20:35 Thank you very much.
22:20:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez has a question for you.
22:20:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You're saying that your street on
22:20:44 figure street, garbage trucks and things can't go by
22:20:47 there?
22:20:48 >>> They can't pull in.
22:20:49 They have to turn around here and they back in.
22:20:51 >> They back in?
22:20:52 >>> Yes.
22:20:53 >> Is that like two --
22:20:56 >>> It's private property.
22:21:00 >> What about Fig Street?
22:21:02 That's not private property.
22:21:04 >>> Fig Street is not private property.
22:21:07 They can't turn around in it.
22:21:09 They would have to back in to service these.
22:21:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Let them talk.
22:21:17 [Sounding gavel]
22:21:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What about the units on the end here?
22:21:21 What do they do with their garbage on Trask?
22:21:25 >>> We have a dumpster here and he has to back in and
22:21:29 pick up and move out with it.

22:21:31 It wasn't really very well planned but we are there
22:21:34 now.
22:21:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yeah, really.
22:21:36 Thank you.
22:21:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
22:21:37 Next.
22:21:42 >>> Roy Kerns.
22:21:43 I have been sworn in.
22:21:45 I live at 4510 Fig unit C.
22:21:50 I am going to read a statement so I can get it all in.
22:21:52 I'm requesting that City Council vote against the
22:21:54 request of the property at 4519 west Fig Street be
22:21:58 rezoned for six residential units instead of the
22:22:01 present one.
22:22:02 This section of west Fig Street in question is
22:22:06 dead-ended, as has already been said, with access from
22:22:09 only one direction.
22:22:10 This section of west Fig Street is presently home to
22:22:13 18 residences.
22:22:14 Because of the dead-end street as required that the
22:22:16 garbage and recycling the entire street.
22:22:19 The same would be true for emergency vehicles.

22:22:23 Increasing the number of residences by five would only
22:22:26 make this situation much worse especially when
22:22:29 curbside parking is a problem.
22:22:31 I noticed how much the traffic problem has increased
22:22:35 in the last year or so since the restaurant opened two
22:22:39 blocks away at the corner of Fig and Westshore.
22:22:41 No one -- no one has to watch very carefully and drive
22:22:46 extra slow to approach this area.
22:22:48 I have almost been broadsided several times by
22:22:50 vehicles exiting the parking lot.
22:22:53 The other multifamily along Fig Street towards
22:22:57 Westshore also create a similar condition.
22:22:59 The condition only a few doors down from where I
22:23:04 presently live at 4510-C would I feel would be
22:23:09 similarly respected.
22:23:11 I find this very disturbing.
22:23:13 The increased traffic congestion, noise and risk on
22:23:18 west Fig Street will I believe be very unpleasant and
22:23:21 most significantly decrease the enjoyable use of my
22:23:24 house and peace of mind.
22:23:26 I think this is wrong.
22:23:27 Basically if this rezoning is passed I feel I may be

22:23:30 in effect forced out of my house where I lived for the
22:23:33 last 19 years.
22:23:34 If I choose to stay, I would feel somewhat trapped in
22:23:37 a dead-end street much more congested than the day I
22:23:40 brought my property for the purpose of living in it
22:23:42 and enjoying its peaceful use.
22:23:44 I'm also concerned about the estimated six-month or
22:23:48 longer construction day if this project is approved.
22:23:52 The presence of construction crews, noise and other
22:23:55 disruptions that go along with construction concern me
22:23:58 on a two-lane dead-end street that provides the only
22:24:01 access to my property.
22:24:02 We presently have to deal with trucks turning around,
22:24:06 basically, that aren't supposed to be there in there
22:24:10 tearing our asphalt up and I think this would get
22:24:12 worse.
22:24:13 It's interesting that the owner of the unit in
22:24:14 question has a five minute parking sign in her yard
22:24:19 demonstrating her own concern for the issue of traffic
22:24:21 congestion, yet she would be willing to sell her unit
22:24:24 if rezoned at an apparent much higher profit of the
22:24:27 price greatly affecting the community and the other

22:24:30 residences on the 4500 block of west Fig Street.
22:24:35 I ask the zoning board to deny this request for
22:24:38 rezoning.
22:24:38 Thank you.
22:24:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:24:39 Next.
22:24:47 >>> I have been sworn in.
22:24:50 I say amen to what has already been said.
22:24:53 (Laughter).
22:24:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Good.
22:24:55 >>> It's a dead-end street.
22:24:57 And the last time in November or December, she said it
22:25:01 was not a dead-end.
22:25:03 It's always a dead-end street.
22:25:08 So I say amen.
22:25:11 (Laughter).
22:25:15 >> Just say amen if you agree.
22:25:18 >> Amen.
22:25:19 >>> Sharon Davis, 4509 E, west Fig Street.
22:25:24 I have been sworn in.
22:25:25 I can't beat that one.
22:25:28 I always approach something like this with the problem

22:25:35 and let's find a good solution. The problem as I know
22:25:37 I am beating a dead horse to death, dead-end street
22:25:42 which is lined with well maintained residential homes
22:25:47 to be replaced by six abutting, not free standing town
22:25:52 homes, with only a 15-foot fence setback but only two
22:25:59 guest parking spaces from six units.
22:26:02 Envisioned impact on our dead-end street with regard
22:26:04 to waste management already impeded, backing into our
22:26:09 property, stormwater regarding the density of proposed
22:26:12 units, impending emergency -- impeding emergency
22:26:16 services, the fire department, ingress and egress,
22:26:22 cars parked up and down the street, even Mrs.
22:26:25 Ostrowski posted a no parking five minute zone to her
22:26:30 neighbors.
22:26:30 And I know why, because when people are there and the
22:26:35 cars park there, belief believe me, you need a rubber
22:26:38 car to get in and out of there.
22:26:40 I reside in Brentonwoods which is zoned in contrast,
22:26:45 it's comprised of ten free standing -- free standing
22:26:49 town homes on a private drive cul-de-sac which as we
22:26:53 stipulated, not the city but all of the maintenance
22:26:58 thereof.

22:26:58 We have one guest space per unit, plus numerous
22:27:03 beautiful green space.
22:27:07 As a solution, I would like to ask council to consider
22:27:11 not to jeopardize the safety, security, quality of
22:27:15 life, and mostly the density and character of our
22:27:19 street, which is zoned R-1 not to unable one home
22:27:28 owner to obtain monetary gain at the expense of our
22:27:31 neighborhood jeopardizing our safety, security,
22:27:33 character of our homes and street.
22:27:36 Tonight, there was a statement made.
22:27:38 And I found it very interesting.
22:27:40 I saw condos on Channelside, I saw you this morning, I
22:27:44 believe, in the areas set aside for condominiums and
22:27:49 areas of multi-housing.
22:27:51 But the statement made tonight was zoning should
22:27:55 benefit the neighborhood, not the developer.
22:27:57 Thank you for your consideration.
22:27:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:28:00 Next.
22:28:04 >>> I'm the new kid on the block.
22:28:05 I just moved in maybe about six months ago.
22:28:07 I'm the guy with the 195,000 house.

22:28:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
22:28:18 >>> Yes.
22:28:19 Thank you.
22:28:54 Here's two story condos in the middle of our families.
22:28:57 And talk about all these town homes.
22:29:00 Yeah, they are all empty.
22:29:03 They are building them but not being sold.
22:29:05 Oh, yeah, they did sell one.
22:29:06 They did just sell one.
22:29:07 I got the thing in the mail.
22:29:09 It's like a 285,000.
22:29:15 They even bought land, and the developers have
22:29:18 bulldozed down the house.
22:29:22 But they are trying to sell, you know, get somebody to
22:29:24 buy.
22:29:25 Nobody is buying them because the market, you know,
22:29:27 has been saturated.
22:29:29 And, I mean, I'm new to this.
22:29:33 But I think it boils down to common sense.
22:29:41 That's all I have to say.
22:29:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
22:29:45 If you're going to speak, please come on.

22:29:54 >>> 4516 Fig Street.
22:29:56 And I have been in the neighborhood favor years.
22:30:03 And
22:30:06 What is it, townhouses?
22:30:09 I got one close to the street where the next one to
22:30:15 mine, too.
22:30:22 Thank you.
22:30:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
22:30:28 >>> My name is lily Moses.
22:30:33 There's not much more than I can add to what I have
22:30:35 said because I feel that that -- we are a close knit
22:30:40 neighborhood, a short block.
22:30:41 There's not, you know, a big development.
22:30:45 And we are all close neighbors.
22:30:47 And it would be a shame to have that destroyed.
22:30:50 Thank you.
22:30:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
22:30:53 Okay.
22:30:55 Petitioner.
22:30:59 Mrs. Ostrowski.
22:31:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: How much time does she have?
22:31:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Five minutes.

22:31:09 >>> Ostrowski: They said it was a dead-end street.
22:31:17 Without making a dead-end that they can't get trucks
22:31:20 through there.
22:31:20 Then why did they make it a dead-end?
22:31:23 They could have made it a throughway.
22:31:26 Watts there.
22:31:27 They could have.
22:31:30 Now, I plan to live in one of those houses.
22:31:36 My house was built in 1968.
22:31:38 It's old.
22:31:38 It needs new windows.
22:31:40 It needs a lot
22:31:45 And that's why I would like to have a new house and be
22:31:49 able to make some money to pay the higher taxes.
22:31:52 Because I know I'm going to be paying a lot of taxes.
22:31:57 Now, he says it's a $195,000 house.
22:32:05 He forgets to mention he makes his money on rehabbing
22:32:08 houses.
22:32:09 He buys old houses.
22:32:14 That's what he did.
22:32:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Shhh.
22:32:17 >>> When I asked for his telephone number he gave me

22:32:19 his St. Pete telephone number because he has a house
22:32:22 at St. Pete Beach.
22:32:24 And the reason why I know -- he had two big trucks
22:32:35 parked on the street right in front of my house.
22:32:38 And he also has a Mercedes.
22:32:47 So every time I look out the window, parks his truck
22:32:57 in front of my house.
22:33:00 He walks across my lawn.
22:33:08 Why does a single man have to have two big trucks?
22:33:13 [Sounding gavel]
22:33:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mrs. Ostrowski, that has nothing to do
22:33:20 with this.
22:33:20 He might say why does an elderly woman want to build
22:33:23 six houses? That has nothing to do with your
22:33:25 presentation.
22:33:26 So let's keep him out of this.
22:33:28 >>> Well, yes.
22:33:28 But the reason why is I brought out -- a sign out
22:33:33 there but I was kind enough to take it down.
22:33:36 So, at any rate.
22:33:38 But as I say, if I don't do it, I can assure you I
22:33:44 will sell it and there will be a developer that will

22:33:47 do it.
22:33:48 It's because the land -- because the land is more
22:33:53 valuable than the house.
22:33:57 >>KEVIN WHITE: You got a bunch of buyers.
22:33:59 >>> I know.
22:34:02 I can walk to Westshore mall in ten minutes.
22:34:06 I can walk to Dale Mabry.
22:34:09 It's just a mile away.
22:34:11 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
22:34:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:34:19 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
22:34:21 >> Second.
22:34:21 (Motion carried).
22:34:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman.
22:34:28 We talked about this last time and a lot of things
22:34:30 that were said tonight were said then.
22:34:32 In terms of that development that Mrs. Ostrowski calls
22:34:38 a cul-de-sac I had a friend that lived there and it's
22:34:42 a very nice area and as you get closer to Westshore,
22:34:45 those are single houses and I know you put on the
22:34:47 record that you want to do this because this is
22:34:48 retirement but none of these things are valid reasons

22:34:52 for to us support this.
22:34:53 It is not compatible with what's there.
22:34:56 It's absolutely not even close to compatible.
22:34:59 And therefore, before you respond, and please don't
22:35:01 because I'm not asking any questions, I move to deny
22:35:04 based on compatibility.
22:35:05 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
22:35:06 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
22:35:08 Opposed, Nay.
22:35:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Now that we are finished, I think
22:35:11 somebody in the audience talked about the parking
22:35:13 issue ever since that restaurant went in on Westshore.
22:35:16 And I think they are absolutely correct.
22:35:18 And I wonder as a side motion to this, I went there
22:35:21 last week and it was awful because people are
22:35:23 illegally parked all the way down that street.
22:35:25 Can we ask maybe -- excuse me, ma'am.
22:35:29 Can we just request that TPD, has a little more
22:35:33 visibility there for illegal parking, that they can
22:35:36 cite a few people?
22:35:37 Because it's really bad.
22:35:38 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

22:35:39 (Motion carried).
22:35:43 >>> Ostrowski: One thing I should add --
22:35:46 >>GWEN MILLER: It's been denied.
22:35:48 You can't speak anymore.
22:35:49 It's over with.
22:35:49 Thank you.
22:35:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 13.
22:35:59 >> Second.
22:35:59 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
22:36:03 All in favor of the motion say Aye
22:36:04 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
22:36:34 This is V 06-15, special use, residential multifamily
22:36:43 and the proposed use is a church.
22:36:46 There are waivers associated with this site plan.
22:36:50 Direct access to an arterial street, to allow less
22:36:56 parking, drive aisles and handicapped spaces will be
22:36:59 paved and to reduce required yard setbacks from 40
22:37:03 fate to 10 feet at the rear setback.
22:37:07 Proposed church will be located on the western portion
22:37:09 of the subject site with grass parking to the front
22:37:13 and sides of the facilities.
22:37:14 Setbacks are from the front 80 feet, south side 100

22:37:18 feet, north side 72 feet, rear at 10.
22:37:22 2 build -- building's maximum occupancy will be 106
22:37:25 feet and the maximum height will be 20 feet.
22:37:28 The proposed church facility will exceed the minimum
22:37:30 parking requirement by 12 spaces.
22:37:33 The one-story church building will be designed with
22:37:39 arch windows, an entrance will be adorned with
22:37:43 decorative -- it's late, I apologize.
22:37:45 The building will comply with the East Tampa overlay
22:37:48 standard.
22:37:49 When we started up the meeting I went through the
22:37:51 agenda and I said there were two petitions that might
22:37:55 require graphical changes.
22:37:58 This is one of them.
22:37:59 Let me go through the area real quick and I'll show
22:38:01 you the rezoning map.
22:38:04 It is RM-16, proposed to be a church.
22:38:11 Commercial general, to the south is CI.
22:38:13 To the west there's CI and CG.
22:38:20 To the aerial, this is the subject site.
22:38:24 You will see that commercial general.
22:38:28 There is vacant property across the street.

22:38:31 And this is I-4.
22:38:37 To the west is single-family residential.
22:38:45 Views of subject site, again.
22:38:53 Large trees on-site.
22:38:59 This is looking south.
22:39:01 There's the hotel that we spoke of.
22:39:04 This is looking north.
22:39:08 Across the street, and the hotel to the north.
22:39:15 If you look at the site plan in front of you,
22:39:20 initially, Parks Department and Mary Theisen of the
22:39:27 landscaping department in LDC, they were objecting
22:39:31 to -- there's a 38-inch oak.
22:39:33 I'll put it on the Elmo so you can see.
22:39:46 >>GWEN MILLER: It's upside down.
22:39:48 >>> This is Karaoke.
22:39:51 This is the church.
22:39:51 The 38-inch oak is located just on the property line.
22:39:57 Initially -- is that better?
22:40:03 Initially, we have comments from parks and rec that
22:40:08 they would like to protect the radius.
22:40:12 So they went out today and this is the site.
22:40:14 And the tree is in decline so no longer be are they

22:40:19 requesting that the church be moved forward.
22:40:21 However, if you look to the east on the property, you
22:40:27 have this cluster of trees.
22:40:30 And there are two parking spaces here.
22:40:32 By putting the parking spaces here you will be
22:40:35 effectively removing these trees.
22:40:37 They have 12 additional parking spaces.
22:40:40 So we are requesting that they lose those two.
22:40:45 Ands in this area if they lose these, they can retain
22:40:47 these trees.
22:40:48 And these are the objections that are on the site
22:40:51 currently.
22:40:53 I have spoken to the petitioner.
22:40:55 And he is willing to move the parking spaces to keep
22:41:00 those trees, and that would remove the objections we
22:41:05 have on-site.
22:41:06 And we would need to do that.
22:41:08 That would constitute, I believe, a graphical change
22:41:10 because you are removing parking spaces.
22:41:13 >>MARTY BOYLE: The trees, are they protected trees or
22:41:18 grand trees or what are they?
22:41:20 >>> I believe the two up here, there's a 32-inch oak.

22:41:23 I don't believe it's grand but it is protected.
22:41:25 Then you have 14-inch oak, a 12-inch oak, and then
22:41:31 over in this area, if you lose these, you can you will
22:41:35 be able to save a 27-oak and a cluster of large oaks.
22:41:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are they planning to replace the
22:41:47 trees?
22:41:48 >>> There is a requirement that they do a certain
22:41:50 amount of replacements.
22:41:51 But if they lose their parking spaces, which they have
22:41:54 more than what's required by code, they could save
22:41:58 those trees.
22:41:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In an effort to move this along, it
22:42:05 seems to me they have enough parking spaces, they
22:42:09 could save the trees, Madam Chairman, could we ask
22:42:12 maybe if anyone is in objection?
22:42:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
22:42:15 would like to speak on item number 13?
22:42:16 Anyone here to speak on item 13?
22:42:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
22:42:23 Move to close.
22:42:28 >> Second.
22:42:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion, to be here hear from

22:42:33 Mr. Garcia from the Planning Commission, and accept
22:42:37 what's been taken as the recommendation of staff as
22:42:40 sufficient for the record.
22:42:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is Mr. Dingfelder part of the audience
22:42:44 or part of the --
22:42:48 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission.
22:42:49 I have been sworn in.
22:42:51 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
22:42:52 proposed request.
22:42:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:42:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Put his name on the record.
22:43:02 >> Move to close.
22:43:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Does to have put it on the record?
22:43:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: is the petitioner here?
22:43:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
22:43:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anything you wish to have to
22:43:14 say, sir?
22:43:17 Petitioner: Are you speaking to me?
22:43:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
22:43:22 >>> No.
22:43:22 Motion and second to close.
22:43:23 (Motion carried)

22:43:26 So read it or what?
22:43:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Where is the ordinance?
22:43:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have to go ask to get the
22:43:34 graphical changes made which indicates the trees are
22:43:37 going to be saved.
22:43:39 And coming back to us during the daytime.
22:43:42 >> Second.
22:43:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
22:43:43 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
22:43:45 (Motion carried).
22:43:49 >> Move to open 14.
22:43:50 >> Second.
22:43:51 (Motion carried)
22:44:17 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
22:44:18 I have been sworn.
22:44:23 This is the second of two cases that I mentioned
22:44:25 earlier requesting waiver of the 13-day rule.
22:44:28 There was a discrepancy, if you remember what I said
22:44:33 before, between the site plan and elevation.
22:44:35 They brought in plans today that show the consistency
22:44:38 between those site plan elevations with minor changes.
22:44:42 So just to let you know the bearings on that.

22:44:46 It is rezoning going from a CI commercial intensive,
22:44:50 to a planned development, single-family attached.
22:44:53 It's located at 6235 south Manhattan.
22:44:57 And they are proposing 14, one and two bedroom town
22:45:02 homes, a maximum height of 35 feet, very well the
22:45:05 following setbacks, 20 feet from Manhattan, 7 feet
22:45:10 side and 30 rear. The town homes are designed in a
22:45:13 Mediterranean revival style, access via common private
22:45:18 drive and three guest spaces have been provided at the
22:45:21 rear.
22:45:22 Garage doors will be architecturally recessed beneath
22:45:26 the second floor overhang.
22:45:28 Turning to the rezoning map, you will see it is
22:45:31 commercial intensive.
22:45:47 This is Robinson high school.
22:45:49 Return to the aerial.
22:45:50 Kind of an odd-shaped piece.
22:45:51 It backs up to CXS right-of-way.
22:45:56 Right here you have a commercial development in front
22:45:57 of it.
22:46:01 Multifamily homes.
22:46:07 This is Robinson.

22:46:15 >> Do we have any site plans?
22:46:18 >>> I have the map.
22:46:44 >>> I told you earlier about the need for graphical
22:46:46 change.
22:46:48 On the Elmo is what has essential changed the new site
22:46:52 plan that they submitted to us today.
22:46:54 And it was just to bring the two front units towards
22:47:01 Manhattan.
22:47:02 And they did that.
22:47:03 We reviewed the site plan.
22:47:05 And they did what we asked them to do.
22:47:12 I believe that there are no other objections.
22:47:23 Transportation and I'll finish.
22:47:24 Even though it isn't required the guest parking
22:47:26 spaces, the project provides three and four are
22:47:29 encouraged.
22:47:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
22:47:33 There are 14 units, and three guest parking spaces,
22:47:38 and several of the units, like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
22:47:46 only have one-car garages.
22:47:48 And this is on a real busy street.
22:47:51 Manhattan is the kind of street.

22:47:55 I really question whether adequate parking is
22:47:59 provided.
22:48:02 >> We have the comment from transportation just noting
22:48:05 that four were preferred guest parking spaces, three
22:48:09 were provided.
22:48:10 But they didn't have an objection, a formal objection.
22:48:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I have a question about it.
22:48:16 I really think that the standard is -- my
22:48:21 understanding is the that the standard is two parking
22:48:27 spaces provided per unit, and then guest spaces -- it
22:48:33 seems to me that over 50% of these units only have one
22:48:36 space.
22:48:36 >>MARTY BOYLE: I believe if you got a one-car garage
22:48:40 you can fit one car in and then there is room for a
22:48:43 car to park in the drive.
22:48:47 This is the subject site.
22:48:48 And you will see the multifamily units to the south
22:48:55 again log south of Manhattan.
22:49:09 CI and commercial development.
22:49:30 >> The site plan says you have eight one-bedroom unit.
22:49:34 That's why you are allowing a one parking space for a
22:49:36 one-bedroom unit.

22:49:38 >> Yes.
22:49:38 Thank you for helping.
22:49:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: You could have a husband and wife.
22:49:43 >> I'm guessing that's what our code probably says, to
22:49:46 have one bedroom, and --
22:49:53 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
22:49:55 I did review the site plan.
22:49:57 And it is not that way.
22:50:00 Town homes require two spaces per unit.
22:50:03 They have two spaces.
22:50:04 One space is in the garage.
22:50:07 The next space is tandem 18 feet behind the garage.
22:50:11 That would provide two spaces for that one-car garage
22:50:15 and space behind it, two space per unit.
22:50:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What about guest parking?
22:50:23 >>> Guest parking, there are three parking spaces,
22:50:27 that's not required.
22:50:28 I base it on a .25 per unit basis, which would be
22:50:33 four.
22:50:33 If you look at the two-car garage, they actually have
22:50:36 18 feet behind each two-car garage that they could fit
22:50:39 two more cars behind that.

22:50:41 If you want top look at it that way.
22:50:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What if they have a party?
22:50:48 >>> A whole other issue.
22:50:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You have a site about that.
22:51:12 You didn't mention that.
22:51:13 >> Earlier, we talked about there were two cases that
22:51:15 need add 13-day waiver of the rules.
22:51:19 Because of graphical changes.
22:51:20 They brought in site plans today.
22:51:23 Because it was minor that's why we are bringing it
22:51:25 forward to you.
22:51:26 They brought in site plans in the orange, I showed you
22:51:29 on the site plan.
22:51:32 That's all they had to change.
22:51:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What you are showing me there was part
22:51:37 of this note that you put on.
22:51:42 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
22:51:50 I have been sworn in.
22:51:55 This is one of the projects when we first took over.
22:52:02 Residential 10.
22:52:26 Regarding existing uses in the area, this is near an
22:52:29 elementary school, on the other side of the CSX

22:52:32 railroad.
22:52:33 Directly to the east along with the larger area.
22:52:36 Robinson high school before as I stated, single-family
22:52:41 homes to the south, directly abutting the project.
22:52:45 At the tarpon bay apartments directed to the south
22:52:48 over here.
22:52:48 Proposed request is consistent with the comprehensive
22:52:50 plan as the 24 density potential, commercial 24 allows
22:52:57 the 14 units based on the acreage.
22:53:01 Also single family attached development along the
22:53:04 collector road consistent with the idea of directing
22:53:08 the higher intensity use or higher density use like
22:53:11 this, along collector roads.
22:53:13 What also I think is significant is you are going to
22:53:15 have a residential use in place of a commercial
22:53:17 intensive, potential use.
22:53:22 Planning Commission staff based on those findings of
22:53:25 fact has no objections to the proposed request.
22:53:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
22:53:55 >>> My name is Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin
22:53:57 Street, Tampa.
22:53:58 I represent the petitioner.

22:53:59 We are seeking rezoning from CI commercial intensive
22:54:02 to planned development to allow for 14 town homes.
22:54:07 The existing zoning as indicated by staff is CI, which
22:54:10 would allow 60,000 square feet, and also 21 units
22:54:17 under the comp plan designations.
22:54:24 I I think we could develop 21 units of three stories
22:54:33 and the only setbacks are the RM-16.
22:54:36 So we could do 21 without coming before council.
22:54:40 >> Why don't you?
22:54:41 >>> Good question.
22:54:43 What we are doing is seeking a setback waiver on the
22:54:47 north side.
22:54:47 Your code as a buffer requirement, to ensure
22:54:52 compatibility, the usages seen on the aerial, or the
22:54:58 commercial of light manufacturing, color manufacturing
22:55:01 facility.
22:55:02 So be that as a commercial operation, and we are
22:55:06 residential, the code has a buffer requirement of 15
22:55:08 feet.
22:55:14 If you look at the -- typically to ensure
22:55:17 compatibility. The good thing about our design is
22:55:19 that's the backyard.

22:55:20 But for the waiver on the north side, we could do
22:55:23 that.
22:55:24 We don't want to do that for other reasons as well,
22:55:27 that here again the code under CI allows for height of
22:55:30 45 feet.
22:55:31 So we could do three stories, 21 units, 45 feet, and
22:55:35 just respect the RM-16.
22:55:37 However, we have these three-story units, a lot of
22:55:40 space dedicated to stairwells and things like that so
22:55:43 we think we could come up with lots better projects, a
22:55:46 lot more square footage, kind of put horizontally over
22:55:49 the property.
22:55:51 So the only waiver we are speaking of is -- seeking is
22:55:54 on the north side there.
22:55:57 As indicated by staff, the property is not
22:56:05 completely --
22:56:23 We have the CSX right-of-way to the west.
22:56:25 Roughly 200 feet wide.
22:56:27 Then to the south we have this project here.
22:56:29 An existing multifamily project.
22:56:32 We have 24 units per acre.
22:56:34 And our property is roughly 29.8 acres and rear

22:56:40 roughly 15 units per acre.
22:56:46 I would like to show you now, here's a view from our
22:56:49 property to the north.
22:56:50 Here's the manufacturing facility.
22:56:53 Hears to the south, the apartment at 24 units per
22:56:56 acre.
22:56:58 Here's kind of a closeup.
22:57:01 Of two-story apartments.
22:57:03 Hears to the west.
22:57:05 I mentioned the CSX right-of-way about 200 feet wide.
22:57:09 Then here's Bobby Hicks park with the lake facility.
22:57:18 As Marty indicated the graphical change really relates
22:57:21 to just putting the sidewalks on.
22:57:23 They were on the elevations but we failed to put them
22:57:26 on the site plan.
22:57:38 >> Here again the traffic engineers indicate trip
22:57:40 generation per unit per town home is roughly eight
22:57:44 trips per unit so it equates to roughly 100 trips over
22:57:47 the entire project.
22:57:48 Under the existing zoning, for example, we could do a
22:57:51 convenience store, things of that nature, the very
22:57:53 intensive.

22:57:55 Our engineers testified -- for example, 10,000-foot
22:58:01 would generate roughly 500 trips a day versus 100 that
22:58:06 would relate to our project.
22:58:08 We have complete staff support.
22:58:09 There are no objections.
22:58:10 Solid waste, we handled internally.
22:58:13 All the trash containers will be located in front of
22:58:15 the unit.
22:58:15 So solid waste can actually go down the street and
22:58:19 pick up so there won't be any trash over on Manhattan
22:58:21 Avenue.
22:58:26 So kind of in a nutshell is we are here today seek ago
22:58:32 waiver on the north side from 15 to 7.
22:58:34 And the properties under common ownership at this
22:58:37 point in time, obviously the owner to the north didn't
22:58:39 object.
22:58:40 And he actually was the petitioner who signed the
22:58:44 application.
22:58:45 So with respect to the waiver, he has no problem with
22:58:48 that.
22:58:48 And also, note for council on the west side of the
22:58:51 property, your code would dictate a 20-foot setback

22:58:55 towards CXS and we are providing 30.
22:58:58 Finally with respect to the parking, we exceed your
22:59:00 code requirements.
22:59:02 Think you picked up the fact you count the parking in
22:59:04 the garage, some of the garages are double-car garages
22:59:06 and they provide additional two spaces outside.
22:59:09 The terms of the visitor parking, I think Melanie
22:59:12 indicated that's not required by code.
22:59:14 But she kind of has a formula she likes to apply, we
22:59:18 provided three parking spaces.
22:59:19 If you look adjacent to the CXS.
22:59:22 If you have any questions I would gladly attempt to
22:59:24 answer them.
22:59:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is that open space requirement
22:59:31 and do you need it.
22:59:33 >>> we need it.
22:59:33 It's on the site plan.
22:59:35 Landscape ordinance chapter 13.
22:59:37 And we have square feet per unit.
22:59:40 And it's on the plan.
22:59:43 But we exceed that.
22:59:44 I'll tell you that.

22:59:45 That's a certainty.
22:59:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When I visually looked at the plan
22:59:50 it appears that with the exception of the retention
22:59:51 area, which I don't think has allowed the county the
22:59:55 open space, it appears like everything else, pretty
22:59:57 much impervious surface.
23:00:00 I can't figure quite figure out --
23:00:03 >>> If you look at the site plan it shows requirements
23:00:04 by code.
23:00:09 Maybe Mary can address it.
23:00:10 >>> Mary Daniels, they are required to do 350 square
23:00:17 feet, and when you take the green spaces along the
23:00:23 property boundary and multiply it out,.
23:00:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
23:00:33 would like to speak on item 14?
23:00:36 >>>
23:00:37 >>MARK BENTLEY: I simply ask that you receive and file
23:00:39 the photographs.
23:00:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again, have you been sworn for the
23:00:44 record?
23:00:48 Thank you very much.
23:00:49 >>> My name is John Stearns, 2512 Paxton Avenue, it's

23:00:55 been a long night, I'll be brief.
23:00:57 I would ask that you deny the request for just two
23:00:59 simple reasons.
23:01:01 Another high density project.
23:01:03 Secondly, the visual appearance of their previous
23:01:07 projects.
23:01:10 At Manhattan and Pearl looks like a medium security in
23:01:13 downtown Baghdad.
23:01:14 And I would have to drive past that thing for the rest
23:01:18 of my life.
23:01:19 That's my reason.
23:01:20 Thank you.
23:01:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:01:21 Next.
23:01:25 >>> Good evening, council.
23:01:27 Mike Heresey, west Tyson, president of Gandy civic and
23:01:34 I have been sworn in.
23:01:35 Just briefly a couple items that I would like to
23:01:38 address, is the fact that all the rezoning that is
23:01:41 going on in our area from commercial to the
23:01:45 residential.
23:01:47 With all the newly approved development that is we are

23:01:50 aware of south of Gandy, we are looking to try and
23:01:53 maintain some of the commercial property that exists
23:01:57 to further fourth support the existing and future
23:02:00 neighborhood to help alleviate some of the traffic
23:02:05 issues that exist now and will exist in the future
23:02:10 with families having to migrate north just for your
23:02:13 basic needs, your grocery shopping, what have you.
23:02:16 And we are looking at we maintain some of this
23:02:22 commercial property so that businesses can come in and
23:02:25 support the immediate community and more maybe
23:02:29 east-west and just localized as opposed to increasing
23:02:34 going north.
23:02:34 The second area involved the Gandy area transportation
23:02:39 survey that's presently ongoing.
23:02:42 The consultant for this will be I believe in front of
23:02:46 council next month, with their traffic recommendations
23:02:50 south of Gandy
23:02:58 With the rezoning to residentials.
23:03:02 We are concerned that ware only limiting or removing
23:03:07 our possible solutions to our traffic issue.
23:03:22 I hope council will take these into account and if not
23:03:25 deny continue these till it heard from the consultant

23:03:28 next month.
23:03:29 Thank you.
23:03:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question.
23:03:31 You mentioned, I see this is commercial intensive.
23:03:35 Could you tell me in the site plan, have you seen this
23:03:38 in here?
23:03:40 >>> Yes, I have seen it.
23:03:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Can you tell me where along the
23:03:46 commercial or retail?
23:03:47 >>> No, there isn't any.
23:03:50 At this time there isn't any.
23:03:51 Retail.
23:03:52 This is like virgin land.
23:03:56 All through this evening, I've heard over and over
23:03:59 with all the different developments that are going on,
23:04:01 the town homes that are coming in, that are single,
23:04:04 where there's single-family res dents just one block
23:04:09 away.
23:04:10 If you set the precedent, now, and not have the
23:04:14 potential down the road at just continuing that, and
23:04:18 right now, do we have solutions for the traffic issues
23:04:26 south of Gandy?

23:04:27 We only have three means from going south to the
23:04:29 north.
23:04:30 One is Westshore.
23:04:31 One is Manhattan.
23:04:32 And the other one is, if you want to call it Himes --
23:04:37 excuse me, MacDill.
23:04:38 And they are preparing that information on the
23:04:44 possible -- possible corrective actions that we need
23:04:48 to address in that area.
23:04:49 And I believe in the past, years ago, they talked
23:04:52 about running the roads parallel to the CXS system.
23:04:57 Now, we continue to develop this.
23:05:01 How do we solve these problems?
23:05:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It seems to me that the last parcel of
23:05:07 land that's available, I don't see anything else other
23:05:10 than that parcel that they are showing.
23:05:12 >> Not until you start reading, no.
23:05:15 >>> Well, yeah, redevelopment.
23:05:16 But that's a what-if situation at this point.
23:05:19 At this point, we have to stick with the facts.
23:05:22 >>> Understood.
23:05:24 >> This is a piece of -- looks like a piece of

23:05:27 property that's not been developed or anything,
23:05:29 there's nothing there.
23:05:30 And you have got this all pretty much developed all
23:05:33 around.
23:05:34 So this is the last parcel that would be developed
23:05:39 according to what I'm looking at here.
23:05:52 I just want to know if there's any retail.
23:05:55 >>> No, there is no retail.
23:05:56 This isn't waterfront property, like on Westshore.
23:06:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
23:06:01 >>> All right, thank you.
23:06:11 >>> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of council.
23:06:15 My name is Al Steenson.
23:06:17 I have been sworn.
23:06:18 I have a speaker waiver form.
23:06:20 >>GWEN MILLER: It's not allowed tonight.
23:06:22 (Laughter).
23:06:33 >>> And Mr. Shelby, one of the ladies on the speaker's
23:06:41 forum is that very pregnant lady sitting outside the
23:06:44 door.
23:06:48 It's Christy.
23:06:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Christy.

23:06:54 There she is, council.
23:06:55 Her name is Camilla Ryan.
23:06:58 Thank you.
23:06:58 Two additional minutes.
23:07:07 >>> I have been sworn.
23:07:08 A little brief history.
23:07:10 Mr. Bentley and his client, we weren't invited --
23:07:16 invited to our March meeting to present the plan that
23:07:18 you see tonight.
23:07:19 The plan was not very well accepted by the membership
23:07:22 at all.
23:07:27 But there was no vote taken.
23:07:29 Knowing our concerns, knowing the objections, up until
23:07:34 tonight, I've never spoken to Mr. Bentley.
23:07:39 There has been absolutely no communication between
23:07:41 them and the association since March 13th.
23:07:47 At the April meeting, a motion was made and passed
23:07:52 that I come this evening and ask this council to
23:07:56 continue this until after the results of the
23:08:01 transportation study are -- the ongoing transportation
23:08:04 study are presented to you, to the administration, and
23:08:09 to the neighborhood.

23:08:13 I was unable to go to that last meeting at the Jan
23:08:18 Platt library and I'm on the advisory committee but I
23:08:21 had a conflict.
23:08:23 Any of you who read the article in the paper, the
23:08:26 report, the preliminary report down here in South
23:08:29 Tampa, doesn't look very good at all, folks.
23:08:33 Now, we ask this to be continued.
23:08:38 If we can't get that, then we have to object.
23:08:42 Why?
23:08:47 Basically, 14 proposed town homes would generate --
23:08:51 and I came up in 84 but I use Bentley's figures of
23:08:57 100.
23:08:58 Now that doesn't sound like a lot of trips.
23:09:00 But this is a 1.89 piece of road between Interbay
23:09:06 Boulevard and Gandy and it is already over level of
23:09:09 service D capacity.
23:09:13 All right.
23:09:13 Now, the units directly to the north of them, which is
23:09:20 the legacy park, the 138, hasn't even come out of the
23:09:29 ground yet.
23:09:30 Hasn't come vertical.
23:09:33 This count of 16,251 was done a year ago.

23:09:41 A year ago.
23:09:43 So that number is bound to be hair.
23:09:46 It does not take into consideration the amount of
23:09:49 redevelopment that's going on with our neighbors to
23:09:51 the south.
23:10:07 With 14 units and I'm told there's no backup needed.
23:10:10 And these numbers should be considered.
23:10:13 The property is commercial.
23:10:19 If we keep wiping out all the commercial, as Mr.
23:10:23 Hershey just mentioned, what's going to support the
23:10:26 tremendous amount of residential that's going in
23:10:28 there?
23:10:29 If we are going to stay commercial, we wouldn't even
23:10:31 be here tonight.
23:10:35 We are forcing people to get into our cars.
23:10:37 And where do they gotta go?
23:10:40 Gandy Boulevard.
23:10:41 An already overstretched road.
23:10:44 Even with the enhancement, that's supposed to start in
23:10:47 hopefully in July or August, it's already an
23:10:51 overstretched highway.
23:10:52 Even more serious is the fact that when this traffic

23:10:56 backs up they are going to start going through the
23:10:58 side streets, the threw streets lake Oklahoma, Ohio,
23:11:03 Bay and Pearl, and those are all strictly residential
23:11:06 streets.
23:11:12 Lastly -- and I want to show you this -- over two
23:11:17 years ago, these town homes were approved.
23:11:21 22 of them on the corner of Pearl and Manhattan.
23:11:25 The association did not object to that.
23:11:28 However, now we have regrets because I can guarantee
23:11:31 you, ladies and gentlemen, what you're looking at
23:11:33 right there is not at all consistent with the
23:11:37 neighborhood.
23:11:38 One other thing I would like to point out, and maybe
23:11:42 this picture will show it a little easier.
23:11:48 That red truck is parked on city right-of-way.
23:11:51 That was taken Monday morning.
23:11:52 Sunday afternoon when I was bringing my wife back for
23:11:55 an out of town trip there were six cars there.
23:11:57 That indicates to me one two of things.
23:11:59 Either they are lazy or there's not enough internal
23:12:03 parking.
23:12:07 Now I say inconsistent.

23:12:09 These are right up the street.
23:12:10 This is the same developer.
23:12:12 All right.
23:12:12 And again rate over here in the corner you'll see
23:12:15 there's another car parked on the right-of-way.
23:12:29 Basically what we are asking for is to continue this,
23:12:33 or deny it.
23:12:33 We are overrun with town homes.
23:12:36 Enough is enough.
23:12:37 I ask you one question as you consider the testimony
23:12:39 you're hearing tonight.
23:12:40 How much more traffic can our infrastructure south of
23:12:48 Gandy handle?
23:12:48 We ask for a continuance or denial.
23:12:51 Thank you.
23:12:54 >>> I have a question, Mr. Steenson.
23:12:56 The picture you just showed us, is this the same
23:13:00 develop er?
23:13:01 >>> Same developer.
23:13:02 These were built -- the company was a different name
23:13:04 but it's the same people.
23:13:06 It was LandCraft development.

23:13:09 It's now hide point.
23:13:10 >> Can you pass that around for to us see?
23:13:12 >>> Yes, ma'am.
23:13:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
23:13:17 Petitioner?
23:13:43 Been bent I think the comments that you heard here,
23:13:46 the people that weighed in are with the association
23:13:50 and they have very legitimate strong concerns but
23:13:53 mostly from a global perspective, not with our project
23:13:58 per se.
23:13:59 Secondarily, we are down-zoning the subject property,
23:14:01 as I mentioned before, 21 units, 45 feet, obviously
23:14:08 and aesthetically it wouldn't be that conducive to
23:14:10 what's going on in the neighborhood.
23:14:12 With respect to the photograph there, that was --
23:14:17 admittedly our client hide point had an affiliation
23:14:21 with LandCraft.
23:14:22 If Lou at that picture that's a three-story
23:14:25 condominium.
23:14:28 Our client is a totally different architect text.
23:14:31 They are doing a project under construction called
23:14:33 legacy park.

23:14:34 So we are using a different architecture, two-story,
23:14:37 and I don't know what to tell you there so that's
23:14:40 really not representative.
23:14:41 Plus the elevations that we tendered to the city,
23:14:44 those are binding on us as part of the PD rezoning.
23:14:47 With respect to traffic, this is about the most
23:14:50 innocuous use put on the property, 14 units at 8 trips
23:14:54 per day versus any kind of retail, very traffic
23:14:59 intensive in the hundreds, versus the 100 that we are
23:15:01 proposing. The peek hour we have to make the trips
23:15:04 going on in Manhattan roughly ten trips, a.m. and p.m.
23:15:09 peek.
23:15:09 And finally, here again, the odd shape of the
23:15:12 property, and its smaller size, 20.91 ache certifies
23:15:16 really not conducive to any kind of legitimate retail
23:15:20 development.
23:15:20 So enough being said.
23:15:21 We would respectfully request that you grant the
23:15:23 rezoning.
23:15:24 Thank you very much.
23:15:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Bentley.
23:15:32 I just had a couple of comments.

23:15:34 And I think these are all leading toward a suggestion
23:15:36 that we do continue this.
23:15:40 I think what we hear over and over again, council, is
23:15:45 the traffic issues, you can't point to any one
23:15:49 particular project and say this one project is causing
23:15:52 the traffic problems, because they are really gad
23:15:55 incrementally.
23:15:56 And we approved ten units here and 20 units here, 30
23:16:00 units here.
23:16:01 Well, any one of them, oh, it's only 50 trips.
23:16:04 Oh, it's only 100 trips.
23:16:05 Pretty soon you have some serious problems.
23:16:08 Now don't just say that off the top of my head. I did
23:16:12 attend the meeting that I was referring to the other
23:16:14 day about Gandy, that our consultant had with the
23:16:17 Gandy area transportation study advisory committee
23:16:20 meeting on April 4th.
23:16:22 And I came out of that a document and I put it in the
23:16:27 record and I'm sorry I didn't make copies earlier but
23:16:29 one of the things that it head was that the
23:16:32 intersection of Manhattan and Gandy Boulevard, even
23:16:36 after the D.O.T. makes the improvements that they are

23:16:39 getting ready to make rate there, is already at 91%
23:16:42 capacity today, and it will be at 131% capacity by the
23:16:50 time the units that we have already approved over off
23:16:54 Westshore are built.
23:16:56 The WCI, the gnaw port project, et cetera.
23:17:02 So immediately, and the numbers ever just mind
23:17:06 boggling.
23:17:07 We have already approved the Imperial water yacht
23:17:10 basin, 7400, which is 7400 trips per day, and the
23:17:18 project all part of New Port, 11,000 trips a day, the
23:17:21 WCI project, 83 trips a day, Georgetown has a
23:17:25 potential of being 16,000 trips per day.
23:17:27 Granted that's north of Gandy.
23:17:29 And these then miscellaneous other projects around
23:17:32 Westshore and Manhattan totaling another 4400.
23:17:37 Those have already been approved.
23:17:39 That's what took a consultant to come up with these
23:17:43 conclusions that these major intersections of
23:17:46 Westshore and Gandy and Manhattan and Gandy are
23:17:50 already -- they are already at capacity, and they are
23:17:54 headed toward failure.
23:17:55 And it's right here.

23:17:56 I am going to put it in the record.
23:17:57 And I'm not suggesting denial at this point.
23:18:00 I'm just suggesting that we continue this matter
23:18:03 pursuant to the neighborhood's request, until this
23:18:06 traffic study is complete, and Mrs. Saul-Sena has been
23:18:09 very diligent remaining us about that.
23:18:12 And let's see what the consultant's recommendations
23:18:14 are.
23:18:14 Because maybe he's got some recommendations that might
23:18:17 help us solve some of these problems.
23:18:20 But until we do, I think we need to pull back the
23:18:24 reins on improving future development south of Gandy.
23:18:40 >>> I don't know exactly what that is.
23:18:46 It was -- I'm sorry, Mark.
23:18:48 I didn't mean to blindside you.
23:18:51 I just happened to have it in my folder and I think
23:18:53 it's relevant.
23:18:54 >>JULIA COLE: The other thing that relates to the
23:18:56 continuance which I believe was suggested by some of
23:18:58 the neighborhood associations.
23:19:01 Petitioner has the right to have the project heard
23:19:05 today up or down, so you would need to find out if the

23:19:10 petitioner would agree to a continuance.
23:19:13 >> In the meantime, I agree.
23:19:16 Give him a chance top look at this.
23:19:19 If he has a traffic expert, fine.
23:19:20 Whatever.
23:19:21 But I didn't make this stuff up.
23:19:22 I don't even have a color printer.
23:19:31 >>> I don't know if it's legitimate.
23:19:33 I don't know who authored it.
23:19:34 In terms of evidence I would move to strike it from
23:19:36 the record here.
23:19:37 One of the council members bringing it up.
23:19:39 Outside the scope here.
23:19:41 I just have to preserve my right.
23:19:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The hearing is open, okay?
23:19:46 And that document is put forth as a study that this
23:19:49 city has commissioned.
23:19:50 >>MARK BENTLEY: Well -- I'll just close here.
23:19:57 We had your transportation staff weigh in.
23:20:00 They had no objection.
23:20:01 That's clearly on the record.
23:20:02 With respect to continuance, like I said, there's this

23:20:04 global issue going on here and we are kind of caught
23:20:07 in the crosshairs.
23:20:08 We have a very small project, in terms of trip
23:20:10 generation, about as low as you are going to get.
23:20:13 We could develop commercial at 21 units.
23:20:15 So we would respectfully request that the council take
23:20:18 action on our petition tonight.
23:20:20 Thank you very much.
23:20:21 >> Move to close.
23:20:22 >> Second.
23:20:22 (Motion carried)
23:20:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I counseled with Ms. Cole for a
23:20:31 minute, and that document is being objected to as
23:20:34 being entered into the record.
23:20:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So he's got an objection but it's
23:20:39 still in the record.
23:21:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Let me confer with Ms. Cole for a
23:21:20 moment, please.
23:21:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I apologize for that delay.
23:21:48 I just want to be clear that I'm concerned with a
23:21:54 study external to the this process tonight, to be
23:22:07 brought in as substantive evidence without the

23:22:10 opportunity for the petitioner to have had the
23:22:15 opportunity to rebut it.
23:22:17 And I don't believe he wishes to because he objects to
23:22:20 it.
23:22:21 I do understand correctly, Mr. Bentley?
23:22:24 >>MARK BENTLEY: I object to it that it hasn't been
23:22:27 authenticated, we don't know the author, I don't even
23:22:30 know if it's public record at this point.
23:22:32 So we object to the entry.
23:22:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder --
23:22:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just wanted to say that if council
23:22:46 should choose to do that, if council should choose to
23:22:55 use it as a basis, if there are other bases outside of
23:23:02 this that council wishes to rely on, it would be my
23:23:06 recommendation that council say that for the record.
23:23:09 If there are other bases for its decision.
23:23:12 With regard to the -- if council wishes to review this
23:23:19 individually prayer to it going into the record -- I
23:23:24 have not had the opportunity to look at the study
23:23:27 either.
23:23:28 So I want to assure if you there are other bases in
23:23:31 addition to this that council wishes to base its

23:23:33 decision on, my suggestion would be to allow that as
23:23:35 well to be heard as a basis for whatever competent,
23:23:39 substantial evidence you wish to base your decision
23:23:41 on.
23:23:46 It's a difficult decision to deal with.
23:23:47 >>JULIA COLE: I think the concern so I can articulate
23:23:52 this is the other evidence isn't substantiated either,
23:24:01 because coming from the judges and I think he's what
23:24:08 the concern is.
23:24:08 I think that's what Mr. Shelby is trying to say.
23:24:13 And it could have the effect of competent substantial
23:24:19 evidence and if you want to base your decision it
23:24:21 could have the ability --
23:24:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: But my concern is this.
23:24:26 If Mr. Dingfelder brought it in, and I think
23:24:30 Mr. Bentley is right, he didn't have the opportunity
23:24:32 to review that document, and refute it or not refute
23:24:35 it or saying it was pertinent or not pertinent.
23:24:38 But at the same time, the fact that it is a study, it
23:24:42 was sanctioned by the city, and it affects what's
23:24:46 happening with the transportation concerns in total
23:24:49 down there, as you said global, but instead at the

23:24:52 same time every single project that comes before us is
23:24:56 at least contributory to that.
23:24:59 I'm not saying that should be the reason to deny it.
23:25:01 But I'm saying it is something for to us look at, and
23:25:04 for you, Mr. Bentley, to look at and weigh in on.
23:25:07 And I don't think you can do it now given the
23:25:09 circumstances, because it was brought up abruptly.
23:25:11 But, at the same time, it goes to what is problem is,
23:25:17 not necessarily your petitioner, but traffic in
23:25:19 general.
23:25:20 Now, if it was something that was brought to you, you
23:25:22 can say yes.
23:25:23 But because my project is small and you should
23:25:25 consider this, yes, I don't know.
23:25:26 I don't know what your argument would be and what your
23:25:29 defense would be but at the same time, I don't know
23:25:31 that I can answer the question you're posing, Mr.
23:25:34 Shelby, appropriately.
23:25:38 Because this is something that does affect what we do
23:25:40 in that area, because transportation or overcapacity
23:25:46 at this point.
23:25:47 So it's not necessarily part and parcel to his

23:25:49 petition.
23:25:50 But it is again contributory to what the problems are
23:25:54 down there at transportation.
23:25:56 I don't know what a continuance would do or not do.
23:25:58 But I think it would give us enough time for the
23:26:01 petitioner to look at it and for to us weigh in on it.
23:26:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: I want to know what the time frame,
23:26:10 first of all, for this particular study to be
23:26:13 completed?
23:26:14 Do we know?
23:26:18 >>: Supposed to get back with us in May.
23:26:21 Miss Coyle, I guess.
23:26:24 >>JULIA COLE: It's petitioner's position that he
23:26:26 stated his objection on the record and whatever you do
23:26:29 you are going to do.
23:26:29 And I think I also understand from what he is saying,
23:26:32 he does not want a continuance to this matter either.
23:26:35 So I think what he's saying is he would like a vote on
23:26:40 his petition up or down.
23:26:41 That's way understand.
23:26:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: I call for the question.
23:26:44 We have a motion and second.

23:26:48 >> A want an opportunity to speak.
23:26:54 Could you hold one second?
23:26:56 >> That document -- make, could you come up for a
23:26:59 second?
23:27:00 I agree it is a little bit abnormal a that I brought
23:27:03 this and I was hoping that Al would have brought it or
23:27:05 that Mike would have brought it.
23:27:07 Mike was there at the meeting that this document was
23:27:08 presented.
23:27:13 You have yours with you, Mike?
23:27:14 Would you like to offer yours into the record?
23:27:16 Yes?
23:27:18 That might be a little more procedurally acceptable.
23:27:21 Because -- let me finish.
23:27:26 >>GWEN MILLER: The public hearing is closed.
23:27:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We did not close it.
23:27:31 Did not.
23:27:34 No, it wasn't.
23:27:37 No, it wasn't.
23:27:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
23:27:42 It's closed.
23:27:43 We have closed -- the clerk says that we have carried

23:27:46 the motion to close.
23:27:54 >> Did we vote on it?
23:27:56 >> Yes, we did.
23:27:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's important because we shouldn't
23:28:00 taint the record.
23:28:01 It wasn't my intention to talk taint the record.
23:28:03 People talked about the Gandy study.
23:28:05 I happened to have the Gandy study sitting in my
23:28:08 envelope.
23:28:08 Nobody else brought it forward.
23:28:10 If it's improper, I apologize.
23:28:12 Mr. Hearsey now indicated he has the same study and
23:28:15 he'd like to put it in the record.
23:28:17 I move to open the public record just so he can put it
23:28:19 in the record.
23:28:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open the public
23:28:23 hearing
23:28:31 Would you just put that in the record and say where
23:28:34 you got it and when you got it?
23:28:37 >> I received it April 4th, dated -- at the Gandy
23:28:42 area transportation study advisory committee meeting in
23:28:45 which I am a member of that advisory committee.

23:28:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: dowel recall what I said before
23:28:55 about the intersections overtaxed?
23:28:58 >>> Yes, sir.
23:29:00 >> Dy portray it correctly in what Wendell Oliver the
23:29:05 city transportation person said?
23:29:08 >>> Yes.
23:29:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing
23:29:11 again.
23:29:11 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
23:29:18 (Motion carried).
23:29:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't know what Mr. Bentley's
23:29:20 position is.
23:29:21 Does he have the opportunity to up or down or continue
23:29:23 it or the same?
23:29:28 >>MARK BENTLEY: For council's perspective, that there
23:29:30 be a continuance to allow for additional traffic
23:29:32 studies in that region or that part of town.
23:29:39 No, we would like to move on with it.
23:29:42 Thank you.
23:29:45 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the wish of the council?
23:29:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: I am not going to make a motion either
23:29:50 way.

23:29:50 I want to put on the record, I am greatly
23:29:53 uncomfortable with the way the procedure has happened.
23:29:57 We opened it.
23:29:58 We closed.
23:29:59 We introduced evidence that may have been produced by
23:30:02 the city without due process to the petitioner, with
23:30:08 in a regard to petitioner, no indifference either way.
23:30:11 But when we can't get it into the record one way, we
23:30:14 go back and we open the public hearing so it can come
23:30:16 in the back door.
23:30:18 I just don't --
23:30:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're absolutely right and that's
23:30:23 why I voted against it.
23:30:25 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't interrupt when it's time for
23:30:27 you to talk and when you want to give a 20 minute
23:30:30 dissertation.
23:30:31 So when I want to say something for two minutes, I'm
23:30:33 going to say it.
23:30:34 So I will move on.
23:30:36 I have the floor.
23:30:37 Thank you.
23:30:38 And I'm not the one that's sitting up here trying to

23:30:41 jurymander the rules to get something in the back door
23:30:45 that was admitted into evidence 2 wrong way the first
23:30:47 time.
23:30:48 And I don't think it's right.
23:30:49 And I'm putting it on the record.
23:30:50 I don't think it's right.
23:30:52 And I think we need to move forward and I think
23:30:55 Mr. Bentley has been done an injustice by the way this
23:30:58 procedure has taken place.
23:30:59 And -- thank you, Madam Chair.
23:31:05 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
23:31:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be to, based on
23:31:20 the -- the petition that's before us is to take
23:31:25 something that's on a commercial street that's
23:31:27 currently zoned commercial, rezone it to a proposed
23:31:32 planned development, and I would make a recommendation
23:31:35 to disapprove this based on concerns about adequate
23:31:41 transportation area, the changing of commercial
23:31:44 development to residential, the observations made by
23:31:51 representatives of the local civic association, that
23:31:53 is not a compatible use.
23:31:55 That's my motion.

23:31:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
23:32:02 Department concerns as well.
23:32:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
23:32:06 Question on the motion.
23:32:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Something that we didn't talk about
23:32:09 either, the manufacturing company next to it.
23:32:15 I think we have been in that situation before where we
23:32:17 have had residential development.
23:32:20 And you have a situation next door.
23:32:23 I don't know where the blame would fall if this did
23:32:27 pass.
23:32:27 But not to do with this one.
23:32:32 Now you put in a residential mix to someplace that
23:32:34 could cause some noise issues.
23:32:36 And that's another reason I'm kind of concerned about
23:32:39 this process.
23:32:43 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
23:32:44 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
23:32:45 Opposed, Nay.
23:32:48 >>THE CLERK: White, no.
23:32:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Announce what people vote.
23:33:00 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried, white voting no.

23:33:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
23:33:06 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you very much for your time and
23:33:08 consideration.
23:33:08 Have a good night.
23:33:11 >>: Move to open number 14.
23:33:17 >> Second.
23:33:18 (Motion carried)
23:33:18 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
23:33:46 I have been sworn.
23:33:48 Before you is the rezoning going from RM-16
23:33:55 multifamily to commercial development.
23:33:57 It is Euclidean.
23:33:58 You will not see site plans in front of you.
23:34:01 There are no waivers requested with this petition.
23:34:05 The location is at 3812 temple street.
23:34:12 Property located along the 5th street corridor
23:34:14 which is prey dominantly commercial uses.
23:34:18 Subject has a temple street address.
23:34:21 However, the lot is a through lot and has frontage on
23:34:24 50th street. The light is located within the East
23:34:27 Tampa overlay.
23:34:28 There are design standards that will apply to this

23:34:31 project.
23:34:32 If you will look on the Elmo at the rezoning map,
23:34:36 50th street, this is -- here's CG to the north, CG
23:34:45 uses to the south.
23:34:49 On the aerial, this is the subject site, to the north
23:34:52 of the strip center.
23:34:53 There is one single-family home to the north.
23:34:55 One single-family home to the south.
23:35:00 A vacant lot.
23:35:01 This is the gas station.
23:35:02 There is commercial development across the street.
23:35:09 This is the view of the parcel.
23:35:11 This is a single family house to the north.
23:35:13 This is the strip center.
23:35:17 Again, this is temple street.
23:35:19 You will see across 50th.
23:35:25 This is a single-family home to the south.
23:35:27 And you will see the gas station.
23:35:29 To the south.
23:35:32 This is Inc. single-family home across the street.
23:35:35 Multifamily across the street.
23:35:37 Multifamily.

23:35:39 This is across temple.
23:35:43 There is no objection to the site plan.
23:35:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I just wonder if we
23:35:48 can ask if anyone is in objection.
23:35:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to hear from staff first.
23:35:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry, we have to hear from Mr.
23:35:55 Garcia.
23:35:56 So sorry.
23:35:57 So sorry.
23:36:00 >>TONY GARCIA: Thank you so much.
23:36:04 I have been sworn.
23:36:05 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the
23:36:07 proposed request.
23:36:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Like I said, Madam Chairman.
23:36:12 (Laughter).
23:36:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
23:36:14 on item number 15?
23:36:16 >> Move to close.
23:36:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a quick question for Marty.
23:36:23 Okay.
23:36:24 It says on page 3 that there's these trees that have
23:36:28 to be protected, and that because this is Euclidean

23:36:30 that they can't ask for any waivers.
23:36:34 I need to have reassurance by the petitioner that they
23:36:37 really understand that they are able to develop
23:36:39 whatever they want to develop, without asking for any
23:36:41 waivers, and with putting up the protective radius
23:36:44 around these protected grand trees.
23:36:47 I would like to hear that from the petitioner so I
23:36:49 know that they understand it and they will protect
23:36:52 them.
23:36:53 >>> 2810 San Isabel here on behalf of petitioner.
23:36:57 Yes.
23:36:58 I think there's a 47-inch oak tree that's right on the
23:37:02 boundary line.
23:37:03 I think that's a protected species.
23:37:08 There are some other ones?
23:37:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Canned you and you can't ask for
23:37:12 any waivers.
23:37:12 If you get the kind of thing --
23:37:15 >>> I understand that.
23:37:16 And the reason we did that is one with a PD on this.
23:37:21 Our intended use was to build another strip center.
23:37:24 >>> That's exactly why I am bringing it up.

23:37:28 >>> I'm glad you did.
23:37:30 Which are the other protected trees?
23:37:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, maybe the staff person is
23:37:34 there, she can point it out.
23:37:44 >>> Mary Daniels, tree and landscaping, Land
23:37:47 Development Coordination.
23:37:49 This is where we handled the permitting.
23:37:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to make sure everybody can
23:37:55 hear you.
23:37:56 >>> There is a large grand oak located on the 40th
23:37:59 street side.
23:38:00 And then there was, I believe, 18 or 20-inch oak on
23:38:05 the temple street side.
23:38:07 And then there's some trees to the north, protected
23:38:16 species.
23:38:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just need the petitioner to
23:38:19 understand that those trees stay.
23:38:29 >>> (off microphone).
23:38:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we maybe let them converse,
23:38:33 and go to the next one?
23:38:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 16.
23:38:38 >> So moved.

23:38:39 >> Second.
23:38:39 (Motion carried).
23:38:45 >>> A point I do need to make.
23:38:47 They are required to keep the protected trees a grand
23:38:51 tree.
23:38:53 Some of the protected trees.
23:38:54 They may be able to remove, if it's near the building
23:38:59 with replacement tree.
23:39:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wondered because you can't
23:39:08 ask any waivers and these asking for a waiver.
23:39:10 That's not asking for a waiver?
23:39:11 >>> No, they would still be in compliance with chapter
23:39:13 13.
23:39:16 Where they are proposing the building.
23:39:17 They do have a few trees being removed.
23:39:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But where do you mitigate to?
23:39:24 Usually strip centers are arcades -- I mean --
23:39:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Can you mitigate --
23:39:43 >>> Based on that, yes, we would comply, whenever we
23:39:45 get ready to submit for approval for permitting, we
23:39:47 would comply with whatever we would need as far as
23:39:50 green space.

23:39:53 As Ms. Ferlita indicated.
23:39:57 But we would definitely put the trees, whatever we
23:40:01 need, on the site.
23:40:02 We are going to need green space.
23:40:04 There's no question about that.
23:40:08 It's understood.
23:40:13 >>> I don't know if you want me to clarify. The only
23:40:15 time a waiver would need to be placed on is if you are
23:40:17 removing a grand tree.
23:40:19 The protected tree -- they do allow them to be removed
23:40:26 if there's no other -- in a other way to redesign the
23:40:31 property.
23:40:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Ready to close?
23:40:39 Motion and second to close.
23:40:40 (Motion carried).
23:40:46 Council, have an ordinance?
23:40:48 15.
23:40:58 >> Move an ordinance rezoning the rezoning the
23:41:01 property it? General vicinity of 3812 temple street
23:41:07 from RM-16 residential multifamily to CG commercial
23:41:15 providing an effective date.
23:41:15 (Motion carried).

23:41:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm looking at this aerial.
23:41:27 The only really pretty thing along this street are the
23:41:29 trees.
23:41:29 And if you want anything special, probably come in
23:41:38 with a PD.
23:41:46 >> Do we need to open 16 again?
23:41:48 Okay.
23:41:49 Marty, ready for 16.
23:41:52 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item 16.
23:41:53 V 06-33.
23:41:55 You should have the aerial, rezoning maps, and the
23:42:00 site plan coming around to you.
23:42:03 This is a request to go from commercial general to the
23:42:07 PD.
23:42:09 It's a restaurant with a drive-in, a Starbuck's.
23:42:12 There are waivers requested as part of this.
23:42:14 And Rae DOS the green space from 20% to 15.62%, reduce
23:42:21 the landscape buffer parking lot from 8 fate to 2
23:42:24 feet.
23:42:25 And a waiver from a 26-foot drive aisle to a 24-foot
23:42:29 drive aisle.
23:42:31 The location is 3615 West Gandy Boulevard.

23:42:36 The Starbuck's proposed at 1816 square foot one-story
23:42:42 building with a drive-through.
23:42:43 The queueing for the drive through will be located
23:42:46 internal to the site away from Gandy Boulevard.
23:42:50 An outside patio for seating will be proposed along
23:42:52 the side of the building and the building will have a
23:42:56 modern design as you see from the elevations that went
23:42:58 around.
23:42:58 The space occupied by the Starbuck's building will not
23:43:01 impact on the required parking for public store, and
23:43:05 all parking standards have been met.
23:43:24 It's commercial general.
23:43:25 Across the street it's CI.
23:43:27 On the aerial on the Elmo, you will see the outparcel
23:43:34 they are proposing.
23:43:46 This is the view of the approximate area that they
23:43:48 will be placing the Starbuck's.
23:43:53 This is a view.
23:44:00 Again
23:44:10 There had initially been on the staff report
23:44:12 objections to the proposed site plan.
23:44:15 However, the petitioner did come into our office

23:44:17 yesterday and placed notes on the site plan to satisfy
23:44:22 transportation.
23:44:23 Transportation had some concerns about the standard
23:44:28 for the 26-foot drive aisle.
23:44:32 They had some concerns with the traffic analysis and
23:44:34 they wanted some mitigation.
23:44:36 The petitioner has proposed a certain amount of
23:44:39 mitigation based on that traffic analysis.
23:44:45 Land development, they satisfied two waivers.
23:44:53 They removed the objection on the site plans.
23:45:08 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
23:45:15 Looking at the future land use map of the site, of
23:45:18 course this is located in the South Tampa area.
23:45:21 This is one of the major activity centers in the area
23:45:28 with Gandy and Dale Mabry, major arterial, Boulevard,
23:45:33 Himes collector.
23:45:34 And urban mixed use 16.
23:45:49 A multifamily complex to the north also which is
23:45:52 residential 20, residential 10, another multifamily
23:45:57 complex over here.
23:45:58 Residential 20.
23:45:59 And residential 10.

23:46:02 Down to the south.
23:46:06 Here's the proposed site in question of course which
23:46:08 is where the Publix food market is which I'm sure you
23:46:11 are all familiar with.
23:46:12 And this is a north an.
23:46:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
23:46:41 >> Pete Hensa for avid engineering, certified planner.
23:46:48 The authorized agent for the application applicant who
23:46:50 is here with me tonight as well.
23:46:53 I'll tray to keep it brief.
23:46:55 It's been a long night.
23:46:56 The property is zoned commercial general.
23:46:58 Developed for commercial corridor.
23:47:02 What we are requesting is site plan controlled
23:47:06 rezoning, PD, so that we can obtain the approval
23:47:11 necessary to do this small in-fill commercial
23:47:14 development.
23:47:15 This is a project that goes to the city's tax base,
23:47:21 helps renovating shopping center, providing additional
23:47:24 green space beyond what is there currently.
23:47:27 We are adding landscaping that is in addition to
23:47:29 what's already there.

23:47:30 We are going to preserve the existing trees that are
23:47:33 in the front buffer.
23:47:36 I have a photograph to show you
23:47:49 We are going to provide additional landscaping on the
23:47:51 site.
23:48:04 These are the same ones that you have.
23:48:06 Where it is within the park parking lot.
23:48:09 We are removing -- providing a number of other ones.
23:48:18 The deviations we are requesting are a result of
23:48:20 trying to work with existing drive aisles and existing
23:48:23 buffers.
23:48:23 The front buffer, it's required by code to be eight
23:48:27 foot.
23:48:27 We are asking for 7.6-foot which is existing condition
23:48:30 out there.
23:48:31 Because of those trees that are there, because of the
23:48:34 existing traffic patterns, we are asking -- not even a
23:48:38 five-inch deviation that's the curbing around it.
23:48:46 It's obviously not a substantial deviation -- is only
23:48:51 180 square foot.
23:48:55 Learned to pay into CMU.
23:49:01 Again it's a minor deviation.

23:49:03 We are trying to make sure to maintain the existing
23:49:05 drive aisles and traffic flows that are within the
23:49:07 project.
23:49:09 The decrease in the drive aisles from 26 fat to
23:49:12 24-foot, there are two reasons for that.
23:49:15 One is that the drive aisle, existing along the front
23:49:21 is only 23-foot wide.
23:49:23 By keeping to the 24-foot which is customary in most
23:49:28 jurisdictions it would allow for a minor change,
23:49:32 increase it from what's there now, and allow them to
23:49:36 26-foot, that provides two more foot offset, in the
23:49:41 frontage.
23:49:41 Also, by providing two more feet up there, we would
23:49:44 have to reduce the rear drive aisles, which, while
23:49:47 reducing the rear by code is allowed, that would
23:49:50 constrain that one to less than customary width.
23:49:56 So we are trying to provide a balance between the two,
23:49:59 24-foot drive aisle in the front of the building and
23:50:02 behind the building to sustain two-way traffic.
23:50:04 We are addressing transportation improvements,
23:50:08 providing for off-site mitigation, and would like to
23:50:14 help clarify that we are actually regulated by

23:50:20 Department of Agriculture, because we provide -- hotel
23:50:26 restaurant cooking facilities on-site, it is a coffee
23:50:33 shop, retail goods.
23:50:34 As you probably know, coffee makers, other retail
23:50:40 goods.
23:50:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if anyone in the public
23:50:42 would like to speak on item number 16.
23:50:44 Would anyone like to speak on item 16?
23:50:59 >>> Reg Miller, 2612 Lykes street.
23:51:32 We found out yesterday that there were supposed to be
23:51:35 letters sent out to the land owners, and Mr. Petny
23:51:41 approached me and told me that he had not got a letter
23:51:44 sent about the rezone.
23:51:45 And so I asked the land owner at 3601 Gandy, which is
23:51:51 adjacent, also to the property that's right in that
23:51:55 corner there.
23:51:57 He said he did not get one either.
23:52:00 He was not notified.
23:52:03 His name is Chris noble.
23:52:05 And he has sent Carter white here at zoning, I guess,
23:52:14 today.
23:52:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have a question.

23:52:23 I was thinking a gentleman by the name of Carter white
23:52:25 is employed by the county.
23:52:26 Isn't there a Carter white, Mr. Garcia?
23:52:28 So I think there's some Don confusion here.
23:52:35 >> I don't know who this guy is.
23:52:37 He just said zoning.
23:52:38 >> Where did you get the name Carter white?
23:52:40 Carter white?
23:52:42 >>> Carter white is from Chris noble, a land owner
23:52:44 that owns the property next to the proposed site.
23:52:49 >> That may be the problem.
23:52:50 I don't know.
23:52:51 Mr. Garcia, is that not right?
23:52:54 >>> Carter right works for Hillsborough County
23:52:59 planning and zoning.
23:53:01 >>> He just found out yesterday himself because he
23:53:03 never got a letter sent either notifying of the
23:53:05 rezone.
23:53:06 Then I called another gentleman that owns property
23:53:08 right next, in between those two places, Mr. Putney
23:53:13 and Chris Nobles.
23:53:14 And I called him.

23:53:16 And he said he didn't get any notification either.
23:53:20 So there's three property owners who said, in a row.
23:53:24 So I'm assuming nobody got a notification.
23:53:27 If the three people I talked to did not, I don't know
23:53:31 who else didn't.
23:53:31 But we didn't have time to ask anybody else.
23:53:33 Because we just found out about this yesterday.
23:53:41 By law it's supposed to be 30-day notification.
23:53:44 Evidently for land owners, within 250 feet of the
23:53:47 property.
23:53:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Boyle, do you have a copy of the
23:53:53 people that received the notices?
23:53:58 67 looking for it.
23:54:00 >>MARTY BOYLE: We went to the site two different times
23:54:08 and we did see the sign posted on the site.
23:54:12 >> What is the name of the people you said were not
23:54:14 noticed?
23:54:14 >>> Chris noble.
23:54:15 And the attorney Steve Putney.
23:54:19 And then the gentleman, I don't know his last name.
23:54:22 I talked to him briefly on the phone.
23:54:24 He was trying to fax us saying he wasn't notified

23:54:26 either.
23:54:26 He owns the little Asian store there right next to the
23:54:29 coffee shop.
23:54:34 Hubert is his first name is all I know.
23:54:39 >>> The other two individuals that he mentioned are
23:54:41 not on the list of property owners who but I don't
23:54:46 know if they are within 250 feet of this property.
23:54:49 The notice area is only 250 feet of property so I'm
23:54:53 not really sure.
23:54:56 >>> We're right here.
23:54:56 Right there.
23:54:57 >> But these other gentlemen that you're speaking
23:54:59 of --
23:55:00 >>> Yes.
23:55:00 Chris noble.
23:55:01 >> But where are they?
23:55:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm kind of confused.
23:55:30 Is the problem here we are trying to determine whether
23:55:31 this gentleman was supposed to be noticed?
23:55:33 Is that what we are trying to do?
23:55:39 >>> Trying to figure out if this was improperly
23:55:40 noticed because there were persons who needed to be

23:55:44 noticed who were not in fact sent notices.
23:55:46 >> Is that the case?
23:55:47 >>> I will tell you that the persons he is indicating
23:55:50 did not receive notice are not on our list.
23:55:52 And they are not here.
23:55:53 So, you know, it's hard to know.
23:55:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Whistle he's showing you what property
23:56:00 is associated with them, are they within the radius
23:56:03 that they should be -- go ahead, Marty, I'm sorry.
23:56:05 >>MARTY BOYLE: No, this was given to me by the
23:56:07 petitioner.
23:56:08 But they are required to show 250 feet from their
23:56:14 parcel.
23:56:15 If you can see on the Elmo, I don't know if it's
23:56:19 clear.
23:56:24 250 fate.
23:56:39 >> So there was not miss Noe.
23:56:41 >>GWEN MILLER: They should not have been noticed.
23:56:43 They were not within 250 radius.
23:56:47 >>> I thought it was 250 feet within the whole land
23:56:49 rezoning.
23:56:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Anything else?

23:57:01 >>> That's all I have.
23:57:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
23:57:10 >>> Ray Canell, partner and shareholder at 3601 West
23:57:15 Gandy, a business there, coffee shop right there on
23:57:17 the corner.
23:57:18 I'm here tonight to oppose the approval of the
23:57:20 rezoning at 3615 West Gandy Boulevard.
23:57:24 Not only am I opposed but I have initiated a petition
23:57:28 containing 306 petitions in opposition to rezone the
23:57:33 property.
23:57:34 I would like to submit this in the file.
23:57:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Give that to our attorney, please.
23:57:42 >>> As a resident of South Tampa I live at 26 south
23:57:45 Lykes court.
23:57:46 And the traffic there on West Gandy, like I know
23:57:51 blockbuster was on the south side right across from
23:57:54 Publix.
23:57:57 Cars are pulling into Publix.
23:58:01 Tray to get around you to get to blockbusters to get
23:58:05 around.
23:58:05 They'll drive eastbound in the westbound lane so they
23:58:08 can get into Publix.

23:58:09 And I just think it's going to create more of a
23:58:11 problem right there.
23:58:12 And also the parking.
23:58:15 I shop there, and the Publix on south Dale Mabry puts
23:58:22 the Bank of America in there.
23:58:24 And the parking there is just ridiculous.
23:58:28 I'm just trying to keep my business there.
23:58:31 Thank you.
23:58:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
23:58:34 Petitioner, do you want rebuttal?
23:58:44 >>> Pete: Just would like to point out this is a
23:58:47 commercial development.
23:58:49 It is suitable for the area, a case of compatibility,
23:58:56 the way the property has been designed.
23:58:58 What's before you is whether the development is
23:59:03 appropriate in the area, not whether one business
23:59:07 should compete over another or whether they can both
23:59:09 exist together.
23:59:11 That is a market decision.
23:59:15 It shouldn't play into your decision as to whether a
23:59:20 business should be allowed to go into an area that's
23:59:22 appropriately zoned, ready for commercial development.

23:59:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
23:59:26 We need to close the public hearing.
23:59:28 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
23:59:31 >> Second.
23:59:32 (Motion Carried).
23:59:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance?
23:59:34 Do you want to read it, Mrs. Alvarez?
23:59:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
00:04:14 the general vicinity of 3615 West Gandy Boulevard in
00:00:00 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
00:00:02 described in section 1 from zoning district
00:00:04 classifications CG commercial general to PD restaurant
00:00:09 with drive-in window providing an effective date.
00:00:10 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
00:00:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
00:00:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
00:00:21 (Motion carried).
00:00:21 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 18.
00:00:24 >> So moved.
00:00:25 >> Second.
00:00:25 (Motion carried).
00:00:25 >>MARTY BOYLE: A request to go from RS-50 to single

00:00:56 family planned development, single family detached.
00:00:59 There are no waivers with this petition.
00:01:02 There are also no objections from staff.
00:01:05 The subject property was platted in 1907 as part of
00:01:09 John drew street subdivision, originally platted at 90
00:01:16 feet by 80 feet.
00:01:17 They are under the RS-50 designation.
00:01:20 They are shy by 100 square feet.
00:01:23 The petitioner has proposed proposing the construction
00:01:26 of two single family detached residences, the two
00:01:29 story residences will have two different designs, one
00:01:32 with a Mediterranean revival style and another with
00:01:36 Paladium architectural features.
00:01:41 The proposed setbacks are 20 feet from the front, 7.5
00:01:46 from the side and 26 from the rear.
00:01:49 If you look at the Elmo on the rezoning map, RS-50
00:01:55 area.
00:01:57 And it's right off of LeRoy, the cross street is
00:02:01 MacDill.
00:02:05 Again looking at the aerial.
00:02:09 This is the subject site sight.
00:02:16 They are only 98 feet deep.

00:02:23 Sher Shea the squire footage overall.
00:02:55 Land development has no objections to this petition.
00:03:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by Mrs. Alvarez.
00:03:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Everything else on there ...
00:03:14 >>> I believe that most of the homes along there are
00:03:15 one story.
00:03:16 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
00:03:32 I have been sworn.
00:03:36 Just to answer Ms. Alvarez, because I don't think she
00:03:41 asked the question, this isn't in the West Tampa
00:03:44 overlay district.
00:03:45 It's just outside of it.
00:03:48 So it doesn't meet the design guidelines.
00:03:50 Predominant land use category, it's just south of the
00:03:57 intersection of Tampa Bay Boulevard and MacDill,
00:04:03 hospital lies to the north of Tampa Bay Boulevard,
00:04:06 Tampa Bay elementary school lies rate here on the
00:04:09 northwest corner of the intersection of Tampa Bay and
00:04:13 MacDill, within the area.
00:04:16 The area is predominantly residential uses.
00:04:21 The request is to allow the development.
00:04:26 This is the trend that has been going on in the area.

00:04:29 There has been a lot of development that allow RS-60
00:04:33 to RS-50 zonings in the area.
00:04:34 There have been recently quite a few two-story homes
00:04:37 that have been built in this area of West Tampa.
00:04:39 Not anything that would be necessarily unusual.
00:04:43 For this particular area for this street, yes, the
00:04:45 prey dominant character is single-family homes.
00:04:47 But there have been recently, if you look at all the
00:04:50 new development, there have been quite a few two-story
00:04:52 homes that have been built, interfacing single-family
00:04:55 homes in the area, where there were two story homes in
00:05:02 existence to begin with.
00:05:03 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
00:05:04 proposed request.
00:05:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
00:05:28 >>> Time other I H. Powell, address P.O. Box 1016
00:05:34 Tampa, Florida 33601.
00:05:36 Tonight I'm the authorized agent for the applicant,
00:05:43 Alejandro.
00:05:44 Do you want to feigned out if anybody is in
00:05:47 opposition?
00:05:48 >> Would anybody in the public like to speak on item

00:05:51 17?
00:05:51 Does anyone want to speak on 17?
00:05:54 I have a motion?
00:05:55 Did I hear a second?
00:05:56 To close.
00:05:57 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
00:05:58 Opposed, Nay.
00:06:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
00:06:15 the general vicinity of 3035 and 3037 west LeRoy
00:06:19 street in the city of Tampa, Florida from zoning
00:06:22 district classifications RS-50 residential single
00:06:24 family to PD single family detached providing an
00:06:27 effective date.
00:06:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
00:06:30 (Motion carried).
00:06:32 >>: Move to open 19.
00:06:34 >> Second.
00:06:34 (Motion carried)
00:07:09 >>> Last item, Z 06-36, from residential single family
00:07:14 to a planned development single family detached.
00:07:17 There are no waivers requested with this petition.
00:07:21 They are planning to re zone the property located at

00:07:24 3818 ridge Avenue.
00:07:29 Taking one lot to three lots are proposed on the
00:07:33 .74-acre site. The lot sizes will be approximately
00:07:36 9800 square feet, 1100 square feet, and -- I'm sorry,
00:07:42 9,000 square feet, 11,000 square feet, and 1107 square
00:07:48 feet. The building proposed to front ridge Avenue 20
00:07:51 feet, the building at the rear will set back 30 fate
00:07:54 from center line of the access drive, and 20 feet from
00:07:56 the property line.
00:07:58 The rear building will set back from the rear property
00:08:01 line approximately 70 feet.
00:08:03 Due to potential flooding the rear residences will be
00:08:06 constructed above grade with only utilitarian
00:08:09 functions, which is the garage on grade.
00:08:12 The buildings have been designed in a Spanish
00:08:14 Mediterranean revival style and will not exceed 35
00:08:18 fate from grade.
00:08:20 Yale show you on the rezoning match what's surrounding
00:08:22 it.
00:08:26 This is ridge Avenue to the north.
00:08:27 We have Martin Luther King.
00:08:34 Located on the Hillsborough River.

00:09:00 The aerial shows a little better view on the river
00:09:13 There's a picture of the property.
00:09:21 This is a residential property adjacent to the subject
00:09:23 site.
00:09:27 This is a grand tree.
00:09:31 I'm sorry.
00:09:46 This is south on ridge.
00:09:47 This is directly across, a single-family home.
00:09:51 A picture of the site showing the trees again.
00:09:53 This is looking north.
00:09:57 And our staff report we indicate some objections from
00:10:00 transportation.
00:10:00 They are still standing.
00:10:03 They object to the radii past the, I believe it's the
00:10:07 driveway, the property like this south.
00:10:10 The code requires the radii to be placed two feet from
00:10:12 the property line.
00:10:14 Transportation objects to not providing 40 feet of
00:10:17 right-of-way.
00:10:18 The subdivision code requires a 40-foot right-of-way
00:10:20 for private streets.
00:10:21 The right-of-way does not meet the standard.

00:10:24 Transportation objects to not providing a turn-around
00:10:27 at the end of the private right-of-way.
00:10:28 The code requires a turn-around at the end of the
00:10:31 street measuring 20 feet by 50.
00:10:33 TECO requires 20 feet of easement for electrical
00:10:36 utilities.
00:10:36 The petitioner is not providing the 20-foot easement
00:10:39 for utilities.
00:10:44 Dave Riley had objection.
00:10:46 And so did Mary Bryson from land development.
00:10:50 Petitioner did did come in with notes before the
00:10:52 meeting, and they sat out there and put stickies on
00:10:56 the plan so those have been taken care of.
00:11:00 However, transportation.
00:11:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this a flagged lot?
00:11:16 >>> It's not a flag lot.
00:11:19 Doing a PD they can put this type of configuration.
00:11:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not exactly sure.
00:11:26 Are we looking at like three separate houses that
00:11:30 share one driveway or one roadway?
00:11:36 It's like three people but one roadway?
00:11:41 >>> The two rear share one driveway.

00:11:44 The front lot will have its own drive, I believe.
00:11:48 If I'm looking at it correctly.
00:11:50 >> My question is, are there any other configurations
00:11:53 like in this area?
00:12:03 >>> Up on the Elmo, right below, right below this is
00:12:06 another PD, and I believe they also do three homes.
00:12:11 And a similar type of configuration.
00:12:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that the one that's close to the
00:12:19 ditch?
00:12:20 >>> It is south of this property but I'm not sure what
00:12:22 bridge --
00:12:23 >> No, the Martin Luther King bridge
00:12:30 >>> Yes.
00:12:30 I believe there is a residential high-rise rate here.
00:12:33 >> I can't see.
00:12:35 >>> Oh, I'm way up there.
00:12:36 If we could zoom out maybe a little bit.
00:12:39 >> There, you got it.
00:12:43 >>> Thank you.
00:12:44 Here's the bridge.
00:12:45 And there is a residential highway, I believe right
00:12:50 there.

00:12:51 >> But on the same side of the street, on the ridge
00:12:53 side, right under the bridge you can see --
00:12:57 >>> On your PD, planned development.
00:12:58 >>: Yes, there's three homes that were built similar
00:13:03 to this.
00:13:05 And they share -- they share a common drive.
00:13:12 Further back.
00:13:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: That back up.
00:13:16 That's the one they named crab something circle?
00:13:19 The homes on the back on the river, kind of a pinkish
00:13:26 house there.
00:13:28 That's private road back there.
00:13:36 >> I didn't hear the transportation objections, I'm
00:13:54 sorry.
00:13:55 >> Yes, they had four objection that is have not been
00:13:57 dealt with.
00:13:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thanks.
00:14:07 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
00:14:08 I have been sworn in, Mr. Shelby.
00:14:14 This area of Riverside heights.
00:14:19 Regarding configuration that you can see on the future
00:14:21 land use map, look at the aerial.

00:14:25 Here's the circle right over here.
00:14:29 Then if you -- and I know you all have the arrows, if
00:14:33 you take a look, Mrs. Saul-Sena, the next lot up, I
00:14:40 noticed in between where it says Virginia Avenue, if
00:14:45 it were to go out to the Hillsborough River, it seems
00:14:47 like there's another three-lot configuration where
00:14:50 there's three homes, one right after the other from
00:14:54 ridge, it appears there's three homes.
00:14:56 Also there's a couple of flag lots, also as we can see
00:15:00 in addition to the one that Mrs. Alvarez alluded to
00:15:03 and of course the configuration down here with these
00:15:05 homes and the way they are situated down this way.
00:15:15 The request, it's actually three quarters of an acre
00:15:18 so you can almost build seven houses under the res 10
00:15:23 standard but you have to bring them all into the PD
00:15:26 because they are not going to be the.
00:15:36 >>KEVIN WHITE: Isn't the same kind of development
00:15:38 going on rate next to the ridge at MLK now?
00:15:46 >>> The same nature?
00:15:47 >> No, the exact same.
00:15:50 One drive way going back.
00:16:00 No, I'm not aware of the re zoning request.

00:16:03 >> Right on the bridge.
00:16:12 >>> I'm familiar with the one that Mrs. Alvarez is
00:16:15 referring to.
00:16:15 There are a lot of different configurations as far as
00:16:17 how people are utilizing their property along the
00:16:20 river.
00:16:21 So there is a variety.
00:16:25 Deep lot like you would see.
00:16:29 Where you see a lot off of a Liss yeah street, on
00:16:36 really long lots.
00:16:37 Overhear on this particular site in Riverside height,
00:16:39 this particular area, they were all a variety of
00:16:42 different uses as far as how the lots were utilized.
00:16:47 Accessed in different lots.
00:16:48 Planning Commission staff had no objection to the
00:16:50 proposed request.
00:16:54 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
00:16:58 >> Eddie dais, I have been sworn.
00:17:01 I represent actually my wife's trust.
00:17:04 I'm actually in a situation where I was going to be
00:17:09 one of the residents living there.
00:17:11 It's been in the family since 1964.

00:17:15 So what heave here is a situation that basically we
00:17:19 have a very large home that is in very poor condition.
00:17:26 That was in a situation where my sister and my
00:17:28 brother-in-law in 1991, my parents sold them the house
00:17:34 under the condition that my parents would be there
00:17:36 until they both passed and they could do whatever they
00:17:38 want.
00:17:39 In 2000 my father passed away from cancer.
00:17:42 My mother presently lives there but the house has
00:17:45 gotten a little too big and a little bit out of sorts
00:17:49 to maintain.
00:17:50 And understood the guidance of my father, his wishes
00:17:59 that it stay in the family.
00:18:01 So as this proposal comes to you it's intended to be
00:18:05 strictly a family compound.
00:18:08 I know that may sound like strange words but
00:18:10 basically, yes, I am a developer by choice but this is
00:18:12 for my personal residence.
00:18:15 My sister and my brother-in-law are going to be taking
00:18:18 the front lot, of which I will be building them a
00:18:22 home.
00:18:22 I will be taking their lot to the north rear and then

00:18:28 I have a relative that is an attorney that will be
00:18:30 taking the one to the left rear subject to some
00:18:33 negotiations there.
00:18:37 So it's a simple process as far as, you know, what are
00:18:40 we going to use it for?
00:18:42 I beg to differ with transportation on a couple of
00:18:44 issues.
00:18:44 And I would like to state my points.
00:18:46 Basically, the issues that I have is that a PD zoning
00:18:50 is a PD zoning.
00:18:51 That is the zoning.
00:18:53 And we are going through the process, discussions with
00:18:56 every department.
00:18:58 The only issues that I had to concede to which made
00:19:02 total sense -- and I want to clarify that for Mrs.
00:19:05 Saul-Sena -- is that basically we have fee simple
00:19:08 properties for each property.
00:19:10 There's a 20-foot driveway, which is comparable to the
00:19:13 one that you see, which is also comparable to the ones
00:19:16 that you see up at the river.
00:19:18 Okay?
00:19:18 And it is going to be ten fat one property, ten foot

00:19:26 the other property and then we maintain that.
00:19:30 Now it's my intent to create a whole other
00:19:33 association.
00:19:34 I lived for 27 years in South Tampa.
00:19:36 And I really have never been into cutting grass
00:19:40 because I lived in a town house the whole time.
00:19:43 I chose this particular development, the style that
00:19:46 that you saw for a particular reason.
00:19:49 I have a bad back and so forth.
00:19:50 And that's one of the reasons I sold my townhouse.
00:19:53 And I knew that living on the river I was going to
00:19:55 have to have a minimum two stories.
00:19:57 For purposes of clarification, I really don't want to
00:20:00 go two stories because there isn't a house in that
00:20:03 neighborhood that's over two stories.
00:20:07 It is one of the key things that I would like to point
00:20:09 out, and why there's some additional land that I
00:20:13 can't -- I can't do anything on.
00:20:16 And I'll tray to explain to you real quick.
00:20:20 But basically, if you note, this actually splits here.
00:20:28 It's actually a sewer line, that we can't do anything
00:20:33 with.

00:20:34 I can't put anything on top of it.
00:20:36 So basically I'm lake 50-foot away from the water,
00:20:40 which for me is fine.
00:20:42 But what that did is shrink what I could do.
00:20:45 And that's the reason why in the design of the roadway
00:20:49 system, I maximum Miss It by increasing my driveways,
00:20:53 and increasing with the 20-foot.
00:20:56 So basically I have a 50-foot turn around to pull in
00:20:59 my driveway.
00:21:00 Granted people.
00:21:03 Come down there and meet my kids or whoever I invite
00:21:06 over.
00:21:07 I just wanted to clarify that.
00:21:08 The other questions that I believe that transportation
00:21:11 raised as relates to TECO is I think pictorially,
00:21:20 describe it here by showing you that this is a
00:21:27 385-foot lot.
00:21:33 The joint house and my house is controlled by -- that
00:21:40 runs against my neighbor next door, and the lanes come
00:21:46 in.
00:21:47 And discussions, because I didn't have enough time to
00:21:49 take it to engineering, I asked, how is TECO going to

00:21:52 handle that?
00:21:53 And I wanted to accept whatever they required.
00:21:57 >> There were some technical issues raised by staff,
00:22:00 like three or four of them including this TECO issue
00:22:03 and transportation issues and this sort of thing.
00:22:05 It seems to me like you mate need a little time to
00:22:08 work out those details and modify your site plan.
00:22:10 >>> I beg to differ and I'll tell you the reason.
00:22:12 The basic problem is I cannot get a 40-foot
00:22:15 right-of-way.
00:22:15 >> I understand that.
00:22:17 >>> So that wasn't the only issue.
00:22:19 >> There was a radius issue.
00:22:21 >>> And that's the point I was making about having a
00:22:23 driveway that is substantially deep in front of my
00:22:27 home, that the 20-foot is basically 50-foot
00:22:31 turn-around.
00:22:33 They pull into my driveway back out.
00:22:35 So for purposes of dealing with it, I dealt with it.
00:22:40 >>> You want to us waive those things?
00:22:43 >> I apologize, but whatever the definition is.
00:22:46 I've always understood PDs to be what we design is

00:22:50 what we get.
00:22:51 For purposes of my understanding, if it's a waiver,
00:22:53 then that's what I'm asking for.
00:22:56 But for simplicity purposes, I'm trying to explain to
00:22:58 you why I had to push it up and why I had to minimize
00:23:01 my radius because of that series in the rear.
00:23:06 So in order to make it, so that so I can have a
00:23:10 reasonable size home.
00:23:11 Basically I'm living in a 3200 square foot home.
00:23:20 You can't catch life on the river for less than --
00:23:31 In fairness to her, she is put in a bad predicament
00:23:37 because the problem was in your package you will see
00:23:39 that we got a letter from the homeowners association.
00:23:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Excuse me, is she in opposition?
00:23:45 >>> Yes.
00:23:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: Why don't you let her explain why
00:23:50 she's in opposition?
00:23:56 >>> Different body clock staying up this late.
00:24:02 Your whole body must be different.
00:24:06 Didn't make any sense.
00:24:07 You know what I'm talking about?
00:24:13 I'm tired.

00:24:13 You all look fresh.
00:24:16 My name is -- I live at 3308 ridge Avenue.
00:24:22 And yes, I have been sworn in.
00:24:25 And I'm not like formally prepared, because I just
00:24:27 kind of lake got in the car, because I had seen the
00:24:31 sign that said something about zoning, you know, I saw
00:24:34 it.
00:24:35 And I marked my calendar.
00:24:37 I didn't know what it was about or what property or
00:24:39 what was going to be done.
00:24:41 So I got here.
00:24:42 And when I got here I found out that, you know,
00:24:49 Eddie's property that he wants to put three houses on.
00:24:52 And I had asked my neighbor tonight if they wanted to
00:24:54 come.
00:24:56 And I told them about the sign.
00:24:58 And she said, oh, is that what it said, was about
00:25:01 zoning?
00:25:01 I thought it was the Easter egg hunt or something
00:25:05 because the sign was back in the yard.
00:25:06 And it was a little too far to read.
00:25:08 You have to stop the car and read it was about zoning.

00:25:12 So what Eddie was going to tell you is that you have a
00:25:16 letter in there that says it's from Mr. McArthur, our
00:25:19 neighborhood association president.
00:25:22 And I'm really disappointed in that.
00:25:26 I'm on the board of the neighborhood association.
00:25:28 And he has not called the meeting.
00:25:30 We haven't had meetings about this.
00:25:33 And how dare he put in that letter that he represents
00:25:36 us.
00:25:37 Okay.
00:25:38 How dare he say that.
00:25:39 Okay.
00:25:40 He doesn't represent me.
00:25:41 And I have been going to meetings for about six years,
00:25:47 since he became president.
00:25:49 I don't know if it's nine months, 12 months, 14
00:25:51 months, whatever.
00:25:53 I have been waiting for him to call me because when
00:25:58 Sharon king called I always attended the board meeting
00:26:01 and I was not told anything about this.
00:26:02 And we did have meetings in the past.
00:26:04 I don't know if you remember the old nursing home

00:26:06 thing.
00:26:07 Okay.
00:26:07 And we had plenty of meetings about that.
00:26:11 And that older gentleman, he brought his blueprint, he
00:26:17 let us ask questions, we had all kind of input, he
00:26:20 looked at the pros and cons.
00:26:23 We had all kind of discussion, you know, with the
00:26:26 blueprints there.
00:26:27 And I think here, this is happening.
00:26:29 I don't think that people are aware -- and I'm not
00:26:32 saying that Eddie didn't need this 250 feet thing.
00:26:35 If he says did he, I'm sure he did.
00:26:37 But I think Mr. McArthur, if he said he had a meeting
00:26:42 now, Eddie tells me Mr. MacArthur is going to have a
00:26:46 meeting this Sunday, on Easter, after the fact that he
00:26:49 writes you that letter.
00:26:52 >> Ma'am, are you opposed to this project?
00:26:55 >>> Can't you tell?
00:26:56 (Laughter).
00:26:57 >> I heard a lot of stuff but can you focus in on why
00:27:01 you are opposed to the project?
00:27:03 >>> Okay.

00:27:05 Three houses.
00:27:05 I just think that it's going to be haphazard.
00:27:11 It's just haphazard.
00:27:13 And I'm not even 100% sure if I'm against it.
00:27:18 I'm going to be honest with you.
00:27:19 I just want the opportunity to sit down with people
00:27:26 from the neighborhood, the board, whomever.
00:27:28 We have about 1400 houses in that neighborhood.
00:27:31 And, you know, I would like the opportunity to sit
00:27:35 down and have him explain to us what he's doing, and
00:27:40 come in --
00:27:41 >>CHAIRMAN: Your time is up.
00:27:43 Ms. Ferlita has a question.
00:27:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't have a question.
00:27:46 I'm just saying, you know, because of the fact that it
00:27:51 appears this river heights association letter is
00:27:55 misrepresenting the opinion, and it may be the opinion
00:27:57 of the neighborhood association but when don't know
00:27:59 that because he's not here and she wasn't even told of
00:28:01 this meeting.
00:28:02 She's talking about the placement of the notice signs.
00:28:07 I'm not comfortable with moving forward with this

00:28:09 until we have some -- do we have to close something?
00:28:14 >>GWEN MILLER: We can't close it.
00:28:15 Mrs. Alvarez?
00:28:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm looking at the surrounding
00:28:18 property owners that have been given to us.
00:28:21 And there's a lot of people on the Riverside, of the
00:28:27 river, and that's not 250 feet away.
00:28:33 That's way over especially the ones closer -- it's on
00:28:35 the other side.
00:28:38 >> You measure 250 feet.
00:28:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: But what I'm saying, Mrs. Alvarez,
00:28:43 when she was talking about the placement of the sign
00:28:45 she wasn't sure that a lot of people could read it.
00:28:47 So I don't see any harm in just continuing it.
00:28:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Can I just say another thing?
00:28:52 And I'm going to say another thing.
00:28:54 There was a letter from my aide that lives in that
00:28:57 area, and she got the notice.
00:28:58 She's on that notice list.
00:29:00 And she said she -- the petitioner never got with the
00:29:05 civic association, which is sad.
00:29:07 >>: Somebody else said that?

00:29:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
00:29:11 And she's very much against it.
00:29:14 And I'm reading it for her because she's not here.
00:29:18 But I suggest you get -- and the letter also says that
00:29:26 the meeting is going to be on April 16th, which is
00:29:29 a Sunday.
00:29:29 Do you all meet on a Sunday?
00:29:34 >>> Is that this Sunday?
00:29:36 Is that Easter Sunday?
00:29:38 I don't have that letter.
00:29:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are you on the board?
00:29:43 >>> I have been on the board for years unless Mr.
00:29:48 McCarthy didn't notify me and Mr. McCarthy said
00:29:56 don't worry about it.
00:29:58 He had a meeting and Mr. McCarthur told him, don't
00:30:01 worry about it, I talked to some people, it's okay.
00:30:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well it says April 16th at 7:00 so
00:30:11 I guess you are going to a meeting at that time.
00:30:13 >> If I know where it is, I actually will.
00:30:15 But isn't that east er? Isn't that east er? I mean
00:30:19 is that appropriate?
00:30:21 That's inappropriate.

00:30:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: Maybe he's hoping nobody would attend.
00:30:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Maybe that's the Easter egg you're
00:30:33 talking about.
00:30:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The other question is I don't know
00:30:36 if we can ask TECO to waive what they need for
00:30:40 electricity.
00:30:41 I think they should call those shots.
00:30:42 I think that we recognize that we need to continue
00:30:45 this.
00:30:45 And my only question is, for how long?
00:30:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Till Easter Sunday.
00:30:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Boyle?
00:30:56 >>> Let me ask the applicant how they feel about a
00:30:58 continuance.
00:30:58 Because I think there is a question relating to
00:31:00 whether or not we can waive the TECO requirement,
00:31:03 which we would not be able to do.
00:31:05 I think there's some other technical issues, whether
00:31:07 or not you can waive those.
00:31:08 But prior to that, this applicant as I have said
00:31:12 before, would like to have their application heard up
00:31:14 or down and we have to determine whether or not they

00:31:18 agree to a continuance.
00:31:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, come tell us what you want.
00:31:23 >>> I assume I'm not going to get what I want
00:31:27 I want to point out a couple things that are very
00:31:30 important for me to set precedent before this next
00:31:33 continuance.
00:31:34 In here, my hope surrounding every one of them is in
00:31:41 full support of this.
00:31:42 I have a signed affidavit from all of them telling me
00:31:46 they are all in support of this.
00:31:47 Now they are the immediate people that get affected
00:31:51 by. This so I think I have done my job in making sure
00:31:53 that my neighbors are happy in address wag needs to be
00:31:56 done.
00:31:57 As far as the neighborhood association, I totally
00:31:58 agree with Ms. Rodriguez.
00:32:01 But as the person that's responsible to follow the
00:32:04 rules, I followed the rules.
00:32:07 I talked to what the City of Tampa says is the
00:32:10 representative for that neighborhood.
00:32:12 And now I am being dragged into a situation where I'm
00:32:17 being pitted one neighbor against another and I feel

00:32:22 I'm going to get the injustice of this.
00:32:24 Because now, he's -- he's going to say you should look
00:32:34 for this.
00:32:34 That's not the point.
00:32:35 The point is I followed the rules.
00:32:36 And I did follow the rules.
00:32:38 As relates to other issues, and so forth, if any
00:32:41 reason a continuance for that.
00:32:42 Because the only issue that has to be resolved in my
00:32:45 mind, how that's resolved is TECO because the rest is
00:32:50 going to be up to you all.
00:32:51 And I sat down with zoning and sat down with
00:32:55 transportation.
00:32:56 And it's up to City Council and it's not an uncommon
00:32:59 thing to be done.
00:33:01 Our position was, it's the rules.
00:33:19 >>> The first to continue it to June 8th.
00:33:23 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second to continue to June 8th.
00:33:25 All in favor say Aye.
00:33:26 At 6 p.m.
00:33:29 >>> 6 p.m.
00:33:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman.

00:33:33 I think because it's now 12:30, we should mandate --
00:33:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else coming before council?
00:33:55 I have a motion and second.
00:33:56 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
00:33:58 Opposed, Nay.
00:34:04 Anything else coming before council?
00:34:06 We stand adjourned.
00:34:12 (Meeting adjourned)