Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, April 27, 2006
5:15 p.m. Session

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

16:37:13 >>Chairman Miller: Tampa City Council is called to
17:19:45 order.
17:19:45 >> This evening we will be joined by sister Ann
17:19:50 Doherty.
17:19:51 She will give the invocation.
17:19:53 Please remain standing for the pledge.
17:19:56 >> We come before you in praise and Thanksgiving for
17:20:00 all the blessings you have given us this day.
17:20:02 We ask you to bless all the citizens of Tampa and
17:20:05 especially those who are poor, homeless, and we also
17:20:10 ask for special prayers for our police officers,
17:20:14 firefighters and all of our first responders.

17:20:17 We pray for our city council members that will improve
17:20:21 the quality of life for all the people in Tampa.
17:20:23 We ask that you give them the spirit so that all their
17:20:28 decisions promote the common good.
17:20:30 We ask this in God's holy name.
17:20:33 Amen.
17:20:33
17:20:49 >> Roll call.
17:20:52 (roll call).
17:20:57 >> I'd like to put on the record Mr. Kevin white will
17:21:00 not be in attendance at the meeting.
17:21:02 He is out of town.
17:21:03 At this time we're going to have a presentation by
17:21:05 Ms. Sandra Anderson with the Tampa Water Department.
17:21:10 Please come forward.
17:21:12
17:21:12 >> Thank you.
17:21:14 Good evening a madam chair.
17:21:16 For the record, City of Tampa Water Department.
17:21:19 I'm here to briefly present an award for 7th annual
17:21:23 community water wise award.
17:21:26 As you may know, mayor Iorio designated water as
17:21:31 conservation month. In keeping with that scene we're
17:21:34 here to recognize Virginia overstreet that
17:21:39 participated in the program.
17:21:43 The participants are recognized by creating attractive
17:21:47 and water efficient landscapes that conserve water and
17:21:50 instill water conservation practices.
17:21:53 This year we do have the landscape conservation
17:21:56 judging criteria includes the retention of keeping
17:22:00 existing trees and vegetation on the property.
17:22:03 We look to see if the property tries to reduce storm
17:22:07 water run off.
17:22:08 We look at the landscape design and make sure the
17:22:10 right plant in the right place and is very effective
17:22:13 and efficient and also irrigation efficiency.
17:22:16 That's some of the criteria the panel looks for.
17:22:19 The judging panel was made up from members of the
17:22:21 Hillsborough County water department, cooperative
17:22:24 extension service, Tampa Bay water and Tampa Water
17:22:30 Department.
17:22:33 They will receive a stepping stone, as well as a water
17:22:38 conservation kit.
17:22:40 I invite Virginia overstreet up, please, and provide

17:22:44 her with the water wise stepping stone and all the
17:22:49 award winners will get this.
17:22:52 I want to briefly give this to her, if you don't mind:
17:23:09 We also provide a water conservation kit which seems a
17:23:14 little odd to me.
17:23:15 She's being recognized for her water conservation
17:23:19 habits and behaviors.
17:23:21 She can share them with her neighbors.
17:23:24 There's also a T shirt in there and other information
17:23:27 she can share or use around her home.
17:23:30 We appreciate having the opportunity to come to her to
17:23:32 talk about water conservation and recognize Virginia
17:23:35 overstreet who we take great pride in trying to get
17:23:39 our CUSTOMERS to conserve water and we have members of
17:23:43 the community who go E above and beyond to instill
17:23:47 those measures in their home and practice what they
17:23:50 preach.
17:23:51 It's a perfect opportunity.
17:23:52 Given the rainfall deficit we're currently
17:23:55 experiencing, it's customers like Ms. Overstreet that
17:24:00 we really appreciate.
17:24:01 Unless you want to say a few words.
17:24:03 >> I'd like to thank the water department and city
17:24:06 council for this award.
17:24:07 I think water conservation is very important for all
17:24:10 of us, not only whether or not we're gardeners or not,
17:24:13 but as homeowners.
17:24:15 Especially in this time of drought it especially
17:24:19 important.
17:24:20 Thank you again.
17:24:21 (Applause.)
17:24:26 >> Thank you very much.
17:24:29 Ms. Alvarez?
17:24:33 >> Mary Alvarez: I want to share with the public that
17:24:35 I took advantage of the -- in the water bill there is
17:24:43 a place in there where you can check your -- have your
17:24:46 irrigation checked, and I had that done.
17:24:51 And the gentleman that came out was very, very
17:24:54 professional and showed us that we did have a few of
17:24:59 the irrigation plugs that were plugged and told us
17:25:04 that, you know, what we could do to conserve and so
17:25:08 on.
17:25:08 I just wanted do share that, that if you want your
17:25:11 irrigation system checked, there's a place to do it.

17:25:14 That was a really good idea.
17:25:15 >> Thank you very much.
17:25:20 >> Mary Alvarez: You get a water conservation kit,
17:25:22 too.
17:25:25 >> Gwen Miller: We have some business Ms. Alvarez
17:25:28 needs to bring before us.
17:25:29 >> Mary Alvarez: This morning we went ahead and
17:25:31 scheduled a joint meeting.
17:25:34 This afternoon I just got this e-mail saying that they
17:25:36 can't -- we can't have a joint meeting because
17:25:39 Hartline has a regular schedule meeting.
17:25:43 I would need to redo the motion.
17:25:44 It looks like June the 15th for times -- June the
17:25:50 19th, I'm sorry, June the 19th would work for them
17:25:57 with a time certain of 1:00 or 2 p.m.
17:26:01 What's your pleasure?
17:26:03 >> So moved.
17:26:06 >> Mary Alvarez: I need to rescind the first motion.
17:26:11 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second to rescind.
17:26:12 All in favor say aye.
17:26:15 >> Mary Alvarez: The next one would be one or 2:00 in
17:26:18 the afternoon.
17:26:19 >> What day of the week is that?
17:26:23 >> Mary Alvarez: Monday.
17:26:26 >> Gwen Miller: Do we have a full council -- we'll
17:26:29 table that until we get a full council.
17:26:32 >> Mary Alvarez: Sorry about that.
17:42:33 >> Gwen Miller: Tampa City Council is called back to
17:42:36 order.
17:42:37 Roll call.
17:42:39 (roll call).
17:42:44 >> Gwen Miller: Item two is open.
17:42:49 >> Good evening council.
17:42:52 I'm simply here to request a continuance of this
17:42:55 ordinance, discussion to May 11th at 5:30 p.m.
17:42:59 The urban design staff would like to revisit the
17:43:03 choice of the light fixture, and we will be meeting
17:43:06 about that on Monday.
17:43:07 >> So moved.
17:43:09 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
17:43:10 All in favor say aye.
17:43:16 Item three.
17:43:17 >> Land development, I'm coming in place of Cindy
17:43:21 Miller.

17:43:22 Ms. Miller has requested a continuance for one
17:43:25 meeting, not one week, but to the May 11th evening and
17:43:32 agenda simply because the historic preservation staff
17:43:34 is not available.
17:43:41 >> Gwen Miller: Item four.
17:43:49 Is there a staff member to speak on --
17:43:56 >> Good evening.
17:44:01 Jerry Miller, my name is Kathy GINSTER.
17:44:06 Regarding the second and final public hearing on
17:44:09 proposed brownfield designation for property located
17:44:13 in the city's channel district.
17:44:15 The purpose of the state brownfield designation is to
17:44:18 make available financial incentives to parties
17:44:20 interested in remediating or redeveloping abandoned
17:44:26 and underutilized properties.
17:44:29 Designate the area as a brownfield.
17:44:32 Once the area is designated, the Florida Department of
17:44:33 Environmental Protection will all be responsible to
17:44:36 oversee all assessment and environmental clean-up
17:44:40 activities.
17:44:41 At the conclusion of this public hearing, council will
17:44:43 have an opportunity to pass resolution designating the
17:44:47 grand central at Kennedy property a brownfield site as
17:44:52 specified by state statute.
17:44:55 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I have a serious question.
17:44:57 This is not facetious.
17:44:58 We know that the entirety of the channel district was
17:45:01 originally an industrial area.
17:45:02 The whole area is redeveloping.
17:45:05 Instead of piecemealing it, could council just declare
17:45:08 the entire channel district a brownfield and be done
17:45:12 with it?
17:45:13 >> Yes.
17:45:15 As a council you can designate the whole area.
17:45:19 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Because it would make it easier
17:45:21 for everybody.
17:45:22 We know the whole area was originally an industrial
17:45:25 area.
17:45:25 I'll act on this now.
17:45:26 Subsequently I'd like to make a resolution that we
17:45:30 designate the whole area.
17:45:32 >> Gwen Miller: Move the resolution --
17:45:35 >> Gwen Miller: Is there anyone in the public going to
17:45:37 speak on item four and five?

17:45:39 If you do, you need to stand and raise your right
17:45:42 hand.
17:45:43 >> Move to close.
17:45:46 >> Gwen Miller: Anybody going to speak on four and
17:45:47 five?
17:45:51 You need to swear them in.
17:46:02 (oath administered by clerk).
17:46:05 >> Gwen Miller: Anyone want to speak on four?
17:46:07 Motion and second to close.
17:46:10 >> Move the resolution.
17:46:13 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second, move the
17:46:14 resolution.
17:46:15 Number five.
17:46:16 >> Move to open.
17:46:18 >> Second.
17:46:22 >> Gwen Miller: The staff want to speak on five?
17:46:25
17:46:27 >> Good evening again.
17:46:28 This is the second and final public hearing for
17:46:31 proposed brownfield designation area located in the
17:46:40 years area.
17:46:41 Again, the council is being asked to designated this
17:46:44 area of the brownfield site.
17:46:47 Once that's done, the Florida Department of
17:46:48 Environmental Protection will be responsible for
17:46:50 overseeing all the assessment and environmental clean
17:46:54 up.
17:46:54 At the end of this second public hearing, council will
17:46:58 have an opportunity to pass the resolution,
17:47:00 designating the former 4 3rd Street base site a
17:47:04 brownfield area as specified in state statute.
17:47:08 Thank you.
17:47:11 >> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public that would like
17:47:12 to speak on item five?
17:47:13 >> Move to second.
17:47:18 >> Move the resolution.
17:47:23 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I'd like to move that we ask the
17:47:26 legal department to investigate the possibility of
17:47:28 designating the entire channel district as a
17:47:31 brownfield and reporting back to us in 45 days.
17:47:38 >> Gwen Miller: Question on the motion?
17:47:40 >> Would you include -- to see what the ramifications?
17:47:47 I don't think it's a legal question.
17:47:49 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Sure.

17:47:49 I guess the question would be to ask the
17:47:52 administration to investigate.
17:47:53 >> Gwen Miller: I have a motion and a second.
17:47:55 All in favor say aye.
17:47:56 Opposed nay.
17:47:58 >> Open six.
17:48:04 >> That's 6:00.
17:48:09 >> Gwen Miller: We'll be in recess until 6 p.m.
17:58:28
18:00:34
18:07:25 >> Gwen Miller: Tampa City Council is called to order.
18:07:30 (roll call).
18:07:33 >> Gwen Miller: This time I'll turn to Ms. Marty bowl.
18:07:36 >> Hello.
18:07:39 Marty Boyle.
18:07:42 I would like to certainly first go over the agenda and
18:07:46 discuss the cases that cannot be heard and a request
18:07:49 for a continuance.
18:07:50 Item No. 7, Z 06-27 cannot be heard.
18:07:55 The first available date is September 28th.
18:07:57 >> So moved.
18:07:58
18:08:00 (Motion carried.)
18:08:00
18:08:04 >> Item 9, also cannot be heard, the first hearing
18:08:08 date is September 28th.
18:08:12 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
18:08:12 All in favor say aye.
18:08:14 Opposed nay.
18:08:17 (carried).
18:08:18 >> Petitioner has requested a continuance to address
18:08:21 graphical issues of the site plan and address staff
18:08:26 comments and has requested a continuance to May 11.
18:08:29 Currently one slot available.
18:08:32 >> Gwen Miller: We have to open the public hearing
18:08:34 first.
18:08:37 Motion and second.
18:08:37 All in favor say aye.
18:08:43 >> Linda Saul-Sena: You have a 13-day rule.
18:08:45 Does May 11, does that give you enough time?
18:08:49 Have they already presented the graphical changes that
18:08:52 they need to?
18:08:53 >> No, they have not.
18:08:55 >> Linda Saul-Sena: If they don't have it turned in by

18:08:58 tomorrow, according to my map -- do they have enough
18:09:02 time to get it to you for you all to review it?
18:09:07 >> Gwen Miller: Put your name on the record.
18:09:09 >> Keith Bricklemyer, attorney for the applicant.
18:09:13 We reviewed the site plans that address issues that
18:09:16 you raised and the staff raised questions about.
18:09:19 The staff will have that at 8:00 in the morning.
18:09:23 >> Linda Saul-Sena: They have to have it 13 days in
18:09:27 advance.
18:09:29 >> They will have it tomorrow.
18:09:31 I think the issues are simply tab particular issues
18:09:34 for the most part.
18:09:36 -- most part.
18:09:38 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I think locational issues on
18:09:40 the --
18:09:41 >> Landscaping issues, yes.
18:09:43 Those are addressed as well.
18:09:45 >> Gwen Miller: Is there anyone in the public that
18:09:46 would like to speak on the continuance of No. 16?
18:09:51 Do we need a motion for continuance?
18:09:55 Play 11 at 6 p.m.?
18:10:00 (Motion carried.)
18:10:04 >> Gwen Miller: Is there anyone in the public going to
18:10:07 speak on items 6 through 17, would you please stand
18:10:10 and raise your right hand?
18:10:11
18:10:26 (oath administered by clerk.)
18:10:38 >> Gwen Miller: No. 13, you omitted that one.
18:10:41 >> I pointed out that I omitted that.
18:10:46 First available time is September 28th.
18:10:51 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
18:10:54 (Motion carried.)
18:10:56 >> Thank you for correcting me.
18:11:00 >> This site is located on south Westshore
18:11:05 Boulevard --
18:11:06 >> I'm sorry to interrupt.
18:11:08 I ask that -- first, all written communications
18:11:11 relative to today's hearings that have been available
18:11:14 to the public at council's office be received and
18:11:17 filed into the record at this time.
18:11:18 A motion please.
18:11:23 >> Gwen Miller: All in favor?
18:11:24 (Motion carried.)
18:11:25 >> If any member of council has had any verbal

18:11:29 communications with any petitioner or any members of
18:11:32 the public with regard to any petitions, that member
18:11:35 should disclose the following before the hearing is
18:11:39 closed, the member with whom the verbal communication
18:11:43 occurred and substance of that communication.
18:11:45 I put a sign there to remind you to repeat that when
18:11:48 you state your name, please reaffirm for the record
18:11:51 that you have been sworn.
18:11:53 It will speed up the meeting.
18:11:55 When you state your name, please say if you have been
18:11:59 sworn.
18:11:59 >> Thank you, Heather LAMBOY, I have been sworn.
18:12:05 Back in 2005 the council approved a site plan zoning
18:12:09 for the first community bank of America, and it
18:12:14 subsequently was built out.
18:12:16 This is a picture of the building facing north.
18:12:19 A picture illustrating the intersection and the
18:12:22 location of the sign will be here that is being
18:12:25 proposed, and a contextual picture understanding the
18:12:31 relation of the side to the buildings across the
18:12:34 street.
18:12:34 In addition, I'd like to show you a picture or
18:12:37 illustration of the sign that is being proposed.
18:12:41 The petitioner is requesting to reduce the minimum
18:12:44 setbacks for the monument sign.
18:12:46 The request is to place the sign within one foot of
18:12:49 the property line and ten feet is normally the
18:12:51 required setback.
18:12:52 The sign is nine feet tall and 5.1 feet wide.
18:12:56 There are no staff objections to this request
18:12:58 inclusive of Ms. Cal way who is with our
18:13:02 transportation division.
18:13:03 She reviewed it for visibility triangle so it's not an
18:13:06 obstruction and there is no objection.
18:13:10 >> Question.
18:13:15 What is -- do we have a certain standard in terms of
18:13:19 height?
18:13:19 A lot of times we see monument signs that are shorter.
18:13:24 Do we have a standard in our code for the monument
18:13:29 signs?
18:13:30 >> A lot of times the monument signs are based on the
18:13:33 linear frontage of the parcel that it's located on.
18:13:39 So the size of the monument sign is based on the
18:13:41 frontage that it's on.

18:13:43 >> >> John Dingfelder: And that relates to fight?
18:13:46 >> Height and overall size as well.
18:13:48 Typically they're 16 feet.
18:13:50 I would say most monument signs on a typical
18:13:53 commercial parcel, the maximum height is 16 feet.
18:13:57 >> John Dingfelder: A monument sign.
18:13:58 Really.
18:14:01 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Not to be contradictory, but I
18:14:04 don't think that's correct at all.
18:14:05 I think you might be thinking of pylon signs.
18:14:09 We are trying to use monuments to be lower and more
18:14:12 discrete.
18:14:14 >> I read -- I should look at the code and double
18:14:18 check, but I believe that our sign code is in
18:14:22 desperate need of changes, and that will definitely be
18:14:27 addressed as part of the update of the code as the
18:14:29 staff works through it.
18:14:31 >> Linda Saul-Sena: That's perfect.
18:14:32 Ms. Ferlita?
18:14:36 >> Rose Ferlita: I was talking about something that
18:14:40 someone wanted me to resolve.
18:14:41 Tell me what's going on please again.
18:14:44 >> Just a quick recap.
18:14:46 The sign I put on the LMO.
18:14:49 The petitioner requested to reduce the size of the
18:14:52 sign from what was previously proposed and places the
18:14:55 monument sign closer to the property line than what is
18:14:59 allowed by code.
18:15:00 They had to return to the city council to request
18:15:02 approval of the revised site plan change.
18:15:07 >> John dingfelder: That sign is nine feet tall, five
18:15:13 feet wide, a foot from the right-of-way.
18:15:18 >> The overall area that we'll be advertising will be
18:15:21 approximately six feet by five feet which could give
18:15:25 approximately 30 square feet of advertising area.
18:15:29 >> Linda Saul-Sena: It won't have any electrically
18:15:32 activated part, will you?
18:15:34 >> It actually has an electronic reader board in the
18:15:37 center that's two feet by five ten.
18:15:41 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
18:15:43 We had a major conversation about not having any more
18:15:47 of this.
18:15:47 We have several illegal ones operating now.
18:15:50 I thought that our code spoke to not having any more

18:15:52 of those.
18:15:54 >> Let me research the code.
18:16:02 >> Shawn Harrison: She's absolutely right.
18:16:03 I remember that from 1999 or 200.
18:16:09 We passed a sign that made them illegal.
18:16:11 >> Let me research and let the petitioner make his
18:16:14 presentation and I'll come back.
18:16:20 >> Good evening, Tony Garcia.
18:16:23 As she previously stated the site in question has
18:16:26 already been approved by council for use of bank
18:16:30 drive-through facility.
18:16:32 It's not pertinent as it relates to the comprehensive
18:16:35 plan itself because the way the comprehensive plan is
18:16:38 more general in nature, doesn't speak to the specific
18:16:41 nature of the land development code, the situation you
18:16:43 have in front of you.
18:16:44 The commission staff has no objections because this is
18:16:48 more of a specific nature that it relates to the land
18:16:51 development code itself as far as the issue of the
18:16:53 electric signage that you're referring to,
18:16:57 Ms. Saul-Sena.
18:16:59 >> This is a drive-in bank?
18:17:05 >> Rose Ferlita: We can't hold anybody to something
18:17:07 we're trying to structure in terms of changes or
18:17:10 amendments to an ordinance.
18:17:11 It's my understanding -- I don't know if kate wants to
18:17:16 look at this, I know she's researching it.
18:17:18 We can hold it for a minute.
18:17:19 In the current configuration the code doesn't allow
18:17:23 this and they're asking for a waiver?
18:17:25 >> I would like for someone who used to work with
18:17:29 construction services division can talk about these
18:17:32 electronic reader boards.
18:17:35 >> I have been sworn.
18:17:40 When I worked at the construction service center, one
18:17:43 thing that they did allow is for them to allow a
18:17:46 message board provided they signed an affidavit
18:17:49 stating that it would not employ motion or change more
18:17:53 than once in 24 hours.
18:17:59 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I have found the city completely
18:18:01 incapable of policing that, completely.
18:18:04 I have repeatedly complained about that not being
18:18:09 upheld.
18:18:10 I have complained about it.

18:18:11 Counsel has spoken about it.
18:18:13 I don't know where you all got that policy, but the
18:18:15 directive from council has been that those are not
18:18:17 acceptable.
18:18:19 >> Cathleen O'Dowd, legal department.
18:18:23 The sign code prohibits activated signs.
18:18:27 It doesn't prohibit electrical signs.
18:18:29 An opinion issued by Gina grimes when she was with the
18:18:34 city that opined if the electric message board is
18:18:37 changed every 24 hours, that did not constitute an
18:18:41 activated sign.
18:18:43 That's the basis under which we've been operating.
18:18:46 >> Linda Saul-Sena: My concern is that it is
18:18:47 absolutely not regulated properly.
18:18:50 It is not absolutely not.
18:18:52 There are egregious examples of this every day.
18:18:57 CFC might be operating on that day and Gina might have
18:19:00 opined that.
18:19:01 Council has been very, very specific about not finding
18:19:04 this acceptable.
18:19:04 >> There was an amendment that I had worked on a few
18:19:07 years back at council's request that would have
18:19:09 prohibited these signs completely, and council did not
18:19:14 move forward with that amendment.
18:19:17 We have been operating under the code as it's
18:19:20 currently written.
18:19:21 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Did we not move forward with that
18:19:24 amendment because we were going to have a total
18:19:26 rewrite of the sign code?
18:19:29 Ms. Ferlita has been working on it.
18:19:32 It seems to take us forever to get new ordinances out.
18:19:36 And this is something that this council spoke to
18:19:39 pretty directly.
18:19:40 >> I understand your concerns.
18:19:41 But I think council needs to apply the code as it's
18:19:44 currently written.
18:19:45 It does not prohibit electrical signs.
18:19:49 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
18:19:50 >> Just one response real quick to Ms. Saul-Sena's
18:19:56 question regarding size, maximum allowable area shall
18:20:00 not exceed one square feet of display area for each
18:20:03 lineal foot of the street that the sign faces.
18:20:08 Double signage is 450 square feet.
18:20:10 The maximum height is 18 feet actually.

18:20:14 >> Pylon or monument.
18:20:16 >> Ground or monument sign.
18:20:22 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
18:20:24 >> Good evening.
18:20:25 I'm president of the first community bank.
18:20:28 I have been sworn.
18:20:29 This is John EVELYN with Hamilton engineering.
18:20:35 What I'd like to show you is what the original sign
18:20:38 that was approved -- that sign was substantially
18:20:44 larger and it was also obstructed by the trees that we
18:20:47 saved when we redeveloped the site.
18:20:50 So -- I'll show you some subsequent pictures.
18:20:53 The next picture is the difference in size with the
18:20:56 new sign.
18:20:58 I also want to point out that we're talking about a
18:21:01 relocation from the existing site over to Westshore
18:21:07 and I'll show you that with the plat and also on the
18:21:09 site with the pictures.
18:21:11 John, if you can show the first one.
18:21:19 There are the trees, and the sign would approximately
18:21:21 be located in front of the Silver car that's parked --
18:21:30 if we butt the sign at 15 feet -- we could have gone
18:21:35 18 feet, lit be right in the middle of the trees and
18:21:38 we'll be obscured from both directions.
18:21:41 That's looking south on Westshore.
18:21:43 This is looking west from Euclid.
18:21:46 The sign would be just to the other side of that tree
18:21:48 and you can see the trees would obstruct even the sign
18:21:51 as you're coming down EUCLID.
18:22:03 The ATM little sign you see is where we propose to put
18:22:07 the monument sign.
18:22:10
18:22:14 >> Can you go back one second?
18:22:16 >> Sure.
18:22:17 That's at the entrance off of Westshore.
18:22:20 That's looking south.
18:22:23
18:22:25 >> It would be probably about the height of that tree
18:22:27 I guess, right?
18:22:28 It looks like maybe a ten-foot tree or so?
18:22:31 >> Right.
18:22:32 That's why we wanted to do the monument sign so as
18:22:35 you're driving down Westshore you could at least see
18:22:38 it underneath the trees.

18:22:40 It's problematic, the trees will grow and obscure it.
18:22:46 If we put a lower sign, the trees will grow higher and
18:22:50 we can trim them up.
18:22:51 We won't have to come back and replace the sign at
18:22:54 three or four years at great expense.
18:22:56 These things cost about $26,000 plus installation.
18:23:02 This is a longer view of the Westshore entrance.
18:23:09 And you can see where the location would be right to
18:23:12 the north of the entrance at Westshore, where we're
18:23:17 proposing it.
18:23:18 And finally, a closer end look.
18:23:23 So you can see, with the trees that we have, the
18:23:26 9-foot sign will be below the tree line at this
18:23:30 juncture.
18:23:31 We could, as we said, on the original sign go up
18:23:34 significantly higher.
18:23:35 It's not going to do us any good at the location it
18:23:38 was proposed at.
18:23:46 >> John Dingfelder: I guess two questions that I would
18:23:48 have, it sounds like perhaps some other council has.
18:23:52 The overall Heidt, if you go back to the original sign
18:23:57 itself that was approximately 15 feet --
18:24:01 >> John Dingfelder: The height of the proposed sign.
18:24:04 Do you have an overlay of what it's going to look
18:24:05 like?
18:24:06 >> Yes.
18:24:10 >> John Dingfelder: Boost that up.
18:24:13 >> Rose Ferlita: Can you superimpose that.
18:24:26 >> With the proposed location.
18:24:29 >> We can try.
18:24:33 >> No.
18:24:33 The one that had the little bitty sign.
18:24:37 The ATM sign.
18:24:38 That would be a good idea if that would work.
18:24:42 The question is is it to scale?
18:24:45 >> It's probably close.
18:24:48 >> Two questions I had.
18:24:51 One is at the bottom of it you sort of have some empty
18:24:56 space going on.
18:24:57 I'm just wondering is it possible to drop it down
18:24:59 since, like you say, you're trying to avoid being
18:25:02 blocked by those trees.
18:25:03 >> I don't have any problem with that.
18:25:07 >> Gwen Miller: Would you move that one up so we can

18:25:09 see the bottom of it?
18:25:11 >> The bottom base is going to be concrete block and
18:25:14 stucco which matches the finish of the building.
18:25:19 It wouldn't matter if it were a few feet lower.
18:25:22 >> That would be good.
18:25:23 Then we'd have an overall smaller sign.
18:25:25 I think the concern, and I don't want to speak for
18:25:28 Ms. Saul-Sena, I guess the concerns that are just
18:25:31 constantly buzzing and going and moving and that sort
18:25:34 of thing.
18:25:34 My guess is with a bank you're going to flash up there
18:25:38 that you're offering two percent mortgages this week,
18:25:41 right?
18:25:42 >> That's the only reason, John.
18:25:44 We want to advertise our hook rates to get people in
18:25:46 the bank.
18:25:47 We don't have that presently.
18:25:48 >> Can we put something on the site plan that says you
18:25:52 wouldn't change that banner -- how often would you be
18:25:55 changing it?
18:25:56 Once a week or so?
18:25:58 >> Depends on how often we change the rates.
18:26:00 Certainly a lot more than once a day --
18:26:03 >> A lot longer period of time than once a day.
18:26:09 >> John Dingfelder: Is it expressed on the site plan
18:26:10 that that would not change more than once a day?
18:26:13 >> I can add that note.
18:26:16 >> John Dingfelder: I'd bee comfortable with adding
18:26:17 that in light of the fact that we're sort of con
18:26:20 strained by our legal advice.
18:26:25 That's the code.
18:26:25 But I think if it's on the site plan, it's probably a
18:26:28 little bit stronger.
18:26:29 At least somebody could jump right to the sign plan
18:26:32 and do it.
18:26:34 >> Rose Ferlita: It would still be an enforcement
18:26:36 issue, Mr. Dingfelder, although I understand where
18:26:39 you're going.
18:26:40 I have concerns from ten feet to one foot.
18:26:43 I need to talk to somebody from transportation.
18:26:45 Where are they?
18:26:47 >> They're here.
18:26:50 >> John EVELYN, they've already looked to it.
18:26:58 >> Rose Ferlita: I want to talk to somebody now.

18:27:01 Excuse me.
18:27:02 I have concerns now, not when they looked at it.
18:27:05 I'd like to talk to them.
18:27:12 >> Linda Saul-Sena: While we're waiting for someone
18:27:13 from transportation, I'd like to ask code enforcement
18:27:16 to investigate three locations and report back to me
18:27:20 in two weeks on illegally moving electronic signs.
18:27:24 >> Gwen Miller: No.
18:27:24 We're -- that would be a different motion.
18:27:30 Let's do this one first.
18:27:34 >> Rose Ferlita: If we don't have somebody here from
18:27:36 transportation, I suggest we hold this for a minute.
18:27:42 Where is she?
18:27:46 With all due respect, I'm sorry.
18:27:48 I am not addressing my concern to you.
18:27:50 I know you're most qualified in whatever it is you do.
18:27:53 I want to talk to the transportation department if you
18:27:55 don't mind.
18:27:56 I really would appreciated that.
18:27:57 >> I just wanted to know if you wanted to take a look
18:27:59 at the site plan.
18:28:02 >> Rose Ferlita: I want to talk to them about the site
18:28:06 plan.
18:28:08 We have a situation here with a developer, the
18:28:10 petitioner is asking for reduced minimum setback from
18:28:13 a ground sign from ten feet to one foot off the
18:28:17 right-of-way in a portion of west side, the west side
18:28:21 of this site.
18:28:22 I'm concerned and I wonder if you would speak to,
18:28:25 please, height, sign line visibility, triangles, one
18:28:30 foot off the right-of-way seems to be something I'm
18:28:32 concerned about and hopefully you'll be concerned
18:28:34 about as well. I'm Melanie Calloway, transportation.
18:28:41 We have sight triangles, a really rough way of doing
18:28:44 that is ten feet from the property line and ten feet
18:28:49 making a triangle from where that car is to being able
18:28:54 to have a sight distance, pedestrians as well as on
18:28:58 coming cars.
18:28:59 When I look at the site plan, it seems as though they
18:29:03 might meet that.
18:29:04 I do ask this quite often for sight line.
18:29:08 But I didn't really -- because it's one foot from the
18:29:19 right-of-way, the way the sidewalk currently exists,
18:29:22 there is a gap several feet.

18:29:23 So they could see -- if a car was exiting, they can
18:29:27 see.
18:29:28 And entering traffic is not really an issue.
18:29:30 I didn't feel that was creating a sight obstruction.
18:29:33 >> Rose Ferlita: I'm kind of confused about your may
18:29:37 to meet.
18:29:39 With all confidence you can give us as an expert in
18:29:42 transportation, this is not a problem or it could be a
18:29:44 problem or might be a problem or what?
18:29:46 >> I can go and take my site plan and draw on it for
18:29:50 you the triangle so you can see it.
18:29:53 >> Rose Ferlita: I'd like to see that.
18:29:54 Thank you.
18:29:58 >> Gwen Miller: We'll hold this -- we'll go to
18:30:00 something else and come back.
18:30:02 Ms. Saul-Sena, you say what?
18:30:06 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you, I would like to request
18:30:08 in two weeks a report back from code enforcement from
18:30:12 three signs that I have seen moving in the course of
18:30:14 the day.
18:30:15 One is the CVS on Kennedy and Dale Mabry, the other is
18:30:22 two blocks west of Dale MABRY, the Keller Williams
18:30:27 sign on Henderson just south of -- I'd like to get a
18:30:34 report back from code enforcement in two weeks on
18:30:37 whether these signs are illegally activated.
18:30:47 (Motion carried.)
18:30:54 >> Rose Ferlita: I'll probably add to that.
18:30:56 We have some in the west Tampa area.
18:31:01 >> Rose Ferlita: I want to tell you, that's going to
18:31:03 be an issue we're going to have to address.
18:31:06 Mr. Shelby, weigh in on this whenever you want.
18:31:12 Keeping in mind that we are doing a lot to get this
18:31:16 done, just like you did with the tree ordinance, this
18:31:20 council as we go from one issue to the next, really
18:31:23 has to demand that the administration spend more
18:31:26 dollars and time and attention on enforcement because
18:31:29 you're saying those -- that CVS site has been a
18:31:34 conversational topic at our meetings very often.
18:31:37 If there's no enforcement, you can whine all you want
18:31:42 up here, but it's back to enforcement.
18:31:44 We need to address that.
18:31:45 We need to address it because in a lot of categories,
18:31:48 not just on site signs, if we don't follow that up
18:31:51 with enforcement.

18:31:57 >> Gwen Miller: We have a motion and a second.
18:31:59 (Motion carried.)
18:32:10 >> Linda Saul-Sena: As part of that report, what kind
18:32:11 of penalties are there if somebody violates that
18:32:15 spirit?
18:32:17 -- not in spirit, if somebody violates the law?
18:32:23 >> Rose Ferlita: After a 30-day citation period, the
18:32:27 whole SHIBANG all over again.
18:32:35 >> Gwen Miller: All right.
18:32:36 Number 8.
18:32:36 >>
18:32:40 6001 south Himes avenue, currently the cited of an
18:32:46 elementary school.
18:32:46 This is an aerial, it's located -- the actual site
18:32:52 will be located across from the substation and on the
18:32:58 northern portion of the site.
18:33:01 Just to give you an understanding of the zoning of the
18:33:04 area.
18:33:04 This entire area is the school site, all around the
18:33:09 site there is residential zoning.
18:33:14 And that relates to what I'm going to be commending
18:33:16 about with the waivers.
18:33:18 The petitioner has requested several waivers, one to
18:33:21 increase the height from 140 to 148, reduce the
18:33:25 requirement of setback to residential use on the north
18:33:27 from 300 to 131 feet, reduce the required minimum
18:33:31 setback to residential use from 300 feet to 112 feet
18:33:35 on the east and allow residential uses on all sides of
18:33:38 the property pursuant to section 272 A 1.
18:33:44 The petitioner is requested a flag facility.
18:33:49 My second flag.
18:33:50 You will know that the petitioner is going to be
18:33:52 abiding by all flag etiquette.
18:33:56 The setback from Himes avenue will be 112 feet.
18:34:00 >> Does that include lighting from the bottom?
18:34:02 >> From the bottom, yes.
18:34:04 That is correct.
18:34:05 She studied the flag etiquette after the last hearing
18:34:09 that was involving a flag.
18:34:12 Surrounded by an eight foot PVC fence.
18:34:16 This includes four inch Cal per, 15 foot evergreen
18:34:21 shade trees, shrubs planted eight feet on center and
18:34:27 Ivy at the base of the fence.
18:34:30 The tower's diameter will be five feet in order to

18:34:34 accommodate the telecommunications equipment.
18:34:36 The flag will be large to be in proportion to the
18:34:39 tower.
18:34:39 Photo simulations have been provided to the council
18:34:42 for their review, as we understand, how the tower is
18:34:45 going to look in the neighborhood.
18:34:48 Staff has no objection.
18:34:49 I have provided substantive background material for
18:34:52 the council to let the council know that the
18:34:57 petitioner has met all of the purpose and intent of
18:35:00 the telecommunications ordinance in that we're trying
18:35:04 to have an aesthetically pleasing facility that don't
18:35:09 interfere with the character of the city.
18:35:12 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Just in the future, when people
18:35:13 are asking for a -- could somebody from the
18:35:20 neighborhood, it is a flagpole, but it's really a MONO
18:35:25 pole, I think it would be more descriptive and action
18:35:31 accurate to say that's what they're asking for a
18:35:33 personality use for.
18:35:35 >> Tony Garcia, planning commission staff.
18:35:38 I have been sworn.
18:35:39 Very briefly, just a few more factors on the proposed
18:35:43 site, to give you context on it.
18:35:45 Just east of south Dale Mabry, front Himes avenue, as
18:35:50 Ms. LAMBOY, within the elementary school.
18:35:56 The tower would be designed to resemble a flagpole.
18:36:00 I don't know the exact location of it.
18:36:02 I think if I show you the aerial, I think it's going
18:36:05 to be located, situated more toward the northern part
18:36:08 of the school grounds over here, so you can see
18:36:12 residential is partly to the south and of course
18:36:15 across from Himes.
18:36:17 It's going to be situated in a manner where it's not
18:36:21 going to be impacting any of the adjacent residential
18:36:24 uses in the surrounding area.
18:36:26 Planning commission staff had no objections to the
18:36:29 request.
18:36:33 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
18:36:33 >> Lauralee Westine, I have here with me today Kevin
18:36:40 BORELL, Shawn sparks who is the engineer and principal
18:36:45 Marie VALENTE of the elementary school.
18:36:50 To answer one of the previous questions, when I sent
18:36:52 out my notices, in the past, Mr. Dingfelder you
18:36:58 mentioned you wanted something specifically noted as a

18:37:01 communication tower, when I hand wrote those notices I
18:37:07 put flagpole telecommunication power.
18:37:09 The sign says telecommunication tower disguised as a
18:37:15 flagpole.
18:37:16 I'm trainable somewhat.
18:37:18 I do remember -- that is a photo simulation.
18:37:28 I don't know if that's one of the ones you ended up
18:37:30 with.
18:37:31 We have several.
18:37:32 That is a photo simulation of what my client is
18:37:34 proposing to construct on this site.
18:37:36 We are asking for some waivers for this particular
18:37:39 site, the reason being is we could have located it
18:37:42 within the confines of the code.
18:37:44 The problem is we have been -- would have been in the
18:37:48 middle of the playground.
18:37:49 In order to place the flag in a location where
18:37:52 actually a flag belongs, in the front of the school
18:37:54 and keep this away from the kids in an area where, if
18:37:57 the kids are coming by, they are -- at this point when
18:38:01 they are coming to school, they are supervised.
18:38:03 That is how this particular location of the tower site
18:38:05 came about.
18:38:06 We were actually out and sited it with the gentleman
18:38:10 from the school board who is in charge of safety, a
18:38:14 lady in charge of real estate and the principal was
18:38:18 out at that time.
18:38:18 >> It could have been part of the PE activities, climb
18:38:23 the flagpole.
18:38:24 >> No.
18:38:25 >> Just kidding.
18:38:26 >> We did -- upon looking for a site, and just to give
18:38:30 you a little history.
18:38:31 I also represent team mobile who is one of the
18:38:33 carriers on this pole.
18:38:36 I was part of the original -- when we looked for a
18:38:39 site back in '0 4, we approached TECO, because that's
18:38:45 where we thought it would belong. They said no.
18:38:48 Then we approached the city, you have a water tank
18:38:51 facility in that area as well and the city said no.
18:38:54 We then ended up at the school board.
18:38:57 We finally were able to discuss with them and they
18:38:59 liked the idea of some extra revenue for their school.
18:39:03 And I came and spoke with the city and we had to amend

18:39:07 map 27-1 and back in September you agreed to amend map
18:39:12 27-1 to include the elementary as one of the
18:39:16 designated facilities on which we -- the overlay
18:39:19 district would apply.
18:39:20 And we began after that.
18:39:22 This has been a long process to get before you this
18:39:25 evening.
18:39:26 I do have a presentation.
18:39:27 I come before you with no objections from staff.
18:39:30 I will tell you that after listening to some concerns
18:39:36 about flag polls, I would like to take credit for
18:39:40 researching flag etiquette, I will give credit where
18:39:44 it's due to my client.
18:39:45 We will comply with United States Code.
18:39:49 I will find a cite, title 4 United States Code Chapter
18:39:52 1, U.S. executive order 10834.
18:39:58 My client has committed to abiding by that.
18:40:01 It is up lit.
18:40:02 Lit be brought to half staff when appropriate.
18:40:06 And the flag will -- flag will be replaced when it
18:40:09 gets worn.
18:40:14 >> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public like to speak on
18:40:16 item 8.
18:40:18 >> Does that etiquette include size ratio?
18:40:24 >> We are going to be proportional -- the size of the
18:40:28 flag, I believe it's 20 X 38.
18:40:34 We are plying with that.
18:40:37 >> Does the site plan reference the U.S. code
18:40:41 citation?
18:40:42 >> The cite code does not, but I would be happy to add
18:40:51 that.
18:40:54 (Motion carried.)
18:40:56 >> Moving ordinance approving 148 foot flag pole in an
18:41:02 RS 60 residential zoning district in the general
18:41:06 vicinity of 6001 south Himes avenue, City of Tampa and
18:41:11 more particularly described in section 1 here of,
18:41:15 waiving section 27-134.1 by increasing the height from
18:41:19 140 to 148 feet waiving section 27-134.1 by reducing
18:41:25 the required minimum setback from 300 feet to 131 feet
18:41:29 on the north and reducing the prepared minimum setback
18:41:31 from 300 feet to 112 feet on the east waiving section
18:41:37 27-272 by allowing residential users to be located on
18:41:41 all sides of the property providing for an effective
18:41:46 date.

18:41:47 (Motion carried.)
18:41:55 >> Melt any Calloway, transportation.
18:42:01 This is what I did.
18:42:07 City of Tampa, there's two site triangles.
18:42:10 We're trying to clear it up.
18:42:14 The City of Tampa measured it from the property line,
18:42:17 FDOT standards from edge of pavement.
18:42:19 I'll show you the more stringent one which is the
18:42:22 property line and I'll show you what I did.
18:42:24 That is measured ten feet back as well as ten feet
18:42:27 across to make a triangle.
18:42:31 You take from that point, ten feet from your property
18:42:34 line and draw your line.
18:42:35 This is the center of the road.
18:42:37 It's 55 feet.
18:42:39 They can see up to 55 feet.
18:42:41 If you were to extend it to where it would touch the
18:42:44 signs, what is their maximum visibility?
18:42:46 Their maximum visibility from that ten footed from the
18:42:51 property line would be 77 feet.
18:42:54 Average car, an average car window is usually placed
18:42:58 about five feet from the front.
18:43:01 I put the five foot -- the five foot mark I did it,
18:43:08 you could see the intersection of Euclid and
18:43:11 Westshore.
18:43:12 I confirmed this is the actual center of the roadway
18:43:16 and the right-of-way.
18:43:17 I understand your concerns.
18:43:23 >> Rose Ferlita: If we allowed them to drop the sign
18:43:26 down, would that change your calculations there?
18:43:28 >> It doesn't change it.
18:43:30 I'm looking straight if it's in the way.
18:43:33 Also sight visibility have to do with height.
18:43:37 It would be a clear zone from two and a half feet tall
18:43:41 to eight feet tall.
18:43:42 That has to be the clear zone in between.
18:43:47 They would have a real squatTY sign.
18:43:53 >> Rose Ferlita: Their sign is nine feet.
18:43:54 >> That's correct.
18:43:56 But it's outside the try angling.
18:43:58 Inside you can maintain it two and a half feet high.
18:44:02 >> Gwen Miller: Are you satisfied?
18:44:05 >> Rose Ferlita: I heard the explanation, yes.
18:44:07 >> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public that would like

18:44:10 to speak on item six.
18:44:12 >> Move to close --
18:44:13 >>
18:44:15 >> John Dingfelder: Question.
18:44:16 I'll come back to the petitioner.
18:44:18 So you mentioned you would be okay to drop this a
18:44:21 little bit.
18:44:22 >> I think realistically the maximum you could drop it
18:44:25 is 12 inches.
18:44:27 The height of the base is three feet six inches.
18:44:30 If you put it below that, it would be below the level
18:44:33 of a car hood and would be more dangerous to look down
18:44:38 than straight at it.
18:44:40 >> John Dingfelder: Your site goes down --
18:44:43 >> It goes all the way --
18:44:47 >> John Dingfelder: Because you're close to the
18:44:48 sidewalk.
18:44:49 If you can drop it a foot, over all the whole bulk of
18:44:52 the sign would be a foot smaller.
18:44:55 >> Rose Ferlita: It's a big sign.
18:44:57 >> John Dingfelder: You're okay with that?
18:44:59 Move to close.
18:45:01 (Motion carried.)
18:45:04 >> Property in the general vicinity of 3802, described
18:45:11 in section one from zoning district classification PD
18:45:16 bank with drive-through providing an effective date.
18:45:20 (Motion carried.)
18:45:22 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I wanted to explain my nay.
18:45:26 I feel very strongly that electronic signs are not an
18:45:30 asset to our community.
18:45:31 I they they're distracting, I think we've had a
18:45:34 tremendously difficult time policing their appropriate
18:45:37 use.
18:45:38 And I don't think that given the amount of
18:45:42 reinvestment in our community, I don't think this is
18:45:46 something that we want to encourage.
18:45:48 It's based on that that I'm voting against it.
18:45:51 I want you to know that I drive around there.
18:45:53 If you change the sign more than once a day, I will
18:45:56 report you.
18:45:59
18:46:00 >> Gwen Miller: Item ten is continued public hearing.
18:46:11 >> Health her LAMBOY land development.
18:46:19 1919 Swann Avenue, that is located near the

18:46:23 intersection, currently a doctor's office on the site
18:46:26 at the intersection of Melville and Swann Avenue.
18:46:30 Just to give you an understanding of the context,
18:46:33 there are site plan zoning for residential in the
18:46:40 immediate vicinity in addition to commercial general
18:46:42 and multi-family residential.
18:46:45 Here is a picture of the existing site as it stands
18:46:48 today.
18:46:51 Another view.
18:46:53 This is a contextual view.
18:47:02 This is the park across the street.
18:47:07 Some examples of residential and the immediate area.
18:47:16 I'd also like to put up on the ELMO the elevations.
18:47:21 This is a view of the project as you're looking from
18:47:26 Swann.
18:47:28 Access will be from a shaved drive-through at the
18:47:31 disaster of the property to access garages or the
18:47:33 occupants.
18:47:34 This is a view from Melville.
18:47:37 And this is the front building that Swann Avenue is
18:47:41 over here.
18:47:41 You would go down Melville and as you can see the
18:47:44 scale progressively steps down toward the more
18:47:46 residential areas along Melville.
18:47:49 The maximum height for the proposed front building is
18:47:52 60 feet.
18:47:53 The maximum height for the rear building is 45 feet.
18:47:57 The petitioner has requested one waiver and that is to
18:48:00 remove more than 50% of the protected trees on the
18:48:05 site.
18:48:05 In addition I would like to let the council know that
18:48:07 the petitioner has some very minor graphic Cal changes
18:48:10 to address and submitted some site plans after the
18:48:13 13-day deadline.
18:48:14 In a discussion with the petitioner, he requested to
18:48:17 continue on with the public hearing.
18:48:19 If it is the pleasure of the council to approve this
18:48:22 project he would come back on a subsequent first
18:48:26 reading with changed cited plans, very minor technical
18:48:30 issues.
18:48:33 >> Mary Alvarez: According to the staff findings, did
18:48:35 you receive the elevations for this plan?
18:48:38 >> Yes, we have.
18:48:39 You have them here.

18:48:43 >> Mary Alvarez: This objection is gone?
18:48:45 >> There are some very minor site plan changes across,
18:48:49 walk across Swann Avenue, and some technical notes.
18:48:53 >> Linda Saul-Sena: You said they requested a 50%
18:48:56 waiver in green space?
18:48:58 >> No.
18:48:58 Removal of protected trees.
18:49:01 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Are they doing something to
18:49:03 compensate for that, putting in larger trees somewhere
18:49:06 else?
18:49:06 >> Providing additional green space on the site.
18:49:09 Let me continue with my staff presentation and that
18:49:12 will cover it.
18:49:13 The two proposal is for the development of three
18:49:15 buildings, buildings one and two will contain eight
18:49:19 townhome units with an internal drive.
18:49:26 These units will be three floors above garages with a
18:49:29 four floor total, maximum height of 45 feet.
18:49:33 Eight continue minimum units with two attached
18:49:36 townhome units, four floors above garages with a five
18:49:40 floor total and a maximum height of 60 feet.
18:49:42 The project will have an internal drive -- there will
18:49:47 be a total of 52 parking spaces, two per unit and two
18:49:51 guest spaces.
18:49:51 The building has been designed with contemporary
18:49:55 features that include step mapping, porches facing
18:49:59 Melville.
18:50:05 The entryway off Swann adds an pleasing feature.
18:50:11 Height of 55 feet and four stories.
18:50:13 The southeast is the expressway standing approximately
18:50:17 40 to 50 feet.
18:50:18 Directly across the street is a Ball park.
18:50:21 The petitioner is providing a paved crosswalk that
18:50:24 will provide pedestrian crossing to the park not only
18:50:27 for this project but also for the neighborhood.
18:50:29 The petitioner is providing almost $7,000 mitigation
18:50:34 for transportation improvement in the area.
18:50:37 The petitioner is exceeding the green space.
18:50:39 There is one objection from transportation that will
18:50:41 have been addressed by the revised site plan changes
18:50:44 that missed the 13-day deadline and there are
18:50:48 technical issues and notes that needed to be added to
18:50:50 the site plan.
18:50:51 That concludes it.

18:50:56 >>
18:51:01 >> Martin Shelby: Does council wish to proceed with
18:51:04 the waiver of the 13-day deadline.
18:51:08 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I think there are many people in
18:51:11 the audience that wish to speak on this.
18:51:13 >> Move we proceed.
18:51:15 (Motion carried.)
18:51:20 >> Tony Garcia, I have been sworn in, planning
18:51:24 commission staff.
18:51:26 Regarding the existing future land use categories in
18:51:30 the surrounding area.
18:51:31 You have residential 50 which are the post Hyde park
18:51:36 project.
18:51:37 We have commercial uses directly to the east of the
18:51:39 site.
18:51:40 This is designated -- field which is recreational,
18:51:44 residential ten which is across from the east side of
18:51:47 the expressway.
18:51:48 This category is residential 35 which is the project
18:51:53 is within and -- to the west of Albany, south of
18:52:00 Swann.
18:52:00 I think Ms. LAMBOY has done a good job as far as
18:52:04 telling you the form of the surrounding area.
18:52:06 Most of the height in the area is between 40 and 55
18:52:09 feet as she has stated.
18:52:11 When the applicant had originally come in with the
18:52:14 proposed site plan, they had the height to the rear of
18:52:18 the project, the 60 feet.
18:52:20 They had the 45 feet over towards Swann.
18:52:22 We said it would be a much better idea and better
18:52:25 transition if they would flip the project and put the
18:52:28 more intense use toward the collector road of Swann
18:52:31 which they did.
18:52:32 Now you have the highest part of the project and most
18:52:35 dense part of the project situated to the front which
18:52:38 would be the southern part of the project site.
18:52:42 So your 60 feet height would be here on the front of
18:52:46 Swann, transitions down to 45 feet.
18:52:48 As you can't see on this aerial as well as
18:52:51 Ms. LAMBOY's aerial, there are a lot of commercial
18:52:55 uses adjacent to the site along Swann which is
18:53:00 classified as a collector road and which is where you
18:53:02 would want to orient any traffic that comes in and out
18:53:05 of the project which is also a good point.

18:53:06 The project has one ingress and egress point onto
18:53:10 Swann.
18:53:11 You wouldn't be directly impacting the streets of
18:53:15 Melville or Dell lean in this particular case.
18:53:19 Planning commission staff had no objections to the
18:53:21 proposed request.
18:53:25 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
18:53:27
18:53:28 >> Good evening, madam chairman and council members.
18:53:35 I'm John LAROFA.
18:53:38 I've been sworn in.
18:53:39 I appreciate the ability to move forward with this
18:53:42 public hearing this evening.
18:53:44 I'll try to clarify a couple points with regard to the
18:53:46 previous continuance and why we continued and where we
18:53:49 are today with the minor technical revisions to the
18:53:52 site plan and also indicate to you what my
18:53:56 observations are as it relates to concerns of the
18:53:58 community and as concerns have been stated were
18:54:02 this -- before this council in the past with regard to
18:54:06 urbanization of that neighborhood.
18:54:08 As indicated by Mrs. LAMBOY, the request, and as it
18:54:15 has been reported is to build 26 townhouse/condo units
18:54:20 on Swann Avenue at the northeast corner of Swann and
18:54:22 Melville.
18:54:23 This project is consistent with the density
18:54:27 established of the comprehensive plan and is located
18:54:30 on a collector street on the edge of that particular
18:54:34 community.
18:54:36 The technical issues that we have addressed or Heather
18:54:42 mentioned, between the previous plan submittal and
18:54:45 this one dealt with issues with regard to minor notes
18:54:48 on the site plan.
18:54:50 And I want to stated for the record that the specific
18:54:53 objections stated by land development and
18:54:55 transportation in the report dealing with a note to be
18:54:58 removed regarding the 50% of existing trees to be
18:55:03 retained where we seek a waiver, the reason we're
18:55:06 seeking it, there aren't many trees on the site to
18:55:09 begin with.
18:55:10 The one significantly sized tree on the property is in
18:55:14 very poor condition.
18:55:16 Through the development review committee, the parks
18:55:20 and recreation department and arborists indicated

18:55:25 there was some currents with regard to what trees were
18:55:28 going to be removed.
18:55:29 It was purely a number question.
18:55:31 Our intent is to seek the waiver, but replace those
18:55:34 trees, and that one particular one with an adequate
18:55:41 and appropriate number of trees to accommodate the
18:55:43 edge and green space of this property.
18:55:45 We're not seeking any waivers to green space.
18:55:48 That was very important to any plans that we made.
18:55:52 There was a note indicating that we would do lintel
18:55:55 construction regarding a camphor tree on the edge of
18:55:58 the property.
18:55:59 We acknowledge that, that we will maintain
18:56:01 construction techniques that will protect that tree.
18:56:04 Transportation objections really have all been
18:56:06 addressed.
18:56:07 While I won't speak for Ms. Calloway, the question of
18:56:14 mitigation that has to be agreed upon and discussed at
18:56:17 the hearing, had been presented through a traffic
18:56:19 analysis.
18:56:20 That mitigation based on the fair share contribution
18:56:24 of the impact of the 26 units to the network in that
18:56:29 area resulted in a $7,000 contribution, if you will,
18:56:32 as relates to mitigation.
18:56:34 The site plan has noted all of these minor changes
18:56:38 with regard to removal of concrete aprons.
18:56:41 Sidewalks having raised curbs along the alleys.
18:56:47 Specific DIMENSIONS of parking areas and clarification
18:56:50 of what the type of garages are going to be.
18:56:54 Those were the kind of changes made on the plan.
18:56:59 What I would like to comment on and may be helpful,
18:57:02 and I realize these may be hard to read.
18:57:08 I would like to distribute to the council and clerk
18:57:11 and your attorney, I have nine sets of color
18:57:13 illustrations of the plan that Ms. LAMBOY put on the
18:57:18 ELMO.
18:57:19 I'll put it on there for any reference we make for
18:57:22 public participation.
18:57:23 I've got boards if you need to see them, but I think
18:57:26 the ELMO may be sufficient.
18:57:29 You have a site plan with detail if I may distribute
18:57:32 these drawings.
18:57:52 Also with me this evening are the petitioner, David
18:57:54 Friedman, the transportation planner, Stacy Burgess

18:58:00 who conducted the traffic study in conjunction with
18:58:02 The City's methodology and concurrence, and Frank
18:58:07 BANTEL who prepared the civil engineering plans.
18:58:11 As I indicated a moment ago, we have addressed the
18:58:13 technical wafers from the site plan that had been
18:58:16 filed on record.
18:58:20 At the time we asked for a continuance we had not
18:58:22 developed the elevations and we had not refined the
18:58:25 layout of the plan.
18:58:26 We had a neighborhood meeting to discuss issues with
18:58:32 regard to this particular proposal.
18:58:37 If I may, and I don't want to take anything away from
18:58:40 those that will speak this evening is the issues are
18:58:42 issues we've heard of in this neighborhood.
18:58:45 It's parking and traffic, cut-through traffic in the
18:58:48 neighborhood, need for pedestrian improvements such as
18:58:51 continuity of street lighting, pedestrian crossings to
18:58:54 the park because it's a difficult stretch to get to
18:58:57 the park without crossing at lights that aren't
18:59:02 convenient to the park.
18:59:03 Obviously the issue of changing densities and
18:59:06 increases in the area.
18:59:08 It is our position and my client's position, the
18:59:13 petitioner, to offer, in addition to the notation we
18:59:20 made on the site plan and the mitigation, the traffic
18:59:22 impact based on the methodology, to offer other
18:59:25 improvements that would, in fact, be appropriate.
18:59:28 We made the suggested contribution to the plan as it
18:59:31 relates to the crosswalk across Swann Avenue to the
18:59:35 park.
18:59:37 It was suggested, although this particular plan
18:59:40 doesn't have that, that we offer to widen the
18:59:43 sidewalks to make it even more pedestrian compatible,
18:59:47 and we would be willing to do that if you so choose
18:59:50 and to make any other improvements. It's our position
18:59:55 that this particular use is compatible and consistent
18:59:58 with the long-term density and development plan for
19:00:01 that community.
19:00:01 We believe it's on the edge of the property -- from my
19:00:10 urban planning experience, what makes this different
19:00:13 is the parking is internalized.
19:00:15 If you reviewed the plan that I distributed, and if
19:00:17 you have the large scale one to look at the detail,
19:00:20 the plan reflects one access point off of Swann, an

19:00:26 internal parking arrangement where there are not
19:00:28 driveways on the alley and on the street.
19:00:31 And the design of the project is such, and lit be
19:00:35 marketed that way, such that if one purchases, and
19:00:38 these are going to be for sale fee simple townhouses
19:00:43 and condos in the front portion of the project, there
19:00:46 is a very specific and limited design parameter as to
19:00:52 where the cars can park.
19:00:54 One encouraging note and you are certainly familiar
19:00:57 with that, as the area urbanizes, issues related to
19:01:01 residential street parking permits and where parking
19:01:04 is allowed on the street are going to be issues that
19:01:06 have to be dealt with as the area becomes urbanized.
19:01:10 The other question with regard to guest parking or
19:01:12 providing additional parking, obviously we could have
19:01:15 add attempted to put more surface parking on the
19:01:19 property to address some extra guest parking spaces.
19:01:22 But we wanted to created a proper buffer between the
19:01:25 northern edge of the property and the edge of the
19:01:28 townhouses that exist to the north.
19:01:30 That's a 42-foot bur, 32-foot setback from our
19:01:35 northern edge of the building and a 10-foot setback
19:01:38 that exists on the adjacent property line.
19:01:40 In that setback we have green space, a water feature
19:01:43 that is an amenity to the project.
19:01:46 Obviously we can put some additional guest parking.
19:01:48 But the question really becomes, is how much is enough
19:01:51 guest parking as it relates to a site that's designed
19:01:55 this way?
19:01:58 So to put it in perspective, I'm of the opinion that
19:02:01 this particular project, as was stated by the planning
19:02:04 commission staff and staff, in working through the
19:02:06 city's development review committee, this site, I
19:02:09 believe, is compatible and consistent with the
19:02:14 existing comprehensive plan.
19:02:16 We reviewed the site plan almost as if it were a
19:02:19 commercial site plan with the level of detail that
19:02:21 this plan has -- one of the more detailed plans I've
19:02:24 ever worked on.
19:02:25 We believe it's consistent based on location and how
19:02:28 the area is trending.
19:02:29 I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have
19:02:32 as council members or that may come up during the
19:02:35 course of the public hearing.

19:02:37 Certainly the petitioner and the other technical
19:02:38 advisers are on the team to answer any technical
19:02:42 questions.
19:02:46 >> Mary Alvarez: You brought up that the guest parking
19:02:51 that we see over here, you've got two guest parking,
19:02:54 but it looks like it's going to be for building two.
19:02:57 >> The guest parking will serve -- they will be
19:03:00 designated through the association as guest parking
19:03:03 for the complex.
19:03:04 >> Mary Alvarez: Suppose the others want parking for
19:03:06 their own -- it just doesn't seem enough for the whole
19:03:12 26 units there.
19:03:14 >> Well, again, the question really becomes what is
19:03:18 enough guest parking?
19:03:19 >> I understand that.
19:03:20 Two doesn't seem enough.
19:03:23 >> We certainly could and have the ability to redesign
19:03:26 that back setback edge and possibly accommodate
19:03:30 additional five or six parking spaces.
19:03:32 It's designed that way.
19:03:34 We believe the way this project will be marketed based
19:03:36 on the limited access to the internal portion of the
19:03:40 project, that a purchaser of the unit is going to
19:03:46 understand the urban nature of this complex.
19:03:51 And by providing additional guest parking in a way
19:03:53 that either takes away from green space or creates a
19:03:57 lesser of an environment in terms of what we're
19:04:01 attempting to do with the street faces, the facades
19:04:04 and the architecture that we've created, it doesn't
19:04:07 serve a substantial purpose.
19:04:09 >> Mary Alvarez: How big are these units?
19:04:11 >> The townhouse units are approximately 1800 square
19:04:14 feet.
19:04:15 The condo units in the front portion are between 2000
19:04:18 and 2500 square feet, final interior design.
19:04:23 >> Pretty much like family-type?
19:04:28 >> Well, the design, they all will have two-bedrooms,
19:04:33 two-bath.
19:04:35 Some will have bonus rooms or rooms that can be
19:04:38 accommodated for dens or a potential third bedroom.
19:04:43 >> Mary Alvarez: The way I see it, it's probably
19:04:45 families.
19:04:47 Families have teenagers and teenagers have friends.
19:04:50 Two additional guest parking in my estimation is not

19:04:54 enough.
19:04:54 I don't know what the rest of the council thinks.
19:04:56 >> One item that we pursued and at this point we
19:05:01 didn't want to offer it, because I don't think it's
19:05:05 the inappropriateness of it.
19:05:07 One of the things we looked at, the area we know, as
19:05:10 the area urbanizes, there is a parking problem.
19:05:13 There is a park across the street.
19:05:15 One way to address that would be to potentially offer
19:05:18 as part of mitigation, additional to what the specific
19:05:21 impact was, some moneys to help pave additional
19:05:27 parking in those areas where additional parking would
19:05:30 not only serve this project but other development in
19:05:32 the area if, in fact, that is possible.
19:05:34 We're obviously willing to do something like that.
19:05:37 But how much, where and is it appropriate?
19:05:40 That's something that obviously we can discuss this
19:05:42 evening.
19:05:43 >> Mary Alvarez: We'll probably have to talk about
19:05:44 that a little bit.
19:05:46 The crosswalk, has that crosses walk already been --
19:05:48 the city is going to do that crosswalk?
19:05:51 >> No.
19:05:51 The developer would build it.
19:05:54 The real question -- again, not to speak for Melanie,
19:05:57 was the matter of placement.
19:05:59 We felt that was the appropriate place to put it based
19:06:01 on what we heard the community needed in terms of some
19:06:05 way to slow down traffic as one was crossing to the
19:06:08 park.
19:06:13 And the developer, current petitioner, developer,
19:06:18 homeowner's association will build it.
19:06:20 To the extent that works with the city to maintain it,
19:06:24 we will.
19:06:26 >> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder?
19:06:29 >> John Dingfelder: I was looking at the site plan,
19:06:31 the technical data under the site data here, this is
19:06:36 an R 35, allows for a maximum, maximum -- I repeat
19:06:44 maximum of 35 units to the acre.
19:06:46 The density proposed is 34.67 units to the acre.
19:06:52 And I think what's happening, Ms. Alvarez, you brought
19:06:57 up a very good point, the reason there's not enough
19:07:00 room for guest parking is because we have virtually
19:07:03 the maximum number of units that can possibly go on

19:07:06 the site, 34.67, is only point 33 off the very maximum
19:07:13 that Tony would allow.
19:07:14 Tony, I give you a lot of credit there.
19:07:16 I wanted to point that out.
19:07:19 I think it's kind of important to the whole discussion
19:07:21 of what we're doing here.
19:07:23 We'll hear from other folks and see where we're at.
19:07:27 >> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public that would like
19:07:28 to speak to item ten?
19:07:31 You may come up and speak.
19:07:35 >> Again, please reaffirm you have been sworn when you
19:07:38 state your name.
19:07:39 >> My name is Paula Sizemore.
19:07:42 I reside at 308 south Albany avenue and I have not
19:07:46 been sworn.
19:07:47 >> Gwen Miller: Anybody come in late and need to be
19:07:49 sworn?
19:07:49 Would you please stand and raise your right hand.
19:07:56 (oath administered by clerk.) 6.
19:08:02 >> Good evening, council.
19:08:03 First, I would like to request that an out right
19:08:07 rejection of this proposal is made to night with no
19:08:10 continuance for any other changes to the site plan.
19:08:15 I serve as secretary of the courier city residential
19:08:20 homeowners association.
19:08:21 Our president, Walter CrumLEY is out of the country so
19:08:26 he's not here this evening to add his comments.
19:08:28 I have a number of issues with what's been presented
19:08:31 on top of the simple scale of this project.
19:08:36 The petitioner just mentioned a number of neighborhood
19:08:39 concerns including the traffic, et cetera, et cetera.
19:08:43 What he did not begin to mention is our objections to
19:08:47 the scale and the mass of this project in its present
19:08:50 location.
19:08:50 The neighborhood association was invited to a meeting
19:08:54 with the developer.
19:08:57 At the conclusion of that meeting, listening to the
19:08:59 concerns, stated that he would be getting back in
19:09:03 touch with us to discuss further changes.
19:09:05 We were not contacted at all after that initial
19:09:09 meeting.
19:09:10 So the meeting that had been promised, a follow-up
19:09:13 meeting, was never offered.
19:09:16 No other revisions came back to us for further input.

19:09:21 The project is designed to create a step-down from the
19:09:27 four stories to the residential area.
19:09:29 However, you cannot step down four stories, from four
19:09:35 stories to a maximum of two-story height which is what
19:09:39 fills that neighborhood.
19:09:39 This would be a gleaming project in a downtown
19:09:42 setting.
19:09:43 It really would.
19:09:44 But there is absolutely nothing else on the corridor
19:09:47 of Swann from the beginning of Swann at its west end
19:09:52 to the downtown area that reaches this height.
19:09:57 There is a project on Swann near Henderson which is
19:10:00 three stories which is presently being built.
19:10:04 But this is a four-story unit that will be fronting
19:10:07 Swann basically, right in the middle of one-story
19:10:12 building all the way down.
19:10:14 Now, he mentioned -- the petitioner mentioned the
19:10:18 proximity to post Hyde park apartments and condo.
19:10:22 However, it is not next door.
19:10:24 There's a great deal of distance.
19:10:26 This is immediately across the street from a park
19:10:28 which is no stories.
19:10:33 There is no step-down scale to this entire situation.
19:10:37 This is not on the edge of the community.
19:10:42 It is smack dab in the midst of the community at it
19:10:47 runs between Howard and Hyde park village.
19:10:49 Again, there is nothing of this scale.
19:10:52 Two parking spots for guests is not sufficient.
19:10:56 I don't know how many of you get the south Tampa --
19:11:00 section of the Tampa Tribune, but today's front page
19:11:05 was our parking issues in the courier city
19:11:09 neighborhood with comments from residents, from the
19:11:12 fire chief.
19:11:15 This is only going to exacerbate the problem that we
19:11:17 are dealing with on a continual basis.
19:11:20 And in this case, residential parking permits is not
19:11:24 going to do anything to alleviate the problem.
19:11:26 This project is not what has been taken into
19:11:31 consideration by the resident homeowners as far as
19:11:36 what was presented and what would be coming back to
19:11:40 us.
19:11:40 This is going to be a serious detriment to our
19:11:44 neighborhood.
19:11:45 We ask for an out right rejection.

19:11:48 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
19:11:48 Next.
19:11:50 >> High.
19:11:51 My name is Elizabeth Doug land.
19:11:53 I live at 506 south Melville avenue.
19:11:56 I have been sworn in.
19:11:58 I wanted to raise a couple things.
19:12:00 I wanted to start on a good note.
19:12:02 Personally I think the design of this building is
19:12:04 really pretty.
19:12:05 It has these nice elements of not having a bank of
19:12:08 garages on the sidewalk and the street which we always
19:12:11 complain about and say that we don't like.
19:12:13 So the idea of having the parking on the inside so you
19:12:16 have porches the front the street is a very nice idea.
19:12:20 That said, I think the scale and the density of this
19:12:23 project is way out of line with our neighborhood.
19:12:26 I'm going to show you -- you saw some pictures of our
19:12:29 neighborhood that the city showed you.
19:12:30 I'm going to show you what our street looks like one
19:12:33 block up from this project.
19:12:38 That's Melville avenue one block up.
19:12:45 That's the other side of the street on Melville
19:12:48 avenue, one block up.
19:12:50 So it's not that this neighborhood is jam packed with
19:12:54 three and four-story buildings.
19:12:56 There's street after street of single-family homes,
19:12:59 one story, occasionally two.
19:13:02 And it's certainly a neighborhood that's developing
19:13:05 and we are in favor of that and we like that.
19:13:09 But this building is simply too big.
19:13:11 I'm concerned about the tree they want to take down.
19:13:14 I'm always concerned about the trees that the
19:13:17 developers want to take down.
19:13:18 I also agree that the traffic and parking issues are
19:13:21 going to be significant.
19:13:22 So I would also follow up on Paula's request that you
19:13:26 reject this proposal.
19:13:29 >> John Dingfelder: Liz, two things -- if you want the
19:13:31 pictures in the record, give them to the clerk.
19:13:34 Number two, I know I'm guilty of trying to avoid the
19:13:40 Swann-howard light because it's getting to two or
19:13:44 three turns.
19:13:45 I often zigzag my way up Melville to go to Swann to my

19:13:51 office over that way.
19:13:54 Is traffic already a problem on your street?
19:13:56 You're on Melville yourself, aren't you?
19:13:58 >> Yeah.
19:13:59 I'm right on Melville.
19:14:02 Yes.
19:14:02 It's kind of a problem, but it's not -- the real
19:14:05 problem is people drive too fast because they're
19:14:07 cutting through.
19:14:08 A lot of us have started to park on that street.
19:14:10 So that slows the traffic down.
19:14:12 The cut-through is easier for them.
19:14:17 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
19:14:18 Next.
19:14:20 >> High.
19:14:21 My name is April BLATT, 306 south Albany which is just
19:14:26 a few blocks from this proposal.
19:14:28 I have been sworn in.
19:14:30 I didn't come here with a planned speech or anything.
19:14:33 This thing gives me a stomach ache, I have to tell
19:14:38 you.
19:14:38 It's so big.
19:14:39 The trees that are on that property are not unhealthy,
19:14:42 ugly trees.
19:14:43 There's a huge OAK tree on this property right where
19:14:49 will be probably the two parking spaces that they're
19:14:51 willing to give us.
19:14:52 I personally believe that people who live in
19:14:55 two-bedroom homes, I live in a two-bedroom home, we
19:15:00 have company on a regular basis.
19:15:02 We need that third parking space.
19:15:04 You can put two people in my driveway and you can put
19:15:08 one on the street or three in my driveway.
19:15:10 This doesn't give you any kind of ability to do that.
19:15:13 It just seems like that many condos are going to need
19:15:16 more than two spaces.
19:15:17 They're not willing to give up any of their property,
19:15:20 any of their condos or units.
19:15:22 They're only willing to give up green space.
19:15:25 They're not willing to give up anything.
19:15:27 So far they have not been able to compromise with us
19:15:29 in any way.
19:15:34 The crosswalk is great.
19:15:35 The city should be doing that anyway. Whether this

19:15:38 happens or not, we still need a crosswalk there.
19:15:40 We have all those condos going in the old whiz ski
19:15:44 park area.
19:15:44 I don't see how Swann is ever going to get any slower.
19:15:49 I don't think any of you think it's going to get any
19:15:51 slower.
19:15:52 Currently we have all kinds of things underway in that
19:15:55 little neighborhood.
19:15:56 They're not built yet so you can't see how bad it's
19:15:59 about to get.
19:15:59 We've been watching them one by one be approved --
19:16:03 there's already -- the people already years and years
19:16:07 got these things designated to what they need to go
19:16:09 about putting these three-story units in.
19:16:12 There just doesn't seem to be any end to it.
19:16:14 We're asking you to look after us.
19:16:19 Thank you.
19:16:22 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
19:16:22 Next.
19:16:24 >> Harold sizemore, south Albany avenue.
19:16:28 I have been sworn in.
19:16:30 This afternoon if it's okay, I'm going to read a
19:16:32 letter that Jim COSTELLI, 604 South Melville.
19:16:41 He had to be out of the country.
19:16:42 He asked if I speak for him.
19:16:45 Is that okay?
19:16:46 Due to a business conflict I cannot be present for
19:16:49 this evening's meeting.
19:16:50 I asked the letter be read in my absence in opposition
19:16:53 to the rezoning as it is being presented to you this
19:16:56 evening.
19:16:56 I should start by saying I do not oppose the notion of
19:17:00 multi-family development.
19:17:01 I own and live in one of the four units in a townhouse
19:17:04 community and truly enjoy the benefits that come with
19:17:07 it.
19:17:08 As a frame of reference, the unit I live in is
19:17:11 directly north of petitioner's site facing south.
19:17:17 I might consider this along with my neighbor's unit
19:17:20 the most directly affected by any development at 1919
19:17:25 Swann.
19:17:26 For three-plus years on Melville I've enjoyed the
19:17:30 mostly vacant lotto my south with the exception of the
19:17:33 doctor's office.

19:17:35 It provides a park like setting as well as significant
19:17:39 noise and visual buffer from the ever increasing
19:17:42 traffic on Swann.
19:17:43 I'm not naive enough to believe that residential
19:17:45 development wouldn't occur on this property.
19:17:48 It's only a matter of time.
19:17:50 I'm not going to spend a significant amount of time
19:17:52 talking about this -- about the probable parking and
19:17:57 transportation concerns that come with a development
19:17:59 of this density.
19:18:00 I trust the council is well aware of this reality.
19:18:02 What I would like to present is 2nd the obvious
19:18:05 inappropriateness of this particular project on the
19:18:09 particular site.
19:18:09 It is inappropriate in density, it is inappropriate in
19:18:12 overall building and height and maps.
19:18:15 And is out of character for the neighborhood as it
19:18:18 stands today.
19:18:21 The petitioner is seeking zoning approval to build 26
19:18:24 individual units divided among the four city lots
19:18:27 actually owned.
19:18:27 We note that each lot wields six and a half individual
19:18:33 units.
19:18:33 If past belief is that four unit townhouses are dense
19:18:38 for this particular neighborhood, I would be at a loss
19:18:41 to produce a definition on this project.
19:18:43 With respect to height, I believe it truly becomes
19:18:48 inappropriate when you eclipse the available light of
19:18:51 your neighbors.
19:18:52 Needless to say this project does exactly that to the
19:18:55 two southern facing units of my townhouse community
19:18:59 regardless of the intended offset.
19:19:03 I understand the reality that there will be
19:19:06 development on this property.
19:19:08 I only hope that the petitioner and the council both
19:19:10 realize that development simply for development sake
19:19:15 is not good enough for courier city.
19:19:18 Thank you.
19:19:21 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
19:19:21 Next.
19:19:24 >> My name is Phillip MARLAN 603 south Melville
19:19:30 avenue, unit 18, which is right across the street from
19:19:33 where this lot is.
19:19:34 I have been sworn in.

19:19:36 I'm also the president of the condo association there.
19:19:39 There are 20 units, two story, six-building complex.
19:19:44 And I'm not going to rehash everything.
19:19:46 I think you've heard what needs to be said tonight.
19:19:49 I do want to mention that out of all the people in
19:19:51 these units, about half of them I've gotten a hold of
19:19:55 and have signatures for, names and addresses, who do
19:19:58 not want this thing going upright next to us.
19:20:01 So that's really all I wanted to say.
19:20:04 >> John Dingfelder: One thing, if you want to turn
19:20:06 that in for the record.
19:20:08 How tall is your two-story unit across the street?
19:20:15 Do you have parking underneath?
19:20:18 >> No.
19:20:18 We have single space per unit in the alley behind the
19:20:22 six buildings.
19:20:23 And the rest of it is street parking.
19:20:26 I can tell you right now that a lot of us do park on
19:20:29 the side of the street that this lot is on as well as
19:20:32 our side of the street.
19:20:34 So we're already utilizing, because we have to, some
19:20:36 of the parking on the curb, on the opposite side of
19:20:39 that street.
19:20:40 >> John Dingfelder: Would you guess the height of your
19:20:42 building, would you guess it's like 20, 25 feet tall?
19:20:46 >> Probably 20, 25 feet.
19:20:48 When this proposal came up, I went around and looked
19:20:51 and took note more than I typically do of sizes of
19:20:55 buildings in the area.
19:20:56 And even posts, the apartments are at max three
19:21:00 stories.
19:21:00 Then you've got the peaked roof.
19:21:03 There's nothing in this area that's above three
19:21:05 stories.
19:21:06 Their minimum story is four.
19:21:08 The one facing Swann and on Swann is going to be five.
19:21:12 This whole complex is definitely too large and it's
19:21:16 going to tower above everything else that's around.
19:21:19 It just will.
19:21:20 Thank you.
19:21:21 >> Mary Alvarez: Did you say that you were the
19:21:23 president of the condo --
19:21:25 >> I'm the president of the Hamilton place condo
19:21:29 association.

19:21:30 >> Mary Alvarez: How many buildings did you say you
19:21:32 have in there?
19:21:33 >> Actually six buildings.
19:21:35 You can't really tell that from the curve.
19:21:38 There's six buildings, four units -- five buildings,
19:21:43 six buildings per unit.
19:21:45 >> Mary Alvarez: How many guest parking do you have?
19:21:47 >> None.
19:21:48 We have two-bedroom two-bath, one designated spot per
19:21:56 unit.
19:21:57 They were billed in the '80s.
19:22:00 >> Bruno, 506 south Melville, previously sworn.
19:22:05 I would just like to read a letter into the record
19:22:08 from a homeowner of Melville, she could not be here.
19:22:12 Her name is Gina BRILEY space.
19:22:18 202 south Melville, also a neighborhood association
19:22:21 member.
19:22:23 The letter follows.
19:22:24 I am concerned about the proposal for 1919 Swann for
19:22:28 the following reasons.
19:22:29 Too high density for the neighborhood, unplanned
19:22:31 density that the infrastructure is not capable of
19:22:34 supporting, roads, drainage, parking, et cetera.
19:22:38 It is already a problem for fire and for EMS vehicles
19:22:41 to get to emergency spots in the neighborhood.
19:22:44 Adding more people and units will only make the
19:22:47 problem worse.
19:22:48 The inappropriate mix of commercial and noncommercial
19:22:52 uses throughout the neighborhood.
19:22:53 A good master plan would provide for commercial uses
19:22:56 on a major corridors with townhouses behind commercial
19:22:59 and then single family on the interior.
19:23:03 Our neighborhood is being shaped by variance after
19:23:06 variance during zoning hearings which result in
19:23:08 residential on the major corridors and commercial on
19:23:12 the interior with single family homes right next door.
19:23:16 Thank you.
19:23:18 >> Gwen Miller: Anyone else like to speak?
19:23:20 Petitioner, you may come back in rebuttal.
19:23:25 >> Thank you, madam chair woman.
19:23:28 The rebuttal from my perspective based on what I heard
19:23:33 this evening -- I will stand corrected, there was
19:23:36 issue with regard to mass and density and height.
19:23:40 And we took that under consideration.

19:23:43 The rebuttal to many of the issues are, I believe that
19:23:47 the project is consistent with the comp plan.
19:23:51 I found no argument with the staff analysis and the
19:23:54 review of the site plan.
19:23:58 With regard to trees, the issue -- there are trees on
19:24:02 the property.
19:24:03 There are trees that are in very poor shape.
19:24:06 The issue of beautiful trees and good shape are not
19:24:14 the issue.
19:24:15 One of the trees, the 44-inch OAK, not good shape at
19:24:20 all.
19:24:24 From my perspective, an out right rejection or denial
19:24:27 or inappropriateness of development in this location,
19:24:30 I would have to argue.
19:24:34 I believe residential of this type is appropriate,
19:24:36 this location.
19:24:37 Certainly we would request the opportunity to
19:24:41 internally reconsider other opportunities for a
19:24:45 design.
19:24:45 But I would be glad to answer any questions and
19:24:48 respond now or in the future.
19:24:54 >> Gwen Miller: Questions of council members?
19:24:56 >> Move to close.
19:24:59 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second to close?
19:25:02 (Motion carried.)
19:25:04 >> Mary Alvarez: In my judgment, this is inconsistent
19:25:08 and incompatible with the neighborhood.
19:25:11 I think it's too high myself.
19:25:13 Two guest parking spaces is not enough for 26 units
19:25:17 you're having in there.
19:25:25 It's a neighborhood.
19:25:26 We're constantly doing wrong things for neighborhoods.
19:25:29 I think it's time for us to stop that.
19:25:31 I think the people in that neighborhood are real
19:25:36 protective of it, and we -- in my estimation, it's
19:25:41 just incompatible.
19:25:44 Even though the comp plan says it's consistent, it's
19:25:47 inconsistent in my mind.
19:25:49 So I make a motion to deny it.
19:25:51 >> Second.
19:25:53 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second to deny it.
19:25:55 Question on the motion, Ms. Saul-Sena?
19:26:00 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I agree with Ms. Alvarez in the
19:26:02 context, it's too much.

19:26:04 It's really beautiful. I wish you'd find someplace
19:26:08 else to put such a handsome building.
19:26:10 I don't think this is the right place for it.
19:26:12 >> Perhaps Kennedy.
19:26:14 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I was thinking the very thing.
19:26:16 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second for denial.
19:26:20 (Motion carried.)
19:26:22 >> Motion to open number ten.
19:26:34 (Motion carried.)
19:26:44 >> Heather LAMBOY, land development, I have been
19:26:50 sworn.
19:26:54 The said property is located at 1905 east waters
19:26:58 avenue, at the intersection of, just to understand
19:27:03 where it is, the park is very near the site.
19:27:09 This is an aerial illustrating the site.
19:27:12 Here is sort of an odd-shaped lot.
19:27:15 Just to point to the character of the area, this is in
19:27:18 the -- there is a service station here, multifamily
19:27:24 residential units along waters avenue with a mixture
19:27:27 of neighborhood commercial types of uses.
19:27:31 There's a church down the street.
19:27:35 The petitioner has worked exceedingly hard at
19:27:38 addressing the trees on the site and has designed the
19:27:42 site around the trees.
19:27:44 And so here are some pictures of the site from the
19:27:47 ground perspective illustrating the trees.
19:27:54 The petitioner is requesting a special use of the
19:27:57 property to provide a community education facility.
19:28:00 Three modular buildings proposed in two phases.
19:28:04 Phase one will have 25 students.
19:28:07 The petition proposes activity such as tutoring,
19:28:12 mentoring, FCAT -- also proposes an after school care
19:28:17 program for the children ages 6 to 16 while parents
19:28:21 are utilizing the community education classes.
19:28:24 There are six proposed parking spaces.
19:28:26 Many of the patrons of the community center will be
19:28:28 riding busses or will be picked up in vans.
19:28:31 Hour of operation are from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and
19:28:35 evening classes from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Mondays and
19:28:39 Thursdays only.
19:28:40 After school care hours from 2:45 to 7:30 Monday
19:28:46 through Friday.
19:28:47 The site is heavily trees and the petitioner has
19:28:51 worked with land development to address those

19:28:59 concerns.
19:29:01 There is one minor objection on the basis of land
19:29:05 development that the site does not have direct access
19:29:08 to an arterial or collector.
19:29:09 The access will be off of*** AEU GON.
19:29:14 Waters is immediately adjacent to the site and the
19:29:18 site is accessed the way it is because of the trees:
19:29:29 There is a solid waste objection.
19:29:31 But the objection is based on a template that Ms. Shea
19:29:33 uses that doesn't take into consideration the turn
19:29:36 being made from the street.
19:29:38 And so, therefore, using auto turn and auto CAD the
19:29:44 solid waste truck could actually make the turn as it
19:29:50 needs to.
19:29:53 The objection I think is erroneous.
19:29:56
19:30:00 >> Tony Garcia planning commission staff.
19:30:03 I have been sworn in.
19:30:04 Just a couple of extra points to add to Ms. LAMBOY's
19:30:11 presentation.
19:30:14 This is located right off of waters, she has stated it
19:30:17 will have direct access to the neighborhood local
19:30:19 street.
19:30:20 It is in close proximity to waters and rile land park
19:30:25 drive which is east of the proposed site.
19:30:28 As she stated, the applicant is seeking a special use
19:30:30 request that if approved will permit the educational
19:30:35 facility in a residential district.
19:30:38 Based o on the demographics of the site, the
19:30:41 residential ten plan categories allows not only single
19:30:47 family residential uses but also allows communities
19:30:51 serving special uses such as churches and schools.
19:30:55 Regarding the waiver to the proposed type of this use
19:30:59 onto a collector road, as I had stated, it is in close
19:31:03 proximity to waters and rally park drive.
19:31:09 Intensity into the residential community and offers
19:31:13 neighborhood serving the youth and residents of the
19:31:18 neighborhood.
19:31:18 The planning commission staff has no objection.
19:31:22 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
19:31:25 >> Good evening.
19:31:27 My name is -- I'd like to propose this plan.
19:31:33 This facility has been suffering a lot, and this is
19:31:38 what -- I'm not sure that everybody can see, for the

19:31:43 community.
19:31:44 At this time we work Forster park village and since we
19:31:50 moved, central park -- education an after school
19:32:01 program -- so we prefer this education center -- going
19:32:27 to motivate our learners: It has computer science --
19:32:39 for this -- access to get a high school diploma.
19:32:44 The program is going to help them to obtain -- last
19:32:49 year we were able to have about 150 students of
19:32:53 getting their high school diploma.
19:32:57 I work in this community for more than 15 years.
19:33:00 I used to work with -- so I have more knowledge about
19:33:07 what the people need, and our plan is to get a
19:33:15 portable to start after school or difficult care
19:33:17 program or GED.
19:33:19 When we are ready we can -- which are by engineer.
19:33:37 >> Gwen Miller: Anybody in the public that would like
19:33:38 to speak on item 11?
19:33:40 The clerk didn't get your name.
19:33:41 Could you say it slowly --
19:33:46 >> ETCHENE, first name N I A N TE.
19:34:02 >> Gwen Miller: Any questions for council members?
19:34:06 Mr. Dingfelder?
19:34:14 >> John Dingfelder: It sounds like you have a great
19:34:15 project with a great goal in mind.
19:34:18 My only concern and I think it's a concern that's been
19:34:21 stated by staff on the project is the fact that there
19:34:23 are some very, very significant oak trees on your
19:34:27 property which I'm sure you're well familiar with.
19:34:32 The staff indicates and I think the site plan
19:34:33 indicates a lot of protection needs to be made to make
19:34:38 sure that those trees remain healthy and viable
19:34:41 through the years.
19:34:43 And I just wanted to make sure that you were fully
19:34:46 aware of the restrictions, you can't be parking cars
19:34:50 close to them and other types of restrictions.
19:34:56 >> Yes I am really aware -- two trees to be moved --
19:35:24 almost three years -- zoning department,
19:35:30 transportation and also some of the tree protection --
19:35:45 the tree are not to move until -- right now we are
19:35:52 going to use portable.
19:36:00 >> John Dingfelder: Thank you.
19:36:02 >> Gwen Miller: We close?
19:36:03 We have a motion and second to close.
19:36:07 All in favor?

19:36:09 (Motion carried.)
19:36:11 >> Mary Alvarez: Move an ordinance approving special
19:36:14 use S 2 approving a school community education
19:36:16 facility in an RS 50 residential zoning district in
19:36:20 the general vicinity of 1905 east waters avenue City
19:36:27 of Tampa, waiving 27-272 by allowing access to a local
19:36:32 street instead of having access to an arterial or
19:36:37 collector street by allowing alternative buffer from
19:36:40 the required 10 feet to 5 feet, six foot solid wood
19:36:48 fence providing for an effective date.
19:36:52 >> Gwen Miller: We have a motion.
19:36:54 All in favor?
19:36:56 (Motion carried.)
19:36:57 >> Open item 12.
19:37:06 >> Gwen Miller: Motion to open item 12.
19:37:10 (Motion carried.)
19:37:11 >> The subject property is located at 3814 Swann
19:37:16 avenue.
19:37:18 If we look at the ELMO on the map and see the subject
19:37:22 property, it is located near Dale Mabry highway, the
19:37:27 proposed parking lot will be behind the existing
19:37:31 shapes fitness facility.
19:37:34 This is a picture of the existing shapes fitness
19:37:37 facility.
19:37:38 This is looking towards Dale maybe by.
19:37:42 This is the existing parking for shapes, view
19:37:46 continuing down the street.
19:37:48 Another view continuing down the street.
19:37:50 This will be the location of the parking lot as
19:37:53 proposed.
19:37:53 The reason for the additional parking is because the
19:37:58 shapes facility will be expanding.
19:38:01 They also will need additional parking.
19:38:06 And this is a view of the intersection of Dale Mabry
19:38:10 and Swann avenue.
19:38:14 The parking lot is being requests, that fitness center
19:38:19 is commercial general.
19:38:22 The parking area is residential multifamily,
19:38:24 therefore, the request for the special use.
19:38:27 The proposed parking lot will be accessed through the
19:38:31 current ingress and egress on Swann avenue.
19:38:35 The proposed parking will consist of 65 spaces.
19:38:38 All staff concerns have been addressed and there are
19:38:41 no objections.

19:38:42 That concludes staff comments.
19:38:48 >> Tony Garcia, planning commission staff.
19:38:52 I have been sworn in.
19:38:56 >> Regarding the subject site, the site is for
19:39:00 additional parking for the shapes fitness center which
19:39:03 is located right off the intersection of Swann and
19:39:07 south Dale Mabry, this area of south Dale -- west of
19:39:16 church to residential ten.
19:39:18 Regarding context in general area, once again, just to
19:39:22 the south, Christ the king school is just to the
19:39:27 south, GTE credit union location.
19:39:30 Let's see, Einstein bagels is here, a chick FIL-A is
19:39:40 right over here.
19:39:40 >> The bagel place has its own parking problem.
19:39:43 >> The three units to the west of this site are being
19:39:46 developed under EuclidIAN zoning district for a
19:39:53 townhome development.
19:39:54 You might remember -- gosh, maybe two years ago, two
19:39:57 and a half years ago, this site had come in previously
19:40:00 for a satellite location for a GTE credit union that
19:40:04 you subsequently denied as CMU 35, extension of lane
19:40:09 use category farther into the neighborhood.
19:40:11 So basically what you'll have here is just an
19:40:14 accessory to the primary use of the shapes health and
19:40:19 fitness.
19:40:19 Planning staff has no objections.
19:40:23 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
19:40:24 >> David -- I have been sworn.
19:40:28 David Mechanik, I'm here on behalf of the applicant.
19:40:32 I think the staff reports adequately describe the
19:40:36 request.
19:40:39 We will be making what we believe will be a
19:40:41 significant improvement with the paved parking lot
19:40:45 adding landscaping.
19:40:46 I would like to ask Mr. Randy COHEN to give you a very
19:40:50 brief description of the site plan which has the
19:40:55 various features that we're proposing.
19:40:58 >> Mr. COHEN, while you're coming up, show me the
19:41:05 trees on Swann.
19:41:06 I'm not seeing them.
19:41:11 There aren't any trees in the existing parking lot.
19:41:14 >> That's correct.
19:41:16 >> Are you proposing any trees?
19:41:18 >> Yes, sir.

19:41:19 We are proposing substantial trees.
19:41:22 This is the symbol for trees, a number of them.
19:41:25 A great deal of trees along this area adjacent to the
19:41:28 property.
19:41:29 >> That's not the Swann side.
19:41:30 >> What we've been able to do there, sir, is provide a
19:41:33 16-foot buffer as opposed to the eight foot is.
19:41:38 This is the retention pond, a try bond, two feet down,
19:41:44 looks appropriate most of the time.
19:41:45 Can be mowed.
19:41:47 Have a three-foot hedge to buffer the parking lot
19:41:49 itself.
19:41:49 With the retention pond being here, we did not place
19:41:52 any trees in this particular area --
19:41:57 >> John Dingfelder: Where the three-foot hedge is,
19:41:59 it's so Baron across there, could you put some trees,
19:42:06 some OAK trees there and green it up a little bit?
19:42:10 >> Let us check with our client on that.
19:42:12 And while they're collecting on that --
19:42:15 >> Could you clarify where you're talking about?
19:42:17 >> Right here along Swann, along the edge of the
19:42:20 parking lot adjacent to Swann avenue.
19:42:24 >> How many trees?
19:42:25 >> I don't know, you put them every 15 feet?
19:42:29 >> 15 to 20 feet, typically.
19:42:33 The subject property actually starts this shaded area
19:42:35 and moves back.
19:42:37 We talked about the 16-foot buffer in this area rather
19:42:40 than the eight feet.
19:42:41 We have requested one waiver, that's for 100 feet.
19:42:47 This particular parking here is 102 feet.
19:42:50 This particular parking stall is 103.
19:42:53 That's the request for the waiver for the two spaces.
19:42:56 >> My client has no problem adding the trees per
19:43:00 Mr. Dingfelder's suggestion.
19:43:03 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I just had a question about what
19:43:05 appeared to me to be an unusually high number of
19:43:08 compact spaces.
19:43:11 I don't think that's realistic.
19:43:12 Most of the cars that I see in south Tampa are SUVs,
19:43:19 they're big -- you have -- three-quarters of the
19:43:23 spaces you've identified on this map are compact, and
19:43:26 I just don't think there's any relation between that
19:43:29 and reality.

19:43:30 >> The code allows for up to 65% to be compact spaces.
19:43:35 We're slightly under 65%, very slightly.
19:43:39 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I don't care what the code is.
19:43:41 I'm saying I don't think this is realistic.
19:43:43 I mean the people are going there to get slim, but it
19:43:46 doesn't mean their vehicles are.
19:43:49 >> The quote of the day.
19:43:53 >> We recognize your comment and we are providing
19:43:59 larger buffers where we can in those locations.
19:44:02 In order to increase the number of standard size
19:44:06 spaces, we would be below the code on the requisite
19:44:10 number of spaces, and we felt the priority was to have
19:44:12 the correct number of spaces as opposed to -- we are
19:44:18 complying with code with respect to the number of
19:44:21 compact spaces.
19:44:23 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I appreciate that.
19:44:23 I think what I'd like to do is hear maybe from the
19:44:27 client or maybe you can speak from the client -- we
19:44:29 grant waivers all the time.
19:44:31 I would rather have enough regular-size spaces --
19:44:37 sometimes our code, in my opinion, requires an
19:44:40 unrealistic number of spaces.
19:44:42 I would rather have a realistic number but also a
19:44:46 realistic number of ordinary size.
19:44:48 Maybe your client has a sense of during their 6:00
19:44:52 peek, what their needs really are.
19:44:56 >> Mary Alvarez: What does the code say?
19:44:58 >> 65% compact.
19:45:04 >> Gwen Miller: While you're doing that, is there
19:45:06 anybody in the public that would like to speak on item
19:45:09 12?
19:45:10 Anyone want to speak on item 12.
19:45:12 >> Mary Alvarez: Move to close.
19:45:13 >> Second.
19:45:15 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I'd really like to hear from the
19:45:16 owner of the facility who has a sense of what her
19:45:19 needs are, his needs.
19:45:21 This wouldn't require them to go back to -- maybe
19:45:26 require some restriping or something.
19:45:31 You've had a lot of experience.
19:45:34 In your -- be honest.
19:45:37 You were sworn.
19:45:40 >> I would always be honest.
19:45:43 >> Linda Saul-Sena: As a staff person Tampa who drives

19:45:47 around there a lot, do you think that 65% compact
19:45:50 spaces reflects the true size of the cars that are
19:45:55 driving around there?
19:45:56 >> I would answer that as saying no, I agree with you
19:46:00 wholeheartedly.
19:46:01 I will say, also, that virtually all of the new
19:46:03 developments in south Tampa basically have probably
19:46:07 somewhere between 55 and 65% compact spaces within
19:46:11 them.
19:46:11 It's a typical thing that's occurring today.
19:46:14 I happen to drive a very small car which makes life
19:46:17 easy for me.
19:46:18 SUVs are tough.
19:46:19 I believe Mr. Mechanik may have a response to the
19:46:24 request.
19:46:24 >> Mr. COHEN gave me a quick calculation.
19:46:28 I don't know how many of the compacts we could
19:46:30 eliminate and maybe he can fill me in.
19:46:34 If the council were to grant a waiver of two spaces to
19:46:37 reduce the total to 63, then we can eliminate how many
19:46:44 of the compact?
19:46:46 >> Actually if we were to do that, this entire row of
19:46:50 compact spaces, we could allow full time spaces.
19:46:55 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I move that we allow the
19:46:56 petitioner to have that -- giving up two spaces for
19:47:01 having a half dozen or more regular spaces I think
19:47:04 would create a lot safer driving requirement?
19:47:09 Can't we just approve it and have them reflect the
19:47:12 graphical changes by second reading.
19:47:19 >> Gwen Miller: Let Ms. O'Dowd speak.
19:47:22 >> Coup think O'Dowd.
19:47:25 I don't believe it's a notice issue.
19:47:29 It's they've requesting a special use permit.
19:47:32 This would require an amendment to the ordinance that
19:47:36 I filed with the clerk's office.
19:47:38 It wouldn't be ready for first reading.
19:47:40 >> Could we approve it with the understanding they'll
19:47:43 bring it back next week for.
19:47:47 >> We could place this on first reading this week.
19:47:51 >> Second.
19:47:53 >> Gwen Miller: I have a motion and a second.
19:47:56 (Motion carried.)
19:48:01 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I move to approve this with the
19:48:03 understanding that the petitioner will come back with

19:48:05 the changes we've discussed.
19:48:09 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
19:48:11 (Motion carried.)
19:48:11 >> Move to open 14.
19:48:15 (Motion carried.)
19:49:01 >> I have been sworn, health her LAMBOY.
19:49:05 The subject property is located at the 7000 block on
19:49:11 south O'Brien street in south Tampa.
19:49:13 It's currently zoned industrial general.
19:49:16 And the map doesn't actually reflect all the lots.
19:49:25 The ordinance is correct, however.
19:49:26 Just to the north of the subject property is
19:49:29 residential single family zoning.
19:49:31 This is originally platted as part of that whole
19:49:33 residential development but was never truly developed
19:49:37 out as you can see by the aerial.
19:49:39 Just to the south is MacDill air force base and their
19:49:45 accessory types of uses, industrial uses.
19:49:49 Just to provide you with some perspective, these are
19:49:53 the subject sites.
19:49:55 This area has been going through quite a large
19:49:58 redevelopment and you can see from the photograph that
19:50:02 I provided to you that on this same street recently
19:50:07 there has been quite a bit of new construction.
19:50:14 We're showing you examples of the housing style that
19:50:20 is going up through this area.
19:50:24 I would also like to provide an elevation to you.
19:50:27 This would be the front elevation as it faces to the
19:50:31 street.
19:50:31 I had a discussion with the petitioner regarding the
19:50:33 architecture.
19:50:34 This is the rear elevation and a side elevation,
19:50:41 another side elevation.
19:50:45 >> John Dingfelder: How deep is that front porch?
19:50:48 Does it show on the site elevation?
19:50:51 >> I would estimate it approximately four to five
19:50:53 feet.
19:50:54 It doesn't have a dimension on it doesn't have a dim
19:51:01 mention on it --
19:51:03 >> The minimum requirements are 50 feet of frontage
19:51:08 and 5,000 square feet parcel size.
19:51:10 The three lots located -- measuring 50 by 95 which do
19:51:17 not meet the minimal parcel area required by IG or RS
19:51:21 50.

19:51:21 The other lots on the other side of the street are 50
19:51:24 feet by 100.
19:51:25 They to meet the zoning designations.
19:51:28 However, the petitioner must rezone in order to have
19:51:31 buildable lots and to build single family residential
19:51:35 zones in an IG zoning designation.
19:51:39 There are some objections, and from a land development
19:51:43 perspective there's only a comment.
19:51:44 There is no residential overlay in port Tampa.
19:51:47 The petitioner only provided one architectural
19:51:50 elevation.
19:51:51 Staff had concerns regarding having five houses
19:51:54 exactly the same in the same block.
19:51:57 And we would request that the petitioner vary the
19:51:59 architectural elements so that it reads more like a
19:52:03 typical south Tampa neighborhood.
19:52:06 Furthermore, storm water is requesting one-half inch
19:52:09 water quality and retention on each site and
19:52:13 transportation had an objection as well.
19:52:17 The objection being that five foot side wakes are
19:52:20 required along all property frontage and must be
19:52:23 placed adjacent to the property line and they need to
19:52:26 be shown through the driveway.
19:52:27 That concludes staff comments.
19:52:30 >> John Dingfelder: I might have missed this in your
19:52:32 presentation.
19:52:33 Are the front side and rear setbacks the same as they
19:52:38 would be for an RS 50 district?
19:52:42 Are these 50-foot lots?
19:52:43 >> These are foot-foot lots.
19:52:45 Yes, that is correct.
19:52:47 >> The only reason they're going PD -- why are they
19:52:50 going PD?
19:52:52 >> Because it's an industrial general zoned lot.
19:52:55 Some are substantial in stand, 50 and 95 rather than
19:52:59 50 by 100.
19:53:03 >> John Dingfelder: But for the size they could go RG
19:53:06 to RD 50?
19:53:07 >> That is correct.
19:53:14 >> John Dingfelder: No food down this way, Tony.
19:53:19 >> No, sir.
19:53:24 Tony Garcia, planning commission staff.
19:53:27 I have been sworn in.
19:53:29 These parcels that we're looking at, as you can see

19:53:32 them, there was a series of planning things done
19:53:36 changing all these privately owned parcels from the
19:53:41 light industrial land use to residential 10.
19:53:44 As a result of that we have these little parcels now
19:53:46 that are coming in for redevelopment.
19:53:48 As you can see by the parcellization here, the overall
19:53:53 character of the area is single family -- it's
19:53:58 primarily single family detached residential.
19:54:00 I think Mrs. LAMBOY did a great job to show you
19:54:05 photographs of the area to show you there's quite an
19:54:09 eclectic mix of single family attached.
19:54:12 I would have to echo her comment about, there are
19:54:15 elevations that were provided.
19:54:18 There is a porch on this one.
19:54:19 There are areas where there are no porches, sometimes
19:54:23 front-loaded garages.
19:54:24 There are no garages.
19:54:26 There's an eclectic mix.
19:54:28 As you probably know, because we have dealt with this
19:54:31 quite often with this builder, they have more than one
19:54:36 architectural style to provide.
19:54:38 The pattern is quite varied.
19:54:40 As far as the request to go from IG to PD, concern
19:54:45 considering it is the residential land use category,
19:54:50 it has been single family residential in this
19:54:53 particular part.
19:54:54 Planning commission staff has no objection to the
19:54:57 proposed request.
19:54:59 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
19:55:05 >> Good evening madam chairman, Anthony GALARZA, agent
19:55:12 for the petitioner.
19:55:13 I have been sworn in.
19:55:15 I did speak with the petitioner on the subject of the
19:55:17 different facades and the different buildings.
19:55:20 He doesn't have any objections to submitting different
19:55:23 elevations.
19:55:23 H is an area that's rapidly changing.
19:55:26 As far as the objections from transportation, one of
19:55:30 the objections was the sidewalk.
19:55:32 There is a sidewalk on the site plan.
19:55:34 He just wanted it, or they wanted it along the
19:55:37 property line.
19:55:38 The petitioner doesn't have any problem with putting
19:55:41 it along the property line.

19:55:43 The storm water issue wanted the developer to provide
19:55:49 a half inch storm water retention, when I spoke with
19:55:52 the petitioner, he was trying to understand the
19:55:54 concept and would like to work with storm water on
19:55:57 that particular issue.
19:55:59 He would understand a footed, maybe a half a foot.
19:56:03 But the half inch, he couldn't quite grasp the concept
19:56:07 and would like to work with storm water, but would
19:56:11 comply if need be and don't know if maybe swales would
19:56:15 be sufficient.
19:56:17 If he understand the actual concept of that objection,
19:56:19 then he would actually try to amend that.
19:56:25 >> Mary Alvarez: I see there's no driveways and
19:56:29 there's no --
19:56:31 >> There is driveways.
19:56:32 >> Mary Alvarez: There is a driveway?
19:56:34 There's no -- is there an alley behind this thing?
19:56:38 >> No.
19:56:43 >> Mary Alvarez: Tandem driveway?
19:56:45 >> Yes.
19:56:46 >> Mary Alvarez: How big are the houses, three
19:56:48 bedroom, two-bath?
19:56:50 >> Three bedroom.
19:56:51 We also have design for a four bedroom and two-bath.
19:56:56 Another design that's three bedroom, two-bath.
19:56:59 >> Mary Alvarez: How big is the driveway?
19:57:01 >> It's a TANDEM driveway.
19:57:06 Ten foot wide.
19:57:10 >> Mary Alvarez: You can put two cars.
19:57:12 >> Maybe.
19:57:19 >> Linda Saul-Sena: How do you put two cars -- how
19:57:23 deep is it?
19:57:24 >> 36 feet deep.
19:57:27 >> Linda Saul-Sena: A car is 22 feet.
19:57:33 >> Mary Alvarez: We'll park on the grass like they do
19:57:35 on Tampa Bay boulevard.
19:57:40 >> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder?
19:57:45 >> John Dingfelder: My neighborhood is also 50-foot
19:57:48 lots.
19:57:49 And a lot of the houses including my own don't have
19:57:54 garages, but sometimes, especially in the older
19:57:58 neighborhoods, we have the porte-cocheres, the
19:58:03 carports that match in design or construction or
19:58:05 whatever.

19:58:06 A lot of times that's difficult to put in when you're
19:58:10 an RS 50 zoning district because you've got setback
19:58:13 issues.
19:58:14 Here you've got a PD which would allow us the
19:58:18 opportunity to give you the opportunity to put in
19:58:22 porte-cocheres in those sidewalk areas.
19:58:29 At the end of your driveway, you'd have a carport that
19:58:32 would match the aesthetics of the house and add to the
19:58:35 character of those houses.
19:58:37 Have your client build some of them.
19:58:42 You're not bad.
19:58:43 I appreciate the fact that -- I think a porte-cochere
19:58:47 would go a long way toward the aesthetics.
19:58:52 >> I guess the pelt nerve didn't want to ask for
19:58:55 waivers.
19:58:55 We wanted to do a rezoning.
19:58:58 Like city staff did, if we had the 50 by 100 we
19:59:02 wouldn't have to do a PD --
19:59:04 >> John Dingfelder: Sure, but the fact is you're here
19:59:06 on a PD, we could grant you that waiver.
19:59:11 It would be another improvement to the property.
19:59:14 Is your client here tonight?
19:59:16 >> No.
19:59:17 I'm representing the client.
19:59:18 I would be more than happy to try to amend.
19:59:21 We didn't ask for more than what we needed.
19:59:26 >> John Dingfelder: Let's think about that and see
19:59:28 where we go.
19:59:34 >> Martin Shelby: Ms. LAMBOY can confirm this.
19:59:38 If the landowner wishes to make changes to the
19:59:40 sidewalk, I believe that would be a graphical change.
19:59:44 >> John Dingfelder: And so would the porte-cochere.
19:59:49 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I don't know if you heard the
19:59:51 comments previously about having different elevations.
19:59:54 Council has been really clear that we don't want
19:59:56 cookie cutter houses, same, same, same.
20:00:00 We want different.
20:00:01 We need to see pictures of different.
20:00:03 >> I have pictures here.
20:00:04 The petitioner would actually prefer to do more of the
20:00:07 garage-type house.
20:00:11 >> Gwen Miller: Do you have pictures of them?
20:00:13 Show them to us.
20:00:14 We want to see them.

20:00:48 >> This is one house with a one-car garage.
20:00:58 >> Move it over some.
20:01:02 Slide it over some.
20:01:10 >> This is another one with a two-car garage.
20:01:18 >> Gwen Miller: These are the ones you're building?
20:01:22 >> This isn't on the site plan.
20:01:24 >> No.
20:01:24 If you want to see what we're building, we're building
20:01:27 this particular house.
20:01:29 >> John Dingfelder: That house is fine, and I think
20:01:31 that really fits port Tampa.
20:01:35 >> The other houses I showed you would need waivers.
20:01:38 >> John Dingfelder: I'm not advocating garages.
20:01:41 What I'm saying if you took the house that's in front
20:01:43 of us and slid a driveway up the side with a
20:01:46 porte-cochere, carport matching, then I think that it
20:01:54 would not only have this nice little cute little
20:01:58 style, whatever style that might be, but it also would
20:02:01 have a little more, too.
20:02:02 But it wouldn't be -- we're not necessarily pushing
20:02:06 you toward a garage. Frankly, I don't think this
20:02:09 house looks better than most garage houses.
20:02:13 >> Where is the driveway over here?
20:02:23 >> It's here.
20:02:24 Kind of stops.
20:02:26 >> Gwen Miller: How many are you building like this?
20:02:28 >> This would be one.
20:02:30 He also has architectural features that are different.
20:02:33 >> Do you have any of those pictures?
20:02:35 >> No.
20:02:36 I do not.
20:02:37 I wanted to give you different variations of the
20:02:39 house.
20:02:41 >> Linda Saul-Sena: We need to continue this to give
20:02:43 you a chance to work with our staff to provide you
20:02:45 with examples of what Mr. Dingfelder was referring to,
20:02:49 porte-cocheres, give you ideas in terms of other
20:02:55 elevations.
20:02:56 What's before us tonight, we can't go forward with.
20:02:59 Do you think you need two weeks or a month?
20:03:01 >> Two weeks I guess.
20:03:03 >> Linda Saul-Sena: It might take more than that.
20:03:05 I don't know.
20:03:05 Ms. LAMBOY, what do you think?

20:03:08 >> Well, with reference to the schedule for the
20:03:11 evenings, we're pretty full.
20:03:14 >> We can do it in the daytime.
20:03:17 >> From a staff perspective in order to review the
20:03:20 plan, meet all the deadlines, three weeks or a month.
20:03:27 >> Linda Saul-Sena: That would be the 18th of May.
20:03:30 Move to continue this to the 18th of May at ten a.m.
20:03:36 >> Second.
20:03:37 (Motion carried.)
20:03:39 >> In the meantime you can talk to storm water and get
20:03:44 a better idea.
20:03:44 That's a standard condition, the half inch.
20:03:48 >> Move to open 15.
20:03:51 (Motion carried.)
20:04:19 >> One correction I would like to first of all make --
20:04:23 Heather LAMBOY, land development staff.
20:04:28 I have been sworn.
20:04:29 First I would like to start with, there was a typo
20:04:31 that was placed on the staff report from land
20:04:34 development regarding Mr. Tony Garcia's comments.
20:04:37 Mr. Garcia does find this inconsistent and objects to
20:04:43 this particular petition.
20:04:46 And I'll let him go into that detail further.
20:04:49 But I just wanted to correct the staff report as it
20:04:52 stands correctly.
20:04:53 The subject property is located at 610 west North Bay
20:04:57 Street.
20:04:58 If you look at the zoning map, north of Martin Luther
20:05:01 King Boulevard.
20:05:03 A PD was approved in 2005 on this particular site for
20:05:10 the multifamily residential development.
20:05:14 There are general commercial uses along Martin Luther
20:05:17 king mixed in with residential office uses.
20:05:20 Then the area around the subject site includes single
20:05:24 family residential, and there are a couple of churches
20:05:27 in the immediate vicinity as well.
20:05:31 The petitioner proposes to rezone the property to
20:05:35 construct single family attached townhouse units.
20:05:38 Under the previous case, this exact plan was reviewed
20:05:43 by the city council with some very minor changes.
20:05:45 When the petitioner went to the construction service
20:05:48 division to pull permits, it was discovered that the
20:05:50 air conditioning units were not addressed.
20:05:52 They're located on the ground and encroach into the

20:05:55 setback as established by the council on that previous
20:05:58 site plan.
20:05:58 Furthermore, there are encroachments into the setbacks
20:06:03 of the balconies at the second level.
20:06:05 Therefore, construction services denied the
20:06:07 petitioner's request for that building permit and it
20:06:10 has come back to this body for another review.
20:06:14 Vehicular access is gained via north bay street.
20:06:17 The site plan shows the entrance is gated.
20:06:21 One car garage with additional ten parking spaces
20:06:25 being shared.
20:06:26 Two stories with a maximum height of 36 feet.
20:06:32 That will conform to community policings through
20:06:36 environmental design standards.
20:06:38 The standards allow fencing for people that they can
20:06:42 see through and is more inviting and discourages crime
20:06:46 because the neighborhood can see one another.
20:06:51 The objection -- there are objections from land
20:06:54 development in that -- from a landscaping perspective,
20:07:05 there are some calculations that need to be made and
20:07:09 corrected, and an objection from the planning
20:07:12 commission.
20:07:13 That concludes staff comments.
20:07:16 I'm sorry.
20:07:16 I didn't show you the photographs of the site.
20:07:20 This is the side and some views down the street.
20:07:28 This is the site right here at the corner.
20:07:30 This is the view down the street to single family
20:07:33 residential across the street, this is the site right
20:07:39 here.
20:07:39 This is north bay across north boulevard street.
20:07:45 This is across north bay.
20:07:49 Single family residential that you find there.
20:07:52 >> John Dingfelder: When did we approve this the first
20:07:54 time?
20:07:55 >> March of 2005.
20:07:58
20:08:05 >> It's behind the CVS on --
20:08:10 >> Maybe you were the only one here.
20:08:17 >> Tony Garcia planning commission staff.
20:08:20 I have been sworn in.
20:08:23 The proposed site in question is located just to the
20:08:27 east of the intersection of Martin Luther King
20:08:28 Boulevard and north boulevard, located in the South

20:08:32 Seminole heights neighborhood boundaries.
20:08:35 Predominant land use classification as you can see is
20:08:39 residential 10.
20:08:39 This did come in initially for the request to
20:08:42 construct seven town homes, subsequently continued one
20:08:46 time.
20:08:46 I think it came back again to counsel.
20:08:48 It's adjacent to a CVS drugstore to the south, gas
20:08:53 station here, and there's some office residential
20:08:56 here.
20:08:57 In relation to the comprehensive plan, as far as
20:09:01 putting attached town homes, there's no issue with
20:09:04 that.
20:09:05 That's fine as far as coming in, on the periphery of
20:09:08 the site.
20:09:09 As far as the density requirements, they meet the
20:09:12 density requirements.
20:09:13 It's coming from PD to another PD.
20:09:17 That opens it up to consideration of a lot of things.
20:09:20 That being said, this isn't Seminole heights.
20:09:24 Seminole heights does have a residential overlay
20:09:26 district.
20:09:27 I asked the applicant to send me new elevations which
20:09:31 they did to me and to Ms. LAMBOY.
20:09:35 There are no references on the elevations to any of
20:09:37 the guidelines for the residential overlay.
20:09:43 Nothing of that sort is on there.
20:09:44 So this is basically an issue of looking at the
20:09:48 character of the area.
20:09:49 Character is one of the basic 7en gnats of the
20:09:55 comprehensive plan.
20:09:56 The new elevations that had been presented by the
20:10:00 applicant are not in character with the overlay
20:10:03 guidelines as far as what they're specifying in their
20:10:07 elevations that they had sent to us.
20:10:13 >> Did y'all object the last time?
20:10:16 >> No.
20:10:17 >> Was it the same elevations?
20:10:19 >> We didn't get elevations last time.
20:10:21 >> Yes, you did.
20:10:23 >> Not those that he presented this time.
20:10:26 Also a year ago, if you remember, we have had cases
20:10:29 that have come in.
20:10:30 I think we do have latitude to come in and say based

20:10:33 on what council has been doing as far as a pattern of
20:10:35 council F you remember the project on broad street in
20:10:38 the Seminole heights area, you all had a lot of
20:10:42 concerns regarding elevations regarding the overlay
20:10:45 district good lines on broad which is south of river
20:10:48 view OAKS.
20:10:52 You had issues with that and the overlay residential
20:10:55 guidelines.
20:10:55 The planning commission is trying to show we're being
20:10:59 a little more sensitive to council's more stringent
20:11:02 review of the character of the residential development
20:11:05 that is going on within your established residential
20:11:08 neighborhoods, especially those that have residential
20:11:12 overlay districts like southeast Seminole heights and
20:11:16 old Seminole heights.
20:11:20 >> John Dingfelder: What type of things would they
20:11:22 need to do?
20:11:25 >> Gwen Miller: Let him finish his presentation.
20:11:28 >> Go ahead.
20:11:29 >> Basically it's more of a technical objection
20:11:33 because they're not specifying on the site plan, they
20:11:35 didn't state they would comply with the residential
20:11:39 overlay guidelines.
20:11:42 I don't have a problem with the townhomes going in on
20:11:44 the corner, I don't have a problem with the density.
20:11:46 I think it's a character issue.
20:11:48 It's speaking to the character of the neighborhood
20:11:50 that I think has been willing to come in and been
20:11:55 vigilant with trying to preserve the character of
20:11:58 their area.
20:11:59 That's basically what our position is going to be on
20:12:01 this, an issue of character and character can be
20:12:05 spoken to in the comprehensive plan as far as
20:12:08 compatibility with the surrounding area.
20:12:10 Based on that, that's what we talk about in my final
20:12:13 summation on my recommendation.
20:12:15 So I'm saying over all the request is consistent, but
20:12:18 at this juncture we're going to have to say that we
20:12:20 feel, based on what they're showing, they're not doing
20:12:23 a service as far as compatibility and character to the
20:12:27 Seminole heights area because they're not going to say
20:12:30 they're meeting the standards of the residential
20:12:32 overlay.
20:12:33 Until that gets met, I think we'd like to come and be

20:12:36 stronger than we could have been last time.
20:12:39 We could have gone either way last time.
20:12:41 We did state in our original recommendation that we
20:12:44 would like to see a site plan that speaks to the
20:12:46 recommendations as far as the overlay district.
20:12:49 We could have gone either way on that.
20:12:51 That's a coin flip as far as the last recommendation
20:12:53 that was made.
20:12:54 I do not have an issue with the density or the project
20:12:57 itself as a whole.
20:12:58 It's a character issue regarding the compatibility of
20:13:02 it with the residential overlay district for Seminole
20:13:05 heights.
20:13:08 >> Thank you for your explanation and I agree with
20:13:10 you.
20:13:10 My question is this, and I guess it's to Ms. LAMBOY.
20:13:14 This was something in March of '0 5.
20:13:17 Site plan is exactly the same except with more detail.
20:13:20 What took so long for this to come back?
20:13:23 >> Well, that is because the petitioner and our
20:13:26 scheduling issues, it certainly takes about four to
20:13:28 five months to get to the council by the time a
20:13:31 petitioner has made application and gone through the
20:13:33 review.
20:13:35 Furthermore construction services is at a time element
20:13:38 as well.
20:13:39 This was approved in March 2005.
20:13:41 It would have been effective and the petitioner would
20:13:43 have been able to apply by probably April 2005 for the
20:13:48 building permits, and they don't have to apply right
20:13:51 away for a building permit.
20:13:53 They may have had to do construction plans and so on
20:13:56 because those are much more detailed plans.
20:13:58 I would like to also show to the council the approved
20:14:01 plan from 2005, the 159 case.
20:14:06 This is the site plan.
20:14:07 It didn't address the air conditioning units nor the
20:14:10 overhangs.
20:14:12 And it did on that plan have, if you look at the ELMO,
20:14:17 the elevation, exactly the same.
20:14:22 >> Mary Alvarez: Ms. LAMBOY, is this the first single
20:14:25 family attached units being built in this
20:14:29 neighborhood, or are there others that you know of?
20:14:32 >> Certainly in the immediate neighborhood.

20:14:34 As I visited the field and went around the
20:14:37 neighborhood, it is the first single family attached
20:14:39 in the immediate neighborhood.
20:14:41 For all of southeast Seminole heights, I can't speak
20:14:44 to that.
20:14:44 >> I understand that.
20:14:45 I'm asking about the immediate neighborhood.
20:14:48 Also, this is supposed to be a gated community?
20:14:51 >> Yes, according to the plan it is.
20:14:53 >> Is there going to be a gate there?
20:14:56 >> Yes.
20:14:58 >> Gwen Miller: Petitioner?
20:15:07 >> Council, good evening, Michael horner, 14502 north
20:15:14 Dale Mabry, representing the applicant.
20:15:17 This is a little bit news for us.
20:15:19 Some of a shock.
20:15:20 As you know, this was approved a year and a half ago.
20:15:23 My clients went immediately into the construction
20:15:25 service department filed plans required by Ciera
20:15:30 construction.
20:15:31 Lo and behold, the plans after a six-week review, the
20:15:36 plans were flagged because it didn't have the
20:15:39 overhang.
20:15:40 We immediately went to Kathy coil and filed for an
20:15:43 administrative appeal.
20:15:45 They said, sorry, the plan is the plan.
20:15:47 You're locked in.
20:15:48 You're going to have to start all over from scratch.
20:15:50 We went back, redesigned the project, showed the
20:15:53 ACs, the patio slabs, elevations have maintained the
20:15:58 consistency all through out, Ms. Alvarez, we haven't
20:16:01 changed the elevation except for a few minor details,
20:16:04 essentially the same elevation.
20:16:06 We refiled those plans.
20:16:07 Your hearing dates are four to five months out.
20:16:11 We now come before you.
20:16:13 We got the initial staff reports.
20:16:14 They were favorable, same elevations.
20:16:17 Tony did ask me for another copy of the elevation
20:16:21 which we filed.
20:16:22 We feel -- for the landscape comment, we have no
20:16:26 problem agreeing to those conditions on the plan.
20:16:28 We don't have any objection to agreeing to the overlay
20:16:30 conditions on the plan.

20:16:32 If you'd like to continue this for two weeks after
20:16:34 first reading and have it proposed to you on a plan by
20:16:38 second reading, we certainly welcome that.
20:16:40 We've gone through this public hearing process for two
20:16:43 years and got stuck right in the middle of the
20:16:46 construction service approval process.
20:16:50 >> John Dingfelder: Mr. Horner, you've got elevations
20:16:52 submitted to us.
20:16:53 You obviously have plans that are drawn up.
20:16:56 If you're voluntarily suggesting you might be able to
20:17:00 tweak those plans and design somewhat to accommodate
20:17:04 the Seminole heights overlay district, what would that
20:17:06 mean from your client's perspective?
20:17:10 Would we see a different graphic?
20:17:12 Would there be maybe a different type of front porch
20:17:16 element or something?
20:17:17 I'm not that familiar with the overlay district.
20:17:21 Maybe you are.
20:17:22 >> That's why we filed for those elevations initially
20:17:26 and came back with very similar elevations.
20:17:28 We did sit down with staff and talked about
20:17:31 consistency with the plans for the overlay district.
20:17:34 The report came back and indicated there were no
20:17:37 objections from our understanding of those overlays.
20:17:40 That's why I think until we hear of the exact concerns
20:17:44 and the specific areas where we might not be in
20:17:47 compliance -- I haven't heard the exact specific
20:17:50 noncompliance issues for the overlay, I'm a little
20:17:53 unsure about agreeing wholeheartedly.
20:17:55 I think this is very close.
20:17:57 But it may need to have the pitch reviewed.
20:17:59 I don't think the patio or the gables are an issue.
20:18:04 I don't think the overhang is an issue.
20:18:07 We'd like to sit down with staff one more time, revise
20:18:10 the elevation.
20:18:12 The price points have now gone from 200,000 to almost
20:18:16 $300,000 a unit.
20:18:21 >> John Dingfelder: You're saying, come back for first
20:18:23 reading --
20:18:25 >> I think so.
20:18:26 >> John Dingfelder: In two weeks.
20:18:27 If you can agree with that, we'd certainly want to
20:18:30 work with the association.
20:18:32 >> Let's hear from the neighbors.

20:18:37 >> Gwen Miller: Anyone from the public that would like
20:18:38 to speak on item 15?
20:18:43 >> Pamela Joe Hatley, I'm an attorney and I represent
20:18:47 some of the neighbors in opposition.
20:18:49 I have been sworn.
20:18:50 This request for these town homes has presented some
20:18:54 due process issues from the very beginning.
20:18:56 There were a couple of continuances -- I believe in
20:19:01 March as well, it was finally approved in June and
20:19:04 July of '0 5.
20:19:05 The neighborhood had a hard time keeping up with just
20:19:08 when the public hearing was going to be because
20:19:10 there's no renotice requirement once a continuance is
20:19:13 granted.
20:19:14 Therefore, the neighborhood had essentially no --
20:19:18 essentially no notice and no opportunity to be heard,
20:19:20 therefore, no due process.
20:19:22 There's a notation on the current rezoning request, on
20:19:26 the good neighbor notice that is misleading.
20:19:29 It indicates on Exhibit B-1 that this rezoning
20:19:34 request, 0643 has already been approved.
20:19:39 Also, the site plan that was sent with that good
20:19:41 neighbor notice indicates that there was a waiver of
20:19:44 the overlay district requirements.
20:19:47 Well, there's no record of any waiver in the
20:19:49 transcript, no mention of a request or a granting of
20:19:51 any waiver.
20:19:52 Also, that site plan indicates that the commercial
20:19:55 property across north boulevard from this parcel is a
20:19:59 commercial property.
20:20:00 That doesn't seem to be the case.
20:20:02 It's zoned RS 50.
20:20:04 So those are misleading.
20:20:06 Now, the planning commission found this rezoning
20:20:09 request was not in character with the overall area,
20:20:12 not compatible with the overall area and consequently
20:20:15 not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:20:18 We agree.
20:20:19 The comprehensive plan identifies Seminole heights as
20:20:23 an urban village that is unique to the City of Tampa
20:20:27 and is very distinctive in character.
20:20:29 The comp plan requires that the character of Seminole
20:20:32 heights be maintained through any redevelopment
20:20:35 proposals and requires the unique character of

20:20:39 Seminole heights to guide new development or
20:20:43 redevelopment.
20:20:44 The land development code requires that infield
20:20:46 residential development is compatible to be the
20:20:49 precedent within the established neighborhood.
20:20:51 The land development code also requires that every
20:20:53 application for new residential dwellings shall comply
20:20:57 with all applicable overlay district zoning standards
20:21:01 or zoning standards approved in the city council
20:21:04 approved site plans.
20:21:05 But in cases where there's a conflict, the more
20:21:08 restrictive standard shall apply.
20:21:11 Now, we realize that approval of the prior site plan
20:21:15 is beyond the 30 day limitation for a consistency
20:21:19 challenge obviously.
20:21:20 But we believe that given due process deficiencies
20:21:23 that are evident and possible mistakes in approving
20:21:27 these town homes to start with, that there may be
20:21:30 other areas for challenge and we intend to explore
20:21:32 those.
20:21:33 We ask that the city council do not approve this
20:21:37 rezoning tonight.
20:21:38 In fact, we ask that you take a look at possibly
20:21:40 correcting mistakes that were made in the past and
20:21:43 maybe rescind approval of the original site plan.
20:21:46 Send the developer back to the drawing board to
20:21:50 redesign a residential single family detached home
20:21:53 project that is in character with the some Noel
20:21:56 heights neighborhood and consistent with the comp plan
20:21:58 and land development code.
20:22:00 We furthermore believe that any economic concerns
20:22:04 would not be significant because three single family
20:22:08 detached homes are in high value, might bring a
20:22:12 similar net return for the developer.
20:22:14 Thank you.
20:22:15 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
20:22:16 Next.
20:22:26 >> I have been sworn in.
20:22:29 John MULL, 4104 north Lynn avenue.
20:22:34 This is right at the corner of west north bay and Lynn
20:22:37 and the other side down from north -- I have some
20:22:42 pictures.
20:22:44 >> Gwen Miller: Just lay them down and they'll come
20:22:46 up.

20:22:46 .
20:22:50 >> This is on the corner, this is what you look when
20:22:53 you say -- this could be what you look when you saw,
20:22:57 designed with single family detached on lots 11, 12
20:23:03 and 13, the subject in question.
20:23:05 Here is another one just in the middle of that block.
20:23:09 And I want to thank Ms. Saul-Sena, she saved us from a
20:23:14 parking lot about 15 years ago.
20:23:16 Maybe she doesn't remember.
20:23:17 I thank her for doing that.
20:23:19 It's being revitalized, upgraded.
20:23:22 It's going to be a beautiful addition to the
20:23:25 neighborhood.
20:23:27 Here is another example of a home on 504 west north
20:23:32 bay which is the smaller type, but still
20:23:37 characteristic of the 1920 bungalow.
20:23:40 Across the street is a 50s style which is again a
20:23:46 nice property and adds to the ambience of the
20:23:50 neighborhood.
20:23:52 Just up the street people have done another renovation
20:23:57 and you can see it's an older-type 1910, 1920
20:24:03 farmhouse.
20:24:04 But they've done it really nice.
20:24:06 It adds to the character of the community.
20:24:10 We hope that you maintain the character and abide by
20:24:13 the overlay in Seminole heights.
20:24:16 Give us the protection that it affords and deny the
20:24:19 request for these attached-type -- I think it's
20:24:25 something like this maybe that you would see a wall 38
20:24:30 feet high rather than what I've shown you.
20:24:32 Thank you.
20:24:33 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
20:24:34 Next.
20:24:34
20:24:41 >> Pat, I have been sworn in.
20:24:46 I would like to say for the record that when this
20:24:49 project was originally planned, I wasn't very much in
20:24:53 favor of it.
20:24:54 I had spoken to Mr. Horner.
20:24:56 He's a nice enough chap in my opinion, but I walk
20:25:02 every evening in our neighborhood.
20:25:05 I've spoken to dozens of people.
20:25:08 Myself, I'm against the -- I personally feel it's too
20:25:13 dense, far too much structure for that small lot of

20:25:17 property.
20:25:18 I've been out walking every night for the last year,
20:25:23 when they were denied the last time, that made me
20:25:26 totally rethink my opinion of it.
20:25:28 I'm the one that stands to be affected the most.
20:25:31 I'm directly adjacent to what they're building in
20:25:36 here.
20:25:37 I wouldn't be against it if they could make them lower
20:25:40 and less density.
20:25:44 As I said, I spoke to many people and I've had a
20:25:47 change of heart.
20:25:48 I very strictly oppose it.
20:25:51 It needs to be canceled or perhaps redesigned in a
20:25:55 different manner because it's not consistent with our
20:25:58 homes.
20:26:00 There are not anything similar to it in our
20:26:02 neighborhood.
20:26:03 I can in fact tell you that.
20:26:05 My family has been there since 1947.
20:26:09 My last statement will be, if there is a redesign of
20:26:11 the proposed structure, then I might be once again for
20:26:16 it.
20:26:16 Thank you.
20:26:17 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
20:26:17 Ms. Saul-Sena.
20:26:19 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Excuse me.
20:26:20 Sir.
20:26:21 You said you live closest.
20:26:23 >> Directly beside it.
20:26:26 >> Linda Saul-Sena: To the east?
20:26:28 >> North boulevard, North Bay Street.
20:26:31 It's virtually right out my window.
20:26:35 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you.
20:26:36 >> Gwen Miller: All right.
20:26:36 Next.
20:26:39 >> Good evening, Patricia MOLL, 4104 north Lynn
20:26:44 avenue.
20:26:45 I was not here to object before because I didn't know
20:26:50 the petition was coming in front of it.
20:26:52 I've lived in the community for 40 years.
20:26:55 I live in an almost hundred year old farmhouse that
20:27:00 was one of the first structures in the neighborhood.
20:27:03 As you heard, it's not in conjunction with City of
20:27:10 Tampa comprehensive plan or the Seminole heights

20:27:13 residential area.
20:27:13 I think that what you need to look at is that this
20:27:16 is -- whether or not you want the camel to put his
20:27:22 nose in the tent.
20:27:23 Because if you approve this, there's a possibility to
20:27:25 go right down north boulevard with one townhouse right
20:27:29 after the other.
20:27:30 One of the -- I don't know if you're aware of what's
20:27:34 happening in Westshore palms on almost every street in
20:27:38 Westshore palms now there are town homes.
20:27:42 And not only north boulevard is at risk, but the whole
20:27:47 neighborhood would be at risk.
20:27:48 The problem on north boulevard is then you would
20:27:50 increase the traffic, and this particular section of
20:27:54 north boulevard next to this petitioner's property is
20:27:57 only 32 feet wide, which means that to widen it, you
20:28:03 would have to buy property.
20:28:05 Mr. Horner said that wasn't a problem, that you could
20:28:08 just buy the townhouses to widen the street.
20:28:12 This is a land speculation concern.
20:28:17 And I hope that you instead will look at it as a
20:28:23 protection of our comprehensive plan.
20:28:26 These three lots beg for single family homes.
20:28:32 They're being built all over our community and people
20:28:36 are looking for land to buy single family homes on.
20:28:41 So I'm sure that that use -- it would be a better use.
20:28:46 Thank you very much.
20:28:47 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
20:28:47 Next.
20:28:49
20:28:53 >> Good evening.
20:28:54 I've been sworn in.
20:28:56 My name is Christopher THATCH, 4107 north clearfield
20:29:04 which is right around the corner from the property.
20:29:07 First I'd like to read a letter from a neighbor,
20:29:10 Leslie Menendez, 4204 north Lynn.
20:29:16 She says, I'm in opposition to the proposed townhome
20:29:20 project of seven units.
20:29:23 When I first heard of the project being approved, I
20:29:26 thought it was four units which was dense enough.
20:29:30 Please consider revising the site plan to the maximum
20:29:34 of four units and to adhere to the South Seminole
20:29:38 height overlay district requirement regarding roof
20:29:42 pitch.

20:29:42 That's what she says.
20:29:44 I just have a couple of issues, and one is I've only
20:29:49 lived in the neighborhood since '99.
20:29:52 When I first moved in, I've been robbed five times.
20:29:58 It was a little bit different character in the
20:30:00 neighborhood, door kicked in, windows knocked in,
20:30:04 things like that.
20:30:04 The neighborhood has done a significant about face.
20:30:09 The other day, a neighbor was walking her dogs and
20:30:14 almost was run over by somebody speeding through the
20:30:17 neighborhood.
20:30:17 What's happened is, as construction goes in one place,
20:30:20 people say, oh, I can cut through there.
20:30:25 What is going to happen with this, they say, well, we
20:30:29 have enough parking places, and there's two parking
20:30:34 places per unit and there's a couple extra, and then
20:30:37 you have the super bowl party and there's parking all
20:30:41 over the place.
20:30:42 That's really a joke to think that, you know, you're
20:30:46 going to get by with that limited amount of parking.
20:30:50 The disaster of this whole thing arises when you let
20:30:54 this happen to that corner.
20:30:56 Right across I showed another house on a double lot.
20:31:01 It's sitting waiting to see what happens with this.
20:31:06 There's also a church right down the street that's now
20:31:12 on the market or it will be on the market.
20:31:17 The CONGREGATION let it go.
20:31:25 It takes up three-quarters of the block.
20:31:28 If a developer gets it, this is done for.
20:31:31 Now we're talking about hundreds -- potentially a
20:31:35 hundred cars in that area cutting through -- now you
20:31:41 have kids walking in the streets.
20:31:42 You've got dogs.
20:31:43 You've got a nice community and you're destroying it.
20:31:51 I disagree with the whole plan of this and the
20:31:56 ramifications of what will happen if you allow the
20:32:02 first step.
20:32:04 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Sir, you live on clearfield?
20:32:09 >> Yes.
20:32:10 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Would you characterize the part of
20:32:12 north bay that comes off north boulevard as a canopy
20:32:18 roadway?
20:32:19 >> Yeah.
20:32:19 It's quite over hung with trees.

20:32:32 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you, sir.
20:32:38 >> Gary else worth, I have been sworn.
20:32:45 I'm not sure the file number, but when it was approved
20:32:48 back in March of '05 and I believe it came before
20:32:52 counsel, originally in '04, the association had no
20:32:55 significant objections, so we did not appear at that
20:32:58 time.
20:33:02 However, we did assume, which maybe we should not have
20:33:04 done was that Seminole heights residential overlay
20:33:08 guidelines would be followed.
20:33:10 It was not until in the last few weeks that we
20:33:14 discovered there were some issues.
20:33:16 That was after a trip to the land use office to
20:33:19 actually get copies of plans and conversations I had
20:33:23 with Mr. Garcia.
20:33:29 We are not opposed to town homes in our neighborhood.
20:33:33 We understand where it's located it's a transition
20:33:36 from commercial.
20:33:37 I'm not sure if seven is the right number.
20:33:40 I am sure the residential overlay guidelines should be
20:33:43 followed in the spirit of the work that was put into
20:33:48 those by all three neighborhoods. I would request
20:33:52 that the developer relook at his plans and be able to
20:33:56 follow the guidelines.
20:33:57 Thank you.
20:33:58 >> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
20:33:58 Anyone else like to speak?
20:34:03 >> John Dingfelder: Ms. O'Dowd, a couple of questions.
20:34:07 As you're coming up, it appears the petitioner has
20:34:10 indicated they would voluntarily comply with adding a
20:34:15 note that they would comply with the overlay district
20:34:18 guidelines.
20:34:18 So I don't know if that's a big issue.
20:34:26 The other issues I need you to opine about, the
20:34:29 attorney raised a notice issue.
20:34:31 Have you had a chance to look at the notice and how do
20:34:35 you feel about that, number win?
20:34:36 Number two, there are folks out here who would like us
20:34:42 to deny this motion and have them start over again.
20:34:46 I need your opinion on whether we have the legal
20:34:49 attitude latitude to do that at this point in the
20:34:53 game?
20:34:54 >> Kathy O'Dowd, I have looked at the notice that went
20:34:58 out and not everything was filed with the clerk's

20:35:01 office that actually was sent out.
20:35:04 I asked Mr. Horner what was mailed to the neighborhood
20:35:07 association.
20:35:08 He indicated there was a letter which is in our file,
20:35:13 in the clerk's file that notifies those within the
20:35:16 notice area of a public hearing date for today, April
20:35:21 27, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
20:35:24 There's a typed note at the bottom that says dear
20:35:27 owners, please be confirmed that due to minor
20:35:31 locations, a modification to the approved plan is
20:35:36 required.
20:35:36 Plan remains unchanged otherwise.
20:35:38 This is showing a request from PD zoning district
20:35:41 classification to PD for seven town homes.
20:35:45 Attached to that letter Exhibit B-1 in our file which
20:35:50 is the legal description tore the proposed project.
20:35:53 The copy in the clerk's office does not have any
20:35:55 handwritten notes on the legal description.
20:35:58 However, Mr. Horner confirmed for me that what was
20:36:01 mailed out to those in the notice area did include a
20:36:04 handwritten note saying, following the legal
20:36:08 description, it says regarding town homes approved at
20:36:11 north bay and north boulevard southeast corner, Z 0643
20:36:16 for those whose legal did not print on back of notice.
20:36:20 I believe that is the note that Ms. Hatley is
20:36:23 expressing concern over, is that the implication based
20:36:25 on that handwritten note following the legal
20:36:28 description is that this PD petition has already been
20:36:31 approved since it's referring the Z 0643.
20:36:34 I think if I were to take both pages together, I would
20:36:37 have to conclude that this is not a misnotice.
20:36:47 It does identify what they're requesting changes to.
20:36:51 When situations like this have occurred in the past,
20:36:54 I've always deferred to the petitioner on whether they
20:36:57 want to renotice the petition.
20:37:00 We left it to their discretion knowing that's an
20:37:03 argument that could be made by those in opposition
20:37:06 were it to be approved.
20:37:07 It would ultimately be up to a judge to say whether
20:37:13 this is a MISnotice.
20:37:16 The town homes have were -- the second page is a
20:37:19 little confusing.
20:37:20 But I would defer to the petitioner on whether or not
20:37:22 they would like to renotice that.

20:37:24 With regard to the latitude with regard to the overlay
20:37:32 district design guidelines, I know that --
20:37:35 >> John Dingfelder: The question was our latitude in
20:37:38 regard to revisiting the whole project.
20:37:40 There's folks that would rather have us deny this and
20:37:46 build some single family houses there or something
20:37:48 else like that.
20:37:51 >> When we have looked at a PD approval that is coming
20:37:54 back before council for changes, our advice to council
20:37:57 has consistently be for council to focus its attention
20:38:01 on those changes that are being requested, that it's
20:38:04 not an opportunity to revisit the entire site plan
20:38:06 from scratch.
20:38:07 We've done that recently with the project on Westshore
20:38:10 and GANDY that came back to council.
20:38:13 The project that came back to council two weeks ago in
20:38:17 the channel district.
20:38:19 My advice would be how we approached it before, that
20:38:23 council should focus solely on the requested changes
20:38:26 from the previous PD approval.
20:38:30 >> Linda Saul-Sena: We have adopted architectural
20:38:32 guidelines for Seminole heights.
20:38:35 They aren't elaborate, but very clear.
20:38:37 The houses have to be raised off the ground, roofs of
20:38:41 a certain pitch.
20:38:42 They have to have certain materials.
20:38:44 What's been presented does not meet those guidelines.
20:38:48 Since it's a PD and elevation is a part of this, don't
20:38:51 we need it redesigned to meet the guidelines?
20:38:55 >> It is my understanding that the guidelines were in
20:38:58 effect at the time the PD approval came through last
20:39:02 year and that those guidelines were applied.
20:39:05 And the elevations have not changed from the previous
20:39:07 approval.
20:39:09 >> Linda Saul-Sena: But the elevations don't reflect
20:39:10 the guidelines.
20:39:13 >> John Dingfelder: In this case, he said he would
20:39:16 voluntarily put a note on this plan that said he would
20:39:19 comply with the guidelines.
20:39:20 As long as he's going to voluntarily do it, we don't
20:39:23 have to wrestle with that legal issue.
20:39:25 >> Can he do that?
20:39:28 They don't look nothing like the overlay guidelines.
20:39:32 >> John Dingfelder: He said he'll voluntarily do that

20:39:35 and come back with new elevations.
20:39:38 Mr. Horner, do you want to clarify that on rebuttal?
20:39:42 That will be fine.
20:39:44 >> We would agree to that.
20:39:47 I'm hearing comments tonight.
20:39:48 I'm thinking this is a rehearing of the very project
20:39:51 from PDO office to the town homes that was approved
20:39:55 last year.
20:39:56 The very elevations were on that plan, the very
20:39:58 standards were in effect.
20:39:59 We agreed to lintel construction, the same slope.
20:40:02 We did modify it.
20:40:06 We talked to Mr. Mull probably three or four times.
20:40:08 He said you're not approved for town homes.
20:40:11 You're approved for office.
20:40:12 I told him no, we're approved for town homes.
20:40:15 I sent out another notice and hand wrote this is what
20:40:18 we're approved of and gave him a copy of the
20:40:21 ordinances.
20:40:22 The same review standards applied then that apply now.
20:40:25 Mr. Garcia's report was consistent then.
20:40:28 I believe it should be consistent now.
20:40:29 However, if there's anything that's lacking on this
20:40:32 elevation that we need to look at, we'll voluntarily
20:40:35 agree to that.
20:40:36 As far as the notice goes, since they came with legal
20:40:40 representation, we'll even agree to a renotice if
20:40:43 that's going to I think secure the position for any
20:40:45 kind of appeal opportunity.
20:40:47 This is my -- speculation.
20:40:51 This is my client's first personal investment.
20:40:54 I think you know the quality characteristics of Paul
20:40:57 Ciera.
20:40:58 This is the very first in his back yard.
20:41:03 This is a unit next to a CVA.
20:41:07 Same plan then, same elevation now.
20:41:10 Same elevations on the plan then, same evaluations on
20:41:13 the plan now.
20:41:15 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I'm going to throw this out,
20:41:17 Mr. Horner.
20:41:18 Imitation sometimes is the sincerest form of flattery.
20:41:22 There are some absolutely beautiful bungalow style
20:41:26 duplexes on Hyde park on Rome that we referred to many
20:41:30 times that appear to be single family homes but

20:41:33 they're actually duplexes or they could be quad.
20:41:37 They absolutely fit in with the Hyde park
20:41:40 characteristics which are the same as the Seminole
20:41:42 heights characteristics of bungalows.
20:41:44 If you look historically at Seminole heights, there
20:41:48 were not Mediterranean stucco buildings.
20:41:53 Can I tell you who the architect was.
20:41:55 You can probably borrow the design from them.
20:41:57 That would be more fitting and compatible.
20:41:59 What you have here, I think you heard from the
20:42:02 neighbors, they don't think it's compatible.
20:42:06 It doesn't reflect the guidelines.
20:42:09 Maybe you'd like to look at those.
20:42:10 >> Let me comment on that, Ms. Saul-Sena.
20:42:13 We have spent a lot of time and attention, full
20:42:16 construction plans are done.
20:42:17 They were filed and submitted, under review, energy
20:42:21 calculations done.
20:42:23 It was cut because of a two and a half foot roof
20:42:26 overhang.
20:42:26 I appreciate now in retrospect neighbors saying, we
20:42:32 may have missed the hearing, we're not crazy about it.
20:42:34 Start over.
20:42:35 There's a reliance on government action that we
20:42:38 depended on to move forward.
20:42:41 >> Gwen Miller: Council members, what is your
20:42:43 pleasure?
20:42:45 >> John Dingfelder: Sounds to me that definitely a
20:42:47 continuance is in order.
20:42:49 The petitioner seems to indicate that, A, he wants to
20:42:51 voluntarily renotice to cure any possible defects that
20:42:55 he has.
20:42:57 If he does that, that's definitely a few months away.
20:43:02 In the meantime all the Seminole height overlay
20:43:06 standards and guidelines can be revisited and make
20:43:08 sure that these plans are consistent with that.
20:43:11 And then the note would be added that the project
20:43:14 would be consistent with that.
20:43:17 And how many months -- give us a date -- give us a
20:43:22 date, Heather.
20:43:24 It sounds like you've got to renotice and go from
20:43:26 there.
20:43:28 >> The renoticing process is 30 days, plus the time to
20:43:33 review the plans.

20:43:35 The first continuance date that is available -- if
20:43:41 it's the pleasure of the council, on May 25th, there's
20:43:45 nine new hearings and three continuances.
20:43:47 If you want to waive your rules and have it come May
20:43:53 27th.
20:43:54 >> John Dingfelder: That's not even 30 days.
20:43:55 >> Okay.
20:43:57 Moving on.
20:43:58 The next available date is June 27th.
20:44:00 >> John Dingfelder: So moved.
20:44:01 That would be in the evening.
20:44:04 >> Just for a continuance.
20:44:06 >> John Dingfelder: For a continuance with the
20:44:07 direction that I've identified.
20:44:09 And I'm susceptible to any other direction council
20:44:13 might have.
20:44:19 >> from what I picked up, we really don't have any
20:44:24 choice about simply denying this here tonight, right?
20:44:29 >> That's what kate said.
20:44:36 >> Linda Saul-Sena: The planning commission
20:44:37 recommendation shows there's single family to the
20:44:40 east, to the west, to the north.
20:44:43 This is something that they wrote a strong
20:44:46 recommendation recommending disapproval of.
20:44:49 I don't see why that --
20:44:51 >> It's a recommendation.
20:44:54 The recommendation said they recommended disapproval
20:44:57 because it didn't meet the overlay guidelines.
20:45:00 Now he said they're voluntarily agreeing to work with
20:45:03 all the staff to meet the overlay guidelines.
20:45:06 As long as they're willing to do that, I don't get it.
20:45:10 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I'm looking at the surrounding
20:45:12 land use patterns.
20:45:13 You have single family to the north, east and west.
20:45:17 So I'm not going to second the motion.
20:45:20 >> Mary Alvarez: I feel really confused about this
20:45:22 because this area is not in transition, no matter what
20:45:28 you say.
20:45:29 The only transition is at the corners.
20:45:31 You've got to commercial corners.
20:45:33 But there's nothing in there that's a transition.
20:45:37 I have to be against that.
20:45:44 Right now -- I don't know.
20:45:45 Maybe I wasn't here at the time that this thing came.

20:45:47 It seems to me like it's compatible -- it's
20:45:52 incompatible.
20:45:54 I don't understand why we're going to continue it,
20:45:58 listen to all the guidelines, it comes back, he's
20:46:02 going to do all this.
20:46:03 There's a possibility it's going to get denied anyway.
20:46:06 I don't understand why we just can't deny it now or
20:46:09 whatever, make a motion to deny it because I just
20:46:13 don't --
20:46:14 >> If I can council.
20:46:18 >> Mary Alvarez: Go right ahead.
20:46:19 >> Thank you.
20:46:20 You've been advised by your legal department that to
20:46:24 base it upon that which has already been decided or
20:46:30 weighed upon is the first petition which is Z 04159,
20:46:36 that you cannot revisit that.
20:46:37 That is the legal opinion provided to you.
20:46:40 That being the case, I would advise against moving
20:46:46 forward tonight.
20:46:48 My suggestion would be, if council wishes to address
20:46:53 these issues, it would not be inappropriate for
20:46:57 council to have provided to it and to interested
20:47:01 parties perhaps the transcripts and the votes and the
20:47:06 discussion of the underlying basis for the approval of
20:47:09 Z 04159 which can also be considered during the time
20:47:14 that the council allows Mr. Horner and the petitioner
20:47:19 to address those issues that he has voluntarily chosen
20:47:21 to address.
20:47:22 That would be my recommendation, to at least --
20:47:25 council is operating on a lack of knowledge with
20:47:30 regard to the discussions of Z 04-159 which appears to
20:47:39 be relevant to council's decision tonight, not only
20:47:42 from a policy perspective, but also from a legal
20:47:46 perspective.
20:47:47 >> I'll second the motion.
20:47:54 >> John Dingfelder: I do have a question on my own
20:47:56 motion.
20:47:57 The only thing I wanted to add was, Mary, today, if
20:48:00 they pulled the eves back -- the only reason they got
20:48:04 stuck, they went to the construction service center
20:48:06 and they said the eves are too far out and the air
20:48:08 conditioners are in the wrong place.
20:48:10 If they pulled the eves back and moved the air
20:48:13 conditioning up to the roof or something like that,

20:48:15 they could just build based upon the PD they already
20:48:19 have.
20:48:19 I think this is an opportunity for us to make it a
20:48:22 better PD than this council -- four people -- nobody
20:48:25 remembers which four people, but four people approved
20:48:28 it a year ago.
20:48:30 We have an opportunity to make it better than it is
20:48:31 today which will help the neighborhood in the long
20:48:35 run.
20:48:36 That's why I'm comfortable with it.
20:48:38 Our legal counsel, both of them, are not comfortable
20:48:42 with a denial.
20:48:43 They have property rights with the PD that was granted
20:48:47 a year ago.
20:48:48 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second to continue.
20:48:49 >> I'm sorry.
20:48:51 Just a clarification on the motion as to the date and
20:48:54 time, so it's clear for the record.
20:49:00 June 22nd at 6 p.m.
20:49:04 Mr. Horner, would you reaffirm the fact that you're
20:49:07 requesting this continuance and you voluntarily ascent
20:49:11 to the conditions that are --
20:49:15 >> We agree to the conditions as outlined and will
20:49:20 renotice 30 days prior to the June the 2nd 22nd
20:49:26 date.
20:49:29 >> Gwen Miller: All in favor?
20:49:30 (Motion carried.)
20:49:32 >> Mary Alvarez: I would ask the clerk to supply us
20:49:34 with a transcript of what happened the last time.
20:49:41 I don't even know if I was here or not that night.
20:49:47 >> Second.
20:49:50 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and a second.
20:49:51 All in favor?
20:49:52 (Motion carried.)
20:50:01 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Madam chairman, this confusion
20:50:03 that was expressed by the audience in terms of things
20:50:06 being continued once, continued twice, continued three
20:50:08 times is something that we have heard before.
20:50:11 And I think that when council continues public
20:50:17 hearings, there should be some obligation on behalf of
20:50:19 the petitioner to puts up a new sign on the property
20:50:22 with the current scheduled date of the hearing.
20:50:25 I think it's very confusing to folks.
20:50:28 It's hard to keep track when things get continued and

20:50:32 continued.
20:50:34 I'd like to make a motion to require a petitioner to
20:50:38 put up a new sign when things are rescheduled or
20:50:43 scratch through the date and put up a new date.
20:50:45 >> Council, may I make a suggestion?
20:50:50 Chapter 27 revisions are going to be discussed I
20:50:52 believe this coming week.
20:50:55 And it may be right to raise it at that time.
20:50:59 If you want to do the motion, my suggestion would be
20:51:02 rather than -- it would require a code change --
20:51:07 >> Linda Saul-Sena: My motion would be to include it
20:51:09 in the Chapter 27 motion coming up.
20:51:18 >> John Dingfelder: Why don't you include it in the
20:51:20 discussion we'll have with Kathy about the signs.
20:51:23 >> When are we doing that?
20:51:27
20:51:29 >> Two weeks.
20:51:31 >> Linda Saul-Sena: My motion would be to -- as part
20:51:34 of that discussion, to consider updating the dates of
20:51:37 public hearings when they're continued.
20:51:40 >> Second.
20:51:42 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
20:51:43 (Motion carried.).
20:51:49 >> Gwen Miller: Ms. LAMBOY.
20:51:51 >> The subject property is located at 2810 and 2805
20:52:01 saint Isabelle street.
20:52:02 The existing office building is going to be expanded.
20:52:05 The base of the building currently has parking.
20:52:12 If you look at the picture here, you can see the
20:52:14 parking and there are offices above.
20:52:16 The facility, they would like to -- they would like to
20:52:21 expand.
20:52:21 As a result of the expansion, they also need to --
20:52:25 >> Mary Alvarez: It's not coming through to ours.
20:52:28 Okay.
20:52:29 Now it is.
20:52:29 >> Across the street on this side.
20:52:31 Just to give you an understanding of the context of
20:52:34 the area, this is in proximity to Martin Luther king
20:52:39 boulevard, saint Joe's hospital, and, as you know, I
20:52:43 certainly know from having taken my kids to the urgent
20:52:47 care of MLK, this is riddled with doctors' offices all
20:52:52 through out this neighborhood.
20:52:53 This is the site, currently the site for the current

20:52:56 doctors' office, residential office.
20:52:59 They're requesting a special use for the parking
20:53:01 lot -- I'm sorry -- rezoning for a parking lot on this
20:53:06 particular piece.
20:53:07 The petitioner has worked diligently with land
20:53:10 development specialists to address the tree issues and
20:53:16 has updated his plan to preserve the two trees to the
20:53:22 north to protect the existing 42-inch OAK and 46-inch
20:53:29 camphor tree even though the council has made a move
20:53:35 not having CAMPHor -- they still are protected trees.
20:53:44 The one that's supposed to be removed at the center of
20:53:46 the parking lot is in failing health.
20:53:50 The landscape specialist has no objection to removal
20:53:52 of that particular tree.
20:53:53 The petitioner has added notes to address all the
20:53:57 landscape specialists and the forestry examiners
20:54:05 concerns.
20:54:06 My staff report must be updated to address those
20:54:08 concerns.
20:54:09 Transportation objects to providing a parking lot
20:54:11 across the street from the office from a safety
20:54:14 standpoint.
20:54:15 The petitioner responded by paving a walk to Gomez
20:54:19 avenue and across the street to provide an access with
20:54:22 the transportation division states that a direct safe
20:54:27 pedestrian access must be provided.
20:54:29 It is up to the council whether they feel this would
20:54:31 be a direct safe pedestrian access. That concludes
20:54:36 staff comments.
20:54:38 >> Thank you, planning collision.
20:54:46 >> Tony Garcia, planning commission staff.
20:54:49 I have been sworn in.
20:55:00 Close proximity to St. Joseph's hospital and women's
20:55:04 hospital.
20:55:05 Requesting approval to establish a professional
20:55:07 office, in addition to some additional parking as
20:55:11 Ms. LAMBOY has already articulated to you.
20:55:17 Here is the aerial.
20:55:18 The comp plan does allow the establishment of this
20:55:21 particular area as a low density medical office
20:55:23 district.
20:55:26 With the southern face of Saint Isabelle being the
20:55:29 southern terminance of that allowable office district
20:55:34 going all the way up actually north of MLK all the way

20:55:38 up to Hillsborough avenue.
20:55:44 As far as the compatibility, it is consistent with the
20:55:48 use of low density medical office of the area and does
20:55:51 provide additional service to regional medical
20:55:55 facility which is St. Joseph hospital.
20:55:59 Planning commission staff has no objections to the
20:56:02 proposed request.
20:56:03 >> Thank you.
20:56:04 Petitioner.
20:56:09 >> Steve Michelini, here on behalf of Bill Paz who is
20:56:16 the owner and petitioner for this project.
20:56:19 This is a photograph of the existing medical office
20:56:23 building which was granted a PD several years ago.
20:56:30 The original concept was to infill the lower portion
20:56:34 of the building.
20:56:35 That note allowing them to do that was omitted from
20:56:38 the PD plan.
20:56:39 We are back in front of you asking that hi be allowed
20:56:42 to infill the lower portion -- it's a two-story
20:56:46 building. The bottom portion is open.
20:56:49 Currently they're putting cars in there to park.
20:56:52 Subsequent to that. Subsequent to that the owner
20:57:03 purchased this that would allow an additional 8,000
20:57:08 foot building -- instead of going through the expense
20:57:12 of doing that and disrupting the canopy of trees, the
20:57:18 park like nature of the parking areas, the use of the
20:57:24 turf lock that's already in place and the parking lot
20:57:26 that's already there as an existing use, the option
20:57:31 was to come back to you to request the opportunity --
20:57:35 this is the entry driveway for the parking area across
20:57:39 the street.
20:57:40 The request was to come back to you and request the
20:57:44 parking be allowed to be across the street.
20:57:47 Originally we had proposed a crosswalk that was going
20:57:51 between the buildings.
20:57:52 It's a very low intensively used street.
20:57:56 It has a lot of doctors' offices all around it.
20:58:01 When meeting with the city staff, we designated this
20:58:05 entire area up here as an enhanced landscape area,
20:58:09 removed all the -- there were six parking spaces up
20:58:12 there.
20:58:14 There's an OAK tree, a CAMPHOR tree, and this is
20:58:19 becoming a landscape island which will separate it.
20:58:22 You can see it on this picture a little bit better.

20:58:27 That's the -- the area in here is going to become a
20:58:31 heavy landscaped buffer area.
20:58:34 It does require that because of that that we're asking
20:58:36 for a waiver of those parking spaces that we're
20:58:40 eliminating.
20:58:40 We also committed to putting a landscape buffer along
20:58:47 saint Isabel street.
20:58:48 We've eliminated the hedge along the eastern property
20:58:52 line basically because there's already a hedge and
20:58:54 there's also a line of trees that exist on that side.
20:59:02 If you look up and down the street, there are a few
20:59:07 sidewalks in, and our proposal is to bring the
20:59:10 sidewalk down on the south side of the street and then
20:59:14 pay for -- either pay for or install the landscaping
20:59:17 and the sidewalks on the -- on both sides of the
20:59:22 street.
20:59:24 Basically we're requesting the ability to infill the
20:59:27 bottom portion, to not disturb or come back and spend
20:59:32 a lot of time and money disrupting an area that
20:59:36 already is very nicely landscaped and has some nice
20:59:41 trees in it.
20:59:41 I can answer any questions that you might have.
20:59:44 But I think it's a reasonable and more conservative
20:59:48 approach.
20:59:48 It certainly is a conservation approach that preserves
20:59:52 a lot more green areas and we respectfully request
20:59:56 your approval.
20:59:58 >> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you.
20:59:58 I really like the approach.
21:00:00 My question is, is there lot currently used for
21:00:03 surface parking?
21:00:04 >> A portion of it is.
21:00:05 And a portion of it is not.
21:00:07 The western portion from here over is already parking
21:00:12 that's installed.
21:00:13 But it was part of this development.
21:00:15 It was purchased as part of one -- this portion over
21:00:18 here is not -- it's grass, and then the only portions
21:00:23 that we were planning to pave was the drive aisle
21:00:27 itself and turf block the parking stalls.
21:00:32 >> Linda Saul-Sena: I think it's a really attractive
21:00:35 development.
21:00:35 My only concern is, this land which your client owns
21:00:39 was already used by parking and when you want to use

21:00:42 it for parking, is it going to -- is the creation of
21:00:46 more office space which will create more customers,
21:00:50 patients, will exacerbate the parking problems and
21:00:54 will the parking that you're providing offset the --
21:00:57 >> To our knowledge it's not currently used by anyone
21:01:00 else.
21:01:00 They have parking that is segregated from this.
21:01:03 It starts in the back.
21:01:07 It's segregated, in the back portion of the lot.
21:01:14 Basically we're trying to maintain the same ambience
21:01:19 that's already existing in the area.
21:01:26 >> Rose Ferlita: I think that this is not going to
21:01:27 exacerbate it.
21:01:29 And I think the configuration is fine.
21:01:31 In addition to which, what the developer or the
21:01:33 petitioner is asking versus what he is getting, I
21:01:36 think it's a very considerate type of development
21:01:39 given that he's going to buffer that area right there
21:01:42 where the trees are and stuff.
21:01:44 I'm very comfortable supporting this.
21:01:47 >> John Dingfelder: I would just like the staff to
21:01:50 clarify the note, note number two on the site plan
21:01:53 which I believe was the one you were speaking to,
21:01:59 Mr. Michelini.
21:02:02 Five foot sidewalk on both sides of saint Isabelle.
21:02:05 I wanted to make it clear all the way up to Gomez and
21:02:08 back?
21:02:09 >> That's correct.
21:02:10 It shows a crossover here on the site plan.
21:02:12 There's a little detail that shows the crossover at
21:02:15 Gomez.
21:02:18 >> John Dingfelder: I wanted to make sure, because
21:02:20 compliance with Chapter 22 would only require you to
21:02:23 put the sidewalk in front of your own property.
21:02:26 I want to make sure it's added -- note number two,
21:02:29 that they want to -- they're going to pay for that
21:02:32 sidewalk to go all the way up to Gomez and back.
21:02:35 >> I will clarify that on the note in addition to it
21:02:38 having been reflected graphically.
21:02:41 >> Gwen Miller: Any other question members?
21:02:44 I have a motion and second to close.
21:02:48 (Motion carried.)
21:02:54 >> More particularly described in section one from
21:02:57 zoning district classifications PD medical office to

21:03:00 PD medical office providing for an effective date.
21:03:12 >> Move to reopen.
21:03:13 >> Second.
21:03:16 >> Gwen Miller: Is there anyone in the public who
21:03:17 wishes to speak on this item?
21:03:20 >> John Dingfelder: Move to reclose.
21:03:23 (Motion carried.)
21:03:30 We have some unfinished business.
21:03:33 >> Council, this morning we said the joint meeting
21:03:38 between the council and the streetcar board.
21:03:43 After talking to Mr. Mechanik which is on the
21:03:47 streetcar board, he thought that moving the June 5th
21:03:51 to Monday June 19th at 2:00 would be okay if it's
21:03:56 all right with you.
21:03:58 That's a Monday, June the 19th, Monday, 2 p.m.
21:04:10 That's my motion.
21:04:11 >> Second.
21:04:13 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
21:04:14 Question on the motion?
21:04:15 >> Two p.m.
21:04:22 >> One or two p.m. in the afternoon would be better
21:04:27 for the streetcar board.
21:04:29 >> John Dingfelder: I'm saying one would be better.
21:04:31 You can bump it up with your lunch.
21:04:35 >> They told me 2:00.
21:04:39 >> John Dingfelder: You said one was okay.
21:04:42 >> Mr. Mechanik thought two would be better.
21:04:48 Anyway, that's my motion please.
21:04:55 June 19th at 2 p.m.
21:04:59 >> Gwen Miller: All in favor of the motion say aye.
21:05:03 >> Wait a minute.
21:05:06 The Hartline board room.
21:05:07 >> Move to reopen.
21:05:11 >> Hartline board room, 201 East Kennedy, Suite 900.
21:05:16 >> Move to receive file documents.
21:05:19 >> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
21:05:21 (Motion carried.)
21:05:22 Anything else coming from council?
21:05:25 We stand adjourned.
21:05:28