Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
May 11, 2006, 6:00 p.m. Session

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

17:40:28 >>GWEN MILLER: We got a quorum.
17:40:31 [Sounding gavel]
17:40:34 Tampa City Council is called to order.
17:40:36 It is my pleasure to introduce a fine young lady who
17:40:39 is with the City of Tampa.
17:40:41 She's a legislative aide of Mary Alvarez, and that's
17:40:45 Desiree Valdez.
17:40:47 Would you please stand and remain standing for the
17:40:49 pledge of allegiance?
17:40:51 >>> Thank you,.
17:40:54 Let us pray.
17:40:55 Dear God, thank you for the many blessings you have
17:40:58 bestowed upon us, the power of knowledge to know right
17:41:00 from wrong, the knowledge of courage to take us
17:41:02 through, and make decisions not based on bias but
17:41:07 decisions for the goodness of others from the heart.
17:41:10 Lord, gather here now we ask that you guide this
17:41:14 council through this evening's proceedings with the
17:41:16 strength and conviction of understanding and reason,
17:41:19 all encompassed in the duties we have elected them.

17:41:23 May everyone who enters this chamber be blessed with
17:41:25 integrity, honesty, and patience, and for those near
17:41:30 and far, standing true for our freedom, may God be
17:41:33 with them always.
17:41:34 For this we pray.
17:41:36 Amen.
17:41:40 (Pledge of Allegiance)
17:41:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
17:41:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
17:41:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:41:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
17:42:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:42:02 Item number 1 is a conned public hearing.
17:42:19 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:42:20 I understand that there was some discussion about
17:42:22 continuing this item.
17:42:24 And I think at this time we just need a motion to
17:42:27 continue.
17:42:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There have been discussions from
17:42:33 people who are interested in this about the specific
17:42:35 light fixture that would be part of our design
17:42:38 standards.

17:42:38 And I would like to move to continue this until June
17:42:43 8th so that we'll have an opportunity to light the
17:42:48 newly greed upon light standard in the ordinance.
17:42:51 We should see if there's anyone in the audience here.
17:42:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone here to speak on item
17:42:55 number 1?
17:42:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you trying to decorate by
17:42:59 committee?
17:43:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is this in regard to the continuance?
17:43:05 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 South Sherill.
17:43:09 I have no concerns about continuing it.
17:43:11 I only wanted to know if that is definitely going to
17:43:13 be the only change.
17:43:14 Because if not, we surely might find out and get a new
17:43:21 copy of the ordinance and review it if there are other
17:43:23 changes being proposed.
17:43:24 Are they going to be at the meeting to talk about it?
17:43:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman?
17:43:34 You know, we had meetings in the past.
17:43:38 Ms. Vizzi, you have been so energetically involved in
17:43:43 this.
17:43:43 If you think it would be productive to have another

17:43:45 meeting prior to the June 8th meeting -- there are
17:43:48 no other changes?
17:43:52 >>> That's the only change.
17:43:54 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Based on the review with Gloria, the
17:43:58 umbrella of the Westshore area neighborhood.
17:44:00 So I'm very aware.
17:44:03 I just want to be sure there are no other changes.
17:44:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's the only change.
17:44:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else wish to speak?
17:44:11 We have a motion and second to continue item number 1.
17:44:13 (Motion carried).
17:44:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarifying the record that would be
17:44:18 to June 8th at 5:30 p.m.?
17:44:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we say 6:00?
17:44:27 Before the land rezoning discussion.
17:44:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I ask with regard to item
17:44:32 65, which was linked, that was set for public hearing.
17:44:40 I believe it would be appropriate for council to move
17:44:41 to continue that to June 22nd for a second reading
17:44:44 at 9:30 in the morning.
17:44:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
17:44:48 >> Second.

17:44:48 (Motion carried).
17:44:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone in the public going to speak
17:45:01 on item 2 and 3?
17:45:02 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
17:45:07 >> Just 2.
17:45:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Just 2?
17:45:09 Okay, I'm sorry.
17:45:13 (Oath administered by Clerk).
17:45:21 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager here
17:45:25 on item number 2, which is the first reading for the
17:45:28 adoption of the local landmark being proposed to you,
17:45:32 the Petero knight college, Tampa historical society
17:45:37 building.
17:45:38 We do have a short PowerPoint for you.
17:45:40 On your monitors the you see the structure that we are
17:45:46 reviewing tonight, referred to as the Peter O. knight
17:45:50 college, occupied by the Tampa historical building
17:45:55 being brought forward as a local landmark at the
17:45:58 request of the owners.
17:46:00 The structure is located at 245 south Hyde Park
17:46:03 Avenue.
17:46:03 You see that located on the proximity map.

17:46:07 That would be just to the south of the Crosstown
17:46:10 Expressway and north Platt street.
17:46:14 The building was constructed in 1889 as the honeymoon
17:46:18 cottage for Peter O. Knight and his bride lily.
17:46:23 They lived here for a short time, constructed a house
17:46:25 just to the south of this, also on Hyde Park Avenue.
17:46:29 Unfortunately, that structure was demolished in and a
17:46:32 condominium was placed on that site.
17:46:34 The retaining wall still remains on that site.
17:46:39 The Sanborn maps showing essentially the evolution of
17:46:42 this building from 1889 up to 1931.
17:46:45 The footprint of the building has remained virtually
17:46:48 the same with the exception of some minor addition for
17:46:52 bathrooms, and a small kitchen.
17:46:55 Petitioner O knight came to Tampa after getting his
17:46:59 law degree, partnered with a judge known as Joseph
17:47:04 wall.
17:47:05 He served as a state attorney, and the president of
17:47:08 TECO.
17:47:09 He was also instrumental in obtaining the funds to
17:47:12 finish the Davis Island project.
17:47:15 After that project began to falter.

17:47:18 The Davis Islands airport is actually named after him.
17:47:25 The building is one of the few remaining buildings
17:47:27 from the 19th century, a series of additions, as I
17:47:30 told you, but they do not assess the overall massing
17:47:33 and historic character of the structure.
17:47:36 It is a structure that's done in the Victorian style,
17:47:40 which was popular at that period between the 1870s
17:47:42 and 1910.
17:47:43 The styles, the application Victorian, or nature
17:47:49 detailing, applied simple, modest structures such.
17:47:57 Scroll work, detailing were available in standard
17:48:00 length at this time, which was brought to the area on
17:48:05 H. B. plant's railroad system.
17:48:07 Completed structure does have a historical marker
17:48:09 there in the lower right.
17:48:10 There's a record of the Tampa historical society.
17:48:14 The building does meet the criteria for designation
17:48:18 under B, relationship to Peter O. knight and under C,
17:48:26 and the Historic Preservation Commission is
17:48:27 recommending landmark designation of this structure.
17:48:30 Thank you.
17:48:31 That completes my presentation.

17:48:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
17:48:34 wants to speak on item number 2?
17:48:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
17:48:42 >>GWEN MILLER: She wants to talk.
17:48:44 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The Planning Commission reviewed the
17:48:47 proposed historic landmark designation for the Peter
17:48:49 O. Knight cottage at its regular meeting on March
17:48:54 13th and found the proposed December ig ig nation
17:48:58 consistent with the goals and objectives of the Tampa
17:49:00 comprehensive plan, specifically the future land use
17:49:02 element and historic resources element.
17:49:04 Thank you.
17:49:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Now does anyone in the public want to
17:49:07 speak on item 2?
17:49:08 >> Move to close.
17:49:09 >> Second.
17:49:10 (Motion carried).
17:49:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance of the City of
17:49:17 Tampa, Florida, designating the property known as the
17:49:22 Peter O. Knight cottage, Tampa historical society
17:49:26 building located at 245 south Hyde Park Avenue, Tampa,
17:49:29 Florida, as more particularly described in section 3

17:49:32 hereof, as a local landmark, providing for repeal of
17:49:35 all ordinances in conflict, providing for
17:49:37 severability, providing an effective date.
17:49:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
17:49:41 (Motion carried).
17:49:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 58 which was the continued
17:49:52 second public hearing on this item was continued to
17:49:55 tonight and it would be appropriate at this time to
17:49:57 continue -- number 58 to May 25th, 9:30 a.m. for
17:50:04 second reading.
17:50:05 >> Is that a motion?
17:50:06 >> Second.
17:50:07 (Motion carried)
17:50:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you recess, there's one item I
17:50:13 would like to ask council to consider.
17:50:15 This morning on item 9, council had requested that the
17:50:19 opportunity be given to people who are considering to
17:50:22 be members of the enterprise zoning development agency
17:50:24 board to be able to make a presentation.
17:50:26 It's been brought to my attention that these
17:50:29 individuals are volunteers.
17:50:31 And it would be perhaps, if they wish to do it,

17:50:37 perhaps at a time certain after the approval of the
17:50:40 agenda, maybe the first item under unfinished business
17:50:44 at a time certain, close as 9:00 to make their
17:50:48 presentations and get on with their business, whatever
17:50:53 it takes for them to get in here.
17:50:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I suggest we schedule for 9:15 and
17:50:58 we limit to the one minute per person.
17:51:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
17:51:02 >>GWEN MILLER: motion and second.
17:51:04 (Motion carried).
17:51:08 >>CHAIRMAN: We will be in recess until 6:00.
18:12:31 [Sounding gavel]
18:12:31 8 Tampa City Council is called back to order.
18:12:34 Roll call.
18:12:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
18:12:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
18:12:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
18:12:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
18:12:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
18:12:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
18:12:45 >>> I would like to go over the agenda that I e-mailed
18:12:47 to you with continuance request.

18:12:50 First item, item number 3, EZ 84-138.
18:12:54 Mr. Mechanik has requested a continuance to September
18:12:57 14.
18:13:03 >> That was item 4?
18:13:06 >> Item number 3 and number 4.
18:13:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
18:13:13 to speak on item number 3?
18:13:15 >> Or 4.
18:13:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Or 4.
18:13:17 Anyone here to speak on 3 or 4?
18:13:20 Okay.
18:13:20 Now you can move it.
18:13:21 >> Move the continuance.
18:13:23 >> Move to September 14th at 6 p.m.
18:13:26 >> Second.
18:13:26 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
18:13:28 (Motion carried).
18:13:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I have a concern that we are in the
18:13:34 month of May.
18:13:35 September 14th is quite a long distance away.
18:13:38 I want to bring it to council's attention.
18:13:42 It is substantially long for a continuance.

18:13:45 And just so council is aware.
18:13:48 There's nothing in the code that requires renotice or
18:13:50 anything.
18:13:51 But I want council to be aware of the situation.
18:13:57 >> Mr. Mechanik, would you replace the sign
18:13:59 voluntarily?
18:14:00 >>GWEN MILLER: He knows what to do.
18:14:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, thank you.
18:14:10 Mrs. Lamboy.
18:14:12 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Number 10 cannot be heard because
18:14:14 there was a misnotice.
18:14:16 Petitioner has requested to amend the application and
18:14:19 reschedule the public hearing to June 22nd.
18:14:23 June 22nd was originally scheduled for plan
18:14:25 amendments only.
18:14:26 Many of those plan amendments were misnoticed.
18:14:28 So we have several open slots available for June
18:14:34 22nd.
18:14:35 That's the reason it's become available.
18:14:36 >> So moved.
18:14:39 >> Second.
18:14:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

18:14:41 (Motion carried).
18:14:44 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Item number 12.
18:14:48 V-06-48, the site does not meet the minimum lot size
18:14:52 requirements for commercial intensive district.
18:14:57 The petitioner wishes to amend to a commercial
18:14:59 district.
18:15:00 Staff would like to request that the council waive the
18:15:03 amount of fees use due to staff error in accepting
18:15:06 this application for rezoning.
18:15:10 And request the matter be rescheduled to June 5th.
18:15:15 >>CHAIRMAN: Need to open the public hearing first?
18:15:18 >> A new case.
18:15:19 >> Okay.
18:15:20 We have a motion and second.
18:15:21 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:15:24 >> Just so it's clear the motion is to waive the
18:15:26 amendment fee and.
18:15:31 >> 6 p.m.
18:15:31 >> And the last item 14, Z 06-72, 605 and 610 east
18:15:37 north street.
18:15:38 A representative from petitioner requested a
18:15:40 continuance to June 8th in an effort to work with

18:15:43 the neighborhood and staff and traffic site plan
18:15:45 concerns.
18:15:45 Randy barren has state add preference for the case to
18:15:49 be heard as soon as possible.
18:15:51 Continue to June 8 would require the City Council
18:15:54 waive its rules regarding the number of cases to be
18:15:57 scheduled in an evening meeting.
18:15:59 Currently there are two land rezoning cases, two
18:16:02 continued cases for a total of 13 cases.
18:16:08 >> Council, what's the pleasure?
18:16:11 >> A total of 13?
18:16:15 >>> Because we would be doing this to accommodate the
18:16:17 neighborhood, and because usually as some move out
18:16:24 would move to continue this.
18:16:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open.
18:16:30 We need to open it first.
18:16:32 >> So moved.
18:16:33 >> Second.
18:16:33 (Motion carried).
18:16:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Did anyone in the public come to speak
18:16:38 on item 14?
18:16:39 You may come and speak on the continuance.

18:16:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And whether you oppose or support a
18:16:44 continuance.
18:16:44 Just on the continuance issue.
18:16:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.
18:16:54 >>> RODY mayo and I'm opposing the continuance based
18:16:58 upon the fact that I'm within 250 feet of the church,
18:17:01 and was not notified.
18:17:09 >> Does anyone else want to speak on 14?
18:17:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If it turns out it was not properly
18:17:22 noticed, then rather than to continue --
18:17:29 >>> I think that's exactly the case.
18:17:30 I represent the petitioner in this particular case,
18:17:33 Robert Williams with Fowler White.
18:17:37 When I attempted to work with the neighborhood we did
18:17:40 notify as many folks as possible that we were going to
18:17:42 continue this through the Old Seminole Heights
18:17:44 neighborhood association.
18:17:46 But as to the notice, we will sort that out, if
18:17:49 there's an additional problem, we will make that
18:17:51 right.
18:17:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
18:17:57 I would like to request that the petitioner repost the

18:18:01 property with a new date.
18:18:04 >> With a sign.
18:18:05 Certainly.
18:18:06 No problem.
18:18:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a motion?
18:18:09 >> So moved.
18:18:10 >> Second.
18:18:10 (Motion carried).
18:18:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To June 8th at 6 p.m.?
18:18:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Right.
18:18:18 We go back to number 5.
18:18:20 We need to open.
18:18:22 >> So moved.
18:18:22 >> Second.
18:18:22 (Motion carried)
18:18:25 6 motion and second.
18:18:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair.
18:18:30 Mr. Shelby.
18:18:45 Mr. Shelby, we talked about this before.
18:18:47 I'm a member of St. James united Methodist church so I
18:18:52 want to get an opinion about having a conflict of
18:18:54 interest for tonight.

18:18:56 >> Do you have any fiduciary duty to the church?
18:18:58 Are you a member of aboard?
18:19:00 Or an officer of the church?
18:19:02 >>> No.
18:19:03 >> Is your role personal?
18:19:07 >>> I'm occasionally a greeter but I have fallen down
18:19:09 in my duties.
18:19:10 (Laughter).
18:19:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And, sir, have you done any work for
18:19:14 the church for which you have been compensated or are
18:19:17 being compensated?
18:19:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
18:19:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In any my opinion I do not perceive
18:19:23 any conflict in this matter.
18:19:27 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
18:19:30 I have nothing to say.
18:19:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's let everybody leave.
18:19:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ski that all written communications
18:19:40 relative to tonight's hearings that have been
18:19:42 available to the public at council's offices be
18:19:44 received and filed into the record at this time.
18:19:47 Madam clerk, do we have items to receive and file?

18:19:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anybody have anything to receive
18:19:52 and file?
18:19:52 No.
18:19:57 >> So moved.
18:19:58 >> Second.
18:19:58 (Motion carried).
18:19:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again, please, council a reminder if
18:20:02 any member of the City Council had any verbal
18:20:04 communication was any petitioner, his or her
18:20:06 representative or anyone from the public in connection
18:20:08 with any of the hearings tonight, please disclose the
18:20:13 identity of the person group or entity with whom the
18:20:15 verbal communication occurred and the substance of
18:20:17 that verbal communication.
18:20:18 Thank you.
18:20:18 I believe the witnesses will need to be sworn.
18:20:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay
18:20:35 If anyone in the public is going to speak on 5, 6, 8,
18:20:38 9, 13 and 15, would you please stand and raise your
18:20:42 right right hand?
18:20:43 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:20:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ladies and gentlemen, as people are

18:20:55 leaving, just a reminder if you are going to be
18:20:57 speaking tonight, when you state your name, please
18:21:00 reaffirm for the record that you have been sworn in.
18:21:03 That will move things along swiftly and I won't have
18:21:06 to interrupt.
18:21:07 I put a Tsunami up to remind you.
18:21:09 Please when you state your name, also state that you
18:21:12 have been sworn.
18:21:12 Thank you.
18:21:16 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
18:21:17 I have been sworn.
18:21:19 The subject property is located at the corner of Bruce
18:21:22 B. Downs Boulevard and cypress drive.
18:21:25 If you look on the Elmo this is the zoning map.
18:21:27 This is part of a PDA that was previously approved.
18:21:30 And the petitioner is assessing this section of
18:21:36 property, that if you look at the aerial, you will see
18:21:39 that the particular piece that we are talking about is
18:21:42 actually smaller due to a large amount of wetlands in
18:21:45 the area.
18:21:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You're discussing item 5, is that
18:21:50 correct, Mrs. Lamboy?

18:21:53 >>> Yes.
18:21:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask council because it is
18:21:56 related to number 6, a DRI, I would ask that that also
18:21:59 be opened.
18:22:02 >> So moved.
18:22:02 >> Second.
18:22:03 (Motion carried)
18:22:05 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: thank you.
18:22:07 Appellater is requesting to rezone the property, in
18:22:09 order to accomplish the following: One, to request a
18:22:12 waiver for tree removal, and, two, to allow the
18:22:16 wetlands, 15% for road and other infrastructure
18:22:23 construction for the proposed 4.0-acre public facility
18:22:29 site from St. James united Methodist church to the
18:22:32 neighborhood parcel.
18:22:33 The continuation of the cypress preserve road will be
18:22:35 constructed and then dedicated to the City of Tampa.
18:22:39 The petitioner to place a note on the site plan that
18:22:42 all new development will comply with the overlay
18:22:45 standards, the proposed development will still be
18:22:46 subject to the requirements of the 9th development
18:22:49 order as amended.

18:22:57 Previously, parks and recreation had some objections
18:22:59 to the plan, all objections have been removed.
18:23:02 However, with reference to the 90% tree removal, there
18:23:06 were objections raised by Mary Daniel Bryson, and
18:23:13 David Riley had no objections to the 9% tree removal
18:23:17 because that is the standard but did note that there
18:23:21 are certain protected ones in the area and wanted to
18:23:29 remove them.
18:23:31 Melanie Calloway has no objection it is from
18:23:34 transportation.
18:23:34 So the only objections that remain are specifically
18:23:37 with reference to the increase of tree removal from
18:23:41 75% to 90%.
18:23:44 That concludes staff comments.
18:23:53 >> Since this is for a place of worship that will
18:23:57 receive less traffic than a shopping center or
18:24:00 something, does petitioner consider impervious
18:24:02 material, or minimum paving as opposed to complete
18:24:08 paving?
18:24:15 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. This is
18:24:17 owned by the St. James United Methodist Church.
18:24:20 However, the church itself has already been built.

18:24:22 >> Oh, it's not additional parking for the church?
18:24:25 >> No, it's not.
18:24:32 >>> Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
18:24:36 >> Can you speak to your objections?
18:24:40 >>> The City of Tampa code requires -- Mary Daniels
18:24:44 and I have been sworn, Land Development Coordination.
18:24:46 City of Tampa code requires that the parcel over an
18:24:51 acre is 50% of all the trees need to be saved for
18:24:56 residential uses, multifamily uses, 40%, and for
18:25:00 commercial, 25%.
18:25:03 And I placed a technical objection to that requirement
18:25:07 of the code.
18:25:08 >> So by code they are allowed to remove 75%?
18:25:11 >>> Only for commercial.
18:25:12 >>: But is this commercial?
18:25:14 >> It's a mixture of multifamily, and residential.
18:25:18 >> How do you or -- the code deal with that, it's just
18:25:24 a mixture?
18:25:25 >> Well, the portion of that is single-family
18:25:28 residential, will require 50% of the treescape in that
18:25:32 area.
18:25:32 The portion that is multifamily, 40% of the trees need

18:25:36 to be saved in that aggregate area.
18:25:38 And the portion that is commercial, 25% of the trees
18:25:40 will need to be saved in that aggregate area.
18:25:43 >> So it's definable that way?
18:25:46 >>> Yes.
18:25:47 Ting.
18:25:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:25:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:25:53 I have been sworn in.
18:25:59 Future land use map for your information.
18:26:02 As you can see the future land use categories in this
18:26:04 area of New Tampa.
18:26:07 The environmentally sensitive area which is not
18:26:10 developable and of course you have the category which
18:26:13 is the flesh colored which is the predominant land use
18:26:16 category in the New Tampa area.
18:26:18 The site is located right adjacent to Bruce B. Downs
18:26:24 Boulevard, and basically with the development of road
18:26:26 B here, will basically connect, this project will
18:26:30 connect Tampa Palms Boulevard with Bruce B. Downs
18:26:33 Boulevard.
18:26:33 As Ms. Lamboy had shown you previously this particular

18:26:37 part of the original 22.1-acre site is a 12-point a
18:26:41 5th acre site coming in for the proposed request
18:26:43 for commercial uses.
18:26:47 The proposed request will provide processes from road
18:26:50 B to sy the commercial development in proximity to one
18:26:54 of the main thoroughfares that serve the area.
18:26:57 It also mitigates any potential impacts of commercial
18:27:00 development to the surrounding residential
18:27:01 developments in the area while providing additional
18:27:04 services and shorten vehicular trips due to the
18:27:06 location of the commercial use situated among other
18:27:09 adjacent residential uses.
18:27:11 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the
18:27:12 proposed request.
18:27:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:27:14 >>REBECCA KERT: I'm here to speak on the next item,
18:27:22 the 24th amendment GB Tampa Palms DRI.
18:27:26 And this request from under the DRI primarily effects
18:27:30 the 12.5-acre parcel which, and then the other is the
18:27:34 city's four acre unconstructed public facilities site.
18:27:37 The first thing the amendment proposes to do is fix a
18:27:40 buildout date from December 31st, 2006, to

18:27:43 December 31st, 2009.
18:27:45 And that would allow for construction of the 12.9-acre
18:27:49 parcel as well as the public utilities site.
18:27:52 The next amendment is, there's no square footage
18:27:58 increase to the amendment of the DRI.
18:27:59 It's merely consolidation of previously approved
18:28:02 entitlement to the 12.5-acre.
18:28:05 Currently the 12.5 acres has entitlement for
18:28:09 multifamily and single-family residential as well as
18:28:12 neighborhood commercial.
18:28:14 What this will do is allow to trade off for
18:28:18 residential to the commercial as well as allowing
18:28:21 15,000 square feet of commercial entitlement which was
18:28:24 previously entitled in an area under the DRI but was
18:28:27 displaced by the right-of-way and allow on the 12.5
18:28:31 acres.
18:28:32 The third amendment would be provisions regarding the
18:28:35 east-west road, an update to the map indicating that
18:28:37 the right-of-way for the east-west road has been
18:28:40 dedicated to the City of Tampa, and requiring that the
18:28:42 city complete a PDE study and fulfill any requirements
18:28:49 by agencies.

18:28:50 There will be -- the four acres will remain a public
18:28:53 facility site unless a church use is approved in the
18:28:56 future through the rezoning process.
18:28:57 And the 12.5 acres will also be allowed to be used as
18:29:01 a church or a public facility if allowed for rezoning.
18:29:06 There will be one further amendment which will be
18:29:09 elimination of a connection from a driveway next to
18:29:11 the fire station site to the neighboring subdivision.
18:29:15 The subdivision had objected previously to traffic
18:29:18 going through the neighborhood, and asked for that
18:29:21 removal, and transportation staff had no objection.
18:29:23 All future development will be subject to impact fee
18:29:27 ordinance.
18:29:27 And I'm available if there are any questions.
18:29:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is going to be pretty
18:29:39 complicated and I think it might be more cohesive if
18:29:42 we deal with the Verizon thing and then get back to
18:29:45 this.
18:29:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if there's anybody in
18:29:48 opposition to this.
18:29:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a lot of questions.
18:29:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We can get through it.

18:30:02 >>> William SHAPINO.
18:30:06 I think I have a lot of explaining to do to go
18:30:08 through, what we are doing and what we are proposing
18:30:10 very clear.
18:30:11 First, I have the minister Brian James with me this
18:30:14 evening, as well as the project engineer, also the
18:30:18 chairman of the building committee.
18:30:20 And if those with the church would raise their hands,
18:30:24 I would appreciate it.
18:30:25 Thank you.
18:30:25 By the way, I'm the only one that intends to speak
18:30:28 this evening unless there's any questions.
18:30:29 But first of all, there's a lot of things going on
18:30:34 here.
18:30:35 But in the end, I think you will find that it's a
18:30:37 pretty simple, straightforward request.
18:30:39 And I'll make it clear what we intend to do.
18:30:41 But for the past eight months, in order to develop and
18:30:44 utilize this property, which is different acreage but
18:30:48 the bottom line 8 acres of developable land.
18:30:56 The eight acres is surrounded by wetlands and we are
18:30:59 going to have to connect the church property to this

18:31:02 property through wetlands, but that's how we are going
18:31:05 to get to the access to this property.
18:31:08 We have been processing two changes over the last
18:31:11 eight months.
18:31:12 And that is the change to the DRI, the current DRI.
18:31:17 We are the last -- this parcel is the last developable
18:31:21 parcel in the area.
18:31:22 So in order to develop this property as the church
18:31:25 intends to, we have to do a number of clean-up issues
18:31:29 under the DRI.
18:31:30 And frankly, it may sound confusing but in the end the
18:31:34 primary issue we need to do is extend the buildout
18:31:37 date.
18:31:37 And in doing so, by the way, you also have a public
18:31:40 facility site that's remaining where it is.
18:31:42 That helps put the buildout date for that public
18:31:45 facility site, which is staying where it is rate now.
18:31:49 So there are a lot of changes within the DRI.
18:31:51 But essentially what we were looking to do was extend
18:31:54 the buildout date so we can develop the property,
18:31:57 develop what we are proposing to do and for the public
18:32:01 facility site as well for the city.

18:32:03 Within that, yes, there were certain assignments of
18:32:08 rights, development rights.
18:32:09 We are the successor.
18:32:11 We bought it from Lennar homes.
18:32:14 We are not adding any development.
18:32:15 But there were 62 units that have not been built.
18:32:18 We had to change the conversion matrix to allow the 62
18:32:21 to be converted to commercial.
18:32:23 And I'll explain that in a minute, what we are
18:32:25 proposing to do.
18:32:26 So the DRI sounds complex, but I think in the end it's
18:32:30 there just to basically support the extension of the
18:32:32 buildout date.
18:32:33 But also we actually cleaned up some things for the
18:32:35 city.
18:32:36 When we went in and changed it, when you mentioned
18:32:38 east-west roadway, that was really city issue.
18:32:42 So the city made some changes for the east-west
18:32:44 roadway.
18:32:45 Again, the PDA, were part of the whole area for PDA.
18:32:51 The simple rezoning.
18:32:53 We had to amend the whole PDA.

18:32:55 We sent out 500 notices, because we had to change
18:32:59 notice for the whole DRI area for it.
18:33:03 Sent out over 500 notices for that.
18:33:05 Over 500 notices for the zoning.
18:33:07 But it all comes to because we are the last piece in
18:33:11 two very complex zonings in DRI.
18:33:16 But again let me come back to St. James plan.
18:33:19 First of all there is no available land out in Tampa
18:33:21 Palms some relocate.
18:33:24 It's too expensive.
18:33:25 But St. James is looking for its future, to expand, to
18:33:28 supply, to provide services to the growing community
18:33:31 out there, not just Tampa Palms, but New Tampa.
18:33:34 And this property basically came available, and they
18:33:38 felt that in order to accomplish their future plans,
18:33:41 which right now, they are basically -- I'm not saying
18:33:46 land banking it.
18:33:48 They do need an immediate need for parking to
18:33:51 service -- to provide parking for their sanctuary and
18:33:57 for services.
18:33:58 Long-term, they are still working on the overall plans
18:34:02 for the church.

18:34:03 So when you ask, what are we doing with it short term,
18:34:06 right now really looking for parking and recreational
18:34:09 facilities.
18:34:10 So one of the reasons we had to go through the PDA
18:34:13 change is we do not have specific site plans -- we are
18:34:16 not asking for specifics.
18:34:20 On what we are actually doing on the property.
18:34:23 We'll have flexibility to go with the site development
18:34:25 process later.
18:34:28 As I said, the current plans are basically for parking
18:34:34 and recreational facilities to support the facility.
18:34:38 This is where the commercial comes in to play.
18:34:43 In order to develop this property, it is just south of
18:34:47 road B.
18:34:48 Road B has been on the network of Tampa Palms since
18:34:53 its inception.
18:34:54 It's a major road that comes in off of Bruce B. Downs
18:34:59 Boulevard just to the north of our property, to the
18:35:02 south of the existing apartment complex, south of the
18:35:06 elementary school, and to a loop road on the other
18:35:10 side.
18:35:12 Basically, the city staff, correctly so in protecting

18:35:15 the city, says whoever develops the acres of upland
18:35:20 has to build it so wave to build from Bruce B. Downs
18:35:23 all the way back that road in order to use one foot,
18:35:27 square foot of that 8 acres of property.
18:35:31 >> When do you build the road?
18:35:33 >> We are going to have to build it before there's
18:35:37 provisions in it.
18:35:38 It's not only the zoning but in the DRI that has to be
18:35:40 built, I think before CO's are issued.
18:35:43 Yes, before CO's are issued
18:35:53 The staff -- the plans are in the review process.
18:36:02 So what's going to happen on this property?
18:36:05 In order to afford and pay millions of dollars to pave
18:36:09 roadway B, the church with the approval is going to
18:36:12 sell three acres of the eight uplands to a commercial
18:36:16 developer.
18:36:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In readding the staff reports, the
18:36:22 two sticking points in my mind are the 90% removal of
18:36:26 the uplands, and the third graph down, a lot of
18:36:32 wetlands setback issues which our staff doesn't feel
18:36:36 like have been square footed properly in terms of --
18:36:42 >>> Well, I'll jump -- I have to explain what we are

18:36:46 doing, then I'll answer your question, or I'll present
18:36:49 why we would ask for that change.
18:36:51 And it relates to the commercial.
18:36:53 It all relates.
18:36:57 The three acres, in order to build the road that your
18:37:01 staff is requiring to us build, correctly so, if we
18:37:04 don't build it, you'll be building it.
18:37:06 We prefer basically just to step off of Bruce B. Downs
18:37:12 but that's not going to happen.
18:37:13 In order to build the millions of dollars of roadway B
18:37:18 we are going to sell to a commercial developer, to
18:37:23 provide for it in the zoning.
18:37:27 Now let me address the tree issue.
18:37:29 The primary goal of the church is to have the ability
18:37:33 to expand, and to service the great numbers of people
18:37:37 that need church services, Methodist or otherwise, in
18:37:43 Tampa Palms, and we all know, Tampa Palms has been
18:37:46 very successful, New Tampa has been very successful
18:37:51 and basically if residential development of that strip
18:37:53 that services religious, commercial or otherwise.
18:37:56 So the primary goal of all this is to be able to
18:37:59 provide areas to expand.

18:38:01 If we sell the three acres to the commercial
18:38:04 developer, given the commercial nature of the
18:38:06 property, and have to save 75% of trees -- there are
18:38:15 no grand trees but it is a wooded lot.
18:38:17 When we sell the three acres to provide the millions
18:38:19 of dollars for roadway B, running the math, which is
18:38:23 easy for me, but if we sell three acres, the
18:38:27 commercial developer would have to utilize the three
18:38:29 acres.
18:38:30 There will be very few trees left.
18:38:32 If we are then on our five acres that's left have to
18:38:36 take care of the 75%, we'll lose two full acres.
18:38:41 That will only leave us three acres.
18:38:43 So all this effort that we have gone through, and
18:38:46 effort doesn't mean that you got something, but all
18:38:48 the effort, all the costs, constructing roadway B,
18:38:54 selling the property, in the end we'll end up with
18:38:58 three acres, which we short-term need for parking and
18:39:03 recreation which requires area frontage.
18:39:07 So there is a, frankly, balance between the trees,
18:39:12 which are important, but the ability for the sanctuary
18:39:17 and so forth in the community.

18:39:19 I would point out -- and Heather -- the aerial that
18:39:24 you saw, this is what is in the zoning package that
18:39:27 shows a large area.
18:39:29 I do want to point out -- and this is the PDA zoning,
18:39:32 the actual area is much smaller.
18:39:34 There's a couple things, I think, from a visual
18:39:37 standpoint, with the trees that will be interesting.
18:39:42 Bruce B. Downs now, north of the church, it's
18:39:45 almost -- it's very beautiful, actually.
18:39:51 Roadway B will certainly cut into that hedge row.
18:39:56 But given the forest, the wetlands around it, by
18:40:02 developing the eight acres, it won't impact from a
18:40:07 visual standpoint Bruce B. Downs.
18:40:10 All those trees are basically wetland trees.
18:40:12 I think they are Cypress, though I am not sure.
18:40:16 Even with that removal up to 90% it's not like we are
18:40:20 trading another immediate area.
18:40:22 It's basically surrounded by forest and wetlands.
18:40:26 So when you look at the pod that's developed here, you
18:40:33 will notice it's not that dissimilar when it will be
18:40:36 done to the elementary school here, the church site
18:40:39 here, the apartment complex here.

18:40:41 It will be very consistent with Tampa Palms but with
18:40:46 development of these final few acres will still be a
18:40:48 large number of trees retained primarily because they
18:40:51 are wetlands in this whole area.
18:40:52 And it won't ruin that nice row of trees.
18:40:56 I say ruin it but roadway B will have to come in.
18:41:00 But it will certainly impact the development of that
18:41:02 eight acres, and the number of trees there, but it
18:41:04 will still be within the context of a much larger
18:41:07 forested wetlands area. Let me address the 15% issue.
18:41:14 The original PDA that we are amending had a provision.
18:41:18 And let me make it clear.
18:41:21 And Heather, I think, misspoke a little bit.
18:41:25 We are not asking for an amendment to go and impact a
18:41:29 wetlands.
18:41:29 We are asking for 15% to impact the setback area.
18:41:34 In other words, we are asking for something.
18:41:36 But the 30-foot setback we want it to be able to go
18:41:40 and have 15% of that if necessary for fill,
18:41:44 structures, and things like that.
18:41:46 Not going into the wetlands.
18:41:48 We would have to follow the wetland requirements just

18:41:50 like everyone else.
18:41:51 But we would ask that the PDA, which now allows for
18:41:56 that 15%, there is a cap, and basically that 15% has
18:42:01 been utilized.
18:42:02 So we are really asking for that same 15% that area 4
18:42:06 has before us to be able to utilize the setback area
18:42:10 that we are asking that that same 15% that we can
18:42:13 utilize that to maximize the use of the property.
18:42:19 And I've said a lot but I want to make sure when it's
18:42:23 done, what we are talking about, what's going to be
18:42:25 there, the zoning would allow multiple uses, still
18:42:30 along single-family, multifamily, but what's going to
18:42:33 be intended would be a neighborhood commercial
18:42:39 development.
18:42:40 The rest five acres, a church-related facilities that
18:42:45 would support the church.
18:42:47 If there's any questions I would be happy to answer.
18:42:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Want to repeat all of that again?
18:42:53 (Laughter).
18:42:54 You can take abreast.
18:42:55 >>> I was trying to be quick.
18:42:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The truth of the matter is, this

18:42:59 could be attractive and pleasant, or this could be a
18:43:02 disaster depending on the quality of the design.
18:43:05 There are sensitive designs, and there's cookie cutter
18:43:09 designs.
18:43:09 And I know you are capable of sensitive designs.
18:43:14 What I need to hear is some kind of commitment that
18:43:20 it's being sensitively done and there needs to be some
18:43:23 kind of oversite particularly did W the commercial
18:43:26 development which is the latest level that it be done
18:43:30 carefully.
18:43:34 >>> Want top make that commitment, on behalf of the
18:43:37 church?
18:43:38 >>> 122 Sligh Avenue.
18:43:42 I'm not sure what I am committing to and we will be
18:43:44 sensitive to design.
18:43:45 You asked earlier about impervious designing.
18:43:48 We will probably look at impervious parking, paved
18:43:50 aisles, and perhaps parking spaces.
18:43:52 The truth of the matter is, conditions are going to
18:43:55 pre-clawed saving trees in the parking lot because we
18:43:58 are going two or three feet which is what happened
18:44:01 throughout Tampa Palms.

18:44:03 But we probably would look seriously at not paving the
18:44:07 parking spaces, just paving the drive aisle.
18:44:09 We can do that for the parking that is beyond city
18:44:13 code.
18:44:15 As far as commercial goes, we don't control it.
18:44:18 I can't tell you what's going to happen.
18:44:20 That's part of the condition of sale was that Hite
18:44:25 associates, because we represent the church, would not
18:44:27 do the design on the commercial parcel.
18:44:30 So I can't make that commitment on behalf of the
18:44:32 commercial parcels.
18:44:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As I look at the aerial that was
18:44:42 provided to us, and maybe you want to put it up.
18:44:47 It looks like -- it appears to the view north, is that
18:44:51 an apartment complex?
18:44:52 >>> Yes.
18:44:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then to the northwest, what is that
18:44:57 facility?
18:45:08 >>> Well, this is the exhibiting church site right
18:45:10 here.
18:45:11 This would be the may fair subdivision.
18:45:13 This is a school, elementary school.

18:45:16 And this is the apartment site.
18:45:17 And this is the conductor road right here.
18:45:21 All the rest is wetlands.
18:45:24 >> My only concern, I think I would concede the fact
18:45:27 that this is going to be clear-cut, based upon
18:45:31 everything that you said, and Mr. Hall knows all too
18:45:35 well I'm not thrilled about that, and we have had that
18:45:37 discussion over and over.
18:45:39 But it's the replacement that would concern me.
18:45:42 And in regard to -- when I look at that apartment
18:45:45 complex, I sure don't see a whole lot of green
18:45:47 anywhere in those parking lots.
18:45:51 >>> And that's a good point.
18:45:52 >> Similarly in the school area, just looks so barren
18:45:57 and all.
18:45:58 And I think the folks that are here would like to see
18:46:00 as much green as possible instead of a lot of
18:46:02 pavement.
18:46:03 >>> And we're not asking for any relief from the tree
18:46:06 replacement requirement.
18:46:08 Since we go to the 90% we still have to replace 90% to
18:46:13 ski code.

18:46:16 >> On-site?
18:46:17 >>> We will replace them on-site to the extent we can.
18:46:20 What happens usually is you put everything you can
18:46:22 on-site.
18:46:22 Since I'm owed more than you have got space, at that
18:46:27 point you make to the city tree bank or whatever.
18:46:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mrs. Saul-Sena suggestions we go to
18:46:35 4 inches inted stead of two.
18:46:37 >>> And the opportunity, which the roadway, which has
18:46:40 some minimum requirements, we can beef up the tree
18:46:43 replacement in the roadway there.
18:46:45 >>
18:46:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
18:46:53 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
18:46:56 on item number 5?
18:46:57 >> Move to close.
18:46:58 >> Second.
18:46:58 (Motion carried).
18:46:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to make sure the concerns
18:47:06 that are raised by the staff are addressed in the site
18:47:08 plan.
18:47:09 I didn't see any notes about the -- some kind of

18:47:19 plants, that the staff identified.
18:47:31 >>> They are welcome at any time to come out and take
18:47:33 them.
18:47:33 We would like for them to come by and talk to them
18:47:39 about some sort of indem in any case in case they fall
18:47:42 out of a tree.
18:47:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The site plan you are going to put
18:47:48 in.
18:47:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the uppercut?
18:47:55 A fern?
18:47:56 >>> Some kind of plant.
18:48:12 >>> A 4-inch tree replacement, is that just along the
18:48:16 roadway?
18:48:17 >>> No.
18:48:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you agree to that?
18:48:27 Row rose if there's not enough room, we are planting
18:48:31 at your house.
18:48:32 (Laughter)
18:48:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair --
18:48:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you take number 6 first?
18:48:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We don't have 6.
18:48:47 We have to make a motion.

18:48:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: On item number 6, move an ordinance
18:48:53 of the city of Tampa, Florida approving the 24th
18:48:55 amendment to a development order rendered pursuant to
18:48:58 chapter 380, Florida statutes, filed by St. James
18:49:01 united Methodist church DRI, providing an effective
18:49:05 date here of.
18:49:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
18:49:10 (Motion carried).
18:49:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 5.
18:49:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Item number 5 I just wanted to say
18:49:14 that by the time the church gets done building the
18:49:16 road, there really is not a whole lot of profit being
18:49:20 made on this.
18:49:21 But it does help with the tremendous need for parking
18:49:24 spaces and for future growth for the sanctuary.
18:49:27 Actually the school is looking forward to that road
18:49:29 being built as well for circulation, particularly for
18:49:31 the buses.
18:49:32 So with pleasure I'll move this ordinance.
18:49:34 Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
18:49:36 vicinity of 12.35 acres of the southwest corner of
18:49:40 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and cypress preserve road in

18:49:42 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
18:49:43 described in section 1 from zoning district
18:49:45 classifications PDA, neighborhood commercial and
18:49:48 public facility, to PD-A, neighborhood and commercial
18:49:52 facility, providing an effective date.
18:49:53 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
18:49:54 (Motion carried)
18:49:57 Need oh open number 7.
18:49:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Congratulations.
18:50:06 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
18:50:08 Then we go to Verizon.
18:50:19 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, city attorney, pleased to
18:53:01 be back before you this evening.
18:53:04 We had some discussions in negotiations in the
18:53:06 interim.
18:53:07 And what I have before you are some recommended
18:53:09 changes they have been approved by the administration,
18:53:15 and with mayoral recommendation, and those changes are
18:53:21 there will be a new section 6.2.5.
18:53:24 It says: Upon expiration of the franchise if
18:53:29 franchisee has not paid the amount of monetary support
18:53:34 equivalent to that bid paid by Bright House, with the

18:53:38 city dated March 23, 2000, then franchisee shall pay
18:53:42 the city an amount equal to the difference between,
18:53:45 one, the amount of I-Net support paid by franchisee,
18:53:48 and two the amount of Peg and I-Net paid by Bright
18:53:52 House as required by Bright House cable franchise
18:53:54 agreement, dated March 23, 2000, franchisee may
18:53:59 recover this amount by adding such cost to the amount
18:54:02 billed as a support line item identified in subsection
18:54:05 6.2.2 or as otherwise permitted by law.
18:54:08 By way of explanation, that last sentence simply means
18:54:11 it is a pass through item, so it will be passed
18:54:13 through as will the other costs.
18:54:16 The additional change before you to the agreement
18:54:19 itself is to paragraph 13.6, 13.6 is the cancellation
18:54:24 language.
18:54:25 It is deleted in its entirety.
18:54:27 They do not have the right to cancel at the three year
18:54:31 mark.
18:54:33 There will be a provision that says this section has
18:54:35 been deleted.
18:54:36 We keep that in there in order to protect the
18:54:38 numbering because there may be references back to the

18:54:40 numbering.
18:54:41 So essentially the 3-year term nation is out.
18:54:44 The obligation to pay the same equivalent dollar
18:54:47 amount as paid by Bright House is in.
18:54:50 In addition, I believe, Verizon is prepared to make
18:54:54 record on the commitment with respect to channel
18:54:56 location number 15.
18:54:58 Unfortunately, Bright House is not obligated to keep
18:55:02 U.S. channel 15 and I think Verizon is prepared to
18:55:06 make the commitment it.
18:55:07 I'll let them speak for themselves.
18:55:11 >>> We would be thrilled to make a commitment to
18:55:17 channel 15.
18:55:24 And we'll do that in a side letter.
18:55:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you been sworn in?
18:55:34 (Technical difficulties.)
19:06:36 Thanks to everybody.
19:06:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution.
19:06:36 >>: Second.
19:06:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to move the
19:06:36 resolution.

19:06:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As amended.
19:06:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: As amended.
19:06:36 (Motion carried)
19:07:10 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: The site has been rezoned in 1986
19:07:13 from R-1 residential to C-T-E in order to construct
19:07:17 the office building.
19:07:18 In addition the board of adjustment put a special use
19:07:22 for the use of the bidding lot 7 and 8 map of
19:07:26 McFarland subdivision.
19:07:30 For parking lot to serve the office building.
19:07:32 The petitioner is requesting this rezoning in order to
19:07:34 bring the property into conformance.
19:07:38 Quickly, this is the parking lot, separated by a wall
19:07:42 and fairly large setback from the street.
19:07:45 This is the existing office building.
19:07:49 Another view of the existing office building.
19:07:53 And a view down the street.
19:08:00 There are some objections to this particular position.
19:08:08 One I had, the petitioner had satisfied, that is if I
19:08:15 district to 75% the redevelopment of the site
19:08:18 regarding setback, and all other land development

19:08:21 regulations will require review by the City Council to
19:08:23 public hearing which comprised section 27-394-C.
19:08:30 Melanie Calloway had an objection which was removed
19:08:34 and Mary Daniel had no objections to this particular
19:08:37 rezoning.
19:08:39 That concludes staff comments.
19:08:45 >>TONY GARCIA: I have been sworn in.
19:08:52 I want to show you the future land use map.
19:08:54 I too used a much larger piece of the area in
19:08:57 question.
19:08:58 It includes the parking area which is the RNJ.
19:09:04 The land use, the land use designation which is the
19:09:08 red piece right over here.
19:09:11 Mrs. Lamboy had shown you the aerial.
19:09:15 That site pretty much is taken up by the -- in 1988 as
19:09:23 she stated.
19:09:24 In close proximity to zoning to the north, the Hines
19:09:29 on-ramp, Wall-Mart just to the northwest over here,
19:09:33 and of course this is Gray and Cypress Street with
19:09:40 MacDill Avenue over towards Dale Mabry Highway to
19:09:42 the west.
19:09:50 I think what's really good about what's been

19:09:54 negotiated as far as this particular site is very
19:09:57 specific on the site plan, that all we can really have
19:09:59 on this site is the existing use, which is for a
19:10:02 warehouse/office. The other thing, this building is
19:10:08 of a magnitude where you really can't build anything
19:10:13 greater than what's there.
19:10:14 Anything else that's going to have to be built over
19:10:16 here will have to come in for another PD and if this
19:10:19 structure does up to 75%, it's going to have to be
19:10:28 built at a much lesser mass to conform to the existing
19:10:31 height and mass requirement according to chapter 27
19:10:38 guidelines.
19:10:38 That being the case, Planning Commission staff has no
19:10:40 objections to the proposed request.
19:10:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:10:44 I have a question, for Ms. Lamboy.
19:10:52 Usually site plans show where the parking spaces are.
19:10:55 Am I missing something?
19:10:57 >> Well, exactly the conditions only, because this
19:11:02 property is built out.
19:11:04 There was never room to add any additional buffering.
19:11:07 And it shows the adjacent parking, not in detail, but

19:11:12 it was approved under the board of adjustment.
19:11:14 But this is not part and parcel of this rezoning.
19:11:17 It relates to it.
19:11:19 But you're not judging the merits of that parking lot.
19:11:22 It's just the merits of that individual lot line.
19:11:25 And in its original condition.
19:11:29 Existing condition.
19:11:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:11:37 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, not the city attorney.
19:11:45 401 East Jackson Street 33602.
19:11:47 For the petitioner.
19:11:49 As has been described by staff, this property has gone
19:11:54 through rezoning in '86 when it was bought by the
19:11:56 property owners, with the condition of rezoning.
19:11:59 It was rezoned.
19:12:01 They purchased the property.
19:12:02 They built the building under the regulations.
19:12:09 Zoning conformance occurred with the new comp plan.
19:12:13 What occurred at that time was the zoning map had not
19:12:15 been changed to reflect the rezoning to C 2 E when
19:12:19 they did conformance so they put it as an RF 60 lot,
19:12:25 even though it already had a commercial structure on

19:12:26 it.
19:12:27 So it wasn't until the 1999 when the property was up
19:12:31 for sale that somebody came in to do due diligence and
19:12:37 said, hey, you have an illegal lot.
19:12:39 They came to the city and the city said, now, you're
19:12:41 right, it was an error.
19:12:43 But in order to fix it we have to amend the comp plan,
19:12:46 which they did, plan amendment was done, and we have
19:12:50 to rezone it.
19:12:51 Unfortunately at the time when rezoning was proposed,
19:12:54 that staff did an area wide rezoning and brought the
19:12:58 whole parcel which brought the building in as well as
19:13:00 the residential lots that had the parking on it, which
19:13:03 had been approved by the board of adjustment.
19:13:05 That parking had been part of a separate application,
19:13:07 because they took parking spaces and needed to adjust
19:13:16 them.
19:13:17 The residents were very concerned that the whole thing
19:13:19 was being rezoned to commercial, and that was going to
19:13:22 allow commercial activity down arch street.
19:13:26 During that period of time, and I researched the
19:13:28 minutes, a lot of discussion happened about that

19:13:30 parking lot, and not a lot about the building and what
19:13:32 was happening.
19:13:33 Basically, they were there for the nonconforming
19:13:36 building but to this day they could not sell.
19:13:38 So at this time, we are coming in here for the
19:13:40 rezoning only for the building.
19:13:42 We sent a letter out to the community specifying it
19:13:44 was only the building.
19:13:45 The parking associated with it.
19:13:47 This is considered one zoning lot.
19:13:49 The parking, this building and the building that's on
19:13:53 Hines all considered one zoning lot for the purposes
19:13:56 of construction.
19:13:58 Parking requirements, buffering, setback, retention.
19:14:01 It's all looked at as one.
19:14:03 But this building here if it burned down today would
19:14:06 have to be built back as a single family house between
19:14:08 a commercial parking lot and existing office building.
19:14:11 And so what we are trying to do is provide for
19:14:14 assurance that it can be sold.
19:14:17 They would like to move out of this area, because they
19:14:18 are running out of space.

19:14:20 The electrical supply operation, service company.
19:14:23 And nobody wants to buy it because it has a
19:14:26 nonconforming element.
19:14:27 So all we are asking today is to have the existing use
19:14:30 recognized and lesser intense use was the conditions
19:14:33 put on by staff if it should be destroyed or damaged
19:14:36 by 75% they would have to come back for public hearing
19:14:39 to reestablish the building.
19:14:40 If we came in and changed the use of the front
19:14:44 building that's not part of the zoning or even this
19:14:46 building, it would require review and changing use
19:14:49 rule, and additional buffering, landscaping would have
19:14:51 to be considered.
19:14:52 Now, one of the objections that we had, and just put a
19:14:56 note on the plan regarding compliance, with the
19:14:58 sidewalk, I have some photographs.
19:15:01 We believe we are going to be asking for fee in lieu
19:15:05 even though we are not planning any construction,
19:15:07 because what we have along the front -- what these two
19:15:19 photos will show is at the front of the building, I'll
19:15:23 show you the comp plan and how this corresponds.
19:15:38 Right here, this is the front of the building.

19:15:41 This driveway here.
19:15:42 The trees that are shown that you see in that
19:15:43 photograph, two utility poles.
19:15:47 One is just a regular creocote pole.
19:15:55 The other is a big ditch.
19:15:57 I think one of the allowances for sidewalk funds is
19:16:01 the fact that you have ditches or utilities.
19:16:04 And we believe that's the way he will be going with
19:16:06 this.
19:16:06 But we have put that note on the plan and would
19:16:09 comply.
19:16:10 Again we are just trying to get this position so the
19:16:12 building can transition in the future to probably a
19:16:15 lesser intense use with an end user.
19:16:18 But it will never be worse than it is now.
19:16:21 And if we can't move, it's going to stay in the
19:16:23 current use.
19:16:24 So it's kind of an odd situation.
19:16:34 >> It appears that you have got a commercial use, a
19:16:38 commercial use next to it, and then parking.
19:16:42 I'm assuming that both commercial uses are using the
19:16:45 parking --

19:16:49 >> They have parking available in the front as well as
19:16:51 parking down that side street.
19:16:53 >> So it's a little unclear to me, if you do something
19:16:58 the second commercial building, which I would assume
19:17:02 you then have parking to go -- wouldn't that strand
19:17:08 the first commercial use?
19:17:10 >>> I believe because it's one zoning lot, it's all
19:17:12 going to be related and any use of the property that
19:17:15 the parking that's required for the combined site is
19:17:18 added up between the parking in the rear, and the
19:17:21 parking on the front.
19:17:22 So all of this has to be looked together when it's
19:17:24 sold.
19:17:26 >> Will we in the neighborhood be assured that it will
19:17:30 be like a package deal?
19:17:31 It sounds to me like you're saying you are going to
19:17:34 separate yourselves as commercial separately.
19:17:36 >>> All we are saying is because the building is
19:17:39 nonconforming and it sits in between the parking lot
19:17:41 in the building in the front, the sales can occur for
19:17:44 the whole property, because nonconforming use right in
19:17:49 the middle of the parcel.

19:17:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But are you telling us -- it is all
19:17:56 going to be a package, it's all going to stick
19:17:58 together and the neighborhood isn't going to be stuck
19:17:59 with overflow parking because one of the commercial --
19:18:03 >>> Anytime a change of use would occur the parking
19:18:05 would have to be reviewed and they would have to meet
19:18:06 the code. The parking that's there now is the only
19:18:09 parking available so any use is going to have to
19:18:11 comply with the parking that's available today.
19:18:13 So there's not going to be overflow parking situation.
19:18:16 If there is a change in use.
19:18:17 If somebody came in and said, rather than 6,000 square
19:18:20 foot of office and warehouse that it's going to be 6
19:18:22 that you square feet of office, that would require
19:18:26 additional parking.
19:18:27 They would not be able to use that building for that
19:18:30 further purpose.
19:18:32 Based upon the way it's set up.
19:18:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:18:35 would like to speak on item number 7?
19:18:44 >>> Good afternoon.
19:18:48 I have been sworn.

19:18:49 My name is George Hune. I live at 3402 Arch Street
19:18:54 West, on the corner.
19:18:57 I have an additional waiver here.
19:19:06 To give a brief summary --
19:19:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is the person present?
19:19:11 Ms. Rivera?
19:19:13 Thank you, one additional minute.
19:19:16 >>> Just to give a little brief summary of what's
19:19:18 going on on this particular property, this has been an
19:19:20 issue you from what I understand going back to 1987.
19:19:23 This particular structure was built in a residential
19:19:27 area, RS-50 and it's a commercial building.
19:19:33 Strangely they were talking about parking.
19:19:36 I have a picture of parking on the street.
19:19:46 That's overflow parking on the street.
19:19:47 There is parking approximately where the vans are.
19:19:52 Uses the street for parking.
19:19:57 There's another picture of another vehicle that's used
19:19:59 to drop supplies for this company.
19:20:12 There's really no ram for backing out the vehicle.
19:20:16 You can't back out.
19:20:17 If you back out you're backing onto arch street.

19:20:20 The street is only 20-foot wide.
19:20:22 There's no turn-around for this particular structure.
19:20:26 The building, the ADA codes brought up by the city
19:20:30 staff on a previous council.
19:20:38 At one point the building was demolished but the
19:20:43 residents said that the build was already built.
19:20:45 It's already too far in, to go ahead and leave the
19:20:48 building but the lots would remain RS-50.
19:20:51 7, 8 and 9.
19:20:52 But no further changes could be made as far as
19:20:56 changing them.
19:21:01 Mr.En Rick oh, if owner -- the owner was to put a
19:21:05 buffer wall around 7 and 8 and there would be no
19:21:08 connection between 8 and 9.
19:21:10 And I'll provide you a picture.
19:21:36 If you can look just past the little gate that's metal
19:21:40 on the right-hand side, there's an opening on the
19:21:42 wall.
19:21:42 That is a walkway between 8 and 9, which is not
19:21:47 supposed to be utilized.
19:21:49 Also, it was stated that he was not supposed to park
19:21:52 any vehicles, commercial vehicles, on lot 7 and 8.

19:22:03 That's the parking lot that's 7 and 8.
19:22:06 It is not to be used for commercial vehicles.
19:22:08 And there they are.
19:22:11 That's one of the vehicles.
19:22:12 And I don't know if they stay there overnight.
19:22:17 I don't go out there at nighttime and check.
19:22:20 But that's where vehicles are being parked.
19:22:27 I would also like to introduce this into the record.
19:22:30 It was June 13th, 2002 meeting, city staff.
19:22:34 And this petition was petitioned by the city back in
19:22:38 2002 when it was denied.
19:22:40 The petitioner was the city and they denied it.
19:22:43 I would like them to enter this that this was part of
19:22:46 the record in a previous meeting and it was denied.
19:22:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can you pass it around?
19:23:01 >>> Sure. The next photo would be what you would see
19:23:03 if you were driving on arch street coming from Hines
19:23:06 going east.
19:23:08 This is what we see now as we turn onto arch street.
19:23:11 The street actually has like a little hill.
19:23:13 It's not a very big hill.
19:23:15 But anybody who would turn onto arch street from Himes

19:23:20 at a recently fast rate.
19:23:21 If there's a truck out there, they would hit it in the
19:23:23 rear.
19:23:24 Again, the dumpster is somewhat of an obstruction,
19:23:29 sets back in a little bit but it's still an
19:23:31 obstruction.
19:23:46 The house two lots to the east of the proposed site.
19:23:56 Always Alvarez would you put the pictures of -- I
19:23:59 think it was where you showed the traffic, where the
19:24:05 trucks were?
19:24:06 >>> Okay.
19:24:06 The parking lot, the vacant lot?
19:24:08 >> Yes.
19:24:09 And where it shows -- and there was another one, too,
19:24:14 where it shows --
19:24:16 >>> Okay, on the street.
19:24:17 On arch street.
19:24:28 >> How many houses are from Himes to the middle -- I'm
19:24:34 looking at this thing here.
19:24:38 How many houses were there on that -- I guess two
19:24:41 blocks, or maybe one block.
19:24:44 >>> From Hames to the next street over which would be

19:24:47 Glen is one block.
19:24:49 On the side where the proposed site is, there are one,
19:24:52 two, three, four houses to the south side of arch.
19:24:56 >> Now you're showing the parking, the parking on the
19:24:59 street there.
19:25:01 Is that a substation?
19:25:04 >>> That's across the street on the west side of
19:25:06 Himes.
19:25:07 >> Okay.
19:25:08 So that's not --
19:25:09 >>> No, that's across the street on the west side of
19:25:11 Himes.
19:25:12 >> So far are these trucks parked from your house?
19:25:17 >>> They would be seven parcels.
19:25:23 >> Seven parcels?
19:25:24 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:25:25 >>: So are they obstructing your parking or your
19:25:29 coming in and out of your house or anything?
19:25:31 >>> Well, when they are backing up, they take up the
19:25:34 road to back up.
19:25:36 >> How often does that happen a day?
19:25:37 >>> Sometimes in the morning when I'm leaving for

19:25:41 work.
19:25:42 They arrive.
19:25:43 I think the employees take their vehicles home and
19:25:45 they arrive to the shop for material.
19:25:47 And sometimes they back up to get material.
19:25:51 They have to back up on the street to make a U-turn
19:25:55 and go back out to Himes.
19:25:57 Or they go straight down arch street and go either
19:26:00 right, left or straight all the way down to
19:26:03 MacDill.
19:26:03 >> So how long are they obstructing you when you're
19:26:07 backing out of your house?
19:26:11 >>> It can be minutes.
19:26:13 The real concern is the fact that if somebody comes
19:26:16 around the corner, and they are doing that, and they
19:26:18 don't realize there's a truck there, they are going to
19:26:21 slam right into it.
19:26:22 >> You realize what they plan to do here is trying to
19:26:25 bring it to zoning conformance.
19:26:27 They are not trying to do anything else other than
19:26:29 putting in zoning conformance.
19:26:31 Because it's been out of conformance -- nonconforming

19:26:35 for a long time and they are trying to put it back
19:26:37 into conformance.
19:26:38 Do you understand that?
19:26:39 >>> I understand what they are trying to do.
19:26:43 >> So what's the objection other than --
19:26:46 >>> Well, if you make it commercial general, if you
19:26:48 change from RS-50 to PG --
19:26:51 >> Well, they are going to PD.
19:26:53 >>> Right.
19:26:53 And I'm not real sure on what a PD is.
19:26:56 All I know is they are trying to change to the
19:26:58 commercial general, which is exempting what it's being
19:27:00 used as right now from office.
19:27:03 Actually an RS-50 lot.
19:27:05 Is it not?
19:27:07 >> From RS-50.
19:27:09 >>> And as I say, it sets precedent for the
19:27:12 neighborhood.
19:27:13 If you change an RS-50 to a TG, what's to say why
19:27:18 can't they do it across the street?
19:27:20 >> Well, what is across the street?
19:27:22 >>> Vacant lot.

19:27:23 >> Just vacant lot?
19:27:24 >>> Yes.
19:27:25 Being utilized for some larger trucks.
19:27:27 >> By whom?
19:27:28 >> by the same people.
19:27:30 Would you like a photograph?
19:27:31 >> do they own the lots?
19:27:33 >>> I don't know if they own the lots or not.
19:27:36 I know it's at the corner of Himes and arch.
19:27:41 And they own that property.
19:27:42 Whether they own what's being utilized to house the
19:27:46 trucks I don't know, ma'am.
19:27:47 >> Because if they are utilizing that parking, then
19:27:53 they could be called in to that.
19:27:58 Code enforcement gets called in.
19:28:02 >>> There's the lots across the street from -- I would
19:28:05 assume -- seven and eight which are vacant lots which
19:28:10 the two other vehicles are being parked.
19:28:12 Those are the larger trucks.
19:28:13 >>: Do you know whether anybody has complained about
19:28:22 them parking in there?
19:28:24 >>> Doesn't bother anyone.

19:28:25 They are just there.
19:28:26 I mean, they don't -- they make -- they are not
19:28:30 blocking anything.
19:28:34 They are an eyesore, though.
19:28:35 >> Thank you, sir.
19:28:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a neighborhood association
19:28:38 where you live?
19:28:40 >>> No, ma'am, not that I'm aware of.
19:28:42 >> Are the uses to the east of the subject property
19:28:46 developed residentially?
19:28:48 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:28:49 They are all residential.
19:28:50 >> And to the north of the one to the east, are those
19:28:54 residential, also?
19:28:55 >>> Residential.
19:28:56 >> And to the south, are they residential?
19:28:58 >>> Residential.
19:28:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:29:01 I have a question for staff.
19:29:05 Melanie Callaway.
19:29:07 In your recommendation, in what was written up and
19:29:10 given to us, it said the code requires a turn-around

19:29:14 to be provided as specifically provided, prior to all
19:29:18 gated entrances.
19:29:21 Does this property have that?
19:29:25 >>> Melanie Callaway, transportation.
19:29:28 Does not provide a turn-around --
19:29:30 >> Could you speak loud er?
19:29:32 >>> They did not provide a turn-around in terms of
19:29:34 gate.
19:29:36 It was only to be closed after hours for security
19:29:39 issues, not all the time, like if we have some
19:29:42 residential, they are closed all the time and only
19:29:47 open to come in.
19:29:48 It wasn't -- it was only after hours.
19:29:52 >>> I have an aerial of the property if you would like
19:29:54 to see it.
19:29:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:30:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn?
19:30:01 I'm sorry.
19:30:02 >>> Yes, I was sworn.
19:30:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So does transportation have an
19:30:06 objection to this or not?
19:30:08 >>> In a, I have in a objection.

19:30:09 It's an existing building that's been there for a
19:30:14 very, very long time.
19:30:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While she's doing that, why would
19:30:27 we -- it seems like if this were coming up from
19:30:32 scratch, for, what, there are 20 different reasons why
19:30:37 we wouldn't approve it.
19:30:38 It doesn't have the setbacks.
19:30:39 It doesn't the have V the sidewalks.
19:30:41 It doesn't have the buffering.
19:30:42 It doesn't have the screening.
19:30:44 There are a number of different reasons.
19:30:46 And the petitioner is asking for this study so they
19:30:49 can do something with the property.
19:30:51 We should have some category -- it's been compromised.
19:30:56 It's recognized as what is there.
19:30:58 But if you are asking for scratch we would never
19:31:01 approve it.
19:31:02 How do we approach this?
19:31:08 >> Certainly we have a lot of conditions Reich that in
19:31:11 and that is one of the reasons -- we are only going to
19:31:14 give you an extra 15% for like nonconforming use.
19:31:17 You are only allowed 60% destruction of the building

19:31:23 before we require you with what the code says.
19:31:25 In the same instance -- we'll give you 15% extra, but
19:31:29 if that building is destroyed, to 75% of its assessed
19:31:33 value, I'm sorry, you start from scratch.
19:31:34 So that is why, you know, it's an existing condition,
19:31:40 it's there whether we like it or not.
19:31:42 Certainly there are some things that can be done to
19:31:45 improve the functionality of that building, vis-a-vis
19:31:48 the truck storage.
19:31:51 Certainly we can see that open storage.
19:31:53 I don't know if that's part of the original deal of
19:31:55 approval.
19:31:55 Wife to go back to that and look at it from 1989 or
19:31:59 whatever it was.
19:32:00 But to mitigate those type of impacts.
19:32:03 But other than that, you know.
19:32:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So residential zoning to the south
19:32:12 of this, to the east of this, and to the northeast of
19:32:15 it.
19:32:15 Immediately across the street, if parcels across the
19:32:23 street to the north came in for rezoning based on the
19:32:27 precedent this set, what would your recommendation be?

19:32:29 Is this a recognition in a stop-gap way of existing
19:32:33 use or is it setting a precedent for the inclusion of
19:32:36 commercial into a residential neighborhood?
19:32:40 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Each PD is judged on its own merits,
19:32:43 based on its own merits.
19:32:45 And you have an existing nonconforming condition.
19:32:48 However, if the vacant lot across the street were to
19:32:51 come in for commercial development, staff would
19:32:53 recommend against it.
19:32:55 I would have a big problem with that.
19:32:57 If you look at the map, this is a commercial general
19:33:00 zone.
19:33:01 The corridor along Himes is commercial uses.
19:33:06 The residential use is pretty strong.
19:33:09 And that would not be compatible in my view to have
19:33:12 more commercial intrusion.
19:33:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else in the public like to
19:33:17 speak?
19:33:25 >>> Julia Cole: Legal department.
19:33:26 When Heather was making her presentation as it relates
19:33:29 to property across the street, what she said
19:33:31 originally and what she said at first was you have to

19:33:33 judge each item on its own merits and I just wanted to
19:33:36 make sure you all understood that.
19:33:46 >>> Very briefly.
19:33:46 If this was a clean lot coming in, we wouldn't be
19:33:49 bringing in, proposing to bring this property down the
19:33:53 residential street.
19:33:54 But this is caused by a map technician making an error
19:34:00 during zoning conformance in the '80s.
19:34:03 And they have already gone through, and I have a copy
19:34:05 of the petition, rezoned the property to C 2 E.
19:34:11 This lot was approved by the City Council and zoned
19:34:14 for commercial at that time.
19:34:17 Pursuant to this zoning --
19:34:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Might have been here!
19:34:23 >>> Built the buildings according to the C 2nd E
19:34:26 regulation.
19:34:26 And the people at that time later came in and said,
19:34:29 gee, I looked at the zoning map, and this is reg 50.
19:34:34 That's because when the zoning was approved they drew
19:34:36 the zoning conformance maps, they hadn't changed the
19:34:41 zoning.
19:34:42 So it's just a map area.

19:34:43 All this time transpired because people are concerned
19:34:45 with what's there, and what they thought should have
19:34:47 been there or shouldn't have been there, and they
19:34:49 thought it was an illegal building which it wasn't.
19:34:52 What the people are trying to do is move this business
19:34:55 out of here.
19:34:57 They are trying to move to a larger location.
19:35:00 They have outrun the space.
19:35:01 The commercial vehicles that are shown in their lot,
19:35:05 they come to that lot.
19:35:07 They pick up their materials and they leave.
19:35:08 They do not spend the night.
19:35:10 Commercial vehicles do not park overnight in that
19:35:12 parking lot.
19:35:13 Across the street, the glass door, the CG park
19:35:17 property along the frontage of Himes, those trucks by
19:35:20 permission of the glass people are allowed to park
19:35:23 over there overnight.
19:35:26 I think we are just trying to get them conform so this
19:35:28 use can move out, so another use can move in, so the
19:35:32 properties can be sold and put into a use that doesn't
19:35:35 require the large trucks coming in, and this type of

19:35:38 operation.
19:35:38 I think the conditions provide for change in use that
19:35:41 will protect the community.
19:35:45 Respectfully request your approval.
19:35:47 >> Move to close the public hearing.
19:35:49 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:35:51 Mrs. Alvarez.
19:35:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
19:35:54 the general vicinity of 3418 -- 3418 west arch street
19:35:59 from zoning district RS' 50 residential single family
19:36:03 to PD office and CG uses providing an effective date.
19:36:07 >> I have a motion and second.
19:36:08 (Motion carried).
19:36:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
19:36:22 I was not there in '82.
19:36:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She was only 12.
19:36:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no.
19:36:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to open number 8.
19:36:34 Motion and second.
19:36:34 (Motion carried).
19:36:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a voting conflict so I will not
19:36:39 be voting.

19:36:47 The basis that my husband is an officer of the
19:36:50 Colonial Bank.
19:36:57 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
19:37:17 The sub property is located at south Hames across from
19:37:25 the Publix supermarket.
19:37:32 This is the Publix supermarket complex, south Himes.
19:37:35 This is the old Eckerd drugstore site that is at that
19:37:39 intersection.
19:37:40 Just to give you an idea of the context.
19:37:46 The existing site.
19:37:49 Another close-up view, I wanted to illustrate where
19:37:52 the drive-through facility is being proposed, on the
19:37:55 northern portion of the site.
19:37:57 Eckerd drugstore has their drive-through facility on
19:38:00 the southern portion of the site, basically right in
19:38:05 this area here.
19:38:10 Proposed site, proposed to circulate around.
19:38:13 The view across the street.
19:38:36 The apartment complex, Bayshore Boulevard.
19:38:41 And the Crosstown.
19:38:46 The petitioner wishes to reduce the drive-in setback
19:38:51 from 50 feet to 5 feet 6 inches.

19:38:54 They are requesting the special use for the
19:38:55 drive-through facility.
19:38:57 The existing vacated Eckerd's building will be
19:38:59 remodeled and retain for Colonial Bank branch and
19:39:04 another tenant.
19:39:05 Petitioner proposes a relocation.
19:39:08 The window will be out of the view of Gandy Boulevard.
19:39:11 However it necessities a waiver to the facilities
19:39:14 located 50 feet from commercially zoned property.
19:39:20 Proposed along Gandy Boulevard consistent with
19:39:23 requirements of chapter 13.
19:39:24 I have filled out my staff report, the standards for
19:39:26 drive-in window, and staff has objections to the
19:39:29 drive-in window being located.
19:39:31 So close to residentially zoned properties, the
19:39:34 petitioner said to me that they had been working with
19:39:36 the neighborhood, and the abutting property owners,
19:39:39 and did not feel like there would be any objection.
19:39:42 Just as a caution, precaution, staff requested that
19:39:50 they place a note on the site plan, which they have
19:39:52 done, the hours of operation for the drive-through be
19:39:56 limited between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., to help mitigate

19:40:00 any potential nuisance.
19:40:02 And also they have addressed concerns with reference
19:40:07 to lighting, directing light ago way from abutting
19:40:11 residential property, and they have addressed
19:40:14 landscape concerns as well.
19:40:17 Mitigation has also been proposed and approved by our
19:40:21 transportation division.
19:40:22 Therefore, with the exception of the placement of the
19:40:24 drive-through facility, all of their objections have
19:40:28 been removed.
19:40:29 That concludes staff comments.
19:40:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A couple of questions.
19:40:32 Do you have a photograph, the view from Hawthorne, the
19:40:38 residential?
19:40:39 >>> In a, I didn't take a photograph there.
19:40:42 >> And I don't see any --
19:40:47 >>> Is there landscaping on the wall?
19:40:49 >> Yes.
19:40:50 There is a hedge, a continuous hedge proposed along
19:40:53 the walk.
19:40:57 >> Not trees?
19:40:58 >>> In a trees.

19:41:06 >>> I'll let petitioner speak to that.
19:41:12 >>CHAIRMAN: Planning Commission staff?
19:41:13 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:41:24 I have been sworn in.
19:41:26 Mrs. Lamboy did a very good job of explaining context
19:41:29 in this general area.
19:41:30 I think I only want to add a couple more things
19:41:33 regarding that issue.
19:41:34 Intersection of Gandy and Himes where the subject
19:41:36 property is located on the northeast corner, former
19:41:40 Eckerd's.
19:41:41 The land use categories in the area, residential 35,
19:41:48 heavy commercial 24, community mixed use 35, urban
19:41:52 mixed use 60, of course residential 10.
19:41:55 The site is within the neighborhood boundaries of
19:41:57 Bayshore Beautiful neighborhood association and is
19:41:59 immediately adjacent to the Fairoaks neighborhood
19:42:02 association.
19:42:07 We also had some concerns regarding the buffering.
19:42:11 There is a wall there, and Mrs. Saul-Sena, I was
19:42:18 noticing when you were talking to people about the
19:42:21 trees, or if there's any vegetation on the wall to the

19:42:27 north of the site, the neighbors -- the houses are set
19:42:32 pretty close up onto Hawthorne and there are several
19:42:35 large trees, a few trees that exist in the back yards
19:42:41 of those abutting homes.
19:42:42 So I think that does help the situation from the
19:42:45 neighborhood -- from the neighbor's aspect.
19:42:48 Of course, I'm sure whatever -- to reassure you
19:42:55 regarding vegetation on the north side -- it looks
19:43:00 like a 100-foot depth or more on those lots.
19:43:05 It looks like a pretty substantial difference between
19:43:08 where the homes are located at.
19:43:10 >>: Like 150 feet?
19:43:13 >>> Roughly about a hundred feet.
19:43:16 Oh, Mr. Dingfelder, I'm glad you spoke.
19:43:18 The only place that I know of around here to eat is
19:43:22 going to be KOJACs.
19:43:35 Planning Commission staff has in a objection.
19:43:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:43:39 >>> If I can pop in real quick and show a picture.
19:43:43 This is the wall around Hawthorne.
19:43:46 And this shows the relationship to the houses.
19:43:49 And this right here is a close-up view of the wall and

19:43:53 the trees.
19:43:58 Adjoining properties.
19:44:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:44:09 >>> Jose Castellanos.
19:44:12 I have been sworn in.
19:44:13 I represent Colonial Bank, working with RRW
19:44:17 Architects.
19:44:18 We are considering renovating this old Eckerd's
19:44:22 building that has been abandoned into a Colonial Bank
19:44:24 facility, and are requesting the relocation of a
19:44:28 drive-through facility on the north side so that it is
19:44:31 removed from Gandy Boulevard and between the
19:44:33 commercial building and the residential neighborhood
19:44:36 to the north.
19:44:37 We certainly hear your requests for heavily landscaped
19:44:40 areas, and that can certainly happen all along the
19:44:42 wall.
19:44:43 We'll certainly comply with all landscaping ordinance
19:44:45 and codes, and can certainly emphasize that along that
19:44:49 wall to provide additional buffering.
19:44:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:44:53 would like to speak on item number 8?

19:44:56 >>: Move to close.
19:44:57 >> Second.
19:44:57 (Motion carried).
19:44:58 >>: Move an ordinance approving special use permit S-2
19:45:04 approving a bank with a drive-in window in a CI zoning
19:45:07 district in the general vicinity of 4820 south Hames
19:45:10 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
19:45:13 particularly described in section 1 here of reducing
19:45:14 the drive-in setback to residentially zoned property
19:45:17 from 50 feet to 5 feet 6 inches, providing an
19:45:20 effective date.
19:45:21 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
19:45:23 All in favor say Aye.
19:45:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait, wait, wait.
19:45:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
19:45:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. This is five feet from
19:45:35 a really nice residential area.
19:45:36 I can't believe there's nobody here not upset about
19:45:40 it.
19:45:43 I really am for the bank to do heavy landscaping back
19:45:47 there because it is a huge imposition on the neighbors
19:45:51 immediately to the north to have a drive-through.

19:45:54 It's going to be noisy.
19:45:56 It's going to be light.
19:45:57 And if I were you, I would really think of something
19:46:03 such as cypress or bamboo or something --
19:46:08 >>> Absolutely, and the bank will be pleased to do
19:46:11 that.
19:46:11 We have met with the neighborhood association and have
19:46:14 addressed all their concerns.
19:46:16 One of the issues that was brought up was the location
19:46:22 of a drive-through machine, that the bank has agreed
19:46:25 not to place in the drive-through.
19:46:28 An ATM machine.
19:46:30 ATM machines is something that could be used 24 hours.
19:46:33 So one of their requests was not to have an ATM
19:46:36 machine in the drive-through, which we have agreed to.
19:46:38 So there will be no ATM machine there.
19:46:40 The drive-through will only be open during bank
19:46:43 operating hours.
19:46:44 But, yes, landscaping is certainly important.
19:46:47 It will be throughout the entire project.
19:46:48 Colonial Bank, all of their projects really places an
19:46:53 emphasis on beautiful landscaping.

19:46:55 That will certainly be taken into account.
19:47:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that commitment on the site
19:47:01 plan?
19:47:06 >>> We can put that as a note on the site plan.
19:47:08 >> It is on the site plan?
19:47:09 >>> Not at this time.
19:47:10 They just show a 3-fat hedge but I can say additional
19:47:13 landscaping is required, dense landscaping.
19:47:16 >>: No ATM in the drive-through.
19:47:18 They can put the ATM on the bank.
19:47:21 >>> Right.
19:47:21 Okay.
19:47:24 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
19:47:26 Opposed, Nay.
19:47:26 (Motion carried).
19:47:27 We need to open number 9.
19:47:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
19:47:30 >>: Second.
19:47:31 (Motion carried).
19:47:31 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
19:47:35 I have been sworn.
19:47:36 The subject property is located at 3251 west

19:47:39 Hillsborough Avenue.
19:47:40 The petitioner is proposing -- this one is a leased
19:47:50 parcel, it not going to be a fee simple type of
19:47:53 parcel.
19:47:53 So that's why on the zoning map you see the entire
19:47:58 outline.
19:47:58 But the actual parcel, location of the site will be
19:48:05 looking at this corner, and on Lincoln and
19:48:09 Hillsborough Avenue.
19:48:10 Just so you understand.
19:48:11 This is the existing site. This is where the building
19:48:19 will be, the site here.
19:48:25 To the west.
19:48:26 A view towards the east.
19:48:31 A view coming down Lincoln.
19:48:38 The 3,276 will be located in the outparcel. The
19:48:43 one-story building will be designed in a Mediterranean
19:48:46 revival stale.
19:48:47 The facility will be located at the rear along the
19:48:50 north side of the building a way from the Hillsborough
19:48:53 Avenue.
19:48:55 Hillsborough Avenue 25 feet, the side setback to north

19:48:58 Lincoln Avenue is 35 feet and the rear setbacks is 35
19:49:02 feet.
19:49:04 Located to the rear of the structure and screened as
19:49:07 required by code.
19:49:09 And this drive-through will be located 50 feet at
19:49:12 least if not any more feet away from residentially
19:49:16 zoned property.
19:49:17 Therefore, land development has no objection to the
19:49:19 drive-through facility.
19:49:22 There was an objection which has been withdrawn.
19:49:24 Land development, landscape specialists, had some
19:49:29 concerns about some alternate treatments were
19:49:31 proposed, typically around an alcove like this you
19:49:35 have to provide a buffering hedge, but because there
19:49:37 were drive isles involved, the petitioner has
19:49:41 committed to on a note in the site plan that the
19:49:47 abutting landscape island on the Simms property will
19:49:50 be landscaped.
19:49:57 Transportation has no objection.
19:49:59 That concludes staff comments.
19:50:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The drive-through is in the back
19:50:03 away from Publix?

19:50:05 >>> Yes, on the north side.
19:50:07 It's on the north side, yes.
19:50:08 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:50:19 I have been sworn in.
19:50:23 Very quick in the future land use map, the site is
19:50:26 located just north of Hillsborough County, just east
19:50:30 of the intersection of Hillsborough and Himes.
19:50:37 Let me show you the future land use.
19:50:39 Community mixed use 35 and the adjacent property.
19:50:46 Heavy commercial 35.
19:50:49 Public semi-public, elementary school over here.
19:50:53 Community mixed use 35 overhear.
19:50:55 Corner here at the intersection.
19:50:57 You will find Bank of America.
19:50:58 Residential 10.
19:51:02 This is the neighborhood association now, this
19:51:06 particular site is not located within a neighborhood
19:51:09 association.
19:51:09 So the closest one to it is to the south.
19:51:13 This over here is the boundary so you go into
19:51:18 unincorporated Hillsborough County.
19:51:24 This shows you a greater depiction of the area and

19:51:26 gives you a little more content.
19:51:28 Hillsborough Avenue is really like a mecca for pass
19:51:31 through to the restaurant, and you have all kinds of
19:51:33 on this particular street.
19:51:35 So -- I'm sorry?
19:51:37 That would add 20 minutes to your report.
19:51:40 There's too many to go into detail.
19:51:41 I think we are all pretty much aware of them but just
19:51:44 to let you all know, with all the adjacent fast food
19:51:49 restaurants that are in the area.
19:51:50 Many of them your favorite, I'm sure, Mr. Dingfelder.
19:51:54 Planning Commission has no objection.
19:52:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:52:05 >>> I have been sworn in.
19:52:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have any opposition that we
19:52:08 know of?
19:52:10 Anybody here in opposition?
19:52:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody want to speak on this item?
19:52:16 >> Move to close.
19:52:18 >> Motion and second to close.
19:52:19 (Motion carried).
19:52:21 Mr. Dingfelder?

19:52:26 >>> Move an ordinance approving a special use permit
19:52:29 S-2 approving a drive-in facility in the general
19:52:32 vicinity of 3251 west Hillsborough Avenue in the city
19:52:36 of Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in
19:52:37 section 1 hereof providing an effective date.
19:52:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
19:52:40 (Motion carried).
19:52:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open 11.
19:52:46 >> Sew second.
19:52:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As to that last petition, Mr.
19:52:51 Shelby said an educated petitioner is our best
19:52:55 applicant.
19:52:56 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
19:53:07 I have been sworn.
19:53:08 I am going to get a workout tonight.
19:53:10 The subject property is located at 3308 Iowa Avenue.
19:53:18 Recently there have been rezonings approved in this
19:53:20 area.
19:53:20 You can see that adjacent to the subject property,
19:53:22 there is RS-50 on the west side, RS-50 on the east
19:53:27 side.
19:53:27 The entire area is RS-60.

19:53:30 But as you can see the lots are RS-50 as they are.
19:53:35 I also included in my staff report for your review
19:53:45 analysis.
19:53:51 This is the property that shows the area, outside of
19:53:55 the accident potential zone.
19:54:06 And this is what we provide you to understand what is
19:54:11 conforming, what is not conforming.
19:54:13 It's in the two-block area. This is the subject site.
19:54:15 You can see in the red there's only 17% that conforms
19:54:21 to new zoning.
19:54:22 83% do not conform.
19:54:25 So the buildout was substantially RS-50.
19:54:29 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
19:54:32 RS-50.
19:54:33 Currently there's a house located on the property.
19:54:36 Setback will be 20 feet at the front, 7 on the side,
19:54:38 20 at the rear. The subject property is part of the
19:54:40 inner bay plot which is recorded 1914.
19:54:43 The platted lot measures 50 feet by 139 feet, 6,950
19:54:46 square feet.
19:54:50 The adjacent property is built to the east and the
19:54:52 west.

19:54:52 It was rezoned in 2005 from RS-60 to RS-50.
19:54:57 Staff has no objections.
19:55:09 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:55:10 I have been sworn in.
19:55:14 Just a couple of more comments, very briefly on this
19:55:17 particular one.
19:55:18 Predominant land use category is residential 10 for
19:55:21 the entire area is located within the South Tampa area
19:55:37 there's a variety of different size lots.
19:55:40 What is significant that Ms. Lamboy did note at the
19:55:42 end of her presentation was that the properties on
19:55:44 either side of this were approved by this council from
19:55:49 RS-60 0 to RS-50 which is a similar request being
19:55:53 made.
19:55:54 The proposed request is consistent and compatible with
19:55:58 the uses in this particular area on Iowa Avenue.
19:56:01 Planning Commission staff has in a objection.
19:56:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:56:10 >> I have been sworn in.
19:56:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:56:13 wants to speak on item 11?
19:56:14 >>: Move to close.

19:56:16 >> Second.
19:56:16 (Motion carried).
19:56:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance rezoning property
19:56:23 in the general vicinity of 3308 Iowa Avenue in the
19:56:27 city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described
19:56:29 from zoning district classification RS-60 residential
19:56:33 single family to RS-50 residential single family
19:56:37 providing an effective date.
19:56:38 (Motion Carried)
19:56:39 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
19:57:31 It
19:57:36 As the council may recall, you reviewed this or a case
19:57:39 similar to this in 2005.
19:57:42 The site involves the Sperion hotel on West Kennedy
19:57:49 Boulevard.
19:57:53 The Humana building which has a slately different
19:57:56 elevation from the site.
19:57:59 And I would just like to show you the elevation
19:58:01 change.
19:58:01 And you will see why.
19:58:04 To the east is another office building.
19:58:07 Another view.

19:58:09 Across the street is multifamily residential and
19:58:14 office uses.
19:58:15 If you will take a la at the rezoning map, you will
19:58:18 see that this is zoned PD for a hotel, the hotel is
19:58:23 going to be remodeled.
19:58:24 160 room hotel.
19:58:25 And 250 multifamily residential dwelling units
19:58:30 approved in 2005.
19:58:32 Subsequent to that, to go to a complete multifamily
19:58:36 residential development.
19:58:38 And you can see the multifamily residential, more
19:58:45 office professional am
19:58:48 Here is an area, Westshore mall.
19:58:56 >>: The related cases were approved in 2005, to be
19:59:01 renovated, and the hotel is being abandoned, and the
19:59:08 petitioner is proposing a 206 unit condominium
19:59:10 development.
19:59:11 Access will remain off of O'Brien street with a
19:59:14 drop-off on the west side of the building.
19:59:16 Parking garage to be located on the western portion of
19:59:18 the site adjacent to an existing parking garage that I
19:59:21 showed to you earlier.

19:59:25 That abut the property office building.
19:59:28 The part of the parking garage that faces Kennedy
19:59:30 Boulevard -- green spaces located in the court yard
19:59:36 between the garage and the condominium building. The
19:59:38 proposed building will have a maximum height of 120
19:59:41 feet from finished grade.
19:59:46 The Kennedy treescape consistent with the Westshore
19:59:49 standards, committed to providing for future Hartline
19:59:53 service.
19:59:53 There was a Hartline objection with reference to the
19:59:56 Westshore circulator, and subsequent to that the
19:59:59 Hartline -- Hartline said heart has in a objections to
20:00:03 the proposed project and will withdraws the request
20:00:05 for number 3 to the commission for the operations of
20:00:10 the Westshore circumstance out are.
20:00:12 Heart discuss does not currently extend bus service to
20:00:15 this area, however bus service is included in the 2020
20:00:20 long range plan.
20:00:20 There is in a funding available at this time.
20:00:22 The Westshore alliance has referred possible grant
20:00:24 sources for heart to research to file a future
20:00:28 Westshore circulator.

20:00:30 Hart concur was the sidewalk and access to
20:00:33 development.
20:00:34 Heart has in a objection and continues to coordinate
20:00:36 with the safe pedestrian crossing, with transfer
20:00:41 center and other activity centers in the area.
20:00:44 Therefore Hart's objection has been removed.
20:00:47 The other large objection, one of the others is solid
20:00:51 waste which has been taken care of through some minor
20:00:54 changes in illustrations, and there was one other note
20:01:01 that was requested by Mr. Daniel with Bryson
20:01:07 concerning calipers and replacement to the site plan.
20:01:10 Just for your information, per chapter 13, green space
20:01:19 shall be met.
20:01:20 Prayer to approval of the first building, a tree table
20:01:23 shall be provided illustrating confirming that 512
20:01:26 inches of caliper shall be replaced with 1,124 inches
20:01:30 of caliper.
20:01:33 That concludes staff comments.
20:01:38 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:01:43 I have been sworn in.
20:01:44 Very quickly, the site is located rate off of a major
20:01:50 interchange, 275 and memorial highway.

20:01:53 We have Westshore plaza to the directly to the west.
20:01:55 The predominant land use is regional mixed use 100.
20:01:59 Highest category you have with intensity in the
20:02:02 comprehensive plan is central business district.
20:02:05 No land use designation.
20:02:06 As Ms. Lamboy stated to you this figure came to you in
20:02:11 2005 and was approved for the hotel project which was
20:02:13 at that time going to be for 160 hotel rams.
20:02:16 They were going to demolish some hotel rooms to allow
20:02:19 for the development of the condominium project.
20:02:21 The condominium project itself consists of only 250
20:02:25 condominiums and there will be in a commercial
20:02:27 component to this site.
20:02:30 Where you currently do have a commercial -- the
20:02:35 location of this mixed use project within RMU 100 land
20:02:38 use category is consistent with the intent of the RMU
20:02:41 100 category.
20:02:42 I do believe that we have some concern regarding bus
20:02:48 access.
20:02:48 I do remember Mr. Rotella was her and we did talk
20:02:52 about the connector going possibly to the west.
20:02:54 And you had some concern about that, Mr. Harrison, as

20:02:58 far as to do something as far as bus service from all
20:03:02 these major office sites, including this residential
20:03:04 area for availability of the people that would live
20:03:08 and work and reside there to the other commercial
20:03:11 outlets immediately adjacent, and also the pedestrian
20:03:15 uses, Ms. Lamboy also alluded to the safety in the
20:03:19 area.
20:03:19 Planning Commission staff has in a objections to the
20:03:21 proposed request.
20:03:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:03:34 >>> I have not been sworn and N.E.A.T. have the other
20:03:36 participants in this matter.
20:03:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else who has not been sworn in
20:03:40 and is going to speak, please raise your hand.
20:03:43 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:03:50 >>> Chair ladies, members of the council, my name is
20:03:53 Philip Nuccio, address is 4045 Henderson Boulevard,
20:03:57 Tampa, Florida.
20:03:58 I am one of the attorneys representing van camp hotel,
20:04:07 the petitioner in this matter.
20:04:08 The property has been described as at 5303 West
20:04:12 Kennedy Boulevard.

20:04:15 Presently, the two buildings on the property, the
20:04:19 front portion has 160 hotel rooms in that portion
20:04:25 which is a four-story facility, has 90 rooms.
20:04:32 The council will recall, last summer, we appeared
20:04:35 before the council and requested that the back portion
20:04:39 of the property be rezoned PD for the construction of
20:04:46 the condominiums.
20:04:47 Which the council approved the request.
20:04:51 At that time, council was informed that the hotel
20:04:56 would be remodeled.
20:04:58 Since then, it had been determined that there is in a
20:05:02 way that hotel can be remodeled to meet current
20:05:05 standards.
20:05:06 So, therefore, it's the desire of the petitioners to
20:05:11 demolish the hey rise Haute that fronts on Kennedy
20:05:14 Boulevard, and use the entire parcel for condominiums
20:05:23 I would like to call on Joe van wide, president of the
20:05:27 van camper incorporated to go into some greater
20:05:29 detail.
20:05:30 Thank you.
20:05:38 >>> Good evening everyone.
20:05:39 My friend Mr. Nuccio just informed you, my name is Joe

20:05:43 van wide, Wesley chapel, Florida.
20:05:46 I have been a resident of Tampa Bay for nearly 20
20:05:48 years now.
20:05:50 I'm the president of van camper hotel which is the
20:05:53 only entity of this project that's before you
20:05:59 We have been in business together for over 15 years.
20:06:02 Our development experience includes the design and
20:06:04 construction management of hotels along with the
20:06:07 development including a 3 that you second home master
20:06:09 plan community and several hundred town homes.
20:06:12 The last year we started rezoning the site for this
20:06:16 council. The rezoning was approved.
20:06:19 The approved zone last year was for 160 hotel rooms
20:06:22 and 168 condominiums for a total of 328 units.
20:06:26 Please note that I appreciate it.
20:06:29 Since that approval a plan by my associates and I
20:06:34 decided to redesign the site once again.
20:06:40 Basically, we reduced the impact of the already
20:06:42 approved 320 combined unit, 350 units.
20:06:47 This is achieved by eliminating the hotel portion
20:06:50 rezoned for last year.
20:06:52 We were able to reconfigure the site.

20:06:56 The new plan provides many questions to the
20:06:59 development of this site.
20:06:59 We'll have a lower density on the site than the one
20:07:02 that was already approved by you last year.
20:07:04 It reduces traffic in the area even more than the
20:07:07 plan.
20:07:08 It allows us to enhance Kennedy Boulevard with our
20:07:10 landscaping plan.
20:07:11 It provides much more green space for the site than
20:07:17 what you already approved last year.
20:07:19 Most importantly, it will allow to us design a
20:07:22 building that will truly be a landmark to the Gateway
20:07:25 of Westshore.
20:07:26 We are on a very prominent corner and we want to be as
20:07:30 developers be responsible for a beautiful project.
20:07:32 Thank you for your time and review of my request.
20:07:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record have you been sworn
20:07:41 in?
20:07:42 >>> Yes, just now.
20:07:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to remind people so we don't
20:07:45 have to repeat it as you move to the mike, state that
20:07:47 you have been sworn.

20:07:48 Thank you.
20:07:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White has a question.
20:07:52 >>KEVIN WHITE: I have one question.
20:07:57 Briefly on this petition last time, there's some
20:08:00 issues by council members in regards to Hartline doing
20:08:06 something back and forth with a mall, or some sort of
20:08:09 shuttle, or bus shelters, or something with Hart lane.
20:08:15 I wondered, was that addressed in your new site plan?
20:08:20 >>> Actually, I read back through the transcript. It
20:08:23 was Mr. Harrison.
20:08:25 I'll read it from before which when agreed to in this
20:08:29 one, the note says the Westshore Hartline connection
20:08:32 services are extended along Kennedy Boulevard within
20:08:35 proximity to this site.
20:08:36 The petitioner shall at their sole expense add a
20:08:39 shelter and bus stop architecturally compatible with
20:08:42 Westshore guidelines and-or on-site structures.
20:08:48 >>> That was a major concern.
20:08:51 >> That was raised and we agreed to it at the last
20:08:54 hearing.
20:08:54 And we maintain that commitment.
20:09:00 >>> Truth Gardner, 101 south Franklin Street, I have

20:09:04 been sworn.
20:09:04 I'm the other attorney that Mr. News yeah was
20:09:06 referring to.
20:09:06 And I have been a part to address this land use
20:09:10 issues.
20:09:11 I want to quickly glean over what was -- what stuck
20:09:15 out to me in reviewing this project.
20:09:24 106 hotel rooms and 168 condo units were approved last
20:09:28 August, which is a total of 328, eliminating the
20:09:33 hotel, and reducing the unit count to 250.
20:09:39 Steve Hendry is here to address transportation issues.
20:09:42 One thing he can tell you is that hotel rooms generate
20:09:45 more trips than a condominium unit, but irrespective
20:09:49 of that, reducing the setback 78 units which is a 35%
20:09:53 reduction in the overall proposal, this site versus
20:09:57 what was approved last August.
20:09:59 >> Are you taking out that building and starting from
20:10:02 scratch?
20:10:03 >>> The existing building, yes, will be demolished.
20:10:07 >>: The whole site being cleared?
20:10:09 >>> Whole site is being cleared, before we were hoping
20:10:11 to preserve the clarion hotel, and then the

20:10:14 condominium site would have been built behind it
20:10:17 closer to 275.
20:10:21 They went through and announced that basically you can
20:10:25 tell the building isn't in the best of shape and
20:10:27 couldn't be brought up to code.
20:10:31 In addition a couple of other things that I thought
20:10:33 would interest you, is we paid most attention to all
20:10:37 this project, Kennedy street, or Kennedy Boulevard,
20:10:40 and a lot of effort has been paid there, and the
20:10:43 architects will show you exactly that landscape plan.
20:10:46 Along with that, I had to mention before, 512 trees
20:10:53 are going to be replaced double that 1,124.
20:10:57 The height we are maintaining the exactly the same at
20:10:59 120 feet.
20:11:00 And one last bit of information before we were
20:11:05 utilizing 84% as a potential density of the site, with
20:11:12 this iteration were only using 58%.
20:11:15 Throws been a 15% reduction in the overall available
20:11:18 density of the site.
20:11:21 With that out, I will turn things over to Javier and
20:11:26 Steve.
20:11:30 >>> Good evening.

20:11:32 My name is Javier with the ADP group and I have been
20:11:36 sworn.
20:11:41 This is going to the site plan, although I am going to
20:11:43 try to on the overhead, so you have that so perhaps
20:11:48 you can remove that.
20:11:54 Real quickly, and just to freshen everybody's memory
20:11:59 here, this is what the site looks like now.
20:12:02 As you can see, I guess you're all familiar with this,
20:12:06 it's pretty big -- asphalt, parking and the building
20:12:14 itself is not protected as has been discussed.
20:12:21 Last August when we came to you, we brought in this
20:12:26 project which is the one that has been approved, and
20:12:30 as has been said before, and I am going to skip over
20:12:33 that, we are reducing the density.
20:12:45 But this is what we came up with last August.
20:12:50 When the owners started reviewing the stipulation with
20:12:57 the hotel, from our perspective, it was great to find
20:13:00 out that the client was going to be turned down.
20:13:04 That's right.
20:13:05 We always had -- and they had some concern as to
20:13:08 obviously the condition of the hotel, to bring the
20:13:12 hotel to any contained of proper standards to this

20:13:16 day, and also the impact on west Kennedy as much as we
20:13:21 were going to renovate the building totally at a time.
20:13:25 But the opportunity to create -- what that allowed us
20:13:33 to do was to address it in the following way.
20:13:39 We now can maintain all the green spaces that we have
20:13:44 started off, including a right here on west Kennedy.
20:13:53 And something else, it allowed us to lay out the
20:13:58 building perpendicular to the street.
20:14:01 So the frontage of the building with regards to the
20:14:04 street is much less at this point.
20:14:07 And it presents a much better perspective as well.
20:14:10 It allows us to take the parking structure from under
20:14:16 the building which would have anyway created a podium
20:14:20 of a certain height, and then put it right along the
20:14:23 edge of the property where there's already an existing
20:14:26 parking structure that you can see here that is the
20:14:30 existing parking structure from next door.
20:14:37 We brought the parking right along that, and allowed
20:14:39 us to create a very generous landscape area with all
20:14:44 the amenities right in the center here, a very strong
20:14:52 greenbelt along the street here and created on O'Brien
20:14:59 as well as at Kennedy.

20:15:02 The building remains the same height.
20:15:05 The building, the length of the building, it allowed
20:15:11 us to create much better.
20:15:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the height remained the same.
20:15:19 What is the hate?
20:15:20 >>> This from this level, which that means our
20:15:22 elevation of the site is 7.
20:15:24 So the actual height of the structure would be 113
20:15:28 feet which would take us to 120 mean sea level height
20:15:31 or elevation.
20:15:33 Which is the same height that we presented to you in
20:15:36 August.
20:15:43 This drawing depicts the elevation from west Kennedy.
20:15:46 And as you can see from what I was saying before, the
20:15:48 building allows to a lot of open areas on both sides
20:15:57 of it.
20:15:57 And it is with open windows.
20:16:06 The parking structure to the west side of it is in
20:16:12 here, and it also has been treated with an
20:16:18 architecture of treatment that makes it very strong,
20:16:21 including landscape vertical treatment, and we are
20:16:30 using a stream that is in portions of the building so

20:16:36 it creates an even greener appearance, and we have a
20:16:44 great presence.
20:16:45 As you can see, also, the parking for being set up
20:16:49 along the property line is very narrow in its presence
20:16:54 on west Kennedy as well.
20:16:55 So we have trade to limit this building, on Kennedy
20:17:00 and create a much greener appearance.
20:17:04 Now, this would be the elevation on O'Brien street.
20:17:10 As you can see, we have created that really have a lot
20:17:13 of movement, and we believe it's going to be impact,
20:17:20 very positive impact in the community.
20:17:23 Here is a perspective sketch on how the building would
20:17:28 look from west Kennedy.
20:17:29 You are looking at a corner of the building where
20:17:35 O'Brien street, right in here, as the Boulevard, with
20:17:39 a colonnade of palm trees.
20:17:41 The very large water that we are creating on west
20:17:46 Kennedy, and all the green space in here, and then the
20:17:50 building on the curvature towards the back with a lot
20:17:53 of so forth in here so we believe we are creating a
20:18:00 much better image now than the actual site has now,
20:18:05 which is that.

20:18:13 With that we are open to questions.
20:18:16 I turn it back.
20:18:27 >>> Steve Henry, links and associate, 5023 west
20:18:31 Laurel.
20:18:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you get started, Steve, I
20:18:34 might have missed this in the beginning.
20:18:39 The staff report indicated a comment on the traffic.
20:18:43 Is that comment still valid?
20:18:52 It says the intersection of Kennedy -- the entire
20:18:56 section is level service D.
20:18:59 Mitigation needs to be proposed for mosts in the
20:19:03 intersection.
20:19:04 >> I believe the petitioner --
20:19:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't you have Melanie come in?
20:19:19 >>> Steve: And I think maybe I can address that
20:19:21 comment.
20:19:21 That is originally one of the comments that was on the
20:19:25 project.
20:19:26 But we were able to demonstrate that the actual, what
20:19:29 we are proposing here is actually less traffic than
20:19:31 what is either existing today, or what was approved
20:19:36 last year.

20:19:37 And this actually is a decrease in the impact of the
20:19:40 project in the overall area.
20:19:42 And we have agreed to work with the neighbors to
20:19:44 provide mitigation for site improvements in terms of
20:19:52 cut-through traffic.
20:19:53 That's what we have worked out as far as mitigation.
20:19:55 I'll be glad to --
20:19:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Also there's a note there about
20:19:59 guest parking spaces?
20:20:01 Previously, I guess Mrs. Calloway indicated 63 guest
20:20:04 parking spaces are encouraged for this project?
20:20:12 >>> Melanie Callaway, transportation.
20:20:14 Just a note.
20:20:22 It encourages, just an advisory.
20:20:27 They were wondering how many guest spaces they need.
20:20:29 >> And how many do we have?
20:20:32 Mr. Gardner?
20:20:34 >>> We are providing 23 over code.
20:20:37 And on that, I had a couple of philosophical -- I
20:20:42 think that provision is great, the .25, and the town
20:20:45 home type of situation.
20:20:47 When you're providing structured parking, that would

20:20:51 have 63 spaces that are basically unoccupied at all
20:20:56 times, it's not even code now.
20:21:00 But we of course talked to marketing people, 23 is
20:21:04 more than sufficient over code, which is what we are
20:21:07 providing.
20:21:08 >> So you have two per unit?
20:21:12 >> Depending on the bedroom count.
20:21:14 Two bedrooms, I believe, are assigned two spaces, a
20:21:17 one-bedroom would be one.
20:21:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez?
20:21:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Guest parking, are they showing
20:21:30 anything on guest parking?
20:21:31 >>> That is the question I just answered.
20:21:32 >>: Okay, I'm sorry.
20:21:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if anyone in the public wants
20:21:36 to speak.
20:21:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As they are coming up.
20:21:39 So what is the note on mitigation?
20:21:44 Said something about hit delegation.
20:21:48 >>> From the city perspective the need for mitigation
20:21:51 went away.
20:21:51 We went directly to the neighborhood.

20:21:53 It was actually agreed upon at second reading the last
20:21:56 time.
20:21:57 I believe Ms. Vizzi wanted to try to divert the
20:22:01 $25,000 in mitigation to her neighborhood which we
20:22:06 agreed to.
20:22:06 So even though the city is no longer requiring to us
20:22:10 mitigate so we would be happy to offer that $25 that
20:22:13 you to you as --
20:22:15 >> Carrying over to this time?
20:22:17 >>> Correct.
20:23:25 >>> Mrs. Saul-Sena, are you interested in current
20:23:27 condition or both?
20:23:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you could come back and answer
20:23:34 that.
20:23:40 >>> I want to give you an order of magnitude of the
20:23:42 difference of traffic, real quick.
20:23:46 This provides a comparison of what was existing out
20:23:49 there at the hotel, 50 rooms, would be about 230 trips
20:23:55 per day. The hotel-condo currently approved about
20:23:59 2197.
20:24:00 Pretty much a wash.
20:24:01 The proposed condo would be about a thousand.

20:24:04 45.
20:24:05 And then we also looked at it from a peek hour
20:24:08 standpoint.
20:24:09 Again the green showing what's existing, which is a
20:24:13 hotel.
20:24:13 The blue showing what the hotel condo.
20:24:17 And the hotel showing the condo project.
20:24:21 You can see 168 existing.
20:24:24 170 approved.
20:24:25 85 proposed.
20:24:29 175 existing, 180 approved, 95 proposed.
20:24:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you -- Ms. Calloway, did you
20:24:38 concur with that?
20:24:41 Melanie?
20:24:42 Did you concur with that?
20:24:45 When those numbers --
20:24:48 >>> Yes.
20:24:48 I also ran trip generation.
20:24:50 And what he's saying is correct.
20:24:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
20:24:52 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: In reference to the $25,000 that Mr.
20:24:59 Gardner was talking about a minute ago, that's not on

20:25:02 the site plan.
20:25:03 If you want to make that a condition of this approval
20:25:05 that needs to be on the site plan.
20:25:08 >>> Undoubtedly our intent would be happy to put a
20:25:11 note there.
20:25:12 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
20:25:14 I think I need to clarify the $25,000 in a past
20:25:17 approval.
20:25:18 The $25,000 in the past approval was a mitigation
20:25:22 payment for the negative transportation impact and
20:25:27 possibly traffic calming in the area.
20:25:28 That is exactly how I wrote the note.
20:25:30 The note -- we cannot make the note bundled only to
20:25:37 the neighborhood.
20:25:38 This money is for mitigation in areas to be used by
20:25:41 the City of Tampa to offset any negative impact.
20:25:45 If it's in a neighborhood and that's where it needs to
20:25:47 go, that's where it will go.
20:25:49 But as far as funnelling that money only to a
20:25:51 neighborhood, that is not the way the note was
20:25:54 originally written.
20:25:55 And it was paid on second reading.

20:25:59 I want to make that clear.
20:26:02 >>> I think what Melanie is saying is we can't have a
20:26:04 private agreement on a city site plan?
20:26:08 Is that the just gist of it?
20:26:13 >>> The past approval had an increase in traffic.
20:26:18 They approved site plan prior to the one now, they
20:26:21 must mitigate for more traffic on the road.
20:26:23 They did that by providing 25,000.
20:26:26 Their new project is now less trips than the one that
20:26:29 was approved.
20:26:30 Therefore mitigation is no longer needed.
20:26:37 That is something that is -- we are not in the middle.
20:26:41 That is between the petitioner and the neighborhood as
20:26:43 they would like to support that.
20:26:47 >>> Again we are very glad mitigation is no longer
20:26:50 needed as it relates to the city but we are more than
20:26:52 willing to provide the $25,000 mitigation to the Beach
20:26:54 Park homeowners association.
20:27:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
20:27:08 Is there anyone in the public that -- let's hear from
20:27:10 the neighborhood.
20:27:13 Let's hear from the neighborhood.

20:27:14 Ms. Vizzi.
20:27:16 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Shirley.
20:27:18 I was just going to ask if any new evidence is put on
20:27:21 after our testimony that we be allowed to respond to
20:27:24 it.
20:27:26 I have great concerns about a let her which I
20:27:29 received.
20:27:29 I'm only going to read you the last paragraph, because
20:27:32 what Mr. Gnaws owe sent and I received on -- Nuccio
20:27:36 sent and I received on Wednesday and Mrs. Reynold
20:27:40 received on Thursday basically they were pulling their
20:27:42 $25 that you, and basically telling us in plain words,
20:27:46 if you support our project, we are going to give you
20:27:49 the $25 that you back.
20:27:52 I want it in the record, I have been involved in many,
20:27:54 many, many hearings, rezonings.
20:27:57 I have never ever -- this is an extortion, and I am
20:28:02 most upset about it.
20:28:03 And --
20:28:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Hand that around.
20:28:08 >>MARGARET VIZZI: I have been sworn.
20:28:25 I'll just read the last words.

20:28:27 Basically at the beginning he says we agreed to the at
20:28:29 the beginning but now we are withdrawing it.
20:28:32 However, van camper hotel is willing to agree in
20:28:38 advance so it can be directly placed on the site plan
20:28:42 so it would contribute 25 that you to the city,
20:28:45 et cetera, et cetera, if we support the hotel's
20:28:51 rezoning request.
20:29:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: I have read the letter.
20:29:06 Are you in support of the lesser project?
20:29:09 >>MARGARET VIZZI: No.
20:29:10 I am not.
20:29:10 This project, which they won't acknowledge, is going
20:29:14 to impact the residential neighborhood.
20:29:18 In their traffic study they don't even address Azeele
20:29:22 street.
20:29:22 We have a transportation person who is going to speak
20:29:25 to you on that issue.
20:29:26 But the neighborhood is going to be more impacted by
20:29:30 this project, because once you live in a neighborhood,
20:29:35 you do not use Kennedy Boulevard.
20:29:37 We trade to explain that to you last time.
20:29:40 Kennedy Boulevard backs up so badly, they call it a

20:29:47 D-D.
20:29:47 I call it an F-F.
20:29:49 Therefore traffic when it is going to and from that
20:29:52 condominium is not going to use Kennedy Boulevard.
20:29:55 Therefore, they are going to be cutting through Azeele
20:29:59 and Cleveland.
20:30:00 They will go to Hoover and come up Cleveland and
20:30:03 Azeele.
20:30:04 People tell me all the time, oh, I live over there on
20:30:07 Kennedy, but I go to Hoover and come up Cleveland and
20:30:12 Azeele.
20:30:12 I pass your home all the time.
20:30:14 And I know they do.
20:30:15 Backing out to try to get here, I thought I had that
20:30:19 hearing at 5:30. I had to wait for 12 cars in just a
20:30:24 couple of minutes -- second, really -- to pass before
20:30:27 I could back out.
20:30:28 And this is what we have now.
20:30:32 This development is going to impact us even more than
20:30:36 their original development.
20:30:38 Therefore, we're not any longer asking for 25.
20:30:42 But we should be getting 50 to 75, because those trips

20:30:47 are going to be coming through the neighborhood and
20:30:50 impacting.
20:30:52 So please, council, we wanted to recommend a less
20:30:59 number of units.
20:31:02 But this developer basically says this is what you are
20:31:05 getting.
20:31:05 It's a beautiful project.
20:31:06 Let me say that.
20:31:08 But the impact, this is tremendously worse than hotel
20:31:13 people who don't come into neighborhoods.
20:31:14 So please have them reduced and please have them agree
20:31:21 to additional funds for the negative impact it will
20:31:27 have on our residential street.
20:31:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Vizzi, you are really
20:31:34 knowledgeable about traffic problems in this area.
20:31:36 Do you have any recommendations on any other ways for
20:31:39 them to direct their traffic or how to better protect
20:31:41 your neighborhood?
20:31:45 >>MARGARET VIZZI: It's almost impossible to do without
20:31:48 a cul-de-sac. That's the ultimate.
20:31:50 And yet we totally understand that there are residents
20:31:58 who live back there.

20:31:59 We would -- this additional traffic which was never
20:32:08 done, I think Mr. Harrison was the one who asked for a
20:32:11 report to come back in six months, which that never
20:32:15 happened, for additional traffic calming.
20:32:18 And I do not understand the impact fees that they will
20:32:22 be paying, or what will be used for the area, the
20:32:27 other area.
20:32:28 This was in mitigation for the neighborhood.
20:32:31 I don't understand how the city doesn't do things like
20:32:35 that.
20:32:38 That was agreed to.
20:32:39 Nobody objected at the time.
20:32:40 And now it's being said when can't do it.
20:32:43 But if we have to take it and use it, we'll take it
20:32:46 and use -- use it.
20:32:48 But pleas put something in there that they will agree
20:32:51 to, to mitigate our neighborhood traffic.
20:32:53 Thank you.
20:32:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Vizzi, I want to comment, to you
20:32:58 but I want to ask legal staff real quickly, based upon
20:33:03 the new development, the new fee, the new site plan
20:33:07 that's before us, on transportation, if this lessens

20:33:14 the trips.
20:33:15 Believe me, I understand what you're saying.
20:33:17 But now they are saying there's in a mitigation to the
20:33:22 neighborhoods.
20:33:22 I just want to know, Ms. Cole, from a legal
20:33:26 standpoint, when staff is saying there's nothing to
20:33:31 mitigate -- I understand what the petitioner is saying
20:33:35 and I know that maybe bee can't even legally put that
20:33:38 on the site plan now, because there is no
20:33:41 quote-unquote mitigation.
20:33:42 But the developer has agreed to X amount of dollars as
20:33:47 a voluntary thing, which is fine.
20:33:49 But can we legally, even ask for a dime at this point
20:33:55 in time based off of the new information that we got?
20:34:02 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
20:34:04 I know you heard from transportation staff, that this
20:34:06 new application that is in front of you creates in a
20:34:10 net negative impact from the development that's
20:34:12 currently there, and as a result of that there would
20:34:14 be in a ability for the city to require mitigation,
20:34:18 because there is no new impact.
20:34:21 If there is some agreement between homeowners

20:34:25 situation and this developer has donated some money,
20:34:28 to do some things, that really does need to be a
20:34:31 separate, side agreement that shouldn't be considered
20:34:33 as part of this rezoning.
20:34:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: Away from us.
20:34:36 >>JULIA COLE: Away from zoning.
20:34:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just think first of all, Ms. Vizzi,
20:34:43 and somebody else may have a question.
20:34:45 I think it's admirable upon the developer, just hear
20:34:48 me out, that they are still willing to even -- though
20:34:52 they are not obligated any longer -- that I agree with
20:34:55 you in theory that condo people that live in the
20:35:00 neighborhood, I wholeheartedly understand what you're
20:35:04 saying -- would probably have a higher traffic impact
20:35:07 upon the neighborhood, because they know they are out
20:35:09 there looking for the shortcuts, where hotel residents
20:35:13 would probably stay on the Main Street to keep from
20:35:16 getting lost.
20:35:17 I wholeheartedly understand what you're saying.
20:35:20 But I wanted to clarify from legal -- and if I'm wrong
20:35:26 please correct me -- we don't have the authority up
20:35:28 here to demand that the developer come up with one

20:35:31 more dime other than what they are offering, and I
20:35:36 think they may be willing to maybe do something else
20:35:40 off the side.
20:35:41 They seem to be very open.
20:35:44 But that's something --
20:35:45 >>MARGARET VIZZI: We have someone who can give you
20:35:47 some other traffic studies that I hope you will enter
20:35:49 into the record and pay very careful attention to,
20:35:53 which will show otherwise.
20:35:54 Thank you.
20:35:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mrs. Vizzi, before you go, this
20:36:01 project is on the north side of Kennedy, right?
20:36:04 Is there a late at O'Brien?
20:36:06 >>> No.
20:36:07 No.
20:36:07 >> So Kennedy Boulevard is really well traveled.
20:36:13 Would you say it's well traveled?
20:36:17 >>> Well traveled.
20:36:18 People who live in the area, these people will not use
20:36:22 Kennedy.
20:36:23 >> Listen to me.
20:36:24 If they are coming out of O'Brien, why do you think

20:36:29 that they are going to try to cross Kennedy
20:36:31 Boulevard --
20:36:33 >>> They're not.
20:36:34 That's what we're talking about. They are going to go
20:36:36 right to Hoover, take a left and go through the
20:36:38 neighborhood.
20:36:38 That's the easier thing to do.
20:36:41 >> So they --
20:36:42 >>> they try -- it's not even two seconds to get to
20:36:47 Hoover.
20:36:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But to avoid the intersection of
20:36:52 Westshore.
20:36:53 >>> That whole traffic problem.
20:36:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You avoid the intersection you can
20:36:58 go through Cleveland, or west Azeele and wet out to
20:37:03 Westshore and go south on Westshore.
20:37:07 >>> If I can clarify your question.
20:37:09 Julia and I -- I'll commit on the record to the
20:37:14 $25,000, in between now and the second reading you
20:37:20 would enter into a side agreement to keep it out of
20:37:22 the context of the zoning.
20:37:26 That's way thought I heard legal state.

20:37:30 >>KEVIN WHITE: If the neighborhood feels you need to
20:37:39 have another meeting to clarify, whatever the case may
20:37:42 be, that's between you and all the neighborhood as
20:37:45 well as far as I'm concerned.
20:37:49 >>> My name is Jackie PALITO, a registered
20:37:52 professional engineer, and I specialize in traffic
20:37:54 engineering.
20:37:56 Today I would like to talk to you about the traffic
20:37:58 analysis that was conducted for this project.
20:38:01 And I have been sworn in.
20:38:03 The first thing I would like to talk about is the trip
20:38:05 generation.
20:38:05 It is a bit misleading.
20:38:08 They state that the hotel generates 175 p.m. peak hour
20:38:14 trips.
20:38:14 Their consultant did a traffic count at their drive
20:38:17 way, and for the p.m. peak hours they only have five
20:38:20 trips being generated.
20:38:22 If you compare the actual trips to the proposed trips,
20:38:26 there is actually an increase in 90 trips for the p.m.
20:38:30 peak hour instead of peak 85 trips that they are
20:38:34 stating in their analysis.

20:38:36 They are definitely overestimating the number of trips
20:38:38 that this particular hotel is generating.
20:38:42 The next thing is the trip distribution.
20:38:45 The consultant uses Tampa Bay regional planning model.
20:38:48 This is a rebuilt planning model. This model does not
20:38:51 have local roadways on it such as Azeele and
20:38:55 Cleveland.
20:38:55 Adding these local roadways would give it more
20:38:58 accuracy.
20:38:59 I did a quick analysis and I added the roadway of
20:39:02 Azeele, and I also changed the land use from the 250
20:39:07 hotels to 250 dwelling units.
20:39:10 That resulted in increase in traffic in the model.
20:39:12 And it also resulted in increase to traffic on Azeele,
20:39:16 which they say is not going to happen.
20:39:19 People will definitely be using a road, and I'm glad
20:39:22 they acknowledged that.
20:39:23 They also did a custom evaluation.
20:39:26 They did a travel time study in the month of July.
20:39:29 We all know that that's not peak season.
20:39:33 There are in a.
20:39:35 >> Birds.

20:39:35 School is not in session.
20:39:37 There would be an increase of 13% traffic on Kennedy
20:39:40 if they would have done it during the peak season.
20:39:43 13% more trips would definitely make Cleveland and
20:39:47 Azeele more attractive and a more viable alternative
20:39:50 route.
20:39:51 To get to the destination in South Tampa.
20:39:55 There's definitely impact in the driving pattern, as
20:39:58 you mentioned from a hotel user to a resident.
20:40:01 They are going to be doing school trips, church trips,
20:40:05 grocery store trips, and they are going to be using
20:40:08 our local roads.
20:40:09 Please acknowledge the fact that there will be a
20:40:11 significant impact on our roadway system, and we would
20:40:15 like to have some mitigation such as traffic calm
20:40:20 techniques and sidewalks.
20:40:24 Thank you.
20:40:36 >> What do you mean and how much in your professional
20:40:39 opinion would that cost?
20:40:42 >>> We need to make Cleveland and Azeele less
20:40:46 attractive for people to go on.
20:40:48 There's already some speed bunches on the road.

20:40:50 But we need to make it less attractive.
20:40:53 Make the roundabout, little traffic circumstances so
20:40:56 people don't want to travel on those roads.
20:40:58 Just the residents that live there.
20:41:00 And the cost has skyrocketed.
20:41:04 Would you know speed bump alone is between 6 and
20:41:07 7,000.
20:41:07 A sidewalk, a one-mile sidewalk is 299,000.
20:41:11 So for 25 that they are offering won't even make a
20:41:16 dent in making some of those traffic improvements on
20:41:20 our roadways.
20:41:32 >>> Good evening.
20:41:33 My name is Emmy Reynold, president of the Beach Park
20:41:37 homeowners association.
20:41:38 Good to see all of you here tonight.
20:41:42 I would like to say that I thank the developer for
20:41:46 inviting us out a second time when they wanted to come
20:41:49 up with this new proposal.
20:41:52 Their plan is very attractive.
20:41:54 They are very pleasant people.
20:41:56 But that's not why we are here.
20:41:58 So the situation here is that last time I tried to

20:42:01 explain the traffic impact, and I ran out of time.
20:42:07 They did not discuss trip distribution.
20:42:09 In fact the numbers, discussed trip generation,
20:42:16 traffic going through that location.
20:42:19 And even that I believe is not -- I think a flaw in
20:42:23 the way it was discussed because we all know people
20:42:27 who live in condos, people who go into the hotel are
20:42:31 taking taxis usually.
20:42:33 And we can't change the path that you guys approved
20:42:36 last tame.
20:42:36 We would like you to listen to the traffic impact.
20:42:40 We believe -- it's shown us you intuitively, and I
20:42:47 think you guys all know that the condo will have a
20:42:49 bigger impact than hotel rooms.
20:42:51 We would like to look at the reality of the issue.
20:42:55 It is right close to Westshore that. Street has
20:42:57 probably been discussed more than any other street in
20:43:00 the past few months as having 32,000 trips over daily
20:43:06 and what's going to happen south of Gandy is going to
20:43:09 add an additional trips per day.
20:43:14 We already agreed to the 167.
20:43:16 Some kind of reduction in the number that you agreed

20:43:19 to, or not approve the system, I could see that they
20:43:26 are requesting.
20:43:26 For them to say that they are reducing traffic,
20:43:30 shouldn't even have to give 25, that they agreed to
20:43:32 the first tame, I can't believe anybody would have the
20:43:37 audacity to stand up here and state that.
20:43:40 So just one thing that's going to be coming before you
20:43:45 multiple times, people are going to be coming to ask
20:43:48 for additional residential units in the Westshore
20:43:50 area, and just like what happens south of Gandy, if we
20:43:54 don't start looking at the overall picture, it's going
20:43:57 to be impossible to live happily in that neighborhood.
20:44:01 We had 1300 homes in Beach Park.
20:44:03 The neighborhood -- some of our residents have been
20:44:08 there for 30, 40 years.
20:44:13 Just decided to move there and have all this traffic
20:44:15 come upon us.
20:44:16 We have always reflected -- our presidents have
20:44:20 mandated before the board, ask you to continue to
20:44:23 maintain and up hold the current density, the current
20:44:27 zoning, and not increase the density within our
20:44:30 neighborhood.

20:44:33 Thank you for your time.
20:44:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thanks for coming up this afternoon
20:44:39 and tonight.
20:44:43 If we deny this, you know --
20:44:50 >>> They still have the hotel.
20:44:51 >>: Yes, but they will --
20:44:53 >>> They already have the approval.
20:44:55 >> So you would rather have that than condo?
20:44:59 >>> I would rather have what was approved last time,
20:45:01 because that's less impact than what they are asking
20:45:05 for this time.
20:45:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn, for the record?
20:45:12 >>> Yes.
20:45:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question for our traffic
20:45:15 people.
20:45:16 >>CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else want top speak?
20:45:25 If you're going to speak, line up.
20:45:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What about this trip generation
20:45:29 versus trip distribution?
20:45:32 That's an interesting argument that I don't know
20:45:34 that -- do we even address that?
20:45:38 It's easy to say that there are so many cars going in

20:45:41 and out of this site.
20:45:44 And when you take all the models, that what this
20:45:47 proposal is will reduce those numbers coming in and
20:45:50 out of sight.
20:45:51 But when they are leaving the site, where are they
20:45:53 going?
20:45:53 And when they are going back to the site where are
20:45:55 they coming from?
20:45:57 I guess that's the question, and the neighbors say
20:45:59 they are coming through our neighborhood.
20:46:01 How can we specify this information?
20:46:07 >>> Melanie Callaway, transportation.
20:46:10 I think that you must understand that assumptions are
20:46:15 made.
20:46:17 Assumptions that are based on the -- their traffic
20:46:23 engineer assumed how the traffic would be distributed
20:46:26 in their study.
20:46:28 The neighborhood is assuming that they will be
20:46:33 distributed in different ways.
20:46:35 They are assumptions.
20:46:37 And what you can believe or not believe, they did the
20:46:39 best that they could do.

20:46:41 Trip generation that is used to determine how many
20:46:45 trips this hotel-condo project would generate in
20:46:48 comparison to the condo project is based on a
20:46:54 nationwide study, and then they take an average of
20:46:56 those.
20:46:57 They say hotels in the entire country, then they take
20:47:01 an average of all those trips, and they come up with a
20:47:04 number.
20:47:04 That's what they did.
20:47:06 Same thing with the conned O. they don't go to Tampa
20:47:10 and have a specific study for just Tampa condos.
20:47:14 They take the ICE trip generation, which is a study of
20:47:17 the condos throughout the country, which they find an
20:47:20 average.
20:47:21 This hotel currently existing maybe below the average.
20:47:25 However, a Marriott could be built there tomorrow, and
20:47:28 it could be on the high end of the scale.
20:47:32 Again, if they are taking an average,.
20:47:38 >>: What you just said is the petitioner's traffic
20:47:43 expert makes an assumption.
20:47:44 And the neighborhood's traffic expert makes an
20:47:47 assumption.

20:47:48 And it's a battle of the experts, right?
20:47:52 They say different things.
20:47:53 Who do we believe?
20:47:54 And I guess what we do is we la to our staff to help
20:47:58 guide us in that.
20:48:00 >> Correct.
20:48:01 He submitted a traffic study.
20:48:04 When I looked at it, this is what I look at.
20:48:07 Which Cleveland, between Hoover and Westshore, between
20:48:15 a portion of Azeele, from Hoover to Westshore, has
20:48:19 three speed tables.
20:48:21 I don't know about you but I don't like going over
20:48:23 speed humps.
20:48:24 They slow people down.
20:48:25 They are going to be slowed down either way.
20:48:29 If you go on the signals, you go on the speed bumps,
20:48:32 you're being slowed down.
20:48:35 People who distribute the way they find with lease.
20:48:49 When I looked at it, assumed the traffic was going
20:48:53 that way.
20:48:53 Reality of it, the truth, reality of it, when it's
20:48:56 built, we'll see how people really flow.

20:49:00 Considering the fact that they go on Hoover, and they
20:49:03 make a U-turn and go on memorial, I don't have a
20:49:08 problem doing that.
20:49:11 I as a driver would use that because there's a signal
20:49:14 there and I can make a U-turn around.
20:49:16 But you go on Westshore, you are limited in the time
20:49:19 you can make turns, it's harder to get out, we know
20:49:21 about Westshore.
20:49:24 So as a person, as a traffic engineer.
20:49:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Are you saying this project based on
20:49:36 your professional opinion is going to have a greater
20:49:38 impact on the Beach Park neighborhood than the
20:49:41 existing project that's already zoned there?
20:49:47 >>> The existing project that's zoned there as 167
20:49:49 condos.
20:49:51 They are proposing 250.
20:49:54 The difference in trip generation is really not that
20:49:57 much.
20:49:59 >> Trip generation versus trip distribution.
20:50:01 I'm asking, is this going to send more cars through
20:50:05 the Beach Park neighborhood than what we approved last
20:50:07 year?

20:50:10 >>> My professional opinion, I don't think so.
20:50:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Melanie, one of the things that
20:50:17 their trip transportation said that didn't make sense
20:50:21 to me is this is going to be distributed differently
20:50:23 through the day and have less impact at rush hour.
20:50:26 Seems to me that people who live in condos get up in
20:50:28 the morning and have more impact at rush hour.
20:50:32 What's your take?
20:50:45 That a condo is going to have less impact on the
20:50:47 roadway, and that is where they are going, I guess.
20:50:51 Offices, if they are coming straight from the airport.
20:50:54 The second is less.
20:51:01 >> Ignatius James, I live directly across the street
20:51:12 from what's currently the clarion at 5306 Kennedy.
20:51:17 I have been sworn.
20:51:17 I think it's going to be a pretty good project.
20:51:19 I support it.
20:51:20 I think it will be good for the overall community.
20:51:22 Business impact bringing more folks into the Westshore
20:51:25 community.
20:51:26 And I think there will be a little more traffic.
20:51:31 But I think the benefits clearly outweigh any problem.

20:51:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:51:38 Next.
20:51:42 >>> I'm Ann Cullard representing Westshore alliance.
20:51:46 I have been sworn.
20:51:47 5444 bay center drive.
20:51:49 We are absolutely in support of this project.
20:51:51 You know, we talk a lot about Westshore being a
20:51:54 regional activity center, regional mixed use center.
20:51:57 The one component we need to beef up more than
20:52:00 anything in the Westshore district is residential
20:52:02 development.
20:52:03 It's the largest employment center in central Florida.
20:52:06 And the more residential development we have within
20:52:08 the district, because this is clearly within the
20:52:11 district, you know, the better that is. The fewer
20:52:13 traffic impacts it creates for people driving halfway
20:52:16 across the city, the more pedestrian opportunities.
20:52:19 This particular project, I mean, I see people on a
20:52:24 daily basis from the three-story townhouse that is
20:52:27 were built across the street last year walking,
20:52:29 walking to the mall, walking to the office building,
20:52:32 to their jobs.

20:52:33 I never saw that before.
20:52:34 But I think that also needs to be taken into
20:52:37 consideration.
20:52:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: These people are all going to work
20:52:41 on Gandy.
20:52:42 (Laughter).
20:52:44 Just joking.
20:52:45 >>> I know.
20:52:46 And I think in regard to the traffic situation --
20:52:49 because I drive on that road every day on my way to my
20:52:52 office.
20:52:53 I think the thing that causes the most backup in that
20:52:57 area, the evening rush hour is by far worse than the
20:53:01 morning rush hour.
20:53:02 Morning rush hour doesn't really have a lot of problem
20:53:05 and with the reconstruction around the airport, I
20:53:07 think that's designed to mitigate some of that.
20:53:09 If you try to leave Westshore at that time of day and
20:53:12 go anywhere north, go to the causeway, because of that
20:53:17 traffic jam around the airport, and keep doing a lot
20:53:21 to change that right now, hopefully once that is
20:53:23 fixed, and the I-275 eventually, I think that's going

20:53:28 to end up taking some of -- clearing some of that
20:53:31 traffic out.
20:53:32 Obviously in regard to the other person, we certainly
20:53:35 think it is a huge aesthetic enhancement, you know,
20:53:39 with Kennedy.
20:53:40 We thought we have done a lot of work, and worked in
20:53:42 conjunction with Linda and city staff on the Kennedy
20:53:45 overlay district, so that it's in sync with the
20:53:49 Westshore overlay district.
20:53:50 This meets all the guidelines.
20:53:52 If you look at that section of roadway, that really is
20:53:55 the western gateway to Tampa coming off the Howard
20:53:57 Frankland, and this project will be a huge
20:54:00 improvement.
20:54:01 So we are absolutely in support of the project.
20:54:03 I understand Ms. Vizzi's concerns.
20:54:06 But Lew like I said, just because you live there
20:54:09 doesn't mean you have to drive everywhere.
20:54:12 There's a lot of things you can do that you can
20:54:13 actually walk to.
20:54:14 And parking structure, drive down a four-story parking
20:54:20 structure, drive to Westshore parking mall, find a

20:54:22 space, you could have walked there by now.
20:54:24 So I think that opportunity is --
20:54:28 >>> Thank you.
20:54:29 Would anyone else like to speak?
20:54:31 Petitioner, want to rebuttal?
20:54:35 >> The whole issue is transportation, traffic
20:54:37 concerns.
20:54:39 Steve Henry is here if you have any questions on his
20:54:42 methodology or explanation needed.
20:54:44 He can answer that.
20:54:44 The $25 that you, I think it's great they raise the
20:54:50 concerns and I would hope that money would be used to
20:54:52 address those concerns.
20:54:53 And to be Kuwait frank, I thought that was a pretty
20:54:57 generous donation.
20:54:59 And I know from being involved in my neighborhood it's
20:55:02 association a developer wanted to commit $25,000 down
20:55:07 the street.
20:55:08 And with that, I will turn it over to Steve if he
20:55:11 wants to provide an explanation or if you have
20:55:13 questions for him.
20:55:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Gardner, two things.

20:55:21 First, Mr. Shelby and I talked about this briefly.
20:55:24 There's confusion on the $25,000.
20:55:26 The last time note ended up being on the site plan.
20:55:33 >>> On second reading was done --
20:55:36 >> There was a note on the site plan.
20:55:38 >>> I think it was on the site plan fires reading.
20:55:40 At second reading Mrs. Vizzi asked and we confirmed
20:55:43 that it could be used for Beach Park homeowners
20:55:45 association.
20:55:48 On this occasion the traffic impact decreased and we
20:55:55 wanted to offer that to hopefully cure anything.
20:55:57 >> I need to clarify.
20:55:59 When you say for the Beach Park homeowners
20:56:01 association, you mean just a contribution, or a
20:56:05 contribution to the city to be used in the
20:56:07 neighborhood as related to Beach Park?
20:56:12 Because as much as I love neighborhood associations,
20:56:14 we are not ever going to be saying that they are going
20:56:19 to come here and you are going to contribute to them
20:56:21 for their cooperation.
20:56:22 >> I think the distinction is before it was going to
20:56:24 the city, and then coming back to the neighborhood

20:56:27 association.
20:56:28 Now the city no longer has -- now the city is going to
20:56:34 ask for that so it has to be a private agreement
20:56:36 between us and the neighborhood.
20:56:37 >> But I would still differ with that.
20:56:40 >>JULIA COLE: As I recall correctly, between first and
20:56:43 second reading, around second reading, the $25,000
20:56:46 mitigation condition was as part of the site plan
20:56:49 because of the increased traffic impact.
20:56:52 On second reading, if I recall correctly, the note was
20:56:57 tweaked to add that it would be directed toward
20:57:00 improvement in the Beach Park area.
20:57:03 What's happened now is because it's the change in the
20:57:08 density and because of the traffic analysis which,
20:57:11 that $25 that you traffic litigation requirement has
20:57:15 been removed.
20:57:16 So that's where we are right now.
20:57:18 >> But my point is, if they voluntarily, okay, without
20:57:22 any arm twisting from me or anybody else, if they
20:57:26 voluntarily want to leave that exact same condition as
20:57:28 it was from the second reading before, and I think it
20:57:32 needs to go on the site plan.

20:57:34 I don't think it should be a private agreement between
20:57:36 them and the neighborhood.
20:57:38 Because it needs to come through the city.
20:57:42 If the city is going to use it on the public streets
20:57:45 within the Beach Park neighborhood it has to come
20:57:46 through the city and the only way it can do that is to
20:57:49 come off the site plan.
20:57:52 So even though it might not be a requirement, the
20:57:55 minute that they offer it, I think we should accept it
20:57:57 and put it on the site plan.
20:58:02 And my other question to you, Mr. Gardner, is, I think
20:58:18 Ms. Vizzi's point is a pretty good point that this is
20:58:21 a lot of units so where does 260 come from?
20:58:24 Is that the most units you can get in at ten stories
20:58:26 or something like that?
20:58:28 >>> Absolutely not.
20:58:30 It's 250.
20:58:30 Before it was 328.
20:58:32 >> I'm looking at the staff report, it says 260.
20:58:37 >>> 50 on the site plan.
20:58:38 Basically that's the development -- 250 on the site
20:58:42 plan.

20:58:46 We were asking from a density standpoint to utilize
20:58:49 84% of the available density on the last rezoning in
20:58:52 August.
20:58:52 On this occasion.
20:58:54 We are down to 68%.
20:58:57 >> So is that density based upon what?
20:59:00 Based upon the --
20:59:01 >>> The comp plan density.
20:59:03 It's an RMU district so you can cut it however you
20:59:06 want.
20:59:06 And take the overall F.A.R. and then convert that into
20:59:11 units, or hotels or office or whatever it may be.
20:59:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's hear what staff has to say.
20:59:28 >> You didn't speak about cut throughs on Azeele or
20:59:32 Cleve land.
20:59:33 Isn't that a reality on this project from your
20:59:35 professional opinion?
20:59:36 >>> We didn't update it on the part of this rezoning
20:59:39 application but we did do a detailed drive-time study
20:59:44 for the last rezonings that we did.
20:59:46 And we drive times, keeping the site even going down
20:59:52 Kennedy to Westshore, or leaving the site and going to

20:59:57 Hoover and then down -- and we looked at those drive
21:00:02 times during a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hours.
21:00:07 In some instances it was more, in some instances it
21:00:09 was less.
21:00:09 But it was the overall grand scheme of things about
21:00:15 equal.
21:00:16 Part of it is because of the speed tables on Cleveland
21:00:18 and Azeele.
21:00:25 I'm not going to say nobody will ever come down here.
21:00:28 Absolutely.
21:00:28 But the thing is, equal number will also use Kennedy,
21:00:33 in addition to that we looked at how many people --
21:00:35 what's the destination people are looking for?
21:00:41 Is it employment?
21:00:42 Shopping?
21:00:43 The majority of the employment is north of Kennedy
21:00:47 Boulevard, in the Westshore business district.
21:00:50 The shopping with the malls is north.
21:00:53 So in our estimation based on the models about 10% of
21:00:56 the traffic may be destined on Westshore.
21:01:03 There aren't a lot of attractions but there are some,
21:01:05 absolutely.

21:01:06 There are signs on Westshore, northbound, that
21:01:08 prohibit those turns during the peak hours so those
21:01:14 numbers would be reduced.
21:01:15 The answer is yes, there would be some.
21:01:17 I think the impact would be minimal.
21:01:19 But what we are willing to do and that's the reason
21:01:21 why we have agreed to provide the money, yes, some
21:01:23 people may do it.
21:01:24 But we are willing to commit to providing the money to
21:01:28 the neighborhood to help with traffic calming to
21:01:30 reduce the number that might be there.
21:01:36 >> Dy understand you correctly to say did you not do
21:01:38 an updated traffic study for this rezoning?
21:01:46 >>> The traffic portion, which is the impact to the
21:01:48 intersection, but we did not go back op out and do an
21:01:51 additional drive time to look at the drive times
21:01:54 between the site using Kennedy or using Azeele and
21:01:58 Cleveland.
21:01:59 >> What will that information give us?
21:02:02 >>> It would probably be the same as it was before.
21:02:04 That's the reason we did not update it.
21:02:07 >> I mean what would it tell us?

21:02:09 >>> It would tell you that the drive time going from
21:02:11 the site, I have a graphic here that may help.
21:02:16 >> So if you are going from point A to point B and you
21:02:19 went down Westshore it would take you X minutes.
21:02:21 But if you cut through the neighborhood it would take
21:02:24 you Y minutes.
21:02:25 >>> Right.
21:02:25 And it's about the same.
21:02:28 >> Another's questions by council members?
21:02:29 Move to close the public hearing.
21:02:32 >> So moved.
21:02:32 >> Second.
21:02:32 (Motion carried).
21:02:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Will we hear from staff?
21:02:38 Ms. Cole -- oh, you closed?
21:02:43 >>JULIA COLE: I think this is raising a lot of issues.
21:02:48 We do have traffic analysis that have been placed into
21:02:51 the record that Ms. Calloway has an opportunity to
21:02:53 review or discuss any further.
21:02:55 The petitioner hasn't had a chance to review or
21:02:57 discuss any further.
21:02:59 At this point, you have two options.

21:03:02 One, you can go ahead and add that condition back on.
21:03:05 We can review it for second reading and recommendation
21:03:08 that condition be removed -- when Mr. Gardner had
21:03:13 suggested is allow between first and second reading
21:03:15 opportunity for him to negotiate a private agreement
21:03:18 with Ms. Vizzi and the Beach Park homeowners
21:03:20 association.
21:03:21 But I think at this point it's the two options because
21:03:25 Ms. Calloway is telling you that in her opinion, in
21:03:28 her professional opinion, there is no additional
21:03:32 traffic impact which would allow them to recommend a
21:03:39 $25,000 traffic mitigation requirement.
21:03:42 That's kind whereof we are stuck right now.
21:03:45 >> Based on Mr. Henry --
21:03:47 >>> Based on Mr. Henry -- staff reviewed the traffic
21:03:51 analysis that was submitted.
21:03:53 Some new information had come to you today, which Mrs.
21:03:58 Callaway hasn't reviewed to discuss to be taken to see
21:04:01 how it factors into her analysis, if it factors in at
21:04:04 all.
21:04:05 So I would add a third, which is to continue this and
21:04:07 allow that to occur.

21:04:09 So we could add a condition back in, have that
21:04:12 determination between first and second reading.
21:04:14 Cot always be removed.
21:04:15 Or Mr. Gardner's suggestion of allowing that to be
21:04:20 discussed between first and second reading or a
21:04:22 continuance to allow Ms. Calloway the opportunity to
21:04:25 discuss this issue, and Mr. Henry discuss this issue
21:04:32 with the traffic engineer who submitted the additional
21:04:35 information.
21:04:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be my recommendation,
21:04:39 council, that you did hear testimony, both from
21:04:46 somebody in the audience as well as a discussion with
21:04:49 the traffic engineer, the petitioner for basis for
21:04:56 having that note added for mitigation.
21:04:59 In other words, council could choose to accept the
21:05:01 fact that there is a traffic impact if council so
21:05:05 chooses, if by agreement, the note were added tonight,
21:05:10 at least it would be addressed between first and
21:05:15 second hearing.
21:05:18 But it would be my recommendation that based on what I
21:05:21 heard, there can be a basis by competent substantial
21:05:26 evidence that we support the placing of that note on

21:05:28 the site plan for first reading, following first and
21:05:36 second reading.
21:05:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: I see both representatives from the
21:05:39 neighborhood saying no to that offer.
21:05:42 >>> My suggestion, council, is that you cannot tie a
21:05:46 land use decision based on an agreement between a
21:05:51 petitioner and a neighborhood association.
21:05:54 That is inappropriate for discussion as to whether or
21:05:57 not that would constitute competent, substantial
21:06:00 evidence, as to whether a neighborhood association
21:06:03 would consent to the project as proposed.
21:06:06 I believe it would be wholly inappropriate for council
21:06:09 to become involved in a discussion of money for the
21:06:11 exchange between an applicant and a neighborhood
21:06:14 association.
21:06:16 >> Even if there's major transportation impact?
21:06:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If that is the case then I believe it
21:06:21 should be mitigated through the city and through a
21:06:25 traffic analysis.
21:06:26 There has to be a nexus between the money being
21:06:30 offered for the project that's being created, for the
21:06:32 mitigation that's being paid.

21:06:36 >> But what Ms. Cole is saying we don't know that
21:06:39 she's able to review the new information.
21:06:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That may well be but you also had a
21:06:46 traffic engineer state and I believe others stated, I
21:06:49 know Mrs. Callaway said it, when this project is built
21:06:53 you surely will know issues that require mitigation
21:06:55 for that money, that it can therefore be spent.
21:06:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have another different approach.
21:07:01 And that is perhaps we don't want to approve this
21:07:03 project, in which case the money is moot.
21:07:07 Because I suspect traffic professionals, that I drive
21:07:11 this street every single day, and I know the
21:07:14 condition, and they are, as somebody said, double
21:07:19 that.
21:07:19 So I don't know that I want to support this rezoning
21:07:21 anyway.
21:07:22 So I think before we get into a hassle over 25,000 why
21:07:28 don't we find out if there's support for proposed
21:07:31 zoning?
21:07:32 >>KEVIN WHITE: Maybe this might help clear and leave
21:07:37 you with a situation.
21:07:38 I understand Mr. Dingfelder's point.

21:07:40 I wholeheartedly agree, we are going to have -- it
21:07:44 needs to be tied to the ski.
21:07:45 I'm not an attorney, but I want to ask our attorney,
21:07:50 should competent, substantial evidence, have air
21:07:54 traffic engineer, we have a young lady from the
21:07:58 neighborhood association who is the professional
21:08:00 engineer, and we have ours.
21:08:04 So we have three professionals in here.
21:08:06 And all three of them in a little over three years of
21:08:10 sitting here, I still never understood traffic trip
21:08:13 generation traffic in any form.
21:08:18 Because the numbers always come out to the
21:08:21 petitioner's side regardless.
21:08:28 Period.
21:08:30 Now, I think that what I'm saying, competent,
21:08:34 substantial evidence, Ms. Vizzi and as a neighborhood
21:08:38 resident, she see it is cars coming through.
21:08:40 I think that's competent and substantial.
21:08:42 We know there is a traffic problem.
21:08:46 That's competent, substantial.
21:08:47 We weigh don't know to what degree.
21:08:50 We know that this is not -- our transportation -- it's

21:08:58 not worthy of mitigation but our petitioner obviously
21:09:01 feels that it is.
21:09:01 The neighborhood obviously feels that it is.
21:09:03 So with that competent, substantial evidence, let's
21:09:07 put it on the record, make a note on the site plan,
21:09:11 and it can get our staff between first and second
21:09:17 reading to see if that analysis requires more or less
21:09:23 mitigation.
21:09:24 Of course, we know the petitioner, based on the
21:09:27 statement now, won't go left.
21:09:30 But there may be more litigation.
21:09:32 But between first and second reading staff will have
21:09:36 an opportunity to review that number, and we can get
21:09:38 off the dime and we can go ahead and vote this thing
21:09:41 up or down based on competent substantial evidence,
21:09:44 put it on the record, put it on the site plan, let's
21:09:47 all -- it's all agreed to.
21:09:49 If it's done by sections, get a $25,000, clerk's
21:09:54 office can work with neighborhood transportation and
21:09:57 we can all be done.
21:10:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: There are a lot of things between now
21:10:02 and second reading.

21:10:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think Mr. White's approach is a
21:10:06 good one.
21:10:07 I think there is real evidence in the record by the
21:10:09 neighborhood representatives, engineer, that there
21:10:13 will be mitigation necessary.
21:10:17 You notice the neighborhood really hasn't been talking
21:10:19 about reject this outright.
21:10:21 They have been talking about mitigation, help us make
21:10:23 this a better way.
21:10:25 $25,000 in today's world won't do a hill of beans.
21:10:30 So I'm not sure that that's going to be a sufficient
21:10:33 number, if there is mitigation necessary.
21:10:37 One thing I am sure, Melanie has not looked at their
21:10:40 information yet and between first and second reading
21:10:43 she can.
21:10:43 That gives Mr. Gardner the opportunity to talk to the
21:10:45 neighborhood and see what he can try to work out as
21:10:48 well.
21:10:48 What we are doing here basically tonight is saying,
21:10:51 you know what?
21:10:53 We'll kyne of hunt for two weeks and see where we come
21:10:56 back in two weeks.

21:10:57 I don't -- none of us want to continue this and I
21:11:00 don't think it's really appropriate to give it a
21:11:02 straight up or down vote.
21:11:03 Because we do have a little more to do.
21:11:06 So I would be available of Mr. White's suggestion.
21:11:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's close the public hearing and see
21:11:10 where we go.
21:11:11 >> So moved sneaked second.
21:11:13 (Motion carried).
21:11:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
21:11:16 the general vicinity of 5303 West Kennedy Boulevard in
21:11:20 the city of Tampa, Florida from zoning district
21:11:24 classifications PD hotel and multifamily residential
21:11:26 to PD multifamily residential providing an effective
21:11:28 date.
21:11:32 >>KEVIN WHITE: With the modification of $25 that you
21:11:35 to be placed on the site plan for traffic calming
21:11:38 mitigation.
21:11:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For clarification purposes, I heard
21:11:48 Mrs. Alvarez say the motion but I did not hear that
21:11:52 condition.
21:11:57 >> Adding a friendly amendment to the motion.

21:11:59 >> You can't add it to the ordinance.
21:12:01 Because that changes the ordinance.
21:12:06 >> Clarify your motion.
21:12:07 >> My motion is this.
21:12:08 I'm readding the ordinance.
21:12:10 >> And do you want the $25,000 notation on the site
21:12:14 plan the same way it was previously?
21:12:18 >>> They said that they didn't have to.
21:12:21 But it was -- it was a private agreement between the
21:12:26 developer and --
21:12:30 >> If they take it out being a private agreement and
21:12:32 put it on the site plan.
21:12:34 >> You thought Verizon was bad.
21:12:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's fine.
21:12:38 I want to go home, guys.
21:12:40 >> And I'll second that.
21:12:41 >>GWEN MILLER: And add it to the ordinance.
21:12:49 >> Add it to the language in reading the ordinance.
21:12:55 >> So your motion includes a note on the --
21:12:59 >> To the ordinance.
21:13:04 >>>
21:13:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am still not clear that this is a

21:13:07 good proposal for the neighborhood.
21:13:11 And I reserve the right to change my vote at second
21:13:14 reading, and to -- I'm sorry, I didn't see anything,
21:13:20 any information passed out by the traffic
21:13:24 representative from the Beach Park homeowners.
21:13:26 I think it would be helpful to have some substantial
21:13:31 evidence by both independent analysis, by our
21:13:36 transportation planner, and by the neighborhood.
21:13:39 I don't feel that -- Ms. Calloway, I was not real
21:13:45 thrilled with your response.
21:13:46 I didn't think it was -- I look forward to getting
21:13:49 additional information, not now but before second
21:13:52 reading.
21:13:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think a lot of us -- that's why we
21:13:57 are giving ourselves two more weeks to look at it
21:14:00 seriously and I don't think anybody's decision is
21:14:02 final.
21:14:03 I know it won't be mine.
21:14:07 But that's giving everybody who has not looked at
21:14:10 ample information to come back with maybe more
21:14:12 comprehensive report to us.
21:14:13 And then once we have that, from our transportation

21:14:19 guide, Mr. Gardner, from the neighborhood, then we
21:14:22 have two weeks, if anybody wants to have us look at
21:14:28 their position on it, then in two weeks -- as opposed
21:14:33 to up or down.
21:14:38 >> We have a motion and second.
21:14:39 (Motion carried)
21:14:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 15 is a continued public
21:14:46 hearing.
21:14:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I could just say one thing?
21:14:50 Regardless of whether we vote the thing up or down, we
21:14:54 are going to build a hotel, and --
21:14:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I'm sorry, I appreciate that
21:14:59 but I caution you not to talk about it outside the
21:15:01 public hearing.
21:15:06 (Laughter).
21:15:07 >>GWEN MILLER: You can't win.
21:15:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, remember one day when I
21:15:16 told you what this job came with?
21:15:22 Bingo.
21:15:34 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
21:15:36 I have been sworn.
21:15:42 The petitioner is expecting to rezoning the property

21:15:45 located immediately adjacent to Hyde Park.
21:15:50 This is the entire parcel in Hyde Park.
21:15:53 They are going to be adding a poring of the
21:15:56 northeastern corner of the site.
21:15:59 Here adjacent to the Crosstown.
21:16:03 Currently, the zoning for that portion of the site is
21:16:08 commercial, and industrial.
21:16:11 As well as planned development.
21:16:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the PD for the entire site, all
21:16:16 the existing unit and the proposed --
21:16:19 >>> Yes.
21:16:19 Everything together.
21:16:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The amendment of the --
21:16:23 >>> The petitioner proposes to rezone that property to
21:16:25 construct multifamily complex known as Hyde Park, 84
21:16:33 residential units for 467 units.
21:16:38 Located to the east of the overall site, west of
21:16:42 Dakota Avenue.
21:16:43 Petitioner has previously vacated that portion south
21:16:46 of Platt Street.
21:16:49 Currently has commercial buildings that will be
21:16:51 demolished.

21:16:52 And I'll show you on the aerial, this would be the
21:16:55 phase 4 portion right here.
21:16:57 This is that portion that has been vacated.
21:17:00 This is the existing post Hyde Park.
21:17:05 >> What's the height?
21:17:06 >>> The height of the roofing building range -- let me
21:17:12 see.
21:17:12 They are 3 stories right now.
21:17:15 The proposed buildings will be a mix of 1, 2 and
21:17:18 3-bedroom homes.
21:17:19 I believe the maximum hate as stated on the PD is 45
21:17:22 feet.
21:17:25 The design is phases 1, 2 and 3 and the overall
21:17:29 density of the site will be 27.6 units per acre.
21:17:34 There are objections to the petition that most of them
21:17:38 have been taken care of.
21:17:39 The proposed bus shelter which is shown on the corner
21:17:46 of the property, Hartline, by the architect would show
21:17:57 that the fence, around the bus shelter.
21:18:04 So they show it being wrapped around the bus shelter
21:18:10 for public access to that site.
21:18:12 And transportation --

21:18:14 >> Is there going to be a gate or something?
21:18:16 >>> There will be pedestrian access from where the
21:18:19 vehicular entrance is and a sidewalk along plat, to
21:18:22 access the bus shelter.
21:18:24 And transportation has more of a comment than an
21:18:27 objection.
21:18:28 As you know, the guest parking provision is not part
21:18:33 of the plan right now.
21:18:34 However just an information piece of information is
21:18:36 total 118 guest parking spaces are encouraged for all
21:18:40 phases of the project.
21:18:42 Currently, I believe that the project will have 21
21:18:46 guest parking spaces.
21:18:47 For the entire project.
21:18:49 That concludes staff comments.
21:18:51 >> How about the sidewalk on Platt?
21:18:54 >>> Sidewalks on plat?
21:18:55 Are they building sidewalks along Platt?
21:18:58 >>> Yes, all along Platt.
21:19:00 There are existing sidewalks along the property.
21:19:04 The portion that they are adding in, there will be
21:19:07 favor-foot concrete sidewalk.

21:19:26 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:19:28 I have been sworn in.
21:19:30 There are a variety of land use categories with this
21:19:32 particular area of Soho area.
21:19:35 Predominant land use categories that directly abut the
21:19:38 site north of Platt Street, heavy commercial 24 which
21:19:42 could be -- you can see the existing uses that are
21:19:47 surrounding.
21:19:49 CMU 35, the light color here.
21:19:53 You have residential 35.
21:19:55 You have residential 20.
21:19:57 Residential 10.
21:19:59 Recreational open space.
21:20:03 Let me show you the aerial very quickly.
21:20:07 You can see, if we are able to get in a little closer,
21:20:12 you can see directly in this area, most of the uses
21:20:15 directly to the north, not of a single-family
21:20:19 residential nature so there is no direct impact to any
21:20:21 single family detached uses for this phase, which is
21:20:26 phase 4, which Mrs. Lamboy stated is 84 uses to the
21:20:31 overall development as shown.
21:20:33 This directly abuts the Crosstown expressway and

21:20:38 adjacent on the other side of the Crosstown expressway
21:20:41 to Hyde Park village.
21:20:43 Planning Commission staff has in a objections to the
21:20:45 proposed request.
21:20:47 >>GWEN MILLER:
21:20:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:20:51 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: The tree survey was never legible to
21:20:56 staff.
21:20:56 She's done field work.
21:20:58 And she feels like the tree survey -- the issues have
21:21:01 pretty much been addressed with the trees.
21:21:03 But she would have preferred to receive a legible tree
21:21:08 survey and she requested it several times. The other
21:21:10 issue is with reference to the open space calculation
21:21:12 being met.
21:21:17 Would like clarification that swimming pools and decks
21:21:21 are not part of the open space, green space part of
21:21:23 the open space.
21:21:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:21:28 >>> Good evening.
21:21:30 For the record, Michael Brooks, 500 East Kennedy
21:21:32 Boulevard, suite 200 here in downtown.

21:21:36 I have been sworn.
21:21:37 Ding Dick could I ask you a couple of key questions to
21:21:40 kind of cut to the chase?
21:21:46 On Platt, are we talking about six fat bar as cross
21:21:50 the sidewalk?
21:21:51 >>> It will be a 6-foot ornamental fence.
21:21:54 If you have been to the property, there is a 6-foot
21:21:57 wrought iron looking fence.
21:22:00 You can see through it.
21:22:01 There's hedges on the back of it.
21:22:02 And it will be the same.
21:22:03 It will come around, continuation.
21:22:09 >> Is there a way to push those a little off the
21:22:11 sidewalk and landscape them?
21:22:19 >>> I can have Mr. Everett come up.
21:22:22 >> Anthony Everett, Post Properties, I have been
21:22:24 sworn.
21:22:25 When we rezoned phase 3, Saul-Sena made her request
21:22:30 that we open that up and continue our brick island and
21:22:35 wrought iron type fencing and set it back so we could
21:22:37 landscape.
21:22:38 If you go through, you will see there's quite a bit of

21:22:40 landscaping there.
21:22:41 And we are going to continue that same landscaping all
21:22:44 along.
21:22:44 So it will be consistent.
21:22:46 We also are putting some additional sidewalks in areas
21:22:50 of phase 3 that were not there before.
21:22:52 Also, I want you to know that we are actually tearing
21:22:55 down six units in phase 3.
21:22:57 So our net add is 78 units.
21:23:01 So the numbers around a little bit earlier don't
21:23:05 accommodate for the six units that are being torn
21:23:07 down.
21:23:07 And then the parking that we are adding will put us as
21:23:11 26 parking spaces over what's required under the code.
21:23:15 So we try to put in as much additional parking as we
21:23:19 could, by getting this additional site, we were able
21:23:22 to straighten out one driveway, which then allowed us
21:23:25 to have more parking.
21:23:26 And so it was more efficient parking.
21:23:29 We get full-size parking spaces.
21:23:37 >> My suggestion the last time you were here at the
21:23:39 corner of Swann and Howard.

21:23:43 Two other concerns would be any possible contributions
21:23:48 to the park that's over there.
21:23:50 And also to the Hartline trolley.
21:23:53 Now, I think it's noon actually since you guys were
21:23:56 here last time.
21:23:57 But that's probably coming right in front of your
21:24:01 project on Swann, and going down to Howard.
21:24:03 And then spinning around.
21:24:05 >>> Well, we had agreed, anticipated need for traffic
21:24:11 mitigation, we did agree to contribute based on pro
21:24:13 rata share for the intersection of Swann and Howard.
21:24:17 As you know, we are already doing quite a bit of the
21:24:19 intersection, getting the left turn lane there.
21:24:23 >> How much did you independent up doing for those
21:24:25 units?
21:24:26 >> Well, I would bet we ended up --
21:24:30 >> I mean for the contribution.
21:24:32 >>> Well, it's very mixed.
21:24:33 There's a camera.
21:24:35 There's dedication of some land.
21:24:39 >> Didn't you have a contribution to the trolley?
21:24:42 >>> Yes, that was $10,000 a year.

21:24:48 Basically perpetually.
21:24:51 Unfortunately, this is a rental project and it doesn't
21:24:53 have the same financial capabilities that a
21:24:56 condominium does.
21:24:57 And we ended up paying very hey price.
21:25:00 >> Same residents.
21:25:04 >> well, we have the same residents.
21:25:05 But I think on a pro rata basis if you looked at the
21:25:08 number of units of that project and this project, that
21:25:10 project is a much smaller project.
21:25:12 It's not able to afford some of the same things that
21:25:16 project was able to do.
21:25:19 I think you severely impair the ability to do the
21:25:22 project if we end up doing a commitment similar to
21:25:24 that one.
21:25:30 The park improvements, I have working with the city
21:25:33 since the last rezoning with Carla -- Carl price in
21:25:37 the Parks Department and we are actually waiting for
21:25:39 the Parks Department to come back through a series of
21:25:42 public meetings at the Hyde Park studio. I'm starting
21:25:46 a fund-raiser trying to raise funds to renovate the
21:25:48 park to the same level at Kate Jackson.

21:25:51 We have also agreed, if the city will let us do this,
21:25:53 we will -- some of the very large existing trees off
21:25:58 of our Soho square site and relocate them to the park
21:26:02 so we would end up with some fully mature and great
21:26:06 looking trees there.
21:26:07 But actually, I could use some help from council,
21:26:09 actually, because I have got a marketing firm lined up
21:26:14 who did the campaign for the renovation to Gorrie.
21:26:20 I have got about $25,000 in commitments to go towards
21:26:24 the park renovation.
21:26:26 And actually, way was doing my meetings with the
21:26:29 neighbors on this, actually talked to them about what
21:26:31 they we were doing and the crosswalks we were putting
21:26:34 in to put a connection to the park, and my hope was
21:26:37 that we gain some community support for the park.
21:26:39 But I got corporate support.
21:26:42 I think we could raise another 120, $125,000 if we
21:26:47 could start having public meetings, and the city has a
21:26:50 site plan done, that we need to get some public input
21:26:54 on.
21:26:54 So if we could get those meetings held.
21:26:56 So if you can help me with that, that would be greatly

21:26:59 appreciated.
21:26:59 Because I really think we can renovate that park.
21:27:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could the contribution to the park
21:27:07 be helpful?
21:27:08 >>> I think we could commit to another $25,000 in
21:27:10 contribution to the park as part of this rezoning.
21:27:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We appreciate it.
21:27:18 >> Can you put that on the site plan?
21:27:20 >>> Yes, we can put it on the site plan.
21:27:22 >> Anyone else the to speak on 15?
21:27:24 >> Move to close.
21:27:25 >> Second.
21:27:25 (Motion carried).
21:27:27 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
21:27:29 vicinity of 420 south Rome Avenue, 1616 West Platt
21:27:32 street, 311 South Dakota Avenue and 502 South Howard
21:27:36 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly
21:27:39 described in section 1 from zoning district
21:27:41 classification CI and PD multi-familiar residential to
21:27:48 PD multifamily residential providing an effective
21:27:50 date.
21:27:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

21:27:52 (Motion carried).
21:27:54 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all documents.
21:27:57 >>> Second.
21:27:57 (Motion carried).
21:27:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to go home.
21:28:00 >> Second.
21:53:06 (Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m.)