Help & information    View the list of Transcripts



Tampa City Council
Thursday, December 14, 2006
6:00 p.m. session


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

18:13:49 [Sounding gavel]
18:13:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
18:14:04 The chair will yield to Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
18:14:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is my great pleasure this evening
18:14:10 to introduce my friend, pastor -- reverend Philip hunt
18:14:16 from community church.
18:14:21 World's aids day was last Friday and I thank you for
18:14:24 being down here at City Council to give the invocation.

18:14:27 Would everyone please rise and remain standing for the
18:14:30 pledge of allegiance?
18:14:31 >> Loving creator of life and love, we praise you for
18:14:45 the beauty of this day, for your gathering.
18:14:48 We ask your wisdom and discernment on this council.
18:14:54 We thank you for their passion, for their integrity and
18:15:00 for their care of this great diverse city, and the
18:15:03 beauties that it holds.
18:15:11 We thank you for your presence and your love in our
18:15:14 lives.
18:15:16 In all that is holy, amen.
18:15:21 (Pledge of Allegiance)
18:15:40 Roll call.
18:15:41 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Here.
18:15:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
18:15:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
18:15:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
18:15:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
18:15:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
18:15:54 >> Good evening.
18:15:56 Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.
18:15:59 I would like to clear the agenda for this evening.

18:16:04 As you can see, item 1, Z 06-70 has been withdrawn.
18:16:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
18:16:13 >> Second.
18:16:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to withdraw item 1.
18:16:15 (Motion carried).
18:16:22 >>> Item 3, which is a vacating that goes with item
18:16:24 number 4, Z 06-106 is related to the union station
18:16:30 property.
18:16:33 We have written notification from the petitioner for a
18:16:34 continuance to April 26th, 2007.
18:16:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
18:16:39 >> Second.
18:16:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sorry.
18:16:45 Want to hear if anybody wants to address the
18:16:47 continuance.
18:16:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody in the audience to address
18:16:52 number 3?
18:16:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I do have a concern.
18:16:56 This is over four months out.
18:16:58 I wonder if it would be appropriate if council wished
18:17:00 if it was an issue at all to require renoticing or at
18:17:03 lowest reposting if council has an issue with it.

18:17:06 If not I don't have a position.
18:17:08 But I just raise the issue that it will be over four
18:17:10 months.
18:17:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that's an excellent
18:17:12 suggestion to ask the petitioner to renotice.
18:17:17 >>> I don't have a problem with it being far out.
18:17:19 I think renoticing is good.
18:17:23 >>> I have no objections.
18:17:25 Steven Luce for the record.
18:17:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Same thing on number 4, please?
18:17:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then a motion is in order.
18:17:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
18:17:36 >> Second.
18:17:36 (Motion carried).
18:17:36 >>THE CLERK: That is continuing items number 3 and 4
18:17:40 and also renotice on both.
18:17:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Right.
18:17:43 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 5, Z 06-128.
18:17:47 I have a letter from Mr. Nixon, the property owner,
18:17:50 and petitioner, to withdraw.
18:17:52 And I can provide that to you.
18:17:56 >> So moved.

18:17:57 >> Second.
18:17:57 (Motion carried)
18:17:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item 7.
18:18:16 Z 06-130.
18:18:18 I had written request for continuance to February
18:18:20 22nd by Mr. Horner.
18:18:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing.
18:18:25 >> So moved.
18:18:25 >> Second.
18:18:26 (Motion carried).
18:18:26 >>CHAIRMAN: Now the motion to continue.
18:18:33 Anyone in the public want to speak on the continuance
18:18:35 on item number 7?
18:18:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item 7, anybody?
18:18:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone want to speak on the continuance
18:18:43 on item number 7?
18:18:45 >> So moved.
18:18:46 >> To February 22nd.
18:18:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 6 p.m.?
18:18:50 >> Yes.
18:18:53 (Motion carried).
18:18:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 10.

18:18:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you do item number 8?
18:19:02 >>> Item 8 was rescheduled a couple weeks ago.
18:19:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Remove from the agenda.
18:19:08 >> Second.
18:19:09 (Motion carried).
18:19:11 >> Item 10.
18:19:13 Z 06-115.
18:19:15 I have received written notification from Ty Maxie to
18:19:22 January 5th of 07.
18:19:24 This would require council to waive their rules for
18:19:26 three continuances.
18:19:27 This would be a fourth continuance.
18:19:30 Four.
18:19:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What number?
18:19:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What do we have on that day?
18:19:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we hear from petitioner?
18:19:53 >>> Actually it's our second continuance request.
18:19:55 I think what she meant, it's the board's fourth
18:19:58 continuance for that night.
18:20:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh.
18:20:03 So moved.
18:20:04 >> Second.

18:20:05 (Motion carried).
18:20:05 >>THE CLERK: January 25th at 6 p.m.
18:20:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was there anybody here who wanted to
18:20:19 speak to it?
18:20:20 It's kind of late to ask.
18:20:22 I don't see anybody.
18:20:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Lastly, item number 2.
18:20:26 I believe that Mr. Michelini would like to speak to
18:20:28 our continuance on that item.
18:20:31 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
18:20:33 on the continuance of item number 2?
18:20:38 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We have had some issues regarding
18:20:44 transportation studies, accesses and a variety of
18:20:48 other things.
18:20:48 This is a proposed Starbuck's at the location of
18:20:51 Kennedy and Dakota.
18:20:53 And we are having some issues regarding access and
18:20:57 some other things that are constraining the site.
18:21:00 We took the revised site plan to Starbuck's which they
18:21:04 refused to accept for one of their protocols.
18:21:07 So we are going to have to rework that, get back to
18:21:09 staff.

18:21:09 And we are requesting February 8th.
18:21:14 Staff has no objections.
18:21:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Can we get a motion?
18:21:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just had a question for staff.
18:21:20 How many times has this been continued?
18:21:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This will be the fifth continuance.
18:21:27 It was originally scheduled for May 11, 2006.
18:21:32 >> I just wonder if we would renotice because this
18:21:34 might be the world record for continuances and people
18:21:36 might have forgotten.
18:21:38 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We renoticed for tonight's hearing.
18:21:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is anybody here?
18:21:46 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
18:21:47 Motion and second to continue.
18:21:54 (Motion carried) we go to item number 6.
18:21:57 We need to open the public hearing.
18:21:59 >> So moved.
18:21:59 >> Second.
18:22:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open item number
18:22:02 6.
18:22:03 Is there anyone in the public that's going to speak on
18:22:05 item number 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, would you please

18:22:10 stand and raise your right hand?
18:22:16 If you want to speak on 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
18:22:22 please stand and raise your right hand.
18:22:26 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:22:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask if there are any items
18:22:34 that have been available to the public for inspection
18:22:37 in council's office that they be received and filed
18:22:40 into the record if there is anything to receive.
18:22:42 You haven't received anything?
18:22:43 Then there's nothing to file.
18:22:46 Council, please a reminder if you have had any
18:22:49 ex parte communication with any member of the public
18:22:51 or any petitioner or his or her representative
18:22:53 relating to any of tonight's hearings, that prior to
18:22:55 the vote you do disclose with whom you have had that
18:22:59 discussion and the substance of that verbal
18:23:01 communication.
18:23:03 Finally, for the record I put a little sign there to
18:23:05 remained you, when you state your name, please also
18:23:08 reaffirm that you have been sworn.
18:23:09 It will speed things along.
18:23:11 Thank you.

18:23:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
18:23:37 I have been sworn.
18:23:38 The petition before you is Z 06-129, 4206 west north
18:23:45 "B" street from RS-50 residential single family to PD
18:23:50 single family semi detached.
18:23:52 Petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
18:23:55 construct two single-family semi detached townhouses.
18:23:59 The structures will be two story with a height of 30.2
18:24:02 feet from the top of the structure, with a raised roof
18:24:06 feature, 24.7 feet to the top of the structural wall.
18:24:09 Each unit will have a two-car attached garage with
18:24:12 alley access and the waiver ribbon driveway off of
18:24:15 north "B" providing all required guest parking.
18:24:18 The proposed building will be a Mediterranean revival
18:24:22 style and will be 25-foot, 10-foot rear, 7-foot side,
18:24:26 for the main structure and 3-foot sides for the
18:24:29 attached garage.
18:24:30 There are no waivers associated with this petition.
18:24:34 Staff has no objection.
18:24:42 I'm sorry, there is one objection that I'll speak to,
18:24:45 after I provide you with a visual presentation.
18:24:47 And then tell you how that objection is being

18:24:49 remedied.
18:24:53 If we go to the Elmo.
18:24:55 This site is located on the corner of Lois and north
18:25:04 "B" street.
18:25:06 You will see there are several planned developments,
18:25:09 one adjacent to the east of the proposed -- of the
18:25:12 subject site, and one diagonal, the southeast of the
18:25:17 site that are town homes as well.
18:25:22 Here's an aerial of the site.
18:25:30 I'll go ahead and show you. This is the current
18:25:31 structure on the site.
18:25:32 The T structure will be demolished.
18:25:35 These are the town homes directly adjacent at the
18:25:39 corner of Lois and north "B."
18:25:42 And I just want to run by you with other pictures of
18:25:46 similar town home structures that are in the area.
18:25:50 This is a little bit further down north "B" going
18:25:53 west.
18:25:56 This structure is immediately behind the subject site
18:26:02 on north "A" street.
18:26:04 And this is also on north "A" right at the corner of
18:26:09 Lois and north "A."

18:26:13 This is a view looking west on north "B" from the
18:26:15 site.
18:26:18 And a view looking east toward Lois from the site.
18:26:23 There are single family structures on the north,
18:26:28 across the street.
18:26:32 From the subject site.
18:26:37 These are on the site plan provided.
18:26:39 The ribbon driveway provided in the front of these
18:26:41 structures is a paver ribbon drive.
18:26:44 Transportation had an objection to the pavers being
18:26:47 located in the right-of-way.
18:26:49 However, the petitioner has worked with transportation
18:26:53 to enter into a hold harmless agreement for those
18:26:56 pavers.
18:26:57 And the agreement will be in effect prior to second
18:27:00 reading.
18:27:02 So that objection would be removed.
18:27:11 Staff is available for any questions.
18:27:20 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:27:21 I have been sworn in.
18:27:28 Ms. Feeley did a great job.
18:27:31 There are a couple of more things to share with you.

18:27:34 On the east side of Lois is a northbound area
18:27:37 neighborhood on the west side of bush, Westshore
18:27:39 Palms.
18:27:39 Residential 10, this color over here, this is
18:27:42 residential 20.
18:27:43 The site in question is within an area of residential
18:27:46 35.
18:27:47 As she has fairly shown you, the site is surrounded
18:27:50 on -- to the east.
18:27:54 These are town homes.
18:27:55 Of course town homes to the south.
18:27:56 There's a couple duplexes on the corner over here.
18:27:59 As you can see, the area is -- the area is integrated
18:28:04 with condominiums, town homes, single family detached.
18:28:07 I will tell you that we have seen from the elevation
18:28:09 that's been provided by the applicant that they have
18:28:12 done a very nice job, and the structure that will
18:28:15 relate to the streets on the north side of north "B"
18:28:18 and single family detached use as cross the street I
18:28:21 think very nicely.
18:28:22 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
18:28:25 proposal.

18:28:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:28:31 >>> Dawn Gunter, I'm the agent for the petitioner and
18:28:34 I have been sworn in.
18:28:35 We concur with the starring staff report that there is
18:28:38 compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
18:28:40 We prepared the hold harmless and I will meet with
18:28:44 Melanie Calloway in transportation to verify that
18:28:47 language is correct.
18:28:48 We respectfully ask for City Council approval and are
18:28:51 available for any questions.
18:28:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:28:53 wants to speak on item number 6?
18:28:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to compliment the petitioner
18:29:00 for -- in is our new rule of providing elevations on
18:29:04 all four sides, and we can see that there are no blank
18:29:08 walls, that all walls have detailing.
18:29:11 So I think they'll be good neighbors.
18:29:13 And based on that I would like to move to close.
18:29:19 >> I'll second.
18:29:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
18:29:20 (Motion carried)
18:29:23 Do you have an ordinance?

18:29:26 Mr. Dingfelder?
18:29:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll be glad to move for approval
18:29:29 tonight.
18:29:30 I just wanted to echo Ms. Saul-Sena's's comments about
18:29:34 the drawings, and specifically about the fact that
18:29:37 it's rear loaded off of the alley, with the garage in
18:29:40 the rear, so the front yard looks really, really nice.
18:29:44 Nice design.
18:29:45 You don't have four big garages staring at you.
18:29:47 So with that I'll move an ordinance rezoning property
18:29:50 in the general vicinity of 4206 west north "B" street
18:29:54 in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly
18:29:56 described in section 1 from zoning district
18:29:58 classifications RS-50 residential single-family to PD,
18:30:02 planned development, single family detached, providing
18:30:05 an effective date.
18:30:06 >> We have a motion and second.
18:30:07 (Motion carried)
18:30:09 We need to open item number 9.
18:30:11 >>: So moved.
18:30:12 >> Second.
18:30:12 (Motion carried)

18:30:13 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
18:31:00 Item number 9, V 06-41 is a special use at 1908 north
18:31:06 36th street going from RM-16 residential
18:31:10 multifamily to place of religious assembly.
18:31:15 There are several waivers associated with this.
18:31:18 But the waivers are mostly associated to the existing
18:31:21 structure that is now on the building, a historic
18:31:26 structure.
18:31:27 In order to keep that as part of the PD, these waivers
18:31:29 have been added.
18:31:33 One is to reduce the required yard setback from 20
18:31:36 feet to 13.8 feet for the front setback, 40 feet to 7
18:31:41 feet for the corner yard, 40 feet to 15 feet for the
18:31:44 rear yard, and 40 feet to 7.5 feet for the side yard
18:31:45 setback.
18:31:52 The second is to allow direct access to local roads
18:31:52 which are east 9th Avenue and north 36th
18:31:56 street to allow the existing building clients located
18:31:59 on the front of the existing building to remain, and
18:32:01 I'll show you a picture of that.
18:32:02 And the fourth is to reduce required green space by
18:32:06 250 feet.

18:32:07 The petitioner to pay the fee in lieu at the time of
18:32:11 permitting.
18:32:20 To orient you to the site, this is ninth Avenue to the
18:32:29 north and 36th street to the east of the property.
18:32:33 As I said, there is an existing structure on there
18:32:37 that was currently being used and they are adding the
18:32:40 addition of a 47-feet church.
18:32:45 There's an addition of a new building to an existing
18:32:47 church site.
18:32:48 And the proposed structure will be located in the
18:32:50 western portion of the site.
18:32:54 It's going to be 2,188.6 square feet.
18:32:58 A portion of the first floor of the existing building
18:33:01 will be utilized for Sunday school classroom space
18:33:04 only.
18:33:07 The remainder of the existing structure will remain
18:33:10 vacant.
18:33:13 Here is a picture of the existing structure that's on
18:33:15 the site.
18:33:26 Here's the western portion of the structure that is
18:33:28 vacant, where this will be the location of the new
18:33:32 facility.

18:33:42 This is the existing signage that the waiver has.
18:33:49 A little closer shot of that.
18:33:53 This is the south portion of the site.
18:33:57 This will be the in and out access for the site.
18:34:04 There will be an in-only on 9th Avenue.
18:34:07 There's a picture of a residential structure
18:34:09 immediately to the south, and another residential
18:34:12 structure immediately to the south.
18:34:15 As far as buffering, the petitioner is going to
18:34:18 provide a 6-foot on the western south side of the
18:34:23 property given an existing wastewater pipe that is
18:34:26 underneath that cannot support a masonry wall.
18:34:29 Staff has no objection to the proposal of this special
18:34:31 use and is available for any questions.
18:34:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anything in the verbiage
18:34:38 about protecting the existing building which is
18:34:42 historical which was just converted into a church?
18:34:56 I believe that there is no language to demolish that
18:34:59 structure.
18:35:00 That structure is to remain.
18:35:01 There are no other additional notes to deal with the
18:35:05 preservation of that structure.

18:35:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does our preservation staff weigh
18:35:14 in?
18:35:15 >> Yes, I have a letter from Dennis Fernandez dated
18:35:18 September 12th indicating that they had reviewed
18:35:21 the application for rezoning and they had no -- that
18:35:26 the addition of the proposed attached building and
18:35:28 site improvements result in a benefit to the historic
18:35:31 building and that it will promote the continued use of
18:35:33 the structure as a functional facility.
18:35:36 >> Did they say whether the existing building is a
18:35:38 contributing structure, or if it has any particular --
18:35:41 if it's been reviewed, if it has any particular
18:35:44 designation?
18:35:45 >>> It just says the existing three story on the site
18:35:47 formerly functioned as a cigar factory and is of
18:35:54 historical importance.
18:35:59 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:36:07 I have been sworn in.
18:36:13 The predominant land use category for this petition is
18:36:15 residential 20. Neighborhood-serving community uses
18:36:15 such as daycare centers and churches can be considered
18:36:15 land use categories.

18:36:26 The site is located east of the east of Ybor historic
18:36:31 neighborhood association.
18:36:32 It is not within the neighborhood association so it is
18:36:36 one that is in close proximity to.
18:36:38 As stated to you already, the request is for the
18:36:40 expansion of an existing church use.
18:36:44 It will be evidenced by the creation of a new
18:36:46 structure directly to the west of the site for
18:36:48 approximately 2100 square feet to accommodate the
18:36:51 4700 -- 47 additional congregation members.
18:37:08 I believe to address any other issues you have the
18:37:11 historical perspective of this very nice building.
18:37:13 I think representative of the applicant is going to be
18:37:16 speaking to you for that now, Ms. Saul-Sena.
18:37:18 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
18:37:20 proposed request.
18:37:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:37:27 >> Good afternoon.
18:37:28 One of the things -- my name is Lewis Jenkins, Jenkins
18:37:32 enterprise.
18:37:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, were you sworn in?
18:37:38 >>> Yes, I was sworn in.

18:37:39 In reference to the question, the building exterior
18:37:42 structure, we going to try to match it as close as we
18:37:45 possibly can.
18:37:46 We want to blend into the area.
18:37:47 We won't change anything.
18:37:49 It won't be the brick.
18:37:52 The finished product is going to look like that.
18:37:55 As far as those other situations that we deal with
18:37:59 those little buildings, either we will put a blinder
18:38:01 in front of them that looks like this.
18:38:03 It won't be open to the public.
18:38:05 I have no other questions or anything.
18:38:10 If you have questions for me I'm here to answer.
18:38:13 >>CHAIRMAN: Does anyone in the public want to speak on
18:38:15 item number 9?
18:38:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
18:38:18 >> Second.
18:38:18 (Motion carried).
18:38:18 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reddick, would you read that, please?
18:38:23 >>FRANK REDDICK: (off microphone) 16 multifamily
18:38:38 zoning district in the general vicinity of 1908 north
18:38:41 36th street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

18:38:43 particularly described in section 1 hereof reducing
18:38:45 the required yard setbacks from 20 feet to 13.8 feet,
18:38:52 for the front setback for existing structure, 40 feet
18:38:54 to 7 feet for the corner yard setback, 40 feet to 15
18:38:59 feet for the rear yard setback and 40 feet to 7.5 feet
18:39:02 for the five-yard setback allowing access to local
18:39:07 roads, allowing the district building signage located,
18:39:10 reducing the required green space by 250 square feet,
18:39:13 with the petitioner to pay the fee in lieu at time of
18:39:19 permitting.
18:39:22 >> Second.
18:39:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to tell you, sir, how
18:39:25 happy I am that your original building is really
18:39:28 special, and I'm glad that you are going to do things
18:39:31 to compliment it and you are going to protect the
18:39:33 original building.
18:39:38 >>FRANK REDDICK: If I may, we are in that part of town
18:39:40 where we are trying to do a lot of aesthetic
18:39:42 beautification in that area.
18:39:43 And this will also be part of the beautification, and
18:39:50 we want to clean it up and make it look better and I'm
18:39:53 glad to know that you all are willing to build the

18:39:57 structure there.
18:39:58 (Motion carried).
18:40:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 11.
18:40:04 >> So moved.
18:40:05 >> Second.
18:40:05 (Motion carried)
18:40:05 >>> JILL: Land Development Coordination.
18:40:31 I have been sworn.
18:40:31 I am here tonight on numbers Z-06-116 pertaining to
18:40:38 properties 1601 north Glen Avenue, 3330 and 3334 west
18:40:43 Main Street, 3327 west green street.
18:40:49 This is a proposal to rezone from CG commercial
18:40:53 general and CI intensive.
18:40:56 The petitioner proposes to do this rezoning in order
18:41:00 to have the use of mini storage and mini warehouse.
18:41:13 Here is zoning of the local property.
18:41:18 This is the RS-50.
18:41:26 Just to orient you, 275 to the south.
18:41:33 The Red Cross located to the east.
18:41:41 Wal-Mart is further to the left.
18:41:50 This is the south west view of the property.
18:41:55 Continuing east along the southern property line.

18:42:01 And this is the eastern part of the property line with
18:42:07 the dilapidated house and the RS-50 zoned portion of
18:42:10 the site.
18:42:15 To the north of the property is the oasis irrigation
18:42:18 business.
18:42:19 On Main Street.
18:42:24 Further down are single family dwelling units.
18:42:28 Detached homes.
18:42:33 The American Red Cross fully abuts the site to the
18:42:37 east from the top to the bottom of this site.
18:42:45 And here is silk garden warehouse to the west of the
18:42:49 site.
18:42:55 This is the property also from the northerly -- from
18:42:58 the north looking south.
18:43:03 This request is for Euclidean zoning district, which
18:43:09 does not require a site plan.
18:43:12 Therefore approximate petitioner must adhere to all
18:43:15 land development and not apply for any waivers,
18:43:19 off-street parking at the time of permitting.
18:43:22 The staff has no objection to this.
18:43:24 However, stormwater did want it noted that no
18:43:28 stormwater credit for existing impervious area will be

18:43:32 given.
18:43:36 That concludes the presentation.
18:43:37 Staff is available for any questions.
18:43:40 >> What's your name again?
18:43:43 >>> Jill Finney.
18:43:43 >> Are you new?
18:43:45 >>> Yes.
18:43:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
18:43:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:44:05 I have been sworn.
18:44:10 Just had a couple more things to what Ms. Fin I -- she
18:44:15 did a good job.
18:44:16 Are you new?
18:44:17 [ Laughter ]
18:44:21 I have been sworn.
18:44:23 Just a couple of additional things.
18:44:24 Of course, we know the interstate is to the south of
18:44:27 this.
18:44:28 You are familiar with this area.
18:44:29 This is in your district, of course.
18:44:33 On the northeast McFarland park located directly
18:44:37 northeast of the site.

18:44:39 She has done a great job of telling you about abutting
18:44:43 uses, to the east, to the west, a mixture of uses to
18:44:47 the north, which includes single family detached uses.
18:44:54 Himes Avenue directly to the west.
18:44:56 Heavy commercial 24 is the land use designation.
18:44:58 The request of CI is consistent with compatibility of
18:45:02 the matrixes as far as allowing CI type of use,
18:45:06 considering what's existing on the site now which is
18:45:08 an automotive use which provides a lot of impact to
18:45:13 the area, considering the request which is storage and
18:45:17 warehouse, it's consistent with the compatibility as
18:45:20 you do have warehouses to the west, in addition to the
18:45:23 fact that it is a Euclidean request, and won't have
18:45:29 the stringent requirements for the adjacent uses
18:45:32 especially to the use directly to the east which is a
18:45:35 nonprofit.
18:45:38 Proximity to the interstate is what makes the Himes
18:45:42 Avenue exist directly off over to Himes Avenue, and
18:45:47 considering the low volume of traffic that mini
18:45:50 warehouse offers, this will be a reduction in the
18:45:54 potential impacts to the residential uses of the
18:45:56 general area.

18:45:57 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
18:45:59 proposed request.
18:46:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Tony, to the west is greenhouse
18:46:05 complex there?
18:46:07 >>TONY GARCIA: Yes.
18:46:09 Used to be the silk greenhouse.
18:46:11 Now it's silk gardens.
18:46:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:46:29 >>> Neil Sidler.
18:46:37 I hereby swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
18:46:41 nothing but the truth.
18:46:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Has anyone else come in that needs to
18:46:44 be sworn?
18:46:45 Would you please stand and raise your right hand.
18:46:47 Only one.
18:46:48 >>> I believe the actual applicant was previously
18:46:51 sworn.
18:46:52 >> Raise your right hand.
18:46:55 >> He swore.
18:46:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did he a self-swearing.
18:47:05 Council members, I think your staff has pretty much
18:47:08 done my job for me already.

18:47:10 You can see physically that the surrounding uses are
18:47:13 primarily commercial.
18:47:14 I don't think anybody is going to put a residential
18:47:16 use on the exit for the interstate.
18:47:19 It's a relatively low volume use.
18:47:23 Certainly less volume than what's currently there in
18:47:25 the existing area.
18:47:27 And with the silk gardens as opposed to the greenhouse
18:47:31 on one side, and Wal-Mart just to the west of that, I
18:47:34 think we can all agree that this is a commercial area,
18:47:37 and that this would be consistent with the use.
18:47:40 We don't have any objections.
18:47:41 We haven't been contacted by any neighbors either.
18:47:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:47:46 wants to speak on item number 11?
18:47:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
18:47:49 >> Second.
18:47:49 (Motion carried).
18:47:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance rezoning property in the
18:47:59 general vicinity of 1601 north Glen Avenue, 3330 and
18:48:03 3334 west Main Street and 3327 west green street in
18:48:08 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly

18:48:10 described in section 1 from zoning district
18:48:13 classifications CG commercial general and RS-50
18:48:17 residential single family to CI commercial intensive,
18:48:20 providing an effective date.
18:48:20 >>CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second.
18:48:22 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:48:24 (Motion carried)
18:48:26 Need to open item number 12.
18:48:28 >> So moved.
18:48:29 >> Second.
18:48:29 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
18:48:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Moving right along.
18:48:48 >>> My name is Philip Schultz with Land Development
18:48:50 Coordination and I have been sworn.
18:48:52 The case before you tonight Z 06-126 at 4521 west
18:49:00 north "A" street.
18:49:01 The petitioner is Italiano development company.
18:49:06 The petitioner is present for any questions you may
18:49:08 have. The request for rezoning is from PD planned
18:49:10 development, which previously allowed a three-unit
18:49:15 single-family attached development.
18:49:18 The current request is for PD planned development for

18:49:22 two family residential.
18:49:23 The waivers that have been requested.
18:49:27 The petitioner is proposing to build two units in a
18:49:31 two-family residential style.
18:49:33 Each unit has a two-car garage including two advice or
18:49:38 parking spaces per unit.
18:49:39 Each unit will encompass one level of structure. The
18:49:42 first floor will contain two private covered
18:49:44 entryways, two private covered patios, two private
18:49:48 courtyards, and a dual door shared elevator.
18:49:52 Each unit has a private stairway to each respective
18:49:54 condominium.
18:49:56 The proposed maximum height is 37 feet, three stories,
18:50:00 and the elevator penthouse brings that up to 38 feet 8
18:50:06 inches.
18:50:07 Both units maintain direct access to north Trask
18:50:13 street. The PD setbacks are 24 feet on the south side
18:50:17 fronting northwest "A" street, 12 feet 8 inches on the
18:50:20 east side, 9 feet 3 and three quarter inches on the
18:50:25 north side facing the alley, and 18 feet 8 and three
18:50:30 quarter inches on the west side fronting on north
18:50:33 Trask street.

18:50:34 Building elevations are attached to the site plan.
18:50:37 The building footprint is currently proposed for 3,914
18:50:41 square feet.
18:50:42 The second floor is 3,561 square feet.
18:50:48 And the third floor is 3,715 square feet.
18:50:53 The previous petition was approved for 4,290 square
18:51:01 feet, which is a reduction in scale of 376 square
18:51:07 feet.
18:51:12 Elmo, please?
18:51:14 As you can see, the elevations that you have presented
18:51:20 to you, each condominium is contained all on one
18:51:30 level.
18:51:32 The zoning in the area is scattered PD to the north
18:51:37 and we'll show you photographs of this.
18:51:42 The project is in hatched green, on the northeast
18:51:46 corner of north Trask and west north "A."
18:51:52 One block north of Kennedy Boulevard and one block
18:51:55 east of Westshore.
18:51:59 On the aerial photo, please note that directly to the
18:52:03 north of the site, there is a four-plex, also a
18:52:09 four-plex just across the street to the track and we
18:52:17 have townhouse development down west north "B" street,

18:52:21 and condominium development on the north side of west
18:52:24 north "B" street.
18:52:25 There is a single-family home which I will show you,
18:52:28 it's directly to the east.
18:52:30 To the south, this large building here, south side of
18:52:34 northwest "A" street, is a Verizon phone center.
18:52:41 Currently, this is an older aerial photo, due south of
18:52:46 this proposed site is Burger King.
18:52:49 To the southwest is a mixed use residential office and
18:52:54 retail development.
18:52:59 This is the proposed site.
18:53:04 And you can see to the north this four-plex.
18:53:14 Directly to the east side of the project is a
18:53:18 single-family home.
18:53:22 And here we have looking towards the east of northwest
18:53:29 "A," this is the very large, very high Verizon
18:53:32 project.
18:53:36 Due south, this is a photograph you can just barely
18:53:40 see the roof of Burger King.
18:53:46 Looking towards the west from the project, a lot of
18:53:49 canopy in that area.
18:53:50 Very attractive area.

18:53:52 To the southwest corner, this is the mixed use,
18:53:56 three-story project.
18:54:00 Another view of that project further down the street.
18:54:06 The multifamily condominium project on the north side
18:54:11 of west north "B" street, and this is the south side
18:54:15 of west north "B" street, so you can see the townhouse
18:54:19 development here mentioned earlier, and this is a
18:54:22 four-plex, which is opposite the other four-plex due
18:54:26 north of the proposed project.
18:54:27 The DRC has reviewed the proposed project.
18:54:30 There are technical objections.
18:54:33 Land Development Coordination, landscape specialist,
18:54:36 has a technical objection for the removal of trees
18:54:39 during the demolition of an existing structure several
18:54:41 years ago.
18:54:42 The developer has agreed to resolve this through
18:54:47 payment of a triple permit fee and by planting
18:54:50 four-inch and six-inch trees on the parcel.
18:54:53 Therefore, this is resolved.
18:54:57 Solid waste also has a technical objection.
18:55:02 At the time that their report was originally submitted
18:55:04 to us, it was not drawn to scale.

18:55:09 However, on the plan that you have before you tonight,
18:55:11 those dimensions have been placed on the drawing.
18:55:15 And prior to permitting, we would ask that the niches
18:55:20 be drawn to scale.
18:55:23 Parks and recreation has a comment.
18:55:25 And that comment is that they would like to be
18:55:28 reviewed and approved the removal of the palm trees
18:55:31 prior to permitting.
18:55:34 And last, transportation does have a comment.
18:55:36 They are here tonight.
18:55:38 And I believe they do want to discuss their concerns
18:55:42 regarding the construction of the garages underneath
18:55:49 the one second-floor unit.
18:55:51 And I would turn it over to transportation before Mr.
18:55:56 Garcia.
18:55:57 If there's any questions, we'll be available.
18:56:01 Thank you.
18:56:10 >>> Brian, transportation.
18:56:10 I have been sworn.
18:56:11 The comment that transportation had was just the
18:56:15 concern regarding the layout of the building, and one
18:56:18 unit being directly over both garages.

18:56:23 Simply the fact that one comes a little later and
18:56:32 thinks too loud of a garage -- large of a garage door.
18:56:35 There's nothing in the code saying it couldn't be
18:56:37 done.
18:56:38 There was just a concern.
18:56:40 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:56:47 I have been sworn.
18:56:50 In the Westshore plaza area as we know, residential
18:56:54 20, residential 35, mixed use, previously three units,
18:57:06 down to two units.
18:57:07 Planning Commission staff has in a objection to the
18:57:09 proposal.
18:57:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:57:16 >> Rebecca Johns, representative for the petitioner.
18:57:18 Just to add to what was said --
18:57:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
18:57:23 >>> Yes, I'm sorry.
18:57:27 Petitioner has agreed to the mitigation for the
18:57:30 landscaping, through the payment of the fee, and the
18:57:33 planting of the trees.
18:57:35 Solid waste objection, the niche has been taken care
18:57:39 of and that will be drawn to scale prior to

18:57:41 permitting.
18:57:41 Parks and recreation, the comment is direct on the
18:57:44 site plan.
18:57:45 We have agreed to what they have requested.
18:57:47 And as far as transportation, the issue of the garage
18:57:50 underneath one unit has been taken care of.
18:57:55 There will be installation.
18:57:57 And that's a design issue that will be taken care of
18:58:00 when it's permitted.
18:58:03 But this developer is very well aware -- I am told
18:58:08 that it will not be an issue.
18:58:10 The architect is here if you have any questions.
18:58:13 Other than that, if you have any questions, we're
18:58:15 available.
18:58:17 >>GWEN MILLER: question by council members?
18:58:19 Is there anyone in the public who wants to speak on
18:58:22 item number 12?
18:58:23 >> Move to close.
18:58:24 >> Second.
18:58:24 (Motion carried).
18:58:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance rezoning property
18:58:35 in the general vicinity of 4521 West North "A" street

18:58:39 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
18:58:40 described in section 1 from zoning district
18:58:44 classifications PD planned development, single family
18:58:46 attached, to PD, planned development, two-family
18:58:49 residential, providing an effective date.
18:58:50 >>CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second.
18:58:52 (Motion carried)
18:58:54 Need to open 13.
18:58:56 >> So moved.
18:58:56 >> Second.
18:58:56 (Motion carried)
18:58:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
18:59:36 Z-06-120, 3215 west fielder street, going from RS-50
18:59:42 to PD planned development for the construction of two
18:59:44 single-family homes.
18:59:46 There are no waivers that have been requested with
18:59:48 this rezoning.
18:59:51 Petitioner is seeking to develop, to construct two,
18:59:55 two-story single family dwelling units.
18:59:58 Each new lot will maintain 50-foot frontage and
19:00:02 approximately 4,537 square feet in area.
19:00:10 The proposed setbacks for the structure, the structure

19:00:13 to the west are 15 fat fronts, 7-foot west side,
19:00:17 5-foot east side, 20-foot rear.
19:00:19 And the structure to the east will be 15-foot front,
19:00:23 5-foot west side, 17-foot east side, and 30-foot rear.
19:00:29 The structure to the west side parking will be
19:00:31 provided in the two-car garage for the structure on
19:00:34 the east side parking will be provided in a one-car
19:00:37 detached garage located behind the structure.
19:00:44 I am going to quaint with you the site and then we'll
19:00:47 talk a little bit about the objections related to this
19:00:50 case.
19:00:59 Here is the site located on the south side of fielder.
19:01:04 The larger road here is Himes, then Bailey Avenue, is
19:01:09 to the west.
19:01:19 I have the aerial hear of the site.
19:01:23 This is the existing single family residential
19:01:26 structure on the site.
19:01:28 That will be demolished.
19:01:29 This is the vacant portion to the west of the site.
19:01:35 You can see there are several citrus trees on the
19:01:37 site.
19:01:41 Here is the small driveway that's there now.

19:01:44 This will be extended and then provided back to the
19:01:47 single one-car detached garage that's going to be
19:01:50 located with that eastern.
19:01:54 This is the adjacent lot to the west.
19:01:56 There's a single-family structure there.
19:01:58 And moving further west down the street is a vacant
19:02:02 lot that I believe was also scheduled to be
19:02:04 constructed where there are single family residential
19:02:08 homes. On the east side is a single-family home.
19:02:11 Across the street are some ranch style homes that have
19:02:13 been maintained.
19:02:16 I'll show you those.
19:02:23 It looks like they have been rehabbed.
19:02:27 And then in the couple block aerial you will see there
19:02:33 are several two-story homes being built, in-fill
19:02:36 housing.
19:02:46 These are not in the immediate vicinity of the subject
19:02:47 site but they are in a two-block radius.
19:02:58 If you review your site plans, your objections from
19:03:00 Land Development Coordination are directly related to
19:03:02 the site plan.
19:03:03 There are technical issues that need to be resolved on

19:03:06 the site plan.
19:03:07 There's no square footages on the structures.
19:03:12 The driveway needs to be dimensioned at 18 feet.
19:03:17 A note needs to be added that the existing structure
19:03:19 will be demolished.
19:03:20 The elevations need to be labeled so they correspond
19:03:24 with the site plan structures.
19:03:25 They also need to show the air conditioners.
19:03:28 They are predominantly technical.
19:03:30 There are no issues related to the compatibility of
19:03:33 this rezoning.
19:03:34 But staff would like to see since it is a site plan
19:03:36 controlled zoning, would like to see the site plan
19:03:39 revised in order to address these technical issues.
19:03:46 >> Can I ask you a question?
19:03:48 Can the petitioner just add that additional notation
19:03:51 by second reading?
19:03:53 >> In a, council.
19:03:54 I'm sorry, this is going to have to ultimately, if
19:03:56 council wishes to go forward to first reading it will
19:03:59 have to come back if council wishes at a daytime first
19:04:02 reading after the two-week period to make the

19:04:05 adjustments to the site plan.
19:04:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this the drawing?
19:04:13 >>> Yes, that is the east.
19:04:15 There are two separate elevations there.
19:04:16 The one with the garage in front will be located on
19:04:19 the west side.
19:04:20 And that elevation actually needs to be flipped
19:04:22 because it shows -- the site plan shows the driveway
19:04:26 on the west.
19:04:26 But the elevation shows the garage on the east.
19:04:28 So that elevation will need to be revised to be
19:04:31 consistent with the site plan.
19:04:34 The other elevation that does not have a garage in the
19:04:36 front is the elevation for the east structure.
19:04:42 That will have a single detached garage located in the
19:04:45 back.
19:04:58 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:05:00 I have been sworn.
19:05:07 The site is located in the Bayshore Beautiful
19:05:11 neighborhood association located west of MacDill,
19:05:14 north of Gandy.
19:05:19 It's category 10, single family attached.

19:05:23 As Ms. Feeley indicate towed the issue is not one of
19:05:26 compatibility.
19:05:27 There are technical issues as relate to the PD itself
19:05:30 so I am going to let the applicant discuss that with
19:05:32 you at this point in time.
19:05:33 As relates to the comprehensive plan there is no
19:05:36 objection, it is consistent.
19:05:37 Thank you.
19:05:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:05:38 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We agree with the staff.
19:05:45 I have been sworn.
19:05:48 I agree with the staff regarding the technical issues.
19:05:52 We sat down with them.
19:05:52 We do need time to correct them.
19:05:54 And we were going to ask you to continue this to
19:05:57 January 18th at 10 a.m. so that we can get the
19:06:01 site plan to them in enough time for them to check the
19:06:04 selections and then bring it back to you.
19:06:06 The development pattern is consistent with the area.
19:06:10 These are typically smaller lots with single-family
19:06:14 homes throughout the area.
19:06:15 And the trend is toward redevelopment here.

19:06:18 I received a number of phone calls from the residents
19:06:21 and they were all supportive of the removal of the
19:06:25 structure and the building of two new ones.
19:06:27 I respectfully request your approval to move forward
19:06:29 for the January 18th to come back to you with a
19:06:33 revised site plan showing the corrections.
19:06:35 And as staff has pointed out those are their only
19:06:38 objections, and we correct the site plan to address
19:06:42 those issues.
19:06:44 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
19:06:46 on item 13?
19:06:48 >> Move to close.
19:06:50 >> Continue.
19:06:50 Continue.
19:06:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
19:07:03 Mr. Michelini, basically ware not doing this Euclidean
19:07:06 because it doesn't have enough depth?
19:07:11 >> All the lots on these streets are 90 feet deep.
19:07:13 I don't know why they are 90 feet deep but they are.
19:07:17 One of the reasons why -- we had one of the units with
19:07:21 a front loaded garage because there's a big oak tree
19:07:23 in the back and we can't get to the rear to put a rear

19:07:26 detached garage in the structure back there.
19:07:29 >> Why didn't you use the 80% rule?
19:07:31 Never mind.
19:07:32 [ Laughter ]
19:07:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion to continue to January
19:07:36 18th.
19:07:37 >> So moved.
19:07:38 >> Second.
19:07:38 (Motion carried).
19:07:38 >>GWEN MILLER: 10:00 in the morning.
19:07:43 >> That will be okay?
19:07:44 All right.
19:07:45 Ten in the morning.
19:07:46 Number 14 is a continued public hearing.
19:07:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:08:23 This is zoning case Z 06-86 located at 1308 east
19:08:30 fourth Avenue and 13005 east Fifth Avenue.
19:08:37 This is the YC 9 site plan control, mixed use
19:08:41 multifamily residential, professional office and
19:08:43 retail.
19:08:52 >> This came originally before council on November
19:09:06 30th when council had four members and therefore

19:09:10 the case was continued to the evening.
19:09:13 Per Mr. Dingfelder, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Reddick, I would
19:09:16 like to go over a brief summary of the case and
19:09:19 discuss it with you.
19:09:26 This is the subject site located down fourth Avenue,
19:09:33 to the north there is Fifth Avenue.
19:09:37 Last December the vacating came before you for Fifth
19:09:40 Avenue, it was approved unanimously.
19:09:42 The location of that street, city utility easement
19:09:46 that is located there.
19:09:49 TECO and people's gas, Verizon, all have utilities
19:09:53 underneath that.
19:09:54 So there was no other location for that.
19:09:58 Which we'll talk about a little later.
19:10:02 >> What's the building along there?
19:10:04 Is there a building along there?
19:10:11 >>> This is the existing structure.
19:10:26 North Avenue, republic a de Cuba.
19:10:32 To the Avenue.
19:10:32 The Ybor City parking garage is located here.
19:10:51 The proposed rezoning, the 1.05-acre site, is to be
19:10:56 developed for either office or mixed use office

19:10:59 residential.
19:11:04 The proposed structure will be a maximum 91,126 square
19:11:08 feet with a maximum height of 61 feet.
19:11:11 The structure will have a zero building setback on all
19:11:14 sides.
19:11:15 The site plan commits to 12,728 square feet of green
19:11:19 space.
19:11:21 Ingress and egress will be off of 14th street.
19:11:29 I'm sorry.
19:11:31 The entrance will be off of Fifth Avenue.
19:11:34 And the access will be off -- exit will be off of
19:11:39 fourth Avenue.
19:11:42 There is one objection associated with this case that
19:11:45 details with the waivers.
19:11:46 I would like to go over the waivers.
19:11:48 And there is a correction that needs to be made.
19:11:50 The first waiver is asking for a waiver, required
19:11:53 parking from 91 spaces to 59 spaces.
19:11:56 The second is landscape and tree requirement
19:12:01 requesting to reduce the landscaped area by 2810
19:12:06 square fate.
19:12:07 I met with the landscape specialist this morning.

19:12:11 That 2810 is a miscalculation that included square
19:12:14 footage for multifamily residential, and green space
19:12:21 is not required for multifamily residential.
19:12:24 So that waiver in actuality should be 967 square
19:12:28 feet, not 2810 square feet.
19:12:34 The third waiver is for buffering and screening,
19:12:36 request to waive the 15-foot masonry wall, along the
19:12:42 north property.
19:12:43 This will be along the railroad tracks.
19:12:45 I want to show you this.
19:12:49 It would be this section right here.
19:12:51 And it is 50 lineal feet.
19:13:00 Section 1345, which is the fourth waiver, that is to
19:13:03 request to remove over 50% of the existing trees.
19:13:06 There are only five trees on the site right now.
19:13:08 They are going to be removing three.
19:13:10 However, they are going to be providing 22, I believe
19:13:14 22 or 24 trees when they build that.
19:13:19 And the last is to reduce the width of the drive aisle
19:13:22 from 26 feet, 24 feet.
19:13:24 I would also like to show you where that is
19:13:26 applicable.

19:13:29 This southern section here.
19:13:32 And it's going down to 24-8.
19:13:41 Total required 25 feet.
19:13:42 So this is an actual waiver of four inches.
19:13:48 The Zane for this project has been approved and was
19:13:52 developed in coordination with the barrio.
19:13:55 Additional note on the site plan states that any
19:13:57 landscape plans for this site will go through further
19:14:00 review with the barrio.
19:14:03 So the only outstanding objection on this is the
19:14:06 reduction of the required parking from the 91 to the
19:14:11 59 spaces.
19:14:30 If you refer to your site plan, the triangular park
19:14:34 space north of the site.
19:14:42 This is the subject on 14th street.
19:14:51 This is the subject site from fourth Avenue.
19:15:06 This is looking east on Fifth Avenue.
19:15:08 This is the new heights associates building.
19:15:11 Then right behind that is the Ybor City parking
19:15:14 garage.
19:15:18 This is another view.
19:15:20 This is Fifth Avenue here.

19:15:22 14th street here.
19:15:24 This is the location of the subject property.
19:15:29 Staff is available for any questions.
19:15:38 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:15:41 I have been sworn.
19:15:47 Request is from YC-6 to YC-9.
19:15:52 In this particular aerial, the land use category heavy
19:15:57 use 24.
19:15:58 The light gray color over here is light industrial.
19:16:02 We have some other colors over here.
19:16:04 This is actually general mixed use 24.
19:16:08 But what's interesting about what's happening in this
19:16:10 area, and I think we have seen it over the last
19:16:13 several months, you have received some plan amendment
19:16:16 requests which you have subsequently approved and
19:16:18 adopted for properties in this area from heavy
19:16:20 commercial 24 and light industrial and general mixed
19:16:24 use 24 to community mixed use 35 which seems to be the
19:16:29 land use designation of choice for this particular
19:16:31 area, just approved in the last several months.
19:16:36 I came before you with, I think, four cases in fairly
19:16:40 close proximity of the southwestern area of the city,

19:16:43 to CMU 35.
19:16:46 This particular problem is AC 24, adoption of the
19:16:53 change of land use to community mixed use 35.
19:16:55 The request as Ms. Feeley has told you is for a
19:16:59 variety of uses.
19:17:00 It's going to be a mixed use that would involve town
19:17:02 home and office use.
19:17:05 All I want to do is give you some aerial perspective
19:17:09 in the area.
19:17:11 You have a warehouse here.
19:17:12 You also have another use over here that also has been
19:17:15 changed to CMU 35.
19:17:17 This aerial was -- this is vacant land use now built
19:17:21 in with a town home development.
19:17:22 This is the site where the Hite and associates new
19:17:29 building will be.
19:17:30 Of course this is city park and garages over here.
19:17:34 There's also another residential component that's been
19:17:36 developed over here.
19:17:39 As you can obviously see the transition from our
19:17:42 aerial, 7th Avenue, as one heads to Adamo drive,
19:17:47 what we are seeing over here is a transition to mid to

19:17:52 low density, office uses, the Hite development, and
19:17:56 this development in question.
19:17:59 We are seeing a significant transition to office and
19:18:02 residential development of a higher densities.
19:18:06 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
19:18:09 proposed request.
19:18:09 It is consistent with the pattern and type of
19:18:13 development that is trending in this area for the last
19:18:17 two or three years.
19:18:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:18:33 Do you agree with everything the Planning Commission
19:18:34 staff said?
19:18:36 City staff?
19:18:37 >>> Yes, ma'am, I do.
19:18:38 >> And let me see if there's anyone in opposition.
19:18:40 Is there anyone prosecute the public to speak on item
19:18:43 number 14?
19:18:45 If you don't want to, downtown have to give us a
19:18:47 presentation.
19:18:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I looked at this
19:18:59 real carefully.
19:18:59 And I realize that because of this location in Ybor,

19:19:04 you aren't required to have the usual open space
19:19:06 requirements.
19:19:06 You're allowed a lot of density.
19:19:09 You can have a very industrial kind of -- you pass
19:19:17 muster with the A.R.C.
19:19:19 So looks good to me.
19:19:20 >>CHAIRMAN: Need to close the public hearing.
19:19:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Bentley, the transportation
19:19:28 objection of the 91 parking spaces provided, why are
19:19:35 you --
19:19:36 >>MARK BENTLEY: That's a good question, councilwoman
19:19:39 Alvarez.
19:19:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just call me Mary.
19:19:43 >>> Mary.
19:19:43 In any event, the residential development scenario
19:19:46 exceeds your code.
19:19:54 Parking spaces for nonresidential parking spaces in
19:19:57 Ybor.
19:19:59 Pretty unbelievable in and of itself.
19:20:01 The hate project next door, they got a variance
19:20:04 from -- they were deficient over 50%.
19:20:08 Wave a confirmation as part of my presentation is the

19:20:11 whole intent in our historic district especially Ybor
19:20:15 City to St. Augustine is you have parking facilities.
19:20:19 They don't have on-site parking for every little
19:20:22 development or takes away from the ambience,
19:20:24 architectural integrity, what you are trying to
19:20:27 accomplish in the district.
19:20:27 So the city built the garage with 1200 spaces for 20
19:20:30 million and the one to the east of 500 feet for 16
19:20:34 million, it's substantially underutilized especially
19:20:39 in light of the fact -- what we did, and this is the
19:20:42 intent actually when the city issued the bond was to
19:20:45 facilitate redevelopment.
19:20:46 And there's another garage proposed on the eastern
19:20:48 border, Mary, you might be aware of that.
19:20:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Right.
19:20:51 >>MARK BENTLEY: So what we did is we reserved, even
19:20:56 though we are deficient 24 spaces we reserved 35 in
19:20:59 the garage to make up for that shortfall.
19:21:02 Plus we have the ability to on our property prior to
19:21:09 entering into an agreement with city transportation
19:21:11 division.
19:21:12 So we think we have it pretty well covered.

19:21:17 >> Mr. Bentley, thanks for that explanation.
19:21:19 I recall when Hite did that, they entered into an
19:21:23 agreement with the city.
19:21:25 Is that part of your plan?
19:21:27 I'm not sure what the agreement was.
19:21:29 >>MARK BENTLEY: When we talked to city transportation,
19:21:32 I have been doing this primarily through my client Mr.
19:21:35 Jay Mize, they give you a reservation.
19:21:38 It's not really a written agreement.
19:21:40 So I actually have a copy of the preservation in my
19:21:42 presentation.
19:21:43 Okay.
19:21:44 And for what it's worth, when height got their
19:21:46 variance it wasn't conditioned upon them reserving
19:21:49 space in the garage.
19:21:50 It was just a flat out 50% variance and then obviously
19:21:54 Hite gave that for their personnel so they reserved
19:21:57 space in the garage.
19:21:58 >> If you want to formalize it, you mate want to see
19:22:01 what Hite did because they did execute some type of
19:22:03 contract with the city.
19:22:05 >>> That's a good point.

19:22:06 Thank you.
19:22:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Can we close now?
19:22:08 >> So moved.
19:22:09 >> Second.
19:22:09 (Motion carried)
19:22:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena, would you read that,
19:22:14 please?
19:22:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move an ordinance
19:22:19 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1308 east
19:22:23 4th Avenue, 1315 Fifth Avenue in the city of
19:22:26 Tampa, Florida more particularly described from
19:22:28 section 1 from zoning district classifications YC-6
19:22:33 community commercial to YC-9 site plan controlled,
19:22:36 mixed use, multifamily, residential, profession,
19:22:39 office, retail, providing an effective date.
19:22:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:22:43 (Motion carried).
19:22:45 >>MARK BENTLEY: Just for record I would like the
19:22:49 documents to be received and filed and I have been
19:22:51 sworn.
19:22:53 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll make sure everybody gets one of
19:22:55 them.

19:23:01 Item number 15 is a continued public hearing.
19:23:27 >>GWEN MILLER: If you can't find it.
19:23:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Final item before you tonight, Z
19:24:12 06-125, 1017 east Crenshaw street, came before you on
19:24:17 November 30th. At that time you asked the petitioner
19:24:19 to go back and meet with the neighborhood association
19:24:24 and talk a little bit about the property.
19:24:27 This is to create a buildable lot.
19:24:30 Petitioner is intending to split a 100 by 106 parcel
19:24:36 into two lots, 198 and 208, are existing platted 50 by
19:24:41 106.
19:24:42 The existing homeowner remain on one of the newly
19:24:46 created lot and the lot line will jog around an
19:24:48 existing garage in the main part of lot 208.
19:24:56 16 fate front, 5 feet to 9 feet side.
19:25:11 This is the existing structure on the site.
19:25:13 You can see the attached garage in the back.
19:25:24 The reason for the PD is to go ahead and preserve that
19:25:30 porte-cochere and the attached garage in the back of
19:25:33 the property.
19:25:34 If you look on your site plan, you will see from the
19:25:42 Crenshaw side, both lots will maintain a 50-foot

19:25:47 frontage.
19:25:48 And then you see that it comes down and then jogs
19:25:50 around the detached garage in the back.
19:25:53 If the petitioner were to get -- tear down the garage
19:25:56 co-easily have 250 by 106 lot and meat the minimum lot
19:26:02 area to construct single-family homes and have two
19:26:05 buildable lots.
19:26:06 However given that it is in the overlay and that there
19:26:09 is a desire to preserve the carport and the detached
19:26:12 garage in back, that is the reason he is before you
19:26:16 tonight.
19:26:20 When the petitioner went back and spoke with the
19:26:22 neighborhood association -- and I will let him speak
19:26:25 to that -- I believe it became an issue of lot area,
19:26:29 and the fact that the property line is now in a jog
19:26:34 and that is not desirable by them.
19:26:36 Keeping with the character of the neighborhood, the
19:26:40 preservation, the architectural features, that is why
19:26:43 the PD is before you tonight.
19:26:45 I would also like to provide for the record five
19:26:47 letters of support from surrounding property owners of
19:26:50 the property

19:28:20 You can see how that is.
19:28:26 Dill dilly guess I was curious -- how they got
19:28:30 developed out.
19:28:49 It looks like the majority on this lot are one lot
19:28:51 with the exception, it looks like double.
19:28:58 And although -- everything else ...
19:29:43 >>TONY GARCIA: Single family detached, residential,
19:29:47 predominant land use category, the amount of square
19:29:51 footage that the lot currently has -- I made my
19:30:05 original presentation to you several weeks ago, but as
19:30:17 you can see, you have alluded to, Mr. Dingfelder,
19:30:26 there are different lot sizes and pretty consistent.
19:30:29 You will have like this corner and this corner over
19:30:32 here where you do have, depending on what the tree
19:30:36 situation is going to be, I think in many cases, there
19:30:39 are many uses as far as the houses are concerned but I
19:30:43 think I would want to say your existing permit is
19:30:48 single family detached.
19:30:49 I do recall the applicant stating when he made his
19:30:53 presentation last time that he was going to develop a
19:30:57 home over here that's already been approved, under the
19:31:00 Seminole Heights residential overlay guidelines.

19:31:03 And I think you have an elevation of that in your
19:31:06 package of a home that's about four blocks away.
19:31:13 I do know the circumstances you will be listening to
19:31:15 after my presentation by residents in the area allude
19:31:20 to a unique situation in the rear regarding a
19:31:22 particular structure.
19:31:23 That is something that we have not been privy to.
19:31:26 It relates to the historic character of the area,
19:31:28 which is, I think, something that the residents and
19:31:31 the property owners are much more intimately aware of
19:31:36 so I think I will leave it to them at that point.
19:31:38 But overall as far as the compatibility of the area,
19:31:40 what's being offered, the applicant willing to go
19:31:43 ahead and create something there that's already
19:31:45 consistent and approved within the requirements of the
19:31:48 residential overlay district, staff has no objections
19:31:52 to the proposed request.
19:31:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:32:06 >> I'm the agent.
19:32:07 I have been sworn.
19:32:09 The last time I was here, the issue was -- it was
19:32:20 scheduled for tonight.

19:32:20 And the site plan has been changed.
19:32:26 A bottle brush hedge was put up to help.
19:32:33 Also, the issue basically, upon meeting with the
19:32:37 neighborhood association, is the concern at the rear
19:32:43 of the lot being notched out.
19:32:45 I think the only way to preserve the garage -- I found
19:32:51 a picture.
19:32:52 I don't know -- the lady that lived there.
19:33:00 I don't know if you can turn this on.
19:33:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Put it on and it will come on.
19:33:17 That picture was published in the 1940s.
19:33:20 The porte-cochere there.
19:33:51 We have the construction -- if the situation comes up,
19:33:56 and now she can't build her home on the lot.
19:34:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:34:12 wants to speak on number 15?
19:34:14 Come up and speak.
19:34:20 Okay, speak.
19:34:23 Oh, you haven't been sworn?
19:34:25 Would you please raise your right hand?
19:34:26 (Oath administered by Clerk)
19:34:35 >> My name is Randy barren, 217 west Comanche Avenue,

19:34:39 president of the Old Seminole Heights association.
19:34:42 The last time this was presented before council,
19:34:44 petitioner was instructed to come back to the
19:34:45 neighborhood association.
19:34:47 He met with our board at a special meeting.
19:34:49 The board, to summarize the board unanimously opposes
19:34:54 this PD rezoning.
19:34:55 We feel that it sets a terrible please -- precedent in
19:34:58 the neighborhood for people to buy larger lots, split
19:35:02 them and carve out little niches where necessary.
19:35:09 It was a garage added well after the original house
19:35:12 was built from what we can tell.
19:35:14 There's no historic value from what we can tell.
19:35:16 Petitioner originally wanted to tear down the garage
19:35:18 which would have avoided this entire situation.
19:35:22 It could be a swimming pool yet.
19:35:27 The house, or in this case a porte-cochere, and it
19:35:33 cuts out.
19:35:34 It just sets a precedent to have jigsaw puzzles in the
19:35:38 residential area.
19:35:39 We would like to avoid that.
19:35:40 So again my board is unanimously opposed.

19:35:51 There was some question whether the porte-cochere.
19:36:00 When would support a 48-foot lot.
19:36:03 And a -- when they go for the variance, would support
19:36:08 that for zero setback on the porte-cochere.
19:36:18 >> I think Mr. Barren answered my question.
19:36:20 But I don't really understand the logic.
19:36:24 Because they are objecting because it's going to
19:36:27 increase the density.
19:36:29 But then you say that if they tore down the garage you
19:36:32 don't have an objection.
19:36:33 >> We are not opposed to the density.
19:36:35 What we are opposed to is for people to buy lots
19:36:38 intending to split them, and then having issues like a
19:36:43 garage where they have to carve out lots and you end
19:36:46 up with jigsaw puzzle zoning.
19:36:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I am trying to figure out, Mr.
19:36:52 Barren, is why would that adversely affect the
19:36:56 neighborhood?
19:36:57 If you're driving down the street, you know, --
19:37:03 >> It may not --
19:37:04 >> Let me finish.
19:37:05 Do you really have a clue, you know, that the lot line

19:37:08 jogs or anything like that.
19:37:10 I would say no.
19:37:10 So I am not really understanding the logic.
19:37:12 >>> In this case it may not be -- in this case it's
19:37:14 the back.
19:37:15 But it may not be the back all the time.
19:37:18 It could be the front.
19:37:18 It could be a porte-cochere.
19:37:20 They could want to jog it back over.
19:37:22 So we are concerned about that.
19:37:24 I mean, it's a Euclidean geometry neighborhood RS-50,
19:37:29 actually RS-60.
19:37:32 And we would like to keep the consistency of those
19:37:36 lots.
19:37:36 >> It's more the precedent.
19:37:39 >> Yes.
19:37:39 In this case, you're right.
19:37:45 What's going to happen, if you allow this, we are
19:37:47 going to start seeing more and more and more of these.
19:37:51 And there's going to be a precedent.
19:37:53 We are going to have to deal with all sorts of jogs
19:37:56 and all sorts of jigsaw puzzles.

19:38:00 If this case it's an easy notch in the back.
19:38:03 It may be in the middle where you have to knock it out
19:38:05 so we are concerned with setting a precedent.
19:38:09 >> Just to be clear.
19:38:12 If we denied this with the porte-cochere, it certainly
19:38:20 appears visually, would you rather lose that?
19:38:23 >> No, no, we are okay with keeping the porte-cochere,
19:38:25 having a 48-foot lot and having it run straight back.
19:38:29 We don't want to save the garage.
19:38:30 It's a cinder block garage in the back.
19:38:32 >> Oh, gotcha. I couldn't understand because in that
19:38:36 old picture it showed the porte-cochere.
19:38:40 You want to lose the garage.
19:38:42 >> The garage in the back.
19:38:44 >> That encroaches a great deal further than a
19:38:46 porte-cochere.
19:38:52 >> Actually it would have to be a PD.
19:39:10 >> Christy hatch, not only am I the vice-president of
19:39:15 the association but I own the lot directly across and
19:39:19 my property is a 150 by 106 lot.
19:39:21 I do not want to see somebody across the street have
19:39:26 basically a plied lot when all of the lots up and down

19:39:32 the streets in these neighborhoods are very straight
19:39:35 line lots.
19:39:36 And I disagree that you would be able to tell.
19:39:40 The garage is fairly large at the back of that
19:39:42 property.
19:39:42 And it sticks over substantially beyond the -- my
19:40:01 garage was added onto and the look between my garage
19:40:04 and this garage, my look is this garage is probably
19:40:06 enlarged, about 1940.
19:40:13 If you look at that original picture, there probably
19:40:17 was a garage in the back through the porte cochere.
19:40:28 >> The garage had always been there and you couldn't
19:40:45 see the property line jogging or not jogging.
19:40:47 The garage had always been there.
19:40:49 >> My name is Susan Williams, 921 east broad street,
19:40:53 roughly one block.
19:40:54 I have two lots that I own.
19:40:56 I'm in the process of selling one of them.
19:40:59 I have encroached on it.
19:41:01 And nothing significant like a garage and everybody
19:41:06 said if you encroach on that lot, we move the
19:41:10 encroachment and that's pretty much the way I feel

19:41:12 about this.
19:41:12 The original house was built adjusts like an inch or
19:41:15 so over the line on the porte-cochere, the rules were
19:41:24 -- my house was three feet from the lot line.
19:41:27 But sometime later that garage was added and my
19:41:30 sentiments are that, you know, I think I'll encroach
19:41:34 on it and then just draw a new lien so that I can sell
19:41:37 it anyway, I find to be inappropriate and I would like
19:41:39 to keep the neighborhood, all the lots, the straight
19:41:43 lines from front to back.
19:41:44 And I don't see why this one can't also.
19:41:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:41:48 Would anyone else like to speak?
19:41:49 >> I represent the next door neighbor.
19:42:06 >> Did you say you represent the petitioner?
19:42:08 >> Yes.
19:42:09 >> Is this part of rebuttal then?
19:42:11 >> Yes.
19:42:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Did anyone else want to speak?
19:42:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
19:42:19 >>GWEN MILLER: I think someone else wanted to speak.
19:42:24 >> For or against?

19:42:28 >>> Whitesell.
19:42:29 I was sworn in.
19:42:30 I own the property adjacent on the east side, 1011
19:42:34 east Crenshaw. I for the record wanted to state that
19:42:42 originally, I had an objection when we had an
19:42:46 oversight plan.
19:42:47 There's now a new site plan where they have stated
19:42:52 that they would provide a wooden fence for a hedge,
19:42:56 and discretion in order to do that.
19:42:58 My other objection would have been tonight and I still
19:43:01 have a couple of questions about that.
19:43:04 The property size the last I understood was around
19:43:11 4,000 something and we had a 41-foot width across the
19:43:15 front.
19:43:15 I understood tonight that was a problem in the deed
19:43:19 that was misprinted, or there was an error in the
19:43:24 deed.
19:43:24 And I would like to see that adjusted to see if we are
19:43:28 dealing with a 50 by 106 lot regardless of where that
19:43:34 garage sits.
19:43:36 So that issue needs to be resolved, also that that
19:43:39 deed needs to be amended or that exchange of property

19:43:43 lot should reflect that.
19:43:48 Now
19:43:58 >>> Keith sanders.
19:43:59 I was sworn in earlier.
19:44:00 There will be a corrected deed filed.
19:44:03 There wasn't a space.
19:44:05 This is -- I think it's the homeowners association,
19:44:09 41-foot lot.
19:44:10 I went back and researched and found that there was a
19:44:13 mistake on the deed that was filed.
19:44:16 We filed a corrected deed.
19:44:22 Basically, we have gotten to a place that I didn't
19:44:31 mean to start with.
19:44:32 We actually had a permit to tear down the garage and
19:44:34 the week before tearing down the garage I went down
19:44:36 and met with somebody in the city, I don't remember
19:44:38 who, I think it was transportation or zoning, and they
19:44:41 told me why are you tearing down the garage?
19:44:44 You shouldn't do that in that overlay district, you
19:44:48 need to preserve the garage.
19:44:53 [ Laughter ]
19:44:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry, we are not laughing.

19:44:55 There was an earlier case today.
19:44:58 >>> So we preserved the garage trying to do what I
19:45:02 thought the city wanted us to do.
19:45:03 And actually, I will leave it up to your hands.
19:45:10 I'm more than happy to tear down the garage.
19:45:13 I'm more than happy to leave it.
19:45:15 I was just trying to do whatever was the right thing
19:45:18 to do, and then it ended up being the wrong thing to
19:45:22 do for some people and the right fink thing to do for
19:45:24 other people and it ended up being this big mess that
19:45:27 I never intended to happen.
19:45:28 I was trying to build one small little house, and make
19:45:33 everybody happy.
19:45:34 So the garage needs to be torn down, we already have a
19:45:39 permit in place, we can tear down the garage.
19:45:41 And -- it's whatever you all want.
19:45:49 This picture says there's a garage.
19:45:50 You cannot see the garage in this picture.
19:45:52 It is a cinder block garage.
19:45:55 I doubt it was built in the 20s when the house was
19:45:57 built.
19:45:57 It was probably built in the 40s when some people

19:46:00 had more cars.
19:46:02 So basically, I guess I'm just asking for you all's
19:46:05 guidance.
19:46:06 >> We are going to guide you.
19:46:10 >>> Council, I would like to make a point of
19:46:12 clarification and that is on November 30th when
19:46:16 this case, Allen and you directed the petitioner to go
19:46:19 back and speak with the neighborhood association, it
19:46:23 dealt with the separation of the building to the
19:46:24 adjacent property, and as was stated by a previous
19:46:29 member, the revised site plan now provides a hedge,
19:46:32 provides additional -- the impact has been lessened.
19:46:38 We just wanted to clarify that was the original site
19:46:40 plan only had a 5-foot set back and no landscaping
19:46:44 hedge and now they have the landscaping hedge that is
19:46:46 going to be three foot in height, and along with a
19:46:51 13-foot setback.
19:46:53 So there have been some improvements made as far as
19:46:55 the impact of that.
19:46:59 As far as the garage and your desires, we can talk
19:47:01 about that and what you would like to do, if you would
19:47:04 like to see that torn down.

19:47:09 Based on the scale, the site plan provided, you
19:47:15 understand the frontage and now at the back it's
19:47:17 jogging out seven feet to accommodate the garage with
19:47:20 a 3-fat setback which would be our accessory structure
19:47:25 setback.
19:47:26 So --
19:47:30 >> I believe what I see, if we take that line that
19:47:34 they are proposing coming from the street and just run
19:47:36 it, just run it straight all the way to the rear of
19:47:40 the property through the middle of the garage, and
19:47:45 then we'll grandfather in the garage, and the carport,
19:47:49 so they can be close, by virtue of the deed which will
19:47:53 have to be drawn again, you can either cut the garage
19:47:56 in half and leave, now, if he wants to cut it in half
19:48:00 and leave two-thirds of the garage on that property.
19:48:04 And we'll just run the straight line.
19:48:05 The neighborhood will be happy.
19:48:07 He'll be off to the races.
19:48:10 But it won't be equal size lots.
19:48:11 One lot looks like it's going to be 47, the other lot
19:48:14 is going to be 53.
19:48:22 >> The way it's drawn, both have 50-foot frontage.

19:48:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a 47 there.
19:48:31 >> Oh, 47.
19:48:32 Okay.
19:48:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only other change I would
19:48:38 suggest --
19:48:39 >>> It's 308 square feet that is jogged out for the --
19:48:43 it's 10 feet by 38 feet, 380 square feet.
19:48:47 >> We are not talking about jogging anymore.
19:48:49 I think we are going to probably all agree we'll just
19:48:51 make it a straight line, I would think.
19:48:53 But anyway, the only other suggestion I would make in
19:48:56 light of the woman in the back's comment who lives
19:48:58 next door, she mentioned "or a wood fence."
19:49:03 That's not on the site plan.
19:49:04 If that's the agreement between the neighbors, we need
19:49:06 to add that as well.
19:49:09 >> That is the agreement I just made with her.
19:49:11 >> Well, don't need a couple more weeks to add that.
19:49:17 >> I don't believe in the overlay they can put a
19:49:19 fence.
19:49:21 We need to review the overlay design plan in order to
19:49:24 make that determination.

19:49:25 We can talk about that, should the direction of
19:49:27 council be to go back and revise the PD site plan in
19:49:31 order to have the property line go directly through
19:49:34 with the removal and or retrench -- retention of
19:49:40 portions of the garage if possible.
19:49:41 That would probably put it at two-foot setback for
19:49:46 that garage in the back, depending on how much you
19:49:48 want to tear down.
19:49:51 That would be per your discussion.
19:49:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I would move to continue this for
19:49:58 some period of time so that you can come back with a
19:50:00 resized site plan that removes the garage and squares
19:50:05 up the lots, and it sounds to me like that's the only
19:50:08 concern of the neighborhood, we can do that and meet
19:50:13 sometime after the first of the year.
19:50:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Do they need to get with you?
19:50:20 >> What's your January meeting?
19:50:23 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Do it in the morning on the first day
19:50:25 back January 11th which is probably not preferable
19:50:28 but January 18th would be the following morning.
19:50:29 >>GWEN MILLER: And make sure they get all those.
19:50:37 >>> You all want me to tear down the garage?

19:50:39 >> She's going to tell you what to do.
19:50:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You are going to leave, as far as
19:50:43 I'm concerned, you are going to leave the partial
19:50:47 garage if you want to and just build a new wall.
19:50:50 You don't have to tear the whole thing down, if it's
19:50:53 physically possible.
19:50:55 But you all can work that out.
19:50:56 >>GWEN MILLER: You work it out with land development.
19:50:59 That's what you need to do. We have a motion and
19:51:01 second to continue to January 18th at 10 a.m.
19:51:04 All in favor say Aye.
19:51:05 Opposed, Nay.
19:51:08 Anything else to come before council?
19:51:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That was at 10:00 in the morning.
19:51:19 >>THE CLERK: You have items to receive and file.
19:51:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to receive and file.
19:51:24 >> So moved.
19:51:24 >> Second.
19:51:24 (Motion carried).
19:51:25 >>THE CLERK: We have an item carried over from this
19:51:31 morning's meeting use of the city seal.
19:51:33 We have asked for the resolution to be back this

19:51:35 evening.
19:51:35 And I do have that.
19:51:39 >> Move the resolution.
19:51:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was there discussion on that?
19:51:44 >> Second.
19:51:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:51:52 >> The only question I had on reading that was, will
19:51:56 we be guaranteed that they will be limited to use it
19:51:59 just for the ban er? Because it's my understanding
19:52:01 that in looking at it, if they want to give that
19:52:05 banner as a sign of good will to, you know, say thanks
19:52:07 for coming to Tampa and they take it back to
19:52:09 Australia, that sort of thing, then it's fine that we
19:52:12 have the -- but I don't think we want to let them use
19:52:17 the city seal for letter head or cards.
19:52:21 >>THE CLERK: The resolution specifically states
19:52:24 permission is to use in the design of a local Rotary
19:52:26 Club's banner and small Exchange banners.
19:52:30 >> So there are limitations.
19:52:32 Okay.
19:52:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, you are familiar with what
19:52:36 an Exchange banner is for the Rotary.

19:52:39 That's why.
19:52:41 (Motion Carried).
19:52:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We stand adjourned.
19:52:43