Tampa City Council
Thursday, January 11, 2007
5:01 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.
17:14:39 [Sounding gavel]
17:14:40 Tampa City Council is called to order.
17:14:43 Tonight to give our invocation will be Ms. Landry.
17:14:51 She will come and introduce herself, and remain
17:14:54 standing for the pledge of allegiance.
17:14:56 Will you please stand?
17:14:57 >> My name is Jacqueline Landry and I'm currently the
17:15:03 president of the Academy of Holy Names.
17:15:10 Let us pray for ourselves in the silence that's
17:15:12 deafening that calls us to our best selves.
17:15:15 May God who is the source of all blessings and all
17:15:23 that is blessed be part of this gathering, at its
17:15:26 beginning and at its end and at all the time in
17:15:29 May God's spirit guide us in all that is concerned and
17:15:35 decided here.
17:15:36 May the spirit inspire us with words that say all that
17:15:39 they mean.
17:15:41 May we be blessed with the ability to speak with
17:15:43 integrity and to work with uncompromising diligence.
17:15:48 May God help us focus on what truly matters and give
17:15:52 us the insight to discern what is right.
17:15:55 May God fill our hearts with love, and may that love
17:15:59 determine the course we take, and shape all of our
17:16:04 May God who is compassion give us wisdom to make good
17:16:09 decisions, courage to take necessary risks, and
17:16:14 shakeable hope to maintain a good spirit, good humor
17:16:20 to keep things in perspective, and deep trust so that,
17:16:24 as we risk, we remain grounded in all that is true.
17:16:28 May we be blessed with the personal choice knowing
17:16:33 that we have acted for the common good and that we
17:16:36 have done our best and that we have served our
17:16:38 community with all our hearts.
17:16:42 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
17:16:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Ms. Landry.
17:17:00 Roll call.
17:17:02 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Here.
17:17:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:17:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
17:17:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
17:17:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
17:17:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:17:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We will now begin with item number 1.
17:17:12 We need to open the public hearing.
17:17:15 >> So moved.
17:17:16 >> Second.
17:17:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:17:17 (Motion carried).
17:17:18 >> Good evening, council, Madam Chair.
17:17:22 Michelle Oglesby, Planning Commission staff.
17:17:25 By way of background, agenda item 1 through 9 are
17:17:32 comprehensive plan amendments that have been heard by
17:17:36 you in some cases, and number 9 has not been heard.
17:17:45 They are in the March-August cycles of plan
17:17:49 Agenda items 1 and 9 are small scale and will need
17:17:55 five affirmed votes to be approved.
17:17:59 And the other by majority of council.
17:18:06 If I can ask council's consideration, there are
17:18:10 several items, item number 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, all of
17:18:20 which are referred to as the point area and the
17:18:26 amendments both have been sent to the Department of
17:18:27 Community Affairs for the review.
17:18:33 There have been recommendations and objections from
17:18:36 the department of community affairs, and there is some
17:18:41 discussion on the floor about what to do with those to
17:18:44 bring them more into line with the comprehensive plan.
17:18:50 And we would ask the indulgence of council if you
17:18:52 could open those and take care of them now, and then
17:18:55 go back to your agenda.
17:18:59 >> So moved.
17:19:00 >> Second.
17:19:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
17:19:01 (Motion carried).
17:19:04 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Randy Goers will be walking you
17:19:06 through that.
17:19:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I believe the motion
17:19:10 therefore was to open the public hearings on 3, 5, 6,
17:19:13 7 and 8 together.
17:19:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
17:19:15 >>RANDY GOERS: Community planning division.
17:19:18 If I could, on the Elmo here, to give you a summary of
17:19:31 where we have been on Rattlesnake Point plan
17:19:35 amendment, a brief history.
17:19:39 On August 14th the Planning Commission found the
17:19:42 four map amendments and the text amendment consistent
17:19:45 with the comprehensive plan.
17:19:47 On August 24th they were transmitted to City
17:19:50 Council, held the public hearings, directed revisions
17:19:54 to the text amendment, to the legal department, to
17:19:56 address the safety issues, and some planning of
17:20:01 On 9-7 City Council approved the alternative text
17:20:05 And then on November 20th, DCA issued the
17:20:09 objections, recommendations and comments.
17:20:17 Within 60 days of the receipt of the Orc report, the
17:20:21 governments must either adopt the original plan
17:20:23 amendment that were transmitted, adopt the changes, or
17:20:26 to withdraw the plan amendment.
17:20:27 There is an ability to continue the plan amendment so
17:20:30 that it always opens a potential challenge.
17:20:35 It's not mentioned in the statute.
17:20:37 There is an ability to continue.
17:20:38 Typically, you need to adopt the changes or withdraw.
17:20:42 The adoption hearings are scheduled for tonight.
17:20:44 And for January 25th.
17:20:48 As you know, the subject of the plan amendments are
17:20:51 four map amendments ranging from 2.1 acres to 31 acres
17:20:56 going from heavy industrial to community mixed use 35,
17:20:59 and PA 604 which is a series of new text amendments
17:21:03 regulating development.
17:21:05 The location of the plan amendments, you can see that
17:21:08 these are the map amendments here that are going from
17:21:11 heavy industrial to community mixed use.
17:21:16 There is a reference.
17:21:22 There is a storage facility and propane storage
17:21:25 I bring that up because our policies reference
17:21:28 hazardous sites or toxic sites or uses are two uses
17:21:33 that they pertain to.
17:21:34 I want to run through a summary of the plan
17:21:37 And this is really a summary of the text.
17:21:41 As you remember the text amendments themselves are
17:21:42 very lengthy.
17:21:45 Our legal department was directed to write those so
17:21:47 that you have a very defined and very definite legal
17:21:52 way of wording it.
17:21:53 So what I am going to present to you is a summary of
17:21:55 the intent.
17:21:56 So the language that I put up today is not the exact
17:21:59 language of your text amendment, but it will hopefully
17:22:01 provide a summary of what the text amendments are
17:22:03 trying to accomplish.
17:22:06 The objective is to establish Rattlesnake Point
17:22:09 waterfront area to transition from industrial to
17:22:11 residential commercial used mix Utah front community,
17:22:15 primarily nap safe and fair manner.
17:22:18 The policies basically prohibit residential uses until
17:22:22 hazardous or industrial uses are eliminated.
17:22:26 It calls for a transition plan to be completed by 2008
17:22:29 to direct vision and strategy, the densities, open
17:22:34 spaces and any other issues that come to light during
17:22:37 that plan.
17:22:38 It allows the existing industrial uses to relocate to
17:22:46 It prohibits new or expansions to heavy existing uses,
17:22:50 allows industrial general permitted uses until parcels
17:22:55 rezoned for commercial uses, requires an amendment to
17:22:57 our land development regulations to address site
17:23:00 planning or zoning, development agreements, planning a
17:23:03 development, mitigation of transportation, and other
17:23:06 issues of concern by the city.
17:23:10 They prohibit rezonings unless the LDRs in the
17:23:14 previous policy are adopted or unless there is a
17:23:16 development agreement that specifies the timing of the
17:23:19 development, the mitigation related impact, it
17:23:23 provides for public access to the waterfront and
17:23:25 ensures the elimination or relocation of hazardous
17:23:29 heavy industrial uses.
17:23:30 They require mitigation of impacts on the
17:23:32 transportation system, allows the contributions to
17:23:36 mass transit or multi-modal, requires mitigation for
17:23:40 shelter impact and prohibits building permits until
17:23:44 the heavy uses cease operations completely. That was
17:23:48 transmitted, the policy were transmitted to the
17:23:52 Department of Community Affairs as I mentioned
17:23:55 The Department of Community Affairs issued the Orc
17:23:59 report on November 20th.
17:24:00 They had three objections, the first being questions
17:24:07 of consistency with Senate bill 1359 pertaining to the
17:24:10 coastal development and the hurricane evacuation
17:24:15 I'll get into a little more about what the objections
17:24:20 and the response.
17:24:20 The second objection about capacity analysis related
17:24:23 to a few of the facilities.
17:24:25 And the questions related to trip impacts and the
17:24:28 associated improvements with those.
17:24:30 We provided a response -- we developed a response, and
17:24:34 actually sent that response to DCA and asked for a
17:24:38 courtesy review.
17:24:43 Anything provided to us at this point are a staff
17:24:46 level, not a reflection of the department's policy,
17:24:48 but it does give us enough as to whether or not we are
17:24:53 on the right track in addressing their concerns.
17:25:00 In the response the items 2 and 3, questions about the
17:25:03 facility analysis and the road impact, we would
17:25:09 provide enough information for the staff to see that
17:25:11 basic concerns were addressed.
17:25:13 On the issue of coastal management, coastal
17:25:15 development, there is a little bit more uncertainty on
17:25:18 behalf of the department of community staff at this
17:25:21 We need more time to review what our strategy is, and
17:25:24 how it fits into their interpretation as we go on.
17:25:28 Part of it is the change, at least my opinion, to
17:25:32 change in the structure of DCA, change in the
17:25:36 administration, and the leadership.
17:25:39 Staff now is also going to a change in how they should
17:25:42 interpret state law related to certain critical state
17:25:45 Our response is consistent with the response that we
17:25:48 provided all Orc reports related to coastal
17:25:54 developments so we are being consistent in our
17:25:55 strategy and our view of how we either restrict,
17:25:59 limit, or promote development in the coastal high
17:26:02 hazard area.
17:26:02 So the question is really at DCA level and their
17:26:06 interpretation of that with changes.
17:26:09 So with that we feel the Orc report is on track, we
17:26:15 are still continuing dialogue with the Department of
17:26:16 Community Affairs, and hope that by the time the
17:26:19 adoption hearing, a final indication of the final
17:26:25 outstanding issue.
17:26:26 I will say, I think you have seen some correspondence,
17:26:30 some indications that there were some outstanding
17:26:32 issues related to one of our policies, one of the
17:26:35 policies in the plan related to the prohibition of --
17:26:41 or expansion of industrial uses or heavy industrial
17:26:46 Later on today, there have been a number of discussion
17:26:49 was city staff, between the petitioners and some of
17:26:52 the other property owners.
17:26:53 We received some alternative language, just about an
17:26:56 hour ago, city staff has looked at it.
17:26:59 It's just come to us.
17:27:01 We are not in position to really provide I think to
17:27:04 the council recommendation on alternative language.
17:27:07 We need more time to really look at that.
17:27:09 But I will let the petitioners and those that are in
17:27:12 opposition of the plan amendments to provide any
17:27:17 discussion, and would be happy to answer any
17:27:20 At this point I'll open it up for any questions you
17:27:22 may have.
17:27:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
17:27:25 We go to the petitioner.
17:27:27 Mr. Shelby.
17:27:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, council.
17:27:29 This is not a quasi-judicial procedure proceeding.
17:27:34 These are legislative decisions and so does council
17:27:38 wish to set forth a time limit for speakers in these
17:27:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Ten minutes.
17:27:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ten minutes each?
17:27:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Ten minutes each.
17:27:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: For side.
17:27:51 Ten minutes for the petitioner, ten minutes for --
17:27:55 apparently there's some opposition here as well.
17:27:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I can clarify.
17:28:00 I'm sorry.
17:28:03 There are five different plan amendments.
17:28:05 How many petitioners out there?
17:28:08 >> A total of four.
17:28:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's not what I intended.
17:28:14 Mr. McCabe, do you speak for all of the petitioners?
17:28:18 >>> It's my understanding -- I have been asked to sort
17:28:21 of give an introductory comment, which would be very
17:28:24 And then we would like the opportunity to come back on
17:28:28 rebuttal in terms of responding to any particular
17:28:34 The other council may want to speak to their
17:28:38 particular petition.
17:28:40 But I would be giving just a one-minute overview at
17:28:42 this point.
17:28:43 On behalf of all the petitioners.
17:28:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And I would say you all can do ten
17:28:49 minutes, we can give the other folks ten minutes to
17:28:51 object, make their concerns, and then give you all,
17:28:54 say, five minutes for rebuttal.
17:29:02 It's just a suggestion.
17:29:03 >>> I would like to have time in the context of
17:29:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Give one minute for overview.
17:29:12 You have nine minutes to talk.
17:29:13 Then you can come back and give a rebuttal for five
17:29:16 Is that okay?
17:29:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The only concern I have, council, is
17:29:20 from a fairness standpoint that when you have four
17:29:26 different petitioners that may have different
17:29:29 positions and they won't have as much time
17:29:34 individually as the one person who is representing the
17:29:36 people who wish to give the opposition.
17:29:41 If council would wish, perhaps what they could do is
17:29:44 give everybody, let's say, five minutes, if you wish,
17:29:47 and then if it requires more time, how much time it
17:29:52 may need.
17:29:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, you have five minutes.
17:29:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And they are absolutely under no
17:30:00 obligation to use the five minutes.
17:30:10 If council wishes to set up whatever they -- that's a
17:30:13 If you wish to do it, there was a motion that needs
17:30:25 I would recommend that whatever you do, however you
17:30:29 want to apportion it.
17:30:31 What I am suggesting, council, respectfully, is that
17:30:35 fairness dictates at the outset that you at least
17:30:38 declare what your prerogatives are and then give
17:30:43 everybody the opportunity to follow it.
17:30:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll do the five minutes for
17:30:48 >>> Good evening.
17:30:50 David Mechanik, 305 south Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
17:30:53 I'm here specifically representing my two clients,
17:30:59 Moberg Marine and Old Dutch and I have been asked by
17:31:02 the other counsel to give an overview of Rattlesnake
17:31:07 As council recalls, and Mr. Reddick was not on council
17:31:13 at that time, nor Mr. Fletcher, but the impetus behind
17:31:19 these amendments really came from the decisions that
17:31:23 the City of Tampa, City Council in connection with the
17:31:26 approval of both the New Port development, as well as
17:31:31 the WCI development, which established medium to high
17:31:39 density residential in this particular area, there are
17:31:42 policies in the comprehensive plan which identifies
17:31:45 the Gandy gateway corridor as an area suitable for
17:31:49 higher density residential development.
17:31:55 We have filed the amendments in the context, and
17:32:00 someone less than what was approved by City Council in
17:32:04 connection with those other projects.
17:32:09 We believe that Randy did answer comments of DCA
17:32:18 consistent with how the city responded to other
17:32:20 comments from DCA in the past, and we believe that we
17:32:23 will receive a satisfactory recommendation from the
17:32:29 At this point, we would like to have the opportunity
17:32:36 to speak in rebuttal after comments from the public.
17:32:38 Thank you.
17:32:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
17:32:43 Anyone else going to speak?
17:32:49 We go to the audience.
17:32:51 Anyone in the audience want to speak on item number 3.
17:33:03 >>> My name is Ted Taub, Shoemaker, Lupe and Kendrick,
17:33:08 101 East Kennedy Boulevard.
17:33:11 I'm going to be brief as I can.
17:33:20 The letter that was delivered to you yesterday, I am
17:33:22 going to read it pretty much so that it is in the
17:33:35 Ladies and gentlemen, we represent Targa limited
17:33:45 Our client's property is directly impacted by these
17:33:56 privately initiated text amendments that have been
17:33:58 submitted for your consideration.
17:34:07 In 1952 as you see on the aerial, in conjunction with
17:34:12 the HEMI corporation, set out to dredge and fill as
17:34:18 the sandy bottom soil was dredged, one half mile of
17:34:22 roadbed, and an 11.94-acre site was created.
17:34:33 Officially opened Florida's first liquid petroleum
17:34:36 unloaded storage terminal.
17:34:39 The Targa is the successor, the ownership of the
17:34:46 Currently, the terminal contains 48 storage tanks, two
17:35:06 computerized transport loading scales, an operations
17:35:11 building, organization storage maintenance buildings
17:35:15 completely fenced with sea wall.
17:35:19 You have proposed policy A-6-A-4 which was developed
17:35:27 by the city attorney Mr. Smith in the course of these
17:35:33 Our problem is with the encumbrance on our property in
17:35:39 terms of expanding, and that they can no longer expand
17:35:46 and so forth.
17:35:48 Although proposed policy A-6-A 3 committees industrial
17:35:52 uses sufficient time and opportunity to relocate
17:35:57 allowing industrial uses, it does not permit any heavy
17:36:06 uses or expansion from the existing --
17:36:11 As you can see from the beginning of this to the
17:36:15 present day, it has indeed expanded on more than one
17:36:18 occasion to its present status.
17:36:21 We have been evaluating the most effective utilization
17:36:24 of our property.
17:36:25 In the text amendments being developed, map and text
17:36:30 amendment, residential development, continuing
17:36:33 industrial uses.
17:36:36 And not limit the 60 units to the acre on a text
17:36:37 amendment would have allowed residential development
17:36:41 while the industrial uses continue to operate. As the
17:36:42 amendments change shape, however, prohibiting
17:36:48 transition of uses, reducing the number of units per
17:36:51 acre from 60 to 35 and adding language eliminating
17:36:55 hazardous and toxic uses before residential
17:36:58 development may occur, probably was unable to support
17:36:58 them and sought legal counsel.
17:37:04 And after careful study, we concluded that the
17:37:06 amendment as modified was unacceptable and petitions
17:37:11 were withdrawn October 2006.
17:37:12 No proponent of these plan amendments have had any
17:37:19 No proponent of these plan amendments have had any
17:37:23 discussion was Targa regarding location of the
17:37:30 None whatsoever.
17:37:33 My client's use of the property has been unjustly
17:37:36 Our clients desire that no direct or indirect
17:37:39 restrictions be placed on their property.
17:37:43 The passage of these amendments by their very
17:37:46 existence places an encumbrance in so far as our
17:37:51 clients use of any perspective buyer and implication
17:38:00 We believe that the proposed text amendment without
17:38:04 further revision as a played to Targa may give rise to
17:38:10 the necessity of condemnation, taking claim for
17:38:16 substantial damages.
17:38:18 We ask council to tread very carefully in this area.
17:38:21 We believe that everybody's rights should be honored.
17:38:25 The amendments that were alluded to by Randy a moment
17:38:29 ago that came about an hour ago were -- represented by
17:38:36 Mr. Weaver, I would say, 15 to 20 minutes before this
17:38:39 meeting startled.
17:38:40 (Bell sounds).
17:38:40 Obviously we haven't had a chance to carefully study
17:38:42 them but I can tell you from a cursory look, they will
17:38:46 not do the job.
17:38:47 They just play with language.
17:38:52 I don't know whether Mr. Noble is going to speak to
17:38:57 permanency language.
17:38:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up, sir.
17:39:01 >>> Thank you very much.
17:39:02 May I place these into the record?
17:39:07 Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
17:39:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Sure.
17:39:11 I was through.
17:39:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Talbert, correct me if I am
17:39:19 I don't recall you all making an appearance when we
17:39:23 had the initial part of the transmittal part of this.
17:39:28 Was your client unaware that this was going on?
17:39:36 >>> What happened, Mr. Weaver was representing our
17:39:38 client and viper at the same time.
17:39:45 I think without editorializing, there came a time when
17:39:49 that did not seem to be in the best interest of Targa,
17:39:53 because the interest of viper, the interest of Targa
17:39:57 were not the same after Targa looked at it more
17:40:01 And that's what happened.
17:40:04 Mr. Weaver was kind enough to refer them to me.
17:40:06 And I represent Targa at this time.
17:40:10 Accordingly, we were not involved in some of those at
17:40:13 that time.
17:40:14 Mr. Weaver was representing these folks.
17:40:20 >> Mr. Weaver being the diligent attorney that he is
17:40:22 would have provided them with the language that we and
17:40:24 the community were developing at the time last summer,
17:40:27 so they were aware of the language at that time?
17:40:29 >>> They looked at it.
17:40:31 I don't know how this is going to come out but I don't
17:40:35 They were actually not advised adequately on the
17:40:38 implications of the language when they saw it.
17:40:40 And so they didn't determine that it was not in their
17:40:45 best interest to proceed forward, or proceed in
17:40:48 support of these amendments, Mr. Dingfelder.
17:40:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are all aware that there's a
17:40:54 transition going on in this area.
17:40:57 Does your client have any plans whatsoever?
17:41:02 Are they looking at, you know, at moving to a
17:41:04 different part of the bay area?
17:41:07 Obviously the bay area values them being here as a
17:41:11 We don't want to chase them away to another part of
17:41:13 the state.
17:41:14 But are they looking at any other part or any other
17:41:17 >>> No, sir.
17:41:19 It's not to say that could not be considered.
17:41:28 But as I said before, nobody who has the interest in
17:41:33 this passing has contacted my client.
17:41:36 I checked with him just yesterday.
17:41:38 And Mr. Chung and Mr. Johnson, nor have they contacted
17:41:44 me up until the time, said take a look at it.
17:41:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, sir.
17:41:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for you.
17:41:56 In the paper that you handed out, you said your
17:42:02 concerns included prohibiting transitioning uses,
17:42:06 reducing the number of units per acre from 60 to 35,
17:42:10 and then adding language eliminating hazardous and
17:42:14 toxic uses.
17:42:15 The inclusion of the concern about reducing the number
17:42:17 of units to me infers that you all might be interested
17:42:20 in doing some sort of residential development in the
17:42:23 future, because otherwise you wouldn't be concerned
17:42:25 about the number of units.
17:42:26 >>> That is possible.
17:42:28 What got us a little worried was the tiny little piece
17:42:32 that got put in some time ago that went to 35, and we
17:42:38 thought that might set a pattern for the rest of the
17:42:41 area, whereas the viper folks were getting 60, as I
17:42:47 understand it.
17:42:48 So we are hoping to -- open to discussion on that,
17:42:53 Mrs. Saul-Sena, if you understand what I'm saying.
17:42:55 We are not going to -- we aren't going to buy 35 when
17:43:05 the immediate neighbor is getting 60.
17:43:08 And there might be some number in between we can talk
17:43:10 But there hasn't been any dialogue of that nature.
17:43:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
17:43:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: based on what you said in your letter
17:43:23 here where you said that Targa had been evaluating the
17:43:28 most effective utilization of the Tampa terminal site,
17:43:32 then you go on and piggybacking on what Ms. Saul-Sena
17:43:39 said about that you did have a plan amendment, or a
17:43:44 map and text amendment, so it sounds to me like you
17:43:48 all were contemplating something like that.
17:43:50 But then you didn't like the way it was shaping up.
17:43:54 So then you all withdrew your petitions.
17:43:58 And so then maybe at that point that's why there
17:44:00 wasn't any dialogue with you all.
17:44:06 >>> No, because when one counsel is representing two
17:44:09 clients that may have different needs and use, that
17:44:14 will lead to where we are tonight.
17:44:19 >> So the petitions were withdrawn in October?
17:44:21 >>> That's correct.
17:44:22 >> And we were having these dealings that started in
17:44:28 And you weren't representing then.
17:44:34 >>> No.
17:44:34 I wasn't even retained by then at that time.
17:44:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Then maybe we need to talk to Mr.
17:44:43 >>> We'll talk to anybody.
17:44:45 Thank you very much for your time.
17:44:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Wait, Mr. Harrison has a question.
17:44:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Tomlin, you stated that one of
17:44:53 your objections was based on the fact that you
17:44:55 wouldn't be able to expand.
17:44:58 >>> Correct.
17:44:58 >> And my question, when you say expand, do you mean
17:45:03 expand within your current real estate envelope?
17:45:08 >>> Yes.
17:45:09 >> But why would that not allow to you expand?
17:45:13 >>> Because it's not spelled out properly, doesn't
17:45:14 have adequate language to cover the same point you're
17:45:20 >> It's your property.
17:45:20 You can expand it as long as you have the appropriate
17:45:24 governmental --
17:45:25 >>> Well, I read English like you do, Mr. Harrison,
17:45:28 and expansion to me is expansion.
17:45:29 And that can be vertical or can be horizontal.
17:45:32 You're concentrating on horizontal in every direction.
17:45:34 I'm saying that the expansion of the facility will be
17:45:39 limited by this language, whether we want to put ten
17:45:42 more there or one more there.
17:45:47 That's the way any reasonable court would construe it.
17:45:50 That's our problem.
17:45:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: okay.
17:45:58 >>> Thank you.
17:45:58 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
17:46:01 >> Good evening, members of council, Mr. Fletcher, Mr.
17:46:10 My name is Al Steenson here representing Gandy sun bay
17:46:14 south neighborhood association.
17:46:19 We have entered into the record not only here but at
17:46:21 Planning Commission a letter sent to the Planning
17:46:24 Commission August 11, 2006, and I'm here to report to
17:46:28 the council that our position has not changed.
17:46:33 All the things that are in this letter which is
17:46:35 already on record, if it is not I will be more than
17:46:38 happy to put this in the record but I believe it
17:46:40 should already be in the record.
17:46:42 And many of the things that we have asked for continue
17:46:45 our support will be handled based on approval, will be
17:46:50 handled in the rezoning project, in the rezoning
17:46:54 Those are not things we can discuss tonight.
17:46:56 There's in a question in the world in my mind that
17:47:00 should these go through, there is going to be an issue
17:47:04 of density, there's going to be an issue of traffic.
17:47:07 Now, since we are in a concurrency exception area, and
17:47:12 I'm not making any promises, and I wouldn't ask
17:47:14 anybody else to, but maybe this would be an
17:47:16 opportunity for a joint thinking outside the box.
17:47:21 Now, when you think outside the box the first thing
17:47:23 you have to do is open the lid and see what's inside
17:47:26 the box.
17:47:27 But maybe we have an opportunity if we can get some
17:47:29 cooperation from all of the people that are going to
17:47:32 be effected by this growth.
17:47:35 Mr. Mechanik just said, we have already set a model,
17:47:38 have we not, at New Port Tampa Bay and Westshore Yacht
17:47:43 We have set matters for the Gandy gateway so maybe
17:47:50 give us an opportunity down the road to come up with
17:47:52 some plans to help with this.
17:47:53 But in closing very quickly, our position has not
17:47:57 It's still stated as we did in this let theory was
17:48:00 presented, the Planning Commission, and this council
17:48:04 the last time, the last go-around.
17:48:07 And if need be, I will be more than happy to put this
17:48:09 in the record.
17:48:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you state what your position is,
17:48:13 Mr. Steenson?
17:48:14 Just state what your position is.
17:48:15 What is your position?
17:48:20 >>> Position of support.
17:48:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
17:48:21 Would anyone else like to speak?
17:48:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: While he's coming up, I just wanted
17:48:30 to point out, Mr. Harrison especially, the policy that
17:48:37 returns A-6-A-4, not withstanding A-6-3rd above,
17:48:46 currently existing heavy uses shall be permitted,
17:48:48 et cetera, et cetera, and I guess perhaps that might
17:48:51 be one of the things that Mr. Tomlin was speaking for.
17:48:59 >>> Ronald L. Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street.
17:49:03 Thank you very much, Ms. Alvarez, for asking.
17:49:05 We indeed are seeing potential conflict.
17:49:10 Certainly there might be a conflict, referred the
17:49:12 matter to competent other council which was involved
17:49:14 in an application which was not before you for
17:49:18 It was in a later potential batch and therefore we
17:49:20 gave attention to advise him whether or not a later
17:49:24 application should be pursued with you or not.
17:49:28 Thank you all.
17:49:36 >>> Ron noticeable with Fowler White, 501 East
17:49:42 On behalf of this evening the toxic and hazardous
17:49:47 chemical plant for the chlorine manufacturing and that
17:49:49 is chemical formulators, Inc., is the company that
17:49:52 runs that chlorine operation.
17:49:54 And we are also representing underlying property owner
17:49:57 which is Gandy realty company, separate but related
17:50:01 entities and ownership pattern.
17:50:03 We just want the record to be clear that we are
17:50:05 representing both parties appearing before you this
17:50:06 evening for future potential proceedings, okay?
17:50:11 Let me start by just saying, we not only appreciate,
17:50:14 we not only understand, we wholeheartedly agree with
17:50:18 staff recommendation and their concern, and council's
17:50:21 concern that was borne out, I believe in August or so,
17:50:25 that we not have residential uses on the point
17:50:29 proximate to, adjacent to, industrial in operation out
17:50:35 We are absolutely in agreement with that.
17:50:36 The transition to that type of use that is to occur, I
17:50:41 think it's what is going to require some further
17:50:43 attention and some further discussion.
17:50:46 Chemical formulate or has been operating at this site
17:50:50 for over ten years now. This is an ideal location off
17:50:52 of that type of operation.
17:50:55 That's how they ended up out there to begin with.
17:50:57 Deep water port access, rail spur activity to support
17:51:00 all of their users.
17:51:02 It's an ideal location.
17:51:03 There are other locations in the city and in the port
17:51:05 that they can relocate to.
17:51:07 But they are becoming few and far between and
17:51:11 difficult to get understood contract.
17:51:13 But that is a possibility.
17:51:14 I want to share with you real briefly what chemical
17:51:18 formulators does with this property.
17:51:19 They are essentially a chlorine repackaging and
17:51:23 manufacturing plant.
17:51:24 They supply drinking water chemicals to municipalities
17:51:28 and counties like the City of Tampa who provide
17:51:30 drinking water to their citizens.
17:51:33 That's more than half their business.
17:51:34 They supply more than half those chemicals to a
17:51:37 ten-county area surrounding the Tampa Bay area.
17:51:40 This is what we and the governor's office and the
17:51:44 Department of Community Affairs called central
17:51:47 They are a central service provider by providing
17:51:51 drinking water chemicals.
17:51:53 As such they are not just going to be eliminated as
17:51:57 the current text amendment reads.
17:51:58 It's not possible to just eliminate them and keep our
17:52:02 drinking water supplies and everything else moving
17:52:04 along as we need.
17:52:07 Relocation, obviously, is a possibility for this type
17:52:09 of use.
17:52:10 But it will not be eliminated as we discuss now.
17:52:16 We have a lot of, I guess, very detailed, very
17:52:19 specific concerns with the text amendment as it's
17:52:21 currently written.
17:52:23 We were also just presented about 15 or 20 minutes ago
17:52:26 with the applicant, the petitioner's proposed
17:52:28 revision, and like your staff just not really in
17:52:31 position to react to that this evening.
17:52:34 I can tell you the good news is that a lot of their
17:52:36 markup, very closely, mirrors the markups and the
17:52:39 comment that we have, that council, I guess, feels
17:52:44 compelled to take action this evening, request that
17:52:48 the Gandy realty property be deleted from the text
17:52:52 And I think that the best way to remove it from the
17:52:54 text amendment process would simply be to remove it
17:52:57 from what is the Rattlesnake Point waterfront area.
17:53:03 As you know, the Gandy realty property is not one of
17:53:06 the properties that are in for the four text
17:53:09 amendments that are on the agenda this evening.
17:53:11 So if we could remove it from the actual waterfront
17:53:16 area, that would obviously address our concerns.
17:53:20 I'll stop.
17:53:22 Ms. Saul-Sena?
17:53:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a map that could show
17:53:25 us where your property is?
17:53:27 >>> Yes.
17:53:27 Let me use the map.
17:53:45 It's located right here.
17:53:49 Here's the naval reserve center, the federal reserve
17:53:52 facility, formulators, specifically on the outside.
17:54:03 I have another view that was provided.
17:54:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So Mr. Noble, if I could, Madam
17:54:22 As I think you described it as highly toxic use making
17:54:27 bleach and chlorine, that sort of thing right there,
17:54:29 at the entryway to the rest of this peninsula.
17:54:36 >>> I was character rising it as what has been in the
17:54:38 text amendment as a toxic and hazardous use.
17:54:43 But --
17:54:45 >> I didn't pick up on that.
17:54:47 >>> My point is that chlorine gas facilities do not
17:54:50 belong proximate to these uses.
17:54:56 >> But that is a problem that I see, if we pull you
17:54:58 out of this, then basically we would -- if the rest of
17:55:05 the peninsula then got developed with residential, and
17:55:11 you're still continuing to do what you're doing, then
17:55:14 isn't that creating a potential dangerous situation
17:55:17 for the potential future residents that are living
17:55:20 >>> I think so long as the remainder of the -- the
17:55:24 actual plan amendment parcels that are shown here, as
17:55:27 long as they remain subject to the text amendment,
17:55:30 they would still be prohibited from proceeding with
17:55:32 residential development.
17:55:33 >> As long as you guys are doing --
17:55:35 >>> As long as we are still there.
17:55:42 Again, that's one alternative that I think will
17:55:44 address all the concerns.
17:55:45 We are more than willing to work with staff and the
17:55:48 applicant with some additional language that says on
17:55:51 first glance our markups certainly have room for
17:55:53 further discussion.
17:55:54 They are barely similar.
17:55:55 We can't do that this evening, though.
17:55:58 We would need a couple weeks.
17:56:00 >> Do we have these marked-up versions?
17:56:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby, do we even have in our
17:56:12 purview tonight to accept a marked-up version that's
17:56:15 different from what is on our agenda here tonight?
17:56:19 We always seem to run into that problem where you
17:56:21 can't add these last-minute amendments.
17:56:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the answer, from way
17:56:30 understand, it is presently not in a form that can be
17:56:33 Mr. Goers has indicated to council that he has an
17:56:37 opportunity to review it or be able to have he or
17:56:41 legal opine on it, and I believe if council were to
17:56:45 consider this mock-up, I believe Mr. Goers would be
17:56:49 requesting a continuance for that purpose or
17:56:51 petitioner requesting for that purpose.
17:56:53 Again, these all have to be adopted within the same
17:56:58 cycle, so therefore it would be a two-week
17:57:00 So the answer, I believe, would be the staff's
17:57:03 recommendation -- I cannot speak for them but I
17:57:05 believe Mr. Gore's recommendation would be to not act
17:57:08 on that tonight but to give the staff an opportunity
17:57:15 to chime in.
17:57:16 >>RANDY GOERS: Community planning.
17:57:19 You're correct, Mr. Shelby.
17:57:22 If a decision to look at the revised language has been
17:57:26 submitted, we would ask that we have the time to be
17:57:30 able to do that and make sure that the language is
17:57:32 exactly in line with the administration's desires to
17:57:37 protect the health, safety and welfare of the area, at
17:57:40 the same time address the concerns that have been
17:57:42 raised by some of the property owners in terms of
17:57:47 legal implications.
17:57:48 So we would ask, if that's an interest to be taken
17:57:52 care of in a continuance in a couple of weeks, we come
17:57:54 back and bring back our interpretation, and perhaps
17:57:58 revised language.
17:57:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you talking about all of them, 5,
17:58:02 6, 7 and 8?
17:58:04 >>> They are all connected.
17:58:05 It would be the -- since the map amendments are with
17:58:09 the text amendment we would ask a continuance in all
17:58:13 of these.
17:58:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We can still keep them within the
17:58:21 current plan cycle if we were to continue this for two
17:58:27 >>> Yes.
17:58:27 The Planning Commission staff may have more to offer
17:58:30 in terms of timing but they all need to be adopted at
17:58:34 the same time.
17:58:34 So it would be delaying the actual final adoption, and
17:58:39 there's three amendments, so it would be continuing
17:58:43 these for two weeks, and then scheduling the adoption
17:58:45 hearing for four weeks.
17:58:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for our legal
17:58:52 It seems to me that the challenge here is that there
17:58:56 are a variety of property owners proximate to each
17:59:02 other, and we can't make a transition to residential
17:59:05 until all of the industrial uses go away.
17:59:10 And I think that it would be helpful to council maybe
17:59:12 at the beginning of the process in two weeks, for you
17:59:19 to explain to us as a municipality where our
17:59:23 responsibilities are in respecting the rights of the
17:59:27 different property owners.
17:59:45 Thank you, council.
17:59:46 That's all I had unless you had other questions.
17:59:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Mechanik, did you want to say
17:59:49 something in rebuttal?
17:59:50 >>DAVID MECHANIK: If it appears that council is
17:59:57 wanting to continue, we have already indicated our
18:00:02 willingness with the staff to work on that language,
18:00:06 and we believe we can address the concerns addressed.
18:00:10 I would like to clarify a few points that were raised
18:00:15 by Mr. Taub.
18:00:19 Just to set the record straight, we, the other
18:00:22 applicants, would not have thought to contact his
18:00:28 client because they had actually filed a plan
18:00:30 amendment identical to the ones that we had filed, so
18:00:33 we had no reason to believe that they needed to be
18:00:36 especially informed.
18:00:37 In fact they applied for the CMU-35 designation, which
18:00:42 is the same as what we had applied for.
18:00:44 And I would also point out no one in our group had
18:00:48 applied for the 60 dwelling units per acre.
18:00:51 We were all asking for the 35 dwelling units per acre.
18:00:59 I would also like to point out in connection with Mr.
18:01:03 Taub's concern about the expansion, it's my
18:01:09 understanding that his client's property is designated
18:01:11 on the zoning as industrial general which are on his
18:01:26 These are nonconforming legal uses but not currently
18:01:29 consistent with the zoning classification.
18:01:32 What that means is his client is not today have a rate
18:01:35 to expand that use if it is in fact a legal
18:01:40 nonconforming use.
18:01:41 So woo we would ask council to consider that as we
18:01:44 proceed through and discuss the language.
18:01:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Mechanik, if I may interrupt.
18:01:55 As we looked at the language, I remember we all spent
18:01:59 a lot of time getting to where we are today, and that
18:02:02 doesn't mean it can't be changed, and that's where an
18:02:06 adoption hearing is about, the possibility of
18:02:08 massaging it in response to Tallahassee, as well as
18:02:11 any new testimony.
18:02:14 With that said, we did put a lot of time and energy
18:02:17 into the language.
18:02:18 So way don't want to happen, and I'm kind of sending
18:02:21 this message to staff more than anybody, is I don't
18:02:25 want the parties to run out and make changes and then
18:02:28 expect to the just come back to council.
18:02:31 I don't know.
18:02:32 Somehow or other staff is going to need to interface
18:02:35 with us, perhaps individually, in between now and the
18:02:37 next hearing to make sure that council is okay with
18:02:41 Otherwise, you all can work things out and then come
18:02:43 to us and then we might be happy with it.
18:02:46 So I just wanted to put everybody kind of on notice
18:02:48 about it.
18:02:49 >> And I would say -- and I neglected to mention --
18:02:52 our clients are all currently of the belief that this
18:02:55 area does need to transition into the residential that
18:03:00 we proposed.
18:03:01 So we are not in any way trying to water that down, to
18:03:06 eliminate the possibility of that happening.
18:03:08 We want that to go forward.
18:03:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sure.
18:03:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question for Mr. Goers.
18:03:19 I think you mentioned, when you were talking, that one
18:03:23 of the things that you were -- you needed to address
18:03:27 with the DCA was the hurricane evacuation.
18:03:38 >>> Yes.
18:03:38 Last year the legislature passed a new law giving
18:03:40 local government as new option in how they manage
18:03:42 coastal development.
18:03:44 And basically, the law firm -- the law since it's been
18:03:49 in place, the local governments must direct population
18:03:51 away from the coastal high hazard area, and to reduce
18:03:56 or maintain evacuation times.
18:03:59 As now in Florida since 1985, coastal -- development
18:04:04 intercoastal high hazard area have occurred all across
18:04:06 the state.
18:04:07 And yet DCA finds itself in a position having to say
18:04:10 no every time it occurs in the coastal high hazard
18:04:14 The intent of last year's legislation was to recognize
18:04:17 there may be times when it is appropriate for the
18:04:19 local governments to allow development in the coastal
18:04:22 high hazard area.
18:04:23 To do that you have to maintain an out-of-county
18:04:26 evacuation time, that's 16 hours or less, and to
18:04:29 ensure that you could have the hurricane shelters.
18:04:33 The problem with that legislation, in this area, with
18:04:38 the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, somewhere
18:04:41 between 27 and 54 hours, it's for a category 5, so
18:04:49 it's impossible for this community or any community in
18:04:51 this region to adopt a 16 hour evacuation time.
18:04:55 So the provisions of 1359 are not available for us.
18:04:59 We can't regulate development according to that new
18:05:03 And that's what DCA was holding us accountable to,
18:05:06 suggesting the fact that we were not taking advantage
18:05:09 of that provision.
18:05:10 So we provided them with the same information that we
18:05:12 provided and how we are in general speaking, the
18:05:17 development in the City of Tampa increases the -- as
18:05:20 you move away from coastal high hazard area.
18:05:23 If you think in terms of what happens in the Florida
18:05:26 coastline, either on the Gulf coast or the Atlantic
18:05:28 coast, you can see a large wall of development right
18:05:33 in the coast.
18:05:33 So we don't have the same kinds of development pattern
18:05:36 that other communities have.
18:05:37 So we think we are dealing with the spirit of the law.
18:05:41 Most of our development is higher and more intense as
18:05:44 you move away.
18:05:45 There are pockets of intense development at certain
18:05:48 points along the coastline.
18:05:51 But we think generally wherever we can, the City of
18:05:53 Tampa acquires property, and wherever we can, if we
18:05:57 can turn something into a park or greenway or reduce
18:06:00 densities, or work with property owners to lower their
18:06:04 requests, we do that as well.
18:06:07 So we think we are in keeping with what we think is
18:06:10 the intent of the law since it's been in effect.
18:06:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Does the C.
18:06:19 DCA accept --
18:06:21 >>> Still looking at it mostly from the context that
18:06:23 they now have a new secretary and a new director, and
18:06:27 new chief.
18:06:28 And so that's probably a reevaluation of how staff
18:06:33 interprets the rules.
18:06:37 They understand a little more about what we are doing
18:06:38 in light of how their superiors interpret the law.
18:06:42 Interpret the rule.
18:06:43 So they couldn't give me a yes or no on that one at
18:06:45 this point.
18:06:54 We will be consistent in the way we describe that
18:06:56 strategy to the state, since we have had these type of
18:06:59 So if there's a change, it's a change in DCA
18:07:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Any more questions by council members?
18:07:07 Need a motion to continue.
18:07:09 >> So moved.
18:07:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Like to continue this for two weeks.
18:07:13 Will there be any problem with scheduling this for a
18:07:15 day meeting instead of the night meeting?
18:07:24 Has to be a night meeting?
18:07:29 >>> 5:01.
18:07:31 >> Is two weeks enough time?
18:07:34 >>CHAIRMAN: Whatever the time schedule?
18:07:37 >>THE CLERK: January 25th, public hearing set at
18:07:41 You have 13 other public hearings at 6:00.
18:07:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Oops.
18:07:48 Mr. Fletcher?
18:07:54 >> Items 3 and 5, the ones covered by the motion.
18:07:57 >>GWEN MILLER: There's five.
18:07:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.
18:08:09 With regard to items 3 and 5, Mr. Fletcher, did you
18:08:11 want to dollar a conflict and the nature of the
18:08:22 >>> Yes.
18:08:22 I have one, and one to submit.
18:08:26 >> If you state the reason why you believe you may
18:08:29 need to abstain from voting.
18:08:31 >>> Simply that my wife is employed by the firm
18:08:34 representing the petitioners.
18:08:39 >> And the forms you have filed.
18:08:45 That's with regard to items 3 and 5.
18:08:49 >>GWEN MILLER: What about January 25th?
18:08:51 We have a 5:01, a 6:00.
18:08:53 How many do we have for 5:01?
18:08:55 >>THE CLERK: January 25th at 5:01 you have the
18:08:59 continued wet zoning, and the property on Howard.
18:09:02 And you have eleven new land rezonings, one area wide
18:09:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you see any controversy?
18:09:16 >> Yes.
18:09:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know whether council has much
18:09:18 choice unfortunately.
18:09:20 And you may want to talk to the Planning Commission
18:09:22 about it.
18:09:28 Ms. Cole is coming up to say something.
18:09:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Can we do a morning meeting for the
18:09:33 first one and an evening meeting for the second one?
18:09:43 So the 25th can be the normal morning meeting and
18:09:46 then the second hearing can be the evening?
18:09:51 >>> On this particular plan amendment the second
18:09:53 public hearing on the adoption is scheduled for
18:09:55 January 25th at 9:30 in the morning.
18:09:59 >>> What's going to have to happen, I believe, is it
18:10:02 be continued.
18:10:06 One of those is going to have to be at night.
18:10:08 So which one?
18:10:09 Do you want the adoption at night or the adoption in
18:10:11 the daytime?
18:10:27 Council, basically what's going to have to happen is
18:10:30 it be continued for two weeks.
18:10:32 The second reading on every plan amendment that you
18:10:34 hear tonight is going to have to be continued for four
18:10:38 weeks from tonight.
18:10:40 And I believe as long as one meeting -- excuse me, as
18:10:45 long as one hearing takes place after 5:00, then it's
18:10:49 legally sufficient.
18:10:50 So if council wanted to schedule the continuances of
18:10:55 these five items for a day meeting on the 25th,
18:10:58 then the adoption would have to be at night two weeks
18:11:07 What day would that be?
18:11:08 Because council may be in the same position two weeks
18:11:11 at night.
18:11:14 >>> If you continue your plan amendment to the day
18:11:16 session on the 25th, you also have the second
18:11:18 adoption public hearing would have to be continued to
18:11:21 February 8th at night.
18:11:24 Right now you have a 5:30 public hearing on a
18:11:28 brownfield designation, you have three continued land
18:11:31 rezonings, and other land use.
18:11:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's fine, because if we don't
18:11:36 pass it on first adoption it doesn't matter about the
18:11:38 second one anyway.
18:11:40 So my motion would be to continue these five items
18:11:44 until 9:30 a.m., January 25th, with the second
18:11:48 adoption hearing being two weeks after that.
18:11:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
18:11:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I am going ask the maker of the
18:11:55 motion if you could just break it down, please, with
18:11:57 regard to items number 3 and 5 first, and take that
18:12:04 I don't know how the vote will be recorded with
18:12:07 council member Fletcher abstaining.
18:12:12 >>GWEN MILLER: So 3 and 5, do it two weeks from today
18:12:16 at 9:30 a.m.
18:12:17 The next on the --
18:12:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's not even go there.
18:12:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question.
18:12:25 I'm sorry, council.
18:12:26 Normally you have the second reading at 9:30 and first
18:12:32 reading at 10, normally.
18:12:34 I just want to -- if it's 9:30 that's fine.
18:12:37 It doesn't make much difference.
18:12:40 I'm sorry to interrupt.
18:12:43 >>GWEN MILLER: 3 and 5 at 9:30 on the 25th.
18:12:48 (Motion carried) and you abstain.
18:12:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I would like to move items 6, 7 and
18:12:53 8 be continued for two weeks until January 25th at
18:12:56 9:30 a.m. as well.
18:12:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
18:13:00 (Motion carried).
18:13:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
18:13:03 Speaking personally, I would like staff to provide a
18:13:07 briefing individually for me.
18:13:09 And I would like a map that clearly shows which
18:13:14 property, what concerns, and see how it is all brought
18:13:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We go back to item number 1.
18:13:34 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
18:13:40 Number one is plan amendment 0617 which is a continued
18:13:44 hearing from November 16, it's located on Martin
18:13:49 Luther King just east of 34th street.
18:13:52 The request is from residential 10 and heavy
18:13:54 commercial 24 to community mixed use 35.
18:13:59 Planning -- the council, after hearing deliberations
18:14:04 from the surrounding property owners, did give the
18:14:08 property owner petitioner a continuance to the date.
18:14:15 I believe they did ask for another continuance.
18:14:26 In the May batch of last year.
18:14:28 And I believe the petitioner is here to request a
18:14:46 >>> Gary Danielle.
18:14:50 We would like to ask you to give us an extension for
18:14:55 six months so we can come up with better ideas as
18:15:04 suggested before to the community.
18:15:06 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
18:15:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of staff.
18:15:11 How does that work in terms of cycles, and everything
18:15:16 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: On a small scale counsel has the
18:15:19 ability to adopt at any time because it's not by
18:15:25 So it's up to you.
18:15:33 >> Let's say the first meeting in August.
18:15:38 >>> The first meeting in August would be August
18:15:41 2nd, that's a day.
18:15:43 Your night meeting is August 1st.
18:15:47 I'm not sure yet where the Florida League of Cities
18:15:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Start at night.
18:15:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We know the League of Cities will be
18:15:58 in August sometime.
18:15:58 What about the last meeting in June?
18:16:02 >>THE CLERK: The last meeting in June would be June
18:16:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Two weeks in July.
18:16:16 First two weeks of July.
18:16:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I would like to move this to June
18:16:22 28th meeting.
18:16:27 >> Second.
18:16:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: As long as it's after 5:00.
18:16:31 >>GWEN MILLER: It will have to be 5:01.
18:16:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we have to do it then?
18:16:40 >>THE CLERK: Nothing has been set yet.
18:16:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about 5:30?
18:16:45 I do want to do 6:00?
18:16:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The motion is 6.
18:16:49 I am going to stick with the motion.
18:16:51 >>GWEN MILLER: At 6:00 we have zoning so we have to do
18:16:55 the plan amendment before the zoning.
18:16:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We don't have anything scheduled at
18:16:58 all right now.
18:17:05 >>GWEN MILLER: 5:30?
18:17:07 And then be finished at 6:00?
18:17:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What if they are the only ones?
18:17:13 We don't know if we'll have plan amendments.
18:17:16 We may not have anything other than this one.
18:17:21 >>GWEN MILLER: 6:00.
18:17:22 6 p.m
18:17:24 June -- June 28th at 6 p.m.
18:17:31 >>> Thank you very much.
18:17:36 All in favor of the motion?
18:17:38 (Motion carried) item number 2.
18:17:40 Need to open.
18:17:41 We have a motion and second to open.
18:17:45 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
18:17:47 This is plan amendment 0603.
18:17:50 It is a text amendment to the future land use element.
18:17:54 And it's introducing a policy that would manage the
18:17:57 timing of new development to coordinate with adequate
18:18:03 school capacity as determined by the school board of
18:18:05 Hillsborough County.
18:18:15 In a comments, no policies, no recommendations, and
18:18:18 it's up to council to make the recommendation tonight.
18:18:20 And just to clarify the record, this is one of those,
18:18:25 it's in the batch with the other large set that you
18:18:28 just continued through February, and, second, if you
18:18:33 do adopt it, adoption would not be until February.
18:18:39 Thank you, Madam Chair.
18:18:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Is petitioner here?
18:18:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We are the petitioner.
18:18:51 We have heard all we need to hear.
18:18:53 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
18:18:55 Shall we close?
18:18:56 >> Move to close.
18:18:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Got a motion and second to close the
18:18:59 public hearing.
18:18:59 (Motion carried)
18:19:02 What's the pleasure?
18:19:04 >> Move to adopt.
18:19:06 >> Second.
18:19:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Read it.
18:19:12 Number 2.
18:19:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance amending the
18:19:15 Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element by
18:19:17 establishing a policy relative to the timing of new
18:19:20 development and the relationship to school capacity,
18:19:23 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
18:19:26 providing for severability, providing an effective
18:19:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
18:19:31 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:19:32 Opposed, Nay.
18:19:34 Go to item number 9.
18:19:36 Need to open.
18:19:37 >> So moved.
18:19:37 >> Second.
18:19:37 (Motion carried).
18:19:44 >>> Excuse me, Madam Chair.
18:19:46 >> Item 4.
18:19:48 >> Go back to 4.
18:19:49 I'm sorry.
18:20:00 Motion and second to open.
18:20:01 (Motion carried).
18:20:02 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Plan amendment 06-06.
18:20:06 I'm Michelle Oglesby with the plannings commission.
18:20:09 A text amendment to the comprehensive plan, future
18:20:11 land use element.
18:20:14 It is introducing new policy directing Adamo corridor
18:20:18 between Channelside Drive and 26th street as a
18:20:22 redevelopment corridor.
18:20:24 There is a map showing on the Elmo the impacted area
18:20:28 in terms of location.
18:20:32 It did go to the Department of Community Affairs for
18:20:35 their review.
18:20:36 They have no objections, comments or recommendations.
18:20:40 And the petitioner is here to speak to you.
18:20:45 That's all I have to say.
18:20:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:20:52 >>> My name is Ethel Hammer.
18:20:54 I am here this evening representing the Adamo corridor
18:20:57 civic association, with Mr. Grandoff.
18:21:03 I will try to give a brief presentation, because I
18:21:05 know that you all have -- well, five of you have heard
18:21:10 this previously.
18:21:10 And the last time we were in front of you we did get a
18:21:14 unanimous recommendation for approval to send it up to
18:21:19 So I will try to be brief.
18:21:29 I have a few graphics.
18:21:30 If you recall one of the earlier meetings when we were
18:21:33 in front of you we had originally proposed what is
18:21:35 outlined in the solid yellow line.
18:21:37 Actually, there were people in the community who
18:21:42 requested that we expand it and so we did.
18:21:45 To refresh your memory this is a text amendment.
18:21:48 We are not asking for any specific entitlements.
18:21:52 There are 40 parcels in this area.
18:21:54 And we represent 26 different land owners.
18:21:58 We have incredible support from the community with, as
18:22:02 you recall, we had mentioned before, we sent out 3200
18:22:05 invitations, we had two very large community meetings,
18:22:09 we sent out surveys and got an overwhelming amount of
18:22:14 The support in the community is based on the fact that
18:22:16 people are very much in favor of encouraging
18:22:20 redevelopment along the Adamo corridor.
18:22:22 And I believe this graphic really indicates the heart
18:22:27 of the matter.
18:22:30 We are the south face of Ybor City.
18:22:31 Everything north of this is mixed use categories,
18:22:33 redeveloping with different types of uses such as
18:22:36 residential, mixed use.
18:22:39 This is still a remnant from when the rail line went
18:22:43 through Ybor City in this particular location.
18:22:46 We had a linear strip of industrial.
18:22:49 It is all community, no longer relevant, no longer an
18:22:53 appropriate space for Ybor City, and this plan
18:22:56 amendment will do nothing but encourage and focus
18:22:59 redevelopment activity.
18:23:02 When something specific is proposed, we are back in
18:23:05 front of you or someone will be back in front of you
18:23:08 asking for a plan amendment and a rezoning.
18:23:10 This does not entitle any of the properties to any
18:23:13 specific density or intensity.
18:23:16 So with that, if you have any questions.
18:23:19 But I would ask for your support.
18:23:21 Thank you.
18:23:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
18:23:23 I want to compliment you and Mr. Grandoff.
18:23:27 I was initially very skeptical of this.
18:23:29 But it sounds marvelous.
18:23:32 It sounds like it's going to encourage the quality
18:23:35 development that we expect in Ybor City, and
18:23:40 compliment it.
18:23:41 I applaud you for it.
18:23:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience that
18:23:44 wants to speak on item 4?
18:23:46 >> Move to close.
18:23:46 >> Second.
18:23:47 (Motion carried).
18:23:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance amending the Tampa
18:23:56 comprehensive plan, future land use element, by
18:23:58 designating Adamo drive between Channelside Drive and
18:24:01 26th street as a redevelopment corridor, providing
18:24:04 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing
18:24:07 for severability, providing an effective date.
18:24:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
18:24:11 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:24:12 Opposed, Nay.
18:24:15 (Motion carried) now item 9.
18:24:23 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:24:25 I will be presenting the last plan amendment of the
18:24:27 small scale cycle for the May 1, 2006 cycle.
18:24:31 This is PA-06-12.
18:24:34 This requires a super majority of vote of five votes
18:24:38 in your consideration.
18:24:41 The site in question that I am showing you on the Elmo
18:24:44 is a 1.92-acre site located in the southwestern
18:24:47 section of Ybor City.
18:24:49 Here is Adamo drive.
18:24:51 And here is Channelside Drive.
18:24:53 The property is located between 2nd and 4th
18:24:56 Avenue, and it's located west of 15th street.
18:24:59 This orange line, I don't know if you all can see it
18:25:01 but I think you have a copy.
18:25:03 There's an orange line over here.
18:25:04 This is actually a fifth of the periphery in Ybor
18:25:10 What's also interesting to note is this line travels
18:25:13 along the same line as the Ybor Historic District so a
18:25:16 good two-thirds of this property lies within the
18:25:21 historic district.
18:25:22 So this portion, this part of the property in
18:25:25 question, which is about an acre, about three quarters
18:25:28 of an acre, within the jurisdiction of the Barrio
18:25:34 The remaining two-thirds is outside the historic
18:25:36 The request is to go from light industrial and heavy
18:25:38 commercial 24 to community mixed use 35.
18:25:42 I would like to show you a second aerial describing
18:25:46 the trend.
18:25:47 Not too long ago if you all recall, I presented to you
18:25:50 a series of about 3 or 4 plan amendments in this area
18:25:53 where we had a similar request to community mixed use
18:25:57 These are what we are bringing to you this evening.
18:26:03 You already approved 16 and 13 which are further to
18:26:08 the east.
18:26:08 It came in separately but there was a portion that
18:26:11 came into the north of this site.
18:26:16 That also was a change from heavy commercial 24 to CMU
18:26:20 You have already approved not only the plan amendment
18:26:22 for that but a rezoning for that particular piece of
18:26:24 So as you can see, it really is showing a trend in
18:26:28 this particular area from 2nd Avenue north to a
18:26:32 land use designation of CMU 35 so the request is
18:26:35 consistent with the pattern and the trend for
18:26:37 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the
18:26:40 proposed request.
18:26:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Any question by council members?
18:26:44 All right.
18:26:48 >> In the reviewing agency, they talk about the fact
18:26:50 that we know it's an older part of the city, and the
18:26:54 water pipes are really limited.
18:26:57 Is this the time when we would address these concerns,
18:27:03 when specific rezoning proposals come before us?
18:27:05 I think this is a good proposal.
18:27:07 But I just wonder, I guess the plan in question.
18:27:11 Is this the appropriate time to address the inadequacy
18:27:14 of the infrastructure?
18:27:17 >>> Actually probably during the rezoning process,
18:27:19 Mrs. Saul-Sena.
18:27:20 >> But during the rezoning process I was going to say,
18:27:24 well, the ability for density.
18:27:28 >>> Can you be a little more specifics?
18:27:30 >> Yes.
18:27:31 Page 14 and 15 and it's talking about just the water
18:27:35 Could we say, you know, if this is redevelopment
18:27:39 developed that it will be the responsibility of the
18:27:40 property owner to make contributions within the water
18:27:47 system, sewer system?
18:27:49 >>> Okay, I understand your intent.
18:27:50 Yes, that is something that would probably be
18:27:52 negotiated when during the zoning process, something
18:27:56 that would be, I think, discussed among the city
18:27:59 staff, among the various departments.
18:28:02 >> Thank you.
18:28:03 >>> You're welcome.
18:28:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
18:28:16 on item 9?
18:28:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
18:28:20 >> Second.
18:28:20 (Motion carried).
18:28:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Reddick, would you read that,
18:28:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa
18:28:32 comprehensive plan, future land use element, land use
18:28:36 map for property located in the general vicinity of
18:28:38 East Tampa Avenue, east third Avenue, east fourth
18:28:41 Avenue between 14th street and 15th street
18:28:43 from light industrial and heavy commercial 24 to
18:28:46 community, mixed use-35, providing for repeal of all
18:28:50 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
18:28:57 Providing an effective date.
18:28:58 (Motion carried).
18:29:02 >> Need to open number 10.
18:29:04 >> So moved.
18:29:04 >> Second.
18:29:05 (Motion carried)
18:29:11 Item 10.
18:29:15 >> John McKirchy.
18:29:17 24 is the continuation of the abatement for the JLUS
18:29:23 study originally adopted in 2005.
18:29:26 It's been continued one time.
18:29:29 And this would continue the abatement for an
18:29:32 additional six months to August 5th, 2007.
18:29:35 And I understand there are people in the audience that
18:29:40 wish to be heard.
18:29:41 We were hoping revisions of the abatement to perhaps
18:29:46 make it lesser in scope.
18:29:49 But I'm open to any questions.
18:29:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to Cathy
18:29:58 Coyle asking her about putting the abatement to
18:30:03 anything that is not residential, single family
18:30:07 So anything that is single family residential within
18:30:09 the abatement area would no longer be affected by the
18:30:13 And I didn't really get a response, but I would like
18:30:16 to hear from staff as to what your feelings on that
18:30:21 might be.
18:30:26 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:30:29 I was able to talk with Cathy Coyle.
18:30:31 In my initial conversations, there was some concern,
18:30:34 at least from the legal standpoint, of ensuring that
18:30:36 if we are going to have abatement it has to be legally
18:30:45 supported by the report record.
18:30:47 She indicated a study in her opinion would support
18:30:49 making such a change.
18:30:51 If that's the way council wants to go, what I would
18:30:53 recommend is continue this for one week, a Lao to us
18:30:56 make that change.
18:30:56 Then I would also really ask that Cathy Coyle be here
18:31:00 so that she can make that testimony on the record and
18:31:02 we can submit that as part of the record.
18:31:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The reason I raise that, Madam
18:31:06 Chair, is because if there's been this cloud of
18:31:10 uncertainty hanging over a lot of folks down there for
18:31:13 some time, and I think that cloud of uncertainty could
18:31:18 be eliminated at least with respect to single family
18:31:22 If you had a little addition you wanted to add or
18:31:25 build a shed in the back or put a screen over the pool
18:31:27 or something like that, I don't know if that would be
18:31:30 prohibited at this point anyway.
18:31:31 But it would eliminate that bit of uncertainty, and
18:31:34 that would probably go some way to appeasing some of
18:31:39 the feelings down there that we lived with this Lang
18:31:43 long enough and we need to get off the dime and make a
18:31:48 >>> In the conversation was Cathy, indicates it's
18:31:51 The only thing is whether or not this would have to be
18:31:54 continued to a night agenda, or in the alternative we
18:31:57 might continue it one week to daytime.
18:32:01 I don't know if it would have to be a night agenda
18:32:03 which the next possible date would be February
18:32:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: This is coming back.
18:32:12 Something is coming back next week, I believe, on
18:32:17 >>JULIA COLE: On the abatement or the JLUS?
18:32:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: JLUS.
18:32:24 Cathy was reporting on whether we could advance it a
18:32:28 >> Why don't we allow Mr. McKirchy to see if we can
18:32:33 combine the two issues together.
18:32:35 I think that would be the best and most expedient
18:32:37 things to do.
18:32:37 I don't know if you want to maybe -- if there's
18:32:41 anybody that wants to speak to that issue, we can
18:32:44 speak to that.
18:32:46 >>GWEN MILLER: the neighbors were concerned --
18:32:56 >>> I understand about the recommendation that the
18:32:59 JLUS was recommending and that's what Cathy Coyle is
18:33:02 going to be coming back and speaking about.
18:33:04 This is just the abatement in place as a result of the
18:33:07 >> I know there's neighbors concerned, they wanted to
18:33:11 move and had a hard time selling this property because
18:33:14 people wouldn't buy it because the area, what you are
18:33:16 calling that area.
18:33:20 She's going to do that too?
18:33:21 >>> That's my understanding.
18:33:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:33:33 wants to speak on item 10?
18:33:35 Come up and speak.
18:33:43 >>> John Reyes and I have property down in South Tampa
18:33:47 in this area.
18:33:49 And I feel that I agree with you, they need to get off
18:33:53 this situation.
18:33:55 You know, even like I have got property that I would
18:33:58 like to develop that would meet the new criteria, but
18:34:04 we are all being held by this, you know.
18:34:09 I believe if they allowed some of this to carry on,
18:34:13 that even meets the new amendment or something, it
18:34:15 would help take that cloud of uncertainty or things
18:34:18 that don't look like everybody wants to agree with
18:34:23 You know, I feel that that would be something that
18:34:26 could be done.
18:34:27 And it should be done.
18:34:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The property that you are talking
18:34:32 about developing, would it fall in the category that
18:34:35 Mr. Harrison was talking about, about just single
18:34:37 family type thing?
18:34:39 >>> Single family.
18:34:40 >> So you would anticipate putting it for a rezoning?
18:34:44 >>> Yeah.
18:34:44 I would probably need, you know, to have a rezoning to
18:34:50 divide the property.
18:34:51 It would meet the same six per acre, that you all were
18:34:57 recommending on a new one, but --
18:35:00 >> You're a good example of what Mr. Harrison was
18:35:03 talking about, for small single-family projects.
18:35:07 >>> And I would -- we would like to get on with that.
18:35:09 But we are hostage over what's being done now.
18:35:13 It's been a year.
18:35:14 >> We are glad you came down to tell us.
18:35:16 Thank you.
18:35:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
18:35:26 >>> Two additional names.
18:35:28 Please acknowledge you're here.
18:35:30 Al Steenson.
18:35:31 And Dave Hubbard.
18:35:33 Two additional names, please.
18:35:35 >>> My name is Gene Wells.
18:35:36 I reside at 6205 sanders drive.
18:35:39 I am the founder of the
18:35:40 BallastPointhomeownersalliance.org formed specifically
18:35:44 for the process we were talking about tonight and the
18:35:46 plan amendment.
18:35:48 I'm also the former president of the Ballast Point
18:35:50 neighborhood association.
18:35:51 And I have been involved for several years in many
18:35:55 community leadership positions.
18:35:58 I'm from south of Gandy just like Al.
18:36:01 On September 21st you had an outcry from Ballast
18:36:04 Point Interbay neighborhoods.
18:36:06 One of you hear said, we hear you.
18:36:08 But did you listen?
18:36:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I son's bold move yesterday to
18:36:17 exempt the single family density rezoning and special
18:36:21 use permits that are six units per acre or less, was
18:36:26 listening to the community.
18:36:28 We could have come out here tonight on the abatement
18:36:31 but our issue is the plan amendment process.
18:36:35 Make no mistake, we would truly want more tonight.
18:36:40 Mrs. Miller, we love that word protection zone added
18:36:44 to tonight's language.
18:36:45 However, the real battle is the plan amendment
18:36:52 Abatement, which you will call it tonight, is not what
18:36:55 everybody wants in the Ballast Point Interbay
18:36:59 But Mr. Harrison listened to us and came up.
18:37:06 He has seen volumes, you all have seen volumes of
18:37:09 correspondence from yours truly, and many of my fellow
18:37:12 Ballast Point and Interbay homeowners.
18:37:15 Mr. Harrison went through the volumes of that
18:37:19 And I mean volumes.
18:37:21 And he was able to craft a dwelling unit, six units or
18:37:28 less, single-family residential, low density.
18:37:33 We want residential to stay residential in Ballast
18:37:37 Point and Interbay.
18:37:39 We want RS-60 to stay RS-60 in Ballast Point and
18:37:47 We do not want military terms on our homes.
18:37:50 That is for another time.
18:37:54 I must stress, this is really the first time this
18:37:56 community was able to come out and speak to you about
18:37:58 this issue.
18:37:59 We do thank you for the delay.
18:38:02 This thing was a runaway train on September 21st.
18:38:06 We couldn't get our arms around it and your leadership
18:38:09 provides a delay.
18:38:10 And the mayor is listening.
18:38:11 Well, she hears and she's listening.
18:38:13 She needs to listen more.
18:38:15 This whole exercise of about limiting encroaching
18:38:19 development in and around MacDill Air Force Base,
18:38:21 the joint land use study does say six dwelling units
18:38:26 per acre or less does that.
18:38:29 Single-family residential zoning is also said to be
18:38:33 only 5.828 acres, or units per acre.
18:38:39 Council, I know more about this than I care to.
18:38:42 But over hundreds of homeowners have joined, Ballast
18:38:46 Point homeowners, we are like minded homeowners who
18:38:52 promote good government policy and the protection of
18:38:56 our property rights.
18:38:57 We appreciate your delay, not real long one, but where
18:39:03 we are today that allow us to have this conversation.
18:39:06 We thank you for that.
18:39:09 Councilman Harrison, all the homeowners in Ballast
18:39:11 Point and Interbay thank you for your leadership and
18:39:14 for listening to us and acting for us.
18:39:18 Council, the cloud of uncertainty is over our
18:39:23 We'll talk more B on this next week.
18:39:25 I really believe tonight, if you look at the ordinance
18:39:28 in front of you, and you just put the words "clear
18:39:32 zone" is up in the air of development.
18:39:36 Tonight I think you could add language, except those
18:39:40 properties in APC 1, because APC 2 is not in tonight's
18:39:45 abatement, except those properties in APZ 1,
18:39:50 single-family, low-density, 6 dwelling units per acre
18:39:54 or less, I think you could get through tonight's first
18:39:59 I appreciate your delay till now.
18:40:03 We need this done sooner than later.
18:40:06 The Callahans have sold their house and moved out of
18:40:08 Ballast Point because of this. The Bonds have sold
18:40:08 their house and moved out you Ballast Point because of
18:40:14 Home sales are being lost because of this.
18:40:15 And property values, with the real estate bubble, and
18:40:19 this, are being affected.
18:40:23 We did not initiate this action.
18:40:25 This is government, local government, taking care of
18:40:28 Department of Defense government.
18:40:30 We just -- less is more, six dwelling units per acre,
18:40:36 height, F.A.R., get all the military terms, and we
18:40:39 will be a happy neighborhood, and we will know that
18:40:41 City Council listens to us.
18:40:43 Watch for us on March 6th, because we will elect a
18:40:47 City Councilman and mayor that hear us, listen to us,
18:40:52 and act in our best interest.
18:40:55 My home is at stake here.
18:40:57 If you don't care about my home and my neighborhood
18:41:00 then you don't care about the people in it.
18:41:01 Again thank you for your leadership, councilman
18:41:04 Council, thank you for your leadership in stopping the
18:41:07 runaway train.
18:41:08 Thank you.
18:41:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:41:10 Would anyone else like to speak?
18:41:15 Mr. Shelby, are we coming back or what?
18:41:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can continue it for a few minutes
18:41:23 if you like.
18:41:44 >>> We can coincide it with other discussion relating
18:41:47 to JLUS.
18:41:49 We can bring back and ordinance with the language
18:41:52 being suggested by Mr. Harrison, and then first
18:41:56 reading next week with second reading in two weeks.
18:42:02 >> So moved.
18:42:02 >> Second.
18:42:02 >>GWEN MILLER: What time?
18:42:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 10:00.
18:42:06 >>JULIA COLE: I don't know what time the JLUS
18:42:11 discussion is.
18:42:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Just set it concurrently, before or
18:42:16 after the JLUS.
18:42:18 >>> Or at 9:30.
18:42:19 That will be early enough in the day.
18:42:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Next week at 9:30.
18:42:23 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:42:24 Opposed, Nay.
18:42:25 (Motion carried)
18:42:33 All right.
18:42:33 We go into 6:00.
18:42:34 Do you want to take a break or go through?
18:42:42 We'll be in recess for five minutes.
18:42:44 (council recess)
19:04:03 [Sounding gavel]
19:04:07 [Roll Call]
19:04:08 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we are going to go to our
19:04:14 agenda and clean it up first.
19:04:16 Then we'll start.
19:04:22 >>> Land Development Coordination.
19:04:23 I would like to clear the agenda.
19:04:28 [ Laughter ]
19:04:33 Item 11 on your agenda has been withdrawn.
19:04:38 Z 05-04 by Mr. Truett Gardner, the agent for the
19:04:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion.
19:04:45 >> Move to withdraw.
19:04:46 >> Second.
19:04:46 (Motion carried).
19:04:49 >>> Item 14, V-06-60 has already also a continuance to
19:04:57 February 8th.
19:04:58 The agent Mr. David Smith is here to respond to that
19:05:01 if you require that.
19:05:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the T public hearing.
19:05:07 >> So moved.
19:05:07 >> Second.
19:05:07 (Motion carried).
19:05:19 >>> We had several meetings with the petitioner and
19:05:21 his developer, and it's a variance for parking for a
19:05:26 senior citizen housing project.
19:05:28 And we shouldn't have all of the issues resolved --
19:05:33 should have all the issued resolved by February
19:05:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience who
19:05:40 came who would like to speak against the continuance?
19:05:48 >> This agenda item as the last one with Mr. Smith.
19:05:56 Tiff paperwork filled out.
19:05:57 >> I want to make sure our staff is clear on how many
19:06:00 are going to be coming on February 8th.
19:06:05 >> If I could answer that question.
19:06:06 I'm continuing one that's going to be heard that
19:06:09 So there's a spot there.
19:06:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:06:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion.
19:06:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move a continuance to February
19:06:21 (Motion carried).
19:06:30 >>> Item 16.
19:06:34 We have a continuance request from Mr. John LaRocca,
19:06:37 the agent for the petitioner, to move this date to
19:06:39 April 12th.
19:06:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.
19:06:45 Motion and second.
19:06:46 (Motion carried)
19:06:50 Did anyone in the public come to speak on item 16 like
19:06:53 to speak on the continuance?
19:06:57 >>> April 12th, Mr. LaRocca has made the request
19:07:01 >> So moved.
19:07:02 >> Second.
19:07:02 (Motion carried).
19:07:12 >> Item 17, Z-06-92, Truett Gardner is here.
19:07:17 They requested a continuance to March 8th.
19:07:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.
19:07:22 >> So moved.
19:07:23 >> Second.
19:07:23 (Motion carried).
19:07:24 >> Is there anyone in the public that came to speak on
19:07:26 item 16, like to speak on the continuance?
19:07:37 >>> March 8th.
19:07:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue to March 8th
19:07:43 at 6 p.m.
19:07:45 (Motion Carried).
19:07:47 >>> Item 20 on your agenda is Z-06-122.
19:07:51 Petitioner's agent Linda Pearson is here this evening.
19:07:58 We have a request from her to I think I would like to
19:08:07 have her come up and discuss that with you.
19:08:10 >> Linda Pearson representing the applicant in
19:08:14 We are asking for a continuance tonight.
19:08:18 Ideally, we would prefer February 22nd only
19:08:21 because there's not an opening, would you need to
19:08:24 waive your rules for that.
19:08:25 There is an opening on February 8th but
19:08:27 unfortunately one of our experts has a conflict and
19:08:31 cannot be here that night so that is the reason for
19:08:33 the continuance to the following week, on February
19:08:38 22nd if that's at all possible.
19:08:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
19:08:42 to speak on item 20 that would like to speak on the
19:08:48 >>> Walter Crumbley, president of the Courier City
19:08:53 Oscawana association.
19:08:54 I don't really object to the continuance so much as I
19:08:58 object to the style in which it comes about.
19:09:02 We got together and had numerous meetings to discuss
19:09:06 all of this, and, yeah, this is how it's going to go,
19:09:09 it's already been continued once.
19:09:12 And we show up tonight.
19:09:16 Only a couple days ago we decided we were going to ask
19:09:19 for a continuance.
19:09:20 Nobody called us.
19:09:21 So I have to rally all the troops and get them here.
19:09:24 And now it's not called.
19:09:30 I just think if they want continuances they notify the
19:09:34 other people that are going to be here because it's
19:09:37 really an inconvenience.
19:09:39 So I just want council to know what's going on here.
19:09:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I understand Mr. Crumbley's position.
19:09:48 I just want council to know and the public to know
19:09:51 that continuances are not necessarily granted as a
19:09:54 matter of right and no one can actually in advance of
19:09:57 council taking action grant a continuance or ensure
19:10:00 anybody that a hearing will not go forward.
19:10:02 It is scheduled for a public hearing.
19:10:05 But while that may be their intention, I would agree
19:10:08 that it would be appropriate to communicate that that
19:10:10 is their intention.
19:10:11 I would want folks to have a clear understanding that
19:10:14 no one should make an assumption that the decision of
19:10:17 council is made until council takes official action.
19:10:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:10:23 I appreciate you coming down, Mr. Crumbley, and
19:10:26 telling us.
19:10:27 And my feeling is, if they have asked for one
19:10:30 continuance, and this is the second request, that if
19:10:33 we decide to allow them to go to the February
19:10:36 22nd, it is going to be discussed that night.
19:10:41 That's it.
19:10:43 >>> We'll be here.
19:10:43 >>GWEN MILLER: So bring your crew because we are going
19:10:45 to hear it.
19:10:47 >>> We'll get the usual suspects.
19:10:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask the petitioner
19:10:51 how come you didn't talk to the neighborhood.
19:10:58 >>> To be quite truthful with you, council --
19:11:01 >> I want to you be quite truthful.
19:11:03 >>> I always am.
19:11:05 It is not our desire.
19:11:06 It wasn't our desire to request.
19:11:08 Staff requested the continuance.
19:11:12 Due to the holiday schedule, as I understand it, some
19:11:17 of the staff agency comments did not come back to him
19:11:22 until after the report had been given and our site
19:11:25 plan deadline had been passed, because of the holiday
19:11:29 And when I came back in town, back to work on
19:11:32 Thursday, I received this notice.
19:11:36 We have been negotiating with staff trying to move
19:11:39 forward but upon their request we need to continue
19:11:46 Asked for a revised site plan.
19:11:49 >> I would just recommend to make life better for
19:11:51 everybody that you take some time to meet with the
19:11:54 neighborhood prior to the 22nd, if you're making
19:11:57 revisions, so they are up to speed on what's going to
19:11:59 be shared with council that night.
19:12:02 That would be productive.
19:12:03 >>> We have met with the neighborhood.
19:12:05 And we are happy to meet with them again, certainly,
19:12:08 and to show them the request or the modifications are
19:12:14 mostly notes and things like that.
19:12:15 But we are certainly happy to share that with the
19:12:21 >> Move to -- how are we on February 22nd.
19:12:24 >> You have to move to waive your rules, from what I
19:12:26 have been told by staff.
19:12:28 >>> That schedule is full with 13 cases.
19:12:33 For that night.
19:12:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why waive the rules?
19:12:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have normally ten regular --
19:12:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why would we want to do that?
19:12:51 I understand the rule.
19:12:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Because our policy says we have.
19:13:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we are full up on that date
19:13:09 let's move to another date.
19:13:10 That's our rule.
19:13:11 That's my point.
19:13:13 >>> The only other available date after that period
19:13:15 would be 3-8.
19:13:18 March 8th.
19:13:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Sound good to me.
19:13:25 >> We have three continuance that is night but we have
19:13:26 one new slot that has been vacated so you would still
19:13:29 have 13 for that evening.
19:13:31 But you would have four continuance that is night.
19:13:36 >> So we are within the rule?
19:13:38 >>> You are.
19:13:39 >> March 8th.
19:13:43 >> So moved.
19:13:44 >> Second.
19:13:44 >>GWEN MILLER: motion and second to continue to March
19:13:48 8th at 6 p.m.
19:13:49 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:13:51 Opposed, Nay.
19:14:02 >> I need a motion to -- we have been asked to move
19:14:07 item 21 to the beginning of the meeting.
19:14:11 >> So moved.
19:14:11 >> Second.
19:14:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Opened item 21.
19:14:17 >> And we'll work backwards.
19:14:19 [ Laughter ]
19:14:20 >> Is there a motion?
19:14:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
19:14:22 It passed.
19:14:26 Made a motion.
19:14:27 Now we need to open the public hearing.
19:14:29 >> So moved.
19:14:30 >> Second.
19:14:30 (Motion carried).
19:14:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ski that all written communications
19:14:36 relative to tonight's hearing that have been available
19:14:38 for public inspection -- you have not received
19:14:42 anything to file.
19:14:44 >> This has been going on for awhile.
19:14:51 >> Just a reminder any members of council, any
19:14:55 communication with his or her representative or any
19:14:56 member of the public in connection with any of
19:14:58 tonight's hearings please disclose the person,
19:15:01 persons, group or entity with whom the verbal
19:15:03 communication occurred and the substance of that
19:15:05 verbal communication.
19:15:07 I put a sign up that says have you been sworn?
19:15:11 And if you will swear in the witnesses, Madam Chair.
19:15:20 And when you get up to speak, please reaffirm for the
19:15:23 record when you state your name that you have been
19:15:25 sworn so it's clear.
19:15:27 >> Is anyone in the public going to speak on item 12,
19:15:29 13, 15, 18, 19 or 21?
19:15:34 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
19:15:36 (Oath administered by Clerk).
19:15:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a matter of disclosure.
19:15:51 Attorney Gina Grimes called me the other day.
19:15:53 I spoke with her for all of about two minutes.
19:15:55 She wanted to tell me she was representing a client
19:15:58 who had some problems with item 21.
19:16:00 I told her I would rather not talk to her about it and
19:16:03 she should talk to Mr. Shelby about it which is I
19:16:05 believe what happened.
19:16:06 So that's the end of the conversation.
19:16:12 >>> Are you ready?
19:16:13 I received a correspondence on item 21 that ought to
19:16:16 be received.
19:16:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have an e-mail.
19:16:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We will take it at the end of the
19:16:25 All right.
19:16:41 >>> Good evening.
19:16:42 Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.
19:16:45 I have been sworn.
19:16:47 Item number 21, rezoning case Z-06-62 is the Palma
19:16:54 Ceia area wide rezoning.
19:16:55 This proposed rezoning involves properties subject of
19:16:59 the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use map
19:17:02 change that was approved by ordinance 2005-320.
19:17:07 Through the plan amendment, the future land use
19:17:09 designation of these parcels was changed to R-10 from
19:17:13 R-20 and the R-10 future land use designation allows
19:17:17 the maximum density of ten units per acre.
19:17:19 Therefore the proposed RS 50 district allows single
19:17:24 family detached dwellings on a minimum lot of 50 feet
19:17:27 width, 5,000 square feet, which has a density of 8.7
19:17:31 units per acre.
19:17:32 So this will be rezoning those properties within this
19:17:35 area so that they are now consistent with the
19:17:38 underlying land use.
19:17:46 We have received documentation from four property
19:17:52 owners that they wish to be -- they are requesting
19:18:00 redesignation, that they would like to not be included
19:18:04 in the rezoning, and would like to request
19:18:06 redesignation back to the R-20 land use.
19:18:11 There are three commercial neighborhood properties,
19:18:14 and one RM-16 property, and see if we can zoom in on
19:18:21 the Elmo.
19:18:32 These are the commercial neighborhood properties, the
19:18:35 blue, and then the RM-16 property is located.
19:18:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to orient us and show
19:18:41 us MacDill?
19:18:44 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Sure.
19:18:46 Here's MacDill Avenue right here.
19:18:56 Bay to Bay is south.
19:19:01 And Empedrado which is the southern portion.
19:19:24 I would ask that you make a motion to the Planning
19:19:26 Commission asking them to process the plan amendment
19:19:28 to return those properties in which these parcels are
19:19:33 contained to the R-20 so that they can retain their
19:19:36 current zoning, and also to direct staff to revise the
19:19:42 legal description for this evening to remove those
19:19:48 parcels from being rezoned to the RS-50.
19:19:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For the record, it might be easier
19:19:59 if you announce the four parcels by folio or by
19:20:04 address or both.
19:20:05 And then that way, perhaps we can shorten some time
19:20:10 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Okay.
19:20:12 The first, the three commercial neighborhoods first
19:20:14 and then the RM-16.
19:20:15 The first is folio 126015.
19:20:21 The second is 125983.
19:20:26 And the third is 126014.
19:20:34 Residential is folio 026051.
19:20:40 If there's anyone here this evening that would like to
19:20:42 be included, or request that council include their
19:20:47 parcel in the request to redesignate that, I would
19:20:50 then include those and we would remove them from the
19:20:53 legal description as well.
19:21:02 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:21:09 I have been sworn in.
19:21:13 I think Ms. Feeley did a great job of summing up to
19:21:15 you what has been a long and arduous process, in this
19:21:19 particular area for about two and a half years.
19:21:23 She told you of the ordinance which was 2005.
19:21:26 We are entering 2007 now. The request was to change
19:21:29 the land use category to R-20 down to R-10 which was
19:21:34 adopted by this City Council.
19:21:35 And now we are here in the second phase to change the
19:21:38 rezoning to make sure -- we are aware of the request
19:21:44 that has been made and that we will be waiting myself
19:21:46 and the rest of our Planning Commission staff to see
19:21:49 what council's specific request will be to the
19:21:51 Planning Commission regarding the redesignation of the
19:21:54 requested properties.
19:21:56 Planning Commission staff has looked at the request
19:21:58 and realizes what the intent is over here to maintain
19:22:01 the single family detached character, and hopefully
19:22:04 limit the erosion that some of these residents that
19:22:07 have lived there for quite a bit of time have had
19:22:09 regarding the single family detached character, and
19:22:12 hopefully they are concerned about the erosion of
19:22:18 their single family detached character which we know
19:22:21 has occurred in some areas but I'm sure you all are
19:22:23 very familiar with that are specific.
19:22:26 So we are trying to address this to so I think that's
19:22:30 a very good move on behalf of the residents and of
19:22:33 course upon council.
19:22:34 Planning Commission staff has no objections for the
19:22:36 proposed rezoning request.
19:22:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to compliment the staff who
19:22:43 worked so hard on this.
19:22:44 And I think the request for the folio numbers are
19:22:50 appropriate, and I am pleased to say, I came to
19:22:56 meetings and discussed this four years ago in what was
19:22:58 an old Masonic lodge which has since been torn down
19:23:02 and the old building was there for two years. This
19:23:05 process has been going on a long time.
19:23:07 The neighborhood has been steadfast and patient and
19:23:10 I'm happy it's now.
19:23:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:23:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you make that in the form of a
19:23:17 [ Laughter ]
19:23:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
19:23:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think -- I believe --
19:23:26 >> Petitioner.
19:23:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's right.
19:23:28 He should get to do the honor.
19:23:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Grandoff wants to say something.
19:23:32 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
19:23:38 On behalf of my client mark Wilson, who was one of the
19:23:42 owners that was announced by Abby, I want to get on
19:23:48 his address.
19:23:49 Mark Wilson, 3110 Barcelona Avenue, 126015 folio
19:23:57 We agree with the staff recommendation and the
19:23:59 Planning Commission recommendation.
19:24:01 Thank you.
19:24:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:24:03 wants to speak on item 21?
19:24:05 >>GINA GRIMES: Law firm of hill, ward, Henderson, 101
19:24:16 East Kennedy.
19:24:16 I have been sworn.
19:24:17 Like Mr. Grandoff, we represent a property owner at
19:24:20 3108 west Barcelona, about four lots from MacDill
19:24:24 on the south side of Barcelona.
19:24:30 Steven bass who got this property, want to maintain
19:24:33 that CM zoning.
19:24:36 We agree with staff recommendation, and also would
19:24:38 like to put on the record that this property at 3108
19:24:42 west Barcelona, folio 126014, which Ms. Feeley
19:24:49 identified, would like to be withdrawn from the area
19:24:52 rezoning and redesignated to our client.
19:24:55 Thank you.
19:24:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
19:25:08 >>> Robert piles, 1881 West Kennedy Boulevard on
19:25:11 behalf of Richard Brenner, 125983, which is one of the
19:25:17 folios that was read by staff Mr. Brenner agrees with
19:25:21 the staff recommendation.
19:25:21 We would just like to put on the record that we would
19:25:23 like to opt out of the rezoning and be redesignated
19:25:28 back to R-20 as well.
19:25:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:25:36 >>> Lori GEN NIS, Palma Ceia neighborhood association.
19:25:42 Thank you for this opportunity to finally be here.
19:25:44 We waited a very long time.
19:25:45 For the record we started in 2000, the year 2000 on
19:25:49 So I'm looking forward to your approval of this, and
19:25:53 going forward on the 26th to close this out.
19:25:57 Thank you for your time.
19:25:59 We appreciate it.
19:25:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
19:26:02 >> Move to close.
19:26:02 >> Second.
19:26:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have an ordinance?
19:26:12 >> Just want to clarify what the procedure is, the
19:26:14 ordinance to be read tonight as it is?
19:26:21 >> Need to be directed to revise the legal description
19:26:23 that is associated with this ordinance, in order to
19:26:25 remove those parcels.
19:26:29 >> So moved.
19:26:30 >> Second.
19:26:30 (Motion carried).
19:26:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just did want to say that this is
19:26:37 coming near the end of a long process.
19:26:42 But it's an excellent process, because this
19:26:44 neighborhood, Palma Ceia neighborhood association,
19:26:47 with great leadership from Lori and her officers, have
19:26:50 spoken very loud and clear as to what they want the
19:26:54 future of their neighborhood to be.
19:26:56 And the council responded in a very appropriate
19:27:04 But, in the same breath, we said all along going back
19:27:07 three years ago, that we would allow, as a matter of
19:27:11 property right, allow folks to opt out.
19:27:13 And many people opted out during the opting in part
19:27:17 and now we'll have four more people opting out
19:27:20 And that's okay, too. It's not a perfect world.
19:27:22 And we're sorry that we missed you on the first
19:27:24 go-around to the four property owners.
19:27:28 But we are keeping our word not only to the community
19:27:32 but also to you folks that we would allow to you opt
19:27:35 So I think it's the best of all worlds, and it's a
19:27:38 good night for the city.
19:27:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to point out that the
19:27:42 neighborhood organization went door to door, house to
19:27:46 house, and they were the ones who canvassed the
19:27:50 They did the heavy lifting.
19:27:51 They really shouldered the burden in terms of
19:27:54 explaining what this would mean to their neighbors.
19:27:56 And I think that it's rare for a neighborhood
19:27:58 organization to get that kind of energy into a
19:28:01 And they are to be commended.
19:28:03 And the request for redesignation, I understand -- I
19:28:10 think this has been a very successful process.
19:28:13 And I think you will probably see other things like
19:28:16 this in the future, and probably they'll go through
19:28:18 the leadership of this organization, and ask them how
19:28:21 they did it.
19:28:22 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
19:28:23 (Motion carried).
19:28:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That motion was to allow those folio
19:28:29 numbers by staff to be -- having the legal description
19:28:32 amended to remove those.
19:28:34 The issue now is exactly when should it come back to
19:28:36 council and in what form?
19:28:40 >>> I believe that we could bring it back to council
19:28:44 next Thursday morning, if they would allow it to be
19:28:47 brought on as a walk-on.
19:28:49 If not, we would need two weeks to go through the doc
19:28:52 agenda system.
19:28:55 >> If who would allow?
19:28:56 >>> If you would allow.
19:28:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh.
19:28:59 I think we'll allow.
19:29:01 >>> And we would need to continue second reading.
19:29:05 >> The second reading would be two weeks from tonight.
19:29:09 >>> Right.
19:29:10 >> When would you suggest?
19:29:12 >>> That would be -- I'm sorry?
19:29:17 >> What day?
19:29:18 >>> Next week.
19:29:31 >>JULIA COLE: We are going to have to continue second
19:29:34 reading on the record.
19:29:35 And do it by resolution.
19:29:38 So what we are going to need to do when second reading
19:29:41 comes, which will be in two weeks, the 25th during
19:29:47 the daytime, we'll continue that.
19:29:49 Then on the record to when February.
19:29:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:29:57 We need to open item number 12.
19:29:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want -- the understanding
19:30:03 that --
19:30:04 >> Walk it on next week.
19:30:09 >> Before you do the 12 --
19:30:13 >>> I'm sorry.
19:30:14 On this case we also need a motion for the planning
19:30:16 for the redesignation of those parcels, CR-20.
19:30:22 >> Move to do that.
19:30:24 [ Laughter ]
19:30:27 >> Second.
19:30:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:30:28 (Motion carried)
19:30:31 Need to open item 12.
19:30:33 >> Just for clarification then, that plan amendment is
19:30:36 going to be a city initiated plan amendment
19:30:39 specifically for those four parcels to be redesignated
19:30:43 back to R-20.
19:30:45 The question that is also going to come up at some
19:30:49 point in time is what cycle will those be heard?
19:30:57 Mr. Garcia, do you want to speak to that?
19:31:04 >> Actually at this point in time, I would rather just
19:31:06 leave that, Mr. Dingfelder, to us to bring it to
19:31:10 consideration for the change.
19:31:12 We'll redesignate as to what point in time.
19:31:15 I can't tell you the stage as we are in the middle of
19:31:17 the comp plan update and our resources are taxed.
19:31:20 But it will definitely be changed back.
19:31:23 I can't give you a definitive time at this point.
19:31:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You will need to coordinate with
19:31:32 those five property owners at the time.
19:31:34 >> That's correct.
19:31:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open item 12.
19:31:38 >> So moved.
19:31:39 >> Need to get a second.
19:31:40 >> Second.
19:31:41 (Motion carried)
19:31:41 >>GINA GRIMES: Hill, ward, Henderson.
19:31:54 Is there any way that we can have a motion to change
19:31:56 it during the comp plan update process so it wouldn't
19:31:59 be an additional burden on the Planning Commission?
19:32:01 I just don't want to leave it, you know, unspecified
19:32:05 as to when it will be done.
19:32:09 If it's done as part of the comp plan update.
19:32:12 >>: So moved.
19:32:13 >> Second.
19:32:13 (Motion carried)
19:32:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 12.
19:32:33 >> Philip Schultz, Land Development Coordination.
19:32:36 I have been sworn in.
19:32:38 Item number 12, case Z 05-55 located in this report in
19:32:45 the sun bay south, 3813 west Bay Avenue.
19:32:49 Joseph and Teresa Pietro are here this evening to
19:32:53 speak to council in this regard.
19:32:55 The development review committee has reviewed the
19:32:57 petition, has no objections.
19:33:00 The request is for RS-60 residential single family to
19:33:04 RS-50 residential single family.
19:33:07 There are no waivers requested or permitted within
19:33:10 Euclidean applications.
19:33:11 The petitioner proposes to rezone the property located
19:33:14 at 3813 west Bay Avenue to an RS-50 zoning district to
19:33:21 create two buildable zoning lots measuring 50 by 140,
19:33:24 7,000 square feet each.
19:33:26 The subdivision was originally platted in 1914, with
19:33:31 50-foot wade lots.
19:33:32 The site is currently developed with one single-family
19:33:35 residence, standard setbacks for RS-50 as follows:
19:33:38 20-foot front yard, 20-foot rear yard and 7-foot side
19:33:42 This request is in Euclidean zoning district.
19:33:46 Therefore no site plan is required.
19:33:47 The proposed construction was also to adhere to all
19:33:51 applicable City of Tampa development regulations.
19:33:54 This goes to our future land use plan, policy
19:33:58 objective B 3.3.
19:34:02 The blue map should first of all -- Elmo, please.
19:34:10 Orient you to the location.
19:34:13 This site is located only four lots from Dale Mabry.
19:34:24 This street is perpendicular to the site is treasure
19:34:30 circle right here.
19:34:32 As you can see, the zoning, two lots over, is CG.
19:34:37 The current zoning as you can see is the RS-50 zone
19:34:46 and the balance of the area is RS-50.
19:34:51 If you look at your aerial photo, again you can see
19:34:57 the location of south Dale Mabry, and the area is
19:35:02 highly wooded in and around this parcel.
19:35:04 In referring to your blue-red map, if you would,
19:35:10 please, there are 46 total lots in the area that we
19:35:14 We did not include the area south of west bay, because
19:35:18 these lots are originally -- were originally developed
19:35:22 at 60 by 100.
19:35:25 The parcel, there are 12 conforming lots, 26%, within
19:35:33 blocks 27, 25, 34, and 33.
19:35:38 And this area on your blue-red map, there are two
19:35:43 parcels, one to the previous 80-20 rule.
19:35:46 The subject parcel right here is part of 74%, or 34
19:35:53 lots that are nonconforming in the area.
19:35:58 This is a picture of the subject, you can see the lots
19:36:05 on the sides.
19:36:06 This is the -- looking back.
19:36:14 I'm sorry?
19:36:18 This is the view looking down the perpendicular
19:36:22 street, trees circle.
19:36:26 This is the home on the southeast corner of treasure
19:36:34 I'm going too fast.
19:36:36 >>> You're fine.
19:36:37 >> Do you want us to see if there's any opposition?
19:36:42 >>> Okay, I'm moving on.
19:36:45 The southwest corner.
19:36:46 And this is the home adjacent to the subject parcel.
19:36:52 >> On which side where?
19:36:54 >>> This is actually on the west side of the subject
19:37:01 >> Show us the subject parcel again.
19:37:04 Yeah, that one.
19:37:08 That's the house that's on there now?
19:37:12 >> There's a lot next door.
19:37:13 >>> And then there's a lot next door.
19:37:20 >> Other buildable lot.
19:37:21 It's fairly large.
19:37:22 And this is the house, adjacent to Dale Mabry.
19:37:26 South Dale Mabry.
19:37:30 Staff is available for any additional discussion.
19:37:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would to have the council members
19:37:38 look at the blue-red map because I specifically asked
19:37:41 the staff if they would give us the story on the house
19:37:48 on Bay Avenue.
19:37:51 They are all red.
19:37:53 When they did the percentages, they were looking at
19:37:55 lots 27, 25, 31, 33.
19:37:58 But given the location of the subject parcel on the
19:38:01 southern side and kind of toward the corner, I thought
19:38:05 that that what was more Jermaine and what was
19:38:11 happening a block away and a block over to the north.
19:38:14 And I think when we consider proposed planned uses, we
19:38:18 really need to consider what closest to the subject
19:38:22 And I wanted to thank the staff for going back and
19:38:25 filling in the blue and the red and, you know, showing
19:38:28 what I consider to be the bigger picture.
19:38:32 I think that's really helpful to us.
19:38:35 >>> Also, council, this is an institutional use here.
19:38:39 You have got commercial uses along south Dale Mabry.
19:38:47 Actually, this is a commercial that goes back quite a
19:38:50 distance on Ohio Avenue.
19:38:55 Thank you.
19:38:58 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:39:07 I have been sworn.
19:39:08 I don't have anything else to say.
19:39:10 [ Laughter ]
19:39:14 From a land use perspective, it is residential 10, CMU
19:39:18 35 along South Dale Mabry Highway.
19:39:20 Very good point about this particular parcel, arterial
19:39:26 commercial uses.
19:39:26 The institutional use over here is a church.
19:39:38 There's no restaurants.
19:39:40 >>> Oh, contraire.
19:39:44 There's a good Thai restaurant.
19:39:49 >> You do have two units similar to the proposed
19:39:55 request is for these two lots over here.
19:39:58 Ms. Saul-Sena, as far as the continuity, the
19:40:01 residential development to the south, you have
19:40:05 north-south streets over here.
19:40:07 It's a little different.
19:40:11 These are closer to the south.
19:40:14 This is really a little bit more hodgepodge.
19:40:19 Planning Commission staff had no objection.
19:40:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:40:30 >> Joseph Pietro and I have been sworn.
19:40:33 I have a letter from the neighborhood.
19:40:40 Gandy civic association.
19:40:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you aware of any opposition?
19:41:03 >>> No, sir.
19:41:04 >> Let the chairwoman ask.
19:41:05 Might be able to help you.
19:41:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:41:08 wants to speak on item number 12?
19:41:11 >> Move to close.
19:41:12 >> Second.
19:41:12 (Motion carried).
19:41:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have an ordinance?
19:41:15 Mr. Dingfelder, do you want to read that?
19:41:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
19:41:19 ordinance, an ordinance rezoning property in the
19:41:22 general vicinity of 3813 west Bay Avenue in the city
19:41:25 of Tampa, Florida more particularly in section zoning
19:41:28 classification RS-60 residential single family to
19:41:32 RS-50 residential single family providing an effective
19:41:36 >> Second.
19:41:36 (Motion carried).
19:41:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 13 is a continued public
19:41:50 >> Phil Schultz, planning Development Corporation.
19:41:54 I have been sworn in.
19:41:54 The next case before you is item 13, Z 06-27.
19:41:59 This parcel is located in the Old Seminole Heights
19:42:03 It is in the Seminole Heights overlay area.
19:42:07 The address is 6401 Nebraska Avenue.
19:42:10 Mr. Greg Smith is here this evening to respond along
19:42:13 with his agent.
19:42:16 The development review committee has reviewed the
19:42:18 petition, as the previous site plan, and we had
19:42:24 objection to that plan and I'll get to my report and
19:42:26 indicate what we have resolved on that.
19:42:29 The petitioner is requesting to change the zoning from
19:42:32 C-1 commercial intensive, to RS-60 single family to
19:42:37 PD, planned development, for a restaurant, bar, and
19:42:40 single family lot.
19:42:41 There are two waivers requested pursuant to section
19:42:44 27-246-J that would allow nonresidential vehicle
19:42:50 access to north street, which is classified as a local
19:42:54 Section 27-130 which will reduce the buffer between
19:42:57 commercial and residential property from 15 to 10
19:43:01 Petitioner proposes to rezone the property at 6401
19:43:04 Nebraska Avenue to a planned development to construct
19:43:07 a 2400 square foot restaurant and bar, and establish a
19:43:10 60 by 136.5-foot residential lot to the east side of
19:43:15 the property.
19:43:18 25-foot front on Nebraska, 23 feet 5 on north street,
19:43:23 120-foot rear yard on east, and 53-foot side yard on
19:43:28 the north, located in the Old Seminole Heights overlay
19:43:30 district, the site is subject to comply with the
19:43:33 overlay design standards for the residential lot to be
19:43:36 The proposed plan requires 23 parking spaces.
19:43:40 The petitioner is providing 25 including 9 compact
19:43:44 spaces totaling 36%. The compact spaces were
19:43:47 necessary in order to meet the parking requirements
19:43:50 given the grand tree location in the center of the
19:43:52 site. The current plan design incorporates retention
19:43:55 of grand tree.
19:43:58 Parks and recreation and landscape design have, all of
19:44:04 their concerns have been mitigated and notes added to
19:44:06 the final plan which you have before you tonight.
19:44:09 So there are no additional objections to be heard on
19:44:15 And the staff concurs with the final revised plan.
19:44:20 Let me point out the location.
19:44:24 This is Nebraska.
19:44:26 Here's north Avenue.
19:44:27 And here's the subject property.
19:44:33 If you refer to your aerial photo, you will see the
19:44:36 grand tree as we mentioned that dominates the center
19:44:39 of the site.
19:44:40 This site plan had to be reworked an enormous number
19:44:47 of times to make sure that this is saved for our
19:44:53 And we have to thank the petitioner for doing that.
19:44:57 This is an observance looking towards Nebraska down
19:45:01 north Avenue.
19:45:02 This is looking -- these are the properties across
19:45:10 This is the property directly to the south of this
19:45:15 And this is your perspective looking down Nebraska to
19:45:18 the south.
19:45:22 Here is a picture of the intersection looking to the
19:45:24 north from the subject property.
19:45:26 And this is the densely vegetated area looking down
19:45:32 towards the east, down north Avenue.
19:45:36 You can see all of the vegetation in that area.
19:45:41 Staff would like to remove all objections at this time
19:45:43 and request consideration for the petition.
19:45:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have two questions.
19:45:48 One is, it seems when we look down north street,
19:45:53 narrow residential street.
19:45:56 That looks pretty narrow.
19:45:58 Definitely looks residential.
19:46:00 >>> Yes.
19:46:01 >> And one of the waivers is the petitioner requests
19:46:04 that -- requested was a waiver to allow nonresidential
19:46:08 vehicle use, which is classified as a local street.
19:46:13 So why didn't you all suggest that they not have
19:46:17 access to north and have their access points point
19:46:20 from Nebraska?
19:46:21 >>> They do have one access point off of Nebraska and
19:46:23 one off of north Avenue.
19:46:25 >> I'm aware of that.
19:46:26 But what I'm saying is, if they didn't have an access
19:46:29 point on north street, it would protect the
19:46:31 neighborhood and keep commercial cars from going down
19:46:33 this narrow residential street that we are looking at
19:46:36 on the Elmo right now.
19:46:37 It would be a lot safer, and it would have less impact
19:46:41 on the neighborhood, and that's a pretty minor change.
19:46:46 >>> Actually, transportation is here tonight to speak
19:46:48 to that.
19:46:51 Ms. Calloway is here.
19:46:53 I'm sure they would like to take note of that, if we
19:46:56 could bring her in.
19:46:59 >> While she's coming in, if I could, Ms. Saul-Sena.
19:47:01 The dumpster location, I was wondering, what is on the
19:47:09 other side of the wall?
19:47:10 What is on the other side of the wall behind the
19:47:13 Is there single-family house?
19:47:16 >> Creating a single-family lot that would require --
19:47:20 >> See where the dumpster is in.
19:47:23 >> Yes.
19:47:23 If you look at the aerial photo, and you look, there
19:47:33 are sort of a mixed use to the rear on Lambright
19:47:45 street. This is a modified, as you can see, the
19:47:51 parking space here.
19:47:52 Then you get into a residential house over here.
19:47:54 >> Right there where you just pointed is a residential
19:47:58 house, is directly, now if you drop down, that's where
19:48:01 the dumpster is.
19:48:03 >> Back in here, yes.
19:48:04 >> Actually, the dumpster is not lined up with the
19:48:07 tree. The dumpster is lined up with the house.
19:48:09 If you look at it.
19:48:11 And I'm just thinking.
19:48:13 If I'm living in that house, and, you know, seven in
19:48:16 the morning, and the smells.
19:48:22 I'm just wondering if there might be a better place
19:48:24 for that.
19:48:24 >> Actually, the problem you have with ingress and
19:48:27 egress for solid waste, we moved 2 dumpster probably
19:48:31 four or five times, and redesigned the site, and
19:48:35 making sure that we have the proper turning radius for
19:48:38 the large vehicles coming in, the type of dumpsters
19:48:43 that are proposed for this facility.
19:48:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you put it to the side towards
19:48:49 the proposed residential lot, it would be at the end
19:48:54 of that long alley?
19:48:55 And that's something that solid waste probably could
19:48:59 live with.
19:48:59 Especially if we close off north street. If we close
19:49:02 off north street then solid waste isn't going to like
19:49:04 that dumpster location at all.
19:49:07 >> It would be difficult for them to get in and out
19:49:09 with the closure of north.
19:49:10 I think Ms. Calloway is here to respond to that.
19:49:22 >> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
19:49:24 You were talking about the access to North "A."
19:49:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, were you sworn?
19:49:35 >>> My question was, in order to protect the
19:49:37 residential uses along north street, because they
19:49:41 requested a waiver because they are not supposed to
19:49:43 have commercial traffic on a residential street, my
19:49:46 thought was don't allow them access to north street.
19:49:53 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
19:49:58 Phil was right. The dumpster location --
19:50:01 >> You can move the dumpster out.
19:50:03 >> We could.
19:50:04 >> We could move the dumpster, if you didn't have
19:50:08 >> I think one of the suggestions, move that closer to
19:50:10 the residential lot?
19:50:12 >> No.
19:50:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a proposed residential lot.
19:50:15 >> Is nine foot typical, that's where you move it to,
19:50:18 right here.
19:50:28 >>> I have a suggestion.
19:50:29 I don't know if you would like this.
19:50:31 But access to a local street.
19:50:33 If it was a left-in only it would defer track back to
19:50:37 the neighborhood and it would also allow the solid
19:50:39 waste dumpster to function in the way that it's
19:50:41 functioning currently.
19:50:42 So how it functions currently is the solid waste goes
19:50:45 on north street, picks up the dumpster, and then exit
19:50:50 onto Nebraska.
19:50:53 If you channelize this driveway as a left-only,
19:50:56 left-in only, entrance only that way, and the traffic,
19:51:02 if you are going back out.
19:51:06 >> Would it be possible for solid waste to function if
19:51:10 there were no access on north street?
19:51:12 >>> I think that would be really difficult, because
19:51:16 solid waste doesn't like the fact that the truck is
19:51:21 more than 150 feet and the truck has to turn around
19:51:24 on-site and would conflict with some of their parking.
19:51:27 >> No, the truck would go in and back out.
19:51:31 >>> They don't like to back out.
19:51:35 >> Let me ask you one other question.
19:51:37 If we channelize the access point on north A street,
19:51:40 you wouldn't need the 26-foot width, would you?
19:51:44 >>> Correct.
19:51:44 You would not.
19:51:46 It can be a minimum of 12 or maximum of 15, and this
19:51:50 is one-way entrance only.
19:51:52 >> If you made that suggestion to the petitioner?
19:51:57 >> He wanted that north street access.
19:52:01 I don't see that we had discussed that.
19:52:02 But I could look at that.
19:52:04 And solid waste, we could all look at that.
19:52:07 >> That would be much better for the neighborhood if
19:52:08 it was just one way in so people wouldn't be coming
19:52:11 out down north street.
19:52:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
19:52:18 >>> Yes, I was.
19:52:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Stay in the room with us.
19:52:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission?
19:52:26 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:52:32 I have been sworn.
19:52:35 This has been around for awhile.
19:52:39 As you all know, Nebraska is a major arterial along
19:52:49 with Florida.
19:52:50 This is directly to the west.
19:52:52 You have two land uses here, significant drop-off.
19:52:55 You go from heavy commercial 24 down to residential
19:52:58 10, here's a future land use map that describes. That
19:53:02 when you look at the aerial you will basically see,
19:53:04 it's right across the street to the south, Kramer, a
19:53:09 car lot.
19:53:10 And it goes back fairly far, almost parallel, very
19:53:15 close to the ingress-egress point, Mrs. Saul-Sena,
19:53:19 that you expressed some concern about.
19:53:20 I think part of the reason why the applicant has asked
19:53:23 for the waiver, and why it's set back, is actually for
19:53:26 the preservation of that significant tree that's right
19:53:28 in the middle of the site.
19:53:30 When we initially saw this, that was something that
19:53:33 had to be taken into consideration, considering all
19:53:36 the efforts that they had made because of the
19:53:39 excessive thing done prior to potential property and I
19:53:41 think the existing property has done a great job,
19:53:44 trying to preserve it.
19:53:46 So I think they have been trying to work with this
19:53:49 rather interesting dilemma that we have got, tree on
19:53:55 the site.
19:53:55 I think that's a good idea as far as planning.
19:53:59 Pork chop to allow left in, right out only.
19:54:05 I think said right out.
19:54:07 If you went left on Florida I think that's something
19:54:10 that probably would be negotiable with the applicant,
19:54:14 I'm sure.
19:54:15 Also, just to refresh your memory, I know that you and
19:54:18 Mr. Dingfelder had also expressed a concern again
19:54:20 looking at the site plan just so that you all will
19:54:22 know it.
19:54:23 I think that masonry wall is now over here.
19:54:27 It was all the way over here.
19:54:28 I think you had a question why it went all the way
19:54:30 over if I remember correctly.
19:54:32 Now as you see over here, this is here.
19:54:34 And if you have a chance over here which I'm sure as
19:54:37 this lot is developed will be changed, also, and come
19:54:40 in for that.
19:54:41 I think they can probably -- of course they will have
19:54:45 to comply with the Seminole Heights residential
19:54:48 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the
19:54:50 request, which is again a very, from what I
19:54:53 understand, a use that is desired very much by the
19:54:57 residents that live in the area, and also the business
19:54:59 community, neighborhood serving commercial use.
19:55:04 Seminole Heights community has been very desirous of
19:55:07 having more.
19:55:11 Thank you.
19:55:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:55:29 >>> Agent for the petitioner.
19:55:31 I have been sworn.
19:55:32 We would be willing to make the driveway one way in.
19:55:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:55:36 wants to speak on item 13?
19:55:39 Is that 13?
19:55:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just had another question.
19:55:43 On the north side, it seems to indicate five feet.
19:55:48 Is that a five-foot wall or a five-foot --
19:55:53 >>> This is a 5-foot landscape strip between parking
19:55:57 and the lot line.
19:55:58 Is that what you are referring to?
19:55:59 >> I'm just wondering what is being built or what
19:56:01 is -- is there going to be a 6-foot wall on the north
19:56:06 >> No, this is a commercial parcel.
19:56:10 It goes all the way back to this point here.
19:56:13 >> How about buffering the restaurant parking lot with
19:56:16 the residential that you pointed out behind the
19:56:19 Is that going to be a 6-foot wall?
19:56:22 >>> It's not planned for that, no, sir.
19:56:24 >> It should be.
19:56:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But it's a wall.
19:56:28 Commercial, residential, it has to be a masonry
19:56:34 >> It's not labeled as such.
19:56:36 >> It's actually six of one, six of the other.
19:56:44 >> Randy barren, the president of the Old Seminole
19:56:46 Heights association, I have been sworn.
19:56:50 The neighborhood is very excited about this project.
19:56:53 This is definitely a challenging lot.
19:56:56 We have had a few developers come to us.
19:56:59 No one has been able to work with that tree.
19:57:02 We want to save the tree.
19:57:03 We worked with Mr. Smith.
19:57:04 He came to us about a year and a half ago with this
19:57:08 We are very excited to get a residential restaurant in
19:57:13 this location and from the very beginning he said, I
19:57:16 want to save that tree, I want to work around the
19:57:18 I understand some of the other limitations, because of
19:57:21 that tree, and, you know, we understand that it
19:57:25 presents some traffic problems, or some transportation
19:57:28 problems there, and also the dumpster.
19:57:31 I would support, and I believe the petitioner supports
19:57:34 putting the pork chop there, and other than that, we
19:57:36 are absolutely in favor of this project, and we are
19:57:39 looking forward to council approving it.
19:57:41 Thank you.
19:57:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
19:57:48 >> We can't close it.
19:57:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion.
19:57:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue?
19:57:56 >> We'll need a month, ma'am.
19:57:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
19:57:58 What will a month be?
19:58:06 >> We have substantial changes on the site plan that
19:58:08 are being recommended, and that will take some time to
19:58:12 get it back to the architect, and then get it back
19:58:15 through review to solid waste to make sure they
19:58:17 approve the turning radius on any relocation that you
19:58:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are just going to have one way
19:58:30 in on north street.
19:58:36 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
19:58:39 Make sure the truck is able to make the turn.
19:58:44 It should.
19:58:44 But solid waste isn't available today.
19:58:48 So I will get with her and see what she says about
19:58:51 And we'll have to get with petitioner to change their
19:58:53 site plan.
19:58:55 If they change their site plan.
19:59:00 >>GWEN MILLER: A month?
19:59:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Three weeks?
19:59:03 >> Would you be able to move to the a day meeting,
19:59:05 February 1st?
19:59:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Sure.
19:59:07 We'll waive the rules.
19:59:10 >>> Staff can get it prepared by then?
19:59:12 >>GWEN MILLER: How many weeks?
19:59:14 >> February 1st meeting.
19:59:15 10 a.m.
19:59:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to waive the rules?
19:59:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, it's a continuance.
19:59:22 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
19:59:26 We are going to continue it to the 1st at 10 a.m.
19:59:36 (Motion Carried).
19:59:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 15.
19:59:40 >> Second.
19:59:43 (Motion Carried).
20:00:06 >> Item 15 on the agenda this evening is case Z-06-33
20:00:11 located in district 4, Temple Crest civic association.
20:00:13 The address was assigned a few Fridays ago, 8315 north
20:00:20 This is for lot 2, which was noticed properly.
20:00:23 Mr. Derrick Wynn petitioner is here this evening.
20:00:27 Development review committee has reviewed the petition
20:00:29 and has no objections to this Euclidean rezoning.
20:00:31 From RS-60 residential single-family to RS-50
20:00:35 residential single-family.
20:00:37 There are no waivers requested or permitted with this
20:00:41 The petitioner proposes to rezone 8315 north 37th
20:00:45 street to an RS-50 zoning district to create a
20:00:49 buildable lot measuring 50 by 121.78 which creates
20:00:55 6,089 square feet. The subdivision was originally
20:00:58 platted in 1914 with 50-foot wide lots. The site is
20:01:03 currently vacant land, standard setbacks for RS-50 are
20:01:07 as follows, 20-foot front yard, 20-foot rear yard,
20:01:10 7-foot side yard. This request is a Euclidean zoning
20:01:13 Therefore no site plan is required. The proposed
20:01:15 construction must also adhere to all applicable City
20:01:19 of Tampa developments regulations.
20:01:23 If you refer to --
20:01:27 >> For the record it's not district 4.
20:01:29 We think it's district 7.
20:01:42 >> Here is the subject property.
20:01:44 We have east regent street on the north. This is
20:01:48 north 37th through Hillsborough River.
20:01:52 We have 39th street here.
20:01:53 Over here we have the 40th Street redevelopment area.
20:01:58 If you refer to your zoning map, you will note that we
20:02:05 do have one RS-50 lot just to the rear of this parcel
20:02:11 on 39th street.
20:02:12 The balance of this area is zoned RS-50: To the west
20:02:18 side of 39th street, it's RM-24 multifamily
20:02:25 Then we have PG commercial zoning.
20:02:29 If you would please refer to your blue-red map, this
20:02:33 is where I know we are going to have some discussion
20:02:36 this evening.
20:02:40 In the 22, 21, 23, 30, 29, a portion, however, of 29,
20:02:48 24 and 21, because the backside of 40th Street is
20:02:51 zoned commercial.
20:02:52 There are 60 total lots, 43 of these lots or 72%
20:02:59 conform to RS-60 zoning district.
20:03:03 There are 17 nonconforming or 28% parcels.
20:03:10 In realizing that this does not conform to what we
20:03:16 consider the 50% rule, please keep in mind that what
20:03:19 we are looking for here is a rezoning in an area where
20:03:23 we have some socioeconomic disinvestment, we have a
20:03:27 substantial number of vacant lots down in this area,
20:03:31 and we have a lot of illegal dumping on a lot of these
20:03:34 vacant lots.
20:03:35 And this is an effort to do in-fill which complies
20:03:39 with your policy and the future land use plan B 1-2,
20:03:46 an R and B-3-3 to encourage reinvestment in an area
20:03:49 where the pattern is somewhat changing, and we hope
20:03:53 that you would consider its rezoning.
20:03:57 This is a photograph of the subject parcel.
20:04:00 As you can tell, it's fenced in.
20:04:03 It does have a lot of debris in the rear of the parcel
20:04:07 that was left there.
20:04:08 There's really a two-track going in here people
20:04:12 constantly dump. Across the way we had people park in
20:04:15 the Hillsborough River.
20:04:17 To the south on 37th street, again we have the
20:04:23 park to the west side.
20:04:24 This is to the north on 37th street.
20:04:29 This is the house directly to the south of the subject
20:04:38 It's a 50-foot wide lot. This is the house on the
20:04:41 corner, which actually is 60 by 121 lot.
20:04:47 Here's an example of the home just passed lot 4 and 5
20:04:51 on the south side.
20:04:53 And here are some other pictures of very similar
20:04:57 housing in that area along 37th street.
20:05:01 Here is one, however, on one of the 50-foot lots in
20:05:05 that area.
20:05:08 Are there any questions on the staff report as
20:05:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When I was going over this with
20:05:14 staff, what I noticed was as you all look at the map
20:05:17 it's along north 37th street.
20:05:20 100% of the houses of lots conformed.
20:05:25 So even though if you look at the total number of
20:05:28 lots, you are again looking at several blocks.
20:05:32 The 37th street is 100% conforming.
20:05:34 I think that it's slightly misleading when you look at
20:05:37 the percentages conforming and nonconforming lots.
20:05:41 It doesn't tell the story dramatically, looking at the
20:05:45 map and seeing the staff majority like 85% of the
20:05:52 actual area is conforming, because the larger lots are
20:05:57 much larger, and so, anyway.
20:06:12 >> 2 and 3?
20:06:13 >> It's lot 2, the subject parcel.
20:06:15 >> And what is it split off of?
20:06:17 >> Lot 1 which is here on the corner, which is 60 by
20:06:23 And the subject parcel is the parcel that is 50-foot
20:06:35 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:06:37 I have been sworn.
20:06:42 >> Some of the lane was open space.
20:06:51 And then of course you have the CMU 35 here, and the
20:06:55 higher density of residential 35 here, and residential
20:06:59 This is the subject piece in question.
20:07:07 This is the subject lot in question.
20:07:08 When you look at the parcelization over here it is
20:07:11 interesting in driving and looking at the existing
20:07:15 It's an interesting situation, as Mr. Schultz said, as
20:07:19 far as the types of houses that are there, the degree
20:07:22 of disrepair that you might see with some of the
20:07:25 houses that are existing in the site, and of course
20:07:27 even furthermore to the south.
20:07:30 As far as providing new residential redevelopment in
20:07:35 the area that's consistent with policy in the
20:07:37 comprehensive plan as he has stated, the policy does
20:07:40 indicate the city's desire for compatible integrated
20:07:43 in-fill development to increase the existing houses.
20:07:49 I understand the degree of conforming lots, when
20:07:54 you're looking at what an RS-50 designated lot is
20:07:59 supposed to look like.
20:08:01 When you look on this side, when you see the size of
20:08:04 the house, you do have characteristically a lot of
20:08:07 large lot development that you are not going to see in
20:08:10 our lot so you do have much bigger house, even though
20:08:15 you're building on the lot.
20:08:16 Then you have got sprinkles in here, you have got --
20:08:19 this is basically on a smaller lot. This parcel is on
20:08:22 a smaller lot. This one.
20:08:24 So you have a continuity over here on the corner of
20:08:26 those smaller lots.
20:08:27 But just a variety of different kinds of residential
20:08:31 You have a large house here built catter-corner.
20:08:34 Then you have a lot of instances where you have
20:08:38 smaller lots, a very large lot.
20:08:40 Then behind it on a double lot.
20:08:42 Then of course you have these smaller homes that are
20:08:44 built on these narrow lots.
20:08:46 So there is a variety of use here as far as the
20:08:50 How they are platting is one thing but the ownership
20:08:52 you see is another story as you drive the streets.
20:08:55 Planning Commission staff looked at the opportunities
20:08:58 that were presented here as far as optimal use
20:09:03 contributing to revitality of the neighborhood so
20:09:05 Planning Commission staff, the intent was consistent
20:09:08 with the comprehensive plan.
20:09:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:09:23 >>> How are you doing today?
20:09:24 On this lot right here --
20:09:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Give your name, please.
20:09:28 >>> Oh, I'm sorry.
20:09:29 Derrick Wynn.
20:09:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Address?
20:09:33 >>> The address?
20:09:35 33 -- sorry, I'm very nervous.
20:09:38 It's my first.
20:09:41 Oh, wow.
20:09:51 8311 north 37th street.
20:09:54 >> Have you been sworn in?
20:09:55 >> Yes.
20:09:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Tell us what you are going to do.
20:10:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Take a deep breath.
20:10:02 We don't bite anybody.
20:10:07 >> Then my grandmother basically got here from
20:10:13 Thomasville, Georgia, and we are basically trying to
20:10:15 build our residence or house, and we also -- the house
20:10:18 we are building, the three bedroom, two-bath, garage,
20:10:23 is the same blueprint as three houses down to the
20:10:30 And also, they were pretty much asking us about.
20:10:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if there's anyone here to
20:10:43 speak on item number 15.
20:10:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't you keep going and tell
20:10:51 us why it's important to you.
20:10:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
20:10:59 What I mean, we wanted a nice place to build.
20:11:03 And a lot of the neighbors, they called also because I
20:11:08 had to give them my phone number.
20:11:10 They called me.
20:11:11 And pretty much they were happy with it because, you
20:11:14 know, the area, and they didn't want to go on, they
20:11:21 wanted to make sure that it was going to be
20:11:24 residential and not a rental, renter thing.
20:11:29 So they were going to do away with people in and out
20:11:32 which is a lot of the area around.
20:11:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When did you and your mother --
20:11:42 >>> My grandmother.
20:11:45 >> When did you first --
20:11:52 >>> back in last year, September last year.
20:11:57 >> Are you living on the corner?
20:11:59 >>> Excuse me?
20:12:00 >> Are you living in the corner house, and you want to
20:12:02 build on the extra lot?
20:12:04 >>> Yeah.
20:12:05 My cousin is right next door to the.
20:12:08 And Ms. Thomas, the older lady, has been staying
20:12:11 there, since '87.
20:12:17 And she's just an older lady.
20:12:20 She's been there since '87.
20:12:22 And she gave me the phone number and everything, you
20:12:29 She's for like 20 years.
20:12:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me hear from them and you can come
20:12:34 back with some questions.
20:12:37 Does anyone want to come in the audience speak on item
20:12:43 >>> My name is bill Drake, 8115 north 37th street.
20:12:48 I have been sworn in.
20:12:50 The owner of the rental car, 8313 north 37th
20:12:54 street -- followed a business plan that includes
20:12:56 reinvestment and appropriate percentage of returns for
20:12:59 rent to maintain the structure for years.
20:13:01 Although if roof line of the building is straight
20:13:03 enough to indicate minimal termite damage to the
20:13:06 strength of the roof the rest of the structure appears
20:13:09 to be free from problems concerning foundation, walls.
20:13:12 The house needs a significant amount of work to bring
20:13:15 it up to standards, but anyone would consider it
20:13:20 The owner is not here -- by allowing the rezoning from
20:13:24 RS-60 to RS-50.
20:13:26 Such a rezoning would allow space on the lot at least
20:13:31 one, perhaps two in-fill houses on either side of the
20:13:34 existing structure.
20:13:36 And a greater opportunity to all three structures and
20:13:40 sell one, sell two or whatever.
20:13:42 He's trying to make money.
20:13:45 The for-sale sign -- the for-sale sign attached to the
20:13:56 front of the property is openly disingenuous and if
20:14:00 the owner does not display either the contact number
20:14:02 or the sales agent's name perhaps the neighborhood can
20:14:05 expect more of the same rental property management
20:14:07 style and high density, low income housing.
20:14:10 Although the city is allowed in-fill housing in this
20:14:14 neighborhood the property is different.
20:14:16 And it offers the 20-acre Temple Crest park as a
20:14:19 permanent ban on anyone building across the street,
20:14:22 and the water view of the 200-acre lake in the
20:14:25 Hillsborough River.
20:14:26 As I mentioned, I bought a 75-year-old house in 1991,
20:14:34 although I found a Mediterranean revival style of
20:14:36 house pleasing, the 40 years of deferred maintenance
20:14:41 has meant the last 15 years of pain, money and
20:14:46 aggravation to make a home today.
20:14:49 My plan was to improve my property not just for my
20:14:52 sake but for the neighborhood.
20:14:55 If the city continues to insist on allowing high
20:14:58 density low income housing in my neighborhood, I will
20:15:01 abandon my property, my plans to upgrade my own
20:15:04 property, by 220 feet of frontage, plenty of room for
20:15:11 three more of these in-fill houses.
20:15:15 This neighborhood is one of the great undervalued
20:15:18 portions of the city.
20:15:19 All the contractors that I had come out to my place
20:15:24 never saw it before.
20:15:26 Nobody went down 37th street.
20:15:29 Everybody takes Busch and 40th Street.
20:15:31 It's a great park.
20:15:34 And yet we have these in-fill houses.
20:15:36 We have on 39th street, we have crime on third
20:15:43 It's just drugs and trying to build a little ghetto
20:15:47 out on 3904 and 3906 Third Street, and I feel like
20:15:55 adding two more homes to that lot would simply be
20:16:00 increasing traffic.
20:16:04 I just put in speed bumps.
20:16:06 I'm against the rezoning.
20:16:09 I think it's not good for the neighborhood.
20:16:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Can I ask that gentleman a question?
20:16:21 Sir, can you come back up?
20:16:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Not you, sir.
20:16:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Your primary connection is you
20:16:32 believe that it's a rental, they are using it to rent?
20:16:38 >> Yes.
20:16:38 It's a mess.
20:16:46 Everything on it is jalousie windows.
20:16:49 The owner has never reinvested a dime in the place.
20:16:52 He's run it into the ground.
20:16:54 And now he's looking for a way to make money because
20:16:58 he can't sell it.
20:16:58 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, sir, I get offended when you
20:17:02 accuse someone of living in a ghetto.
20:17:09 >> Have you seen -- 3046 and --
20:17:14 >> I don't think that comes out as appropriate.
20:17:18 And --
20:17:20 >>> Sir, sir, when you drive by on bird street between
20:17:23 40th Street and 37th street --
20:17:27 >> I don't live too far from it.
20:17:29 >>> It's terrible.
20:17:29 It's terrible.
20:17:30 It's totally incongruous with the neighborhood.
20:17:35 People have no place to sit.
20:17:37 They are constantly sitting out in front of the house,
20:17:41 garbage, TVs all over the place.
20:17:46 >> Have you reported that to code?
20:17:49 >>> I have several times.
20:17:51 >> Okay.
20:17:51 >>GWEN MILLER: How far do you live from there, sir?
20:17:56 >>> 200 feet.
20:17:57 400 feet.
20:17:59 >> Do you live in the ghetto part?
20:18:04 >>> Just 300 feet.
20:18:05 >>: So you're in the ghetto, too?
20:18:07 >>> Yeah.
20:18:07 That's what I'm telling.
20:18:09 >> You if it's in the ghetto --
20:18:14 >>> I have been working on this 85-year-old house for
20:18:16 15 years to make it stable and attractive.
20:18:20 >> And that's what he's going to build a 3-bedroom
20:18:22 house that's two bath.
20:18:25 >>> He's going to split it up into three different
20:18:31 No reason to put three house there is.
20:18:32 >> He's going to put one house there.
20:18:34 It's not no duplex.
20:18:36 It's a house.
20:18:37 He and his grandmother.
20:18:39 >>> Right.
20:18:44 The house that is being referred to is not part of the
20:18:48 The house that he is referring to belongs to a Mr.
20:18:54 >> Which house?
20:18:55 >>> And it's on lot 3.
20:18:57 We are referring -- this is the house that he is
20:18:59 referring to.
20:19:01 And it has a for-rent sign and for-sale sign in the
20:19:05 front of the home.
20:19:07 But this is not the subject property.
20:19:09 The subject property is to the left.
20:19:12 >>GWEN MILLER: I know.
20:19:13 But he's making accusations.
20:19:15 Next speaker.
20:19:22 >>> My name is Richard FORMICA, and I have been sworn.
20:19:28 As a person concerned about petitions like this, one
20:19:30 affecting my neighborhood, I must ask to be denied
20:19:34 until all facts are fully understood and the goal of
20:19:36 the petitioner is known.
20:19:37 This is because the information I have found thus far
20:19:41 appears to be incomplete or wrong.
20:19:43 Furthermore, an inappropriate one-into-three property
20:19:49 split may have occurred.
20:19:49 To begin the address 8711 north 37th street as
20:19:53 stated on the agenda does not exist in the county
20:19:56 property appraiser's record.
20:19:59 >> Where are you reading?
20:20:01 >>GWEN MILLER: 83.
20:20:03 >> 8311.
20:20:04 >> 8315 we are talking about.
20:20:06 >> Yes.
20:20:07 8311 in the agenda.
20:20:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: On the agenda --
20:20:20 >>> The petitioner amended the petition, and you
20:20:26 removed lot 4 which is the address that he is
20:20:28 referring to.
20:20:30 And that is to directly to the south of the subject
20:20:32 property the previous speaker was talking about.
20:20:36 This is lot 2, which has been assigned a brand new
20:20:39 address which is not in the county system yet, in our
20:20:47 >>> I agree, council.
20:20:48 But I can only go on what was accessible to me on the
20:20:54 That's what I was saying.
20:20:55 8313 does exist in county records as a 50-foot wide
20:21:00 This photo clearly indicates that the property is
20:21:03 apparently wider than that.
20:21:06 The property at 8313 North 37th Street has
20:21:09 apparently, since its creation of a residential site,
20:21:13 in a property created from three lots.
20:21:15 And a warranty deed dated April 26, 2004 indicates the
20:21:20 sale of this property as consisting of three lots, a
20:21:25 warranty deed dated May 19, 2006 shows the sale of lot
20:21:30 3 of this property.
20:21:34 Okay. It is the lot with the house on it.
20:21:37 Here is the document trail I have been following ends.
20:21:40 I do not know from the trail that I have been
20:21:43 following who owns the lot on either side of the house
20:21:47 at 8313.
20:21:48 I do not know when the property sold in 2004 was
20:21:53 severed into three lots.
20:21:54 I do not know if this is legal without city or
20:21:57 neighborhood -- city approval and neighborhood input.
20:22:00 Way suspect is that whoever owns the lots on either
20:22:03 side of the existing structure to build a couple of
20:22:08 small cracker box like houses that are not compatible
20:22:12 with the neighborhood.
20:22:14 As previously stated the existing properties on the
20:22:16 8300 block of north 37th, front yard from 60 to
20:22:22 100 feet.
20:22:23 Any property with less than 60 feet wide is
20:22:27 incompatible in this entire neighborhood.
20:22:29 However, it appears we are losing this battle.
20:22:34 You call it in-fill and I call it older building.
20:22:36 Whatever the name, Temple Crest is suffering because
20:22:39 of it.
20:22:44 Tree shaded blocks we are seeing more and more plain
20:22:48 looking narrow structures without character or.
20:22:52 Being jammed into our neighborhood.
20:22:53 There is a solution here.
20:22:54 (Bell sounds).
20:22:56 Divide it into three, and divide it into two lots and
20:22:59 build two new houses that add to the neighborhood and
20:23:04 not subtract.
20:23:05 Thank you.
20:23:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question of staff.
20:23:10 When you and I chatted earlier, it seems that the
20:23:15 petitioner has a currently unbuildable lot according
20:23:22 to the zoning.
20:23:25 >> She had purchased the lot in foreclosure in lot
20:23:28 number 2, which, if you please refer to the aerial
20:23:31 photo that I provided to council, this is the subject
20:23:38 The house that they are concerned about belongs to
20:23:40 another party.
20:23:42 His name is Thomas.
20:23:43 And then Mr. Wynn purchased this lot when he purchased
20:23:48 >> There were three lots.
20:23:49 A house in the middle of what used to be called a
20:23:51 garden or yard on either side.
20:23:53 Somebody purchased the center with the house and two
20:23:57 unbuildable lots on either side.
20:23:59 What's before us today is one of them.
20:24:00 My question is, if council under -- is council under
20:24:04 any obligation to rezone this because it's currently
20:24:09 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
20:24:14 Appropriate owner always has the right to make a deed
20:24:17 and sell their property.
20:24:18 That isn't the question in front of you.
20:24:20 The question in front of you is whether or not this
20:24:22 application is compatible and consistent with the
20:24:25 comprehensive plan.
20:24:27 So there is no obligation on the part -- City
20:24:31 Council's to approve this rezoning. The only question
20:24:34 is a question of compatibility coming in to play.
20:24:37 Dy want to ask to clarify because I thought I had
20:24:40 understood when we had these conversations that the
20:24:42 lot in question is actually part of lot 1.
20:24:47 >> The current parcel is on the corner.
20:24:52 Lot 1 was part of lot 2.
20:24:55 This is lot 1.
20:24:57 The house on the corner, 37th.
20:25:04 Lot one was the parent parcel.
20:25:06 Sold off lot 2.
20:25:08 This parcel here, lot 3.
20:25:11 Lot 4 was foreclosure. The mortgage company, realtor
20:25:16 and title company split these two parcels based on the
20:25:20 previous spot that is 50 by 121, and they sold to the
20:25:24 two different individuals, to a Mr. Thomas and Mr.
20:25:30 Wynn purchased this parcel, lot 4, which is where if
20:25:35 you are asking, he's building another house for his
20:25:37 aunt that he's trying to move down to Tampa.
20:25:40 This lot is where he would like to build a single
20:25:42 family residential home for himself and his family,
20:25:45 because he's currently renting.
20:25:48 So this is for his aunt.
20:25:51 And that is his goal that you need to talk to him
20:25:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Who lives in the house on the
20:25:57 >>> That's another lady that's not related.
20:26:00 Her name is Mrs. Thomas.
20:26:05 >> But it's a single-family home that they are trying
20:26:08 to build.
20:26:09 They are not going to split that one in half and build
20:26:12 like they are saying, right?
20:26:13 Single-family home is what they are doing.
20:26:16 >>> They want to create a buildable lot to build a
20:26:19 single-family residential home, condition conform to
20:26:23 the RS-50 zoning requirements.
20:26:25 >> And that's what I read in my report.
20:26:27 >> That's what I'm reporting, yes, ma'am.
20:26:29 >> Next speaker?
20:26:30 >> And you had your turn.
20:26:51 >>> Terry Neal, Temple Crest civic association
20:26:53 president, 4703 west river hills drive, Tampa,
20:26:57 Incidentally, it's in district 5.
20:27:05 >> I'm sorry, have you been sworn in?
20:27:08 >>> I have been sworn in.
20:27:09 Thank you.
20:27:10 First of all, I really resent being brought down here
20:27:13 on -- being told that we are rezoning 8311, which is
20:27:22 lot number 4, and now calling it lot number 2 which is
20:27:28 They have not given notice to the neighbors
20:27:32 surrounding 250 in this amended application.
20:27:36 On top of that, I have as part of the form in your
20:27:41 packet which says the neighborhood association was
20:27:44 Never heard from them.
20:27:45 Never heard about the amendment, whatever.
20:27:51 Also, there's an inconsistency between the city and
20:27:54 the property appraiser on all of this.
20:27:56 Let me read you something that I got from the city,
20:27:59 regarding 06133.
20:28:02 We have requested Mr. Wynn to bring in lot 3, 8313,
20:28:09 with lot 4, 8315, so that we don't create a
20:28:12 nonconforming lot and house on lot 3.
20:28:15 Now, his petition is amended for only lot 2.
20:28:19 This is just today.
20:28:21 The parcel lot 1 is 60 by 122 and meets the RS-60
20:28:26 zoning standard so did it not have to be included in
20:28:28 the petition like lot 3 does because it's only 50 by
20:28:33 If you understand that, great.
20:28:34 I don't understand a bit of it.
20:28:36 The property appraiser site shows these three lots are
20:28:40 50 by 122.
20:28:43 Also, we know that as far back as 1979, these three
20:28:48 lots were put together as one lot.
20:28:51 Now, according to the city subdivision code, when you
20:28:54 split three lots into one, you have to have public
20:28:59 hearings, three lots or more, when you put one lot
20:29:02 into three lots or more you have to have public
20:29:05 That's city ordinance.
20:29:07 I can find no evidence that this has ever happened.
20:29:10 Now, in regards to Mr. Wynn doing something to try to
20:29:16 scam the neighborhood, I disagree with that.
20:29:19 From Mr. Schultz I received a message that said we
20:29:22 found several parcels this H been split and sold
20:29:25 without the buyers, anchor mortgage title company,
20:29:28 realtor, developer, in some cases doing their due
20:29:32 diligence to make sure they are selling a buildable
20:29:34 lot with city building code.
20:29:36 I would suggest Mr. Wynn go back to the property
20:29:38 appraiser's office or the mortgage or the title
20:29:42 company, because I do believe that he has been misled
20:29:45 about these properties.
20:29:49 I'm not going use the term ghetto.
20:29:52 But we are faithing in Temple Crest what I consider a
20:29:58 We are seeing more and more high density homes like
20:30:02 this, lots being split up, crammed into every square
20:30:07 inch of property in our neighborhood.
20:30:10 And they are cookie cutter homes.
20:30:13 They all look alike.
20:30:14 There's no architectural style to them.
20:30:16 It's not a ghetto.
20:30:17 But it is reducing the quality of our life.
20:30:20 And we are talking about compatibility.
20:30:23 Reduce it, reduce compatibility by building these.
20:30:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I just had a procedural question
20:30:31 that maybe no one else has -- the agenda says 8311.
20:30:39 And this says 8315.
20:30:41 And Mr. Neal, who is the duly elected president of the
20:30:46 civic association, is representing that, number one,
20:30:50 they never got notice.
20:30:51 But, number two, if they did get notice, it was on a
20:30:55 different piece of property.
20:30:57 So it may very well have been that everybody who read
20:31:01 the agenda tonight said, oh, 8311, I don't have any
20:31:04 problem with. That and they didn't realize it was
20:31:07 actually 8315 that was going to be heard tonight.
20:31:10 So I'm greatly disturbed by the procedural aspect of
20:31:15 where we are here tonight without even getting into
20:31:18 the substance of the petition.
20:31:22 >> Mr. Harrison, the report says --
20:31:25 >>JULIA COLE: Actually, it appears that -- we are in a
20:31:36 bit of a situation so all the issues raised we can try
20:31:38 to explain that become irrelevant, the whole thing
20:31:41 needs to be renoticed.
20:31:42 So at this point I would just recommend that you go
20:31:45 ahead and hold the public hearing and I will explain
20:31:51 to the petitioner that he needs to renotice this
20:31:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So moved.
20:31:55 >> Second.
20:31:55 (Motion carried).
20:31:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close the public
20:32:03 All right.
20:32:04 Number 18.
20:32:06 Need to open 18.
20:32:08 (Motion Carried)
20:32:25 I'm sorry, what number?
20:32:27 >>GWEN MILLER: 18.
20:32:32 >> That's the motion to open?
20:32:41 Number 16, I believe, was a request for continuance
20:32:44 and --
20:32:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We cleaned the agenda.
20:32:46 We cleaned 16 off.
20:32:48 >> You are on item 18.
20:32:49 16 and 17 were both continued.
20:32:53 >>GWEN MILLER: They don't know.
20:32:55 I'm correct.
20:33:04 >>> Phil Schultz, Land Development Coordination, I
20:33:07 have been sworn.
20:33:08 Z-06-135 located in district 6 according to map
20:33:13 information from our office, located in a northeast
20:33:19 McFarland crime watch association area.
20:33:22 The addresses are 3110 and 3112 west Abdella street.
20:33:29 Petitioners are here this morning.
20:33:30 Mr. Javiar Moreno and Victoria Skrimshire.
20:33:35 The development review committee has reviewed the
20:33:39 request and we do have objections at the time the
20:33:42 revised plan is permitted.
20:33:44 However, now we do want to remove those and I'll
20:33:47 explain further in my report.
20:33:48 The request is to rezone from RS-50 residential
20:33:51 single-family to PD planned development single-family
20:33:55 detached residential.
20:33:56 There are no waivers requested with this petition.
20:33:59 To summarize the request, the petitioner is proposing
20:34:02 to rezone the property located at 3110 and 3112 west
20:34:06 Abdella street from single family RS-50 to planned
20:34:11 development PD single family detached. The RS-50
20:34:15 zoning designation, minimum requirements for 50-foot
20:34:19 frontage and 5,000 square feet parcel size.
20:34:23 These platted parcels measure 50 feet wide and 98 feet
20:34:29 They do not meet the parcel area of 5,000 square feet
20:34:32 of the RS-50 zoning designation and must rezone to TD.
20:34:42 The front yard setback on both lots are 25 feet.
20:34:46 The side yard setback on lot number 5 are 7 feet on
20:34:50 the east and 8 feet on the west.
20:34:52 The side yard setback on lot number 6 are 12 feet on
20:34:56 the east and 3 feet on the west.
20:34:58 The rear yard setback on both proposed lots are 33
20:35:03 Both lots will have a 1400 square feet single-family
20:35:08 detached home fronting Abdella street.
20:35:12 Initially, the Land Development Coordination,
20:35:16 landscape specialist who is here this evening, had
20:35:20 objections to our design standards for landscaping.
20:35:23 However, with that, the father-in-law plan, those
20:35:27 concerns have been mitigated.
20:35:29 Likewise, parks and recreation did have objections as
20:35:33 Those objections as well have been mitigated.
20:35:36 Solid waste had concerns that they wanted additional
20:35:39 notes, and layout placed on the site plan, on the
20:35:43 resized site plan.
20:35:44 That also has been resolved.
20:35:55 The subject parcel along Abdella, we have on either
20:35:58 side of that, we have -- I can't even pronounce it.
20:36:20 South of Abdella.
20:36:22 We have Harvey to the east.
20:36:26 This is the subject parcel.
20:36:27 You can see he has started one of the -- construction
20:36:35 hear so far, this is the home he plans on living in,
20:36:38 and we'll explain what he's going to do with his other
20:36:40 lot, that also has --
20:36:44 >> Excuse me, how did he start that?
20:36:49 How did dough that?
20:36:52 >> He did get permits for that one house.
20:36:54 >> Did he get permits?
20:36:56 >> From construction services but he's going in for
20:36:59 rezoning to put in the other buildable lot.
20:37:03 >> So he can have a nice big yard.
20:37:07 >>> This is the house immediately to the west of the
20:37:09 subject property on the south side of the road.
20:37:13 This is the property immediately to the east.
20:37:17 A little closer look on the one immediately to the
20:37:20 It's a very small lot.
20:37:22 However, across the street, you can see it's a very
20:37:24 large lot.
20:37:26 On the north side of Abdella.
20:37:28 And then as you look down towards the west, you can
20:37:34 see all the trees.
20:37:37 The site, I should tell you, had to be modified
20:37:40 several times, because we had a grand tree in the
20:37:43 front and several other protected trees.
20:37:49 Thank you, Mary.
20:37:50 That we had to take the driveway initially and move it
20:37:56 to the back across the alley for one of the parcels.
20:37:59 And we had to move the front driveway several times.
20:38:03 We even -- if you look at the site plan, we had to jog
20:38:06 the sidewalk to make sure to maintain a protective
20:38:10 radius around the grand tree.
20:38:12 Petitioner has been very cooperative with the staff.
20:38:14 And recommend your consideration.
20:38:22 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:38:29 I have been sworn.
20:38:48 This area is pretty much characteristic.
20:38:53 Basically, all residential 10.
20:38:56 What's significant over here, you have 9800 square
20:38:59 feet so 6 course it meets the R-10 but doesn't meet
20:39:04 the 5,000 square foot.
20:39:05 The applicant of course is able to build one house
20:39:10 that he has the permit for.
20:39:11 But split the lot and start construction on the two
20:39:21 story house.
20:39:22 Even though we had a proliferation as you know of
20:39:25 two-story houses in the area.
20:39:29 Now this is not in the West Tampa overlay district.
20:39:33 So you don't have setbacks which is what these larger
20:39:37 homes can build.
20:39:38 Your line ends at MacDill Avenue.
20:39:40 But it's still going to be pretty much in character
20:39:41 with the areas.
20:39:46 But it's a very well established neighborhood and
20:39:48 entirely consistent with the single-family detached in
20:39:52 the West Tampa area.
20:39:53 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the
20:39:55 proposed request.
20:39:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:40:04 >>> My name is Javiar Moreno, the property owner at
20:40:07 3110-12 Abdella street, and I have been sworn in.
20:40:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if there's anyone in the
20:40:13 public that wants to speak on item number 18.
20:40:17 >> Move to close.
20:40:17 >> Second.
20:40:18 (Motion carried).
20:40:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
20:40:31 the general vicinity of 3110 and 3112 west Abdella
20:40:36 street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
20:40:37 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
20:40:40 district classifications RS-50 single family to PD
20:40:44 planned development single family detached
20:40:46 residential, providing an effective date.
20:40:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a second.
20:40:50 >> Second.
20:40:51 (Motion Carried).
20:40:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 19.
20:40:58 >> So moved.
20:40:59 >> Second.
20:41:00 (Motion Carried)
20:41:08 >> Last days of the -- case of the night.
20:41:31 This is going from commercial general to commercial
20:41:34 Property is located at 4008 east 10th Avenue.
20:41:40 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property in
20:41:43 order to relocate his existing machine shop.
20:41:46 His current property has been acquired by FDOT for a
20:41:51 roadway expansion.
20:41:52 So therefore he is looking for additional land to
20:41:55 relocate that shop.
20:41:58 There is not a lot -- there was not a lot of
20:42:01 commercial intensive available.
20:42:02 So he is going to rezone the commercial general peace.
20:42:07 It does meet the commercial intensive development
20:42:12 And also is consistent with policy A-10-2 and B-5-2 of
20:42:17 the city's comprehensive plan.
20:42:20 B-5 does particularly give the site, given that the
20:42:24 site at 40th street seeks to minimize impacts on
20:42:31 surrounding areas.
20:42:34 Let me go over the site quickly.
20:42:42 40th Street located to the west of the site.
20:42:45 10th it street located to the south of the site.
20:42:53 This is Florida right hear, north of the site,
20:42:58 immediately adjacent to the north of the site is the
20:43:00 parking from sunny Florida dairy.
20:43:04 And there are pictures of that.
20:43:08 To the west of the site is vacant land.
20:43:10 To the east of the site, there is single-family homes
20:43:15 that appears to be abandoned.
20:43:19 To the south is granite and marble location here.
20:43:21 And you can see this is a large contractor parking and
20:43:27 loading area.
20:43:35 Picture of the site with Florida dairy parking looking
20:43:40 at 20th street.
20:43:42 This is the home immediately to the east.
20:43:50 Marble and granite.
20:43:51 You can tell that there are a lot of commercial uses
20:43:57 for the property.
20:43:58 This is that large parking.
20:44:06 It runs from.
20:44:15 Sunny Florida dairy.
20:44:18 Staff has in a objections to this rezoning.
20:44:23 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:44:26 I have been sworn.
20:44:28 Two land use categories.
20:44:31 24, light industrial.
20:44:34 Proximity to the interstate.
20:44:38 As you can see there's not a great evidence of
20:44:40 residential uses.
20:44:41 You will see more evidence of that farther to the east
20:44:44 in the transitional use area.
20:44:46 Planning Commission staff has in a objection to the
20:44:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:45:00 >>> Robert stark.
20:45:01 I'm currently the owner of 4008 east 10th Avenue.
20:45:06 I have been sworn.
20:45:08 >>CHAIRMAN: Hold on one sed second.
20:45:10 Does anyone in the public want to speak on item number
20:45:13 >> Move to close.
20:45:13 >> Second.
20:45:14 (Motion carried).
20:45:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
20:45:26 the general vicinity of 4008 east 10th Avenue
20:45:30 Tampa, Florida from zoning district classification CG
20:45:33 commercial general to CI commercial intensive,
20:45:36 providing an effective date.
20:45:37 >> Need a second.
20:45:38 >> Second.
20:45:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:45:40 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:45:41 Opposed, Nay.
20:45:42 (Motion carried).
20:45:42 (Motion carried) need to receive and file.
20:45:44 >> So moved.
20:45:45 >> Second.
20:45:45 (Motion carried)
20:45:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else coming before council?
20:45:49 We stand adjourned.