Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, May 24, 2007
5:01 p.m. session

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


17:03:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
17:03:10 [Roll Call]
17:03:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
17:03:12 This afternoon, all we have is one item, number one.
17:03:16 >> So moved to have the item 1 PA 0610 withdrawn.
17:03:23 >> Second.
17:03:25 (Motion carried).
17:03:29 >> Mr. Smith wants to bring an idea to you.
17:03:32 >> David Smith, city attorney.
17:03:33 What I am here for this evening is to request a closed
17:03:37 session pursuant to chapter 286 .011 sub paren 8.
17:03:44 This is a situation in which the City Council can meet
17:03:46 in private with its attorney in order to discuss
17:03:50 pending litigation to which we are currently a party.
17:03:55 It is important that the public realize that a
17:03:58 transcript will be kept, it will be a public record.
17:04:02 This will ultimately be disclosed to the public.

17:04:04 The item I wish to discuss with you in order to obtain
17:04:08 your advice and your suggestions on potential settle
17:04:14 also is the City of Tampa versus city national bank of
17:04:16 Florida, also known as Citivest.
17:04:19 We have an appellate decision that was rendered
17:04:21 yesterday.
17:04:23 We have 15 days to either file a motion for rehearing,
17:04:26 rehearing on mock or reconsideration.
17:04:29 So we need to get the input from this council as
17:04:32 quickly as possible.
17:04:33 So what I am going to do is request we have this
17:04:34 closed session next Thursday, when you are here
17:04:40 anyway, because you have to announce that at a
17:04:42 publicly called meeting.
17:04:43 We'll do it at lunch, which may require that you cease
17:04:47 your activities at noon if you are still going.
17:04:50 We will convene uppers in my conference room.
17:04:53 It is a closed meeting. The only people allowed to
17:04:55 attend are the council members, your attorney, and the
17:04:58 chief of staff, if he chooses to attend.
17:05:02 I suspect he will not.
17:05:03 So it will be you and the attorneys, which will

17:05:07 include Marty, me, and a couple others involved in the
17:05:10 case.
17:05:10 So I'm just asking you to make a motion to approve
17:05:15 that.
17:05:17 And then next week I will have for you to read the
17:05:20 appropriate document announcing that fact that you're
17:05:24 convening and going into a closed session, and then
17:05:27 you will have to come back.
17:05:28 I'll walk you through that.
17:05:30 We have the appropriate documents --
17:05:33 >> Move approval.
17:05:33 >> Second.
17:05:34 (Motion carried).
17:05:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
17:05:38 Now we adjourn until 5:30.
17:05:41
17:27:50 (meeting in recess).
17:27:56 >> Roll call.
17:32:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you please stand and remain
17:32:51 standing for the pledge of allegiance?
17:32:55 >> Lord, may we guide this City Council in the proper
17:32:57 direction to benefit the citizens of this county, and

17:32:59 the City of Tampa.
17:33:00 And during our budget deliberations, may common sense
17:33:04 prevail in our decisions to better conditions of our
17:33:06 city.
17:33:07 May we bless our troops serving throughout the world,
17:33:10 and that they may come home safe to their loved bun
17:33:13 ones.
17:33:14 May we protect our policemen, our firemen, who would
17:33:17 be in harm's way during their performance of their
17:33:19 duties.
17:33:20 May our governor and the state legislators act in a
17:33:22 productive way so the end result will benefit the
17:33:25 citizens of this great state.
17:33:27 Amen.
17:33:30 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
17:33:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
17:33:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:33:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
17:33:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
17:33:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:33:57 Item number 2, we have an ordinance for second
17:34:02 reading.

17:34:11 First hearing.
17:34:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Anyone that's going to speak needs to
17:34:14 be sworn.
17:34:15 I'm sorry, 3 and 4.
17:34:17 >>GWEN MILLER: 2 and 3.
17:34:19 2 and 3.
17:34:30 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Dennis Fernandez on items number 2
17:34:35 and 3 and we request that we hear those
17:34:38 simultaneously.
17:34:41 Ming.
17:34:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open the public hearing on
17:34:44 items 2 and 3.
17:34:45 (Motion carried).
17:34:47 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: do have a short PowerPoint
17:34:53 presentation.
17:34:54 This is done through the Florida Department of
17:34:58 Transportation for the expansion and the second is
17:35:00 done with a cooperative public-private effort with the
17:35:03 City of Tampa and a private property owner.
17:35:09 Through the location map on the screen indicates where
17:35:11 the structures are being moved from.
17:35:14 I have a little more clear illustration of that in a

17:35:16 minute.
17:35:16 The structures were located from the local historic
17:35:19 district outside of the boundaries of the local
17:35:22 historic district, thus removing the protection that
17:35:24 is were in place originally.
17:35:26 And the private move was already just to the west of
17:35:30 the local historic district, was moved further to the
17:35:33 west, and as part of the process for relocating the
17:35:38 owner requested that the designation occur.
17:35:43 Tampa Heights was one of the first neighborhoods to
17:35:46 develop in the city.
17:35:46 It drew from a village into a bona fide city at the
17:35:50 end of the 19th century.
17:35:51 As it was on higher ground it was considered safer for
17:35:53 the mosquito havens and the swampy area, the downtown
17:35:56 in Ybor City.
17:35:57 Home to the wealthier prior to the popularity of Hyde
17:36:01 Park, the early architecture of Tampa Heights ranged
17:36:04 from high side Victorian to more modest residentials
17:36:08 such as the ones we are looking at today.
17:36:10 As part of the continuing effort to widen the
17:36:14 interstates of 275 and I-4, the FDOT expansion

17:36:19 impacted this particular structure.
17:36:20 You can see its proximity after the expansion of
17:36:25 interstate 75.
17:36:29 It was originally located at 605 east Francis Avenue,
17:36:34 both in the local and in the national historic
17:36:36 district.
17:36:37 It's a craftsman style bungalow built in 1922, and
17:36:41 through the relocation effort, it was moved to 110
17:36:45 west Amelia outside of the main body of the local
17:36:47 historic district.
17:36:48 Therefore, this application is to include it as a
17:36:51 satellite to the local historic district, thus gaining
17:36:56 its protection and for rehabilitation.
17:37:01 You see the structure here relocated onto the new
17:37:05 site.
17:37:05 The orientation has been maintained to the north and
17:37:07 the setback is consistent with the historic buildings
17:37:10 in the area.
17:37:13 Many of the original decorative features were salvaged
17:37:16 and will be reinstalled back onto the porch during the
17:37:19 rehabilitation.
17:37:20 You can see that type of structure today on its new

17:37:22 foundation, in its new location.
17:37:26 The second structure was also relocated in the same
17:37:30 vicinity of the previous one.
17:37:32 It's a private sector move was situated at 2205 north
17:37:37 OLA Avenue. The house was constructed in 1903.
17:37:40 The owner at the time that we met him was to demolish
17:37:44 this structure.
17:37:46 We began a process where we identified a city-owned
17:37:49 lot that the structure could be moved to, and at the
17:37:52 owner's expense it was moved as the lot was purchased,
17:37:57 and since then the structure has been placed on the
17:37:59 lot. The structure originally was constructed by
17:38:01 William Hunter who came to Tampa and built his first
17:38:04 home in 1892, the second one in 1903.
17:38:08 He served as the city attorney under mayor Gillette at
17:38:12 the turn of the century.
17:38:13 You see the structure relocated in its new location.
17:38:16 Although the orientation has been changed from a west
17:38:19 elevation to a north elevation, it does maintain the
17:38:23 existing setbacks and character of its original
17:38:25 location and does relate to the surrounding property
17:38:28 owners and setback as well.

17:38:30 The extensive wrap-around porch will be restored to
17:38:34 its original.
17:38:34 You see the building at the bottom of the screen.
17:38:38 The rehabilitation has already begun and is in
17:38:41 process, is going to be a great benefit to the area.
17:38:44 The Historic Preservation Commission recommends that
17:38:46 these two structures are added to the already existing
17:38:49 inventory of historic structures in the Tampa Heights
17:38:53 local historic district.
17:38:54 The contributing status will strengthen the collection
17:38:56 of the existing historic inventory, as well as qualify
17:39:01 these properties for tax benefits which would enhance
17:39:04 the rehabilitation process.
17:39:06 That concludes my presentation.
17:39:08 I'll be happy to answer any questions.
17:39:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
17:39:12 That was really interesting.
17:39:13 Do you have any idea what the economics were just for
17:39:20 our information?
17:39:21 >>> Well, each property in general was -- I think
17:39:26 considered not appropriate for habitation, but through
17:39:30 both the opportunities that were set forth with the

17:39:33 city's financing that was put in place with the moves,
17:39:36 and then also with the ad valorem exemption, you are
17:39:39 going to see that these properties are probably going
17:39:41 to sell on the market in $250,000 category with a
17:39:49 low -- have R very low assessed value because of the
17:39:53 ad valorem.
17:39:54 So the ad valorem is a tool in the process because it
17:39:57 acts to essentially not penalize the individuals who
17:40:01 are rehabilitating their property for entering into
17:40:04 that rehabilitation, which often leads to an increased
17:40:08 assessment.
17:40:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
17:40:10 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
17:40:12 item 2 and 3?
17:40:17 >> Move to close the public hearing.
17:40:18 >> Second.
17:40:18 (Motion carried).
17:40:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to read number 2 for the
17:40:21 record?
17:40:24 >> Item number 2.
17:40:26 First reading.
17:40:28 An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida to amend

17:40:32 the boundaries of Tampa Heights local historic
17:40:36 district to include the property known as relocation
17:40:39 of 110 west Amelia, Tampa, Florida, providing for
17:40:44 notice.
17:40:45 >>GWEN MILLER: I think you read the wrong one.
17:40:47 The one that's under that.
17:40:48 >> Oh, I'm sorry.
17:40:49 I'm reading the class instead of the ordinance.
17:40:55 Move for first reading, an ordinance of the city of
17:40:58 Tampa, Florida designating the property to amend the
17:41:00 boundary of the Tampa Heights local historic district
17:41:03 to include the property known as the relocation of 110
17:41:06 west Amelia formerly 605 east Frances Avenue, Tampa,
17:41:11 Florida and more Karl described in section 3 hereof as
17:41:16 a local landmark, providing for repeal of all
17:41:18 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
17:41:21 providing an effective date.
17:41:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to congratulate that
17:41:26 neighborhoods are being strengthened.
17:41:28 And it's because of Dennis' work.
17:41:30 Thank you, Dennis.
17:41:31 (Motion carried).

17:41:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Mrs. Saul-Sena, would you read 3,
17:41:35 please.
17:41:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: An ordinance of the city of Tampa,
17:41:38 Florida designating the property to amend the
17:41:40 boundaries of Tampa Heights local historic district to
17:41:43 include the property known as the relocation of 316
17:41:46 west park street, formerly 2205 north OLA Avenue,
17:41:51 Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in
17:41:52 section 3 hereof, as a local landmark, providing for
17:41:56 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
17:41:58 severability, providing an effective date.
17:42:00 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second.
17:42:01 (Motion carried).
17:42:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We will be in recess until 6 p.m
17:42:07 (meeting in recess)
18:01:36 [Roll Call]
18:01:36 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
18:01:44 I'd like to start by clearing the agenda.
18:01:47 I have some marked-up agendas for you.
18:02:27 Item number 5 which is to continue to December 13.
18:02:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Can I get a motion to that?
18:02:33 >> So moved.

18:02:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification on that?
18:02:35 I'm sorry?
18:02:36 >>JILL FINNEY: A rescheduling to December 13.
18:02:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When you say rescheduling, it's an
18:02:41 open public hearing presently.
18:02:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Continued.
18:02:51 >>JILL FINNEY: They are going to amend.
18:02:53 They are going to pay the amendment fee and have an
18:02:56 application.
18:02:56 >> Will it be a new petition for a knew date or will
18:02:59 this set the date tonight?
18:03:01 >> Set the date tonight.
18:03:02 >> For a new petition.
18:03:04 Does that mean the parties will be properly noticed?
18:03:08 >> Yes.
18:03:09 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion to continue?
18:03:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
18:03:16 >> Reset.
18:03:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that we understand, a motion to
18:03:21 continue, that means that the petition is continued
18:03:23 until such and such a date, or if it's a new petition,
18:03:27 can't be a continuance, has to be a new petition.

18:03:30 Which is it?
18:03:31 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:03:35 It's not a continued because it would have to be a
18:03:41 public hearing by vote of council.
18:03:42 We are simply asking for you to set the public hearing
18:03:44 now for vote by council and bring it back.
18:03:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then it's not a continuance.
18:03:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe what it entails the fact it
18:03:51 wouldn't actually constitute a withdrawal and a new
18:03:53 filing fee.
18:03:54 It's really the net effect of it.
18:03:59 >>JULIA COLE: They wish to amend their petition and
18:04:01 reschedule.
18:04:04 >> Move to reschedule this petition then.
18:04:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can we do hear from the petitioner?
18:04:16 David Smith, East Jackson Street for the petitioner.
18:04:19 We were bringing in additional land and therefore that
18:04:22 requires us to have a rescheduled hearing set so they
18:04:24 can go through full review.
18:04:27 We are asking to December 13th to amend the
18:04:29 application and go through a full review of the new
18:04:32 plan.

18:04:33 After December 13th.
18:04:35 And that will make all the requirements of the city
18:04:39 staff, DRC review.
18:04:41 We also notified the neighborhood association that
18:04:44 that's what we were doing.
18:04:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is the same petition with an
18:04:48 additional piece of property attached to it but now
18:04:51 it's going to be a longer --
18:04:53 >>> And a different site plan, yes, sir.
18:04:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And a different site plan.
18:04:57 >>> Yes, sir.
18:04:57 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
18:05:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If it's the same petition that's
18:05:04 coming before us with an additional piece of property
18:05:07 attached, I guess you continue that and set it for
18:05:13 December 13th, providing the legal department
18:05:20 gives a nod of confidence that it meets all the
18:05:23 criteria of the departments within the city.
18:05:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion?
18:05:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know if that's a motion.
18:05:30 I need to get a nod from the legal department.
18:05:37 >>> You can allow the petitioner to amend the

18:05:38 application and reset the hearing for December
18:05:41 13th.
18:05:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to allow petitioner to set
18:05:45 the hearing for December 13th.
18:05:46 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:05:49 Opposed, Nay.
18:05:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 6 p.m.?
18:05:54 >>GWEN MILLER: 6
18:05:56 6 p.m.
18:05:58 >>JILL FINNEY: Item 6 has some site plan changes.
18:06:01 However they wish to be heard tonight.
18:06:04 >>GWEN MILLER: If there has been a change being made,
18:06:07 then why are we here tonight?
18:06:09 Are there a lot of changes being made?
18:06:11 >>> There's a few.
18:06:13 They are rather minor.
18:06:15 They are not anything that substantially changes the
18:06:17 plan and not something that they have been unable to
18:06:21 review the plan.
18:06:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
18:06:26 >>JILL FINNEY: Number 8 needs to change a little bit
18:06:29 of verbiage in their plan.

18:06:32 They wish to be heard tonight as well.
18:06:38 >>CHAIRMAN: None of these are major, right?
18:06:41 >>JILL FINNEY: No.
18:06:43 If it's anything that would be substantive then staff
18:06:46 would request that they do a continuance.
18:06:51 Number 10 wishes to continue to the next available
18:06:53 date.
18:06:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Which is?
18:07:09 >>> As of right now if you do not wish to waive your
18:07:11 rules, it would be August 9th.
18:07:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to August 9th.
18:07:19 We need to open the public hearing.
18:07:21 Need to open.
18:07:21 >> So moved.
18:07:22 >> Second.
18:07:22 (Motion carried).
18:07:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone here on item 10 that
18:07:27 would like to speak on the continuance?
18:07:34 >>> David fugues, Fuches engineering, Odessa, Florida.
18:07:41 We would like a sooner hearing if we could.
18:07:43 The changes are very minor.
18:07:45 We have to change the caliper some of trees which are

18:07:48 on the site which we are willing to do and clarify
18:07:51 parking notes.
18:07:52 And we hope to be able to come back in about three
18:07:55 weeks if that's possible.
18:07:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Three weeks is what?
18:08:00 >>> It would be June 14th.
18:08:01 We do have a morning and evening hearing.
18:08:04 >>GWEN MILLER: How many do we have on that evening.
18:08:12 >>> We have 13.
18:08:14 We have one that has requested a continuance to that
18:08:17 date prior to this petitioner.
18:08:20 So right now we have 13 that are scheduled.
18:08:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we have anyone else from the public
18:08:28 who is opposed?
18:08:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else want to speak to item
18:08:31 number 10?
18:08:36 Only on the continuance.
18:08:39 >>> Christian silver.
18:08:40 I own the property right beside of 601 -- I own
18:08:46 property at 601 north Nebraska Avenue.
18:08:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: sir, if I could interrupt you. The
18:08:50 purpose of your discussion now is whether you oppose

18:08:53 or support the request for continuance.
18:08:56 >>> Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
18:08:59 When is the continuance --
18:09:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We haven't decided yet.
18:09:03 >>> Okay, thank you.
18:09:03 I'll sit down.
18:09:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that we should have it in
18:09:10 the evening.
18:09:12 Is 13 our limit?
18:09:16 >>> Yes.
18:09:18 10 regular and three continued.
18:09:19 You are at that right now.
18:09:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on the fact that most
18:09:24 frequently we have people drop out, I think I am
18:09:27 willing to move to the three weeks.
18:09:29 >>GWEN MILLER: That's the motion then?
18:09:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
18:09:32 >>GWEN MILLER: But can you continue item number 10 to
18:09:36 June 14th?
18:09:38 June 14th at 6 p.m.
18:09:40 All in favor of that motion?
18:09:42 (Motion carried)

18:09:46 >>JILL FINNEY: Item number 11 is a case that staff
18:09:50 requests a continuance on.
18:09:53 There are significant changes, or I guess that need to
18:09:56 be put on the site plan that have not been.
18:09:58 But the petitioner wishes to be heard this evening.
18:10:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have said that site plans that
18:10:05 are submitted need to have staff support.
18:10:12 So based on the staff request for a continuance, I
18:10:16 would move to continue it.
18:10:17 I don't know if we need to hear from petitioner.
18:10:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is petitioner here?
18:10:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Is petitioner here for item number 11?
18:10:24 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:10:27 If I can take a couple moments.
18:10:29 The issue knew this case is, we don't have
18:10:32 justification that staff feels there's maybe a
18:10:35 difference of opinion about what's appropriate an not
18:10:37 appropriate.
18:10:38 There's several substantial problems of the site plan.
18:10:41 Actually have legal issues associated with them.
18:10:43 I'm a little bit concerned that the petitioner isn't
18:10:44 here.

18:10:45 However, the hearing starts at 6:00.
18:10:47 And, quite frankly, under your code, you have the
18:10:51 right to deny when you call a case and the petitioner
18:10:54 isn't here.
18:10:55 You can do one of two things.
18:10:56 You can either go ahead and wait to see if the
18:10:59 petitioner comes and ask his opinion about the
18:11:02 continuance, or as I typically say petitioner has a
18:11:07 right to be heard.
18:11:08 Three options.
18:11:09 You can continue it.
18:11:10 Or third, you can deny that petition right now because
18:11:13 nobody is here.
18:11:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that and appreciate
18:11:16 the remarks.
18:11:17 But it says here that all of them are going to be
18:11:19 heard at 6:00 and that's impossible.
18:11:21 I would ERR on the side of caution and hold this till
18:11:24 a little later on and then decide that.
18:11:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We will hold it till the petitioner
18:11:30 comes, okay?
18:11:32 We'll go ahead.

18:11:39 >>JILL FINNEY: Item number 16 --
18:11:43 >>GWEN MILLER: What about 14?
18:11:46 Cannot be heard?
18:11:48 >>JILL FINNEY: It cannot be heard.
18:11:49 >>GWEN MILLER: They had to refile or what?
18:11:53 >>JILL FINNEY: No, there is no affidavit.
18:11:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Hold it just a moment.
18:11:56 >>JILL FINNEY: This here was a case, he had two
18:12:00 projects going in order to move another project,
18:12:03 number 18 onto this night.
18:12:04 He was going to continue a project that he already has
18:12:07 scheduled for this night to a date further out, at the
18:12:10 last council meeting, you had agreed to that.
18:12:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:12:18 >>> At that time it wasn't considered a misnotice.
18:12:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which number was that?
18:12:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 14.
18:12:27 >> May I speak?
18:12:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, you may speak.
18:12:30 Come to the mike, please.
18:12:33 >>> My name is David Clasette.
18:12:40 The affidavit says no affidavit was filed but I

18:12:42 believe that's a mistake on the part of the clerk's
18:12:44 office.
18:12:45 Um not able to obtain a fax copy and the date on the
18:12:49 fax copy is very hard to read because we didn't have
18:12:51 the original available.
18:12:54 We do have the affidavit filed for tonight's hearing
18:12:57 but you were very, very gracious to me at last month's
18:12:59 hearing and indicated we hoped we could continue this
18:13:03 through the July 9th meeting.
18:13:05 That's what we spoke about, so that the last item on
18:13:07 the agenda could be heard this evening.
18:13:12 >> Do you have anything?
18:13:14 We do not have the affidavit.
18:13:16 So it did not come to the clerk's office.
18:13:20 >>> We had the sheet with the date on it.
18:13:24 >>JULIA COLE: Let me go ahead and take a look at that
18:13:27 and that will determine if you go forward tonight, or
18:13:31 have to actually renotice.
18:13:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:13:38 >>JILL FINNEY: Item number 16, which is to have a
18:13:40 continuance to July 26th.
18:13:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.

18:13:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
18:13:46 >> Second.
18:13:46 (Motion carried).
18:13:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:13:49 would like to speak to item number 16 on the
18:13:51 continuance?
18:13:52 You may come up and speak, if you object to the
18:13:54 continuance.
18:13:58 Let's come up.
18:14:00 Come to the mike.
18:14:03 >>> I'm Pamela Armstrong, 2002, and I do object.
18:14:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To the continuance?
18:14:10 >>GWEN MILLER: To the continuance, yes.
18:14:22 >> Paul Stein, I own property at -- it's on the back
18:14:26 of this property at 2031 east New Orleans Avenue.
18:14:30 And your notice, or the notice that they sent out,
18:14:33 recites that we should call a day or two ahead of time
18:14:37 to make sure that this hearing is really going to
18:14:39 happen.
18:14:40 So I would say a lot of people have come here for this
18:14:42 hearing because it was scheduled for this evening.
18:14:47 And the petitioner apparently waited until the last

18:14:49 minute to request this continuance.
18:14:53 The petitioner is in the business of making these
18:14:55 kinds of appearances.
18:14:57 These people and myself are not in the business of
18:14:59 making these kinds of appearances.
18:15:02 And it is a burden on us to have to continue to come
18:15:05 back over and over again to facilitate these people
18:15:10 who are trying to rape our neighborhood.
18:15:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:15:14 Next speaker.
18:15:20 Anyone else want to speak on the continuance?
18:15:24 >>> My name is Clindas Alwinani and I live at 2004 E.
18:15:33 Osborne, and I object to this building on the back of
18:15:36 my house right in my backyard.
18:15:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:15:39 Anyone else want to speak?
18:15:40 >>> My name is Adrian White. I live at 4504 north
18:15:44 20th street.
18:15:45 I object to the continuance, based on the fact that
18:15:48 they said they gave out certified letters to each
18:15:52 neighbor.
18:15:52 >>CHAIRMAN: Anyone else want to speak on the

18:16:02 continuance?
18:16:03 Is the petitioner here?
18:16:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, based on the
18:16:06 testimony from the neighbors, I won't support a
18:16:09 continuance.
18:16:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is the petitioner here?
18:16:14 Is the petitioner here?
18:16:15 Come up, petitioner.
18:16:20 >>> Hi.
18:16:20 I'm Rick aston.
18:16:24 We are just asking for a continuance because there are
18:16:27 unresolved issues with the western easement that we
18:16:30 are trying to resolve.
18:16:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
18:16:36 I understand that, but I think that it might be
18:16:38 productive to go ahead and have the hearing tonight so
18:16:41 I'll move that we continue and have the hearing.
18:16:43 >>GWEN MILLER: No second?
18:16:48 We have a motion and second.
18:16:52 >>> They requested it almost a month ago.
18:16:54 They sent an e-mail to my office to the honorable
18:16:59 chair and also to the clerk's office requesting the

18:17:01 continuance.
18:17:01 They have not submitted updated site plans because
18:17:06 they were proposing to have it pushed out to
18:17:08 September.
18:17:09 So.
18:17:10 >>GWEN MILLER: So were the neighbors notified they
18:17:15 would continue?
18:17:16 >>JILL FINNEY: The people who called me, I did inform
18:17:21 them.
18:17:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I call the question.
18:17:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Call the question on the motion.
18:17:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
18:17:36 Just as a point of order since it's on the agenda.
18:17:38 You are making a motion to leave it on the agenda.
18:17:40 You probably don't have to make a motion.
18:17:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
18:17:43 Thank you.
18:17:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ding
18:17:48 You asked for a continuance but if nobody makes a
18:17:51 motion to continue, it's on the agenda, it moves on.
18:17:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, here again, let me understand.
18:18:04 Staff is saying that this was continued a month ago.

18:18:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
18:18:09 >> Not technically.
18:18:11 They had been requesting a continuance.
18:18:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me hear from staff.
18:18:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Introduce yourself.
18:18:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Finney.
18:18:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I know who she is.
18:18:23 >>GWEN MILLER: When did they notify you they wanted a
18:18:25 continuance?
18:18:26 >>> It was back in the middle of April that we
18:18:31 received that, the e-mail.
18:18:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mind you, council, when you have a
18:18:34 noticed public hearing the staff has no authority to
18:18:36 legally make any representation as to whether or not a
18:18:39 continuance will be granted until the time of the
18:18:41 hearing.
18:18:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me speak to this.
18:18:44 And I'm not a lawyer.
18:18:45 Is there anything in the law that says if you ask for
18:18:46 a continuance, you must rei know the neighborhood
18:18:50 between that time and the hearing time?
18:18:51 I don't believe there is but I'm not a lawyer.

18:18:54 >>> No.
18:18:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So what are we arguing about?
18:19:06 >>> Keith, Safety Harbor.
18:19:07 My client asked for a continuance out of good faith
18:19:10 because there are some legal issues with adjacent city
18:19:13 right-of-way to the property that I belief will better
18:19:19 project and I think staff will agree with that.
18:19:20 So we asked it in good faith, asked for some more time
18:19:24 to work this issue out.
18:19:25 I'm not sure of the noticing requirements that the
18:19:28 city has.
18:19:29 But we don't have a presentation tonight, I am not
18:19:35 prepared to give one, but we are trying to work with
18:19:37 staff to better project.
18:19:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
18:19:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this the first official request
18:19:43 for a continuance?
18:19:46 >>> Yes.
18:19:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to apologize to the
18:19:53 neighborhood and say I'm going to support a
18:19:54 continuance.
18:19:55 But only on the condition that you all, before you

18:19:59 leave, get these phone numbers from these folks, meet
18:20:04 with them now, get their names, tell them what the
18:20:06 project is about, if there's any questions you can
18:20:08 meet with them out in the hallway, and have a real
18:20:11 dialogue with them.
18:20:11 Maybe you can work out whatever issues they have.
18:20:14 I'll support a continuance.
18:20:15 I'll move for a continuance.
18:20:16 >> Second.
18:20:18 How long are we talking about?
18:20:20 >> June 19th, I believe.
18:20:22 >> July 26th.
18:20:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That would be my motion.
18:20:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and question.
18:20:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think since everybody has come
18:20:30 down here, we could make the City Council conference
18:20:33 room available for everybody to go in and sit down
18:20:35 right now and talk about the project.
18:20:39 It's right back here.
18:20:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue
18:20:46 item number 16 to July 26th at 6 p.m.
18:20:51 (Motion carried).

18:20:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Stick around so he can talk to you.
18:21:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Take them back there.
18:21:04 >>JILL FINNEY: On item number 17, there's one issue
18:21:10 that needs to be resolved which would result in
18:21:12 graphical changes to the site plan.
18:21:14 It's rather minor.
18:21:15 Something that could be resolved.
18:21:18 And petitioner wishes to be heard.
18:21:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:21:25 >>JILL FINNEY: Item 18.
18:21:26 I have a few minor graphical changes needed and the
18:21:29 petitioner wishes to be heard.
18:21:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I am going to ask staff if
18:21:35 they can to go back to number 4 because I don't know
18:21:37 whether that was fully resolved, that the staff does
18:21:40 not feel that the client is prepared to move forward,
18:21:43 and I am wondering if that's going to pose a problem.
18:21:45 If it will, can you elaborate for council to be able
18:21:48 to make a determination of whether or not it is
18:21:50 appropriate to be heard?
18:21:51 >>JILL FINNEY: On the project, there are several
18:21:56 concerns that we consider to be substantial, and some

18:22:02 things that have been requested of the petitioner that
18:22:03 has not been supplied in order to make a determination
18:22:08 on the project.
18:22:09 So that's the basis of the request.
18:22:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is the petitioner here tonight?
18:22:14 >>JILL FINNEY: Yes, he is.
18:22:16 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 South Franklin.
18:22:21 We are willing to do whatever you wish us to do. This
18:22:24 was on the council the last time.
18:22:27 And --
18:22:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Got two lots in the back.
18:22:32 Am I correct?
18:22:34 >>> That's correct.
18:22:35 And very good memory.
18:22:38 And we just wanted to get the proposal tonight, see if
18:22:43 there's any reaction from the neighborhood at all and
18:22:45 address any concerns.
18:22:47 I feel a lot of the staff concerns have already been
18:22:49 addressed.
18:22:50 But we'll do whatever your pleasure is.
18:22:51 I know you have a packed house tonight.
18:22:53 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to be here.

18:23:02 Is there anyone in the public going to speak on items
18:23:04 4 through 18?
18:23:07 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I need to address number 15 as
18:23:09 well.
18:23:10 Item number 15, VO 7-38, we are needing to continue
18:23:14 this to June 12, I believe.
18:23:18 Z-07-38.
18:23:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 15.
18:23:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
18:23:24 >> Second.
18:23:24 (Motion carried).
18:23:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
18:23:26 to speak on 15?
18:23:27 You may come up and speak on the continue ABC
18:23:30 continuance.
18:23:31 So we need a motion to continue.
18:23:32 Is petitioner here on that one?
18:23:37 >>> Yes, their representative is.
18:23:38 It's something I myself have been working on with
18:23:41 them.
18:23:41 We have some issues still to resolve on some of the
18:23:43 bonus amenities.

18:23:45 So some details we can work out within the next week.
18:23:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to June 14th.
18:23:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?
18:23:57 >> Second.
18:23:57 (Motion carried).
18:23:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Now you may stand and raise your right
18:24:01 hand.
18:24:01 Not yet.
18:24:03 >>> Item number 14, I was reviewing whether or not the
18:24:06 affidavit was submitted correctly.
18:24:08 The affidavit was submitted correctly. The
18:24:10 appropriate motion would be to continue this item
18:24:12 until what date?
18:24:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 14?
18:24:19 >>JULIA COLE: Yes.
18:24:20 This is the one on your agenda as the affidavit.
18:24:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that will have to be opened
18:24:24 first.
18:24:26 Ding
18:24:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It will be but to what date?
18:24:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to open.
18:24:33 >> June 14th.

18:24:36 (Motion carried)
18:24:36 >>JULIA COLE: What we are going to ask you to do given
18:24:46 that it was staff error that the affidavit was
18:24:49 incorrectly noted that we are trying to find a date
18:24:51 and make a recommendation you waive the rules for
18:24:54 allowing an additional item.
18:24:59 We could do June 14th.
18:25:01 This would be an additional item on your June 14th
18:25:03 agenda.
18:25:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's no discretion for us about
18:25:07 the continuance?
18:25:10 >>JULIA COLE: I think there's discussion about the
18:25:12 continuance.
18:25:12 He made that request for a continuance but he's kind
18:25:15 of in a bad situation because he thought up until he
18:25:17 got here that his petition couldn't move forward
18:25:19 because the affidavit wasn't filed correctly so I
18:25:23 think in this instance the appropriate motion would be
18:25:25 to continue. The question is can we go ahead and
18:25:27 continue to a date and add an additional item, or push
18:25:30 it out to September.
18:25:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I move to add it to the earlier date.

18:25:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Waive the rules.
18:25:38 June 14th?
18:25:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: How many do we have on June 14th?
18:25:45 >> We have 14.
18:25:46 >> I should also point out that at 5:30 on June
18:25:50 14th you also have chapter 27 code amendments, so
18:25:55 you actually have -- and also for some reason staff
18:25:59 report, unfinished business that's on the calendar for
18:26:02 5:30 on the 14th, just so you are aware, that you
18:26:05 do have the day 5:30.
18:26:07 >>JULIA COLE: There's an actual opening on --
18:26:14 >>MARY MULHERN: I move we waive the rules and continue
18:26:16 this to July 16th?
18:26:20 25th.
18:26:24 Move to continue to July 25th.
18:26:28 >> Second.
18:26:28 (Motion carried).
18:26:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Are there any other changes?
18:26:33 Is that it?
18:26:38 >>> You are waiting for petitioner on one of the
18:26:40 items.
18:26:40 He's here now.

18:26:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 11.
18:26:48 >>> I apologize.
18:26:48 I was downstairs.
18:26:50 For the record, Michael Brooks, 500 E. Kennedy
18:26:52 Boulevard, Tampa 33602.
18:26:58 I understand that staff has made representation to
18:27:01 council that we have substantial changes to the site
18:27:03 plan.
18:27:04 I want to clarify that what we are dealing with for
18:27:07 this evening, are comments to the notes.
18:27:12 Comments that were received within the last three
18:27:16 hours, within the last six hours, as to two different
18:27:20 sets.
18:27:23 We are terribly frustrated.
18:27:26 We don't believe that those are changes that could not
18:27:28 be dealt with at this hearing, possibly by just
18:27:31 striking language.
18:27:32 And at this hearing tonight we had asked to go forward
18:27:38 so we are a little surprised at the staff's request,
18:27:43 frankly.
18:27:43 I know that puts you in a difficult position, but my
18:27:46 client is also in a difficult position in that we

18:27:50 continued once, we thought we were coming here
18:27:52 tonight, we had submitted all the notes prior to the
18:27:54 deadline to the last site plan, did not receive any
18:27:57 negative feedback.
18:27:58 So the day until the day we thought we were going
18:28:01 forward.
18:28:05 So we had every intention of going forward this
18:28:07 evening.
18:28:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I was confused before I got here.
18:28:16 Now I'm really confused.
18:28:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Mr. Miranda, what you have before
18:28:25 you, the change in the comments did come out today.
18:28:29 One of the divisions quite frankly had an error, they
18:28:32 made an error in the review.
18:28:33 And the new comments came out today with the
18:28:36 correction.
18:28:37 And if they were just note changes on the plan, we
18:28:40 would be more comfortable with moving forward saying
18:28:42 these changes need to occur, maybe we could agree on
18:28:45 the conditions, but quite frankly it's something that
18:28:48 needs to be discussed.
18:28:49 One of the items, they raised a public safety concern

18:28:53 in a transportation comment.
18:28:54 I think that actually needs to be discussed.
18:28:56 It not something that necessarily council can wait.
18:28:59 It's something that's fundamental in your approval or
18:29:03 denial of the application.
18:29:03 Once they have raised that issue, I think that's
18:29:05 something that merits discussion, outside of the
18:29:07 hearing, because it's not necessarily something we can
18:29:09 just address tonight.
18:29:11 There are other conditions and notes that need to be
18:29:13 modified, some verbiage that needs to be stricken,
18:29:16 which are minor, but the public safety issue that was
18:29:19 raised we believe is the substantial one.
18:29:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may continue.
18:29:28 Is it true what I heard from petitioner, these items
18:29:30 were received, these notes back in the last three or
18:29:34 six hours?
18:29:35 >>> It was today, that's correct.
18:29:36 There was an error in the original comment.
18:29:38 And we have apologized for that.
18:29:43 We have obviously apologized for that.
18:29:45 However, we asked staff -- we make errors and we have

18:29:50 to make sure that we up hold the code provisions.
18:29:53 We have to especially when it relates to public
18:29:55 safety.
18:29:55 And I would ask council if at all possible, because I
18:29:58 believe this can be resolved in a fairly short amount
18:30:02 of time, that we ask you to waive whatever rules you
18:30:06 can to schedule them for the soonest day possible.
18:30:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott.
18:30:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On this one, we have public hearings
18:30:20 every Thursday, or every other Thursday, whatever.
18:30:33 Why are they getting those back on the day of
18:30:36 scheduled hearing?
18:30:37 Why wasn't it several days ago, last week or Monday?
18:30:41 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Why wasn't the staff comment given?
18:30:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before today.
18:30:50 I mean, this is set.
18:30:51 It was set weeks ago for tonight.
18:30:53 And evidently we are just getting -- they are just
18:30:57 getting -- giving back statements about their plan.
18:31:05 >>> He can certainly speak to that. Itself was their
18:31:07 comments.
18:31:08 >>> If I may speak again.

18:31:09 I know you want to hear from transportation.
18:31:11 I will be the first one practicing at the city to tell
18:31:14 you that staff is in a very difficult position with
18:31:18 the workload they have.
18:31:21 With that said, I don't know whether we received it
18:31:23 four days ago, five days, six days ago that we could
18:31:27 have made changes to the plan the way the current
18:31:30 process is established and there may be some chapter
18:31:32 27 or some policy that is might be changed in the
18:31:34 upcoming weeks.
18:31:38 We obviously don't like being in front of you arguing
18:31:42 about waivers.
18:31:43 And if there's any accommodation for even possibly an
18:31:47 early morning date so as to not logjam your Thursday
18:31:50 evening dates, we would be -- depending on what that
18:31:55 date would be, would be amenable to doing that.
18:32:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Transaction.
18:32:09 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
18:32:11 As Mr. Brooks stated final site plan was May
18:32:18 11thment the notes were not there previously.
18:32:20 They were placed on the may 11th plan.
18:32:22 If he had received the comments may 11th he would

18:32:25 have been able -- because of the 13-day deadline can't
18:32:31 make changes to the plan.
18:32:32 Did he receive a comment today, however if he received
18:32:35 it a week ago he still wouldn't be able to change his
18:32:37 plan.
18:32:42 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can you make a determination
18:32:43 tonight on these transportation issues?
18:32:44 Or does it have to go back to the drawing board?
18:32:49 >>> Well, there are two notes.
18:32:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What are the notes?
18:32:53 >>> There was a Westshore DRI note number 34 and
18:32:56 number 35 having to do with a driveway configuration.
18:33:01 As far as I know legally cannot be changed because it
18:33:07 is a change to the plan -- I have to ask legal about
18:33:11 that.Coyle
18:33:19 >>JULIA COLE: There are -- we need to clarify issues.
18:33:27 I know there's an issue that there's in a height on
18:33:29 the site plan.
18:33:29 There are some tweaks to be made in the language
18:33:32 because I have concerns about legally whether they are
18:33:35 enforceable.
18:33:35 It's up to you to decide whether you want to hear this

18:33:39 case tonight.
18:33:40 And petitioner has the right to hear this case
18:33:44 tonight.
18:33:44 But I think what's going to end up happening at the
18:33:46 end of that hearing I or Mr. Shelby will have to tell
18:33:49 you, if you approve the site plan in front of you, it
18:33:53 has legal issues with that, issues you can't waive,
18:33:56 and we would recommend that you can't approve the site
18:33:58 plan in front of you.
18:33:59 So I think it's a question of whether or not you want
18:34:02 to have this move forward or not tonight.
18:34:03 The quagmire is because of the way our process
18:34:06 currently works, what happens is final site plans come
18:34:10 in, you get to that 13-day and no changes can be made.
18:34:13 We cannot write things on the site plan and we cannot
18:34:18 make any changes between first and second reading.
18:34:21 That's why of course we are changing the process
18:34:23 because of these kinds of situations.
18:34:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
18:34:26 So the easiest solution is let's hear it, and hear it
18:34:30 and the recognition that the official first reading,
18:34:33 if council is still favorable about it, would be a

18:34:37 week or two later.
18:34:39 But that doesn't stop us from hearing the case
18:34:41 tonight.
18:34:41 Everybody is ready to go.
18:34:43 Mr. Brooks is ready to go.
18:34:45 And we can hear everything, including perhaps if
18:34:48 there's some controversy about the transportation
18:34:50 issue, we can hear that, too.
18:34:54 Unless you are saying you are not ready.
18:34:56 >>> No, we are perfectly ready to go forward this
18:34:59 evening.
18:34:59 What I don't want to happen is that at the end of the
18:35:01 night council is terribly frustrated between --
18:35:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Council is frustrated in what?
18:35:14 We have done this before and we have had hearings and
18:35:16 then we continue on until a week later to have the
18:35:18 official first reading.
18:35:19 It's not a big deal.
18:35:21 >>> Okay.
18:35:21 Then let's go.
18:35:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair, to the council members,
18:35:25 let me tell you something.

18:35:26 Council has already told us that the problem is
18:35:30 legally with this plan.
18:35:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She also said, to clarify -- if I'm
18:35:39 not --
18:35:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You are.
18:35:41 Legally you can't do anything.
18:35:43 If you do, you need to understand what that legal
18:35:45 ramification with the plan.
18:35:47 So why move forward tonight when legally you already
18:35:52 have a problem, as opposed to hearing the plan when
18:35:55 it's ready to go.
18:35:57 Why?
18:35:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I answer that?
18:36:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Mary.
18:36:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I think part of your frustration is we
18:36:08 already have two public hearings for everything.
18:36:10 And I don't think we need to have, in this case, three
18:36:13 public hearings.
18:36:14 If we talk about it tonight and then we have to come
18:36:16 back for first reading.
18:36:17 Then we have three hearings.
18:36:19 I think we need to continue this.

18:36:21 I move to continue.
18:36:24 >> Second.
18:36:24 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to continue.
18:36:27 Mr. Shelby.
18:36:28 >> A date is going to have to be determined and what
18:36:30 the date is may require a waiver of council's policy
18:36:33 with regard to the number of hearings set.
18:36:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How about July 26th?
18:36:38 >>JULIA COLE: June 28th is set aside for plan
18:36:44 amendments.
18:36:45 There are no zoning hearings scheduled that night.
18:36:46 You could rezone this hearing by itself as the zoning
18:36:51 hearing for the evening and that would not delay him
18:36:54 terribly farther and give us time to work out the
18:36:55 issues.
18:36:56 June 28th, 6:00.
18:36:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Move to continue to June 28th.
18:37:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I could hear from the petitioner.
18:37:09 Are you agreeable to that date?
18:37:12 >>> At this point, yes.
18:37:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
18:37:16 [ Laughter ]

18:37:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
18:37:18 to speak on item number 11?
18:37:20 Anyone here to speak on item number 11?
18:37:24 Come on up, sir.
18:37:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We didn't vote on that.
18:37:33 >>> Dan Smith, I represent the homeowners -- civic and
18:37:36 homeowners association, Culver city, Lincoln Gardens.
18:37:40 Only that we are in favor of a continuance.
18:37:42 A lot that we have to talk about on our behalf and our
18:37:44 residents that haven't been ironed out and we would
18:37:46 like to come back with more understanding of what we
18:37:49 can iron out.
18:37:50 So only that we are in favor of it, also.
18:37:52 >>GWEN MILLER: So you need to meet with petitioner so
18:37:54 you can iron out those things.
18:37:59 Anyone else want top speak?
18:38:01 We have a motion and second.
18:38:02 All in favor of the motion say Aye?
18:38:04 Opposed, Nay?
18:38:06 Anything else to come forward?
18:38:08 Anyone going to speak on items 4 through 18, please
18:38:11 stand and raise your right hand.

18:38:16 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:38:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair if I could make a brief
18:38:36 announcement.
18:38:37 The room is very full.
18:38:39 I would like the testimony, in order to move smoother,
18:38:43 council rules require that you have to be sworn.
18:38:46 I put a little sign up there to remind you, when you
18:38:49 state your name, please reaffirm for the record that
18:38:52 you have been sworn so I will not have to direct you.
18:38:54 Thank you very much for your help.
18:38:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Finney.
18:38:57 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
18:38:59 I have been sworn.
18:39:00 We are here on petition number Z-06-112 located at
18:39:05 1903 and 1905 west Bristol Avenue.
18:39:11 From RS 50 residential single-family to PD planned
18:39:14 development.
18:39:15 Petitioner is planning to rezone the property to allow
18:39:17 for the development of two single-family detached
18:39:19 homes, in addition to the two existing single-family
18:39:23 homes.
18:39:24 The total site consists of 23,675 square feet with two

18:39:29 lots with homes, while this rezoning request would
18:39:33 create two additional buildable lots with the
18:39:35 following standards.
18:39:36 Lot A will have 5030 square feet and lot be will have
18:39:41 5,858 square feet.
18:39:43 The site is located in an RS-50 zoning district in a
18:39:47 predominantly surrounded by single-family homes. The
18:39:50 PD setbacks: To the west 13 feet, to the north is 13
18:39:55 feet, to the east is 10 feet, and to the south is 22
18:39:58 feet and 2 inches.
18:40:02 Each of the existing and proposed homes have two
18:40:05 attached garages.
18:40:15 Here is the zoning map of the area.
18:40:24 The site is RS-50.
18:40:27 The Crosstown runs across the west side of it.
18:40:34 Here is an aerial of the site.
18:40:35 The two existing homes are here and here.
18:40:38 And the two proposed homes will be in the back.
18:40:54 This is the backyard.
18:41:07 If you look to the west near the Crosstown.
18:41:14 This is across the street.
18:41:17 Another home is right at the corner.

18:41:29 Another home.
18:41:29 There's lots of duplexes and multifamily in the area.
18:41:33 And that's here.
18:41:42 Staff does have objections on this rezoning.
18:41:47 And our concerns are that parcels A and B are
18:41:53 essentially going to be landlocked.
18:41:54 The existing alley represents -- it requires a minimum
18:42:08 of 20 feet.
18:42:09 A statement on the plan to provide an easement access
18:42:12 is insufficient.
18:42:12 The plan must state a commitment to be replatted,
18:42:17 chapter 23 subdivision regulations, tone sure
18:42:20 compliance with minimum standards.
18:42:22 And get access to utilities.
18:42:28 While the site plan attempts to connect, it is not
18:42:32 clear how utilities will be provided for the back two
18:42:34 lots, and not have to have effects on the existing
18:42:37 trees.
18:42:38 Because the separation required between water and
18:42:40 sewer lines.
18:42:44 I spoke with the water department, the sewage,
18:42:46 everybody at the city, and it would be extremely

18:42:49 difficult, and they would have to provide a lift
18:42:51 station or pressurized lines.
18:42:54 And it's just going to be a very complex situation.
18:42:57 We just want it clarified as to the reality of it
18:43:00 would actually function.
18:43:08 Landscaping also has some objections.
18:43:12 And Mary will speak to that.
18:43:17 >>> Mary Daniels Bryson, landscaping, and I have been
18:43:22 sworn.
18:43:25 The lot is heavily treed on the alley side and we
18:43:28 don't know where utilities are going.
18:43:30 We need a commitment from the petitioner that the
18:43:33 utilities will be placed on the west side of the
18:43:37 property, outside of the protected radius of the
18:43:41 trees.
18:43:41 In addition, they did not provide the tree
18:43:43 calculation.
18:43:45 They are required to do one tree per 4,000 square foot
18:43:49 of major fractional thereof of the lot.
18:43:52 And they need a commitment on the site plan stating
18:43:54 that they will provide one additional tree for each
18:43:58 new line.

18:44:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question for staff.
18:44:08 Two things.
18:44:09 I see on the site plan, it says existing platted
18:44:13 alley, to imply there's no alley there today?
18:44:19 >>> It is an alley there today.
18:44:21 It is nine feet wide.
18:44:22 >> Is it being used by the Fremont homes for rear
18:44:27 entry?
18:44:28 >>> It's being used by somebody.
18:44:32 I can't say exactly who it is using it.
18:44:35 When I was there, there was a car parked at the end of
18:44:37 it.
18:44:37 >> Because there's several lots.
18:44:40 I think there are three lots that back up to that
18:44:43 alley.
18:44:43 I was just wondering if they are using it for rear
18:44:46 garages or anything.
18:44:47 >> No.
18:44:47 It's only the -- it would be the access for these lots
18:44:52 only.
18:44:52 >> And then the other thing is, I think this is one
18:44:56 that's -- does this project have a zoning history?

18:45:03 >>> Yes, it does.
18:45:05 It has previously come before council.
18:45:08 It has also gone before the A.R.C.
18:45:11 And I do need to make the comment that the study --
18:45:15 that they found it consistent.
18:45:20 However, they gave the condition that they would have
18:45:22 to provide a passing -- so two cars could pass on the
18:45:29 alley seeing it's virtually impossible seeing that the
18:45:32 structures are already there.
18:45:33 We would say based on that, that the A.R.C. conditions
18:45:37 have not been met as well.
18:45:39 >> But historically, this was the same project that
18:45:41 was denied by council?
18:45:43 >>> It was a similar type, yes, on the same property.
18:45:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You stated that A and B were
18:45:50 landlocked.
18:45:51 How do you determine what's landlocked?
18:45:53 Because they have driveways.
18:45:55 >>> Oh, those are proposed driveways.
18:45:58 They are not existing at this time.
18:46:00 Those are proposed, how they are going to do it.
18:46:02 And the one that has the driveway going through the

18:46:06 other person's yard, through the front property
18:46:08 owner's yard, and so we are saying that we don't
18:46:11 believe that the easement request that they put in the
18:46:15 note was sufficient for what we would require.
18:46:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I can think of examples of flag
18:46:25 lots that are similar to the end.
18:46:27 I think they just put a note on the site plan that
18:46:29 says that they have a permanent access.
18:46:33 >>> Right.
18:46:34 And generally we do like to have it replatted, because
18:46:38 that would eventually -- would be paying for it,
18:46:44 providing for it.
18:46:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?
18:46:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:46:55 I have been sworn.
18:46:57 Just a couple of additional comments to add to Ms.
18:47:00 Finney's comments.
18:47:01 When the comprehensive plan, land use designation
18:47:04 aspect, you can see the entire land use designation
18:47:08 south of the Crosstown expressway is residential 10.
18:47:10 Looking at the aerial, we noted the character of the
18:47:13 entire area is basically single family detached.

18:47:16 Ms. Finney has told you in her presentation there is
18:47:18 evidence of some older units that are duplex, those
18:47:21 are basically nonconforming uses in the general area.
18:47:24 But basically your character in this area of single
18:47:26 family detached.
18:47:27 The applicant is requesting a single family detached
18:47:30 project here for two units.
18:47:32 Basically, these two units will be nestled against the
18:47:36 Crosstown expressway.
18:47:38 As you see it here, it will not really be adversely
18:47:41 impacting any of the adjacent residences according to
18:47:44 a PD that's being requested as far as the buffering
18:47:47 and screening that's being proposed by the applicant.
18:47:50 In addition to that the applicant is also proposing
18:47:52 ingress and egress directly onto Bristol proposing
18:47:56 minimal impacts to the residential area.
18:47:59 Planning Commission had no objections to the proposed
18:48:01 request.
18:48:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:48:13 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 South Franklin.
18:48:15 We have never been denied by council, never even been
18:48:18 in front of council.

18:48:18 We went to the A.R.C. for their recommendation, but
18:48:22 prior to that, the time that -- you were on council --
18:48:27 we pulled this matter.
18:48:29 This is Del Acosta, who is a member of the city staff.
18:48:34 He owns one of the lots along with his wife, his son
18:48:37 Julian, who is here with me, and the adjacent lot
18:48:40 along with his wife, and in an abundance of caution,
18:48:45 we took away the application before, sought and
18:48:48 received an ethics opinion, for the guidelines that we
18:48:54 could proceed.
18:48:55 Del has completely recused himself from this process.
18:48:59 We have now been in front of the A.R.C. on two
18:49:02 indications.
18:49:02 On both indications we got their support.
18:49:05 If I could start just by addressing a few of the
18:49:07 issues raised by Ms. Finney.
18:49:11 That I believe are clarified or could easily be
18:49:15 clarified.
18:49:16 First of all, the A.R.C. objection, that's who spoke
18:49:20 to -- you will be able to see this on your site plan
18:49:31 in front of you.
18:49:32 Basically what the A.R.C. wanted was that there was

18:49:35 only going to be two structures here using this alley,
18:49:38 a means by which if one car was proceeding out and
18:49:42 another car was proceeding in that one of the opposing
18:49:45 cars could tuck in a little area to let the other car
18:49:48 go by.
18:49:49 That is labeled on your site plan, and it's
18:49:53 provided -- actually with the help of the
18:49:57 transportation department which we thought was a
18:49:59 pretty neat solution to it.
18:50:02 Secondly, with the width of the alley, this is in your
18:50:06 traditional -- isn't your traditional 20 feet wide
18:50:10 road, because it's only accessing two homes.
18:50:14 Mr. Dingfelder, you raised a point about some of the
18:50:17 houses on Fremont.
18:50:17 There are a couple of structures in the rear.
18:50:19 But I was just asking Julian, he said he can hardly
18:50:26 remember a time that anybody ever used that road
18:50:27 there.
18:50:28 So it would be for the sole purpose of basically
18:50:30 serving these two homes, and as a result we felt like
18:50:33 nine feet was sufficient, and wouldn't want to expand
18:50:40 the 20 feet to serve the two homes.

18:50:41 And I met with Calvin Thornton in transportation and
18:50:46 he agreed with that, and initially we had an access
18:50:48 circulate ago round the entire lot.
18:50:50 And he actually came to the solution of the two
18:50:53 driveways going in.
18:50:55 It was a very good solution on his point.
18:50:59 Some of the other ones, on the replatting, and the
18:51:03 nature of my business I have done a lot of these lot
18:51:06 splits.
18:51:06 And the way that works is if a lot is a legal lot of
18:51:11 record prior to 1987 you can split a lot once without
18:51:15 triggering any subdivision or platting, and first we
18:51:19 avoid that there.
18:51:20 Secondly, the intention is to keep all four of these
18:51:23 homes, the two homes, plus the two cottages that will
18:51:27 be added in the rear, within the family.
18:51:29 Of course, things did can happen.
18:51:31 And we wanted to have complete zoning rights in case
18:51:34 something were to hatch and they were to be sold out.
18:51:36 So that was the solution there.
18:51:38 Lastly on the utilities, and we feel like we will be
18:51:42 able to come up with a solution there.

18:51:43 We didn't want to get into designing and engineering
18:51:46 costs, after this is going to work.
18:51:48 That's another reason I wanted to put forward tonight
18:51:51 so we didn't have to get a full engineering set only
18:51:54 to come back to you and have you not like the project,
18:51:57 or have neighbors show up in opposition.
18:52:10 From the front, the lots appear and the homes appear
18:52:14 just to be your traditional homes.
18:52:19 That's Julian's house.
18:52:21 And this is Del's house.
18:52:31 As you can see on the site plan there is one thing
18:52:33 that is unique about -- probably doesn't occur
18:52:38 anywhere in the city that I have seen before and that
18:52:41 is the enormous depth of these lots.
18:52:43 Not only the depth but the fact that they touch the
18:52:47 Crosstown on the rear.
18:52:48 So forever all this land here and all this land here
18:52:53 just sat unused and basically has been used as the
18:52:56 neighborhood dump which causes it to sit, spend a lot
18:53:02 of time cleaning and maintaining the lots.
18:53:05 So what we wanted was some sort of way for the Acosta
18:53:11 family to come up with a solution will work, and

18:53:14 today, Garcia architecture, and were inspired by a
18:53:19 historical development a block away which is bungalow
18:53:22 terrace, where you had the sidewalk running in the
18:53:25 middle and then the homes are accessed by the alley
18:53:29 exactly like these will be.
18:53:30 So he would proceeded with that plan, went in front of
18:53:32 the A.R.C.
18:53:33 They liked that we were in keeping with bungalow
18:53:37 appearance, asked that we put a lot of walkability and
18:53:40 acceptability between the homes.
18:53:41 So we addressed that.
18:53:43 Really the tough nut to crack was how we were going to
18:53:46 access, either continuously or through the driveway
18:53:49 and transportation came up with that solution.
18:53:53 The only thing we are lacking is frontage, and
18:54:07 actually exceed by abundance the size of the lots,
18:54:11 setbacks, we are asking for no waivers at all.
18:54:13 The only thing that we lack is frontage.
18:54:16 And we all just got together and felt this was a
18:54:20 really unique way to come up with a solution for a
18:54:23 piece of land in the middle of South Tampa that has
18:54:26 been unused in a harmless way and being able to use

18:54:31 this with the Point development.
18:54:35 To that end, we are going to have to go back in front
18:54:38 of the A.R.C. to design the building, of course, but
18:54:42 just to show you the general cottage feel and
18:54:47 quaintness of the -- it in a Mediterranean revival
18:54:52 style.
18:54:52 That's one of the structures and that's the other.
18:54:55 Since we are challenged by the Crosstown, we are
18:54:59 internalizing court yard having fountains if, so
18:55:02 really kind of have your little home on an island
18:55:05 right there.
18:55:06 So that's the proposal in a nutshell.
18:55:08 I have been through the objections heavily.
18:55:11 You will understand that it is a unique application
18:55:15 but we think it's a positive one.
18:55:17 And with that, Julian would like to introduce himself
18:55:22 and say a few word.
18:55:24 And we went through this for four years so we are
18:55:28 excited to be in front of you.
18:55:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
18:55:31 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
18:55:32 item 4?

18:55:33 Come up and speak, please.
18:55:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question of staff.
18:55:42 Actually legal staff.
18:55:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While she's coming up, I have to
18:55:50 say that this is the most imaginative solution that
18:55:53 I've ever seen for property that in a historic
18:55:56 district backing up to the Crosstown is compatible,
18:56:00 and that answer it is question of how do you deal with
18:56:03 sort of a funny shaped piece of land with not a lot of
18:56:07 access.
18:56:08 I think this is beautiful.
18:56:09 Really beautiful.
18:56:12 >>> In that vein, on a various types type of request
18:56:17 where you have a unique singular type of property,
18:56:20 answered the questions on various application, it's a
18:56:25 very unique piece of property, and this we felt was
18:56:28 just a solution that had minimal impact and that would
18:56:30 contribute.
18:56:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Cole, thank you.
18:56:39 This question came up about the only A.R.C. objection
18:56:42 was the objection to the more or less one way alley,
18:56:45 you know, one car alley.

18:56:47 And is that even an A.R.C. jurisdiction?
18:56:51 I don't know why that would be A.R.C. jurisdiction.
18:56:55 It doesn't have anything to do with this, right?
18:56:59 >>JULIA COLE: The way I understand is their authority
18:57:02 to rezoning -- just a very broad review authority, and
18:57:05 it does have to have some relationship to how the site
18:57:09 is a functioning work, so could you make an argument?
18:57:11 You may be getting a little far afield from what their
18:57:15 true authority is.
18:57:16 But I mean I think they have taken a position to
18:57:18 comment on all issues, on some of them so long as they
18:57:22 are not design related because that has to wait for
18:57:24 the A.R.C.
18:57:27 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, if I could shed a little
18:57:29 additional light.
18:57:30 I believe it's been kind of mislabeled.
18:57:33 The A.R.C. recommendation was to come up with a
18:57:35 solution to allow two cars to pass.
18:57:36 We did that.
18:57:37 That's on the site plan.
18:57:38 I think it was just missed in the review.
18:57:40 So they were saying, they were objecting because we

18:57:44 weren't meeting the A.R.C. recommendation to put that
18:57:46 little knockout, if you will, is on the site plan.
18:57:49 >> So was the jog out there when the A.R.C. looked at
18:57:52 it?
18:57:53 >>> It is not.
18:57:53 It is a recommendation that we have come up to put
18:57:56 that in, a solution that we created.
18:57:59 >>MARY MULHERN: I have too much stuff on here and I
18:58:01 may have this in here, but was there a public safety
18:58:05 sort of recommendation about this?
18:58:06 When I see the narrow street alleys as the only way to
18:58:11 get in there.
18:58:13 >>> Ms. Mulhern, obviously the residents would figure
18:58:25 out but if they were having guests over or whatnot,
18:58:29 and the A.R.C. raised that issue on that, and that was
18:58:34 the recommendation on the pedestrian path that would
18:58:36 link through the properties, in the middle of the
18:58:38 properties, and you will note that on the site plan
18:58:40 going through and breaking out in each of the homes.
18:58:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Then my question is how would a
18:58:46 vehicle, an EMS unit or fire truck get in there?
18:58:53 >>> The main issue that was raised was backfire and we

18:58:59 scratched our head long and hard on that because they
18:59:01 were saying we need this alley to be wider to get a
18:59:04 fire truck back.
18:59:04 And we said, how in the world are we going to solve
18:59:07 that?
18:59:07 The simple solution was by sprinkling those buildings.
18:59:11 We got a condition on the site plan require sprinkle
18:59:17 in those buildings.
18:59:18 >> So that satisfied them?
18:59:20 >>> Yes.
18:59:21 >> One other thing, Mr. Dingfelder.
18:59:23 The architectural review commission dealt with
18:59:27 architecture.
18:59:28 Even though you are minimizing only frontage, frontage
18:59:31 is a pretty big element when you are building a house.
18:59:36 That would be fronted on the street.
18:59:38 So I don't think that is a thing for the architectural
18:59:45 review commission to even talk about.
18:59:47 >>> The process so far, we went in front of the A.R.C.
18:59:50 for their recommendation or objection to the zoning.
18:59:53 If this is approved by you, we will be back in front
18:59:55 of the A.R.C. for the architecture certificate of

18:59:58 appropriateness.
19:00:04 >> Need a motion to close.
19:00:05 >> So moved.
19:00:06 >> Second.
19:00:06 (Motion carried).
19:00:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance?
19:00:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move the ordinance.
19:00:23 I believe with Mrs. Saul-Sena, I believe it's a good
19:00:26 creative way to utilize some vacant land and add more
19:00:29 than a million dollars to the tax rolls and we are
19:00:33 going to need it soon.
19:00:34 Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
19:00:36 vicinity of 1903 and 1905 west Bristol Avenue in the
19:00:39 city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in
19:00:41 section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
19:00:44 residential single family to PD planned development
19:00:47 attached residential providing an effective date.
19:00:49 >> We have a motion and second.
19:00:50 (Motion carried)
19:00:52 Item number 6, continued public hearing.
19:00:56 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:01:46 I have been sworn.

19:01:47 We are here on petition Z07-19 located at 1103 north
19:01:52 22nd street.
19:02:00 The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from IH heavy
19:02:02 industrial to PD planned development with the uses of
19:02:05 furniture, accessory daycare, restaurant and warehouse
19:02:13 uses.
19:02:13 Petitioner is rezoning to rezone the property to allow
19:02:16 a large scale furniture store with accessory uses of
19:02:20 daycare, restaurant and warehousing.
19:02:22 The 29.23-acre site is surrounded by predominantly
19:02:28 industrial uses with the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown
19:02:32 along the southern boundary of the site. The proposed
19:02:35 PD setbacks are as follows.
19:02:36 To the north is 280 feet, but not including a
19:02:41 utilities building that they have that is not a
19:02:46 functional part of the site.
19:02:50 To the east is 66 feet.
19:02:52 To the south is 210 feet.
19:02:54 To the west is 650 feet.
19:02:57 A total of 356 parking spaces are required.
19:03:00 But due to the anticipated intensity, and uniqueness
19:03:04 of this project, 1,615 spaces are being provided.

19:03:18 Here is a zoning map of the site.
19:03:24 You can see it's very industrial.
19:03:42 Here is an eastern side of the site.
19:03:50 This is the site abutting on Adamo.
19:03:58 To the southern portion of the site is consisting.
19:04:07 This is the view to the north.
19:04:24 The Crosstown is to the south.
19:04:31 >> Land Development Coordination has concerns over the
19:04:36 sign waivers being requested because they are
19:04:39 requesting 400% over what the current sign codes would
19:04:42 allow.
19:04:51 There are a few other departments requiring graphical
19:04:53 changes.
19:04:54 In support of them I'm objecting.
19:04:58 And landscaping is projecting.
19:05:02 Mary Daniels Bryson is here to project that.
19:05:09 >> Mary Daniels Bryson, Land Development Coordination.
19:05:16 I have been sworn.
19:05:20 Need to correct the tree table.
19:05:22 My original comments stated that we weren't saving 50%
19:05:25 of the trees.
19:05:26 They are saving 50% of the trees.

19:05:28 The way they have done the tree table, there are some
19:05:31 corrections that need to be made.
19:05:37 They included the trees that are being transplanted in
19:05:43 the debit table and that will need to be corrected.
19:05:45 We need information regarding proposed grade changes.
19:05:48 The elevations on this particular property are going
19:05:51 to change substantially.
19:05:52 They did have to fill the lot to work on elevation,
19:05:57 and therefore we do need the tree lot on the plans.
19:06:05 There's a portion of the south boundary with the
19:06:07 vehicle use area buffer.
19:06:09 It's not clearly delineated on the plan.
19:06:11 And they are asking for a waiver to chapter 5 to allow
19:06:16 an early start demolition.
19:06:20 With that condition they need a note on the plan that
19:06:22 trees will be prior to demolition taking place.
19:06:27 Trees will be barricaded.
19:06:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Everything you mention there, is
19:06:32 that all major minor?
19:06:33 Sound to me that it's minor.
19:06:35 >>> It is minor.
19:06:36 You could add notes to the plan to delay first

19:06:38 reading, and.
19:06:46 >>TONY GARCIA: Thank you, Tony Garcia.
19:06:52 Several comments.
19:06:54 I would like to give you a wider context of the area
19:06:56 since we are talking about a significant parcel of
19:06:58 land, just under 30 acres and signage.
19:07:01 This is the site in question.
19:07:03 This has a land use designation of CMU 35.
19:07:07 I apologize for the color.
19:07:09 This is a dated map.
19:07:12 This should be that color over there.
19:07:16 This is significant.
19:07:17 And this parcel right over here is, this was a cigar
19:07:26 factory, the box factory.
19:07:29 That was light industrial which this council approved
19:07:34 approximately 3 and a half years ago.
19:07:36 The site in question here was approved by this council
19:07:39 provided by council approximately two years ago to CMU
19:07:43 35.
19:07:43 This past year, we have brought to you in the Ybor
19:07:47 area north of Adamo drive approximately five projects
19:07:51 to go from either light industrial and heavy

19:07:54 commercial 24 to the community mixed use 35 category
19:07:57 which were all approved by council.
19:08:01 This basically does show that there is a definitive
19:08:04 trend from the general mixed use 24 categories in the
19:08:07 heavy industrial and the light industrial categories
19:08:09 for this particular segment as Adamo drive showing a
19:08:13 definite transition from what was once recognized as a
19:08:16 light industrial and maritime corridor 20 or so years
19:08:21 ago.
19:08:22 Now it's one of mixed use.
19:08:28 What also kind of cements this entire transition is
19:08:31 this council also recently adopted, recognizing this
19:08:36 segment of Adamo drive from 22nd street to the
19:08:39 Channel District area as a redevelopment corridor.
19:08:43 This was recently adopted this past year.
19:08:47 The IKEA project is significant in respect that there
19:08:52 are only 29 IKEAs in the entire United States.
19:08:56 There will only be three IKEAs, I believe, in the
19:08:59 State of Florida.
19:09:01 For IKEA to come into the area, what we are doing is
19:09:04 recognizing IKEA as a regional attracter and some
19:09:07 places actually be a destination.

19:09:09 The presence of this highly visible IKEA project at
19:09:12 the entrance to what's considered one of our east-west
19:09:15 corridors into the City of Tampa would definitively
19:09:20 serve as a reg recognition to travelers that they have
19:09:23 actually arrived into the City of Tampa and further
19:09:25 validate Tampa's position as a major metropolitan area
19:09:28 nationally, putting another destination for travelers
19:09:32 and residents along the west coast of Florida.
19:09:34 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed request
19:09:36 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
19:09:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:09:44 >>> Good evening, Madam Chairman, council members.
19:09:46 My name is David Mechanik, Mechanik Nuccio law firm,
19:09:51 305 south boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
19:09:53 I have with me this evening Mr. John Pottinger and
19:09:59 Mike McCanless with Panattoni Development, who is the
19:09:59 applicant.
19:10:08 I also have Dave Emilo from IKEA who I will ask to
19:10:09 come up and speak in a moment.
19:10:12 I have Mr. Bin Marchetti, the attorney for IKEA.
19:10:18 Also with me to answer any council questions, Leah del
19:10:25 Tosto, with Wilson Miller, Evan Johnson with Wilson

19:10:27 Miller, and Christopher Hatan with Kimberly Horne.
19:10:32 I would like to briefly address the staff comments,
19:10:37 and I think as indicated, they are minor in nature,
19:10:47 which I will speak to. The stormwater comment, for
19:10:49 example, is just asking us to write a note which is
19:10:51 consistent with what's already required in the city
19:10:54 code.
19:10:55 We have already agreed to add that note.
19:10:57 An that's why we are asking that first reading about
19:11:00 deferred for two weeks so that we can add these notes.
19:11:04 We have agreed to these.
19:11:06 Transportation comments, we have agreed with the staff
19:11:09 to the conditions, and those will be notes that can be
19:11:12 added.
19:11:14 And Mary's comments on the landscaping, we have agreed
19:11:17 to add all of those notes, and they are all minor in
19:11:20 nature, and more than happy to do that.
19:11:23 Regarding the signs, I would just like to put it in
19:11:32 context.
19:11:32 The signs that are permitted under the code along
19:11:36 Adamo drive, and they are calculated based on the
19:11:39 frontage of each of the roads, we are allowed three

19:11:48 pylon or ground signs, and we are asking for nine
19:11:51 pylon signs and one ground sign.
19:11:53 But to put this in context, eight of those pylon
19:11:56 signs, that is all but one of the pylon signs, are a
19:12:01 group of flags that are clustered at the entrance
19:12:07 along Adamo drive.
19:12:08 And these are flags which are deemed to be pylon signs
19:12:12 by virtue of the definition in the code, the sign
19:12:16 code.
19:12:17 But we wouldn't normally see them as signs.
19:12:20 I mean, they do have the word IKEA on them, but they
19:12:24 don't read like signs in terms of people driving by
19:12:26 the site.
19:12:28 So we would like council to consider that.
19:12:30 Similarly on 22nd street, we are allowed two pylon
19:12:34 and ground signs, and we are asking for eight pylon
19:12:37 signs.
19:12:38 But again because of that definition, all eight of
19:12:41 those signs are flags.
19:12:45 They are not big signs that are sticking up, whole
19:12:48 signs that you might imagine.
19:12:50 So those are flags.

19:12:51 So I thought that was important for you to understand
19:12:54 that.
19:12:55 And those again are clustered at the other entrance on
19:12:58 22nd street.
19:13:02 At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Dave
19:13:04 Hemaline to give you a little overview of their
19:13:11 programs and plans for Tampa.
19:13:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Mechanik, for the record --
19:13:17 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I have been sworn.
19:13:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Mechanik, you remember the sign
19:13:21 that was there many years ago?
19:13:26 American was right there and there was a big sign, big
19:13:28 as this room here, on metal stilts, top of the
19:13:32 building.
19:13:33 That became the first Costco in the area.
19:13:38 >>DAVID MECHANIK: That's right.
19:13:39 I recall now.
19:13:42 >>> I'm Dave Emilo, IKEA director of real estate for
19:13:52 the U.S. and I have been sworn in and I am also
19:13:56 excited to be here before you this evening.
19:13:58 For those of you not familiar with IKEA, we are a
19:14:01 Swedish retailer offering well designed functional

19:14:04 home furnishings at affordable prices.
19:14:07 Our selection includes furniture such as sofas,
19:14:12 kitchens, desks, home furnishings such as cook wear,
19:14:15 lighting, fixtures, textiles, an entire range of over
19:14:20 10,000 items in the warehouse of each store.
19:14:23 Additionally, each of our stores feature a supervised
19:14:26 child care area, a 350-foot restaurant featuring
19:14:31 Swedish specialties and home deliveries.
19:14:36 Currently there are more than 250 stores in 35
19:14:39 countries.
19:14:40 And as of yesterday, actually now 30 stores in the
19:14:43 U.S.
19:14:43 The proposed IKEA Tampa would in fact be the only
19:14:48 store in the bay area, and most likely the only store
19:14:52 along the entire Suncoast.
19:14:57 IKEA Tampa would employ approximately 400 workers,
19:15:00 many of them from the immediate area.
19:15:02 Drawing from our Swedish heritage, we are proud of our
19:15:05 record as the employer of choice, and we compensate
19:15:08 our employees well with generous benefit packages.
19:15:12 In fact, you only need to work 20 hours to be eligible
19:15:15 for full-time benefits at IKEA.

19:15:19 Which is very unique.
19:15:23 We'll be taking applications in about a year.
19:15:26 [ Laughter ]
19:15:29 >> Do I look Swedish enough?
19:15:33 [ Laughter ]
19:15:36 >>> Again even our part-timers are eligible for
19:15:39 benefits such as health insurance, matching
19:15:43 contributions, two week vacations and co-worker
19:15:46 discount.
19:15:46 For these reasons IKEA has been recognized by both
19:15:49 fortune and working mother magazine as one of the top
19:15:52 100 companies to work for.
19:15:55 Since we purchased our land, we are definitely going
19:15:58 to be considered a member, a true member of this
19:16:01 community, and besides focusing on customers and
19:16:04 co-workers, we also work to be a good neighbor within
19:16:07 that community.
19:16:09 IKEA is socially and environmentally a conscious
19:16:15 company, the sustainable nature of our products,
19:16:20 intend to go green in all aspects of our operations.
19:16:23 An example of that would be our internal recycling
19:16:25 program where we address 75% of all solid waste that

19:16:30 comes out of each store.
19:16:32 In closing, I would just like to say that we are very
19:16:35 excited to be potentially entering into the Tampa
19:16:38 market and look forward to bringing you a store in the
19:16:41 summer of 2009.
19:16:42 Thank you again for your time and your consideration.
19:16:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:16:51 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Just to conclude our remarks I would
19:16:53 like to point out to council that we are located in
19:16:55 Tampa's enterprise zone, and overriding policy in
19:17:00 establishment of that zone is to raise the economic
19:17:04 conditions of that particular area.
19:17:06 And we believe this employer will be the most
19:17:10 significant new addition, and perhaps the history of
19:17:14 the enterprise zone, and certainly one of the most
19:17:16 significant.
19:17:17 And we think that is an important consideration for
19:17:20 you all.
19:17:22 Finally, I think there are a number of people who are
19:17:24 here to speak in support of the petition, but there
19:17:28 are a couple of people who I don't think are here, and
19:17:30 we have letters which they have written in support of

19:17:33 the application.
19:17:35 One is from the Ybor city Chamber of Commerce and we
19:17:40 have those letters to enter into the record.
19:17:43 And the other is a letter from Joseph Capitano, who
19:17:48 wrote a letter in support as an individual and as a
19:17:51 member of the YCDC board of Ybor City.
19:17:57 And we understand the YCDC board didn't have the
19:18:00 opportunity to vote on this.
19:18:03 But we understood that Vince Pardo, who is a city
19:18:07 staff person for YCDC, wrote a letter indicating his
19:18:11 support.
19:18:12 And with that we would be happy to answer any
19:18:15 questions.
19:18:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
19:18:16 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
19:18:19 item number 6?
19:18:33 >>> Good evening, council.
19:18:33 My name is Fran Consentino, president of the east Ybor
19:18:38 historic civic association and I have been sworn.
19:18:41 We e-mailed you a letter of support and we would just
19:18:44 like to read it into the record.
19:18:46 Councilwoman Miller and City Council members: The

19:18:49 east Ybor historic and civic association are proud to
19:18:52 welcome IKEA to the City of Tampa but he special reply
19:18:55 to our neighborhood.
19:18:57 Our Board of Directors and members have long been
19:18:59 interested in the redevelopment of the Adamo corridor.
19:19:03 We feel that IKEA's choice of Palmetto Beach, historic
19:19:07 Ybor City and the Channelside area was an excellent
19:19:10 choice, and we welcome them into our community.
19:19:14 IKEA will bring an economic development on jobs that
19:19:16 we are grateful to them for that opportunity.
19:19:19 We have very feel that our issues are extremely
19:19:24 important because IKEA set the precedent for Adamo
19:19:27 drive and sets the tone for all future projects.
19:19:31 The east Ybor historic and civic association members
19:19:34 are requested that IKEA set their building north of
19:19:37 where they have it located, put the employee parking
19:19:41 in the rear of the building so that we will not have a
19:19:44 sea of cars directly fronting Adamo drive.
19:19:47 It will also give more maneuverability of the large
19:19:55 trucks exiting and entering their site.
19:19:58 We are hoping for a compromise.
19:20:00 Fronting Adamo drive will also give their logo more

19:20:05 visibility from all directions.
19:20:06 The east Ybor historic association is very much in
19:20:09 support of IKEA and all -- urge all of you to please
19:20:13 support this project.
19:20:14 Thank you very much.
19:20:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
19:20:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
19:20:22 I know that there is an Adamo drive overlay.
19:20:24 Does that start to the north and west of this
19:20:27 property?
19:20:29 >>> I think when Tony Garcia, something about 22nd
19:20:34 street but when we come before you, I think it was the
19:20:41 25th.
19:20:42 But your question in relation to that, Mrs. Saul-Sena?
19:20:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know that the Ybor historic to
19:20:49 the north of this, the new Palmetto Beach historic
19:20:53 district is going to be to the south of it.
19:20:55 And I think that the Adamo corridor is to the west of
19:20:58 this.
19:20:58 I'm just trying to figure out --
19:21:00 >>> Well, this is included in the Adamo corridor but
19:21:02 it not in any historic area.

19:21:05 And I think the Adamo corridor actually went from
19:21:08 Channelside to 26th, and actually went north,
19:21:12 almost I think almost to 4th Avenue but I'm not
19:21:17 sure.
19:21:18 Thank you very much.
19:21:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Next?
19:21:25 All right, Mr. Garcia.
19:21:26 >>TONY GARCIA: The corridor is actually for the Adamo
19:21:30 drive itself proper, and all the facing properties
19:21:34 are -- as far as the study area that was concerned,
19:21:37 and that was actually examined by the applicant when
19:21:41 they did come in for the redevelopment corridor,
19:21:43 extended to 4th Avenue, as Ms. Constantino said.
19:21:50 But basically we are talking about Adamo drive
19:21:52 properly and all the properties directly do abut Adamo
19:21:56 drive, just for clarification.
19:22:02 >>> Thomas Taylor, 2628 east Clark street.
19:22:05 I'm also a board member of the Palmetto Beach
19:22:07 community association.
19:22:08 I have been sworn.
19:22:10 I'm here tonight to offer our support for this
19:22:13 project.

19:22:16 We, last Tuesday at our general meeting,
19:22:19 representatives from Wilson Miller, Panattoni and
19:22:24 IKEA, made a great presentation to some community
19:22:29 members as well as obviously some of our board,
19:22:31 discussed their plan, their goals, their direction.
19:22:34 I think as Mr. Garcia had mentioned, that Adamo drive
19:22:39 corridor really is very much a gateway to the city.
19:22:42 Right now, there's a nondescript large structure
19:22:47 there, and certainly the architectural renderings that
19:22:51 were provided last week showed quite a different
19:22:54 structure being there.
19:22:57 And we are very much in support of it.
19:23:00 There are certainly members of our own community who
19:23:08 could complain up there.
19:23:10 Thank you for your time.
19:23:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:23:12 Next.
19:23:13 >>> My name is Mike Nicholson.
19:23:17 I live at 2410 Davis street in Palmetto Beach.
19:23:21 I'm a member of the board community association.
19:23:24 And I have been sworn in.
19:23:26 I am here to speak in favor of the IKEA project.

19:23:34 It was a great project that just came out of nowhere
19:23:38 and we are very happy to have it in our area.
19:23:43 Given the unique nature of the store, it's a very
19:23:47 large store, 350,000 square feet.
19:23:53 We are accepting that there is going to be a large
19:23:56 amount of parking, and that it's necessary for the
19:24:00 store.
19:24:01 I have been to other IKEAs, other locations, and
19:24:06 it's just not like any other store in the area.
19:24:11 And it's like three super targets.
19:24:14 People spend hours in there shopping.
19:24:18 I do, however, not agree with moving the building
19:24:24 north.
19:24:25 I don't think that moving a 350,000 square foot
19:24:29 building up the road will make it an urban condition.
19:24:37 As in a walkable urban condition.
19:24:39 I just don't think -- I would love the idea that if it
19:24:42 was a different project on the site.
19:24:44 However, in this case, I see it creating more problems
19:24:50 for the truck traffic and circulation at the store
19:24:57 than would benefit the area.
19:24:58 Thank you very much.

19:24:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:25:12 >>> Panattoni.
19:25:13 We support this project 100%.
19:25:15 We think it's a great addition to the area.
19:25:16 It's going to bring jobs.
19:25:17 It's going to bring the regional attracter to the
19:25:22 area, bring visitors to Ybor City, and hopefully get
19:25:25 people outside the area to realize what a wonderful
19:25:27 place Ybor City is.
19:25:29 Our only concerns with the project are, one, the
19:25:32 pedestrian crosswalks between the store and Ybor City.
19:25:39 We would like to see more pedestrian oriented design
19:25:43 placed on Adamo drive so that pedestrians can cross
19:25:48 this road.
19:25:49 It might be decorative crosswalks, better lighting.
19:25:53 Something needs to be done so that people can cross
19:25:55 the street safely.
19:25:58 Ybor City is a developing area.
19:25:59 There are a lot of tourists, a lot of residents who
19:26:02 might want to walk to that store.
19:26:05 Also, our other concern is Adamo drive is
19:26:09 developing -- a developing urban area, and we don't

19:26:14 want to see suburban style development coming onto
19:26:18 Adamo drive.
19:26:19 We realize the store has design issues.
19:26:21 And we are willing to accept those issues.
19:26:25 We were proposing that the store be moved north a
19:26:29 little bit, that would front Adamo drive.
19:26:31 However, we realize there are issues.
19:26:33 But for future developments coming Adamo drive, we
19:26:36 would really like to see a more urban style scheme or
19:26:40 development.
19:26:40 Thank you very much.
19:26:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:26:42 Would anyone else like to speak?
19:26:45 Mr. Dingfelder?
19:26:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
19:26:48 I don't know if there's rebuttal.
19:26:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you want rebuttal?
19:26:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: then I have a question.
19:27:01 >> I believe Mr. Emerler would like to speak about
19:27:12 moving the store to the north.
19:27:13 >>> Thank you.
19:27:14 Just to speak to that point.

19:27:16 There's the site plan here that I think would help
19:27:19 illustrate the problem we had with moving the building
19:27:23 north towards Adamo.
19:27:25 As you can see, our store has a large storefront.
19:27:31 And also, this is a large corner are the southwestern
19:27:41 portion.
19:27:41 And to be able to orient the building to the north
19:27:45 would have not been a very good utilization of this,
19:27:51 would effectively put the building in the middle of
19:27:53 the site and resulted in a very dysfunctional parking
19:27:56 situation, which we would like to try to avoid for
19:27:59 everyone's benefit.
19:28:00 Additionally, we think that orientation would have
19:28:04 also faced this rear elevation of our building, which
19:28:07 is our loading dock, to the Crosstown expressway,
19:28:09 which we consider to be the gateway into this region
19:28:13 of the city.
19:28:15 Not our most attractive elevation.
19:28:17 So we think that by maintaining this orientation
19:28:22 created a much better flow and a much better approach
19:28:26 aesthetically.
19:28:28 Additionally, the notion of moving the building

19:28:31 towards the north could create more access, if you
19:28:34 will, to Adamo, is challenged by a number of elements.
19:28:39 First of all, there are requirements for certain
19:28:42 depths of driveways to create a functional entrance
19:28:46 into the project and eliminate the possibility for
19:28:49 backups along surrounding roadways.
19:28:52 And we have done that the best we can here without
19:28:57 further pushing the building south with this
19:29:01 requirement that the D.O.T. has focused on as well.
19:29:04 Additionally, the truck access to the site in terms of
19:29:08 goods receiving.
19:29:10 This is actually more beneficial in this configuration
19:29:13 than it would be if the building were to be moved to
19:29:15 the north.
19:29:16 So these are all things that wove considered in our
19:29:18 conceptual design phase of this project.
19:29:20 And we have concluded that this is really the only
19:29:23 feasible orientation.
19:29:26 Thank you.
19:29:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just had a quick question.
19:29:31 In regard to the signage, the note number 12 on the
19:29:34 staff report says that it's a pretty significant

19:29:39 waiver of wall signage from 3840, allowable square
19:29:45 feet to 6,371 requested.
19:29:49 And I'm going to guess -- correct me if I am wrong --
19:29:54 the reason that there's a lot more signs than we
19:29:58 typically allow is because you basically have
19:30:00 significant frontage not only on 60 but also 22nd
19:30:04 and also on the Crosstown so you want to get as much,
19:30:08 you know, be able to fit that space.
19:30:13 Normally you wouldn't be putting signage on all four
19:30:16 sides of your building.
19:30:17 >>> Actually we would.
19:30:18 We would be doing more than we are doing here.
19:30:20 >> Okay.
19:30:20 >>> This reflects a slight compromise.
19:30:22 IKEA's typical trade as directs to signage.
19:30:26 >> This is actually less?
19:30:28 >>> This is less.
19:30:29 One of the other reasons why we wanted to avoid
19:30:32 compromising it any further is the fact that another
19:30:34 standard element to an IKEA store is a very large
19:30:38 pylon sign.
19:30:39 Although we do have a reduced version on that on-site

19:30:43 it's about a 100-foot pylon which we knew wasn't going
19:30:47 to be feasible but we wanted to at least maintain the
19:30:51 level of wall signage we had proposed tonight.
19:30:53 >> Where is the big pylon?
19:30:57 >>> If you go back to the site plan here.
19:30:58 It's in this vicinity right here.
19:31:00 It's not well reflected but the triangle right here.
19:31:05 And what that deserves to do is to help orient
19:31:09 customers who are going to be arriving at 21st
19:31:14 street at the store because the remaining utility
19:31:16 building here on the corner does an incredible job of
19:31:21 screening this very large structure.
19:31:23 It's amazing, the perspective renderings have shown
19:31:27 that this totally obstructs the view of the store.
19:31:30 So to create a little more visibility and help
19:31:34 customers understand that they can either go down
19:31:38 Adamo, or enter into our front door off of 22nd
19:31:44 street, that has a real benefit to us as well.
19:31:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
19:31:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The issue that one of our neighbors
19:31:56 raised about people trying to create a clear
19:32:01 pedestrian access from Ybor, have you addressed that

19:32:04 and will there be any shade?
19:32:06 >> Shade?
19:32:07 >>> You know, trees providing shades for pedestrians.
19:32:11 My question is specifically, we are thrilled you're
19:32:19 coming, we love your stuff, it's great.
19:32:22 Are the trees in any proximity to where a person would
19:32:26 be walking?
19:32:27 >>> They are.
19:32:28 As you know, back to the plans, there's currently kind
19:32:31 of a multi-use trail that exists here to the southern
19:32:34 portion of the site.
19:32:35 This will be continued to the northern boundary of
19:32:38 Adamo.
19:32:40 And there will also be a sidewalk which wraps the
19:32:43 entire store and travels here on Adamo.
19:32:48 In addition to that, we also have other pedestrian
19:32:50 walkways within the site, which will allow for better
19:32:54 flow through the parking lot for those pedestrians.
19:32:58 The major pedestrian corridors along the stretch right
19:33:01 hear.
19:33:01 As you can see, it's lined with shade trees.
19:33:05 >> It's hard to tell on our plan.

19:33:08 >> I believe he has over 300 shade trees on the site
19:33:11 and many of those are located in areas where we
19:33:14 provide that shade for customers.
19:33:17 >>> Let me address the crosswalk.
19:33:19 I would point out under the landscape code, 559 trees
19:33:26 and we are planting 610, 50% of which are shade trees.
19:33:33 Regarding the crosswalk, we are working with the
19:33:37 D.O.T. and Hartline as part of the D.O.T. access
19:33:41 permitting.
19:33:42 It's a complicated situation, because Adamo is a State
19:33:45 Road, and you can't do anything without the D.O.T.
19:33:49 access permit.
19:33:51 We are currently addressing the crosswalk issue
19:33:53 including ADA accessibility, but that will be dealt
19:33:57 with as part of that process.
19:33:59 >> Fantastic.
19:34:00 Thank you.
19:34:03 >> I wouldn't be real concerned about pedestrian
19:34:05 access to a furniture store.
19:34:07 I think most of the traffic is going to be coming by
19:34:09 car.
19:34:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?

19:34:14 We need to close the public hearing.
19:34:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to close the public
19:34:19 hearing.
19:34:19 >> Second.
19:34:20 (Motion carried).
19:34:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe council, there is going to
19:34:28 have to be a motion to continue.
19:34:30 >> I will make that motion, for two weeks, if I recall
19:34:32 the additional part, for two weeks.
19:34:35 This could be in daytime because we already had the
19:34:39 hearing.
19:34:39 I move to have this in two weeks during the day
19:34:41 meeting.
19:34:43 10 a.m
19:34:45 Continue that to two weeks from now, 10 a.m.
19:34:47 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the -- to rescind to
19:34:52 open the public hearing.
19:34:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's going to have to come back and
19:34:57 have the staff submit the site plan and have it be
19:34:59 approved and certified so I guess that would be
19:35:01 appropriate just to reopen.
19:35:03 >> So moved.

19:35:04 >> Second.
19:35:04 (Motion carried).
19:35:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Now need a motion.
19:35:08 >> Continue for two weeks to 10 a.m.
19:35:10 >> Second.
19:35:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to say to the IKEA people, I
19:35:16 believe you are committed to sustainability.
19:35:19 As you look at the site plan, it is a sea of asphalt.
19:35:23 It is acres and acres and acres of heat-producing
19:35:28 asphalt.
19:35:28 I hope that you will consider in the future, when
19:35:31 alternative materials are developed for surface, for
19:35:35 parking areas that are not so heat producing, that are
19:35:37 not just acres of asphalt, you will consider some sort
19:35:40 of retrofit.
19:35:41 Because this, as it is, is not a sustainable design.
19:35:46 Think about it.
19:35:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:35:48 (Motion carried)
19:35:51 Item number 7 is a continued public hearing.
19:36:28 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:36:30 I have been sworn.

19:36:31 Here on petition Z-06-134 located at 1401 and 1403
19:36:40 east Caracas street from RS-60 to a planned
19:36:45 development.
19:36:46 The use of a single family detached residential.
19:36:48 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
19:36:51 split the lot and create a buildable lot.
19:36:54 The site currently has 101.89 feet of frontage around
19:36:59 east Caracas street. The proposed frontages are 51
19:37:03 feet for lot 29 and 50.89 feet for lot 30.
19:37:08 The existing one-story home on lot 29 is 1,175 square
19:37:13 feet, and the proposed single family detached home is
19:37:18 1,757 square feet.
19:37:20 The property which is located in an 60 -- RS zoning
19:37:26 district is surround by a home in the Seminole overlay
19:37:30 district.
19:37:31 The petitioner has stated that the proposed homes will
19:37:35 be built to the overlay district standards, and in
19:37:39 waivers for design have been requested.
19:37:40 The PD setback for lot 29 are as follows: 21 feet
19:37:46 from the front, 40 feet from the rear, 18 feet 8
19:37:50 inches from the east yard, and 5.8 feet from the west
19:37:55 yard.

19:38:00 For lot 30, 21 feet from the lot, 20.5 feet from the
19:38:03 rear, 13 feet from the east yard and 5 feet from the
19:38:07 west yard.
19:38:08 The minimum building separation is 18.8 feet.
19:38:12 Based on analysis of 84 lots in the adjacent area, 34
19:38:18 lots which is equivalent to 44% of conforming with
19:38:21 RS-60 standards, and 47 lots which is equivalent to
19:38:26 56%, are considered to be nonconforming.
19:38:34 Here is the rest of the map that you have supplied so
19:38:37 you can see.
19:38:41 The majority in the area are nonconforming.
19:38:49 This is the zoning map.
19:39:02 This is the vacant lot.
19:39:05 Here are some homes in the immediate area.
19:39:17 Staff has no objection.
19:39:19 That concludes my presentation for this evening.
19:39:23 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:39:37 I have been sworn.
19:39:39 Just a couple of additional statements to add on to
19:39:43 Ms. Finney's presentation. This is located in the
19:39:46 Seminole Heights civic association, residential 10, of
19:39:49 course modification to allow development of a single

19:39:51 family detached residential unit.
19:39:53 But I did want to show you on the zoning map, there
19:39:57 has not been as you can see several PDs that have
19:40:00 already been approved in the area for these types of
19:40:03 similar uses.
19:40:04 So this is consistent with the southeast Seminole
19:40:07 hates area.
19:40:09 It's for a very low impact as far as the creation of
19:40:12 another additional residential unit.
19:40:14 Planning Commission staff had no objections to the
19:40:16 proposed request.
19:40:17 Thank you.
19:40:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:40:24 >>> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of council.
19:40:26 I'm John LaRocca, agent for petitioner, 101 East
19:40:31 Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa.
19:40:32 I have been sworn.
19:40:32 I won't repeat the staff comments and that of the
19:40:36 Planning Commission.
19:40:36 We concur.
19:40:37 As indicated there are no objections from staff.
19:40:39 We comply with the overlay district guidelines.

19:40:43 We are seeking no waivers.
19:40:44 This is simply to add to the presentation this evening
19:40:48 an appropriate in-fill into the southeast Seminole
19:40:50 Heights area, and we respectfully request your
19:40:53 approval this evening.
19:40:54 With me this evening is the petitioner Jeffrey Norman.
19:40:57 If you have any questions with regard to the type of
19:41:00 house that he plans on building on the property, but
19:41:03 we again respectfully request your approval.
19:41:05 Thank you.
19:41:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize, I stepped out for a
19:41:12 second.
19:41:12 Why is it PD, not RS-50?
19:41:15 >>> You may recall to go back in history, our original
19:41:18 request was for an RS-50.
19:41:20 And again staff may need to answer that question for
19:41:22 you.
19:41:22 We were originally advised that we could apply for an
19:41:25 RS-50.
19:41:26 Essentially the lots are platted as 51 feet.
19:41:30 Not out of character with the majority of lots in the
19:41:32 area.

19:41:33 We sought an RS-50.
19:41:35 Staff advised us -- and again, I defer to them to give
19:41:38 the technical reason why.
19:41:40 We were told it had to be done PD because I think of
19:41:43 the way the lot was being split and configured.
19:41:48 And we would be happy to do it either way.
19:41:49 In this case we find ours was the PD and we make the
19:41:52 commitments in detail.
19:41:53 So where we are.
19:41:55 >>GWEN MILLER: So staff, why -- Mr. LaRocca says staff
19:42:04 had a suggestion to do a PD instead of RS-50.
19:42:06 Don't we usually lean toward Euclidean?
19:42:09 And why not?
19:42:12 >>> Yes, generally we would.
19:42:13 This was -- I'm not sure.
19:42:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's not that critical.
19:42:26 Maybe there are some other questions.
19:42:30 >> The only question I have is there S there any
19:42:32 opposition?
19:42:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone to speak on item number
19:42:35 7?
19:42:45 >>> Good evening, council.

19:42:47 Beverly Moros, southeast Seminole Heights.
19:42:50 And I have been sworn.
19:42:52 I didn't have opportunity to look at the site plan so
19:42:59 there are a few questions I would like to have
19:43:00 answered.
19:43:01 Could you tell me what the roof pitch is on this
19:43:04 proposed structure?
19:43:06 The ratio?
19:43:12 The roof pitch was the first question.
19:43:15 The floor elevation as measured from the finished
19:43:18 grade of the properties.
19:43:22 Sometimes they measure from the center of the road.
19:43:25 And I believe there was a porch, but I would like to
19:43:29 know what the dimensions of that porch are.
19:43:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The future home, the second house.
19:43:40 >>> Yes.
19:43:43 I will go ahead and again I would like to have those
19:43:47 things answers tonight if we can.
19:43:48 But we welcome the addition of this style home in
19:43:53 Seminole Heights.
19:43:54 It appears that it exceeds the minimum guidelines for
19:43:57 residential overlay district.

19:44:00 Therefore, southeast Seminole Heights civic
19:44:03 association has no objections to the petitioner's
19:44:07 request to rezone for 1401 and 1403 Caracas street
19:44:12 from the RS 06 to the PD.
19:44:15 But I would like to be clear on these items.
19:44:18 Thank you.
19:44:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:44:20 Would anyone else like to speak?
19:44:23 Mr. LaRocca, will you come back and answer those,
19:44:25 please?
19:44:28 >>> I was hoping you would find me the drawings.
19:44:30 It should be in the packet.
19:44:32 Actually I have the plans that I will be glad to share
19:44:35 with, that person making the comments.
19:44:39 But I was hoping to show some actual elevations.
19:44:41 Are they not in your packet?
19:44:50 >> For references, four sided elevations.
19:44:56 >>> Yes.
19:44:56 I gave the last one in our packet.
19:44:59 I'm sorry we don't have it readily here.
19:45:01 If you will bear with me.
19:45:05 Well, in complying with the overlay district

19:45:07 guidelines, I am Karl concerned that -- is there not a
19:45:17 set of the drawings in the packet?
19:45:20 The structure does have a front porch, in the bungalow
19:45:27 style.
19:45:28 Somebody indicated the pitch.
19:45:30 You must have the drawings with you.
19:45:31 Can I share with you?
19:45:32 Are they in the packet?
19:45:36 I guess the one copy I kept here did not have the
19:45:38 second page attached.
19:45:42 If I may, we made a commitment to this drawing in the
19:45:45 record.
19:45:46 Thank you.
19:45:55 As indicated on the Elmo, on the overhead, this is the
19:45:59 front elevation of the structure.
19:46:01 Again all of these drawings comply with the overlay
19:46:04 district.
19:46:06 There is the front porch.
19:46:11 Right side elevation of the structure.
19:46:14 Again if we focus out a bit.
19:46:24 Left side elevation of the building.
19:46:31 And rear of the structure.

19:46:36 Sketches indicated by Mr. Caetano.
19:46:40 Simply as we have run through the process there was
19:46:43 never a question about compliance with the overlay
19:46:45 district.
19:46:45 We comply with those standards, and we suspect it will
19:46:50 be meeting the character of the historic district.
19:46:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Ms. Coyle had a response to
19:46:55 my question about the PD versus the RS-50.
19:46:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
19:47:00 What you have before you, if it would have been an
19:47:02 RS-50 request, the existing house, 5.8 feet from that
19:47:07 interior lot line which would have triggered, upon
19:47:09 your approval, a request for a variance before the
19:47:12 VRB.
19:47:13 This consolidates it.
19:47:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for the clarification.
19:47:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
19:47:20 >> So moved.
19:47:20 >> Second.
19:47:21 (Motion carried).
19:47:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have an ordinance?
19:47:24 >> I move an ordinance rezoning property in the

19:47:32 general vicinity of 1401 and 1403 east Caracas street
19:47:36 in the city of Tampa, Florida from zoning district
19:47:38 classification RS-60 residential single family to PD,
19:47:41 planned development, single family detached, providing
19:47:47 an effective date.
19:47:47 (Motion carried)
19:47:49 Item number 8.
19:47:50 Continued public hearing.
19:48:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:48:32 We are hear on Z-07-24, 7700 Courtney Campbell
19:48:38 causeway from PD to PD.
19:48:43 Petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
19:48:45 allow for a 247-room hotel, 136 condominium units, 38
19:48:55 residential units, 3,81500 square feet of commercial
19:49:00 uses.
19:49:02 With a maximum height of 220 feet.
19:49:04 The site is surrounded predominantly by hotel uses
19:49:10 within the immediate area of the Courtney Campbell
19:49:11 causeway. The proposed PD setbacks are as follows.
19:49:15 To the north, 25.3 feet.
19:49:17 To the east, 45.54 feet.
19:49:20 To the south, 16 feet.

19:49:23 To the west, 25.62 feet.
19:49:25 A total of 700 parking spaces are required, and 836
19:49:30 spaces are being provided.
19:49:33 The residential tower would be located at the
19:49:36 southernmost portion of the site consisting of the
19:49:39 throw bottom stories for parking and 15 stories of
19:49:42 condominiums.
19:49:43 The hotel residence tower located, the bottom three
19:49:51 stories for parking, eight stories for hotel use, and
19:49:53 the top 3 for residential use. The site plan that was
19:49:57 through the proposed one-story to be construct in --
19:50:01 constructed in the bay. The City of Tampa does not
19:50:05 approve gas.
19:50:06 Approval of the gas shall be subject to Tampa port
19:50:09 authority approval.
19:50:09 Petitioner has worked with the FAA to ensure the
19:50:12 appropriate height maximums are being met.
19:50:15 And they have provided elevations.
19:50:25 Here is a zoning map.
19:50:27 And you can see virtually every property in the area
19:50:29 has been zoned and rezoned to PD.
19:50:40 This is the area.

19:50:41 The Courtney Campbell.
19:50:49 This is the site.
19:50:50 The existing hotel.
19:51:06 Land development made a request that petitioner revise
19:51:09 note number 2, the developed use table, because of
19:51:14 inconsistent with other numbers that have been used,
19:51:19 and a waiver of 94% removal of the productive trees.
19:51:25 I believe that they have worked something out.
19:51:28 So I will let landscape specialist Mary Daniel Bryson
19:51:32 address that.
19:51:39 >>> Mary Daniel Bryson, Land Development Coordination.
19:51:42 I have been sworn.
19:51:43 The site, they are transplanting assiduous shade trees
19:51:50 and we would like a five year agreement with those
19:51:54 trees.
19:51:54 However they are still removing 94% of the trees which
19:51:57 are palm trees and they would need a waiver for that.
19:52:02 We also require them to change the details of the tree
19:52:06 and landscape detail for the multi-detail, and there
19:52:12 are a couple of other notes that need to be added to
19:52:14 the land.
19:52:17 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

19:52:25 I have been sworn.
19:52:40 The lot in question lies to the south of the Courtney
19:52:45 Campbell causeway, west of the vet advance expressway.
19:52:50 Proposed mix use 60.
19:52:51 It's mixed use in nature, as Ms. Finney has told you,
19:52:56 comprised of a hotel, condominium units, and some
19:52:58 residential units.
19:53:02 The site contributes to what's been a continual
19:53:05 involvement of this particular area oh Courtney
19:53:09 Campbell causeway, as some of you who have been on
19:53:12 council -- I'm sure, Mr. Miranda, you recall probably
19:53:16 gave us some history on what's been going on on
19:53:18 Courtney Campbell.
19:53:23 >> I remember going crabbing there with your father.
19:53:29 >>> And my grandfather, probably.
19:53:32 [ Laughter ]
19:53:39 Several other projects to the north and the south.
19:53:41 The site in question, a couple of sites to the north.
19:53:46 Regarding properties in this area.
19:53:49 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
19:53:52 site request.
19:53:53 This is in close proximity to Westshore, mixed use,

19:53:56 regional mixed use area.
19:53:59 It is a significant area with a significant employment
19:54:01 base, so the request is consistent with all the goals
19:54:06 and policies as relate to projects of this intensity
19:54:09 and density.
19:54:10 Thank you.
19:54:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:54:11 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Good evening.
19:54:31 My address is suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
19:54:35 I have been sworn.
19:54:38 This evening.
19:54:41 I have the pleasure of representing RPS, LLC.
19:54:54 I'm also accompanied by Mr. Brown, certified AIA
19:54:59 architect with Nelson Paine associates in Atlanta.
19:55:02 Mr. Keith Veak, Veak and associates, our professional
19:55:07 engineer.
19:55:08 Finally, Mr. Greg Myer, registered landscape architect
19:55:12 with MSI Design, he's also with us this evening.
19:55:17 One clarification on Jill's very thorough report is we
19:55:22 had 274 rooms planned instead of 247 rooms planned.
19:55:28 This project is on 7700 Courtney Campbell causeway.
19:55:33 Currently, the Radisson bay harbor Inn that has been

19:55:36 on Courtney Campbell for many, many years.
19:55:39 Our clients are trying to redevelop this project for a
19:55:43 Ritz Carlton hotel.
19:55:44 We are in the final negotiation was the Ritz Carlton
19:55:47 to place that hotel at this property.
19:55:49 Approximately six acres.
19:55:51 It's consistent with the land use plan, and other
19:55:56 criteria within the land use element.
19:56:01 Getting to the site plan issues, let me explain to
19:56:04 you, we have an elevation here before you, one of the
19:56:08 elevations.
19:56:11 Lackey has all four elevations and he'll show those
19:56:14 now a minute after I complete these preliminary
19:56:16 comments.
19:56:17 On the land use plan, the central issue this evening
19:56:20 is to grant a waiver to allow the removal of virtually
19:56:24 all of the trees on the property.
19:56:28 Let me show you Jill's photographs.
19:56:34 Here is the existing Radisson bay harbor and the
19:56:37 current landscaping.
19:56:38 This will be demolished.
19:56:41 And here is another view, looking from Rocky Point

19:56:44 looking towards the south.
19:56:45 The building on the back on the back of Rocky Point.
19:56:53 A 1970s type construction.
19:56:55 The current landscaping is not of the greatest sort.
19:56:59 Under chapter 13, which you will get in return in this
19:57:02 project, is meeting and exceeding the current chapter
19:57:06 13 codes, which we submit for a use of the caliber of
19:57:11 Ritz Carlton will be much better than what you have
19:57:13 there.
19:57:14 So you have to grant us the waiver to allow us to
19:57:17 clear the site, but to come back with a better
19:57:20 landscape plan that Mr. Myers is going to be working
19:57:24 on as landscape consultant for my clients.
19:57:28 That's the waiver issue.
19:57:30 We have a minor change on your site plan.
19:57:34 If you will flip, you will see on condition 2.
19:57:38 It's just a numerical change.
19:57:40 Instead stead of 132 condominium units it's 136.
19:57:44 Instead of 44 residential units, it's 48.
19:57:48 We can equally do that on the site plan.
19:57:55 We have no problem doing a two-year maintenance
19:57:57 agreement for the trees that will be transplanted on

19:58:00 the site.
19:58:00 Some of these trees will survive.
19:58:04 We will comply with power line easements which
19:58:12 requires you plant certain trees within ten foot of
19:58:15 power lines.
19:58:16 Condition 10 in the site plan requires compliance with
19:58:19 chapter 13 so you have that binding commitment from
19:58:22 our client.
19:58:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Any opposition?
19:58:31 >>> Not that I have ever detected.
19:58:33 Finally we will comply with the stormwater requirement
19:58:35 under condition 13.
19:58:37 I have nothing further to add.
19:58:39 I would like lackey brown to come forward and show you
19:58:42 the elevation from our perspective of the property.
19:58:46 The rest of the development team is here if you have
19:58:49 questions.
19:58:50 Will you come forward?
19:58:51 >>> Thank you for allowing to us be here.
19:58:52 My name is Lochey brown of Atlanta and I have been
19:58:59 sworn in.
19:59:00 I will show you a few of the he will vases that are

19:59:02 conceptual.
19:59:11 This is the elevation from the west, from the Bayside.
19:59:16 It consists of three at the upper podium level which
19:59:20 is the function spaces, the restaurant spaces, that
19:59:25 are related to the hotel.
19:59:27 Has eight floors and hotel.
19:59:29 Then eight floors in the upper part of that.
19:59:41 This provides you with a sketch of what the western
19:59:43 rear development would be, which shows the dock side,
19:59:50 the walkway to be created along here and the various
19:59:54 pools, and associated function that would be on the
19:59:58 rear side, or the western side of the hotel.
20:00:05 As far as an entry off of Courtney Campbell, this
20:00:08 gives you a sketch of the entry, and the way in which
20:00:13 the entry drives up to the level which is where the
20:00:18 function drop-off, hotel drop-off, and there would be
20:00:20 a significant water feature that we would have at this
20:00:23 level or this area with appropriate landscape.
20:00:29 That would be a part of that.
20:00:46 This is our drop-off point for the hotel.
20:01:08 This is the northern elevation, which has our function
20:01:13 spaces which are on the lower level of the hotel,

20:01:19 where you have a landscape buffer that would be along
20:01:21 Courtney Campbell on this side.
20:01:24 It would be here.
20:01:25 On the south side, the cut through, the shape, the
20:01:30 difference between the hotel, and the hotel residents.
20:01:47 This is various north, south, east, west elevations.
20:01:51 With the hotel and the sister building, the design
20:01:55 will be in a classical style.
20:01:57 It would be a stucco and stone building with
20:02:00 terra-cotta, allows us to use a lot of the rooftop
20:02:06 areas as a garden and areas in which areas can be
20:02:11 utilized.
20:02:13 This is the east and west elevation.
20:02:24 That's all the elevations.
20:02:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Where would I park?
20:02:32 >>> We have three levels of parking.
20:02:36 [ Laughter ]
20:02:36 We'll let you park right next to the door.
20:02:42 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: We'll have a valet.
20:02:44 That's all we have.
20:02:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:02:46 wants to speak on item number 9?

20:02:48 >> Move to close.
20:02:50 >>> Can we close?
20:02:52 How do we do that?
20:02:54 >> Do you have a date that would you like to do that?
20:02:57 >>> Yes, so they could add the waivers of the site
20:02:59 plan, and the waiver.
20:03:01 >> Did you want a daytime meeting?
20:03:03 >>GWEN MILLER: In the day, yes.
20:03:04 How many weeks do you need?
20:03:09 >>> We can be back next Thursday morning.
20:03:16 That would be May 29.
20:03:17 I think we can make May 29.
20:03:21 >> It would be the June 14th.
20:03:22 >> I'm sorry.
20:03:24 You're right.
20:03:30 >>> They need to have them turned in within ten days.
20:03:32 Ten days prior to the hearing.
20:03:34 And the next hearing from that date would be the June
20:03:37 14th.
20:03:38 It's only three weeks away.
20:03:39 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: We can file a site plan by Tuesday
20:03:42 the 29th and be back on the 14th of June.

20:03:48 If we can have a morning meeting we would appreciate
20:03:49 it.
20:03:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, we had some kind of
20:03:55 communication -- called me tonight about 6:00 and let
20:04:05 me know -- on this site, I wanted to disclose that on
20:04:15 the record, to make sure everybody understands that.
20:04:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
20:04:22 >> I have to disclose that we can't --
20:04:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was going to be mine.
20:04:32 Mr. Shelby agrees with that?
20:04:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, I agree with that and I thank
20:04:36 council member Scott in an abundance of caution.
20:04:40 >>GWEN MILLER: June 14th, 10 a.m.
20:04:44 We have a motion and second to continue to June
20:04:46 14th at 10 a.m.
20:04:47 All in favor -- question on the motion?
20:04:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say so you don't
20:04:52 think I'm a total historic preservation, my mother
20:04:54 said just because something is really old doesn't mean
20:04:57 it was really nice.
20:04:58 In this case, what is going to be put there is going
20:05:00 to be so much nicer than what's there now.

20:05:03 It's really exciting.
20:05:04 I think it's going to be absolutely beautiful.
20:05:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We want to welcome them.
20:05:12 A lot of development going on there.
20:05:14 I think last week he would talked about the old
20:05:16 Crawdaddy's being redone.
20:05:18 So this is great for the community, great for the
20:05:22 area.
20:05:22 So thank you.
20:05:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to chime in and say
20:05:37 it's a pretty exciting evening for the City of Tampa.
20:05:40 We got IKEA on one end of town, Ritz Carlton on the
20:05:45 other, and we have arrived tonight.
20:05:49 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion say Aye.
20:05:51 Opposed, Nay.
20:05:56 10 a.m., June 14th.
20:05:57 (Motion carried)
20:06:01 Item 9, continued public hearing.
20:06:12 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
20:06:39 I have been sworn.
20:06:40 We are hear on petition Z-07-31, located at 905 east
20:06:47 Holland street, going from CG commercial general and

20:06:50 RS-50 residential single family to a PD planned
20:06:53 development with retail and office uses.
20:06:55 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
20:06:59 construct a 5,850 square foot retail office building.
20:07:04 Setbacks for the structure include 10 feet fronting on
20:07:07 Nebraska, 56 feet fronting on Holland street, 76
20:07:12 eastern side yard, and 4.5-foot southern side yard
20:07:16 setback.
20:07:17 The proposed plan requires 22 parking spaces.
20:07:21 Petitioner is providing only 18 spaces including 11
20:07:25 compact spaces totaling 61%.
20:07:28 The compact spaces were necessary in order to meet the
20:07:32 parking requirement given the grand tree located
20:07:34 on-site.
20:07:45 Here is the zoning map of the area.
20:07:48 You can see that the use is -- CD is site prevalent up
20:07:54 an down Nebraska.
20:08:02 Here is the property at Holland and Nebraska,.
20:08:10 Here is the proposed site.
20:08:23 This is log away to the east.
20:08:28 This is looking to the north.
20:08:30 And this is looking south.

20:08:32 Staff has no objections to the proposed rezoning.
20:08:37 And I am available if you have any questions.
20:08:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It looks from the aerial as if
20:08:44 there are some really a maying trees in the eastern
20:08:47 part of the site.
20:08:48 Are those being protected?
20:08:53 >>> Mary Daniels Bryson, Land Development
20:08:55 Coordination.
20:08:57 One is hazardous and it is being removed.
20:09:00 The other, they have gone through extensive
20:09:02 modifications with the site plan to preserve that
20:09:05 tree, as well as transplant some of the smaller ones
20:09:09 to retain at least 50% which they were required to do.
20:09:16 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:09:23 I have been sworn.
20:09:26 Several additional comments.
20:09:31 The site in question does have a split land use
20:09:33 designation along Nebraska to the east.
20:09:38 You have a heavy commercial 24 designations and goes
20:09:40 to the eastern most part of the subject property does
20:09:43 have a residential land use category.
20:09:46 We have already been informed this is going to be for

20:09:48 information use.
20:09:49 Basically the residential 20 farther to the section
20:09:52 east will be used for non-commercial usage but be for
20:09:55 annal lawyer uses for parking and retention.
20:09:58 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
20:10:00 proposed request.
20:10:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:10:08 >>> Jeremy coates representing applicant.
20:10:11 I have been sworn.
20:10:12 We agree with the staff's recommendation.
20:10:13 We worked really hard to get a site plan that actually
20:10:16 works.
20:10:17 Save the trees gets the owner what he's looking for as
20:10:20 well.
20:10:21 And I'm here if you have any questions.
20:10:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:10:24 wants to speak on item number 9?
20:10:26 Anyone want to speak on 9?
20:10:29 >> Motion to close.
20:10:29 >> Second.
20:10:29 (Motion carried).
20:10:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Move an ordinance rezoning property in

20:10:43 the vicinity of 905 east Holland street in the city of
20:10:46 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
20:10:49 section 1 from district classification commercial
20:10:52 general and RS-60 residential single family to planned
20:10:55 development, retail office, providing an effective
20:10:57 date.
20:11:00 >> We have a motion and second.
20:11:01 (Motion carried)
20:11:03 We need to open item 12.
20:11:05 >> So moved.
20:11:06 >> Second.
20:11:06 (Motion carried)
20:11:09 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
20:11:37 I have been sworn.
20:11:38 We are hear on petition Z-07-33 located at 2901, 2905,
20:11:43 and 2907 north 21st street.
20:11:47 The project is proposing to go from RS-50 residential
20:11:51 single family to PD planned development.
20:11:55 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
20:11:58 allow for a total of 2400 square feet of professional
20:12:01 office.
20:12:03 The 10,830 square foot site is located in an RS-50

20:12:07 zoning district, and is surrounded by a mix of
20:12:10 single-family homes and professional offices.
20:12:12 The site is currently vacant. The PD setbacks are as
20:12:16 follows.
20:12:17 To the north is 20 feet from. The west is 20 feet.
20:12:20 From the south is 54 feet.
20:12:22 From the east is 6 feet.
20:12:24 A total of 8 parking spaces are required, and 8
20:12:27 parking spaces are provided.
20:12:29 The rezoning is located in the enterprise zone, and
20:12:33 for Tampa comprehensive plan the additional criteria
20:12:36 is not applicable.
20:12:46 Here is a zoning map of the area.
20:12:55 This is the area.
20:12:57 21st street north and south.
20:13:01 18th Avenue to the south of the site.
20:13:14 The site in this area.
20:13:16 Across the street to the west.
20:13:21 To the south west.
20:13:23 And this is immediately to the south.
20:13:25 And this is the state site to the east.
20:13:37 And this is looking down 18th street.

20:13:47 This is the East Tampa overlay district.
20:13:55 >> Are there any design guidelines in this area?
20:13:57 >>> Yes, there are.
20:14:05 The one outstanding comment that we have comes from
20:14:08 urban design, and their concern was with the chain
20:14:13 link fence that is on the site.
20:14:16 I'm not sure.
20:14:17 Urban design is here and would like to speak to this
20:14:19 issue.
20:14:30 >>> Nicole Barry with urban design and I have not been
20:14:32 sworn.
20:14:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else that came in that has not
20:14:35 been sworn, would you please raise your right hand?
20:14:37 Anyone else that came in.
20:14:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If could you stand and raise your
20:14:41 hand.
20:14:43 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:14:48 >>> I did have an objection to the proposed site plan.
20:14:54 The petitioner, they are asking for a waiver to put a
20:14:58 fence with some vines on there.
20:15:00 The East Tampa overlay district prohibited chain link
20:15:03 fence, even though the petitioner does not have, or

20:15:06 it's not specifying R specifying what type of fence
20:15:08 they are using, they are asking to use -- put vines
20:15:14 through a fence and the only way you can see it is
20:15:17 with a chain link fence.
20:15:19 We have given comments on April 17th as well as
20:15:22 May 16th.
20:15:23 I have not been corrected by the petitioner.
20:15:26 For them to say if they are going to use chain link
20:15:30 fence, or they didn't try to comment on my objections
20:15:32 whatsoever.
20:15:37 I do have a picture.
20:15:46 The reason why -- well, along with the East Tampa
20:15:50 overlay district or guidelines prohibiting chain link
20:15:54 fence, while we really don't like chain link fence and
20:15:57 with the vines going through them, it takes a lot of
20:16:00 maintenance.
20:16:01 With the drought that we are having now, it's harder
20:16:03 to get the flowers and the vines to grow through it
20:16:07 the way it should.
20:16:08 It will end up looking, again on the Elmo, please,
20:16:12 looking like that.
20:16:14 And it's not very attractive whatsoever.

20:16:17 So that was why I objected on it on this petition and
20:16:20 again on the next petition that you are about to hear.
20:16:24 Do you have any questions for me?
20:16:25 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
20:16:27 Thank you.
20:16:30 >>> I would like to say that chain link fence is not
20:16:32 allowed in the in the district period and it's on the
20:16:36 site plans stating that.
20:16:37 We would like them to specify that they will be using
20:16:40 PVC or metal or whatever will be used.
20:16:44 And that concludes our presentation.
20:16:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:16:51 I have been sworn.
20:16:58 It's locate within the East Tampa redevelopment area.
20:17:01 It's specifically the East Tampa CRA area.
20:17:04 It is located in between 21st and 22nd which
20:17:07 are identified as collector roads and the land use
20:17:12 category along this side is residential 20.
20:17:15 The properties to the east of 22nd street.
20:17:19 Of course, this is really where your commercial uses
20:17:23 are, or planned to be located along this segment of
20:17:27 22nd street.

20:17:28 Most of the uses, if I go to the aerial here, you will
20:17:31 see are mixed.
20:17:33 There are a variety of vacant commercial structures on
20:17:37 this particular segment of 22nd street.
20:17:40 And you do have quite a few areas underutilized.
20:17:47 This current site is vacant land.
20:17:48 It does interface to residential units and a
20:17:51 residential unit to the area to the north here.
20:17:53 And there is a unit as Ms. Finney has alluded to that
20:17:57 really is going to be the next -- it going to be the
20:18:00 next zoning case that will be presented to you right
20:18:03 after this one which is just to the top, also for
20:18:06 professional office.
20:18:07 So you are going to have like uses on corners over
20:18:12 here along 21st street.
20:18:15 You will have access along 18th Avenue, which
20:18:17 again seems to make sense,.
20:18:22 It makes sense to access a very short street over
20:18:24 here.
20:18:25 And you are going to be interfacing two commercial
20:18:27 uses which are low office uses.
20:18:29 This is consistent with the vision and objectives

20:18:32 within East Tampa CRA vision, and also consistent with
20:18:36 the enterprise zone, policies.
20:18:40 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
20:18:42 proposed request.
20:18:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:18:44 >>MARK BENTLEY: I represent the petitioner.
20:19:05 The property is located in the East Tampa CRA, East
20:19:08 Tampa overlay, and enterprise district. The proposed
20:19:12 development is for professional office space which
20:19:14 will be a redevelopment project, and hopefully a
20:19:16 catalyst for likewise development in a somewhat
20:19:19 blighted area of town. The one issue on this fence,
20:19:23 the site plan that's before you, if you look on the
20:19:25 north side, it says CLF to be removed, chain link
20:19:30 fence.
20:19:31 So we committed to that.
20:19:32 Also one of our notes we will comply with the East
20:19:37 Tampa overlay standard.
20:19:39 The East Tampa overlay standards give the owner the
20:19:41 option of any material except for wood or chain link.
20:19:44 So on our site plan we indicate that there will be a
20:19:47 new fence there, and actually the overlay suggests

20:19:50 that at the time of commercial site plan review, you
20:19:53 make that election.
20:19:54 So we are committed to either a PVC or a metal fence,
20:19:58 and that complies with your code.
20:20:00 So if that's the only sticking point, I don't think
20:20:02 that warrants delaying anything for two weeks to
20:20:05 indicate the type of material but it's pretty clear, I
20:20:09 can show you on the site plan.
20:20:11 The Elmo, please.
20:20:13 Right there, the yellow.
20:20:21 If you have any other questions, I will try to answer
20:20:23 those.
20:20:23 Thank you.
20:20:24 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
20:20:26 on item 12?
20:20:28 >> Move to close the public hearing.
20:20:29 >> Second.
20:20:29 (Motion carried)
20:20:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: With that correction by Mr. Bentley
20:20:44 then, it don't have to come back to us, right?
20:20:51 >>> We would like that, but he is saying he would
20:20:54 comply with the --

20:20:55 >> I just wanted to make sure.
20:20:57 I don't think we need to hold up based on the fact
20:20:59 that he's got a.
20:21:04 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
20:21:06 of 2901, 2905, and 2907 north 21st street in the
20:21:12 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
20:21:15 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
20:21:18 RS-50 residential single family to PD, planned
20:21:22 development, professional office, providing an
20:21:25 effective date.
20:21:26 >> I have a motion and second.
20:21:27 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:21:29 (Motion carried)
20:21:32 Need to open item 13.
20:21:34 >> So moved.
20:21:34 >> Second.
20:21:34 (Motion carried)
20:21:35 >>JILL FINNEY: Land development.
20:21:55 I have been sworn.
20:21:55 We are here on petition Z-07-34 located at 2811,
20:22:01 21st street, going from RS-50 residential single
20:22:04 family to PD planned development professional office.

20:22:07 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
20:22:11 allow for a total of 750 square feet of professional
20:22:16 office use, 610 square foot site is in an RS-50 zoning
20:22:22 district, and is surrounded by a mix of single-family
20:22:24 homes and professional offices.
20:22:27 The site contains an existing single family structure
20:22:31 which will remain and be used as the proposed office
20:22:34 building.
20:22:35 The PD setbacks are as follows.
20:22:38 To the north is 6.6 feet.
20:22:41 To the west is 28.9 feet.
20:22:44 To the south is 7.1 feet.
20:22:46 And to the east is 29.8 feet.
20:22:49 And these setbacks are consistent with the structure
20:22:52 that is currently existing on the site.
20:22:54 A total of 3 parking spaces are required and 2 parking
20:22:57 spaces are provided.
20:22:58 Therefore, a waiver for the deficit parking has been
20:23:01 requested.
20:23:02 Proposed height with the existing structure, which is
20:23:07 one story and 25 feet in height.
20:23:31 Here is the existing structure.

20:23:42 This is the abutting site to the east.
20:23:57 And again, we just have the same issues as the last
20:24:01 one, where we would request that they classify whether
20:24:04 it's CVC or metal they would be using, and the same
20:24:08 comments on urban design.
20:24:11 That concludes my presentation.
20:24:12 I'm available for questions.
20:24:19 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:24:20 I have been sworn.
20:24:21 Very quickly, it's basically all the same situations
20:24:24 that I have brought to you prior to the property in
20:24:28 question.
20:24:31 This is the parcel directly to the south.
20:24:34 This will continue the small development
20:24:36 revitalization, the trend that's been going on, or
20:24:39 will be going on for this particular variance of East
20:24:43 Tampa.
20:24:45 Planning Commission has no objection to the proposed
20:24:47 request.
20:24:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Bentley, you have been sworn?
20:24:52 >>MARK BENTLEY: Yes.
20:24:53 Mark Bentley, I have been sworn.

20:24:55 Once again class 3 development opportunity southeast
20:24:59 corner, 21st and 18th, 700 square foot existing house.
20:25:03 This presents some design challenges.
20:25:06 We are trying to develop that for professional offices
20:25:08 as well.
20:25:08 Here again concerning the chain link fence.
20:25:10 There is a note on the site plan.
20:25:17 Elmo, please.
20:25:21 Right here is the existing chain link fence.
20:25:25 We have also committed in the note, I think note 7 or
20:25:28 13 to comply with the East Tampa overlay.
20:25:31 So if you have any other questions we are here to
20:25:35 answer.
20:25:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone here in the public to
20:25:37 speak on item 13?
20:25:39 >> Move to close.
20:25:40 >> Second.
20:25:40 (Motion carried).
20:25:41 (Motion carried).
20:25:46 >>> Thank you very much.
20:25:46 Appreciate it.
20:25:50 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

20:25:52 of 2811 north 21st street in the city of Tampa,
20:25:56 Florida and more particularly described in section 1
20:25:59 from zoning district classification RS-50 residential
20:26:04 single family to PD, planned development, professional
20:26:06 office.
20:26:08 Providing an effective date.
20:26:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
20:26:12 All in favor?
20:26:13 (Motion carried)
20:26:14 Need to open number 17.
20:26:16 >> So moved.
20:26:17 >> Second.
20:26:17 (Motion carried).
20:26:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 14 is ready to be heard, isn't it?
20:26:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe, because of the discrepancy
20:26:27 of the fact that there was a question of whether or
20:26:29 not the affidavit was filed, the petitioner wasn't
20:26:32 prepared to go forward, and a continuance was granted.
20:26:35 >> Yes.
20:26:35 We agreed ad PD of council, to continue at that point.
20:26:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 17.
20:26:44 >>JILL FINNEY: Land development coordination.

20:26:47 I have been sworn.
20:26:49 Application Z-07-40 located at 313 South Bungalow Park
20:26:53 going from RM-16, residential multifamily, to RO-1,
20:26:59 residential office.
20:27:00 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
20:27:02 allow for professional office usage.
20:27:06 There are 7100 square foot site is located in an RM-16
20:27:09 zoning district, and is surrounded by a mix of
20:27:13 single-family residential units an professional office
20:27:16 uses.
20:27:17 The site contains a one-story single-family home which
20:27:20 will remain on-site and be used for the proposed
20:27:22 professional office.
20:27:24 The site plans are as follows.
20:27:27 To the south is 13 feet.
20:27:29 To the east 20.
20:27:30 North 12.8.
20:27:31 And to the west, 61 feet.
20:27:34 There are four parking spaces required and a total of
20:27:36 3 parking spaces are being provided.
20:27:38 A waiver has been requested for the deficit parking.
20:27:51 Here is the zoning map.

20:27:55 This is RO-1 office uses in this portion.
20:28:40 This is directly to the east.
20:28:42 This is across the site to the south.
20:28:48 This is the view to the west on Azeele and you can see
20:28:51 the numerous offices.
20:29:02 Staff has one objection coming from landscaping.
20:29:06 And Mary Daniels Bryson will speak to that.
20:29:14 >>> Mary Daniel Bryson, Land Development Coordination.
20:29:17 I have been sworn.
20:29:18 Basically, along the border along Azeele street, they
20:29:26 need to ask for -- they are required to do an 8-foot
20:29:29 wide buffer here.
20:29:36 And they need to request a waiver, and redo buffer,
20:29:45 and request they amend the site plan to accommodate
20:29:48 that.
20:29:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:30:05 I have been sworn.
20:30:09 The land use, there's really two predominant land use
20:30:14 categories.
20:30:15 Residential 20, and has a future land use designation
20:30:21 of residential 20, and residential 35 directly to the
20:30:24 south.

20:30:28 This shows you -- Ms. Finney showed you some of the
20:30:32 existing uses.
20:30:33 I would like to add a couple others.
20:30:34 There's an apartment complex here. This is single
20:30:37 family detached.
20:30:37 Single family detached also here.
20:30:40 Then you have a series of offices over here, an office
20:30:43 here.
20:30:43 This office.
20:30:50 It would be similar to orientation to the proposed
20:30:52 uses over here.
20:30:53 As you have seen this is currently a single family
20:30:56 detached residence that's going to retain its
20:30:58 character, if you go ahead and look at the PD so you
20:31:00 are not going to have any kind of significant change
20:31:02 as far as the character, the residential character, of
20:31:05 the particular parcel in question or structure in
20:31:09 question.
20:31:09 And minimal impacts as far as number of parking spaces
20:31:11 that are required.
20:31:12 This is again compatible and in character with a
20:31:15 mixture of low density office uses that we do see

20:31:18 along this segment of Azeele street in this particular
20:31:21 section of South Tampa.
20:31:22 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
20:31:24 proposed request.
20:31:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:31:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would see if there's any
20:31:44 opposition?
20:31:45 >>> Gene Miller.
20:31:46 I have been sworn in.
20:31:47 I'm one of the owners, small property owner.
20:31:51 My business partner Dennis Morris is also here.
20:31:57 We acquired this property about 18 months ago.
20:31:59 As you can see, the existing house sits less than 10
20:32:02 feet from Azeele, which carries about 12,000 cars a
20:32:05 day.
20:32:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Can I stop you for one second?
20:32:09 Let me see if anyone is in objection.
20:32:13 Go ahead.
20:32:13 We have some opposition.
20:32:17 >> Make your presentation.
20:32:18 >>GWEN MILLER: If you didn't have any, we would have
20:32:20 stopped it.

20:32:21 >> Okay.
20:32:25 It is a busy street.
20:32:32 RS 16 which will apply for a PD, develop three
20:32:35 attached single-family homes allowed by the R-10 land
20:32:39 use designation, and in fact you approved, as you can
20:32:42 see from this exhibit, you approved the PD for the
20:32:46 property immediately to the north last year for three,
20:32:50 three-story attached single-family homes.
20:32:57 While planning the project we went ahead and renovated
20:32:59 the interior of the house.
20:33:08 Bear with me for a second.
20:33:20 >> Now it's upside down.
20:33:22 >>> We renovate the interior.
20:33:24 And we know it cleaned up very nicely and had some
20:33:28 intrinsic value, and we decided that given the
20:33:31 proximity of the structure to a deal, that their use
20:33:35 of the property would be for professional office, and
20:33:37 that's why we are requesting the rezoning.
20:33:39 Our intention is to further renovate the house, to add
20:33:42 a supporting parking lot in the back and to improve
20:33:45 the landscaping.
20:33:47 The buffer from MacDill is the first tame we heard

20:33:49 about it.
20:33:50 We are willing to accept the additional waiver and we
20:33:52 would request the first reading in a couple of weeks,
20:33:54 in the morning.
20:33:56 I would like to point out three primary reasons that
20:33:59 we think our request is worthy of your support.
20:34:01 First of all, again, a deal is a very busy street, not
20:34:06 conducive to a single-family residential you without
20:34:10 some kind of additional buffer or setback.
20:34:13 It's a small lot only 55 feet wide.
20:34:15 It really doesn't offer.
20:34:17 Second of all, which is very clear from this exhibit
20:34:19 here, the house is becoming a bit of an island in a
20:34:24 surrounding sea of multifamily and office uses.
20:34:27 Most of the neighboring properties on either side of
20:34:29 Azeele between Armenia and MacDill have been
20:34:31 redeveloped for professional office.
20:34:33 You can see the numbers there.
20:34:37 These photos were taken --
20:34:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, if you can take the microphone
20:34:42 right behind you.
20:34:45 >>> Sure.

20:34:45 But all of these numbers correspond to each photos and
20:34:49 these are all professional office uses or multifamily
20:34:53 uses on all sides of this particular lot.
20:35:02 And finally I am going to show you the PD that was
20:35:05 approved last year for the single family lot next to
20:35:12 us.
20:35:15 It is, as I said --
20:35:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The other way.
20:35:23 >>> I'm a little dyslexic.
20:35:25 I apologize.
20:35:26 It's for three units, three stories, two fronting on
20:35:29 Bungalow Park.
20:35:30 The top shows you the elevations that will be along
20:35:35 the length of the lot adjacent to our lot, and pretty
20:35:39 much eliminating all private -- what exists for the
20:35:43 backyard of this house, if we continue as a single
20:35:47 family use.
20:35:48 In conclusion, we would appreciate your support.
20:35:53 We believe the application preserves the scale of the
20:35:55 neighborhood, the history of the structure, permits a
20:35:58 more compatible and viable use.
20:36:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there anybody here to speak to

20:36:19 this petition?
20:36:20 Come forward.
20:36:27 >>> My name is Dotty Stewart, 310 South Bungalow Park
20:36:31 Avenue, and I have been sworn in.
20:36:33 I'm a school teacher.
20:36:35 So you must know that I feel pretty passionate about
20:36:37 this or I wouldn't be out because today is the last
20:36:40 day of school and I'm exhausted.
20:36:43 But I agree that there are some businesses on Azeele
20:36:46 but they are closer to MacDill and they are closer
20:36:48 to Howard.
20:36:49 And if you look at those two or three or four streets
20:36:52 there, those are residents, and people have invested
20:36:55 in building up the community.
20:36:57 I got my house years ago and I put significant dollars
20:37:00 in it to make it the 1942 bungalow that it is.
20:37:05 My other concern being a school teacher is one of the
20:37:08 top elementary schools that he didn't mention is one
20:37:12 block away and that's Mitchell.
20:37:14 There's a lot of traffic from Mitchell and also a
20:37:17 concern of children safety.
20:37:19 I just don't see a business on that corner with that

20:37:23 caliber of schools, literally a block away.
20:37:36 >>> Lorraine Genovar, 312 S. Bungalow Park, I have
20:37:43 been sworn in.
20:37:44 I have two primary concerns about this project.
20:37:47 As was just mentioned, we have in elementary school on
20:37:51 bungalow park, and everything that comes along with
20:37:53 that, loads of traffic and children.
20:37:59 Right now the school is being enlarged.
20:38:01 I presume that might mean more traffic and children.
20:38:04 I took these photos this morning on the street.
20:38:11 $180 around.
20:38:13 There you go.
20:38:16 >> We give you what I think is a pretty common
20:38:20 occurrence on the street.
20:38:24 >>> That's right in front of Mitchell?
20:38:26 >> Well, in fact you can see the new renovation that's
20:38:30 over there on the side, right there.
20:38:33 That's right in front of Mitchell.
20:38:36 And I too move towards Azeele.
20:38:40 You see this continues right up to Azeele.
20:38:43 This is a daily occurrence.
20:38:44 I have been a homeowner for 16 years on the street.

20:38:47 I have watched the explosion of children and traffic
20:38:52 as this school has become more popular in the area --
20:38:55 more populated.
20:38:59 I don't see any relief for that as it stands right
20:39:02 now.
20:39:03 In addition, over the 15 years I have been there, I
20:39:05 have seen the neighborhood change from single family
20:39:08 dwellings to a very strong abundance of multifamily
20:39:13 dwellings, i.e., more traffic.
20:39:15 The street is used 24/7 for overflow parking for the
20:39:22 town homes in the area.
20:39:24 On a personal note, I invested in my home 15 years
20:39:29 ago.
20:39:30 I don't have a tear-down, which is sort of the focus
20:39:36 of the photograph.
20:39:37 I have a home that I have invested heavily in.
20:39:43 I have maintained it.
20:39:44 I have improved it.
20:39:45 I have nurtured it.
20:39:47 And I have tried to maintain the spirit of the
20:39:48 neighborhood that I bought my home in.
20:39:52 I realize change is inevitable.

20:39:54 But I think the challenge is some sort of balance
20:39:59 between development and respecting the supplies
20:40:04 advertise -- simplicity and character of our
20:40:06 neighborhood.
20:40:06 I believe as I walk out the front door of my well
20:40:10 maintained, nurtured home, is going to negatively
20:40:14 impact any chance I have of obtaining full market,
20:40:19 fair market value for the property that I have built
20:40:22 up.
20:40:23 And many different categories of that idea.
20:40:31 They have already stated they don't currently have
20:40:33 enough parking.
20:40:34 So I believe that this is a unique situation with
20:40:37 having elementary school on the street.
20:40:40 Thank you.
20:40:42 >> Thank you.
20:40:42 Any questions?
20:40:45 Anybody else, petitioner, rebuttal?
20:41:07 >>> I respect the comments of the neighbors that live
20:41:10 in the neighborhood.
20:41:11 They pointed out that various multifamily projects
20:41:16 have already been built on the block.

20:41:20 We are not proposing to tear down this house.
20:41:23 We respect the character of the neighborhood by not
20:41:27 doing so, as many of the neighboring property owners
20:41:30 have already done to build multifamily, and that's
20:41:34 been promoted to the north and also across the street.
20:41:38 As regards parking, parking, it will be accessed off
20:41:44 the alley.
20:41:45 It shouldn't create any kind of conflicts for the
20:41:47 residents to the north, because this is a property
20:41:50 immediately that sits on Azeele.
20:41:54 And the employees, whatever business ultimately
20:41:58 locates here will simply pull directly into the alley
20:42:01 off of a Azeele and into the parking lot.
20:42:07 We request that a parking waiver for one space, in
20:42:10 order to protect a grand oak.
20:42:12 There was room for additional space.
20:42:14 The landscape coordinator requested that we provide a
20:42:18 greater distance from that tree to protect it even
20:42:23 further.
20:42:23 Otherwise we would have been able to comply completely
20:42:26 and provide the four spaces.
20:42:28 As regards the parking created by Mitchell, Mitchell

20:42:31 is one block to the north.
20:42:33 And it is really in the heart of this residential
20:42:35 neighborhood.
20:42:37 And obviously that's not a situation that we created.
20:42:42 We are requesting your support because we think that
20:42:45 this lot has some unusual challenges as a
20:42:48 single-family home, given the fact that it is right on
20:42:53 a very busy street and surrounded by what will be a
20:42:58 very dense multifamily project.
20:43:00 We are proposing to preserve the existing home in this
20:43:03 scale and we think that this is a good compromise and
20:43:06 a good use to protect the scale of the neighborhood,
20:43:11 and to provide a better use, which will enable this
20:43:14 house to be improved.
20:43:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to close.
20:43:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of staff before we close.
20:43:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
20:43:27 You have spoken.
20:43:28 You can't speak again.
20:43:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: From a PD site plan, sort of a
20:43:35 rhetorical question.
20:43:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This isn't a PD.

20:43:39 It's an RO-1.
20:43:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When the RO-1 site plan says
20:43:45 existing one-story frame structure, that's what it
20:43:48 says.
20:43:49 It doesn't say will remain but it shows the picture.
20:43:53 Will that preclude them from knocking it down and
20:43:56 building a two-story structure?
20:43:59 >>> Absolutely.
20:44:00 It has to be as shown on the site plan.
20:44:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So from the street perspective,
20:44:09 there's not necessarily anything new.
20:44:12 >>> Right.
20:44:12 Correct. The difference is now they will be accessing
20:44:15 from Azeele.
20:44:20 >> From Azeele or from the alley?
20:44:22 >>> Well, the alley along the property so it's
20:44:24 basically like a driveway.
20:44:26 From Azeele to the alley.
20:44:30 Just the west side of the site as opposed to bungalow
20:44:33 park which is on the east of the site.
20:44:37 >> Thank you.
20:44:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.

20:44:39 >> Second.
20:44:39 (Motion carried).
20:44:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to say I really appreciate
20:44:44 what the neighbors have said.
20:44:45 And I am keenly aware of the kind of redevelopment
20:44:48 that's going on in this neighborhood.
20:44:50 And I think that the proposal before us is the best
20:44:53 chance you have of maintaining the sensibility of a
20:44:57 single-family home.
20:45:02 I don't particularly like the multifamily three-story
20:45:06 things up the street.
20:45:07 I think that changes the character and sensibility of
20:45:09 the neighborhood and it creates parking problems.
20:45:14 It's less than 2,000 square foot home that's going to
20:45:17 be used as an office, it's going to be a small scale
20:45:20 operation.
20:45:21 It can't be a medical office, because they don't have
20:45:23 enough parking.
20:45:24 It's going to be some very small office.
20:45:27 And I think that the commitments made of the zoning
20:45:33 petition before us, it's a very small sign, I think
20:45:39 small parking, small building, and I think that it

20:45:43 will be well done.
20:45:44 If I didn't think it wouldn't be well done I wouldn't
20:45:47 support this.
20:45:47 But I really think that in terms of keeping the
20:45:50 charming sensibility of your street that this will do
20:45:54 more to accomplish that than not approving this.
20:45:58 Based on that I will move this ordinance.
20:46:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I'll second it.
20:46:04 >>> May I just add we are required to add a waiver to
20:46:06 the site plan.
20:46:06 So we wouldn't be able to vote on it.
20:46:11 >> What is the appropriate thing to do?
20:46:12 >>> That it be heard -- or continue first reading
20:46:15 to --
20:46:17 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion to reopen the public hearing.
20:46:19 >> I move we send rescind the motion to close.
20:46:24 >> Second.
20:46:24 (Motion carried).
20:46:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move a motion to continue for two
20:46:29 weeks and bring back in the daytime, 10 a.m.
20:46:36 >>> It's actually three weeks.
20:46:40 >> 10 a.m.

20:46:41 (Motion carried).
20:46:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to echo Mrs. Saul-Sena's
20:46:45 comments.
20:46:45 The three-unit one next door that was approved, Ms.
20:46:50 Saul-Sena and I voted adamantly against that and we
20:46:52 wish all would have been here for that one.
20:46:56 If we didn't do this one, I think that somebody would
20:46:58 come along and do another similar multiplex there, and
20:47:02 I think this is probably a better compromise.
20:47:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Much better.
20:47:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For the record there are some
20:47:10 members that never voted on those either.
20:47:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
20:47:16 Number 18, continued public hearing.
20:47:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to open.
20:47:20 >>GWEN MILLER: It's continued.
20:47:27 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
20:47:57 I have been sworn.
20:47:58 We are here on petition Z-07-04.
20:48:02 Located at 4603, 47054719 east Regnas Avenue.
20:48:13 Petitioner is proposing to rezone from RS-75 single
20:48:16 family to PD planned development for single family

20:48:18 detached residential uses.
20:48:20 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
20:48:24 allow for a development of 46 single family detached
20:48:27 homes on the 9.04-acre site which is located in RS-75
20:48:33 zoning district in a predominantly surrounded by
20:48:35 single-family residential homes.
20:48:37 The PD setbacks range on the site based on the lot
20:48:42 sizes as follows:
20:48:45 The front yards are 15 feet, 8-foot for the front lot,
20:48:50 to 40 feet.
20:48:53 And the side yard of 7 feet to 18 feet, and rear yard
20:48:57 from 11 feet to 38 feet.
20:49:01 Lot sizes range from 4,922 to 12,385 square feet in
20:49:08 size.
20:49:10 Each single-family home can accommodate up to four
20:49:12 vehicles as every home contains a two-car garage with
20:49:16 a driveway that allows for two additional parking
20:49:19 spaces.
20:49:19 The petitioner has submitted a variety of seven design
20:49:24 styles utilizing post modern architecture.
20:49:37 Here is a zoning map of the area.
20:49:47 This is a baseball field.

20:49:51 Here is the site.
20:50:03 This is looking north from the site.
20:50:09 This is to the northwest of the site.
20:50:13 This is looking down 36th street.
20:50:22 To Regnas.
20:50:24 We have done a -- to the area.
20:50:33 The ones that are in red are the ones that are about
20:50:39 7500 square feet and the ones in blue are less than
20:50:42 7500 square feet.
20:50:46 Of the 183 little lots, 141 are at or above the 7500
20:50:51 square feet,
20:50:59 Totaling to about 23%.
20:51:05 Land Development Coordination has a few requests.
20:51:10 The first one is that the notes on the site plan
20:51:15 allows for porch projection in the setback up to eight
20:51:19 feet.
20:51:20 We asked that he add statements excluding the units
20:51:25 that were fronted on Regnas Avenue.
20:51:31 You will have it but not the one that is are going to
20:51:33 be seen externally.
20:51:34 I do want to note that the proposed density for the
20:51:36 site is 5.1 units per acre, which represents

20:51:40 approximately half of what his future land use allows,
20:51:44 in the R-10 future land use.
20:51:49 Transportation has a concern about the property
20:51:55 located at 8303 north 46th street, and access to
20:52:00 this property.
20:52:01 It appears as if they are currently accessing their
20:52:05 property which is basically like a little apartment
20:52:08 home behind a principal structure and having access
20:52:13 off of Regnas through the petitioner's property.
20:52:18 So they have that concern.
20:52:19 And they also object to the gate and info box located
20:52:24 at the entrance.
20:52:24 The petitioner has agreed to accommodate them and to
20:52:30 respond to our requests.
20:52:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
20:52:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You say that this project is a
20:52:38 gated project?
20:52:40 >>> No.
20:52:40 There was, on the final site plan, a gate was added to
20:52:43 the front.
20:52:43 But transportation has spoken with the petitioner, and
20:52:46 he's agreed to take it out.

20:52:50 >> And then you said this is drawn up as five units
20:52:55 per acre.
20:52:56 >>> Yes.
20:52:57 >> And then on your red-green map here, the
20:53:00 surrounding RS-75.
20:53:04 What has that worked out to, units per acre density?
20:53:09 Ballpark.
20:53:12 If you want to calculate and come back.
20:53:17 >>> Yes.
20:53:17 I do want you to know, there is RM-16.
20:53:21 There is RS-60 around just basically to the south and
20:53:26 the west is the RS-75.
20:53:28 But these are riverfront lots, which is very common.
20:53:33 The lots that are on the river and those on the other
20:53:36 side of the street directly to the south, if you stand
20:53:39 on the street looking west, there's a weird separation
20:53:42 between the site and east property.
20:53:45 But that really isolate not being too much a part of
20:53:51 it because there's a 15-foot elevation, and it's
20:53:56 heavily embellished in trees along the southern
20:53:58 property line.
20:53:59 So it's very unlikely that they will ever get to see

20:54:01 anything that's happening to the north.ding
20:54:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can I ask the counselor?
20:54:14 I had conversation with the petitioner.
20:54:18 And members of the association in that area prior to
20:54:23 the election.
20:54:27 I went to a meeting at the homeowners association.
20:54:33 And --
20:54:38 >> Did you make any comment of that meeting?
20:54:40 >> I think I did.
20:54:43 >> And you were not an elect official at that time?
20:54:46 >>> Right.
20:54:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you can, just very quickly
20:54:51 summarize the sum and substance of the comments
20:54:54 generally.
20:54:54 >>> Watt was, the petitioner was making a presentation
20:54:57 to the Temple Crest homeowners association.
20:55:00 And basically, I was there to introduce myself as a
20:55:03 candidate.
20:55:05 And I don't think I intervened in any of the
20:55:08 conversation from the petitioner, nor the -- what do
20:55:13 you call it?
20:55:14 The association.

20:55:17 Although there were comments that came from the
20:55:18 audience, why don't you put a park there?
20:55:22 Of course the city didn't require a park.
20:55:24 It only has nine acres there.
20:55:26 And a park would need at least four acres.
20:55:28 This was the comment.
20:55:29 >> And did you personally articulate anything publicly
20:55:32 at that period?
20:55:34 Related to this project?
20:55:35 >>> I didn't know this project was going to be there
20:55:37 that night.
20:55:37 I was there for candidates night.
20:55:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you very much for that
20:55:42 disclosure, sir.
20:55:44 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, 52 units, if they had 7500 square
20:55:48 feet per lot.
20:55:50 You would also have to take into consideration the
20:55:52 right-of-way, stormwater, but if you just went
20:55:55 strictly by the lot size could you get 52.
20:56:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm confused.
20:56:02 You said this project build out at 5 per acre and I'm
20:56:05 just curious what the surrounding properties are built

20:56:09 out at.
20:56:13 Comparably, three units to acre, or --
20:56:17 >>> That I don't have because I don't have each lot
20:56:20 size specifically but it would be pretty equivalent
20:56:22 to -- it's definitely about the R-10, I would say
20:56:28 eight units per acre.
20:56:32 >> So this density is less than -- the proposed
20:56:35 density?
20:56:35 >> Along the way.
20:56:44 >> As opposed to what is on the west and on the east
20:56:55 of the site.
20:56:57 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:57:12 I have been sworn.
20:57:17 To give you a little more detail, Mr. Dingfelder, on
20:57:20 the project as we get into specifics.
20:57:22 First from a planning perspective from the
20:57:24 comprehensive plan aspect, this area which is located
20:57:28 in Temple Crest civic association boundaries, you have
20:57:31 two predominant land use categories here, residential
20:57:34 20, north of Regnas, then residential 10 which is the
20:57:39 prey dominant. If you recall your zoning map you have
20:57:42 two zoning districts, primary zoning districts in the

20:57:45 area.
20:57:45 You have RS-60 and RS-75.
20:57:48 RS-75 is over here and to the east, R 60 to the north
20:57:53 and to the west of the site.
20:57:54 The request is for approximately, I think, 46 units,
20:57:59 based on the land use category of nine acres.
20:58:02 The applicant as you can see according to your site
20:58:04 plan is clustering the site, internalizing within
20:58:08 their having internal roads, one way ingress and
20:58:12 egress onto Regnas.
20:58:15 By clustering the site and putting smaller units
20:58:17 inside which would be approximately, I think they
20:58:19 would be less than 6,000 square feet, he's allowed to
20:58:24 do this because of the PD application that he's
20:58:26 providing.
20:58:26 Or submitting to you this evening.
20:58:29 I should state that by clustering this, and not having
20:58:32 to go through Euclidean which he wouldn't be able to
20:58:35 do over here, come out with the same number of units,
20:58:37 he is preserving all of the significant trees that are
20:58:39 on this site.
20:58:41 I believe if you will notice in the report you have no

20:58:43 objections from landscaping or tree which I think is
20:58:50 significant waiver the way this project is being
20:58:53 presented.
20:58:54 As far as the interfacing of existing residential
20:58:56 units on the site, and was proposed, the majority
20:59:00 actually along the perimeter of this site along RENGAS
20:59:05 and southern, the lots are averaging I believe,
20:59:09 approximately 6,000 square feet in total land mass,
20:59:12 each individual lot.
20:59:12 So the larger lots around the perimeter will be of the
20:59:16 larger aspect in trying to interface a little better
20:59:18 with the existing lots.
20:59:20 So the longer lops.
20:59:23 Lots, you have RO 60 here.
20:59:25 If you notice on your aerial, you basically have
20:59:29 larger lots over here, directly interfacing this site.
20:59:33 What you don't see over here, on this particular site
20:59:36 on the eastern side over here, there's actually land
20:59:40 that serves as a buffer between an existing RS-75
20:59:45 development, over here another cul-de-sac development
20:59:49 here.
20:59:50 You do have vacant parcel of land at this stage has

20:59:53 not been brought in for any kind of development by the
20:59:56 existing property.
20:59:57 So it essentially serves as a buffer from these
21:00:01 existing -- this existing site, and what's been
21:00:04 proposed on-site.
21:00:05 To the south of this particular site, you actually
21:00:07 have a drop of approximately 15 feet, like walk the
21:00:12 site and have seen there's a significant drop.
21:00:14 A natural physical drop of 15 feet to the RS-75 lots
21:00:18 directly to the south.
21:00:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Whose ball field was this?
21:00:25 >>> This belonged to the church.
21:00:26 I think you are going to hear that from the applicant.
21:00:28 There's a church I think right over here.
21:00:32 There's a church right over here, Mr. Dingfelder.
21:00:35 And the church, I believe, owned the field, and was
21:00:40 actually trying to market the lot, and the applicant
21:00:45 before you this evening has purchased the lot, from
21:00:47 what I understand.
21:00:48 We have had significant meetings with the applicant,
21:00:50 and have voiced our concern regarding compatibility,
21:00:55 density, concerns.

21:00:56 We have also met with the neighborhood association as
21:01:00 has the applicant and had numerous conversations with
21:01:02 both entities, all stakeholders involved with the
21:01:05 site.
21:01:07 The applicant is providing a variety of architectural
21:01:10 features on the site as well.
21:01:12 And I do believe when he presents a site plan, most
21:01:19 being provided do have porches.
21:01:21 That being said, though, the one sticking point was,
21:01:27 you are clustering so you are going to have smaller
21:01:29 homes within the internal quadrant.
21:01:32 So the question is, and this will be your final
21:01:34 determination whether or not you feel the
21:01:36 compatibility of the size of the lots do not interface
21:01:39 with the external larger RS-60, RS-75 lots, is come
21:01:44 compatible in your eyes.
21:01:46 Planning Commission staff saw no direct impact as far
21:01:49 as compatibility with the surrounding area as far as
21:01:53 the design aspects and the amount of units that were
21:01:57 provided on-site.
21:01:58 So Planning Commission staff found the overall request
21:02:01 consistent with the comprehensive plan, as far as

21:02:04 compatibility, as far as what's provided, the type of
21:02:07 uses that were provided on the site.
21:02:09 Based on the design of the project and how it lies
21:02:16 relative to some of the existing parcels that directly
21:02:21 interface the site.
21:02:22 We are sensitive, of course, to the residents of the
21:02:25 Temple Crest area, and always have been, and I still
21:02:32 don't know at this juncture, they have reached a
21:02:35 compromise.
21:02:36 I guess you will find that out this evening during the
21:02:38 course of this particular evening.
21:02:39 Thank you.
21:02:39 That concludes my presentation.
21:02:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:03:11 >>> David Clasette, one of the owners of this
21:03:15 property, also the owner of a Florida registered
21:03:20 consulting engineering firm, who is also an owner of
21:03:24 the LLC that owns this property, and I have been
21:03:26 sworn.
21:03:27 First I want to compliment the people from Temple
21:03:29 Crest as a civic association.
21:03:34 They have taken a very active role in addressing the

21:03:37 issues regarding this site.
21:03:41 There have been a number of presentations made and
21:03:43 discussions made with people who live in the
21:03:48 neighborhood and many with the civic association.
21:03:52 Originally, a couple members of the civic association,
21:03:56 Linda and Lee Ewitt, addressed Pam Iorio regarding our
21:04:02 original plans after they were submitted, and I would
21:04:06 like to take this opportunity to read a letter that I
21:04:09 submitted from them today, a copy of which they
21:04:11 forwarded to me along with Pam Iorio.
21:04:14 It says Mayor Iorio, today the above rezoning will
21:04:18 come before City Council after much debate, discussion
21:04:21 and concessions on all sides.
21:04:22 We corresponded with you previously in February
21:04:24 regarding concerns we had in regards to this new
21:04:27 development.
21:04:28 Mr. Clasette, myself, was kind enough to respond and
21:04:33 dialogue about our concerns.
21:04:34 He has made every effort to develop this property to
21:04:36 the benefit of Temple Crest and the surrounding
21:04:39 neighborhood.
21:04:40 He added a park and play area, increased the lot sizes

21:04:42 to be more amenable with predominantly current sizes
21:04:46 and worked to develop a stormwater plan that would be
21:04:48 more protective of existing homes below the property.
21:04:52 This required a great deal of time, effort, and we are
21:04:55 sure monetary sacrifices.
21:04:57 We appreciate all this and believe that he is to be
21:04:59 commended along with the deference of the Tampa zoning
21:05:03 staff and the leadership of Temple Crest.
21:05:05 This is an example of what can happen to make Tampa a
21:05:07 livable city for all of their citizens.
21:05:10 I would like to enter this into the record.
21:05:31 There's a concern raised by staff in their report
21:05:34 about the home at 4605 Regnas Avenue. This is a
21:05:39 letter from the owner of that property that I received
21:05:41 today as well.
21:05:42 Dear council members of the Tampa City Council.
21:05:44 Please accept this letter as in regard to rezoning
21:05:47 case Z 07-04, LLC called Temple Heights estates, as I
21:05:54 am unable to attend the public hearing in person.
21:05:58 For over 22 years I have been the pastor of the
21:06:01 Baptist church on bears Avenue in north Tampa.
21:06:03 Prior to that time I was a co-pastor of Temple Heights

21:06:06 Baptist church for 18 years.
21:06:08 As a resident of the Temple Crest community and the
21:06:11 owner of the property and residence at 4605 east
21:06:15 Regnas Avenue which is the portion you have seen on
21:06:17 the site plan which we have given access to through
21:06:20 our private road -- I'm interjecting that -- for over
21:06:23 30 years, I have in a objection to the proposed
21:06:25 rezoning plans, as long as the plans are compliant
21:06:28 with all of the applicable codes.
21:06:30 This as I know includes relocating the driveway access
21:06:33 to my property through the new proposed private road.
21:06:37 The owner's representative Mr. David quickset has been
21:06:41 very open and direct in communicating with me with
21:06:45 creating and revising the plans for this development
21:06:47 of single-family homes.
21:06:48 He has consulted with me throughout the process and
21:06:50 has been very straightforward in sharing the design
21:06:53 details.
21:06:54 Though I would obviously prefer to see the field kept
21:06:57 an open space, the planned development as presented by
21:07:00 LLC is acceptable to me, given the nature of the
21:07:03 inevitable growth of our city.

21:07:05 I have not participated in the local civic association
21:07:07 meetings as a matter of choice, realizing that I had
21:07:11 no objections.
21:07:12 I am aware that if I had desire to object, such
21:07:15 meetings would have been a forum that was available
21:07:17 and would have been effective for me.
21:07:19 Sincerely, Bill Facho.
21:07:27 I would like to enter a copy of this into the record.
21:07:33 There are several technical issues that were raised,
21:07:46 pretty much graphical changes, as far as the gated
21:07:48 entry that you see on your plan.
21:07:49 I would like to present this as a design alternate
21:07:52 that we are proposing to put on the plan.
21:07:54 It's a very similar highlighted entry.
21:07:59 A little -- creates a great impression for the new
21:08:03 neighborhood, but there are no gates, and landscaping
21:08:06 on the signage and entry features.
21:08:10 It's fairly similar.
21:08:13 To provide for ease of access.
21:08:16 The other thing, we plan to add a note to the plans,
21:08:20 to exclude any front porches on Regnas Avenue because
21:08:24 it doesn't exist in the area at this time.

21:08:29 There's one small item also on your site plan.
21:08:32 One of the things that we did, one of the biggest
21:08:34 objections that we had from the neighborhood
21:08:36 association, was the fact that apparently, which we
21:08:40 were unaware of, they had some drainage, the
21:08:44 stormwater issues along River Hills Drive to our
21:08:46 south.
21:08:46 And we had originally thought that we would be able to
21:08:52 tap into that by the advice of the city stormwater
21:08:57 experts and staff.
21:08:59 But as the project went along and we discovered that
21:09:01 this was such a big concern and we started to invest
21:09:04 off the site of our property we realized the best
21:09:07 thing we could do would be to retain all the water
21:09:09 on-site.
21:09:10 And so we revised our plans in our notes, in our
21:09:12 stormwater notes, and on the plan as you see to retain
21:09:17 a 100 year storm event, a SWFWMD requirement -- the
21:09:21 Tampa requirement is only a 50 year storm event.
21:09:25 The other is that we left the future easement note at
21:09:28 the bottom near the paper Mulberry tree and that's
21:09:32 something we can correct very easily.

21:09:35 So those are the basic graphical -- typographical
21:09:40 errors.
21:09:41 There's actually only seven lots that have waivers.
21:09:44 And there's two small rear yards, very minor things.
21:09:48 But the dimensions on the plan are accurate.
21:09:51 There's just a couple of notes that have very minor
21:09:54 typographical errors.
21:09:56 The essence of this project really is pretty
21:10:01 significant.
21:10:01 And since the main objection that was brought was the
21:10:05 size of the lots, I want to go ahead and show this
21:10:07 marked-up version of the same plan that you were
21:10:10 looking at from Ms. Finney, and that Tony Garcia was
21:10:15 referring to.
21:10:16 What you see in the orange on the left side of the
21:10:21 plan are all of the current lots that are within more
21:10:25 or less the block of our property that are 50 feet
21:10:29 wide.
21:10:29 So we have not proposed any lots that are less than 50
21:10:32 feet wide anywhere in our development.
21:10:35 What you see with the red hatching on the upper right
21:10:37 is actually duplexes in the RM-16 zoning district that

21:10:43 are approximately 35-foot wide to 40-foot wide lots.
21:10:48 The staff report says they are 5,000 square feet.
21:10:50 That is not an accurate statement.
21:10:52 That particular location has a large number of
21:10:57 duplexes that run all along that street.
21:11:00 I think it's called Hyalea drive.
21:11:05 So we had very significant density there.
21:11:07 As you go further to the west from what you see,
21:11:10 Temple Crest neighborhood where all these orange
21:11:13 markings are, let's go further westbound down these
21:11:15 streets.
21:11:16 You'll find a good 30 to 40% of some 80% on the next
21:11:20 street over orange view, which is not shown on this
21:11:23 map, which are actually 50-foot wide lots as well.
21:11:26 So I believe that we are genuinely sensitive to what
21:11:29 has been historically been in this neighborhood and
21:11:33 the original platting of the neighborhood.
21:11:35 Most of the lots were 50-foot wide as you can see from
21:11:37 the way this plan is laid out.
21:11:39 But many people bought -- picked three lots and turned
21:11:43 each one into 75-foot lots.
21:11:46 They had one and a half lots, that kind of thing

21:11:48 during the construction process N and the original
21:11:50 development of this neighborhood.
21:11:54 And rather than try to address the stormwater issue
21:11:57 which is really an off-site issue, I would like to
21:12:01 complicate Alex Awad and City of Tampa staff because
21:12:05 they have actually gone out and looked at this issue.
21:12:08 I believe we have been able to resolve it successfully
21:12:10 with the civic association.
21:12:11 I don't know what comments we are going to have this
21:12:14 evening but we met with them about ten days ago and
21:12:16 they seem to have come to the realization this is not
21:12:19 a problem that we are creating, and since we are now
21:12:21 going to retain all of our water on-site, we actually
21:12:24 will probably be alleviating some of the pressure that
21:12:27 they now have, because as I can show you in a couple
21:12:30 of photographs here, a significant amount of
21:12:34 stormwater that runs off of our property.
21:12:36 Everybody mentioned that there's a really large
21:12:40 geographical buffer.
21:12:42 You see there's kind of a mound.
21:12:46 That's actually the end of the football field.
21:12:49 Here's the end of the football field.

21:12:51 A good 10, 15 feet high.
21:12:54 At the residential properties to the south.
21:13:00 There is a pipe that runs just next to that.
21:13:03 You can see it right here.
21:13:06 But also -- in another location, I have a better
21:13:20 photograph.
21:13:28 Here we go.
21:13:29 This is the property immediately to the south of that
21:13:32 pipe.
21:13:33 They actually had to put up a steel around that fence
21:13:40 and cinder block because this particular pipe, that
21:13:44 you see here, this is the front end that drains to the
21:13:46 south.
21:13:47 And what that does actually is, make the retention
21:13:53 pond not as effective as it should be, everyone though
21:13:55 it's currently undersized.
21:13:57 What happens if all of the water drains through the
21:14:00 pipe instead of retained by the berm?
21:14:02 We are proposing significantly raise the berm as you
21:14:05 will see on the site plan, eliminating this pipe and
21:14:09 then retaining all the water on-site.
21:14:10 And we believe this actually alleviates all the water

21:14:13 from our site that currently drains onto River Hills
21:14:15 Drive.
21:14:17 And will have a very positive impact on the
21:14:18 neighborhood.
21:14:19 And the other thing that city staff has done is gone
21:14:23 out and surveyed the condition of the storm drains on
21:14:25 River Hills Drive and done some maintenance to them,
21:14:30 helping a little bit.
21:14:31 One other issue that was brought up is compatibility
21:14:34 with the neighborhood.
21:14:36 Since this was a football field, there's a little bit
21:14:39 remaining, here's the old goal posts.
21:14:45 These are tall, I believe some kind of scoreboard or
21:14:48 something along those lines at the south end of our
21:14:51 property.
21:14:51 Well, this is the house directly behind that.
21:14:54 You can't see those poles at all.
21:14:57 This is the same view.
21:14:59 This is another house directly to the south.
21:15:01 And that's the top of the pole.
21:15:07 And there's one where you can see one of those two
21:15:11 poles, and that's a small house that's got huge grand

21:15:13 trees in the front yard.
21:15:15 I got as close as I could to show the possible impact.
21:15:19 The other thing you might want to note when you look
21:15:21 down the embankment the back of the house, this is the
21:15:25 view you get of the backyard.
21:15:27 And this is the other view of the backyard.
21:15:30 Fortunately, we have about 15 feet.
21:15:33 We are planning to fence the entire property.
21:15:36 And there's a natural buffer there that actually
21:15:38 acts -- found security to be part of the retaining
21:15:43 wall.
21:15:44 Not really retaining wall.
21:15:46 That's part of the natural geography and -- I guess
21:15:54 it's maintaining the soil integrity of the football
21:15:57 field at this time.
21:16:10 The area that we are talking about right now is along
21:16:12 the south border of the property.
21:16:15 This is the retention pond that I referred to.
21:16:17 We are going to be building up this wall, this earth
21:16:20 wall, or berm as it's often called, to retain more
21:16:23 water on the site.
21:16:26 We have also got a schematic drainage plan.

21:16:30 That's on the next page.
21:16:31 I'll come back to this.
21:16:38 What we plan to do, we plan to put a lot of fill on
21:16:41 the site.
21:16:41 But in reality we are actually going to gain a lot of
21:16:44 fill because of two things that we are going to do.
21:16:46 One is actually where we have the road, we are
21:16:49 actually going to lower the grade.
21:16:51 This entire site is largely flat.
21:16:53 What we are going to do is by lowering the road we are
21:16:55 going to create drainage actually to the north and
21:16:58 into the roadway.
21:16:59 And then there will be a curb and inlet here that
21:17:03 drains to the retention pond and then around the
21:17:06 roadway with my other curb that brings the drainage
21:17:10 into the pond.
21:17:11 And then the pond will actually hold all of the water
21:17:14 and the water will not flow off of the site.
21:17:17 So this is the nature of -- everything is designed to
21:17:21 flow in around the houses and back into the center.
21:17:24 And this is actually the natural flow of the property
21:17:27 at this time.

21:17:28 This is also a little more difficult to read for the
21:17:30 average person.
21:17:31 But it shows the flat portion of the football field
21:17:34 and the natural curvature and the way the water now
21:17:37 flows to the existing retention pond.
21:17:43 The other thing that I have done here is to illustrate
21:17:46 the sizes of the lots.
21:17:48 You will see that we had some 50 by 100 lots that are
21:17:53 all these blue lots.
21:17:55 This one particular lot is about 78 feet less than
21:17:58 5,000 square feet, because of the fact that we had it
21:18:02 a rounded corner and the way we didn't expand it is
21:18:05 because we have a really beautiful grand tree here
21:18:07 that we are able to preserve, and we designed some
21:18:10 architecture to go around that and make it really
21:18:13 beautiful.
21:18:14 So keep the same width and 100-foot depth of an RS-50
21:18:21 foot lot.
21:18:22 Mr. Dingfelder, RS-75 is approximately 6 units to the
21:18:28 acre because six times 5700 square feet which is the
21:18:31 minimum will yield 45,000 square feet, as you probably
21:18:33 know it's 40 feet so we are very close.

21:18:42 The other thing is 46 lots that we propose and divided
21:18:46 it into the total number of areas devoted to lots.
21:18:50 We actually come out over 7600 square feet on average.
21:18:56 You will also see we have a lot of large rims on the
21:19:02 plan.
21:19:02 All these larger rims are grand trees.
21:19:07 The other thing that's going on is we are going to
21:19:09 provide a small park her for the residents.
21:19:12 And we plan to have it actually fenced.
21:19:14 And we are going to put in probably some redwood or
21:19:18 commercial type redwood playground equipment there for
21:19:22 the children so they don't have to go all the way down
21:19:26 to half a mile down the road to Temple Crest community
21:19:29 park unescorted for the younger children.
21:19:32 And then we also are hoping to, planning to put a park
21:19:40 that will be available to people as part of the
21:19:42 homeowners association to be able to watch video, to
21:19:46 watch what's going on in the park and have it
21:19:48 monitored at all times.
21:19:50 As mentioned earlier, we eliminated the gate.
21:19:54 The other thing that's going on here is what we did in
21:19:57 order to buffer to these larger lots that are around

21:19:59 us, the RS-75, we have got all the yellow lots at
21:20:06 least 60 feet wide which is the majority of zoning to
21:20:09 the north and to the east.
21:20:10 It's all -- as you drop off at River Hills Drive, you
21:20:16 have a lot of larger lots, and from this property,
21:20:22 given the fact we had this orientation pond and
21:20:25 getting all these trees you have essentially ...
21:20:32 What we did was put larger lots around the end and
21:20:35 these large lots are 62 feet wide or greater, and some
21:20:39 of them as much as 12,000 square feet.
21:20:42 The green lots are either larger than 5,000 square
21:20:46 feet, wider than 50 square feet, or 50 feet wide and
21:20:50 deeper.
21:20:51 So this is the idea of what they call blending or
21:20:54 clustering.
21:20:56 And you would have each little community in the DRI
21:21:00 type development, which you see often in the north
21:21:03 Tampa area, one that's a little smaller.
21:21:11 This is similar in concept where we have blended the
21:21:14 lot sizes and clustered them with the small ones to
21:21:17 the interior, and the larger ones to the exterior.
21:21:33 I want to thank you for the opportunity to present and

21:21:35 hope you will grant this first hearing in the morning
21:21:39 in the near future if at all possible.
21:21:41 >> Does anyone want to speak on number 18?
21:21:44 >>LAURENCE GOODRICH: Evening.
21:22:00 My name is Richard Tormica, 3718 Pawnee Avenue in the
21:22:06 mid crest neighborhood and I have been sworn.
21:22:11 I'm very conflict board of director this petition.
21:22:12 Mr. Clasette has met, and I must add very politely and
21:22:19 opening, with our neighborhood several times.
21:22:20 He and his team met to meet the concerns of the
21:22:26 neighborhood.
21:22:26 I thank him very much for this effort.
21:22:28 However, on principle, I am against this petition to
21:22:31 rezone the property in question from RS-75 to PD
21:22:35 because, in my opinion, the rezoning would be
21:22:37 incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
21:22:39 The property in question is surrounded on three sides
21:22:42 by RS-75, and on the fourth side by RS-60.
21:22:47 Mr. Clasette said the average size of property in his
21:22:53 plan are over 7,000 square feet in size, and there are
21:22:56 existing lots nearby that are 50 feet wide.
21:23:00 And the R-10 land use designation of property allows

21:23:03 ten homes per acre and only 90 homes on this nine-acre
21:23:07 plus site and he is only planning on building 46
21:23:10 homes.
21:23:11 And while this is true, the request is still
21:23:13 incompatible with the vast majority of the
21:23:16 neighborhood and approving it would establish an
21:23:19 unacceptable negative precedence.
21:23:21 Furthermore in, my opinion, there are several
21:23:24 unofficial reasons why I'm against this request.
21:23:30 All wastewater will have to be pumped uphill off the
21:23:33 property into decades-old pipes.
21:23:36 I am concerned these pipes will be overburdened and
21:23:39 cause problems for the entire neighborhood.
21:23:40 The city wastewater department is unconcerned about
21:23:43 this detail.
21:23:45 The single access road that will be used by residents
21:23:48 in this property generating an additional 4 to 500
21:23:53 vehicular trips a day is so narrow in places that two
21:23:58 school buses cannot safely pass each other doing the
21:24:02 speed limit. The city transportation department's
21:24:04 only concern is about an easement through the project
21:24:06 for an adjacent homeowner.

21:24:08 I ask you to deny this request.
21:24:11 If it cannot be bought and made into a city park, then
21:24:14 I say leave it be developed as RS 70 developing for
21:24:19 the benefit of the neighborhood by allowing a smaller
21:24:22 number of homes to be built on bigger lots thereby
21:24:26 reducing the impact on the nearby road and wastewater
21:24:29 system.
21:24:29 Thank you.
21:24:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:24:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
21:24:36 Did you make that suggestion directly to Mr. Clasette
21:24:41 about the fewer number of homes on the larger size
21:24:43 lot?
21:24:45 >>> Me personally?
21:24:46 No, ma'am.
21:24:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
21:24:53 >>> Fred Hoffmann.
21:24:54 I live at 8707 Edna place.
21:24:57 And I have been sworn.
21:25:01 A little history.
21:25:02 I spent 28 years on the advisory board for
21:25:05 Hillsborough County parks and recreation advisory

21:25:09 board.
21:25:09 I was the first chairman of ELAPP committee.
21:25:13 And I have been very involved with the county as far
21:25:15 as their parks program.
21:25:20 And I brought up that Mr. Clasette, he said he would
21:25:27 take it under our wing and they did come back which I
21:25:30 have to give him credit for.
21:25:31 He's also trying to save all the trees on the property
21:25:34 which I also think is very good.
21:25:36 But like a lot of our neighbors, I have a concern
21:25:38 anytime you take a piece of property like this and try
21:25:43 to make changes to it and make big houses on small
21:25:47 lots like we have done in a lot of the city, and the
21:25:51 reason I get concerned in the city is properties a
21:25:57 year ago or maybe two years ago, there was 38 oak
21:26:01 trees on that piece of property.
21:26:03 We took pictures of them.
21:26:05 And the Parks Department of the City of Tampa said
21:26:08 that they would preserve 55% of those.
21:26:15 There's now three oaks on that piece of property.
21:26:18 That means of the 33 that were going to be saved,
21:26:21 something happened to all those trees.

21:26:24 And the Parks Department will not give us any
21:26:26 information about that.
21:26:29 We also asked the Parks Department -- the reason I
21:26:31 bring this up.
21:26:32 We also asked the Parks Department to purchase this
21:26:34 piece of property because it would make a good park,
21:26:37 because there's not a neighborhood park in that area.
21:26:41 The closest neighborhood park as petitioner mentioned
21:26:44 is the Temple Crest recreation center, which is on the
21:26:48 other side of 40th Street.
21:26:51 We did have a park on the side.
21:26:54 The city took that park and gave it to Busch Gardens
21:26:57 and said, we will replace it.
21:26:59 They haven't done it.
21:27:00 So this would be a good place to do that.
21:27:03 The head of the Parks Department for the city said we
21:27:05 will not do that because we only pay assessed value
21:27:11 for property.
21:27:13 Well, they gave our property away, which is a lot more
21:27:16 than assessed value, and have given us nothing back.
21:27:19 Petitioner has made a lot of changes on our behalf and
21:27:23 I really appreciate that.

21:27:24 Because he said time and time again, and I appreciate
21:27:27 that because I still have concerns as to what
21:27:30 petitioners do after they get their approval from this
21:27:34 board.
21:27:34 And I thank you for your time.
21:27:36 Any questions?
21:27:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:27:49 >>> My name is Sadie Tooten, 8315 north 46th
21:27:53 street, and I have been sworn.
21:27:59 I guess of all the people here, I perhaps am being
21:28:02 affected most.
21:28:03 I live at the corner of Regnas and 46th street,
21:28:08 which beside my house is a parking lot that belonged
21:28:11 to the church.
21:28:15 I lived there for 22 years and I really enjoyed the
21:28:18 open space.
21:28:19 But, eventually, I understand, and I realize, that
21:28:25 some businesses could be coming in to develop that
21:28:28 property.
21:28:30 I belong to the Temple Heights Baptist church, which
21:28:32 is being sold.
21:28:35 Therefore, I plan to move.

21:28:38 I live on almost an acre of land.
21:28:44 I would rather see someone that -- I have got a chance
21:28:47 to know David, and the others, and I really believe
21:28:54 that they will do the very best thing that's possible
21:28:56 for the neighborhood.
21:28:59 I have had a chance to talk to my neighbor next door.
21:29:04 And as far as they know with what's going on.
21:29:10 So if a development has to come in, I think I would
21:29:14 rather see someone that is a Christian and would be
21:29:18 considerate of other people, than some stranger that
21:29:23 would be coming in that wouldn't care what happened to
21:29:26 the neighborhood.
21:29:29 I'm a widow who lives by herself, and I'm concerned
21:29:31 about the neighborhood.
21:29:33 And I do hope that it will be the best thing for the
21:29:42 neighborhood.
21:29:42 I don't know and neither do any of the other
21:29:44 neighbors.
21:29:44 But I do know that these people have come across as
21:29:48 Christians and honest and straightforward.
21:29:51 And I just have nothing else more to say than to wish
21:29:55 them good luck and us good luck.

21:29:58 So it would be up to you, and the development will
21:30:05 come, whether we want it to or not.
21:30:09 So I would rather see someone come in who could
21:30:12 develop it and have rapport with the neighborhood.
21:30:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:30:21 We appreciate your coming down.
21:30:38 >>> Terry Neal, 4703 east River Hills Drive, Tampa,
21:30:41 Florida, also president of the crest civic
21:30:43 association.
21:30:44 Let me just do a little bit of housekeeping first and
21:30:47 state the official position of the association, which
21:30:49 we took a vote a month ago which was to pursue this
21:30:53 land as a park.
21:30:55 Secondly, to maintain it, if not to reject the
21:31:02 petition.
21:31:02 Now that is the vote that when took months ago and
21:31:06 before we had meetings with Mr. Clasette.
21:31:11 I live at the most southern portion of this property
21:31:16 as you can possibly get, on the river.
21:31:18 And from the top of this land, which you see in
21:31:22 picture number one, and the guy said -- am I dyslexic?
21:31:28 Yep.

21:31:29 This picture right hear, this is the land looking
21:31:32 south.
21:31:33 And as you look through the pictures, and as you see
21:31:38 the drop off, the drop off, you are still not down to
21:31:42 my property.
21:31:43 You still drop another ten degrees down to the river
21:31:47 across -- picture number 6.
21:31:52 Picture number 7 is a half-inch to basically the level
21:31:59 of my property which is picture number 8 which
21:32:01 coincidentally is stormwater system on River Hills
21:32:05 Drive.
21:32:06 The water drains out to the river, directly.
21:32:12 And I'm not blaming Mr -- this is not his fault.
21:32:16 This is something -- this is not his fault.
21:32:20 This is just the way it is in our neighborhood.
21:32:22 The biggest problem is that this property is unpaved.
21:32:26 And when you put a sea of asphalt on ten acres of
21:32:30 property and you live about 45 degrees down from that
21:32:34 ten acres, you know, I have some nightmares, because
21:32:38 my house is not in the flood zone right now.
21:32:41 And SWFWMD requirements say there has to be maintained
21:32:45 at the same way that it was before the development has

21:32:49 to be maintained.
21:32:50 I have to go on the record and say that my neighbors,
21:32:53 including Mace, will hold the city and the developer
21:32:57 liable if anything occurs to alter that.
21:33:02 And so I will give Mr. Clasette credit.
21:33:07 We had some heated discussions, and he did not have to
21:33:13 come back to us with a plan that included a 100 year
21:33:16 storm plan.
21:33:17 He did not have to do that.
21:33:18 You could have approved this PD, and he could have
21:33:21 gone to SWFWMD.
21:33:22 He did that for us.
21:33:24 I still have concerns.
21:33:26 Mostly because the city has never done anything about
21:33:29 the stormwater in our area.
21:33:30 And mostly because we are putting unfiltered water
21:33:34 directly off the land and pavement and oils and
21:33:38 herbicides and pesticides directly into the river.
21:33:41 Hopefully we'll never have an event that occur that is
21:33:43 will cause that.
21:33:44 But I do have concerns about the density of this
21:33:47 property and creating less than RS-60 lots, less than

21:33:53 RS-75.
21:33:54 That's what compatibility is about.
21:33:56 But speaking from my heart, I can tell you that having
21:34:00 lived in this area for 17 years, and across from this
21:34:04 land, walked around it, nobody wants to pave over and
21:34:07 build on green space.
21:34:10 Green space is lovely to look at.
21:34:12 It's pleasant to enjoy.
21:34:14 Mr. Clasette went to the city Parks Department also
21:34:18 and asked that this be purchased as the park just like
21:34:21 me he was brushed off.
21:34:22 And I will tell you that directly from the director of
21:34:25 the department of parks in the City of Tampa I was
21:34:27 told that they would only pay assessed value, not
21:34:31 market value, and that she wanted to carry on a
21:34:33 conversation with me about the high praise of land in
21:34:36 South Tampa.
21:34:37 Quite frankly, I didn't care about that.
21:34:39 Now me.
21:34:40 I'm passionate about Temple Crest.
21:34:43 And so are my neighbors.
21:34:44 We care about where we live and we want to make sure.

21:34:48 I'm not sure what will happen.
21:34:50 It will be up to you to vote your hearts and minds,
21:34:52 and sensibility and logic based on what Mr. Clasette
21:34:58 has presented.
21:34:58 He has been a good petitioner.
21:35:00 He's come before us many times and we have talked it
21:35:02 and all I can say is if you do approve this, let's do
21:35:05 something interesting.
21:35:07 He has proposed turning this into what I think is the
21:35:11 beginning of possibly a green development.
21:35:14 And I use that term, and I know everybody hates the
21:35:17 term "green development" because it sound so earth
21:35:20 friendly or whatever, but what's wrong with being
21:35:22 earth friendly?
21:35:23 He's proposed offering systems on each of the parcels
21:35:27 of land.
21:35:28 The systems would hold water.
21:35:31 And you know when it comes to affordable housing,
21:35:36 let's not take away the sidewalks and the roads.
21:35:39 The idea is to reduce the amount of the monthly
21:35:42 payments.
21:35:42 If we keep the sidewalks and the roads, but if we

21:35:45 reduce the amount of the monthly payment by holding
21:35:49 cistern water so people can water their lawns and not
21:35:53 pay water bills that reduces their monthly payment.
21:35:55 If they put in ventilation that reduces their energy
21:36:00 bill.
21:36:03 Permeable asphalt.
21:36:05 Things like that.
21:36:05 When I first started talking to him about this was
21:36:08 let's make this a destination, a place that people
21:36:11 will come to and say, let's go look at that
21:36:14 development out in Temple Crest and see what they did.
21:36:16 You know, the housing market then fell through the
21:36:19 floor.
21:36:19 And he's going to have to sell some homes.
21:36:21 I can think of no better way than for you as a council
21:36:25 to approve and ask that he work with staff to create a
21:36:29 greenhousing development, maybe the first of its kind
21:36:33 in the City of Tampa, something that people from the
21:36:35 city, the state, and the nation might want to come and
21:36:38 look at and say, look what they did in Tampa.
21:36:40 Look how they created a neighborhood that's going to
21:36:43 be energy efficient, provides affordable housing,

21:36:46 lower housing bills, and is environmentally friendly.
21:36:50 (Bell sounds).
21:36:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You were sworn in for the record?
21:36:56 >> Oh, yes.
21:36:58 Thanks very much.
21:37:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Neal.
21:37:07 He has cited that the water be retained on the
21:37:10 existing property which should not affect the water
21:37:13 going down here to your property.
21:37:20 >>> I mean, you know, I really do believe that in
21:37:24 working with the city -- I mean, SWFWMD regulations do
21:37:29 require that he create a situation that does not
21:37:33 change the flow of the water one bit.
21:37:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I am saying, not only it
21:37:39 shouldn't go downhill but also should not go through
21:37:41 the stormwater system but to the river.
21:37:46 >>> That's the idea.
21:37:47 >> When you look at that, that's a good benefit to the
21:37:52 neighborhood as well as to the river.
21:37:53 >>> I think that's it's an excellent benefit and I
21:37:55 think it's to Mr. Clasette credit that he has agreed
21:38:02 to do that before asking for rezoning.

21:38:08 Our issue is the density really.
21:38:10 That's basically it.
21:38:13 But, yes, he has what's called a 100 year storm event,
21:38:18 retention pond.
21:38:20 He has widened it.
21:38:22 It shouldn't flow down to the end of the street.
21:38:24 It shouldn't flow into the City of Tampa into a
21:38:26 stormwater system.
21:38:27 Well, we don't have one but it shouldn't flow into the
21:38:30 river.
21:38:30 >> Our other question about the density is based on
21:38:32 the current zone --
21:38:39 >>> That's the underlying hot spot.
21:38:40 But the zoning all around the property is RS-75. The
21:38:49 R-10 is one thing.
21:38:52 >> I understand that.
21:38:53 But what I am saying, though, existing zoning as I
21:38:55 understand existing zoning, existing zoning said, 90
21:39:01 homes can go on this site.
21:39:03 >>> No, existing zoning is RS-75.
21:39:11 >>> That's what a dressed previously to Mr.
21:39:13 Dingfelder. If they just laid out the lot, not

21:39:17 considering roadways or anything, would be 52.
21:39:22 >> I got you.
21:39:23 Thank you.
21:39:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else want to speak?
21:39:25 Petitioner, do you want to come back up or are you
21:39:27 finished?
21:39:32 >>> I think he indicated he's on his way up.
21:39:55 >> I guess the question is what is a neighborhood?
21:39:58 Obviously you have some interesting things going on.
21:40:00 We are surrounded essentially on two sides by RS-60,
21:40:05 and measure by RM-16.
21:40:08 As I pointed out earlier there are a number of lots
21:40:10 nearby, besides the two lots that are directly across
21:40:13 the street from the Temple Crest clubhouse are
21:40:17 actually only 49 feet wide.
21:40:24 So the issue here is how do we comfortably deal with
21:40:28 the issues of having to preserve green space, having
21:40:31 to preserve the beautiful trees on this site, how do
21:40:34 we be sensitive to the neighborhood and still do good
21:40:36 in-fill development.
21:40:37 We are in an urban area.
21:40:39 The City of Tampa is not rural Hillsborough County.

21:40:44 So we tried and I tried to come up with a solution
21:40:46 that addresses the issues of compatibility with the
21:40:50 neighborhoods, good buffering to the neighbors, and
21:40:53 that's really what we have done.
21:40:55 As far as the stormwater issue goes, I have a picture
21:41:05 of the pipe.
21:41:05 This is the berm that now forms, the retention pond on
21:41:08 our property.
21:41:09 And this is the two end of that pipe that I showed you
21:41:11 pictures of.
21:41:14 So
21:41:23 I think that we have a very positive impact the
21:41:26 stormwater issues.
21:41:27 The other problem that we have, this is actually on
21:41:31 the corner of these two developments.
21:41:35 This one right here.
21:41:35 And this one right here.
21:41:37 All you have for stormwater retention, all you have
21:41:39 for stormwater management is this small inlet that is
21:41:44 one on each side, each one of these roads.
21:41:46 This opens up right here.
21:41:48 I believe larger than what we are doing.

21:41:52 They don't have a 20,000 retention pond with free
21:41:58 board.
21:41:59 Actually six feet deep.
21:42:00 Probably will go 6 feet deep to create some buffer for
21:42:03 ourselves and present the future liability.
21:42:06 The other interesting thing that we have, that I did
21:42:10 not, it's actually something called a rain tank, new
21:42:25 technology.
21:42:27 This is a relatively new technology conceptually
21:42:31 because it's actually a system that is made out of a
21:42:36 resin material and actually in the form of a milk
21:42:40 crate where you put in gallon bottles and you actually
21:42:44 dig underneath them.
21:42:46 You get fill from that to help build up your lot pad
21:42:49 for your house and at the same time you direct the
21:42:51 stormwater from the roof through the gutters and down
21:42:55 spouts.
21:42:57 These are rain tanks.
21:42:57 Rain tanks will retain water for a significant period
21:43:03 of time.
21:43:03 And at the same time, they also will percolate into
21:43:06 the soil to create some -- that's one of the things

21:43:16 that we propose with our plan.
21:43:18 And it's actually more cost effective for us because
21:43:20 we have also indicated, we propose if necessary, we'll
21:43:31 increase the retention pond by twice what it is right
21:43:34 now if that's necessary in order to create a
21:43:39 engineered.
21:43:40 The site that I was talking about, these were built in
21:43:49 the early '80s and one of the things that has
21:43:53 happened fortunately in our state, in our
21:43:55 neighborhood, is we have really changed the way that
21:43:57 when deal with stormwater.
21:43:59 We have a comprehensive land use regulation and
21:44:02 planning that's handled on a statewide basis beginning
21:44:05 in the early 90s, about ten years after this was
21:44:07 actually built.
21:44:08 And the whole concept of retaining the water on-site,
21:44:12 and making sure we don't impact our neighbors, is
21:44:14 actually fairly well-known.
21:44:16 So a lot of people complain about it.
21:44:17 I really think it's wise and it's considerate and it's
21:44:20 right.
21:44:21 So there's one other thing that I wanted to point out

21:44:24 about one of the reasons that they had -- have been
21:44:27 having some problems, which is similar to this.
21:44:30 Where you see all of this debris and everything.
21:44:34 This is the inlet to the storm drain system, that this
21:44:36 has been cleaned up since we started this process.
21:44:39 And then we had some other -- here is a picture of the
21:44:44 inlet prior to this, staff coming out and doing some
21:44:47 maintenance on it, that this is where the pipe comes
21:44:51 out to the river.
21:44:52 The funny thing about that is that here is the
21:44:56 surrounding property to where that inlet comes out
21:45:00 that you saw the picture of.
21:45:02 And I have some pictures like that.
21:45:04 But when I first walked up to it, that's what I found.
21:45:08 There is the pipe that Mr. Neal presented to you with
21:45:13 concrete to protect the end of the opening.
21:45:15 And seems very happy with the location.
21:45:19 I think one of the reasons they are happy is if you
21:45:21 look really closely, that's fresh shell fish and
21:45:30 there's additional shell fish actually being eaten by
21:45:33 the IBIS.
21:45:34 And there were some claims made that all this, the

21:45:40 water lilies, you see them both north and south and
21:45:40 all around the river. It's fairly common in fresh
21:45:40 water here in Florida.
21:45:47 The one other issue is that this is actually River
21:45:49 Hills Drive.
21:45:51 What happens is that most of these houses were not
21:45:53 built to modern day standards.
21:45:55 This is the house at 4612 River Hills Drive.
21:45:59 This is the house, I believe, one or two doors east of
21:46:07 Ms. Neal's home.
21:46:08 I think what you are finding is almost all the homes
21:46:10 built on the side of River Hills Drive are not built
21:46:12 to modern day standard.
21:46:14 So they actually have problems, in fact if they were
21:46:19 flooded it's highly likely -- and I haven't done a
21:46:22 careful study -- but seems highly likely if they were
21:46:25 flooded and had to be rebuilt, the new standard for
21:46:28 the seamless flood maps and the requirements to be so
21:46:31 far above the floodplain would be built them --
21:46:35 require them to be built far higher and they certainly
21:46:37 meet city standards of being the foundation at least
21:46:40 18 inches above the road.

21:46:42 That's generally not true on that side of the street.
21:46:45 Rather than making those people do that, I would look
21:46:48 forward to perhaps finding a good solution to the
21:46:50 house.
21:46:50 We can improve the neighborhood.
21:46:52 I have taken the opportunity to become a member of the
21:46:54 Temple Crest civic association.
21:46:56 I have learned a lot.
21:46:57 And really enjoyed being involved in the process.
21:46:59 And trying to be a responsible citizen and a good
21:47:02 member of the community to develop this.
21:47:04 And I really thank you for your time this evening.
21:47:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Clasette, are the owners able
21:47:13 to use those holding tanks to water their lawn?
21:47:16 >>> Yes, under the right conditions, yes, they are.
21:47:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Finney?
21:47:28 >>> Petitioner has agreed to make their changes that
21:47:32 are very minor in nature but it would require him to
21:47:35 delay the first reading.
21:47:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Got to continue.
21:47:42 >> We can't close.
21:47:43 How much time do you need?

21:47:46 >>> June 14th, morning, a.m.
21:47:52 >> Second.
21:47:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue to June
21:47:54 14th, 10 a.m.
21:47:56 (Motion carried).
21:47:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have really seen the neighborhood
21:48:03 shift in terms of accepting a project, a shift
21:48:08 developers made, and the lot sizes and creating a
21:48:11 green space.
21:48:12 And then really listening to the concerns of the
21:48:16 neighbors.
21:48:16 I think that the potential of creating a green
21:48:20 development and making it a real attractive quality to
21:48:26 bring people to this is smart.
21:48:29 I think it's really smart.
21:48:30 It's sustainable.
21:48:33 And I'm just excited to see this kind of connectivity.
21:48:39 >>> Hopefully, we will present this development to
21:48:44 utilize a unique design that's kind of a trade secret
21:48:47 at this point, along with a good friend of mine, where
21:48:52 I believe we can guarantee both the indoor air quality
21:48:55 and energy efficiency of the home for as much as 50

21:48:59 years by the use of building materials, that the
21:49:05 homeowner is interested to build such features.
21:49:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else before council?
21:49:12 >> Move to receive and file all the documents.
21:49:13 >> Second.
21:49:14 (Motion carried).
21:49:14 >>GWEN MILLER: We stand adjourned.
21:50:12 (City Council meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.)
21:50:22