Tampa City Council
Thursday, June 14, 2007
5:30 p.m. session
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this transcript was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
17:36:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
17:38:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's my pleasure this evening to
17:38:34 introduce David Reyes, a senior this fall at Plant
17:38:38 High School.
17:38:39 He's interested in studying law and deciding summer
17:38:43 intern in the state attorney's office and David is a
17:38:45 youth leader at his church.
17:38:47 Let us all stand for his invocation and remain
17:38:49 standing for the pledge of allegiance.
17:38:55 >>> Let us come before you in this place giving you
17:38:57 all glory and honor.
17:38:58 Lord, we pray that you establish your kingdom here,
17:39:01 Lord Jesus.
17:39:02 Lord, that you just reign in this place, and give us
17:39:06 knowledge, Lord.
17:39:07 I may you impact, Lord, your wisdom and council
17:39:11 members that you bless their lives, Lord Jesus.
17:39:14 Lord, give them peace, Lord, and give them unity,
17:39:19 Lord, as may have you give them knowledge.
17:39:23 May your peace be here, father.
17:39:26 We give you all glory and honor.
17:39:28 Thank you.
17:39:28 In Jesus name, amen.
17:39:32 (Pledge of Allegiance)
17:39:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: David, when you offer invocations
17:39:49 in public arenas, it's appropriate to do prayer that's
17:39:54 generally acceptable to everyone rather than specific.
17:39:57 We'll give you a brochure for future opportunity.
17:40:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
17:40:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:40:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
17:40:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
17:40:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
17:40:15 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
17:40:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:40:19 We are ready to start with item number 1.
17:40:26 We have unfinished business from this morning.
17:40:33 >>> Special use?
17:40:34 >>CHAIRMAN: Yes.
17:40:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
17:40:36 The site plan on the ordinance has been updated and on
17:40:39 file, ready to read.
17:40:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Who has it?
17:40:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Move an ordinance approving a special
17:40:52 use permit S-1 on a Pell for a decision of the zoning
17:40:56 administrator, approving a congregate living facility
17:40:59 for elderly residents over the age of 65 years,
17:41:02 expansion from 8 beds to 16 beds, and an SR 50
17:41:07 residential single family zoning district in the city
17:41:10 of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in
17:41:12 section 1 waiving the requirement of section 27-272-B,
17:41:19 that facilitates facilities located in RS-150, RS-100,
17:41:24 RS-175, RS-60, RM-12, RM-16, and shall be limited to a
17:41:31 maximum number of 8 persons, in addition to the
17:41:33 caregiver providing an effective date.
17:41:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:41:37 (Motion carried)
17:41:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have it scheduled for next week,
17:41:48 and at the same time I understand that we have a
17:41:49 workshop for chapter 3, scheduled at that same time.
17:41:54 So my concern is that that workshop was scheduled at
17:42:06 the same time as the CRA meeting for next week which
17:42:09 we blocked off a two-hour time because we are going to
17:42:11 have Bank of America make a presentation, which we
17:42:14 entail that to be about 45 minutes on Central Park,
17:42:17 and also the those who facilitated with East Tampa as
17:42:25 well will be here to make a presentation and a couple
17:42:28 other presentations so we anticipate that going two
17:42:31 hours next week.
17:42:32 So my concern is the workshop after that.
17:42:38 So I don't know what council -- if council wants to do
17:42:41 forward and hold the workshop after that.
17:42:43 I'm not sure.
17:42:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Who scheduled the workshop, do you
17:42:46 know, Mr. Shelby?
17:42:49 It McMullen Booth Cathy Coyle.
17:42:52 She's standing up there.
17:42:54 >>> Yes, that was Rebecca Kert. This is postponed
17:42:57 from a month prior.
17:42:58 They are looking to submit to the July cycle.
17:43:01 We can move it off a week if you needed to.
17:43:03 It's up to you.
17:43:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If it's going to be next week, it's
17:43:09 probably looking to come down and anticipate.
17:43:13 So if we are not going to have to workshop, I suggest
17:43:17 we remove it.
17:43:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Reverend Scott, I definitely think
17:43:22 the CRA should have a precedence, but if we did --
17:43:26 normally, you need three hours.
17:43:29 My thought is if you have the CRA meeting between 1:30
17:43:32 and 3:30 we could have the chapter 3 workshop from
17:43:35 3:30 to 4:30.
17:43:41 It's a Tuesday.
17:43:42 Three hours is normally what we are able to do.
17:43:45 So my suggestion would be that -- two hours.
17:43:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Between an hour and 45 minutes
17:43:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And we could do the chapter 3 at
17:44:01 >>> Was it a Tuesday?
17:44:02 We have it on our calendar as June 21st.
17:44:05 Oh, it is the 21st.
17:44:07 That's a Thursday.
17:44:10 >>GWEN MILLER: No, it's a Tuesday.
17:44:14 >> I'm showing Thursday.
17:44:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Thursday, not Tuesday.
17:44:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't have a conflict.
17:44:20 >>GWEN MILLER: I was wanting you to be aware.
17:44:23 >>GWEN MILLER: No night meeting.
17:44:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about CRA 1:30 and workshop at
17:44:31 And then that way, you know, if we do it 3:30 then we
17:44:35 have to wait, you know.
17:44:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
17:44:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As long as we have a CRA meeting.
17:44:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Coyle, you heard. That we are
17:44:46 going to change to the 3:00.
17:44:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thursday afternoon.
17:44:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have it still appeared for 1:30?
17:44:57 Extend it by motion to make it to 3:00 then the clerk
17:44:59 will change the agenda.
17:45:00 Otherwise it appears on next week's agenda at 1:30.
17:45:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I will move we have the CRA meeting at
17:45:07 1:30 be announced for 1:30, and the workshop at 3:00.
17:45:14 >> Second.
17:45:14 (Motion carried).
17:45:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: With the understanding it may not
17:45:18 start three.
17:45:20 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
17:45:21 Now we are ready to go to our agenda item number 1.
17:45:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, this was a motion that was
17:45:28 made that public hearings being held when City Council
17:45:36 has first reading on ordinances.
17:45:38 And council, I have provided you a memo to which I
17:45:40 have attached Florida statute section 156, 401 which
17:45:46 covers the procedure for adoption of ordinances and
17:45:49 resolutions by municipalities.
17:45:51 It sets forth the minimum legally required procedures
17:45:55 for adoption of ordinances.
17:45:57 Council, there are some ordinances as you know that
17:45:59 are legislative in matters that don't require two
17:46:06 public hearings, only require one public hearing.
17:46:09 Generally, council, what you do is you have those
17:46:12 first readings appear on the consent docket.
17:46:15 They used to appear under each individual committee.
17:46:18 And by council motion, you decided to separate them
17:46:20 out and list them at the front of your consent docket
17:46:24 to bring special attention to the fact that those are
17:46:27 actually ordinances that are going to be considered
17:46:29 for first reading.
17:46:31 It has been the practice then that the city clerk
17:46:34 advertise it for public hearing at a date usually two
17:46:37 weeks later, and that's when you have the public
17:46:40 hearing and adoption of that ordinance, if council so
17:46:44 There are certain times, council, that you can choose
17:46:47 to have -- again there are certain cases depending on
17:46:50 where it is within Florida statutes that require
17:46:53 different notice provisions or different public
17:46:55 hearing provisions.
17:46:57 But generally speaking, council, with regard to
17:46:59 quasi-judicial matters such as rezoning, as you hear
17:47:05 tonight, the state law allows cities to make
17:47:09 requirements, procedural requirements, greater than
17:47:12 what's required for state law.
17:47:15 So whereas state law only requires one public hearing
17:47:20 for a single possible rezoning that's not city
17:47:23 initiated, the City of Tampa's code of ordinances, are
17:47:26 your code of ordinances allows for two public hearings
17:47:29 and that is traditionally what happens for tonight's
17:47:32 You will have a full blown first reading and full
17:47:37 public hearing.
17:47:38 It will come back in two weeks normally, coming back
17:47:44 in two weeks, the second reading, and then what
17:47:46 happens is you have the opportunity for a second
17:47:48 public hearing prior to your second reading and
17:47:53 adoption vote.
17:47:54 And that is the way it is presently structured,
17:47:59 And that is the way it is presently contemplated in
17:48:02 the changes to chapter 27 that you are going to be
17:48:06 considering tonight that Ms. Coyle is going to be
17:48:08 presenting to you.
17:48:09 Council can either reduce the number of hearings for
17:48:14 non-city initiated rezonings from two to one, or
17:48:17 there's been some talk about council increasing the
17:48:19 number of public hearings.
17:48:21 Or the desire to have public input at first readings
17:48:25 of legislative matters.
17:48:26 The ones that appear on the consent docket.
17:48:28 And council can choose, if they wish to amend the
17:48:31 code, to require those public hearings.
17:48:33 I should also inform council that when you call
17:48:36 something a public hearing, you attach a certain legal
17:48:40 significance to it.
17:48:42 I would -- it would also require a certain notice
17:48:45 requirement which the clerk's office required.
17:48:52 Council, at first reading, not set for a public
17:48:54 hearing, you presently have an ability to have public
17:48:59 give you input under the agendaed public comment
17:49:03 section, where people can talk to those items that are
17:49:07 on the consent docket for first reading, and again
17:49:11 they would have that opportunity to come back at the
17:49:14 noticed public hearing and have the full opportunity
17:49:16 to be heard in addition to that.
17:49:18 So I hope that addresses council's question as to
17:49:24 whether you wish to add additional opportunities to be
17:49:26 heard, or, conversely, to retract the number of
17:49:34 opportunities that are heard that are in excess of
17:49:36 what state law would require the legal minimum.
17:49:39 And I know it's a lot of mumbo jumbo so if I can make
17:49:44 it simpler I'll try.
17:49:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
17:49:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sounds like a good thing for us to
17:49:48 talk about at the retreat, just because it could be
17:49:54 sort of lengthy, and we could talk about all the pros
17:49:58 and cons, and that sort of thing.
17:50:01 Retreat it is.
17:50:02 If you show up you can change the name.
17:50:06 Planning session.
17:50:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning session.
17:50:19 Whatever it's called, we'll discuss it then on Monday.
17:50:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you like, council, what I will do
17:50:24 is put extra copies of this memo and have it available
17:50:26 for you.
17:50:27 So if you choose to discuss it and put other agenda
17:50:29 I'll be prepared.
17:50:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
17:50:33 All right.
17:50:33 Item number 2.
17:50:38 We need to open the public hearing.
17:50:40 >> So moved.
17:50:40 >> Second.
17:50:41 (Motion carried).
17:50:41 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
17:50:54 The first item as regards to chapter 27 issues are
17:50:57 comprehensive changes to chapter 27.
17:51:00 At its regular meeting on May 14th, 2007, the
17:51:03 Planning Commission listened to what was brought to
17:51:05 the Planning Commission at the request of the city as
17:51:09 a semiannual review, which is done on a regular basis,
17:51:13 annual review, and proposed ordinance amending
17:51:17 sections of chapter 27.
17:51:19 This was presented and was unanimously approved by the
17:51:23 Planning Commission regarding the recommendation made
17:51:26 by the Planning Commission staff with consistency to
17:51:30 the proposed changes.
17:51:31 Ms. Coyle will now give you a detailed break down of
17:51:34 chapter 27.
17:51:36 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
17:51:50 What I passed to you is actually a supplement for one
17:51:52 section of the ordinance.
17:51:58 I know we discussed these before.
17:51:59 I will go through them very briefly.
17:52:00 If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
17:52:05 What you have before you are the comprehensive changes
17:52:08 to chapter 27, and they begin pretty much at the
17:52:11 beginning of the code and go all the way through the
17:52:13 very last section, chapter 27, and refers to item
17:52:17 which is section 27-98 deals with permitted
17:52:20 projections into yards, and that's any type of yards,
17:52:25 front yards, side yards, rear yards.
17:52:28 This particular portion of this change, as you know,
17:52:31 you may know, last July, on the last cycle, the front
17:52:36 yards porch projection was approved as allowing 8 feet
17:52:41 projection into a required front yard.
17:52:43 What you have before you is a modification of that.
17:52:46 It's essentially more like a tiered system.
17:52:49 And the RS-50 zoning district and in the RM,
17:52:53 multifamily residential district, the front porch
17:52:56 would be allowed by right.
17:52:58 However, in the RF 60 zoning district, it would be an
17:53:01 administrative variance process they would have to
17:53:04 And in the RS-75, 100 and 150 zoning districts, they
17:53:09 would have to apply for a regular variance, if they
17:53:12 actually want it at the public hearing so it would not
17:53:14 be allowed by right.
17:53:17 There are some provisions of how to design that
17:53:20 particular element on the house.
17:53:27 It does state the zoning commission will encourage the
17:53:30 front porches and overlay.
17:53:31 However, if we have an average front setback which is
17:53:34 required in an overlay district, a front porch cannot
17:53:37 project any further than that average setback that's
17:53:40 already been granted.
17:53:42 Do you have any questions on that portion?
17:53:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council?
17:53:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The second piece is really a
17:53:48 correction to what was done last July.
17:53:51 It is a graphic.
17:53:55 We had changed the setback for garages for vehicular
17:54:02 We also made it administrative to vary that.
17:54:05 Right now, previously, the 15-foot setback.
17:54:09 The current code is 18 feet.
17:54:11 You can go down to 10 if you have got a two-car
17:54:14 Ten feet meets the visibility clearance but 18 feet if
17:54:17 it's a tandem one-car garage.
17:54:19 18 feet is the length for a regular car.
17:54:23 So this is just the diagram that we already had in the
17:54:26 code. The language has already been changed.
17:54:29 Any questions on that one?
17:54:31 The next one, which is a supplement goes along with,
17:54:35 is the rezoning process.
17:54:40 What I handed out to you just so you can see, I know
17:54:43 there's been some questions about how long it takes to
17:54:45 get through the process.
17:54:46 What you have before you today is the front page is
17:54:49 what it is today.
17:54:51 This is what we put on the back of applications.
17:54:53 And this is showing basic deadlines that you have to
17:54:57 meet to get through the process.
17:54:59 As you see, it takes about three and a half months to
17:55:02 get through.
17:55:02 Right around anywhere from 100 to 115 days.
17:55:06 And what I have shown you on the second page is the
17:55:09 modified version.
17:55:26 Under the new process.
17:55:27 The one item -- where we start from the beginning is
17:55:35 the -- on page 3 of the ordinance.
17:55:40 The review procedure.
17:55:41 The first couple of paragraphs really just are
17:55:45 clarifying language.
17:55:45 It doesn't change anything substantive.
17:55:49 Under 27-323-2-G, this is clarifying language for the
17:55:54 elevations that are required.
17:55:56 Last July, we put through an amendment that required
17:55:59 elevations, four sided for planned development
17:56:03 rezonings and other site plan rezonings.
17:56:06 What the clarifying language is saying is that the
17:56:08 elevations are really there to show compliance, to
17:56:11 demonstrate compliance with the PD criteria, site plan
17:56:16 criteria that deals with compatibility.
17:56:19 What the elevations don't do, if they are adopted, is
17:56:22 prescribe a specific architectural style.
17:56:25 And that's just to clarify for council when they are
17:56:27 approving things that you actually are not sitting as
17:56:30 an architectural review board.
17:56:32 You are approving essentially the mass and scale and
17:56:35 overall design of the project but not necessarily
17:56:37 whether it's a QS or Mediterranean revival.
17:56:43 That's a clarifying point in this particular piece of
17:56:46 the code.
17:56:47 What we have done is basically gone through after that
17:56:49 and kind of restructured how the code is sectioned.
17:56:54 We had deadlines and process requirements scattered
17:56:57 throughout, about three different pieces of this
17:57:00 section of the code.
17:57:01 And so what we have done is basically sectioned it
17:57:04 appropriately so it's a lot more organized.
17:57:06 In the beginning it's basically saying who processes
17:57:09 things and what the beginning of the cycle is and how
17:57:12 council hold the hearing and approves the case.
17:57:15 The second piece is how you initiate an amendment, the
17:57:18 zoning change.
17:57:19 There are areas zonings and there are parcel
17:57:23 The parcel rezonings really are the one that is you
17:57:26 deal with regularly.
17:57:27 Area rezonings are the one that is are usually
17:57:29 initiated by City Council, or they are over a large
17:57:35 Maybe not one person owns all the property.
17:57:38 What you have got for parcel rezonings which starts on
17:57:40 page 8 of the ordinance, paragraph C, the very first
17:57:49 change that you will see, looking at the chart, is the
17:57:55 application deadline, and thought behind this
17:57:57 ordinance that is effective July 1.
17:57:59 The schedule begins with an application deadline of
17:58:02 July 2nd.
17:58:05 The meeting occurs 30 days later, approximately give
17:58:08 or take a weekend or holiday.
17:58:11 The final site plan is due 30 days after the DRC
17:58:16 The way the process currently the code says you get
17:58:20 two weeks essentially, 15 days to determine a site
17:58:23 plan at the DRC.
17:58:25 One thing about the code provision we have today is
17:58:27 there's in a consequence if you don't turn something
17:58:30 What we have at the end of the process is a hard
17:58:34 13-day deadline, and what tends to happen in the
17:58:36 process is that when you hit a 13-day deadline with a
17:58:42 new deadline staff has very little time to react to
17:58:45 that, and what's already before council is a staff
17:58:49 report with objections or issues but the record isn't
17:58:51 clear when we are getting it before you.
17:58:53 What this does is pushing out the final site plan
17:58:56 date, about six weeks from the hearing date, and that
17:59:00 gives you time to process scheduling the hearing, and
17:59:06 then getting the final comments back, and then giving
17:59:08 the plan every opportunity to actually generate the
17:59:11 It takes about two and a half weeks to generate the
17:59:14 report, because obviously there is a quality control
17:59:17 It's reviewed by the supervisor and by the
17:59:19 administrator to make sure it's consistent with how
17:59:23 they review them.
17:59:26 The item at the very beginning of how we schedule
17:59:28 cases, currently council schedules by motion, and what
17:59:31 that does is, you're scheduling immediately after the
17:59:36 DRC, but basically by rule, by policy that we have.
17:59:40 We go to development review committee meeting, and
17:59:43 that Friday, the meetings occur on Tuesday and
17:59:46 That Friday, we are writing that doc agenda to you
17:59:50 guys to set the hearing.
17:59:51 We don't have a revised plan at that time.
17:59:53 We have met with them and given comments and are
17:59:57 hoping they turn the plan back in.
17:59:59 It's really unknown at that point.
18:00:00 The scheduling now will occur administratively.
18:00:02 We are going to write directly to the clerk.
18:00:05 And we are going to be scheduling after the final site
18:00:08 plan comes back in.
18:00:10 The good thing is, the catch here is that the time
18:00:12 frame is the same.
18:00:14 It is between 100 and 115 days depending on how they
18:00:19 and council's schedule whether or not they cancel
18:00:21 certain meetings.
18:00:22 But the majority of the ones that you see here are
18:00:24 between 110 to 115 days, the same time frame. The
18:00:29 goal is to be able to fit it within the same time.
18:00:33 The other good thing is currently there are two
18:00:37 postings in the circulator, whatever newspaper it is
18:00:40 that they happen to post in.
18:00:41 The postings actually are reduced to the state statute
18:00:44 requirement which is one.
18:00:46 And it would actually save half the posting cost in
18:00:50 the newspaper, and the other thing is that Sandy
18:00:55 Marshall and I spoke with Julia Cole.
18:00:57 She'll be able to build the night agenda approximately
18:00:59 two to three weeks earlier, and post it on the web
18:01:02 site so that people can go in and see things much
18:01:06 earlier than we would be able to today.
18:01:08 So hopefully that will serve for a little better
18:01:12 The 30 day notice we currently have stays all the
18:01:16 Tall public notice stays the same.
18:01:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to tell you, I think that's
18:01:20 And we had a committee meeting on this.
18:01:23 The developers thought it was great, and the neighbors
18:01:25 thought it was great.
18:01:26 It will give everybody -- you will be sure that the
18:01:30 final plans are in, and the public will have more time
18:01:33 to take a look at them.
18:01:35 It's a win-win.
18:01:37 Thank you.
18:01:42 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The other piece is we have actually
18:01:44 defined a minor change to a plan and a substantial
18:01:48 change to a plan.
18:01:49 And this gives council a little more flexibility when
18:01:52 they are approving things.
18:01:54 And determining what changes can occur upon first
18:01:57 reading approval.
18:01:59 If it's a minor change, if somebody forgot a note or
18:02:03 wrote a note the wrong way or needs to add language to
18:02:05 a plan, or for that one particular tree and just needs
18:02:10 to draw it in, council actually has the ability now to
18:02:13 approve, under this, motion and read it and what you
18:02:20 read with that statement along with the ordinance is
18:02:22 the motion with exactly the language that needs to be
18:02:25 added directing the petitioner to change the plan.
18:02:28 And what happens after that is we kind of hybridized
18:02:35 the site plan process so the minor change you can
18:02:37 approve on first reading.
18:02:38 That automatically mandates the petitioner to resubmit
18:02:42 the site plan immediately.
18:02:44 There is a deadline for that.
18:02:45 And that I would be certifying the site plan, that
18:02:48 that motion was done exactly correctly.
18:02:50 And what you have on file then for the second reading
18:02:53 is a certified site plan by the zoning administrator
18:02:56 so it makes it a lot cleaner legally as well.
18:02:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was looking for the definition of
18:03:01 minor versus substantially.
18:03:04 >>> It's on page 12 of my copy.
18:03:06 I'm not sure how yours comes over.
18:03:09 It's paragraph 5.
18:03:10 Adoption by City Council.
18:03:13 Minor site plan revision.
18:03:20 >> By A-1.
18:03:23 >>> Then 2 is where the actual definition comes in.
18:03:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So in other words today we were
18:03:31 talking about 2 inches versus 4-inch caliper oak trees
18:03:34 F.we had made a vote and if petitioner would have
18:03:38 agreed or whatever and we went to 4-inch and that was
18:03:40 the only change, then that would be considered
18:03:43 minor --
18:03:44 >>> You can read it on first reading with the
18:03:46 direction to add that note to the plan, and that would
18:03:48 require the petitioner to go back, fix the site plan,
18:03:53 fix the site plan, resubmit and certify that that
18:03:56 change was made, and that the plans meet exactly what
18:03:59 City Council approved on the first reading.
18:04:02 And if you wind up with the second reading with no
18:04:04 certified site plan it's because it wasn't done, and
18:04:06 then you wouldn't be able to approve.
18:04:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Great.
18:04:12 That's an important issue because that's where things
18:04:17 can't get moved forward on first reading, they have to
18:04:19 get continued, et cetera.
18:04:21 So that's a good change.
18:04:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Julia, aid question about that in
18:04:25 relation to -- -- Cathy, I'm sorry.
18:04:31 What Mr. Shelby was just talking about, do you think
18:04:34 this will reduce the amount of time we spend on public
18:04:38 hearings and on discussion at this second reading?
18:04:42 And is there --
18:04:44 >>> I would hope so.
18:04:45 What you would have at the second reading is an actual
18:04:47 certified site plan.
18:04:49 And it doesn't necessarily reduce people still getting
18:04:52 up and saying what they want to say, because it is a
18:04:54 full-blown public hearing.
18:04:56 But the plan in the file would be the one that council
18:04:58 directed at the first reading.
18:05:00 >>MARY MULHERN: But hopefully those would be our
18:05:02 changes might reflect what the public says at the
18:05:04 first reading.
18:05:06 >>> Hopefully that would diminish the second reading.
18:05:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chairman.
18:05:12 Then if we take it one step further which I think is
18:05:14 where Mr. Shelby might be headed -- we'll talk about
18:05:17 it more on Monday -- is that we wouldn't open the
18:05:20 public hearing on second reading.
18:05:23 We would just be having second reading.
18:05:26 Somebody would make -- somebody would make a motion to
18:05:30 read it, and we would read it and there would be a
18:05:33 motion to approve it, and we would approve it, and
18:05:36 that would be the end of it, which I think -- and you
18:05:39 were alluding to. But that's an option that we are
18:05:43 allowed to do under state law.
18:05:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, but it's problematic.
18:05:50 Most jurisdiction versus a first reading and use the
18:05:52 opportunity of a first reading to announce when the
18:05:54 public hearing will be, so the public will be on
18:05:57 notice to the television, in addition to the newspaper
18:06:00 legal notice.
18:06:03 At the second reading is when most municipalities have
18:06:07 public hearings, and if there are any changes that
18:06:09 need to be done, that have to be brought back, then
18:06:12 you can close the public hearing, and bring back a
18:06:16 certified plan.
18:06:19 But here is my other point.
18:06:22 I want to talk about this very briefly because I
18:06:23 believe this was originally the intention of the
18:06:25 motion, was to consider having the first reading be
18:06:30 about public hearing, and not have it, any discussion
18:06:33 at second reading.
18:06:34 And the concern that I have -- and I'll discuss this
18:06:37 more -- it's problematic because if you are bombarded
18:06:42 by comments outside the public hearing between the
18:06:44 first and the second reading, they are all ex parte,
18:06:48 they are all outside of the public hearing.
18:06:49 You may have a room full of people.
18:06:51 You may get a whole bunch of calls.
18:06:53 You would be violating due process rights to change
18:06:57 your vote on the basis of input that takes place
18:07:00 outside of a public reading and that opens the door to
18:07:03 a lot of problems.
18:07:04 But we'll discuss that as an option.
18:07:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The last item on page 14 which Ms.
18:07:14 Cole can certainly go into is the justification is
18:07:16 that City Council -- this limits the time a rezoning
18:07:19 is in the process.
18:07:23 City Council shall approve or deny an application for
18:07:25 rezoning within 180 dice of the applicant's submitting
18:07:28 their application to the zoning administrator.
18:07:31 City Council may for good cause shown extend this
18:07:33 period a maximum of 30 days.
18:07:36 You have 210 days potentially with a waiver to get in
18:07:39 and out of the process.
18:07:44 Which is a limit because council is very concerned
18:07:46 that things are carrying on, carrying on, carrying on.
18:07:49 So it essentially -- petitioner, get it right within a
18:07:56 certain time frame and also the council at the end
18:07:59 vote it up or down within the time frame.
18:08:01 County only be extended 30 days beyond the initial
18:08:05 Otherwise, if the application is not approved or
18:08:07 denied, it shall be deemed withdrawn, and then subject
18:08:10 to the withdrawal, period.
18:08:17 >> What if everybody wants it to go beyond that for
18:08:22 some extenuating circumstance, and it's right on the
18:08:27 verge of being a wonderful project?
18:08:28 We have no ability to --
18:08:30 >>> Not with the way it is written today.
18:08:32 I can tell you --
18:08:33 >> I don't know why we would process something like
18:08:37 There's always a circumstance --
18:08:39 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:08:42 I drafted this provision as a result of concurrence by
18:08:51 I put out 180 day time frame given that our zoning
18:08:54 process the way it was set up four months giving you
18:08:57 six months and then giving you seven months that
18:08:59 council feels that seven months and one additional
18:09:02 opportunity to maneuver that, we can change the 30
18:09:06 days to 68.
18:09:07 But I would suggest if you are going to want to do
18:09:11 this, to put a time frame in, because if you don't put
18:09:14 a time frame in, I'm concerned it will become somewhat
18:09:19 So I think if this is the direction that council wants
18:09:21 to go, it should have some teeth in it.
18:09:23 And what it does also do is put petitioners in a
18:09:26 position of knowing when they submit their
18:09:28 application, not just submit an application, just to
18:09:34 see where it's going to go.
18:09:35 And I'm not saying most petition doers that.
18:09:38 It is a process that has been give and take.
18:09:40 But it does happen.
18:09:41 And so this would be dealing with that issue as well.
18:09:44 But if 30 days isn't enough we can move it to 50,
18:09:50 movie it to 90, we can move 290 to 140.
18:09:54 I think it's important if you want to have to S
18:09:56 control over it that you put in a number.
18:09:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to follow up, Ms. Cole and I did
18:10:01 discuss this and I do agree that it does address
18:10:04 certain concerns that were raised by council,
18:10:06 particularly when somebody comes in and realizes that
18:10:08 there's a tremendous amount of community opposition to
18:10:10 it, and it would require substantial work, and do
18:10:14 request a lengthy continuance.
18:10:17 And sometimes when -- you have also heard from
18:10:20 neighborhood associations coming in saying that they
18:10:23 are concerned that they have to keep coming back.
18:10:25 And the point is that ultimately, council, I believe
18:10:28 the goal ultimately to have a final cite for your
18:10:34 review, that either has staff objections or doesn't
18:10:37 have staff objections you have the community here and
18:10:39 you make a decision either in support or in opposition
18:10:41 and you can vote it up or down.
18:10:42 And to dot timely so that the process does not drag
18:10:49 >> Just to preface that.
18:10:51 I am here this evening.
18:10:52 If there are any changes or tweak that is are needed,
18:10:54 I brought my hard drive, I can go make them and bring
18:10:57 them back so we can actually move this tonight.
18:11:01 Specifically the rezoning process.
18:11:03 The way we have the new schedule set up, it's
18:11:06 effective July 1.
18:11:07 And if it were to move tonight that particular piece
18:11:11 of it, then it would essentially throw the schedule
18:11:13 off because the second reading is set for June
18:11:17 If you really need to move it off that's fine but we
18:11:20 are hoping to get it done in June so we can start July
18:11:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We had a special workshop on this,
18:11:26 and council members weren't able to attend but the
18:11:29 public attended, and we went over everything in great
18:11:31 detail, and the public is really hopeful that this
18:11:36 will make our process more streamlined.
18:11:39 So it was very well received.
18:11:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are there
18:11:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Any other questions about the
18:11:50 The public notice portion of the code is exactly the
18:11:53 same, the 30-day requirement for posting the signs and
18:11:58 mailing the letters to adjacent property owners,
18:12:00 within 250 feet, and the neighborhood association.
18:12:05 Some of the language is being cleaned up to reference
18:12:06 the new sections in the verbiage.
18:12:10 Page 17, section 8 of the ordinance, 27-395 is the
18:12:16 code section, that deals with final decision by City
18:12:22 Council and withdrawal of applications.
18:12:26 The language has been tweaked slightly because it was
18:12:29 a little vague before.
18:12:33 We have dealt with this in the past when people did
18:12:35 not appear.
18:12:37 Failure to appear absent good cause shown may be
18:12:40 grounds, it said originally shall be grounds, was
18:12:44 changed to "may."
18:12:47 Julia actually tweaked some of this language.
18:12:50 May be grounds for considering application withdrawn.
18:12:52 You are actually denying it.
18:12:54 It would be considered withdrawn.
18:12:55 And that has a different connotation in the code.
18:12:59 The application was changed to last July, and that
18:13:02 particular language is okay.
18:13:03 The withdraw provision in paragraph C is what's being
18:13:07 Watt says specifically is that if you withdraw your
18:13:10 application it's six months before you can reapply.
18:13:13 There's a six-month hold.
18:13:15 It was actually written in reverse back in July, that
18:13:18 it was six months hold unless you noticed.
18:13:22 And if you noticed it was a 12 month hold.
18:13:25 So it was kind of backwards.
18:13:27 So we said the six month hold across the board.
18:13:31 And then the refiling provisions are identical.
18:13:34 We just had to change the letter, because it was
18:13:39 Comprehensive review of the chapter. This is text
18:13:42 amendment, semiannually.
18:13:44 Specifically, when we discussed with council at the
18:13:47 workshop, originally the zoning administrator can
18:13:50 initiate changes at certain times for certain things.
18:13:52 We added, "or City Council."
18:13:56 This is specifically for text amendments outside the
18:13:58 normal cycle.
18:13:59 We have a January 15th and July 15th cycle so
18:14:01 we process in batches to do more of a comprehensive
18:14:05 The changes that can be done outside of the normal
18:14:07 cycle are specifically to correct unintentional errors
18:14:11 or conflict between sections of the chapter, or with
18:14:14 other chapters, or for amendments that deal with
18:14:17 procedural matters. Let's say we get through the
18:14:20 rezoning process and three months down the line there
18:14:23 are some tweaks we can make, in the public hearing
18:14:26 setting we can go back and initiate a change outside
18:14:29 the normal cycle to fix whatever it is that comes up.
18:14:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
18:14:35 27-395, this issue of not showing up versus showing
18:14:40 up, Cathy,
18:14:47 It's interesting, I think we had this once or twice.
18:14:50 I'm reading the proposed change.
18:14:53 If you don't show up, then you basically will say
18:14:58 nobody is here, nobody is here, I guess we don't
18:15:01 consider about it, we'll consider it withdrawn.
18:15:03 If that's the case we will bring it back six months
18:15:06 later and refile.
18:15:08 >> Reapply.
18:15:09 >> In contrast if they show up and we don't like what
18:15:12 we see for legitimate evidentiary reasons, and we deny
18:15:16 it, they can't come back for 12 months.
18:15:19 >>> Correct.
18:15:22 Unless the plan is substantially different or --
18:15:28 >> I would hate to think some that somebody might use
18:15:30 that if they see their project going down, you know,
18:15:32 and being inherently hated by staff and everybody
18:15:37 else, and so they say, well, I am just not going to
18:15:41 show up.
18:15:41 Council has no choice but to do the withdrawal -- know
18:15:47 where I'm going?
18:15:48 >>> I hear what you are saying.
18:15:49 I hadn't thought about that.
18:15:51 >> I hadn't thought about it either until I'm looking
18:15:53 at it.
18:15:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You can certainly modify the six
18:15:56 months to 12 months if you so wish.
18:15:58 You can certainly direct me to do that.
18:16:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or we could give ours as little
18:16:02 more latitude in new paragraph little A that says we
18:16:06 could consider it withdrawn, or denied.
18:16:11 >>> I think there might have been a legal reason for
18:16:14 Because you had changed if they don't show up.
18:16:19 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:16:21 In order to have a legal basis to deny something, you
18:16:23 actually will have to have something in the record.
18:16:27 Which would require them opening up the public hearing
18:16:29 and allowing staff -- you could have that happen if
18:16:34 you want.
18:16:36 But I thought calling it a withdrawal would be better
18:16:39 so you don't have to go through that process of them
18:16:41 delivering and denying it.
18:16:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess we'll see how it goes and
18:16:47 if they abuse it we'll fix it.
18:16:49 Hopefully it won't be abused.
18:16:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Hopefully nobody heard you.
18:16:55 >> Yeah, thanks a lot.
18:16:56 Actually, I was thinking if someone doesn't show up
18:16:58 then they are not wasting anyone's time and I think
18:17:01 that was the problem that people would show up and
18:17:03 start hearing it.
18:17:04 And then you would continue for first reading.
18:17:08 So I don't have a problem with that.
18:17:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The other issue, council, if I could
18:17:15 chime in, in recent memory, is there may be times that
18:17:18 something may need to be continued, council usually
18:17:22 likes to clear their agenda early on and if something
18:17:24 is set for a particular time say 6:00 when the staff
18:17:27 wants to clear the agenda or council does and the
18:17:29 applicant is not here, for whatever reason, then staff
18:17:33 is denied the opportunity or council is denied to
18:17:37 opportunity to clear their agenda so should always
18:17:40 have somebody here early on.
18:17:48 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The next session of the ordinance
18:17:50 goes through the central business district changes.
18:17:52 Last July, we adopted a 5-foot setback for full block
18:17:57 development, and that was essentially to encourage a
18:18:00 larger area for public sidewalks.
18:18:03 What we are doing in this change is to average that
18:18:08 So if someone wanted to provide a ten-foot setback on
18:18:11 one side with a nice larger plaza area with an arcade
18:18:14 or whatever, outdoor seating area, they could go to
18:18:17 zero on the other side.
18:18:18 They have the ability to shift the building a round as
18:18:21 long as it's a five-foot average.
18:18:25 The next change on page 20 deals with public open
18:18:33 If 15% of the area of the property has to be dedicated
18:18:36 to public open space, any of the setback area is
18:18:39 included in that, open space on your property, within
18:18:41 your property lines.
18:18:43 What we have done here is exempt out parcels that are
18:18:46 less than 20,000 square feet in area, which is
18:18:49 essentially less than half a block, and those parcels
18:18:53 that are less than that size, and developed only up to
18:18:59 50,000 square feet in area.
18:19:00 So you are looking at maybe two, two and a half story
18:19:04 We had a couple occur like that, that were
18:19:06 redevelopments and they had eight or 9,000 square foot
18:19:09 parcels, they were tearing those buildings down and
18:19:12 rebuilding, and the way the code reads today, by
18:19:16 tearing them down and rebuilding they would have to
18:19:18 provide 15% of in open space which forced their
18:19:21 building to go up to accommodate the TACE space they
18:19:24 needed and drove up their construction costs.
18:19:26 So exempted the smaller developments.
18:19:31 The next piece deals with parking garages, through the
18:19:36 downtown partnership, especially with the small box
18:19:40 that we have, the maneuvering within the garage space
18:19:42 and the column placement, that often council is
18:19:47 approving waivers for 24-foot aisle versus a 26 and a
18:19:51 lot of times you are approving 8-foot spaces versus
18:19:55 nine. The standards we have for parking are very
18:19:57 large for surface lots so people maneuver a little bit
18:20:00 tighter than they do outside.
18:20:03 What we reduced as a standard space is 8 by 18 and
18:20:06 with a 24-foot aisle.
18:20:09 And specifically for residential structures, you can
18:20:12 consider tandem spaces.
18:20:14 So one parking space in front of the other.
18:20:17 We have had that a lot.
18:20:18 And typically they have to ask for a waiver.
18:20:20 So we are doing this as a matter of just design review
18:20:22 in the code.
18:20:24 Finally, the dwelling structure parking ratio is being
18:20:29 reduced back down from one per bedroom to one per
18:20:33 Any questions on the CBD?
18:20:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are there cities that don't have a
18:20:49 parking requirement for high-rise residential?
18:20:52 >>> There are other things that go along with that,
18:20:54 but there are.
18:20:55 >> Are we looking at that as perhaps the next step?
18:21:01 >>> We are looking at how to deal with the parking,
18:21:06 In the code today it's a very amount, $4500 per space,
18:21:09 about a third or so of what it actually build to --
18:21:14 costs to build.
18:21:14 We are looking at a lot of different issues as the
18:21:17 code is adopted today and looking at a how a lot of
18:21:20 different cities that deal with it.
18:21:21 We are working through the parking division and public
18:21:24 works as an urban design, land development.
18:21:26 >> And the downtown CRA?
18:21:30 >>> Yes.
18:21:31 There are going to be more coming in the July cycle.
18:21:35 We have another meeting June 25th with the
18:21:36 partnership to discuss the revision that is are coming
18:21:39 forward in the next cycle.
18:21:40 Hopefully some of them will deal with some of the
18:21:42 parking issues.
18:21:45 >> I would think that on occasion an off-site parking
18:21:51 might be something that somebody is trying to be
18:21:55 creative or even share parking with the city or with
18:21:57 other folks, communal parking garages for several
18:22:03 buildings or something like that.
18:22:05 We need to be as creative as possible if you want to
18:22:07 have a thriving downtown we want to have.
18:22:11 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I agree.
18:22:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, the other thing we
18:22:15 are log at is perhaps instead of creating a parking
18:22:19 in-lieu fee creating a transportation in lieu fee so
18:22:23 your money goes into like a transit trust fund that
18:22:26 creates a transit system so that everybody doesn't
18:22:28 have to have a car.
18:22:29 And there's been a fair amount of conversation about
18:22:32 And I'm hoping that we can get that imposed sooner
18:22:36 rather than later.
18:22:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?
18:22:39 Is there anyone in the public --
18:22:44 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm not done.
18:22:46 I'm not too far away. The next piece is the
18:22:48 commercial overlay district.
18:22:49 And we worked very closely with the Westshore
18:22:53 alliance, and we met with the Westshore neighborhood
18:22:56 on these changes.
18:22:57 And the district boundaries first and foremost, the
18:23:00 district boundaries are changing.
18:23:01 It's getting larger.
18:23:03 It's going to Hillsborough Avenue, along Dale Mabry.
18:23:06 It's expanding to some of the smaller streets on
18:23:10 spruce and Boy Scout, pick up some of the commercial
18:23:12 parcels, but it did not cover before.
18:23:15 The properties that are exempt are properties that are
18:23:19 owned and operated by a governmental entity, Sports
18:23:22 Authority, and aviation authority.
18:23:27 What this proposed ordinance does is bring in the
18:23:31 pedestrian implementation plan that was done in
18:23:33 September of '04 and it sets a hierarchy of streets in
18:23:40 And just so we are clear the Westshore overlay
18:23:42 district really applies to commercial parcels and
18:23:45 multifamily parcels on the major streets, does not
18:23:48 affect single-family residential in the neighborhoods.
18:23:51 What in effect this does is create priority pedestrian
18:23:54 streets, Westshore, cypress, Lois and spruce.
18:23:58 Regional corridors: Kennedy, Dale Mabry, and Boy
18:24:01 Local commercial streets, which are any of those
18:24:04 remaining streets that are classified as arterial or
18:24:07 collector, on our map, and then neighborhood streets,
18:24:10 which are classified as local.
18:24:13 And what the pedestrian implementation plan really
18:24:15 sets forth was general building setbacks,
18:24:20 streetscaping for trees, and public sidewalk widths.
18:24:24 What you will see on page 26 is the general range for
18:24:26 the different streets and the hierarchy.
18:24:30 There are some changes to the building on-site
18:24:34 And many of these were requested by the alliance.
18:24:39 But currently in the Westshore overlay district, chain
18:24:43 link fences are prohibited.
18:24:45 You can have chain link fence ifs you are under
18:24:48 You have to remove them when your permanent activity
18:24:50 is gone.
18:24:51 What we have added is that any chain link fence
18:24:53 existing or wooden fence existing shall be removed
18:24:56 prior to the issuance of any site or building permit,
18:24:59 and or if the fence has to be repaired, constructed
18:25:03 due to its physical deterioration beyond 50% of its
18:25:08 material value.
18:25:09 Mr. Rotella is here to speak to these items.
18:25:20 Essentially to beautify the area and make it a
18:25:22 bustling commercial area that's very pedestrian
18:25:24 oriented, shaded, lighted and so on.
18:25:28 And the appearance of chain link fences and wooden
18:25:32 fences is not what was desired ever in Westshore and
18:25:38 this step is hopefully to remove the one that is are
18:25:41 out there.
18:25:42 The provision also follows along on the --
18:25:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may interrupt.
18:25:52 I agree with that but a little earlier you said it
18:25:55 expanded to all the way to Hillsborough Avenue, and
18:25:57 does that mean the same criteria is going to happen on
18:26:01 that parcel you just said earlier all the way to
18:26:04 Hillsborough Avenue?
18:26:05 >>> Correct.
18:26:06 >> Drew Park?
18:26:07 >>> It does not -- it doesn't cover all of Drew Park,
18:26:11 It's just Dale Mabry.
18:26:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.
18:26:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the reference here the
18:26:27 >>> There is a sign plan for that on page 30.
18:26:30 You can certainly read through page 32 goes into the
18:26:33 sign regulations.
18:26:35 And what you will notice -- and as we went through the
18:26:37 Kennedy Boulevard overlay adoption was that Kennedy
18:26:41 would follow the same pattern through Westshore, with
18:26:44 the lighting and streetscaping, and requirements as in
18:26:48 the Kennedy overlay that would carry over to the
18:26:50 Westshore overlay, same Boulevard.
18:26:55 Any questions about Westshore?
18:26:58 >>MARY MULHERN: Will you don't have a map that you can
18:27:02 put on the overhead, do you?
18:27:04 >>> I have the old one.
18:27:15 I can show you where it expanded.
18:27:32 This is the current one.
18:27:34 Basically what happens anything in yellow is covered.
18:27:37 There are some -- Lois Avenue in particular is not
18:27:41 covered on the north side.
18:27:43 I'm sorry, here.
18:27:45 Basically what happens is it goes north along Dale
18:27:48 And it's expanded all the way to Himes.
18:27:53 Now up against the Kennedy Boulevard overlay.
18:27:57 Both sides are Himes are covered.
18:28:00 We have as some of you may recall, the CVS on the
18:28:03 corner right here is not actually in an overlay.
18:28:14 Any questions on Westshore?
18:28:21 Seminole Heights residential overlay.
18:28:23 What this does is really just clarify the finished
18:28:26 floor height.
18:28:27 Currently in the code it's 18 inches above grade.
18:28:30 Your finished floor has to be 18 inches above grade.
18:28:32 The way it's written today, it's only measured at the
18:28:35 front wall of the structure.
18:28:36 And what has happened essentially people are trenching
18:28:39 down from the back.
18:28:40 So you are at grade at the back and they float forward
18:28:44 to the street.
18:28:45 What this does is require that 18 inches all the way
18:28:49 There is some additional language at the end of this,
18:28:51 It says may consider a front yard encroachment for
18:28:54 stairs reaching a height greater than 36 inches above
18:28:57 grade provided that access to a front porch or front
18:29:00 entry, where it is clearly demonstrated the national
18:29:04 natural topography of the site with the minimum
18:29:07 finished floor and front setback average in the
18:29:09 section causes the design conflict.
18:29:11 We do have some areas in Seminole Heights obviously
18:29:13 that are along the river, and the grade of the
18:29:15 property does change.
18:29:17 So what happens is, anything that's above 36 inches by
18:29:21 zoning law has to meet the front setback.
18:29:24 And what happens, what happened in this particular
18:29:27 case, if you had a strange grade of property the
18:29:31 average of the house is 18 inches about but
18:29:35 potentially the grade would drop naturally and the
18:29:37 stairs would hit above 36 inches which would force the
18:29:40 entire house back which is actually against what the
18:29:42 overlay says, generally bringing the houses forward.
18:29:45 So there's some exception there for an administrative
18:29:48 review, there's a natural topography issue.
18:29:51 The next piece is West Tampa.
18:29:55 West Tampa has the same provision for finished floor
18:29:57 elevation except there's a 24 inches so it's being
18:30:02 changed to match Seminole Heights except the number is
18:30:06 The transparency of the front facade at 50% is the
18:30:10 standard language today.
18:30:11 And we are now wrapping that along the corner.
18:30:14 So you get transparency along both streets which makes
18:30:22 We were winding up with some blank walls and corners.
18:30:25 The set back for garages in the rear are allowed to go
18:30:28 down to six feet when it's along an alleyway, the
18:30:31 access being an alley.
18:30:33 Within the West Tampa national historic district,
18:30:36 residential dwelling units, the parking ratio is
18:30:39 dropping from two spaces per one unit to one space per
18:30:43 unit, given the size of the properties, which are very
18:30:50 Garages will be recessed for principal structures,
18:30:55 detached housing, it's 8-foot to the garage, the main
18:31:01 door or porch or whatever feature is the prominent
18:31:07 feature of the house.
18:31:09 In townhouses it's a two-foot setback so still the
18:31:13 doors are the prominent feature.
18:31:15 And finally, definitions, which is the last piece.
18:31:19 Definition of family is being reduced from five
18:31:22 unrelated people in a home to four to match up with
18:31:25 the life safety code.
18:31:27 And the final definition of public open space as
18:31:31 relates to the central business district.
18:31:32 It used to be area upgrade, accessible to the public,
18:31:36 open to the sky.
18:31:38 Nothing could encroach in that.
18:31:39 Now it's being modified.
18:31:41 But you can place an arcade over it.
18:31:43 You can place awnings or canopies as long as it's
18:31:47 still open to the public access.
18:31:50 But there is a 15-foot clearance on that as well.
18:31:54 Are there any questions?
18:31:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
18:31:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't mean to butt into Mr.
18:32:00 Miranda's district.
18:32:04 I try not to often.
18:32:05 But on the West Tampa overlay district, I like the
18:32:08 district and I like the direction it's headed.
18:32:12 I know it's relatively new.
18:32:14 But the thing that bothered me over the last year or
18:32:18 two, it's sort of the loosey goosey nature of --
18:32:24 what's the board that was used over there?
18:32:28 >>> CDC?
18:32:29 >> Is it the CDC that reviews it and gives a
18:32:32 recommendation back about the --
18:32:36 >>> The rezoning?
18:32:37 >> Yes, about the overlay district?
18:32:39 >>> Currently, yes, CDC.
18:32:41 >> And I'm not -- seems like most of our review
18:32:46 processes take place in a more formal environment like
18:32:48 the ARC or the BLB or what have you in this building
18:32:55 with a little more formal process.
18:32:57 You know, we appoint those members, et cetera,
18:33:01 et cetera.
18:33:02 And it seems like whenever I hear about the review in
18:33:05 the West Tampa overlay district, it's kind of like the
18:33:08 petitioner will say, oh, yeah, we met with them and
18:33:10 they are good with it and we don't necessarily have a
18:33:13 formal report back, and I don't -- I've never had a
18:33:16 real comfort level with that, and with that process.
18:33:20 And I'm not saying that people aren't doing a great
18:33:22 job but it just is not very formalized and it always
18:33:26 leaves me a little uneasy.
18:33:27 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:33:28 I agree.
18:33:29 I think our processes for review, rezoning, should be
18:33:35 part of the internal process, and actually going to be
18:33:40 our recommendation in the July cycle to remove that
18:33:43 I believe it's also in East Tampa.
18:33:45 And I am going to make that recommendation.
18:33:47 East Tampa as well.
18:33:50 Every district in the city is handled in the same
18:33:52 manner and all reviews internally and processes occur
18:33:57 before council.
18:33:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I'm not necessarily saying
18:34:02 throw the baby out with the bath water.
18:34:04 If we get rid of it, you know, if there's some other
18:34:09 process to replace it, so we do have a community, a
18:34:14 little more community input or something like that, or
18:34:16 I guess maybe that the staff review is adequate for
18:34:19 that, what are we doing in Seminole Heights?
18:34:24 >>> They have an overlay but don't have a CDC or
18:34:27 anything like that.
18:34:28 >> So it's worked okay in Seminole Heights, just with
18:34:30 the staff review to compare it to the overlay, you
18:34:32 give us your opinion --
18:34:34 >>> Yes.
18:34:35 We have land development staff and urban design staff
18:34:37 but the plans are available to the public review and
18:34:40 they do come down and look at them and write awe
18:34:43 letter, the neighborhood board, letting now whether or
18:34:46 not they are in support of the project.
18:34:47 We have had some issues raised to us related to the
18:34:50 CDCs and the way that they handle their meetings and
18:34:53 review cases and how they vote on recommendations.
18:34:58 And it was a concern of the legal department and we
18:35:00 can certainly go into that with you individually.
18:35:06 >>MARY MULHERN: I wanted to follow up on that with the
18:35:09 other neighborhoods.
18:35:09 But my question is, isn't the intent of the overlay
18:35:15 district to not have that because you are setting
18:35:17 those standards for us that the community asked for?
18:35:22 Isn't that the idea?
18:35:24 >>> It's a higher level of design requirement, yes.
18:35:27 Basically tailors the development to what the
18:35:29 community decided they wanted.
18:35:33 >> And this is not the first overlay for West Tampa?
18:35:37 >>> No.
18:35:41 Modifications to the.
18:35:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Dingfelder, you're
18:35:46 welcome to move to West Tampa.
18:35:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll shower together.
18:35:56 >> We don't use much water.
18:35:58 It's a joke between us two.
18:36:00 Nothing more than that.
18:36:01 Please don't get too wrapped up there.
18:36:11 Just for the record, Julia and I myself met just
18:36:16 before this council meeting for no more than 30
18:36:18 seconds and some of this verbiage was discussed so I
18:36:21 guess I want to put on the record that I concur with
18:36:23 her thoughts and recommendations.
18:36:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:36:28 wants top speak on item number 2?
18:36:29 >>STEVE MICHELINI: There were a couple of issues that
18:36:37 we had talked about before in workshop session, and I
18:36:41 didn't hear them go over any of them in reference to
18:36:43 what's being presented to you this evening.
18:36:45 The first one is a transportation analysis is required
18:36:50 at submission.
18:36:52 The rezoning application.
18:36:54 That provides, I think, an undue hardship on the
18:37:00 If you are at 110 to 115 days the transportation staff
18:37:03 has ample time within -- they are asking for 30-day
18:37:07 review time for the analysis.
18:37:09 What typically happens is you meet with
18:37:12 They tell you you need a transportation analysis.
18:37:14 And then you're stopped.
18:37:16 The application cannot be submitted.
18:37:18 It can't be processed.
18:37:19 It can't be sent anywhere else.
18:37:21 You have a methodology meeting which takes a couple of
18:37:23 weeks to do.
18:37:24 You have to collect the data which takes another 30 or
18:37:27 45 days.
18:37:28 And then you present your report back to the city.
18:37:31 At that point you can file your application.
18:37:33 In the meantime you have lost probably 45 days.
18:37:36 Maybe 60 days in processing your application.
18:37:40 My suggestion to you is to allow the application to be
18:37:42 submitted, to go ahead and have your methodology
18:37:45 meeting with transportation, to allow the collection
18:37:48 of the data to occur concurrently with the processing
18:37:51 of the application, and the submissions to the other
18:37:55 In the meantime not schedule a public hearing until
18:37:58 that analysis has been reviewed with an adequate
18:38:01 amount of time by the staff so when you are in the
18:38:05 process, you are doing things.
18:38:07 At the same time, and it's much more efficient instead
18:38:10 of stopping the process and holding it up on the front
18:38:15 Your reference to those changes are pages 6 through
18:38:19 On page 14, you are being asked to solidify your
18:38:25 processing of an application at 180 days.
18:38:29 Let's just use transportation analysis as an example.
18:38:32 You are already at 110 to 115 days.
18:38:35 If transportation requires you to make a revision,
18:38:37 that's 30 days for their time alone which makes it 145
18:38:43 So then if something happens to that, then you require
18:38:45 another revision, you're 175 days.
18:38:48 You're right up on the 180 day deadline.
18:38:51 You have prohibited yourself by putting the 30 day
18:38:54 analysis in there from entertaining any other
18:38:56 extensions of time on your review of an application,
18:39:00 and essentially you are denying the petition.
18:39:02 I think that you ought to revisit that.
18:39:05 If you want 180 days on there, don't make the
18:39:07 mandatory kick-out occur at 30 days. Allow that to
18:39:11 occur at council's discretion.
18:39:13 I can't imagine why you would decide that you didn't
18:39:15 want that power as a City Council and you are going to
18:39:19 defer that to the staff and automatically kick out
18:39:22 your petitions.
18:39:22 The third item is on page 20.
18:39:26 You have provided nothing for automated parking
18:39:29 I think that you probably ought to put some provision
18:39:31 in there.
18:39:32 You have indicated what size they are but if you are
18:39:36 going into an automated structure some of kind on a
18:39:39 garage, those standards don't apply.
18:39:43 The fourth thing is in your Lincoln Gardens and Culver
18:39:47 city area you are permitting any permits being issued.
18:39:52 If, for example, you are requiring the chain link
18:39:55 fences to come down, you will not allow anyone in a
18:39:59 residential district to have a permit.
18:40:01 You also have all of the car dealerships, you have
18:40:04 HCC, you have Raymond James stadium, you have the
18:40:06 Yankees training facility and every other dealership
18:40:09 along there.
18:40:13 There were a couple other things.
18:40:14 (Bell sounds).
18:40:17 >> Move to allow him additional time.
18:40:18 He spent considerable time thinking this through.
18:40:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
18:40:23 (Motion carried).
18:40:25 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Thank you.
18:40:25 On page 29, you were establishing a parking standard
18:40:29 that you are prohibiting the issuance of site plans,
18:40:32 and so you corrected your parking lots in accordance
18:40:37 with the remaining provisions that occur under 4, A,
18:40:42 B, C and D.
18:40:44 What you are saying is existing surface areas shall be
18:40:48 improved for certain requirements prior to the
18:40:50 issuance of any site or grading permit.
18:40:57 Those have to precede the parking improvements if
18:41:03 there are corrections to be made, and the materials
18:41:06 have to be repaired, replaced due to deterioration.
18:41:10 You have to have those permits in order to fix what
18:41:12 you are being asked to fix so it's backwards.
18:41:16 The sixth thing, council talked about this and made a
18:41:23 motion regarding the parking standards as related to
18:41:25 Seminole Heights, before, and the difficulty in the
18:41:28 redevelopment areas, we are relaxing those standards
18:41:30 would help and encourage redevelopment at the same car
18:41:35 lots that are now outdated and trying to convert them
18:41:38 to neighborhood savings commercial establishments.
18:41:40 All of those opportunities the staff came back to you
18:41:43 and said they would address those in twine.
18:41:46 That's an extremely long time.
18:41:48 You are reviewing these codes now.
18:41:49 And there were provisions in here before to address
18:41:51 some of those difficulties.
18:41:53 I would say now is the time to look at them.
18:41:58 There are no checks and balances on your kick-out
18:42:00 provision back on page 14.
18:42:04 If the staff delays for any reason, you are not
18:42:06 penalizing the staff.
18:42:07 You are automatically kicking the petition out.
18:42:10 If the staff doesn't respond then the petitioner is at
18:42:12 risk and they are in jeopardy of losing their
18:42:15 It automatically kicks out again.
18:42:17 I urge you revisit those issues, particularly of
18:42:21 importance of transportation submission to the
18:42:23 The kick-out provision, the parking standards for
18:42:26 automated garages, the fence regulations as relates to
18:42:30 residential property including the schools that exist
18:42:33 in the Westshore district, and the missed
18:42:36 opportunities for amending the property regulations.
18:42:39 Thank you.
18:42:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you give a copy of that, what you
18:42:43 were reading?
18:42:44 Ms. Cole, did you get a copy of it?
18:42:47 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I would be happy to.
18:42:48 We discussed those with Julia Cole and they were
18:42:50 supposed to come back, I thought, somebody was coming
18:42:52 back with amendments.
18:42:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Make sure she gets a copy of that.
18:42:56 Would anyone else like to speak?
18:43:04 >>> Ron Rotella, Westshore alliance.
18:43:06 I noticed Mr. Michelini was a forwarded the
18:43:08 opportunity to go beyond three minutes.
18:43:10 My presentation will take only -- I timed this -- 47
18:43:15 [ Laughter ]
18:43:17 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to extend your time to
18:43:25 [ Laughter ]
18:43:28 >>> Couple of clarifications.
18:43:29 The city of Lincoln Gardens, they have met with us,
18:43:33 they asked that Lois Avenue from Boy Scout to the
18:43:35 interstate be exclude from our district.
18:43:37 We did.
18:43:38 They are not in our district.
18:43:39 They would not apply to schools because of the fact
18:43:41 that government is exempt.
18:43:43 So Mr. Michelini is usually correct, but on those two
18:43:48 instances incorrect.
18:43:49 I want to bring to your tension first a simple
18:43:53 We understand this will be adopted July 1st.
18:43:54 When it's adopted, any zoning petition of commercial
18:43:59 site plans would be exempt from the provisions of
18:44:03 chapter 27.
18:44:05 Is that correct?
18:44:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:44:12 Just to be clear, this is effective July 1.
18:44:14 Anything that's on file, of June 30th, applies to
18:44:21 the old code.
18:44:23 If they apply on July 1 they would follow the new
18:44:29 >> Thank you for including that in the record.
18:44:30 The other thing I want to bring your attention to, I'm
18:44:33 not asking for -- I think the Westshore alliance, we
18:44:37 have already had this discussion with the
18:44:39 And I think the City Council has to think through this
18:44:46 Application for new construction and/or major
18:44:49 renovation as defined in chapter 27 City of Tampa code
18:44:52 shall comply with all applicable overlay districts and
18:44:55 underlying zoning district standards.
18:44:57 The definition of major renovation includes land
18:45:05 So let's take the piece of Kennedy Boulevard from Dale
18:45:10 Mabry to Westshore.
18:45:13 And it's a policy decision.
18:45:16 If you want to leave land value in, in determining
18:45:19 when you exceed 351% of major renovations, then you
18:45:22 will never see any changes on Kennedy Boulevard
18:45:25 between Dale Mabry and Westshore.
18:45:28 It will never happen.
18:45:30 If you do want to see changes happen, if you want to
18:45:32 see the commercial overlay district go into effect,
18:45:36 and that Boulevard look a lot better than it does
18:45:41 today, then you will exclude land values.
18:45:44 And I will tell you, you just had a major renovation
18:45:47 that took place on Kennedy Boulevard where the
18:45:51 neighborhood is very, very upset.
18:45:54 And if the land value was not part of that definition
18:45:58 of major renovation, that would not have happened.
18:46:04 Another good example.
18:46:08 Would be what happened on Westshore, and Kennedy.
18:46:12 The retail establishment, those of us watched that
18:46:16 They basically gutted the building.
18:46:20 They left the walls up.
18:46:21 Everything was gone, the roof, et cetera.
18:46:23 The people living behind that, I think did a pretty
18:46:27 good job, still complying.
18:46:30 But if the land value provision was pulled out of that
18:46:35 definition of major reconstruction, that property
18:46:41 could have to comply with the overlay district
18:46:42 standards if they would accept it at that time.
18:46:48 I'm not suggesting you address it tonight, but it's
18:46:51 something we should think through as a community.
18:46:53 I think residential neighborhood should be involved,
18:46:56 that back up to Kennedy Boulevard, and have further
18:46:59 discussion with the administration and the council.
18:47:03 It's a major issue.
18:47:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:47:10 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
18:47:16 The front porch issue is -- some of you council
18:47:21 members, three, I guess, are familiar with the fact
18:47:23 that the commotion about the front porches, Mr.
18:47:27 Dingfelder, and we understand that that is in effect
18:47:35 actually regarding the changes as a proposed
18:47:37 ordinance, pending ordinance, I think.
18:47:41 Am I correct?
18:47:47 Tampa homeowners did not address the issue of the
18:47:51 individual overlays.
18:47:55 We totally, though, did agree with Cathy on the
18:48:00 proposals regarding the site plan, and the elevation
18:48:08 coming to you as part of the site plans, as well as
18:48:13 all the changes that she is particularly bringing to
18:48:19 you, to help speed up the process.
18:48:22 I know Mr. Michelini seemed to have some problems with
18:48:26 But I truly feel that if council wants to see another
18:48:30 way of doing things, that maybe they would like to try
18:48:35 And when they know, when the zoning office knows, that
18:48:41 things are ready to come to you, they will set the
18:48:44 So they need all of this information, from what we
18:48:48 understood, to be able to progress in that way.
18:48:51 So what I would ask you is to leave it the way it is.
18:48:56 If it becomes a problem, because as Linda said, at the
18:48:59 workshop, both the development community and the
18:49:02 neighborhoods would totally agree with this.
18:49:08 As far as what you will do -- this is something that
18:49:13 came up this evening -- if someone doesn't show up,
18:49:16 the neighborhood is down here.
18:49:19 Is it fair then just to let it be postponed or
18:49:26 continued or whatever?
18:49:27 I hope that council will leave that again the way it
18:49:31 is and hope that no one misuses it.
18:49:40 As far as the process, we are in full agreement with
18:49:43 The definition of families, we were glad to see that
18:49:46 come into compliance with the law.
18:49:48 As far as Mr. Rotella's discussion that I just heard
18:49:52 for the first time, I'm very sure that the
18:49:57 neighborhoods that abuts, as chairman of that
18:49:59 Westshore -- the Westshore development of regional
18:50:07 impact neighborhood code improvement committee, and we
18:50:12 were set up as part of that Westshore DRI, and I chair
18:50:15 I know that we would agree with him as far as what
18:50:18 should be considered in the 50% renovation, because as
18:50:23 he said, we are not going to see very many renovations
18:50:27 on Kennedy, and we need to see it because Kennedy will
18:50:30 never improve if it stays -- if those remain in there.
18:50:38 So other than that, T.H.A.N. does support what's
18:50:42 presented to you this evening, and hope that you will
18:50:44 adopt it with not too many changes.
18:50:47 (Bell sounds).
18:50:48 Because this has been going on now for six months, and
18:50:52 workshops and everything else have been held, and we
18:50:56 hope that
18:51:02 Thank you.
18:51:06 >>> Randy baron, 217 west Comanche Avenue, Heights
18:51:11 Civic Association.
18:51:12 I want to reiterate what Steve Michelini said about
18:51:14 the lost opportunities along the commercial corridors.
18:51:17 These are corridors especially in Seminole Heights
18:51:20 that really need this help immediately.
18:51:23 I get weekly calls from developers who are concerned
18:51:26 about the constraints of those sites along especially
18:51:30 Florida Avenue, and without some sort of parking
18:51:36 waivers or other kinds of incentives to bring
18:51:38 developers in, we are condemning those corridors to be
18:51:41 a sea of used car lots.
18:51:43 With respect to the overlay district and the 18
18:51:47 inches, I just want to clarify with Cathy, the
18:51:53 topographical exception, if I understood you
18:51:55 correctly, that's only kicks in if it requires steps
18:52:02 greater than 36 inches?
18:52:03 So if it doesn't require that, because there are some
18:52:07 situations where there is a grade, and I want to be
18:52:13 sure that perhaps the zoning administrator looks at
18:52:17 all occasion where is that grade is not flat.
18:52:21 And finally, with respect to that, I do know that I've
18:52:25 heard from zoning that there is some concern that our
18:52:29 overlay is 18 inches and all the other overs are 24
18:52:33 inches of finished floor height.
18:52:34 We would have no objection ifs council wanted to make
18:52:37 that uniform to 24 inches.
18:52:39 As of now, if you put down two courses of block that
18:52:44 only gets to you 16 inches so you have to go to 24
18:52:48 So in the interest of being consistent, we would have
18:52:50 in a objection to that.
18:52:52 So thank you.
18:53:04 >>> Dan Smith, 4315 west LaSalle street, I represent
18:53:08 the Carver City, Lincoln Gardens homeowners
18:53:11 And I would be remiss not to say anything at this
18:53:14 moment about what I just heard from Mr. Rotella.
18:53:16 And just wanted to make record of the fact we are very
18:53:20 concerned about what's going to happen between Kennedy
18:53:21 and Dale Mabry -- Westshore and Dale Mabry, and there
18:53:27 are also some major concerns from residents that live
18:53:29 in front of those fence that is we are discussing that
18:53:33 I have gotten responses about, gotten calls about, and
18:53:36 we ask that you seriously consider including us.
18:53:41 You know, we are looking forward to any further
18:53:42 discussion about this.
18:53:43 That's my first time in dealing with it.
18:53:47 Been bombarded, calling me about different sites going
18:53:51 up in our neighborhood which I'll talk about later.
18:53:54 But we ask that you consider it for future, you know,
18:53:59 in the future, and that we are included in that
18:54:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, I have a question.
18:54:04 I couldn't quite tell from what you were saying.
18:54:07 Do you like the idea that commercial uses would not be
18:54:10 allowed to use chain link fences?
18:54:13 Or do you not like that?
18:54:15 I couldn't tell.
18:54:16 >> I'm glad.
18:54:17 I'll clarify.
18:54:20 We have representing the homeowners association, we
18:54:22 have residents that live in the immediate area of
18:54:25 those fences that are not in favor, we do not like the
18:54:30 >> Okay.
18:54:30 >>> And as a community as a whole, any kind of
18:54:36 disturbance or change that shows what's imminent
18:54:43 progress is going to stir up some concern.
18:54:45 So Carver City, lien can homeowners association does
18:54:51 not like the fence that is being put up.
18:54:54 Thank you.
18:54:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
18:55:03 >> Good evening.
18:55:04 I'm Walter Johnson, Longfellow Avenue, and president
18:55:08 of T.H.A.N.
18:55:10 I would like to thank, publicly thank Ms. Coyle and
18:55:15 Ms. Cole for meeting with the zoning committee, and
18:55:22 really reviewing these proposed changes paragraph by
18:55:26 And then, Ms. Vizzi brought this before T.H.A.N., and
18:55:30 it was discussed there, and there was consensus that
18:55:33 T.H.A.N. does support these changes.
18:55:34 And we hope you will proceed with it.
18:55:36 Thank you.
18:55:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else?
18:55:40 If you are going to speak, would you please come up
18:55:42 and start speaking?
18:55:43 We have a long agenda.
18:55:44 We'll be here for a long time.
18:55:46 >> Linda Pearson, good evening.
18:55:48 I also want to thank staff and council for the support
18:55:51 that they have given to the community, for the
18:55:53 development community and the work of this process.
18:55:58 There's no issue -- forgive me -- councilman
18:56:05 Dingfelder, brought up about the time limit.
18:56:08 Sorry, I have been at the commission all day.
18:56:11 The time limit, I can envision myself, if I were
18:56:16 sitting in your seat, that you would want to have the
18:56:18 opportunity in some instances to maybe perhaps have a
18:56:23 finding of fact or some extraordinary circumstance
18:56:26 that you could think of, especially when a
18:56:31 development, a major project, is working consistently
18:56:35 with the neighborhood, and with staff, to address some
18:56:39 of the issues that may be ongoing.
18:56:42 And Steve gave a perfect example of transportation.
18:56:47 There could be other issues but that is a perfect
18:56:50 example where you might want to have some type of
18:56:53 finding of fact, and determine that there is an
18:56:55 extraordinary circumstances that would grant a 30 or
18:57:00 60 or 90 day extension to work it out.
18:57:02 I don't think would you want it to be for a very long
18:57:05 time in your time frame.
18:57:06 And I think it would be very rare that it would happen
18:57:08 that we can't get something finished in six months.
18:57:11 But I can think of some of the things that have gone
18:57:13 on in north Tampa, on Channelside, and some other
18:57:17 areas that needed extensive consideration and I just
18:57:22 offer that to provide you with perhaps some other
18:57:24 option, perhaps could be added to give you those
18:57:31 Thank you.
18:57:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else speaking?
18:57:35 Council members, Mrs. Saul-Sena?
18:57:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real quickly if Mr. Rotella is
18:57:40 still here.
18:57:40 I wanted his feedback on the chain link fences on
18:57:43 Westshore if he's still here.
18:57:44 >>GWEN MILLER: He left.
18:57:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
18:57:47 And could I clarify that?
18:57:50 >>> Just to be clear as I stated before the purposes
18:57:53 and intense section of Westshore it's all single
18:57:58 family in Westshore that it applies to. It is not
18:58:02 single family.
18:58:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Rotella, I have a question.
18:58:05 Did the Westshore alliance take up a position about
18:58:07 the chain link fences?
18:58:09 >>RON ROTELLA: As it pertains to the commercial
18:58:12 overlay district?
18:58:13 >> Correct.
18:58:14 >>> Yes.
18:58:14 We felt that when they reached 51%, state of
18:58:19 deterioration, that they should come out of and
18:58:23 overlay district standards should apply. The other
18:58:25 thing is, if you have a change of use and you see 51%
18:58:31 of the value of the floor area, then the chain link
18:58:35 provision and the wood fence provision would kick in,
18:58:38 as well as science, and we support both of those.
18:58:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Coyle, do you want to write up?
18:58:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'll just go through some comments
18:58:49 that were made.
18:58:51 The Seminole Heights overlay district is strictly
18:58:55 Currently in the code today.
18:58:56 There are no provisions for the commercial portions in
18:58:59 Seminole Heights.
18:59:00 The plan that was referenced to be finished in twine,
18:59:05 the schedule that you were given, the plan actually is
18:59:08 slated to be completed late summer, early fall, 2008.
18:59:12 There's a one-year additional adoption process,
18:59:16 because there will be pieces that will be adopted
18:59:18 through the comprehensive plan as well, potentially
18:59:22 map and text amendments which take a significant
18:59:24 amount of time and follow land development
18:59:27 Specifically for Seminole Heights, it is residential
18:59:30 I don't view it as a missed opportunity.
18:59:33 These provisions came in, these changes came in in
18:59:35 January of this year.
18:59:36 And we are moving forward on the changes for Seminole
18:59:38 Heights plan that we just mentioned.
18:59:42 Westshore only applies to commercial, not residential.
18:59:45 He mentioned HDC, and the stadium.
18:59:48 Those are exempt, as you know.
18:59:52 The provision that Mr. Rotella was talking about,
18:59:56 building renovation.
18:59:57 Rate now he's correct.
18:59:59 Major renovation is defined as 51% of the current
19:00:01 assessed value of the property.
19:00:03 It's everything.
19:00:05 We could look in July at adding a definition for major
19:00:09 building renovation, which would be strictly for the
19:00:12 And that is something that we can certainly look at in
19:00:14 the July cycle.
19:00:16 The automated parking garage in the downtown, that is
19:00:19 also something we are already currently looking at for
19:00:21 the July cycle.
19:00:22 And finally the transportation analysis.
19:00:25 I have had discussions with public works.
19:00:28 The director of public works, and transportation
19:00:31 planning staff, currently in the code today the
19:00:33 transportation analysis is required at submittal.
19:00:39 It's also required while you are getting your
19:00:41 application filled out that you meet with
19:00:42 transportation with the Planning Commission, land
19:00:44 development staff, and we sign off on your application
19:00:47 that you talked to us about what it is you are doing
19:00:49 and that you actually can apply for what you are
19:00:53 It's not unreasonable to ask that the analysis be done
19:00:56 before you apply, in my opinion.
19:00:59 You have 115-day process.
19:01:02 And the 30-day review as he described it and may made
19:01:07 it sound like it's at the end, what you have is upon
19:01:09 submittal is 30 days before the DRV.
19:01:13 If you are submitting at DRC you are getting comments
19:01:16 on your site planned and your traffic analysis from
19:01:20 transportation, as long as you submit a time line.
19:01:21 Then from that point on you have another 65 to 75 days
19:01:25 to work through the revision.
19:01:28 What I want to stress about trust analyses is it's not
19:01:32 always just mitigation, or improvement dollars that
19:01:34 need to be spent.
19:01:37 Sometimes, access points have to change.
19:01:39 Sometimes things are reoriented on property.
19:01:42 And if you submit an application on-site plan and it
19:01:44 has to be changed, significantly, and having driveways
19:01:50 changed and different types of parking scenarios
19:01:52 happening, what was required for staff at that point
19:01:56 into the process is a whole other review of a totally
19:01:59 different plan and cot happen again and again if the
19:02:02 analysis is incorrect.
19:02:03 Oftentimes analyses are not correct the first time.
19:02:06 There are tweaks that need to be made.
19:02:07 So what we are trying to do is get people to do their
19:02:10 due diligence up front, meet with staff, get done what
19:02:14 you need, apply, and get you the process as fast as
19:02:17 you can in a reasonable amount of time.
19:02:19 But in order to do that, we need to have all the
19:02:21 pieces up front.
19:02:23 It's the only fair way that we see that we can do it.
19:02:27 Those are my points on those comments.
19:02:29 If there are any tweaks that you need to make please
19:02:32 direct me and I'll make them.
19:02:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
19:02:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A lot of hard work obviously from
19:02:39 many directions including staff and the community and
19:02:41 we appreciate it.
19:02:42 The only suggestion and the only motion I am going to
19:02:45 make is on 27-393, the provision, the proposed change
19:02:53 currently says that City Council shall approve or deny
19:02:56 the application within 180 days, and then for good
19:03:01 cause showing we may extend it for a maximum of 30
19:03:03 days, and then following that, I would suggest and
19:03:07 make a motion that we would add one additional
19:03:09 sentence, which says further extensions may be granted
19:03:13 by council only upon a finding of extenuating
19:03:17 And then that way, we aren't boxing ourselves in, it's
19:03:22 only under a finding of extenuating circumstances, but
19:03:26 at least we have that option.
19:03:27 >> Would you want that by unanimous vote or super
19:03:30 majority vote or just majority vote?
19:03:32 >>> No, I would say just majority vote.
19:03:35 >> If I can just inquire of the maker of the motion
19:03:38 because I had contemplated based on council
19:03:40 discussion, talking with Ms. Cole about how many times
19:03:43 one might be able to come before council.
19:03:46 >>> I think that's another issue we should eventually
19:03:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The suggestion would have been to
19:03:51 make -- extend this period once, and then the
19:03:54 suggestion was provided petitioner again provide
19:03:59 public notice pursuant to section 27-394, which is the
19:04:03 good neighbor notice.
19:04:04 But with regard to your motion, Mr. Dingfelder, my
19:04:09 suggestion would be that I would not want to put
19:04:13 council in a position by code of always having
19:04:17 something come on an agenda item to reflect the
19:04:20 continuance repeatedly.
19:04:22 That's why I would like to have -- I believe Ms.
19:04:25 Cole's desire by this recommendation, which I agree
19:04:29 with, to Croat some sort of finality that there comes
19:04:32 a certain point of time where somebody has to vote it
19:04:34 up or vote it down.
19:04:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My concern is -- and we have seen
19:04:39 this before, where it's not necessarily just the
19:04:44 Sometimes it might be staff.
19:04:45 Sometimes it's us sending the developer back to the
19:04:47 neighborhood to say, work out, take another 60 days
19:04:50 and get it right, et cetera, et cetera.
19:04:52 That's why I'm very hesitant to create the finality
19:04:56 you are talking about, everyone though finality is a
19:04:59 nice thing.
19:04:59 But I would think that if we limit ourselves to just
19:05:02 saying we are not going to go bast the 200 day window
19:05:06 without finding of extenuating circumstances, I think
19:05:10 that puts a heavy burden on ourselves to kind of, you
19:05:13 know, a little wake-up bell to say it's got to be
19:05:17 extenuating circumstances.
19:05:18 And I think from now, let's maybe give that a try and
19:05:22 see where that goes, and hopefully if people abuse it
19:05:25 then we'll change it again.
19:05:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
19:05:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:05:32 (Motion carried).
19:05:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again did you want to state that
19:05:35 language if you have it already just so it's clear?
19:05:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Further extensions may be granted
19:05:41 by council only upon a finding of extenuating
19:05:44 And that would go in right after the 30 days.
19:05:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Extenuating circumstances.
19:05:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just leave that up in the air and
19:05:51 whatever council concludes is an extenuating
19:05:54 circumstance -- we can't define it, you know, in law
19:05:58 we deal with what is reasonable, and then you have got
19:06:01 a thousand different circumstances of what is
19:06:03 So we'll just leave that up as a standard.
19:06:06 It's a very hard, hard and difficult standard for us
19:06:09 to meet.
19:06:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I might have a question on that.
19:06:14 I'm not a lawyer.
19:06:17 Is there some stronger thing than extenuating
19:06:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm amenable, if somebody has a
19:06:25 stronger word.
19:06:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The only phrase we have is for good
19:06:31 cause shown.
19:06:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which is weaker.
19:06:34 But we get the 30 days of good cause shown.
19:06:36 And then if council wants to go further it's
19:06:40 extenuating circumstances.
19:06:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you vote on that that?
19:06:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we carried it.
19:06:52 Anything else, Ms. Coyle?
19:06:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: No.
19:06:55 I can bring back that one change.
19:06:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to move to close the public
19:06:59 >> So moved.
19:07:00 >> Second.
19:07:00 (Motion carried).
19:07:00 >>GWEN MILLER: What's pleasure of council?
19:07:02 >> Madam Chairman, there has been so much work put
19:07:04 into this.
19:07:05 I'm so happy that we are at the point of being able to
19:07:07 move ahead.
19:07:08 I believe that we may tweak things in the future and
19:07:11 that's fine.
19:07:11 But if we can adopt this tonight, think we will see a
19:07:14 much smoother, crisper process.
19:07:17 And I really look forward to that.
19:07:22 Thank you for all the work you put in.
19:07:23 I would like to move the changes to chapter 27.
19:07:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'll be bringing it back with that
19:07:28 tweak later in the agenda once I get done with the
19:07:31 next two.
19:07:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:07:33 (Motion carried)
19:07:35 Item 3 is a continued public hearing.
19:07:40 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:07:50 On March 12, 2007, proposed amendment to chapter 27,
19:07:53 which basically creates section 27-329, the central
19:07:58 business district bonus methodology in the calculation
19:08:00 is to bonus a men physician was submitted by the City
19:08:03 of Tampa, Planning Commission for review.
19:08:05 Planning Commission staff then makes a presentation to
19:08:07 the Planning Commission, which subsequently approves
19:08:11 staff's recommendation planning the -- finding the
19:08:14 proposed request to the change of chapter 27
19:08:16 consistent with her comprehensive plan.
19:08:18 Ms. Coyle will now go into more detail on the proposed
19:08:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
19:08:30 What you see on the Elmo is a little more detail than
19:08:34 really is necessary for this particular piece.
19:08:36 But what is marked in yellow is the CBD periphery by
19:08:40 definition in the comprehensive plan.
19:08:42 And the CBD arrive periphery itself is working on the
19:08:48 transition appropriate for residential and mixed use
19:08:50 project, at higher densities and intensities, in the
19:08:54 remainder of the city.
19:08:55 When you talk about transfer development rights, or
19:08:57 bonus incentives, or things like that, we do have
19:09:00 something in our plan.
19:09:02 It is the area around downtown where you essentially
19:09:06 get to double your floor area ratio, you get up to
19:09:09 100% of your floor area ratio, if you meet the intent
19:09:12 of the comp plan.
19:09:14 And what we have in the comprehensive plan today,
19:09:16 policy A-8.4, are several criteria, to be scored on a
19:09:24 point system and it ranges from housing, minority
19:09:27 employment, business development, transportation
19:09:29 improvements, daycare, pedestrian streetscape
19:09:33 improvements, and it goes on, other innovative
19:09:36 amenities, public spaces, et cetera.
19:09:38 But as they said, Watt says in this particular
19:09:41 paragraph is that it's scored on a point system.
19:09:43 And what you have before you is the methodology and
19:09:46 calculation for that point system.
19:09:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a handout with a map
19:09:55 for us?
19:09:55 >>> This was transmit board of director two months
19:09:57 You should have it physically.
19:09:59 >> I physically don't have a copy and I would really
19:10:01 love one if somebody can come up with one.
19:10:03 >>> Okay.
19:10:04 This is on the doc agenda.
19:10:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did other council members receive
19:10:11 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Just one?
19:10:18 She took my copy.
19:10:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When it's been awhile it's great to
19:10:24 bring extra copies because I don't know where mine got
19:10:27 lost along the way.
19:10:28 But thanks.
19:10:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the westerly boundary on
19:10:46 the west side?
19:10:47 Is that North Boulevard?
19:10:48 Is that Howard?
19:10:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I have to wait for my copy. The
19:10:56 westerly boundaries?
19:10:59 It's North Boulevard, Palm Avenue on the north.
19:11:02 It comes down Nebraska Avenue, along 39th street.
19:11:09 Actually, 4th Avenue, down 15th Avenue, along
19:11:13 the channel, all the way encompassing Harbor Island,
19:11:18 back to Hyde Park Avenue, harper street, Crosstown and
19:11:23 back up Boulevard. The CBD is not part of this.
19:11:28 Now, establish districts that we already have in the
19:11:32 The Channel District is obviously an established
19:11:35 And Harbor Island itself is the DRI so it's controlled
19:11:41 by a whole different set of regulations and planned
19:11:44 developmental alternative zoning.
19:11:47 The Northern Area is the southern piece of Tampa
19:11:49 Heights, Central Park is more or less right here-ish.
19:12:01 I wish I could go through the methodology with you.
19:12:04 I apologize.
19:12:18 What you have before you is section 27-329.
19:12:20 Central business district periphery, bonus methodology
19:12:23 and calculation.
19:12:25 This is the basic calculation that we've set up to
19:12:29 calculate bonus amenities in the periphery.
19:12:32 Channel District being one of those areas.
19:12:36 The list is on page 2, from obtainable housing, public
19:12:41 open space, child care centers, public art, increased
19:12:44 sidewalk area width, and so on.
19:12:50 And what it establishes is the development cost, and a
19:12:55 ratio of how we calculate the bonus calculations.
19:13:01 What it says on page 4, paragraph 2, is in order to
19:13:05 find the incentive a cost factor is applied, a
19:13:09 one-to-ten ratio. What you get essentially at the ten
19:13:15 to one ratio is for every dollar contribution to the
19:13:18 city and bonus amenity the developer receives $10
19:13:21 incentive in development costs.
19:13:23 And wall see on page 4 of the tables that we actually
19:13:27 have in excess spreadsheet to plug in the numbers.
19:13:32 The first thing do you is calculate the land, square
19:13:35 You put in the average market land value, which is
19:13:38 what you see on this map, and it is done by the
19:13:40 market, land value assessment from the property
19:13:43 appraiser and its averaged by square footage in each
19:13:49 And you have the construction costs per square foot.
19:13:51 What we try to do for this is standardize as many of
19:13:54 these numbers as we could.
19:13:55 So it's allowed for resources.
19:13:59 Using the index for construction costs which they
19:14:01 update quarterly by region.
19:14:03 And it so happens that they actually look at Tampa as
19:14:06 a region.
19:14:07 And so every three months they update what the average
19:14:10 is for construction per square foot, per type of
19:14:13 development in the Tampa region.
19:14:16 So we would be pulling that number.
19:14:19 Adding it to the land value of the number above.
19:14:22 And that becomes the development cost for that
19:14:26 particular development.
19:14:27 Then you calculate the F.A.R., floor area ace
19:14:32 improvement let's take one in Channelside.
19:14:34 3.5 floor area ratio.
19:14:36 You multiply that times the land area you have in the
19:14:40 beginning of the table.
19:14:41 And that is the potential maximum for bonus.
19:14:44 If you do 100% of that.
19:14:49 The next calculation table is the bonus incentive
19:14:53 Tau the subject site land area, based on F.A.R. number
19:14:57 for subject site, proposed floor area ratio number --
19:15:03 you can certainly ask a question if you want.
19:15:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have an over-arching question
19:15:13 which is this is put into our comprehensive plan many
19:15:15 years ago.
19:15:16 I believe when it was put in, it was put in when max
19:15:20 factor wanted to build a high-rise where Tampa prep is
19:15:24 I believe this is not necessarily appropriate to have
19:15:29 this, and I don't think we necessarily want this.
19:15:31 I certainly think that West Tampa is very different
19:15:33 between a Channel District, it's different from
19:15:39 heights and Harbor Island.
19:15:41 And I think it's not really attuned to what people
19:15:45 really want.
19:15:46 So rather than spending all this time going over this,
19:15:48 I don't think we necessarily want this.
19:15:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: As we said to you last year when we
19:15:56 initially started this, this methodology came out from
19:15:59 the strategic plan from the Channel District.
19:16:01 >> But I'm saying the Channel District is very
19:16:04 different from West Tampa.
19:16:05 >>> Correct.
19:16:05 We took the basic way to calculate the bonus and
19:16:07 applied it to the entire periphery because there's a
19:16:09 glitch in the comprehensive plan.
19:16:11 >> We know.
19:16:12 >>> Okay.
19:16:13 >> I'm just saying that this City Council didn't ask
19:16:15 for this.
19:16:16 And I don't think that they have done what our
19:16:19 constituents want that we necessarily want to do this.
19:16:21 So rather than going through the minutia of all this,
19:16:25 what I am suggesting as a council member is we don't
19:16:27 necessarily want this.
19:16:29 I realize you have done a lot of work on this but we
19:16:32 didn't really ask for this, and certainly our
19:16:34 constituents I don't think really asked for it.
19:16:36 >>> The legal department had directed that we do this.
19:16:38 >> I know.
19:16:39 >>> And it was stated very clearly that we had to make
19:16:41 this correction, given the error in the glitch that we
19:16:44 had in the comprehensive plan.
19:16:46 So we followed through.
19:16:48 You certainly have the ability not to approve this.
19:16:51 But that's a much larger policy issue that you have to
19:16:55 deal with, if the comprehensive plan essentially
19:17:00 mandates we score these on a point system and several
19:17:03 of these types of plans have been adopted.
19:17:05 >> We are going through the comprehensive plan right
19:17:07 We have the ability to address it in the future.
19:17:09 It might be appropriate for Channel District.
19:17:12 I don't think it's as appropriate for the rest of
19:17:15 And I really don't think, particularly the council
19:17:19 members who have not been part of this ongoing
19:17:22 dialogue, have had sufficient coaching, I believe by
19:17:26 the legal department to understand all of this and I
19:17:28 don't know that we want to spend time on this right
19:17:31 That's my feeling.
19:17:31 I really think we should go on with our rezonings and
19:17:35 continue this for another week.
19:17:38 And talk about it maybe during our strategic planning
19:17:40 I don't think that the people in West Tampa and Tampa
19:17:45 Heights really understand what kind of trade-offs are
19:17:49 in here that they might be getting some stuff that
19:17:51 they don't want.
19:17:53 I'm sincere in this.
19:17:54 So my motion, Madam Chairman, would be that we
19:17:57 continue this discussion till next Thursday, and have
19:18:00 the legal department truly belief all the council
19:18:02 members on what the implications of this are.
19:18:05 That would be my motion.
19:18:06 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like more time than that.
19:18:10 And I don't know why we're talking about this.
19:18:13 I don't know where this periphery boundary came from.
19:18:18 I feel like it is huge.
19:18:20 And I see different neighborhoods.
19:18:24 We were just talking about, I guess, none of those
19:18:27 overlay district were in any of these.
19:18:29 But we have got a little bit of West Tampa.
19:18:31 We have a little of East Tampa.
19:18:33 We have got, I don't know, if northeast goes into
19:18:35 Seminole Heights, Ybor City, it looks like.
19:18:38 I don't know: I need more than a week to look at
19:18:44 this, and, you know, my question is, why are we doing
19:18:48 this? Tonight?
19:18:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is this going to come before this
19:18:55 council for a vote?
19:18:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Only if we set it.
19:18:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.
19:19:01 Thank you.
19:19:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have been living in the wrong
19:19:08 place because west Tampa is not this.
19:19:12 >>> That doesn't touch West Tampa.
19:19:14 >> As long as we don't get it mixed up with -- it was
19:19:19 referenced as West Tampa up here.
19:19:20 And it's not.
19:19:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So my motion would be to continue
19:19:25 it until July 26th then.
19:19:28 Does that give the legal department enough time to
19:19:31 really explain this to everybody?
19:19:34 And the neighborhoods?
19:19:37 Have the neighborhoods been told about this?
19:19:39 >>> I did meet with Tampa Heights, probably seven or
19:19:41 eight months ago.
19:19:42 I went to their meeting and discussed it with them.
19:19:44 >> Have you talked to -- I mean, Harbor Island, I'm
19:19:47 sure, finds this very amusing.
19:19:50 >>> It won't necessarily apply to Harbor Island
19:19:52 because like I said they are covered by DRI.
19:19:54 >> So my motion would be to continue this to July
19:19:58 >> Second.
19:19:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: What I will remind you for any
19:20:06 future case that is come before you in the CBD
19:20:09 periphery we will be reviewing under the plan itself,
19:20:14 not under any particular bonus calculation.
19:20:17 >> Fine.
19:20:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Cathy, can you answer my question,
19:20:20 though, where did that periphery, that boundary come
19:20:25 >>> It's in the comprehensive plan today.
19:20:26 It was adopted 15, 20 years ago.
19:20:32 The Planning Commission left.
19:20:33 But it was early '90s.
19:20:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the clerk had a question.
19:20:42 >>THE CLERK: a.m. or p.m. meeting the 26th?
19:20:49 >> a.m. at 11:00.
19:20:50 Is that okay?
19:20:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item 4.
19:20:53 Continued public hearing.
19:20:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I believe item 4 -- I can certainly
19:21:07 go to item 4.
19:21:15 However, I would recommend that we continue item 4 as
19:21:17 It deals with the Channel District revision.
19:21:20 And a part of that is how to calculate this bonus.
19:21:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue this also to July
19:21:26 26th at 11:00.
19:21:28 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:21:29 (Motion carried)
19:21:34 We go to into our 6:00 public hearings.
19:21:37 Mr. Shultz.
19:21:40 >> Before we move forward, so I understand what's
19:21:43 happening, is what is being continued, on both item
19:21:46 number 3 and 4 is that you are continuing first reading
19:21:50 of the ordinances until 11:00?
19:21:55 Because we have these ordinances sitting there then.
19:21:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are continuing them.
19:22:01 >>JULIA COLE: Is it the intent of the motion that the
19:22:03 legal department meet with individual council members
19:22:05 to discuss --
19:22:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
19:22:10 Or Watt means.
19:22:11 >>JULIA COLE: What it means and why we are doing this
19:22:15 2004 separate questions.
19:22:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So the clarification then is, it is a
19:22:20 public hearing and will be continued as a public
19:22:22 hearing on first reading for that date and time.
19:22:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
19:22:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 5?
19:22:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
19:22:36 Let's clean up the agenda first.
19:22:39 >>> What I handed you is a detailed agenda with
19:22:43 basically some recommendations of how to proceed with
19:22:47 your motions on these particular items.
19:22:49 If you will go to item number 5, staff has no
19:22:59 Item number 5, the legal department is requesting that
19:23:01 that item be continued till July 19th at 10:00.
19:23:09 I discussed this with petitioner.
19:23:13 There may be people in the audience.
19:23:14 I apologize to them in advance.
19:23:15 But this is something that the legal department needs
19:23:18 to do to review certain issues.
19:23:20 Thank you.
19:23:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would support that but I don't
19:23:24 think 10:00 is a good time.
19:23:25 I think we need to do it in the meaning because we
19:23:27 have members of the public that want to attend.
19:23:31 >>> Your evening meeting is very packed and therefore
19:23:32 that is why the legal department is specifically
19:23:35 requesting for this to go on the a.m.
19:23:37 And if there is a need to have a p.m. agenda I would
19:23:39 recommend that it goes to second reading.
19:23:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We can dot in the morning, that's
19:23:45 fine. If we can't then I suggest that council in
19:23:47 essence as a Curt easy to all the people that are here
19:23:50 that have been waiting for so long and to the
19:23:52 petitioner itself that we put it numero uno on the
19:23:57 agenda for that evening.
19:23:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone here for number 5?
19:24:02 Would you like to speak on the continuance?
19:24:06 If you want to speak on number 5 continuing you may
19:24:08 come up and speak.
19:24:11 >> Madam Chairman, if they could say whether they
19:24:13 prefer an evening or morning meeting.
19:24:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I prefer that you didn't talk as to
19:24:23 whether you are in support or against the case itself
19:24:24 or the issue itself.
19:24:25 But just talk to whether you are in support or in
19:24:27 opposition to a continuance and when you prefer it to
19:24:32 >>> Madam Chairman, council members, I represent the
19:24:35 homeowners association of Carver City, Lincoln
19:24:39 Our president is out at this present time.
19:24:41 We would agree with the continuation, but we would
19:24:44 like to have it in the afternoon.
19:24:46 This is our fourth time down here.
19:24:47 So afternoon, evening would be much better for all of
19:24:51 And we would appreciate it very much.
19:24:52 >>CHAIRMAN: Put your name on the record.
19:24:54 >>> Wilson Robertson Jr., 4221 west arch street.
19:24:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak on the
19:25:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll move to have this continued
19:25:05 to -- what day was it, July 19th, first item on
19:25:09 the agenda, at 6:00.
19:25:12 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
19:25:14 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
19:25:16 (Motion carried)
19:25:21 Item number 6.
19:25:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 6 and 7, a motion to
19:25:28 continue those to September 27th at 6:30.
19:25:33 A couple of weeks ago council made a motion to
19:25:36 reconsider the plan amendment which forces the two
19:25:38 petitions to move.
19:25:39 So that would be September 27th at 6:30.
19:25:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire why 6:30 as opposed to
19:25:46 Is there a particular reason?
19:25:48 >>> Four years ago we used to start at 6:30 and that
19:25:50 was my brain.
19:25:51 I apologize for that.
19:25:53 >>GWEN MILLER: 6:00.
19:25:54 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
19:25:56 item 6 and 7 continuation?
19:25:59 On the continuance?
19:26:06 >>> John Dausman, vice-president Temple Terrace civic
19:26:10 On the continuance we are supportive of it.
19:26:12 I would just ask in your consideration of procedures
19:26:15 since I have listened to a lot of the streamlining,
19:26:17 when there is an absolute technical requirement that
19:26:20 something be postponed, I would hope there would be
19:26:24 away that it could be noted on the agenda.
19:26:27 But we had to be here tonight simply because there's
19:26:30 absolutely nothing on the agenda that indicates you
19:26:32 are going to take the action you are getting ready to
19:26:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
19:26:35 We'll keep that under consideration.
19:26:37 Would anyone else like to speak?
19:26:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move item 6 and 7 for the date of
19:26:43 September 27th at 6:00.
19:26:48 My brain is like yours.
19:26:50 Thinking still 6:30.
19:26:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
19:26:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:26:56 (Motion carried).
19:26:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: As we move to item number 9 and
19:27:01 some of the future items on the agenda you are going
19:27:03 to see some options that council essentially needs to
19:27:06 act upon in order to move forward.
19:27:08 Item number 9, there are only minor text changes.
19:27:12 There's just a couple of notes maybe to add to the
19:27:14 plan. The applicant is ready to move forward.
19:27:17 Staff is ready to present.
19:27:18 The options that council have is to either hear the
19:27:23 case and if the special use is approvable, then you
19:27:26 would be moving a minimum -- continuing the case a
19:27:29 minimum of two weeks.
19:27:30 Could you opt to move that to a morning agenda in two
19:27:34 weeks, or if a p.m. agenda is more appropriate, I have
19:27:37 given you options for the night agenda.
19:27:39 And the first two would be with aware of your rules,
19:27:43 the following one in October would be no rule waiver.
19:27:48 In the morning when it's only a minor issue.
19:27:50 In the future with a new process would you be able to
19:27:52 approve this with the direction that makes the change.
19:27:55 The other option is to not hear the case, continue it
19:27:57 to a time frame that allows the person to fix the plan
19:28:02 to come back.
19:28:02 We are recommending you move forward on this one and
19:28:04 directing the changes.
19:28:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council?
19:28:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would move to make the changes
19:28:14 >> Second.
19:28:15 (Motion carried)
19:28:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 11.
19:28:24 There are no plan or application changes required to
19:28:27 hear the case.
19:28:28 There are multiple code requests or waivers being
19:28:33 requested in transportation planning is objecting, but
19:28:35 you can move forward on it tonight.
19:28:38 Item number 12, there are text and graphical changes
19:28:41 that are needed.
19:28:42 We believe that they are substantive. The applicant
19:28:45 has requested to be heard.
19:28:47 The committee has numerous objections based on the
19:28:49 plan that was filed in the 13-day deadline and have
19:28:53 given options the same as the last case.
19:28:56 You are not obligated to hear the case tonight.
19:28:57 If you do, you can either deny it on the plan that's
19:29:01 in front of you, the staff report that's on file has a
19:29:04 lot of errors in it because a lot of the information
19:29:07 on the plan needs to be corrected.
19:29:09 So we can go through the motions, the hearing.
19:29:11 You can hear from the public.
19:29:12 The petitioner wants to move forward.
19:29:14 But this is your choice of what you want to do.
19:29:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to hear the petition and make
19:29:19 the adjustments as necessary in the required time.
19:29:24 >> Second.
19:29:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:29:25 (Motion carried).
19:29:26 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 14, same issue, the
19:29:32 last item, the plan was submitted on May 31st.
19:29:34 There are text and graphical changes.
19:29:36 A letter came from petitioner requesting to be heard.
19:29:39 If you would like to make the same motion to hear it
19:29:41 and then move forward.
19:29:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Make the same motion we hear it
19:29:45 today and make whatever changes necessary in the due
19:29:47 course of time.
19:29:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:29:49 (Motion carried).
19:29:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The last one, minor text changes,
19:29:55 item number 15.
19:29:56 And I am giving you options for dates for
19:29:58 continuances, if you hear the case.
19:30:01 It would be the same motion.
19:30:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to hear the petition today and
19:30:04 make the appropriate changes in the required course of
19:30:09 67 motion and second.
19:30:10 (Motion carried)
19:30:13 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
19:30:15 item number 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and
19:30:29 18, would you please stand and raise your right hand?
19:30:31 (Oath administered by Clerk).
19:30:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I ask that all written
19:30:45 communications to tonight's hearings which have been
19:30:48 available for public inspection in council's office be
19:30:50 received and filed into the record at this time by
19:30:52 motion, please.
19:30:54 >> So moved.
19:30:54 >> Second.
19:30:54 (Motion carried).
19:30:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again a reminder for all council
19:30:59 members, please, if you have had any verbal
19:31:01 communication with any petitioner or his or her
19:31:04 representative or any member of the public that member
19:31:07 of council should prior to action disclose the
19:31:08 following: The person or persons, group or entity
19:31:11 with whom the verbal communication occurred on the
19:31:13 substance of that verbal communication.
19:31:15 Finally, ladies and gentlemen, the rules, council's
19:31:19 rules of procedure require that each person
19:31:21 affirmatively state that they have been sworn.
19:31:24 I ask if you are testifying, I will place this little
19:31:29 sign on the lectern so I don't have to interrupt you.
19:31:31 When you state your name, please reaffirm that you
19:31:33 have been sworn.
19:31:34 Thank you for your cooperation.
19:31:44 >>> Phil Shultz, Land Development Coordination.
19:31:47 I have been sworn.
19:31:48 First case before you is VO 7-22 located in district
19:31:52 5, downtown.
19:31:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.
19:31:57 >> So moved.
19:31:58 >> Second.
19:31:58 (Motion carried).
19:31:58 >>PHIL SCHULZ: The DRV has reviewed the petition and
19:32:04 has no objections to the specific off-Street parking
19:32:07 waiver as requested and the waiver.
19:32:10 Waivers requested are section 27-442-A, B, a waiver to
19:32:15 allow the reduction of off-street parking from one per
19:32:19 employee to zero with no in lieu fee to be paid.
19:32:22 In summary the petitioner is requesting a special use
19:32:25 for the property at 205 north brush street to reduce
19:32:28 the required off-street parking spaces to hear and
19:32:31 satisfy required off-Street parking through a
19:32:34 five-year lease, for 15 parking spaces off-site from
19:32:38 an approved third party per section 27-241.
19:32:42 The petitioner is renovating an existing structure for
19:32:45 a day school to service families living or working in
19:32:49 the CBD, Ybor, Channelside adjacent areas.
19:32:53 The petitioner is enhancing the streetscape, sidewalks
19:32:56 and roadways along north brush street, Nebraska
19:32:58 Avenue, east Washington street.
19:33:00 Parking along east Washington will be used as a
19:33:02 drop-off and pick-up for students.
19:33:04 The estimated fee in lieu is $67500.
19:33:09 Elmo, please.
19:33:10 The subject property is highlighted in yellow.
19:33:18 This is Nebraska.
19:33:19 This is Jackson.
19:33:21 This is brush street, the main entrance here. The
19:33:24 drop-off that I mentioned is going to be enhanced
19:33:28 right-of-way right along east Washington.
19:33:35 There are numerous parking facilities within the
19:33:37 300-foot radius, that will allow the petitioner as to
19:33:43 other locations within the CBD.
19:33:48 As you can see on the Elmo, this is basically on the
19:33:51 fringe of both Channelside and the central business
19:33:56 This is the top of the picture allowing Washington.
19:34:12 This is the property on brush street.
19:34:15 This is looking down brush street towards 275, back
19:34:23 towards Channelside.
19:34:25 You can see this is Hillsborough County school's new
19:34:29 parking structure.
19:34:36 This is immediately across the street of Washington
19:34:38 and Brush.
19:34:42 This is a view looking to the CBD.
19:34:53 This is looking down Nebraska.
19:34:56 You can see, this is Washington, I apologize, looking
19:35:01 towards Nebraska in the rear.
19:35:05 The bottom photo is looking at the curve at Nebraska.
19:35:13 And this is looking due north on Nebraska.
19:35:16 This is the north lot line to the adjacent property
19:35:22 This is the adjacent park to the north.
19:35:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If you take this road to the end,
19:35:29 you make a right.
19:35:30 Yes, sir.
19:35:30 That's where it's at.
19:35:36 >>> DRC has no objections to the petition.
19:35:38 If you have any questions I will be glad to answer any
19:35:40 of those.
19:35:44 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:35:46 I have been sworn.
19:35:51 As Mr. Shultz stated project is located on the eastern
19:35:54 edge of the CBD periphery.
19:35:58 It's located right at the edge of the CBD, and of
19:36:00 course Channelside Drive.
19:36:04 Regional mixed use 400.
19:36:07 And you have the central business district category.
19:36:10 Also, as Mr. Shultz stated, you have a variety of
19:36:13 parking structures in the area.
19:36:16 The new parking structure right here created by the
19:36:18 school board.
19:36:19 Here is the school board right over here.
19:36:27 Correct about the radiator shop, Mr. Miranda.
19:36:29 That was very good.
19:36:33 A lot of people don't know that's there.
19:36:39 >> Regarding the service this particular use would
19:36:41 provide this is a long-awaited service.
19:36:44 I think it will contribute to the.
19:36:48 Of the vision that the administration has in providing
19:36:51 a vibrant 24-7 residential community in the central
19:36:55 business district.
19:36:56 It would also provide a very good service for the
19:36:58 needs of parents who do work in the CDBG as it's a
19:37:02 major employment district and those people would
19:37:03 probably be able to have a method of taking care of
19:37:06 their children, by having this particular use in the
19:37:10 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
19:37:12 proposed request.
19:37:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:37:29 >>> We are petitioners.
19:37:30 We are intending to put an academy day school in the
19:37:36 space as it currently is, it's currently vacant
19:37:39 office, warehouse space.
19:37:40 We are converting it to a facility to care for
19:37:45 children from the ages of six weeks to after school.
19:37:50 We are hoping to see some -- the parents need
19:37:56 after-school programs.
19:37:58 We are going to offer an after-school program as well.
19:38:03 We are looking to provide a service that's badly
19:38:06 needed in the downtown area not only to service and
19:38:09 provide assistance to those who work downtown, but
19:38:12 also to an area that is now newly developing in terms
19:38:16 of residential use.
19:38:18 >> Could I ask you a quick question?
19:38:19 The off-site lease that you have for your employees,
19:38:24 and what have you, how far away is that space?
19:38:29 >>> 25 feet maybe.
19:38:30 >> So it's a technical off-site.
19:38:35 >>> Yes.
19:38:36 But it's directly right there.
19:38:39 >> Let me stop you for a moment.
19:38:40 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
19:38:42 item number 8?
19:38:43 >> Move to close the public hearing.
19:38:45 >> I have a motion and second to close.
19:38:46 (Motion carried).
19:38:50 >> Do we have an ordinance?
19:38:57 >> I move to adopt the following ordinance, an
19:38:59 ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving
19:39:02 reducing off-street parking in a CBD2 central business
19:39:07 district zoning district in the general vicinity of
19:39:10 25, as more particularly described in section 1 hereof
19:39:18 allowing the reduction of off-street parking from one
19:39:20 per employee to zero per employee with no in lieu fee
19:39:24 to be paid, providing an effective date.
19:39:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second.
19:39:28 (Motion carried)
19:39:31 We need to open item 9.
19:39:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
19:39:34 >> Second.
19:39:34 (Motion carried).
19:39:35 >>PHIL SCHULZ: Land Development Coordination.
19:39:42 I have been sworn in.
19:39:43 Case V 07-23, 6505 north 15th street.
19:39:53 True Shepherd Bible church is the petitioner.
19:39:55 Development review committee reviewed the commission
19:39:57 and has objections to the request as a place of
19:40:00 religious assembly and daycare.
19:40:02 As of plans submitted on 5-31.
19:40:05 However, these are minor in nature, and can be
19:40:09 The petitioner agent has indicated -- agent indicated
19:40:14 they can have them corrected by tomorrow morning.
19:40:16 Residential single family.
19:40:18 Proposed use, church and daycare facility for six or
19:40:22 more children.
19:40:23 Waivers requested are per section 27-246-K to allow
19:40:27 more than 50% alternative parking spaces on grass.
19:40:30 Number two, section 27-246, to allow the reduced
19:40:34 backup width from 7 to 2 feet.
19:40:37 Section 27-242 to allow the reduction of required
19:40:41 parking spaces from 13 to 8 spaces.
19:40:43 Number 4, section 13-133-E, waiver of green space of
19:40:49 100 square feet will be assessed a payment in lieu fee
19:40:52 shall be paid to the City of Tampa Parks and
19:40:53 Recreation Department as a current rate.
19:40:57 At the time of permitting.
19:40:58 This shall be paid prior to the issuance of first
19:41:00 permit, building permit issuance.
19:41:03 An administrative waiver of no more than 10% of the
19:41:05 required green space is allied to this site.
19:41:09 Waiver 5.
19:41:10 Section 27-130.
19:41:12 Waiver to reduce the 10-foot required buffer to 6 feet
19:41:15 along the north and east lot lines.
19:41:17 Section 27-272, a waiver to require 40 feet, all yard
19:41:24 setbacks for place of religious assembly to allow a
19:41:27 23-foot yard on east Lambright, a 16.62-foot yard on
19:41:33 north 15th Avenue, a 53.6-foot side yard on the
19:41:37 north, and a 19.4-foot yard on the east side of the
19:41:41 existing proposed -- and proposed structure.
19:41:45 Waiver 7 is required.
19:41:48 Section 27-272, a waiver for the minimum lot size of
19:41:52 20,000 square feet for a place of religious assembly
19:41:55 to allow the existing 11700 square foot lot size.
19:41:59 And the last waiver, section 27-272, a waiver to
19:42:03 direct access on arterial or collector streets to
19:42:07 allow pickup and drop-off on east Lambright street
19:42:10 which is a local street.
19:42:11 In summary the petitioner is requesting a special use
19:42:14 for 6503 north 15th street to bring an existing
19:42:17 structure into code compliance, and add an additional
19:42:22 daycare facility to an existing place of religious
19:42:25 The church has a current seating capacity of 27 that
19:42:29 requires 9 parking spaces.
19:42:30 The proposed daycare for 12 students will be 988.8
19:42:36 square feet.
19:42:37 There is no increase in the sanctuary seating if this
19:42:40 were to be added.
19:42:41 The new addition and existing structure has an
19:42:44 existing front yard setback of 16.6 feet, 19.4 feet on
19:42:49 the west side yard, a 23-foot existing south yard, and
19:42:55 a 53.6-foot proposed rear yard after the daycare is
19:43:02 Elmo, please.
19:43:07 As you can see, here's the subject property.
19:43:09 Here is Lambright.
19:43:10 This is 15th street.
19:43:13 This is Diana.
19:43:15 And over here is Lambright.
19:43:20 The aerial gives you a little better perspective.
19:43:31 The different foliage along the property of Lambright
19:43:37 and 15th street.
19:43:38 As you can see, there's a church.
19:43:40 And I have a photo of that.
19:43:43 This is the existing structure.
19:43:50 This is across the street.
19:43:52 This is a side street on 15th of the subject
19:43:58 This is a subject parcel on Lambright.
19:44:01 This is the adjacent property on Lambright.
19:44:08 A lot of trees on the site.
19:44:09 This is directly across the street, south side of
19:44:12 And this is the southwest side of Lambright and
19:44:18 15th street.
19:44:23 This is along Lambright.
19:44:24 Here's a house on the northern side.
19:44:27 Of 15th.
19:44:31 If you have any questions I'll be available to answer
19:44:39 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:44:41 I have been sworn in.
19:44:46 The appraise dominant land use category for the
19:44:48 proposed use is residential 10.
19:44:49 As you can see, which is predominant land use category
19:44:53 for this particular area which is basically on the
19:44:55 eastern edge of the Old Seminole Heights neighborhood.
19:45:03 To give you a little more understanding, this is a
19:45:07 vacant structure, concrete structure.
19:45:10 It is a bit of constraint that leads to the waivers
19:45:13 that are being requested of the applicant.
19:45:16 Predominantly it will serve mostly single-family
19:45:19 residential homes in the area.
19:45:22 As Mr. Shultz has stated, there is a church directly
19:45:25 to the south west of the site, which is the northeast
19:45:29 United Methodist Church.
19:45:32 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
19:45:34 proposed request.
19:45:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:45:41 >>> I have been sworn.
19:45:41 Lewis Jackson, Jackson enterprise, architectural
19:45:44 design and civil engineering.
19:45:46 As you heard, I concur with staff about the request
19:45:51 for the continuance.
19:45:53 This way, I can have it all done by tomorrow.
19:45:56 It's simply a matter of making corrections in the
19:45:59 I concur with staff.
19:46:01 I request if possible we have an a.m. hearing.
19:46:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone here to speak on item number
19:46:10 We need a motion to continue.
19:46:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to continue, Madam Chair, to
19:46:15 the next available council meeting which would be on
19:46:16 the 21st at 10:00 in the morning be fine.
19:46:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
19:46:26 Do we have a second?
19:46:27 Motion and second.
19:46:28 (Motion carried)
19:46:32 We need to open item number 10.
19:46:35 >> So moved to open number 10.
19:46:36 >> Motion and second.
19:46:39 (Motion carried).
19:46:39 >>PHIL SCHULZ: Land Development Coordination.
19:46:44 I have been sworn.
19:46:45 Next item on the agenda is zoning case Z-07-41 located
19:46:49 in district 7.
19:46:50 North Tampa community crime neighborhood watch and
19:46:53 civic association area.
19:46:56 Address is 10206 and 10208 north Annette Avenue.
19:47:01 Mr. Cliff Dell is the petitioner.
19:47:05 The development review committee has reviewed the
19:47:07 petition and has no objection to the required request
19:47:10 based on the site plan submitted on 5-29-07.
19:47:14 The request is to go from RS-50 residential single
19:47:18 family to PD, planned development, single family
19:47:22 attached, residential.
19:47:26 There are no waivers requested for this petition.
19:47:28 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property
19:47:30 located at 102, 206 and 10208 north Annette Avenue,
19:47:35 from RS-50 to PD to split the 10,673 square foot
19:47:40 parcel and create two buildable lots.
19:47:43 The site currently has 97.12 feet of frontage along
19:47:47 the westerly portion of north Annette Avenue.
19:47:50 The proposed frontage, frontages are 49.06 feet on the
19:47:55 southern parcel, lot 59, and 48.06 feet on the north
19:48:00 parcel lot 58.
19:48:02 The 12,440 square foot existing home on lot 59 will
19:48:06 remain. The PD setbacks for lot 59 were as follows.
19:48:11 21 feet, 10.5 inches front yard, 56 feet, 11.5 inches
19:48:19 in the rear yard, three feet 11 inches on the north
19:48:23 side yard and 5 feet on the south side yard.
19:48:26 Setbacks for the vacant lots, lot 58, will be 25-foot
19:48:32 front yard, 30 feet 4 inches in the rear, 9-foot on
19:48:36 the north side yard and 8-foot 4 inches on the south
19:48:39 side yard.
19:48:40 The minimum building separation is 11 feet 15.5
19:48:45 The setbacks on the proposed 1,677 square foot
19:48:49 structure exceed the minimum RS-50 requirement.
19:48:53 The structure will have a height of 14 feet, 3.5
19:48:58 The petitioner has submitted four sided building
19:49:02 elevations of the proposed structure on the site plan,
19:49:05 and attached four-sided photos on the existing home.
19:49:10 Elmo, please.
19:49:15 You can see that the entire area surrounding this
19:49:20 particular subdivision --
19:49:29 In looking at the analysis in the development pattern
19:49:32 in the area, we evaluated 39 lots in this subdivision,
19:49:38 and Annette street here, we have Nebraska on the far
19:49:48 eastern side, Althea -- excuse me, Althea street, and
19:49:57 then on the north side, we have Bougainvillea.
19:50:02 This is an RV park place here.
19:50:07 Of the 39 parcels, 23 were conforming.
19:50:12 16 were nonconforming.
19:50:14 The proposed use does conform to the development
19:50:18 pattern in the area based on this analysis.
19:50:21 This is a photo of the subject parcel.
19:50:24 Currently it has several trees on it where the site
19:50:27 plan has to be reconfigured a couple times.
19:50:31 And petitioner is willing to do so.
19:50:34 This is the existing house on the southern parcels.
19:50:41 This is a photo of vacant lot that is the subject
19:50:51 parcel to be built on.
19:50:57 These are across the way.
19:50:58 Notice the size of the development is a lot.
19:51:02 I will be available for any questions.
19:51:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for stormwater.
19:51:12 Which I guess is under the city agent.
19:51:28 I had a question about this site plan.
19:51:30 We received an e-mail from a neighbor who is concerned
19:51:33 about flooding in the neighborhood.
19:51:36 They said that when two other houses were built it
19:51:39 increased flooding.
19:51:40 And it appears from the site plan -- do you have a
19:51:44 site plan that you can take a look at?
19:51:45 It appears that the entire rear of the property is a
19:51:49 drainage retention area.
19:51:50 And that there is some concern where it says
19:51:53 stormwater, drainage, concerned about infecting the
19:51:56 adjacent neighbors.
19:52:00 And it's unusual that an entire backyard is drainage
19:52:03 So what I am wondering is first of all it's a real low
19:52:06 area, and do you think that they can really deal with
19:52:11 the retaining water on-site?
19:52:16 >>> Alex: Stormwater department.
19:52:19 As long as they comply with our 60% rule for
19:52:21 single-family, our requirement is providing a half
19:52:27 inch retention on-site.
19:52:33 Now that half inch retention basically encompassed
19:52:36 that section of the backyard.
19:52:38 >> Virtually the entire backyard.
19:52:39 >>> Right.
19:52:40 >> So the entire backyard --
19:52:41 >>> It would have a slope in the entire backyard.
19:52:44 And actually it's unusual, something I am not too
19:52:49 crazy about.
19:52:50 But that's the way it is for some neighborhoods that
19:52:54 they want to develop to this extent.
19:52:55 Their backyard will have a somewhat volume of water
19:53:00 when it drains that will be sitting there.
19:53:02 It will be quasi-mini-pond, in these people's
19:53:07 >> It looks like there's a very deep six-inch swale
19:53:11 between the two houses.
19:53:12 >> Yes.
19:53:13 The drainage of the property is to the rear.
19:53:15 So that's the lay of the land, is to the rear.
19:53:18 So as much as we could, we made them provide, within
19:53:22 our code, certain amount of volume on-site.
19:53:27 >> Do you think this is going to work?
19:53:28 Do you think the neighborhood is going to be impacted
19:53:30 by stormwater?
19:53:33 Do you think they are going to be able to contain the
19:53:36 cost of water on their property?
19:53:39 >> For a half inch drain, yes.
19:53:41 Now, if we have a major stormwater event, my opinion
19:53:45 is no.
19:53:46 And it's like anything else.
19:53:50 If we have a heavy rainstorm, this retention pond is
19:53:52 not going to help the situation.
19:53:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:53:58 Planning Commission?
19:54:10 >>> Mary Daniels Bryson, Land Development
19:54:13 I have been sworn.
19:54:13 In regards to the 32-inch trees to the north of the
19:54:17 property, there was a swale in that area.
19:54:20 The petitioner has removed that swale within that
19:54:22 area, provided a full 20-foot protective radius for
19:54:26 that 32-inch oak tree and has added gutters down the
19:54:31 side of the property that would drain into the
19:54:35 retention pond.
19:54:38 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:54:44 I have been sworn in.
19:54:46 The land use category for this particular project is
19:54:49 residential 10.
19:54:50 Which as you can see is a predominant land use
19:54:53 category for this immediate area.
19:54:55 Just to give you a little bit more context, as Mr.
19:55:00 Shultz told you, Nebraska Avenue lies to the east.
19:55:02 You have the interstate to the west.
19:55:04 Property north will be Fowler Avenue of course.
19:55:07 To the east, the northeast would be the University of
19:55:08 South Florida.
19:55:10 And the mall.
19:55:13 University mall.
19:55:16 Let me show you the area with the residential pattern.
19:55:20 There is no real true residential pattern, so a
19:55:24 variety of lots and architectural design to the area.
19:55:29 It's only going to be one residence.
19:55:31 It shouldn't be too much of a significant impact.
19:55:33 And also as he has shown you as far as the number of
19:55:37 conforming and nonconform lots it's pretty much a
19:55:40 variety to the area.
19:55:41 As far as providing some new residential staff to the
19:55:44 area, that's positive for the area, Planning
19:55:45 Commission staff has in a objection to the proposed
19:55:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:56:05 >>> Clif Dell, I have been sworn. I am the owner of
19:56:11 the vacant lot at 10208 north Annette and also acting
19:56:14 as the agent of the home at 10206.
19:56:17 Our request is for both properties to be rezoned to
19:56:21 make both lots conforming lots within the community.
19:56:23 My desire is to build small single-family homes in
19:56:29 that neighborhood on the vacant lot.
19:56:32 The retention pond, it's basically a half inch on the
19:56:42 entire property.
19:56:44 The reason it's all in one backyard is that's the only
19:56:47 yard I own so I couldn't build it in my neighbor's
19:56:53 We also looked at other areas for swales and things
19:56:56 but there were trees and roots.
19:56:59 I have with me tonight our architect Phil Herson to go
19:57:06 over the site plan or any questions you might have.
19:57:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone here to speak on item
19:57:14 We have a question for staff.
19:57:18 >>> Phil Herson, 211 S. Treasures Drive. I have been
19:57:19 sworn in.
19:57:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're the architect?
19:57:27 >>> Yes, I am.
19:57:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Looking at the site plan, it's
19:57:30 currently an RS-50 zoned 50 by 100.
19:57:37 The two lots that they are creating are 49 by 110, 48
19:57:42 by 110.
19:57:43 >>> Over 5,000 square feet.
19:57:45 >> So I'm reading that right.
19:57:47 So the only differential rear looking at is one foot
19:57:51 short and the other is two feet short.
19:57:54 >>> Correct.
19:57:54 >> On the than that they wouldn't be here tonight.
19:57:59 >>> That's correct.
19:58:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
19:58:02 >> So moved.
19:58:03 >> Second.
19:58:03 (Motion carried).
19:58:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano, would you read that,
19:58:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Rezoning property in the general
19:58:16 vicinity of 10206 and 10208 north Annette Avenue in
19:58:21 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
19:58:24 described in section 1 from zoning district
19:58:26 classifications RS-50 residential single family to PD,
19:58:32 planned development.
19:58:33 Single family detached residential, providing an
19:58:36 effective date.
19:58:37 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
19:58:38 (Motion carried)
19:58:42 Need to open item 11.
19:58:44 >> The second on that motion was?
19:58:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
19:58:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, before going to the next
19:58:51 item I believe there's a housekeeping matter that we
19:58:53 would need to address.
19:58:54 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:58:56 You made a motion on item number 10 -- number 9 to
19:58:59 continue that for one week.
19:59:00 That needs to be continued for two weeks.
19:59:02 I ask that you rescind your previous motion.
19:59:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: As maker of the motion I move the
19:59:12 original motion be amended for two weeks.
19:59:14 >> Second.
19:59:14 (Motion carried).
19:59:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: June 28, 10 a.m.?
19:59:19 >> Yes.
19:59:21 >>> Next item is number 11, rezoning case, northeast
19:59:26 McFarland crime watch association neighborhood located
19:59:29 at 32008 west Tampa Bay Boulevard, Gerardo and Maria
19:59:34 Guzman are the petitioners.
19:59:35 The development review committee has reviewed the
19:59:37 petition and has objections to the request, based
19:59:41 on-site plans submitted on 4-27-07.
19:59:46 I think that's an error.
19:59:51 I apologize.
19:59:54 Rezoning from RS-50 residential single family to PD
19:59:58 planned development for business, professional office.
20:00:00 Waivers requested are from section 27-242, a waiver to
20:00:04 reduce the number of required parking spaces from 6 to
20:00:07 3 spaces.
20:00:08 Number 2, section 27-246, B, S, waiver to allow more
20:00:13 than 65% compact parking, 65% -- 57% requested.
20:00:20 Number 3, a section 13-161-E, waiver of 160 square
20:00:27 feet of green space to be assessed as a fee in lieu to
20:00:29 the City of Tampa's Parks and Recreation Department,
20:00:32 and pay a current rate prior to the time of permit
20:00:37 building permit issuance.
20:00:39 Number 4, section 27-130, waiver to reduce the
20:00:43 required 15-fat buffer along the western lot line to
20:00:46 three feet.
20:00:48 Number 5, section 27-130, a waiver of the required
20:00:52 6-foot masonry wall for pier and lintel 6-foot vinyl
20:00:57 fence to be extend add long the western lot line to
20:01:00 the front edge of the house to be compatible with the
20:01:04 existing 6-foot PVC fence on the eastern lot line.
20:01:07 In summary the petitioner is requesting the Todd
20:01:11 Pressman rezone the property at 3208 west Tampa Bay
20:01:13 Boulevard and rehabilitate an existing residence to a
20:01:18 1,674 square foot building for business and
20:01:21 professional purposes.
20:01:23 The existing height is approximately 17 feet from a
20:01:27 one-story structure.
20:01:28 The petitioner has provided photographs of existing
20:01:31 four facades as elevations.
20:01:40 The PD setbacks are 29 feet on the south side, 7.65
20:01:40 feet on the east side, 17.18 on the north side,
20:01:43 fronting on west Tampa Bay Boulevard, and 24 feet on
20:01:47 the west side.
20:01:49 Petitioner is providing two compact parking spaces and
20:01:52 one ADA space, 6 parking spaces are required for the
20:01:57 The parking waiver is requested for the deficiency.
20:02:01 Currently the subject property has an existing beauty
20:02:03 shop on the west and an existing law office on the
20:02:07 And is also on an existing alley.
20:02:13 The objections are primarily transportation objects to
20:02:18 the waiver number one for waiver of 50% of the
20:02:23 We have a technical objection from Land Development
20:02:25 Coordination landscape specialist for the green space
20:02:31 Elmo, please.
20:02:40 South side of, perpendicular with north Linden Avenue.
20:02:46 On the far east side.
20:02:53 Again a continuation of north Lincoln.
20:02:57 As you see by the zoning map that's been provided to
20:02:59 you and hear on the Elmo,
20:03:01 This area has several PD, office and professional-type
20:03:07 uses down from an existing school.
20:03:12 Here is a picture of the subject parcel.
20:03:17 And structure.
20:03:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Phil, I was having trouble seeing
20:03:22 where the three spaces -- are they going to go -- I do
20:03:27 have the site plan.
20:03:28 Can you show me on this?
20:03:30 From the picture?
20:03:34 You got a picture there right now.
20:03:42 >>PHIL SCHULZ: One in the front yard, two in the rear.
20:03:45 And allow typically on something like this, they will
20:03:49 probably -- what you may want to do is request
20:03:54 petitioner to add a tandem parking waiver on there, to
20:03:58 increase their allowable parking.
20:04:03 >> Pull that off for a second and show me on the
20:04:07 We are on Tampa Bay looking at it?
20:04:09 >>> We are at Lincoln looking across the street,
20:04:13 directly at it.
20:04:14 >> And so one space on the right there by the carport?
20:04:19 >>> This is going to -- if you look at the plan, they
20:04:23 are actually going to remove a portion of that
20:04:30 >> To widen the drive, get around to the back?
20:04:32 >> To widen the drive.
20:04:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On this piece of paper, it says
20:04:42 medical office.
20:04:43 Maybe that was the previous zoning?
20:04:47 Above the words west Tampa Bay Boulevard it says --
20:04:53 >>> That's on the north side.
20:04:54 That's across the street.
20:04:57 I had a picture of that.
20:04:58 >> My question is, do we have the ability and the
20:05:01 approval of this to limit the uses to reuse the
20:05:06 required number of parking spaces?
20:05:08 >> I think the -- well, petitioner can respond to it.
20:05:11 I think one of the other things you may want to add to
20:05:13 that is to limit their hours, but they are proposing a
20:05:21 law firm to go in there.
20:05:23 >> Can we limit the uses?
20:05:28 >> Yes.
20:05:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Continue.
20:05:31 >> This is the property roughly to the east.
20:05:39 And the Howard bidding two buildings down.
20:05:44 Here's a picture next door.
20:05:48 There is an office next door.
20:05:53 It's a home occupation.
20:06:00 This is directly across the street, the west side of
20:06:05 This is Tampa Bay Boulevard right here to the left.
20:06:10 This is looking down towards the school, down Tampa
20:06:14 Bay Boulevard.
20:06:16 And this is the medical office.
20:06:18 Here is a law office.
20:06:20 Just down from there, down next to the school.
20:06:25 It's a very busy location at 3:00 in the afternoon.
20:06:28 This is immediately across the street.
20:06:34 This is the medical office.
20:06:37 And this is a medical office.
20:06:43 If you have any further questions, I'll be available.
20:06:49 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:07:01 I have been sworn in.
20:07:14 This area is located within the boundaries of the
20:07:16 northeast McFarland crime watch area.
20:07:20 It's also West Tampa.
20:07:25 I'll give you a little more backup.
20:07:27 West of MacDill Avenue, and west Tampa Bay
20:07:32 Appraise dominant land use category is in the area of
20:07:34 residential 10 and residential 20.
20:07:37 Residential 10 from this point forward will be here.
20:07:40 The consideration of criteria to provide no density
20:07:44 office uses.
20:07:47 The aerial that I am going to provide you clearly
20:07:52 shows, we have been Tampa Bay over here.
20:07:56 On this side is Matanzas.
20:08:00 Once you get to the west side, you have a law office
20:08:06 This is the law office.
20:08:08 This is a medical office.
20:08:11 This is also a law office.
20:08:13 Actually a much more constrained lot, smaller lot that
20:08:18 council did approve about a year and a half ago.
20:08:20 This is actually a small lot that was approved for an
20:08:22 office use.
20:08:23 This is the only residence on this particular -- the
20:08:28 reason for that is this house, it is a new two-story
20:08:31 structure that's actually facing Matanzas.
20:08:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The law firm.
20:08:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Thank you very much.
20:08:52 You have a low density office corridor that has
20:08:56 evolved over the last five to six years on this
20:08:58 particular segment of Tampa Bay Boulevard.
20:09:01 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
20:09:03 proposed request.
20:09:04 >> Petitioner?
20:09:15 >> Good evening.
20:09:16 I'm John low rock a with LaRocca consulting group,
20:09:21 representing applicant.
20:09:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn in?
20:09:24 >>> Yes, I have been sworn in.
20:09:25 I won't repeat the commentary provided by staff.
20:09:28 I put on the Elmo a color rendering of the site plan,
20:09:32 and I know there's been some questions already asked
20:09:35 of staff.
20:09:36 This is an adaptive reuse of a single-family home on
20:09:40 west Tampa Bay Boulevard.
20:09:41 We have made every attempt to address the concerns of
20:09:44 And I think it's safe to say that this site plan
20:09:48 before you this evening, while there are both
20:09:50 technical objections and specific objections from the
20:09:54 transportation division on the waiver to parking, we
20:10:00 did our best to accommodate the concerns and redesign
20:10:03 the site plan to minimize exposure and need for having
20:10:09 to seek waivers.
20:10:11 And we are removing approximately 250 square feet of
20:10:14 existing carport and laundry room of the existing
20:10:19 house, give us adequate space to provide access to the
20:10:21 rear of the property, and provide parking.
20:10:25 We focused and concentrated on an ADA designed parking
20:10:30 space with adequate access to a door on the west side
20:10:34 of the building.
20:10:36 We made the assumption in working with staff and
20:10:38 trying to accommodate the best adaptive reuse of that
20:10:41 property that there -- it would be a reasonable
20:10:44 expectation that there would be tandem parking based
20:10:47 on this design.
20:10:53 Our initial intent would be to alter the configuration
20:10:57 of the house because we wanted to maintain its
20:10:59 character but we were removing approximately the 250
20:11:01 square feet so we could have adequate space for
20:11:03 parking and allow for realistically some tandem
20:11:08 The intended use, and I believe Mrs. Saul-Sena asked
20:11:11 this question about limiting use on this property, is
20:11:14 for a professional office.
20:11:16 Actually the use has business and office.
20:11:18 The intent is to utilize the property for a law firm,
20:11:21 and maybe title company associated with real estate
20:11:29 The objections from the Land Development Coordination
20:11:33 office on the open space, we are providing a fee in
20:11:36 lieu of.
20:11:37 It was a technical objection.
20:11:39 The only, as I stated before, specific objection
20:11:42 related to parking.
20:11:43 We always knew parking was going to be difficult to
20:11:47 comply with and to allow an adaptive reuse of the
20:11:50 property based on the square footage of the home.
20:11:53 But we started working with Brian Gentry and Melanie
20:11:55 Calloway in redesigning the site.
20:11:58 Everyone generally agreeing through the DRC process we
20:12:03 could appropriately design waivers and a buffering
20:12:05 requirement that were consistent with the surrounding.
20:12:07 We didn't think this would be out of character.
20:12:09 With that section of Tampa Bay Boulevard and what has
20:12:11 been transitioning when you study the full written
20:12:14 recommendation provided to you by staff.
20:12:17 Therefore, I respectfully request that you consider
20:12:19 this adaptive reuse.
20:12:21 It's in character with the neighborhood.
20:12:23 And I will be glad to answer any questions that may
20:12:25 come up during the course of this hearing.
20:12:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this one of the ones that is
20:12:34 going to have to be continued? I can't remember.
20:12:38 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
20:12:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing that bothers me a
20:12:43 little bit -- and maybe it goes back to our discussion
20:12:45 this morning about sort of green buildings and not too
20:12:48 much asphalt.
20:12:49 It appears to me that we are pushing the applicant to
20:12:53 pave over every single piece of nonbuilding on the lot
20:12:59 because of our parking issues.
20:13:01 And I guess including the ADA issues.
20:13:03 And I'm just wondering, you know, why would we be
20:13:08 doing that?
20:13:09 I mean, I understand why transportation might want to
20:13:11 do that.
20:13:12 But why would we be doing it?
20:13:16 Couldn't the site plan just be modified to just have
20:13:19 your parking, like you say, stacked at the side, and
20:13:26 leave the green space in the back?
20:13:28 It would save you money on your in lieu, and you could
20:13:32 probably put in the ADA space in the back corner
20:13:36 I don't get it.
20:13:37 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, from the Pinellas County's
20:13:40 perspective, we would be glad to do something like
20:13:43 We added the parking space in the front.
20:13:47 Technically, our goal, the way the process works is to
20:13:50 make site plans that are brought to you comply as
20:13:53 closely as possible with all aspects of the city code.
20:13:57 And obviously we are dealing with issues of pavement.
20:13:59 We are dealing with issues of trying to provide as
20:14:02 many parking spaces as possible.
20:14:03 The parking space running parallel with Tampa Bay
20:14:07 Boulevard, we believe for the kind of business that's
20:14:10 being proposed, the tandem parking is going to be
20:14:14 adequate, especially in light of the fact that we have
20:14:17 removed a portion of the building to best accommodate
20:14:22 >> You have a whole 20-foot lane down the entire side.
20:14:24 That's adequate parking.
20:14:25 You guys can stack it up.
20:14:27 Now, I'll say that.
20:14:29 And I would like to see us just come back two weeks
20:14:34 late we are a modified site plan that shows that.
20:14:36 Sound like you're amenable to doing that.
20:14:38 The other thing I would like to see added is an
20:14:40 additional note on the site plan that says that there
20:14:43 wouldn't be any parking on the front yard on the Tampa
20:14:47 Bay Boulevard side.
20:14:48 Because it appears looking at the picture of the
20:14:50 existing house that perhaps there's been some parking
20:14:54 of people driving over the sidewalk.
20:14:56 And people do that.
20:14:57 Now that it's going to be upgraded to a professional
20:14:59 office, I would hate to see the overflow parking, you
20:15:02 know, go into the front yard.
20:15:04 So if there would be a note -- E -- and I know you are
20:15:08 going to put in some hedges.
20:15:10 Looks like there's a 2-foot hedge along the sidewalk
20:15:12 anyway which would hopefully discourage that.
20:15:14 But, you know, I would be more comfortable with that.
20:15:17 Sounds like it might be better for you.
20:15:20 >>> Representing applicant, we would be agreeable to
20:15:22 come before you.
20:15:23 I would ask that we come to a morning meeting,.
20:15:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me see is there anyone in the
20:15:29 public that wants to speak on item number 11?
20:15:35 Are you coming to speak on 11, sir?
20:15:41 Motion to continue.
20:15:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to the 28th, I believe
20:15:47 it is.
20:15:48 >> Second.
20:15:52 >>> You should have a waiver for tandem parking.
20:15:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say, Mr. Linked,
20:16:00 that's a great suggestion.
20:16:01 And we have all recognized that our current rules
20:16:05 assume suburban style development, not redevelopment
20:16:08 of existing single-family homes into office uses.
20:16:11 And I can't wait.
20:16:14 This is for the zoning staff.
20:16:16 I can't wait until we develop some rules that
20:16:20 recognize this kind of adaptive reuse of an existing
20:16:25 structure in a neighborhood and existing limitation to
20:16:28 stop paving so much, and that recognize another type
20:16:32 of material for parking other than just concrete.
20:16:36 More pervious surface.
20:16:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:16:40 (Motion carried)
20:16:42 We need to open item number 13.
20:16:44 >> So moved.
20:16:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Or number 12.
20:16:47 All in favor say Aye.
20:16:49 Opposed, Nay.
20:16:49 (Motion carried)
20:16:51 >>PHIL SCHULZ: Land Development Coordination. The
20:17:03 next item is rezoning case Z-07-43.
20:17:08 In district 5, west riverfront crime watch
20:17:11 neighborhood and West Tampa overlay district.
20:17:15 North Rome, west Fig Street, west Gray and north C.
20:17:24 This is also referred to as west end phase 2.
20:17:28 The development review committee has reviewed the
20:17:30 petition and has objections to the request.
20:17:33 The request is to rezone the properties that are
20:17:37 currently RS-50 single family, IG, industrial general,
20:17:42 to PD, planned development, mixed use, retail office
20:17:46 and residential.
20:17:47 Waivers being requested are one from section 27-246-J,
20:17:52 waiver to allow service vehicles to maneuver in the
20:17:54 public right-of-way.
20:17:55 Number 2, section 27-246-J, waiver to allow commercial
20:18:00 traffic to access west Fig Street.
20:18:02 Number 3, section 27-246, a waiver to reduce the drive
20:18:08 aisles and parking garages from 26 to 24 feet.
20:18:11 Item 4, section 27-247, a waiver to reduce the number
20:18:16 in block G from 3 to 2 for residential uses, and in
20:18:21 block E from 2 to 1 for retail use.
20:18:24 Waiver 5 per section 27-468-E, 3-H, waiver to allow
20:18:32 minimum for zero front yard setbacks to be consistent
20:18:37 with the West Tampa overlay district guideline design
20:18:42 Waiver 6, which, by the way, if you look at your plan,
20:18:46 is incorrect on there and is one of the things that
20:18:48 needs to be changed.
20:18:50 It should be stated, for 27-130, waiver of the
20:18:54 required buffer in block F, in select locations from
20:18:59 10 feet to 2 feet.
20:19:00 In summation, the petitioner proposes to rezone the
20:19:02 property boarded by West Gray Street on the north,
20:19:05 north Fremont, and north Rome avenues on the west,
20:19:08 west Fig and north B street on the south, and north
20:19:11 Oregon Avenue on the east, to planned development, to
20:19:15 construct a mixed use development. The property
20:19:18 contains 7.61 acres, approximately 3 city blocks, the
20:19:23 plan proposes 406 residential uses, townhouses and
20:19:26 apartments, 21,021 square feet of retail and 2,071
20:19:34 feet of retail space. The project is required to have
20:19:37 218 parking spaces, 833 parking spaces are provided
20:19:41 mostly in structured parking with mechanical
20:19:44 The proposed maximum height stated on the site plan
20:19:47 and elevations are 55-foot 4 inches for block E, 27 to
20:19:54 36 feet for block F, and 46 feet 8 inches to 89 feet 4
20:19:59 inches for block G.
20:20:01 The architectural style is contemporary and is
20:20:04 intended to compliment and be compatible with the
20:20:08 previously approved in the west end phase 1 area.
20:20:12 The specific objections are that the plan is not
20:20:16 consistent with various sections in chapter 27 and 13.
20:20:22 It's inconsistencies are mostly in block F where we
20:20:25 have setbacks issues, we have grand tree issues
20:20:32 identified by Land Development Coordination
20:20:34 specialists, Mary Daniels Bryson.
20:20:38 And those are also in the northern block from where we
20:20:46 have several trees that we are asking the petitioner
20:20:48 not to remove.
20:20:50 Parks and recreation, Mr. Dave Riley is also here.
20:20:54 There is a 55-inch tree on a third party parcel.
20:20:57 That petitioner, you will probably hear from later
20:21:01 tonight, has indicated their willingness to establish
20:21:04 an agreement to remove a hazardous tree, but in the
20:21:07 meantime parks and recreation would like them to
20:21:09 maintain the protective 20-foot radius, and Mr. Riley,
20:21:14 if you are to go into detail on that as well as Ms.
20:21:20 Mary Daniels Bryson.
20:21:22 The petitioner has stated a willingness to corrected
20:21:24 by tomorrow morning and bring in all the corrections
20:21:28 as required to comply with and be consistent with
20:21:31 chapter 27 and 13.
20:21:34 Elmo, please.
20:21:41 The parcel is in green.
20:21:43 Gray street to the north. This is freedom street on
20:21:46 the east.
20:21:47 This is Fig, and to go down Rome.
20:21:53 North E.
20:21:54 And then on the southeastern side is Oregon.
20:22:00 Please note that the dominant use on three sides of
20:22:03 this area is IG industrial general.
20:22:07 There are some pockets of RS 50 intermixed with the
20:22:15 The dominant use -- and you will see this by the
20:22:18 photograph to show you, over on Fremont street is
20:22:21 dominantly residential in nature.
20:22:23 And you will see that shortly.
20:22:28 Again you can see the very large structures that are
20:22:32 contained in the IG area.
20:22:37 And these are going to be continually fronting several
20:22:40 of these industrial structures.
20:22:43 This is block F.
20:22:44 This is where we had these little residential
20:22:49 I'll let the petitioner speak to, where we had some
20:22:53 issues as far as the buffering.
20:22:55 And they have since purchased this parcel here which I
20:23:00 would like to explain and state, this is the location
20:23:02 of the grand tree, that we have issues with.
20:23:05 And then there are two trees on the northern block
20:23:09 that we have concern with that they have indicated a
20:23:11 willingness to correct that file.
20:23:21 This is looking at the property down north B to the
20:23:27 On the north side of north B.
20:23:28 This is the one parcel right here.
20:23:31 It is the other parcel that's owned by the petitioner.
20:23:34 This will be redeveloped by the petitioner.
20:23:46 This is farther down on Rome.
20:23:48 These are some of the homes that will be displayed.
20:23:54 This is looking down -- I believe this is Fig Street.
20:24:05 The parking lot on a lot of it, it's there.
20:24:09 And the same issue on Rome.
20:24:11 And you can see the petitioner has a sign up.
20:24:15 There really are no pedestrian walkways in this area.
20:24:22 It's all asphalt.
20:24:24 Petitioner will be removing a lot of this and adding
20:24:27 pedestrian walkway which you see by the elevation.
20:24:39 Looking down Gray Street.
20:24:41 And this is on Rome.
20:24:46 This is on Rome.
20:24:47 And Fig.
20:24:50 This is not part of it.
20:24:52 This is one of the continued uses that will stay.
20:24:55 This is looking north on Rome.
20:24:58 On both sides.
20:24:59 You can see again, you go from the street to parking.
20:25:05 That will all change.
20:25:13 This is Gray street again.
20:25:15 We are looking at -- we are standing at Fremont,
20:25:18 looking down towards the central business district to
20:25:21 the east.
20:25:29 This is a very large area.
20:25:31 I wanted to make sure you can see this, the difference
20:25:33 Again this is a mixed use area on Fig and on Gray.
20:25:40 This is over on Fremont.
20:25:43 You will notice, this is our property on the right.
20:25:48 Over here on the side of Fremont street we have
20:25:50 industrial traffic on Fremont street, and we have
20:25:53 residential uses over here.
20:25:55 And here are some of the very nice RS-50 homes on the
20:25:59 opposite side of Fremont.
20:26:07 >> What will they be facing?
20:26:09 >> Their side yards will be facing the project.
20:26:11 They all face each other on Fremont.
20:26:14 Their side yards will see the project.
20:26:16 But they face each other on Gray Street and Fig.
20:26:27 Again our subject property, our subject property is on
20:26:32 the right side.
20:26:33 This is the north side of Gray.
20:26:39 >> That won't be there. That will be coming out.
20:26:41 This is again, looking across Fremont street.
20:26:45 You can see the side yard.
20:26:46 You can see how the houses face each other.
20:26:51 Again the house there on Fremont.
20:26:56 This is looking down Fremont is Gray on the north
20:27:00 Northeast side.
20:27:02 Here is our subject parcel.
20:27:06 Going down Gray Street is the south side where we have
20:27:10 our subject parcel on the south.
20:27:14 Phase 1 on the north.
20:27:15 Phase 2 on the south.
20:27:17 This is looking back towards the west, on the subject
20:27:22 Phase 1 on the right.
20:27:24 Now phase 2 on the left.
20:27:28 These are some of the structures that will be removed
20:27:31 as part of the project.
20:27:34 Are there any questions?
20:27:36 I'll be available.
20:27:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chairman, while planning is
20:27:41 coming up I want to make a quick disclosure, ran into
20:27:44 the petitioner midweek at a luncheon downtown, and had
20:27:48 a quick chat about the project.
20:27:52 And I said, boy, I said, this area could really use
20:27:55 some mid rise like 6 or 8 stories.
20:27:58 And I look here on page 5 of the presentation, it's
20:28:02 showing eight stories so I guess they listened to me.
20:28:05 [ Laughter ]
20:28:14 I would like to think I have that much dig --
20:28:17 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:28:18 That would have been a really quick response.
20:28:22 Let me give you an overview really quickly of the land
20:28:25 use categories.
20:28:26 You have quite a few in this area.
20:28:27 Again, this is east of Howard Avenue, just north of
20:28:31 Kennedy Boulevard, the interstate lies to the north.
20:28:36 The land use category for the majority of the site
20:28:40 used to be general mixed use 24 and residential 20.
20:28:43 Then it changed as of May 24th when this council
20:28:48 did their second reading to change all of this to
20:28:52 this, which is community mixed use 35.
20:28:55 So general mixed use 24 which is this color, community
20:28:59 mixed use 35, residential 10, residential 20,
20:29:02 residential 35 and urban mixed use 60 along Kennedy
20:29:07 So there are a variety of land use categories
20:29:10 represented by a variety of land uses in the area.
20:29:14 >> What is the lighter color as you go towards
20:29:18 >>> This is the general mixed use 24 which allows
20:29:21 industrial use potential.
20:29:24 GMU 24.
20:29:25 General mixed use 24.
20:29:30 >> Thank you.
20:29:31 >> Looking at the aerial, once completed as Mr. Shultz
20:29:38 has described, there is what I would call an
20:29:44 established residential presence west of Fremont, and
20:29:47 that's something that really has to be looked at and
20:29:49 viewed in relationship to what the applicant wants to
20:29:54 provide, as a mixed use project which is significant,
20:29:58 and a mixed use project as far as what the applicant
20:30:01 is providing, and the nonresidential uses that the
20:30:04 applicant is orienting towards Rome Avenue, which
20:30:07 probably would be your prime ingress-egress point for
20:30:12 residents that do live in the area, for people that
20:30:14 would be patronizing the residential uses that would
20:30:18 be neighborhood serving uses that would be established
20:30:20 in the area.
20:30:22 Cass Street back in the day before we had the
20:30:23 interstate, before Kennedy Boulevard was anything
20:30:28 residence today, was one of their major entrances into
20:30:30 the downtown core, and still serve that is purpose
20:30:34 It has developed nicely into a nice low density
20:30:37 residential area, but let me go back to the future
20:30:39 land use map and show you that development potential
20:30:43 still lies there for these properties that have the
20:30:46 same color that the applicant has just gotten for
20:30:50 their property, CMU 35.
20:30:52 So these properties, if they are interfacing do have
20:30:55 the same potential particularly, I would think, this
20:30:57 parcel here, and these over here east of Rome Avenue.
20:31:02 This seems to have based on the parcelization in the
20:31:05 inner phase, other uses surrounding it, would probably
20:31:09 stay on this particular segment.
20:31:11 But as one goes east of Rome Avenue, the potential for
20:31:15 greater urbanization.
20:31:17 Speaking of that, we do see that this property is in
20:31:20 very close proximity to several collector roads as I
20:31:23 have stated.
20:31:24 Cass is a collector road.
20:31:26 To the north is cypress which is also a collector road
20:31:29 that leads directly into North Boulevard which funnels
20:31:31 into the city and of course Kennedy Boulevard, which
20:31:33 is the major arterial leads directly into the downtown
20:31:37 core, one of our major employment centers.
20:31:39 And of course is in very close proximity to the
20:31:43 interstate also.
20:31:46 Going back over here, I did want to make the mention
20:31:49 of how this has transitioned in the last several years
20:31:52 whether what's been a declining low industrial area to
20:31:56 more of a residential mixed use type of trend.
20:32:00 This will help with the area of what are underutilized
20:32:03 and in some cases not just uses that aren't very
20:32:09 conducive to having a nice residential development.
20:32:11 In addition to that you will have a reduction by
20:32:13 eliminating the warehouse and industrial uses of truck
20:32:17 traffic which I'm sure has plagued this area for
20:32:20 several decades now.
20:32:21 Planning Commission staff based on these findings
20:32:24 finds the proposed request consistent.
20:32:35 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner.
20:32:36 >>> Brian Sykes, 605 south Fremont.
20:32:39 Suite B, Tampa, Florida 33606.
20:32:42 Attorney for the petitioner NBGF.
20:32:46 Request permission to hand the clerk -- I ask council
20:32:54 to follow along.
20:32:55 It will be a little easier as we are doing
20:32:58 These follow through in order.
20:33:02 Each of the boards.
20:33:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have been sworn?
20:33:07 >>> And I have been sworn, yes.
20:33:25 The project is a continuation of the west end project.
20:33:28 Phase 1 received approval in November of 2006,
20:33:33 construction work commenced on page 1 and we are
20:33:37 proceeding through phase 2.
20:33:38 This first aerial that you have in the package gives a
20:33:41 quick graphic depicts of the entire project.
20:33:47 The project expand from cypress on the north all the
20:33:49 way down to north B street on the southern end.
20:33:51 It's bounded on the east by Oregon, and it's bounded
20:33:56 on the furthest point west on Fremont.
20:33:59 Phase 1 is between cypress and Gray Street, Oregon and
20:34:05 Phase 1 had a variety of uses.
20:34:08 It had 250 apartments, 240 condominium units, 50 town
20:34:13 home units, and 8266 square feet of retail uses.
20:34:18 Phase 2 continues that trend with a mixed use project
20:34:21 commencing here at Gray Street, the further eastern
20:34:27 point is Oregon.
20:34:28 The furthest western point is Fremont, and the
20:34:31 furthest southern point is north B.
20:34:34 We divided these into blocks, block A, B, C, D, and
20:34:38 then now E, F and G.
20:34:42 The project consists of 296 apartments, 103
20:34:46 condominium units, seven town homes, and we have
20:34:49 increased the retail in the office, now an office
20:34:53 component with this phase, up to 21,021 square feet of
20:34:57 retail and proposed 2100 square feet of office.
20:35:00 Looking at the various blocks, we were in block E, F
20:35:06 and G.
20:35:06 Block E is quartered on north by Gray Street and south
20:35:10 by Fig Street, and is mainly along Rome.
20:35:14 This is the condominium component of the phase 2
20:35:17 It will also have retail along the first floor level
20:35:20 here along Rome Avenue.
20:35:23 Block F is town homes along Fig Street, and then an
20:35:29 office building at the corner of Rome and Fig, and
20:35:32 then a proposed restaurant at the corner of Rome and
20:35:34 north B.
20:35:37 Block G consists of 296 apartment units.
20:35:44 This site as many of you know is the former Loudon
20:35:49 lumber site.
20:35:50 You saw the picture of the large warehouse facility
20:35:52 that sits here.
20:35:54 Logan office and storage yards comprise of these two
20:35:58 One of the interesting things about this project is as
20:36:02 you may or may not New York City Logan lumber, their
20:36:06 facilities will be moving.
20:36:08 In memory of Mr. Lamar Logan who operated this
20:36:12 building here for many decades, this portion of the
20:36:14 project, called Logan mart.
20:36:19 I think this is a good project from the standpoint of
20:36:21 a redevelopment.
20:36:22 And Mr. Shultz gave me probably two of the best lines
20:36:25 that he could have, that it's all asphalt and you
20:36:29 can't tell where the parking lot begins.
20:36:33 It's a pretty good description of this area.
20:36:35 What the development group has envisioned nor is to
20:36:38 credit an extension of phase 1 which has a series of
20:36:40 lineal parks, and open areas for people to walk, to
20:36:45 enjoy, walk their dogs, walk with their kids, large
20:36:50 open sidewalks, pedestrian friendly, and community
20:36:54 friendly area.
20:37:04 It's very similar in styling to the approved phase 1
20:37:08 block C.
20:37:08 Block B is a 4 story building.
20:37:11 This is a 4 story building it both of condominiums.
20:37:16 Internal parking garage so all the parking is
20:37:18 There's in a street level parking.
20:37:20 We are however reflecting approval to put on-Street
20:37:23 parking in portions of the project, not to be counted
20:37:26 for as parking requirements but to provide a
20:37:28 pedestrian-friendly atmosphere for the retail office
20:37:31 and also residential uses.
20:37:34 It's not seen on this elevation but we will discuss
20:37:38 parks and green space area, but the parking garages
20:37:42 and amenity feature of the condominiums will have a
20:37:44 gren space on top.
20:37:45 We are trying to do green roofs on the building to
20:37:48 bring in kind of an urban concept.
20:37:54 We haven't got the porches yet.
20:37:56 [ Laughter ]
20:38:00 Block F.
20:38:01 Block F is the office, restaurant, and town home uses.
20:38:07 The restaurant is both the one-story. The town homes
20:38:10 are throw stories, two over garage, very similar to
20:38:13 what was proposed for phase one.
20:38:17 Change up the architectural stylings a little bit
20:38:19 still keeping it within the West Tampa overlay
20:38:22 district guidelines.
20:38:22 We are trying to add some visual interest there.
20:38:28 Block G of is the apartment complex site.
20:38:31 This is 293 units.
20:38:33 It also has retail run ago long Rome.
20:38:36 This is most consistent with the phase 1 block D
20:38:40 portion of the project which is a five-story building.
20:38:44 This ranges in five stories and Fremont which is
20:38:51 closest to the residential unit and goes up to 8
20:38:54 stories up along Rome.
20:38:55 We purposely stepped the building away from the
20:39:00 residential area and towards Rome Avenue.
20:39:02 Rome Avenue is characterized by a lot of industrial
20:39:05 and commercials uses.
20:39:07 There's not a lot of residential uses on that side of
20:39:09 the street.
20:39:09 When you get up to Fremont and Oregon you are heading
20:39:13 westward off of Fremont east of Oregon.
20:39:16 You start getting into the neighborhood.
20:39:17 That's why we stacked the building away from the
20:39:22 neighborhood so there wasn't the mass of build there.
20:39:24 Initially in the design of the building we created use
20:39:27 areas, park areas, not one big block of mass and that
20:39:31 will show a better in a few minutes.
20:39:35 Let's talk about something we learned a lot about in
20:39:38 phase 1 and that's porches.
20:39:40 We made sure we had significant number of porches,
20:39:46 every building, every block has outdoor porches,
20:39:50 There are actually a couple different types for each
20:39:53 Starting on block E, we have two different types of
20:40:09 We'll start with porch number 2 and 3.
20:40:11 We have two different types of porches.
20:40:13 These are the condominium products.
20:40:16 The porches are 6-foot in depth.
20:40:18 17-foot in width.
20:40:21 On the first level, they will lead out to the street.
20:40:25 They will have a gate, I believe, that you can go
20:40:27 through, but it will be an open porch.
20:40:39 Type 3 porch, again very similar in styling.
20:40:43 It is 21 feet in width.
20:40:45 It is only 5 feet in depth.
20:40:48 We have had kind of an outdoor window element to it,
20:40:52 with additional visual features and streetscape.
20:41:02 Block F, the town home product, has one main type of
20:41:07 It is about 5-foot in depth and 21 feet in width,
20:41:11 again with steps leading out to streetscape, sidewalk
20:41:16 and street level.
20:41:17 Then, finally, on block G, we have two different types
20:41:24 of porches on block G.
20:41:26 One is 13 feet 8 inches in width, 6 feet in depth,
20:41:30 again leaving out the sidewalk, and the second one is
20:41:37 21 feet in width, 6 feet in depth, again leading off
20:41:41 of the sidewalks.
20:41:44 Let's go back to block G.
20:41:47 Go back to block F and talk a little bit about the
20:41:55 >> At the last meeting we decided we don't like
20:41:57 porches anymore.
20:41:58 [ Laughter ]
20:41:59 So you have to go back and redo it.
20:42:01 >> One of the things we are taking off the plan
20:42:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They are beautiful.
20:42:05 >>> We trade to open things up just as we did in the
20:42:07 first phase.
20:42:08 I think it is important.
20:42:09 Especially with this project, adding the additional
20:42:11 retail, office in such close proximity to everything
20:42:15 you are going to have people walking around.
20:42:19 We want it opened up.
20:42:21 Block E streetscape.
20:42:22 This is a rendering of what we are proposing for it to
20:42:25 look like.
20:42:27 Large sidewalk areas, some porches leading out, lots
20:42:30 of large landscaping, incidentally, you may notice as
20:42:33 we are going through the project that we have been
20:42:35 clearing the land.
20:42:36 We have been saving a lot of the trees, as many trees
20:42:39 as possible, mature trees on-site, not come in with
20:42:44 small sticks that take ten years to grow in.
20:42:46 2 T block F, streetscape again, very pedestrian
20:42:49 friendly, trying to bring the public into the
20:42:51 restaurant, into the office area.
20:43:04 This is one I want to focus on a little bit and that's
20:43:07 the block G streetscape.
20:43:09 This is the largest building on the side.
20:43:11 This is the apartment complex.
20:43:13 This one, we have stepped back.
20:43:15 This will be looking -- this will be Fremont Avenue
20:43:18 here and this would be Fig Street here.
20:43:21 We stepped it back a significant amount from Fremont.
20:43:26 Number one, we didn't have the scale ability on top.
20:43:30 Number two, we have a little bit of a nice linear park
20:43:33 area, wide sidewalks in this area, where there haven't
20:43:36 been in the past, inviting the public into the
20:43:44 Continuing on streetscape of G, again.
20:43:49 Lots of trees.
20:43:50 Nice sidewalks.
20:44:01 We concluded a series of pocket parks and open public
20:44:04 walkways in areas within the project.
20:44:07 This portion is located on block G.
20:44:10 We have got a nice Promenade through.
20:44:15 There will be hardscapes, benches, things like that
20:44:19 throughout the project.
20:44:20 We have a large open park area here in block E.
20:44:25 In block G, we have several park areas, two of the
20:44:30 enclaves in the building which will show an aerial
20:44:33 view in a second.
20:44:34 This is our block G pool deck which will be a green
20:44:38 deck also.
20:44:39 On block G all parking is internal on the site.
20:44:42 Again it's a large parking structure to the inside of
20:44:44 the building that wraps around it, will be screened
20:44:50 for large parking structures.
20:44:54 >> Can I ask a question?
20:44:59 If there is going to be a big transparency to put in
20:45:05 But in reading your plans it's hard to tell -- is that
20:45:10 what we are looking at on block G?
20:45:13 Is that where your structured park is?
20:45:15 And how long a course of parking structure are we
20:45:22 going to see at ground level?
20:45:23 Or will we always have something more interesting
20:45:27 going on?
20:45:29 >>> Go back to the elevation.
20:45:30 >> This is kind of confusing.
20:45:32 Because there's so many different angles and things.
20:45:36 That's the only thing I had concern about.
20:45:45 >>> The parking structure is right here in block G.
20:45:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On the ground level what's going
20:45:50 >>> On the ground level?
20:45:53 This is the main entrance to the apartment complex.
20:46:03 The entrance is on the backside.
20:46:08 >> My concern is just from the street, is there going
20:46:11 to be a very long extraordinary parking?
20:46:15 >>> No.
20:46:22 That may show a lot better.
20:46:23 You don't have to show me if what you are saying is
20:46:27 they are not going to have 100 feet in front of it.
20:46:31 >>> This will be looking down on the apartment
20:46:33 building which is the largest building. The parking
20:46:35 structure area would be through here but even though
20:46:37 that is a long area, what we have done is brought
20:46:40 visual interests in the building, different wall plane
20:46:44 projections, the building moved in and out, not just
20:46:47 one flat.
20:46:48 >> How long is that?
20:46:55 Is at block, half a block?
20:46:56 It's really hard to tell.
20:46:57 Especially --
20:47:02 >>> Jeff, I have not been sworn in, I am the
20:47:11 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:47:16 >>> The elevation changes -- do we have an elevation
20:47:20 packet by any chance?
20:47:26 On the Gray Street side, the entire front is
20:47:30 residential apartments, on the first two levels.
20:47:33 And then we have a variety of things going on in the
20:47:35 We do have amenity space at the top of the building.
20:47:39 And then there is sandwiched in the middle here
20:47:43 So parts of this are parking.
20:47:45 And parts of it are active areas with windows and
20:47:49 people behind the windows.
20:47:51 So it depends.
20:47:52 >> From the street side, not from the internal portion
20:47:54 of the street side, are all active uses.
20:47:59 >>> On the Gray Street side, yes.
20:48:02 >> I'm talking about in the project overall.
20:48:05 Do you ever not --
20:48:10 >>> Yes, we do.
20:48:11 If we go over to Fig Street, we do have a section
20:48:20 about two and a half feet long that does not have
20:48:22 active uses and the reason is what we are trying to do
20:48:24 here is create a variety of height on the building so
20:48:27 it's up and down and if we trade to put more units in
20:48:31 that area we would end up with a parking garage that
20:48:34 was one story higher, and would start to diminish the
20:48:37 stepping up and down.
20:48:38 So we made the parking garage wider there so we could
20:48:42 get a lower scale garage.
20:48:45 >> So what is it going to be like when you walk by?
20:48:48 >>> There is a tremendous amount of landscaping in
20:48:50 And what we have done is mimicked windows, residential
20:48:54 windows, so it will look like windows.
20:48:56 There's going to be louvers in here that will make it
20:48:59 look like residential windows.
20:49:01 It's going to have the general appearance of occupied
20:49:04 residential space.
20:49:06 It's not actual units.
20:49:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you
20:49:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
20:49:14 It resembles Westchase out in Linebaugh, color scheme
20:49:18 and schematics of the design.
20:49:28 >> Want to see if there's any other questions from
20:49:32 >>> Finishing up, looking at again the block showing
20:49:36 the amount of green space, this would be on Fremont
20:49:39 Avenue. This is the park area that we were looking at
20:49:42 with one view.
20:49:43 This is what we talked about before making U shaped
20:49:45 buildings making pockets of groan internal to them as
20:49:48 well, very similar to design in what we get in phase
20:49:52 one, creating enclaves areas for people who gather,
20:49:57 green space, trees, what have you.
20:49:59 On both sides again are amenities being a green space.
20:50:03 >> Are those little pockets also accessible to the
20:50:07 >>> Absolutely.
20:50:08 Everything is accessible to the public.
20:50:10 >> Not the pool.
20:50:14 >>> Depends on how good they are getting past
20:50:18 >> All right.
20:50:21 >>> We appreciate staff's help and assistance.
20:50:23 We appreciate being able to go forward this evening.
20:50:25 All of the issues that we have, I believe, have been
20:50:27 addressed and the latest plan that we submitted to
20:50:30 staff there was one tree issue that we had resolved.
20:50:36 During staff comments it was brought up to a hazardous
20:50:39 tree that needs to be removed.
20:50:40 We have obtained the approval of the owner of the
20:50:42 property upon which that tree is located, and we will
20:50:45 be removing that tree at our expense.
20:50:48 There is one other thing I would like to talk about.
20:51:02 We are requesting a waiver on block F in connection
20:51:04 with the buffer surrounding this house here.
20:51:06 This house belongs to Ms. Frankie ray, who has
20:51:11 graciously entered into a contract with us to sell her
20:51:16 We have given her -- acknowledging that she's going to
20:51:22 be living in and around the development, we asked her
20:51:24 if we could get a landscape easement which she granted
20:51:26 us last week, and we have taken a landscape easement
20:51:29 across the back portion of her property here, so that
20:51:32 we'll end up with just over a 9-foot buffer there.
20:51:35 We are going to plant a hedge, plant everything
20:51:38 exactly like we have done all the way around the
20:51:41 property so that it's continuous and we'll be
20:51:43 maintaining it for her as well.
20:51:45 The only other waiver that was not included tonight in
20:51:51 Mr. Schulz litany of waiver is we will be asking for
20:51:54 waiver of green space.
20:51:55 It is a very minor waiver.
20:51:57 Overall the project exceeds the total requirement of
20:51:59 green space.
20:52:00 However, on block G, we are approximately 1200 square
20:52:11 The comprehensive plan consistent with west overlay
20:52:14 district consistent with the guidelines consistent
20:52:17 with the waivers requested.
20:52:18 We have had several meetings with neighborhood groups.
20:52:21 I believe Mr. Allen is here from the north Hyde Park
20:52:24 civic association.
20:52:26 He will follow through this evening.
20:52:29 We have had meetings with West Tampa CDC.
20:52:31 One more thing I would like to talk about is the
20:52:33 affordable housing component of this project.
20:52:36 In phase 1 we were not able to designate a portion of
20:52:39 the project for affordable or workforce housing.
20:52:43 What we did in lieu of that is worked with the West
20:52:45 Tampa CDC, and gave a grant of $525,000 to use in
20:52:52 conjunction with the city's affordable housing program
20:52:54 to give to folks who were just shy, needed an extra
20:53:01 couple thousand dollar to close or needed money to do.
20:53:05 Much in phase 2 we are actually dedicating 10% of the
20:53:08 project for workforce housing.
20:53:12 It will be sold at or below the workforce housing,
20:53:15 affordable maximum.
20:53:17 In addition to that, however, though, we have entered
20:53:19 into or will be hopefully entering into another
20:53:21 agreement with the West Tampa CDC.
20:53:23 We have made a commitment to them, to give them an
20:53:26 additional $225,000 grant, so it will be a total of
20:53:30 $750,000 that we have given to them for the down
20:53:33 payment assistance.
20:53:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20:53:38 These grants that you are talking about, who is going
20:53:40 to manage them?
20:53:42 >>> The way I understand the program to be run, if an
20:53:48 applicant goes to the City of Tampa, and qualifies
20:53:50 from an income perspective, from all of the respective
20:53:55 systems, and down payment assistance on their home,
20:53:57 but doesn't quite have the necessary funds to complete
20:54:00 that transaction, the West Tampa CDC would then be
20:54:03 able to step in and provide additional funds required.
20:54:07 >> I'm asking directly, sir, Mr. Sykes --
20:54:11 >>> They are going to be deposited in an crows account
20:54:13 to be established by the West Tampa CDC.
20:54:16 >> Who is going to manage those accounts?
20:54:18 >>> The West Tampa CDC.
20:54:20 >> I have a problem there.
20:54:20 I just don't feel that's right.
20:54:22 I feel if you are going to do that that the city
20:54:24 should at least be responsible -- they are not capable
20:54:28 of doing it.
20:54:29 I strongly feel that the city should be responsible
20:54:31 for that.
20:54:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I jump in real quick on a
20:54:40 little history?
20:54:41 We had a lot of conversation with this on phase 1.
20:54:44 And council was very sensitive about this exact issue
20:54:49 that you are raising.
20:54:51 I think what we did, my recollection -- and you all
20:54:54 can correct me -- my recollection is we asked staff, I
20:54:58 think legal staff and Ms. Miller, Cindy Miller's
20:55:03 staff, to look at this agreement in the concept to
20:55:06 make sure that it was Kosher.
20:55:08 And do you want to add into that?
20:55:12 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
20:55:16 It's a private agreement, the developer in the West
20:55:19 Tampa CDC to Dale with that issue and that could not
20:55:24 be made part of the zoning.
20:55:25 I am a little concerned about this conversation.
20:55:27 I didn't understand about how that occurred in this
20:55:30 In fact I was told from our staff that there were no
20:55:33 separate agreements with the West Tampa CDC in this
20:55:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You knew it had occurred --
20:55:39 >>> I knew it occurred in phase 1 and what we
20:55:42 indicated, and Ms. Miller got involved in that
20:55:48 conversation as well, that this agreement came out on
20:55:50 the side but cot not be made part of the zoning.
20:55:52 It wasn't something that was intended to be made part
20:55:54 of the zoning.
20:55:56 All of that being said, you know, it was concerning to
20:55:59 council at that point in time, and I did not
20:56:01 understand that that was occurring in this instance as
20:56:04 well, and that there was another agreement, side
20:56:08 agreement, and now it's been raised as part of the
20:56:12 So at this point, the only thing I can suggest is we
20:56:21 can either allow this -- this item has been continued
20:56:26 My suggestion is let's just go ahead and continue this
20:56:29 I do know there are people here to discuss it but we
20:56:32 need to sort this issue out.
20:56:34 As well as I understand there are other issues.
20:56:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have nothing against the project.
20:56:41 I think it's a marvelous project.
20:56:43 No downtown, even any metropolitan area, can be
20:56:46 successful on a surrounding area -- unless the
20:56:51 surrounding area is also successful.
20:56:53 But I do have a personal concern.
20:56:57 And not about your case, sir, about any case that
20:57:02 makes side deals and side bars with different
20:57:04 individuals at different times for or against a
20:57:09 And I have that concern.
20:57:15 And I have been looking at it for some time.
20:57:17 And by next week, I'm going to present something to
20:57:20 that council to see if we can clarify this once and
20:57:23 for all.
20:57:25 >> If I can add a couple points on that.
20:57:27 Number one, we do not have any zoning conditions.
20:57:31 It was merely brought up probably mistakenly by me as
20:57:34 part of the presentation.
20:57:35 But this is not something that the West Tampa CDC
20:57:38 approached us on.
20:57:40 Ken Moore, the principal of Moore and development, has
20:57:43 come up with a concept that there's got to be a way
20:57:45 that we can help out, if we can't designate units for
20:57:48 affordable housing.
20:57:49 The land is expensive.
20:57:50 The construction of the units, it's very expensive and
20:57:54 it's a very difficult to have a significant portion,
20:57:57 20%, 25%.
20:57:58 Having said so, Ken has designated 10% on this project
20:58:02 and wanted to go step further and said how else can we
20:58:05 I don't believe there was a mechanism that we could do
20:58:08 a direct donation to the City of Tampa and say,
20:58:11 earmark this for West Tampa for people in West Tampa
20:58:13 that need help.
20:58:14 We found this to be one of the better ways to do it.
20:58:17 Again it is a private agreement between West Tampa CDC
20:58:19 and Moore development group.
20:58:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll let the legal department do
20:58:28 whatever it thinks is best.
20:58:30 >>MARY MULHERN: My question is on a totally different
20:58:34 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Ms. Coyle?
20:58:44 I'm sorry, I don't know the names too well.
20:58:46 Is it possible for the city to get an agreement with
20:58:49 Ms. Miller's department to manage these funds?
20:58:53 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
20:58:54 That issue did come up as part of the previous
20:58:58 Mrs. Miller indicated she has no method to do that and
20:59:01 there is no opportunity for them to do that as part of
20:59:03 this project.
20:59:04 And I'm not really sure that even that given the
20:59:09 nature of this project and the impact of the project
20:59:11 that would even be an appropriate part of the
20:59:13 rezoning, and that's why in the last case, when this
20:59:16 issue came up, we indicated to council, Ms. Miller and
20:59:21 myself, that first of all she didn't have the
20:59:23 opportunity to do that as part of her process.
20:59:26 And second it wasn't made part of the zoning.
20:59:29 And what we opined in the last situation was, you
20:59:33 know, it's a private agreement.
20:59:35 The city cannot manage this type of private agreement
20:59:39 between individuals and a developer.
20:59:43 Quite frankly, I don't know exactly what the nature of
20:59:47 this specific agreement is.
20:59:48 I'm concerned about it.
20:59:50 So the item needs to be continued anyway.
20:59:57 I don't know if you want to continue it, hold that
20:59:59 issue as an aside and we'll deal with it before they
21:00:02 come back or how you want to proceed.
21:00:05 But we do need to have additional -- I need to have
21:00:08 additional conversations.
21:00:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I would suggest is not getting
21:00:18 into it.
21:00:19 Go ahead an discuss it with Mrs. Cole over the next
21:00:21 couple of weeks and then come back and talk to us
21:00:25 again, talk to us accordingly, and let's us move on,
21:00:27 on the other issues.
21:00:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Except for the fact, council, I'm
21:00:31 sorry to interrupt, I have a concern with regard to
21:00:34 several of the people who ho may be testifying may be
21:00:38 offering their opinion perhaps on the basis of the
21:00:42 side agreement.
21:00:43 And I don't want to raise that issue.
21:00:45 I'm not saying that's the case now.
21:00:47 But I just want to -- I tend to agree with Ms. Cole
21:00:53 that until we resolve this issue and how we best
21:00:55 resolve this, I don't want the additional testimony to
21:01:00 necessarily have any weight that might affect whatever
21:01:04 decision the legal department is going to make with
21:01:06 regard to how they are going to resolve this issue.
21:01:08 So it might be to petitioner's advantage to council's
21:01:14 advantage all people that are here that council do
21:01:18 consider continuing it rattle than perhaps creating a
21:01:20 record that might be more difficult to undo.
21:01:28 >>JULIA COLE: I'm going to have to recommend you may
21:01:30 have people getting up to testify, and there is some
21:01:33 question now about the basis of the testimony, that we
21:01:36 go ahead, continue this anyway, continue it for the
21:01:38 two weeks, allow me to get together with Mr. Sykes.
21:01:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have some unrelated questions.
21:01:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I still have some, too.
21:01:47 >>> If I may make one quick point. The funds do not
21:01:50 go to any one individual.
21:01:52 In fact, you will have an opportunity to review the
21:01:55 As our legal department had an opportunity to review
21:01:58 the agreement because the way it was presented was we
21:02:00 would come to agreement with the West Tampa CDC to be
21:02:03 brought before council and discussed before council.
21:02:06 Now the agreement has a very specific mechanism as to
21:02:09 who the funds can benefit.
21:02:10 And it's not any one individual.
21:02:12 It's individuals who come through the city program.
21:02:17 With that said I don't see there being any assessment
21:02:19 because it isn't as if we said in this neighborhood
21:02:22 group we are giving you this much.
21:02:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.
21:02:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
21:02:30 I have another question.
21:02:31 But, now, you started out tonight talking about making
21:02:34 this process, limiting the time that we spend on these
21:02:39 And we have spent all this time listening to this, and
21:02:43 it's going to be continued.
21:02:44 So I don't know why -- this is a question for my
21:02:47 fellow council members and for staff.
21:02:50 Why didn't we continue this before we got into all
21:02:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't think we knew this one was
21:02:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
21:03:01 That's fine.
21:03:01 My question for you was, are there any other green
21:03:04 buildings, sustainable components to this project?
21:03:08 Other than I know you talked about the green roof.
21:03:12 >>> There are the green roofs.
21:03:13 The stormwater is being retained into that can be
21:03:19 reused for landscape irrigation.
21:03:21 We are attempting to incorporate as many green
21:03:25 construction designs and elements as we possibly can.
21:03:28 Will they be energy star compliant?
21:03:32 But we are doing as much as we possibly can.
21:03:34 >> Any kind of -- are you looking for any kind of LEED
21:03:39 My next question is, for our sake, what would it take
21:03:44 for a project like this?
21:03:46 What kind of incentive would encourage you as a
21:03:52 developer to incorporate that into a project?
21:03:59 >>> Good question.
21:04:02 >> An example.
21:04:03 One thing that might have, you know.
21:04:08 >>> It's very difficult to do both affordable
21:04:12 compliance and LEED type of design.
21:04:15 That was one of the concerns that we had.
21:04:18 It was heard loud and clear from people in the
21:04:20 neighborhood that they would like to have something
21:04:22 that could be affordable or workforce housing.
21:04:27 I hate to say it but doing green buildings is not
21:04:32 It's a very expensive project.
21:04:34 In weighing the two we felt bringing an affordable
21:04:36 component was very affordable to the area.
21:04:39 I'm not sure if that answered your question.
21:04:41 >>MARY MULHERN: No.
21:04:43 >>> I don't know off the of our head but we can try to
21:04:46 come back for thoughts.
21:04:47 >>CHAIRMAN: You want to come back in two weeks.
21:04:50 I need a motion.
21:04:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have two more things if that's
21:04:54 all right.
21:04:54 It's not related to the issue that they are talking
21:04:57 For one thing, the question is right off my scribble
21:05:02 here, too.
21:05:04 You all think about it.
21:05:05 Because that would be helpful to council.
21:05:06 This to me, looking at this project, it's sort of the
21:05:10 ideal project to go into the LEED certification.
21:05:13 We are not pushing it down your throat.
21:05:14 But in the bigger picture we are looking to see what
21:05:17 type of incentives developers like this need to go
21:05:24 My other question relates to infrastructure.
21:05:28 This is an area, this is an industrial area and very
21:05:31 low density area.
21:05:33 What's the water and sewer situation for phase 1 and
21:05:36 phase 2?
21:05:36 Are you all having to bring some significant lines in?
21:05:41 >>> I don't think so.
21:05:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No?
21:05:44 >>> According to our engineer, no.
21:05:47 Some questions on stormwater, though, if that would be
21:05:49 an issue as well, we are providing bull king on this
21:05:54 site of the stormwater and there is going to be
21:05:56 approximately 15% reduction impervious area of what
21:06:00 exists today.
21:06:00 >>: My last question relates to mass transit which I
21:06:04 think we discussed a little bit on phase 1.
21:06:07 How many total units or total people do you expect for
21:06:10 phase 1 and phase 2 together?
21:06:12 Just ballpark.
21:06:16 Sound like you're more than 1,000, I guess.
21:06:21 >>> About a thousand.
21:06:22 >> Units?
21:06:22 >>> Yes.
21:06:23 >> It's wonderful.
21:06:24 And it's the kind of density and intensity of uses
21:06:28 that I think we really need to connect downtown to the
21:06:31 Westshore district.
21:06:33 With that said, are there discussions about a mass
21:06:37 transit corridor coming through?
21:06:39 It looks like Cass Street might be the appropriate
21:06:41 Have you all been in talks with -- with anybody on
21:06:45 >> We have had discussions regarding Cypress Street.
21:06:53 It's the street that's been designated for the mass
21:06:56 transit and there's a bus stop signed as part of phase
21:07:00 As part of phase 2 there was not a location on-site.
21:07:03 However, we are contributing to two bus shelters that
21:07:07 will be located on Kennedy Boulevard that will have
21:07:09 mass transit for Hart.
21:07:10 So we have been in discussion was them.
21:07:22 >>: Right now you're just talking about buses but are
21:07:26 they talking about light rail?
21:07:27 >>> Not at this time, no.
21:07:28 >> Any bike racks?
21:07:30 >> Yes.
21:07:31 They have a lot of designs.
21:07:34 >> Okay.
21:07:34 We need a motion for continuation.
21:07:36 >> So moved.
21:07:37 >> Second.
21:07:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Two weeks.
21:07:44 >> My question for the people who come down tonight to
21:07:46 speak, to come back again, I feel that's not
21:07:48 considered considerate.
21:07:50 I know we are going to have to come back because of
21:07:51 the changes to the site plan.
21:07:53 But I would rather hear from the public tonight.
21:08:01 >>JULIA COLE: I understand it's very inconvenient for
21:08:03 everyone to be here.
21:08:04 I wish I had known about this ahead of time but I did
21:08:07 I just found this right now about -- the agreement
21:08:11 between the West Tampa CDC and the petitioner, and I'm
21:08:14 going to caution you against taking any more
21:08:17 testimony, and suggest you go ahead and continue.
21:08:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
21:08:23 At nature again?
21:08:24 The 28th?
21:08:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have a night session on the
21:08:30 I believe you have comp plan amendments that night.
21:08:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We could add this to that.
21:08:34 >>GWEN MILLER: The 28th at 6 p.m.?
21:08:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
21:08:40 >>> In two weeks, you will have one zoning that will
21:08:42 continue to that.
21:08:44 So moved.
21:08:46 >> Motion and second.
21:08:47 Question on the motion?
21:08:49 >> We find out how many people are here tonight to
21:08:51 testify on this?
21:08:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public who wanted to
21:08:55 speak, please raise your hand and see how many is
21:08:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Four, five, six.
21:09:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we make this first on the
21:09:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 501 with transmittal hearing and
21:09:17 comprehensive plan amendment, five of them.
21:09:19 >>GWEN MILLER: So 6:00.
21:09:22 We have a motion.
21:09:23 Now motion and second to continue this item to June
21:09:25 28th at 6 p.m
21:09:27 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
21:09:29 Opposed, Nay.
21:09:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open public hearing number
21:09:38 >> Second.
21:09:38 (Motion carried)
21:09:39 >>PHIL SCHULZ: VO 7-44, located in district 7, Sulfur
21:09:51 Springs, action league, neighborhood association,
21:09:54 located at 8412 north 18th street.
21:09:58 Mr. Steven Michelini is the agent.
21:10:02 The development review committee has reviewed the
21:10:05 petition and has no objections.
21:10:07 However, solid waste would like Mr. Michelini toy
21:10:11 state for the record, when he is presented to the
21:10:14 podium, to indicate their willingness of the
21:10:18 petitioner to implement the recommendations of solid
21:10:23 waste prior to permit issuance.
21:10:28 Changing the zoning from RS-50 to residential single
21:10:31 family to PD, planned development, single family
21:10:35 detached residential.
21:10:36 There are no waivers requested on this petition.
21:10:39 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property
21:10:41 located at 8412 north 18th street from RS-50 to PD
21:10:46 to build a 1,356.6 square foot home.
21:10:50 The site currently has 48.96 feet of frontage along
21:10:56 the westerly portion of north 18th street.
21:10:59 The lot is 5,128.5 square feet.
21:11:06 I'm sorry?
21:11:08 The property which is located in the RS-50 zoning
21:11:11 district is surrounded by single-family residential
21:11:13 The PD setbacks are as follows.
21:11:15 20.1 feet from the front.
21:11:18 34 feet 4 and 3/8 inches on the rear, 6.5 on the north
21:11:26 side, 6.6 on the south side.
21:11:28 Petitioner has submitted four-sided building
21:11:31 elevations of the proposed structure, with the site
21:11:34 plan and indicates a height of approximately 13 feet
21:11:36 at the top of the gable.
21:11:38 No waivers are being requested.
21:11:40 As I indicated earlier, we do have comments from solid
21:11:47 And we would like petitioner for the record to state
21:11:49 their willingness to cooperate prior to permit
21:11:53 Elmo, please.
21:11:58 In doing the evaluation of this section of the
21:11:59 subdivision, we find that the proposed use is
21:12:05 consistent with the development pattern, we evaluated
21:12:07 77 total lots in the area, conforming parcels with 59,
21:12:14 or 76% nonconforming or 18 or 23%.
21:12:31 The reds are the conforming.
21:12:33 If you look at the side of the parcels when it was
21:12:35 originally subdivided, very, very small parcels, some
21:12:38 of those were 25 and 26 feet.
21:12:41 They alternated which made the front off on some of
21:12:49 It's a very strange subdivision.
21:12:50 The picture of the subject parcel, and have Mary
21:12:54 Daniels Bryson, I want to get a picture of the big
21:12:57 tree in the front.
21:13:03 That tree will be removed.
21:13:12 This property is directly across the street.
21:13:16 Unfortunately it's boarded up.
21:13:20 This parcel is also across the street, very nicely
21:13:24 This is just next to the blue lot.
21:13:28 If you have any questions I would be willing to answer
21:13:32 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:13:50 I have been sworn.
21:13:54 As this project relates to the future land use
21:13:56 categories for this area, you have pretty much one
21:13:59 land use cat represented in the area and that is
21:14:03 residential 10.
21:14:05 The site is located on north 18th street just
21:14:08 north of Waters Avenue.
21:14:09 And west of park drive in the Sulphur Springs.
21:14:17 Mr. Shultz has already gone into detail for you as far
21:14:19 as the existing uses within the area.
21:14:23 Pretty much single-family residential uses.
21:14:25 This is fairly similar to the same situation that we
21:14:29 have for the other split that we did a little earlier
21:14:32 this evening, to make the request for single family
21:14:36 detached residential use.
21:14:37 This will contribute to the stock.
21:14:41 Do you have an equal proportion of conforming and
21:14:44 nonconforming lots in the area.
21:14:45 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
21:14:48 proposed request.
21:14:55 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have been sworn in.
21:15:04 I have been reminded and we would agree to commit by a
21:15:07 bid by solid waste request regarding the notes for the
21:15:10 trash can pickup and the storage on non-pick-up days.
21:15:15 So we will be adding that at the permit stage to the
21:15:17 site plan.
21:15:18 There are no waivers that are allowed for solid waste
21:15:22 direction anyway.
21:15:24 They have asked to us make that commitment.
21:15:26 We made it.
21:15:26 The area is characterized by traditionally platted
21:15:29 small lots.
21:15:31 They used this as an investment and development
21:15:33 technique in the 20s.
21:15:35 And it was designed to encourage people to come down
21:15:38 from the upper midwest to buy more lots in Florida.
21:15:42 Essentially, they would give away a lot and sell a
21:15:46 So there are not many requirement that is require you
21:15:49 to have two lots but the area is characterized by
21:15:51 48-foot lots, 46-foot lots, in terms of development
21:15:56 They gave away the 24-foot, made you buy the 26-foot.
21:16:01 Anyway, Sulphur Springs is thriving in the '20s and
21:16:05 most of these properties were zoned for duplexes, up
21:16:09 through the 80s, and then in a comprehensive land
21:16:12 use amendment, zoning change, it was down zoned and
21:16:15 changed to the RS-50 zoning classification.
21:16:18 In this case we meet the gross square footage
21:16:20 requirement but not the frontage requirement because
21:16:22 the way the lots were platted.
21:16:25 It is characterized now by some dilapidated
21:16:30 structures, some in poor repair.
21:16:31 If you remember recently there was an article in the
21:16:33 Tribune about the flight of urban centered dwellers
21:16:38 now trying to find refuge of affordable housing in Sur
21:16:41 full springs.
21:16:41 This is one of those locations.
21:16:43 It's ideally suited for in fill development and will
21:16:46 go a long way toward trying to encourage some
21:16:48 additional redevelopment.
21:16:50 As Phil pointed out one of the houses is boarded up.
21:16:53 Traditionally, if you look on the streetscape, you can
21:16:57 see the homes seem to be fairly well maintained but
21:17:05 they are smaller.
21:17:06 They are shotgun style.
21:17:09 And essentially -- they are relatively small.
21:17:17 The proposed size of the houses are 1300 square feet.
21:17:20 Not a large house but it will be affordable for those
21:17:23 people looking for housing in the area.
21:17:25 We respectfully request your approval.
21:17:29 We are sorry we don't have a full 50 feet of frontage.
21:17:32 But the way the development pattern is, it's simply
21:17:36 not possible to do that.
21:17:37 And we are respectfully requesting your approval.
21:17:39 >> Is there anyone in the public that would like to
21:17:41 speak on item 13?
21:17:47 >>> I have been sworn.
21:17:48 Katina green, north 18th street.
21:17:51 I want to say about the rezoning, that would put 8412
21:17:56 right at my door from where my front door is.
21:18:00 It will be from where the property line, approximately
21:18:04 8412, would be directly in front of my door.
21:18:07 And I won't have any kind of walkway or anything by
21:18:12 rezoning that.
21:18:13 And the house is not directly -- it's down by the
21:18:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ma'am?
21:18:26 In looking at this map, are you across the street?
21:18:31 >>> No, I'm directly beside 8412.
21:18:33 I live at 8410.
21:18:35 The yellow house that they showed you.
21:18:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this piece of property currently
21:18:41 like the yard of the house next door?
21:18:43 >>> Yes, ma'am.
21:18:45 I was under the impression that we owned both lots.
21:18:48 I mean, all four lots.
21:18:50 For 15 months I have been keeping the house.
21:18:54 I maintained that property and everything.
21:18:56 We just found out that we didn't own that land.
21:18:59 I mean, my front door where from where the lady said,
21:19:02 8412 would stop, my front door is not even five feet
21:19:07 And that's not right.
21:19:08 I mean, the whole thing is just -- nobody came up for
21:19:17 over a year.
21:19:19 I mowed the grass, upkeep, done all that and just to
21:19:24 find out a month ago that we don't own the property
21:19:26 and they want to put someone else's property on my
21:19:29 doorway is not right.
21:19:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm standing on 18th street.
21:19:47 Looking at this.
21:19:49 Standing in front of this empty lot.
21:19:55 Are you to the right or to the left?
21:19:57 >>> I would be to your right.
21:20:00 >> So if I'm standing on the street --
21:20:03 >>> I would be to his right.
21:20:05 >> As I'm standing on the street looking at this lot,
21:20:08 she's to the right?
21:20:09 Or she's to the left.
21:20:24 >>> Okay, to the left.
21:20:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And your house is the yellow house
21:20:29 and the subject property --
21:20:30 >>> To the other side where the fence is.
21:20:32 To the right.
21:20:35 Rate here actually.
21:20:37 And they wanted to put directly where my mailbox is in
21:20:40 front of my door, that's where they want to stop the
21:20:43 property line.
21:20:46 >> Whoa.
21:20:47 >>> Yes, ma'am.
21:20:47 By my mailbox.
21:20:49 That's where they said it stops and you can see how
21:20:50 close it is to my doorway.
21:20:52 And that's the only front door, inches from my house.
21:20:58 >> How close is your house to the property line?
21:21:05 >>> I guess about five feet.
21:21:07 I don't know it's real close.
21:21:10 I didn't measure it myself.
21:21:11 But it's real close.
21:21:19 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We have the survey if you would
21:21:22 like me to explain.
21:21:28 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Her house from the property line,
21:21:40 the oh two lots are 427 and 428.
21:21:44 Her lot is 426 and 425.
21:21:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is her front door?
21:21:50 >>> She's two feet off the property line in front.
21:21:53 >> Where does her front door face?
21:21:55 >>> It faces the side.
21:21:58 >>GWEN MILLER: That's on 18th?
21:22:01 >>STEVE MICHELINI: That's on 18th.
21:22:03 From her house, from beside her house, she's 8.4 feet
21:22:08 to the property line.
21:22:11 We will be 7 feet off the property line.
21:22:12 And then we will also be 20 feet of the front yard
21:22:18 setback so we'll be behind her front door, not in
21:22:20 front of it.
21:22:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since this is a PD and we have some
21:22:24 flexibility and she has some concern about this, can
21:22:28 you slide your whole project back, you know, about ten
21:22:32 feet or so, and perhaps be a little less intrusive to
21:22:36 I mean, if her front door face it is street, it would
21:22:39 be less of an issue.
21:22:41 But her front door face it is side which I know is not
21:22:43 your problem.
21:22:44 But since it's a PD could you slide your project back
21:22:47 a little bit?
21:22:48 I don't see any trees in the way, are there trees?
21:22:52 >>STEVE MICHELINI: No.
21:22:53 It's a fairly deep lot.
21:22:55 But we are still going to be behind her front door by
21:22:58 the front of the building.
21:23:02 >> Where is their front door going to be?
21:23:05 >>> 20 feet back.
21:23:06 We won't even be near her.
21:23:07 She's 2 feet off the property line in the back.
21:23:12 We are going to be another 18 feet back.
21:23:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, you're not.
21:23:16 Look at your site plan.
21:23:17 The site plan is not showing the same thing.
21:23:20 >>GWEN MILLER: 20 feet.
21:23:22 >> Your site plan showing you line up with her.
21:23:25 >>> We are 20 feet back.
21:23:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Michelini, would you take the
21:23:33 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Sure.
21:23:34 We are 20 feet from the property line.
21:23:35 Here is the front of the bidding here.
21:23:37 We are 20 feet back.
21:23:38 She's at 2 feet.
21:23:39 So she's still 18 feet before we even get to the front
21:23:44 of our building.
21:23:46 In front of us.
21:23:50 We'll be behind her.
21:23:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you open it up a little bit?
21:23:55 It's showing her house differently.
21:23:59 The site plan is showing her house lined up evenly
21:24:02 with your house.
21:24:07 So it's hard to say.
21:24:10 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Her house isn't part of the subject
21:24:13 You're right.
21:24:17 But it's not part of the legal description before you.
21:24:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could I ask one more question?
21:24:23 Ma'am, the survey seems to show that your house and
21:24:28 your front door are pretty close up, back up toward
21:24:30 the curb?
21:24:33 >>> It's not that far away from the road.
21:24:37 >>STEVE MICHELINI: You can see in this picture is her
21:24:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What they are saying is the new
21:24:43 house proposed is not going to be right there next to
21:24:45 your door, it's actually going to be 18, 20 feet back.
21:24:49 >>> That's what they are saying.
21:24:50 But the lady that came out, she measured.
21:24:52 And she showed us exactly where it was.
21:24:55 And it was directly by my mailbox, and behind my
21:24:58 mailbox coming towards my door.
21:25:02 I walk in my door, open my door.
21:25:03 Whoever is next door they look directly into my house
21:25:06 because of the way my door is.
21:25:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we are seeing something
21:25:10 different here.
21:25:11 >>> I'm just going by what the lady came by and did
21:25:14 the property line.
21:25:15 That's where she measured it.
21:25:18 >>> Mary Daniels Bryson, Land Development
21:25:21 When I did make my site visit I did talk to Mrs.
21:25:25 I told her where the property line was going to be in
21:25:28 line with her property, not where the proposed
21:25:30 structure would be placed on the lot.
21:25:33 She had a question as to where that property line
21:25:35 would be.
21:25:41 I measured over and showed her where that approximate
21:25:44 property line is located.
21:25:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You will be looking at their front
21:25:51 yard, not the back.
21:25:56 >>> By rezoning, if it stays the way it was and with
21:25:59 my understanding, the rezoning to build the house,
21:26:02 that's an inconvenience to me because they are
21:26:05 rezoning to put -- 84 why can't it stay like it is?
21:26:29 >> Mr. Michelini, you are going to be 18 feet back off
21:26:31 the street line, correct?
21:26:33 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Off of the property line.
21:26:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Off the property line.
21:26:36 So you are going to be beyond her front door.
21:26:40 >>> Yes, we'll be 18 feet further back than the front
21:26:45 of her house.
21:26:46 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Ma'am, who told you you owned
21:26:49 these lots next to you?
21:26:50 Do you have a survey?
21:27:01 >>> We own all that property.
21:27:02 When we bought that house they said we own all four
21:27:07 For over a year, we was under the impression, which
21:27:10 they told us that they didn't want to come around to
21:27:14 upkeep the yard or anything for over 15 months.
21:27:17 Nobody came around and told us that that property was
21:27:21 not ours.
21:27:22 >> Did you get a plat plan to show that this land was
21:27:26 >>> I lost it.
21:27:27 I don't have it.
21:27:28 I lost it.
21:27:30 And I haven't went and got another one.
21:27:32 >> Because it's got to be on file at the property
21:27:34 appraiser's office.
21:27:38 Mr. Michelini, do you have a plot plan?
21:27:42 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have the survey that was done.
21:27:45 Their deed is only for lots 425 and 426.
21:27:51 I'll be happy to pass it.
21:27:54 And the city staff, they raised that process in the
21:28:00 beginning and they raised that and we produced the
21:28:04 documents to them along with the warranty deed, and I
21:28:07 have them -- staff has them.
21:28:11 I'll be happy to give them to you if you like.
21:28:14 And the property appraiser's record clearly shows they
21:28:16 have two lots and it shows their house.
21:28:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And you have two lots, 27 and 28?
21:28:22 >>> Yes, sir.
21:28:22 427, 428.
21:28:23 I have the survey showing their house.
21:28:25 It's two feet off the front property line, 8 feet off
21:28:28 the side, and we will be 20 feet off the property
21:28:32 And 7 feet on the side.
21:28:34 They have the view and the open space that they want
21:28:37 across the front.
21:28:38 And as Mr. Dingfelder said, they'll be looking in the
21:28:41 front yard of this house.
21:28:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Sir, did you want top speak?
21:28:46 >>> Yes.
21:28:46 My name is Thomas Lisben.
21:28:50 I have been sworn in.
21:28:51 The reason I feel like my wife was telling you
21:28:55 earlier, you know, we have been going through about
21:28:58 this house, now what I'm saying?
21:29:00 Second of all, I have a daughter.
21:29:03 I have a two-year-old daughter.
21:29:05 So if you put that there, you know, I mean, what about
21:29:07 the maintenance?
21:29:08 Are you going to pay us back for the maintenance that
21:29:10 we kept up on the place?
21:29:12 Or go into any of that issue?
21:29:14 >>GWEN MILLER: You are not supposed to talk to them,
21:29:20 talk to us.
21:29:22 >>> Like I said, I have a three-year-old daughter and
21:29:24 I just feel that's wrong if they was to put in the
21:29:28 lot, but we have already been through a lot of the is
21:29:34 That's all I got to say.
21:29:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
21:29:36 Would anyone else like to speak?
21:29:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close the public hearing.
21:29:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If the petitioner wishes to have an
21:29:45 opportunity to rebut.
21:29:48 >>STEVE MICHELINI: You know, it's a simple matter
21:29:50 between the properties, and we really have nothing to
21:29:53 do with that.
21:29:54 It's not part of the petition that we are requesting
21:29:55 the rezoning on.
21:29:57 The lots have been through the process with the city
21:30:00 They are recommending approval.
21:30:01 And we are respectfully requesting approval.
21:30:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
21:30:05 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
21:30:07 Opposed, Nay.
21:30:08 Do you have an ordinance?
21:30:11 Mr. Dingfelder?
21:30:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ma'am, I am going to move to
21:30:18 approve this and I am going to do it with apologies.
21:30:21 I'm sorry that somebody misled but this and it's
21:30:24 unfortunate that that happened.
21:30:25 But there's nothing council can do.
21:30:28 They approved ownership.
21:30:38 >>> (off microphone).
21:30:40 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
21:30:42 vicinity of 8412 north 18th street in the city of
21:30:45 Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section
21:30:47 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
21:30:50 residential single family to PD planned development,
21:30:52 single family detached, residential, providing an
21:30:54 effective date.
21:30:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
21:30:56 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
21:30:57 Opposed, Nay.
21:30:58 (Motion carried).
21:31:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open number 14.
21:31:03 >> Second.
21:31:03 (Motion carried).
21:31:04 >>PHIL SCHULZ: Next case is Z 07-45.
21:31:11 This is previously approved by council for Z 05-42.
21:31:16 The previous project contained 19 town homes and a
21:31:21 two-story commercial structure.
21:31:24 This is located in district 5, northeast McFarland
21:31:28 correct me if I am wrong watch area, Tampa overlay
21:31:30 district. The principal building is located at 3100
21:31:33 North Armenia.
21:31:34 The project is bounded by west Ivy street on the north
21:31:39 and Cordelia street on the south.
21:31:42 Chase Castillo LLC is the petitioner.
21:31:46 The committee reviewed and has objections to the
21:31:49 request pursuant to the site plan.
21:31:51 The waivers requested actually are incorrect for me to
21:31:57 begin to read through my dialogue here and my summary.
21:32:00 I would like to abbreviate it if I may, Madam Chair
21:32:04 person, because the problem that happened is the
21:32:10 petitioner changed the commercial section of this site
21:32:17 between the revised site plan and the final site plan.
21:32:19 And what happened, they went from a two-story to a
21:32:24 Unfortunately when they conveyed that information to
21:32:25 their engineering firm, for some reason -- and I don't
21:32:29 know the answer to this -- petitioner doesn't
21:32:31 either -- and they'll explain it better than I will --
21:32:34 did it not get placed on the final plan as revised.
21:32:38 So we have inconsistencies in the statistical
21:32:43 information on the site.
21:32:45 The plan that you have before you not the plan that
21:32:47 you are going to be approving.
21:32:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This sound like it's not even ripe
21:32:55 to waste our time on.
21:32:57 >> Petitioner wanted to are heard primarily for the
21:32:59 public input but for me to go through this, for
21:33:01 example, the commercial building on the site plan you
21:33:03 have is 6,975 square feet.
21:33:06 The actual size is going to be 7,905.
21:33:11 The parking spaces you have on your plan are 39.
21:33:13 It's going to have 37.
21:33:15 The green space waivers are different.
21:33:17 And so as you can see, there's a lot of variables.
21:33:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone here to speak on this item
21:33:24 number 14?
21:33:26 Is anyone here wants to speak on item 14?
21:33:29 Mr. Grandoff, do you want to speak?
21:33:33 He can make changes.
21:33:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I'm just concerned about
21:33:37 taking things out of order.
21:33:38 If it's the intention of council to continue it, then
21:33:42 perhaps they should hear from petitioner and raise the
21:33:45 But in terms of the public once you start taking
21:33:49 testimony out of sequence, you affect the due process
21:33:51 of the hearing.
21:33:52 So I would caution council against that.
21:34:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we should continue it.
21:34:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we should continue it.
21:34:07 It's all caflooey.
21:34:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to hear from petitioner
21:34:14 on the issue of continuance?
21:34:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How long will it take to get what
21:34:18 they really need?
21:34:21 >>> The petitioner is coming forward to explain what
21:34:22 happened between the revised and the final.
21:34:26 >>> Hamilton engineering and surveying.
21:34:27 I have been sworn representing petitioner.
21:34:29 This project coming back it's almost basically like a
21:34:32 down zoning, so to speak.
21:34:33 We were originally approved for two-story commercial.
21:34:37 At staff request we are trying to go to single story,
21:34:41 we have gone from a town home product to more of a
21:34:43 single family reducing from 19 units to ten units.
21:34:47 The property before got rezoned in March of 2005 was a
21:34:50 warehouse and massive parking area.
21:34:54 We are adding green space.
21:34:55 The discrepancy here, we subsequently worked with
21:34:58 Mary, Alex Awad, and I believe they can speak to that.
21:35:03 They are on board with the project itself.
21:35:05 That's why we were hoping to be heard.
21:35:07 We clarified the square footage of the building area.
21:35:13 We had that all worked out.
21:35:14 We can have a revised plan back to the city tomorrow.
21:35:17 Because we are reducing the intensity that you would
21:35:19 give us the opportunity to present tonight.
21:35:22 We did meet with the residents in the neighborhood.
21:35:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can do daytime next week.
21:35:38 >> Move to continue this till June 20 at 10:00.
21:35:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you wish to inquire if there's
21:35:47 anybody other than Mr. Randolph to speak on the
21:35:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think she asked if there was
21:35:54 anybody else and this was the only one that showed.
21:35:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I saw a hand.
21:35:58 I didn't know if anyone else wanted to talk just to
21:36:01 the continuance.
21:36:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Daytime okay?
21:36:08 >>GWEN MILLER: 10:00 then in two weeks?
21:36:11 June 28th.
21:36:14 June 28th. 10 a.m.
21:36:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: June 28th. Two weeks.
21:36:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion to continue to June
21:36:21 28th at 10 a.m.
21:36:23 (Motion carried)
21:36:24 We need to open 15.
21:36:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, just so petitioner is clear,
21:36:28 I believe that petition -- Mr. Schulz, that revised
21:36:32 site plan will have to be in by Monday, the 28th?
21:36:35 >> No, it has to be in tomorrow morning by 12:00.
21:36:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Tomorrow morning by 12.
21:36:43 >>> We have been working with them on these changes.
21:36:46 It's just miscommunication.
21:36:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 15.
21:36:52 >> Move to open.
21:36:53 >> Second.
21:36:53 (Motion carried).
21:36:54 >>PHIL SCHULZ: Next case, 2701 west saint Isabel
21:37:06 Linda Pearson is petitioner.
21:37:08 Development review committee reviewed and has
21:37:12 I want to point out these objections are due to the
21:37:14 fact that the petitioner worked very diligently with
21:37:16 the staff to relocate the building numerous times, and
21:37:21 in the relocation of the building between the ripe
21:37:26 plan and the final plan we ended up with some issues
21:37:29 with solid waste so and buffer issues so we would
21:37:33 appreciate if council gave them consideration because
21:37:35 of the fact they worked very hard to protect a white
21:37:37 pine tree an other protected trees on the site.
21:37:40 So it was more moving it and shifting it and then not
21:37:45 looking upon the final version before we reviewed it
21:37:48 so with that in mind, the current zoning is RS 50
21:37:51 residential single family PD planned development,
21:37:54 professional and medical office.
21:37:55 The waivers requested are for section number 1 is
21:37:59 section 27-242, a waiver to reduce number of required
21:38:02 parking spaces from 40 to 38 spaces, waiver 2, section
21:38:09 27-130, a waiver of the required 6-foot masonry wall
21:38:13 for a pier and lintel 6-foot fence from the north and
21:38:19 western lot lines to protect the retree root systems
21:38:23 as required.
21:38:23 Waiver 3, 27-130, waiver to reduce the required
21:38:27 15-foot landscape buffer between residential and
21:38:30 nonresidential uses to 7 feet along the western lot
21:38:33 line and 5 feet along the northern lot line.
21:38:36 Again this is because of all of the trees and all the
21:38:41 The last waiver is again requested as a result of
21:38:44 solid waste.
21:38:46 Per 27-248-4 a waiver to allow solid waste maneuvering
21:38:50 in the public right-of-way from north Tampania Avenue,
21:38:54 entrance and exit, and the purpose for this is the
21:38:56 height of the building over the parking, the liability
21:38:59 for a solid waste division, we don't want that.
21:39:03 We would appreciate consideration on that as well.
21:39:06 If petitioner is willing to do all these changes by
21:39:09 tomorrow morning, and I'll let Linda Pearson speak to
21:39:14 The petitioner proposed to rezone the property at 2701
21:39:18 St. Isabel to build a 7,000 square foot professional
21:39:21 medical office building. The proposed height is 31
21:39:23 feet to the top of the deck and 42 for the two HDAC
21:39:29 gables on the two stories over parking structure.
21:39:31 The petitioner has attached four-sided elevations to
21:39:34 the plan, the PD setbacks are 20 feet on the south
21:39:38 side fronting on Isabella street, 5-foot 8 inches
21:39:42 fronting on north Tampania Avenue, 66 on the south --
21:39:46 on the north side yard and 7 feet on the west side
21:39:50 The petitioner is providing 13 compact parking spaces,
21:39:53 two ADA parking spaces, and 23 standard parking spaces
21:39:57 for a total of 38.
21:39:59 Aware of two spaces is requested to meet the
21:40:02 deficiency and required to protect the root systems of
21:40:05 a 28-inch white pine tree.
21:40:10 The Elmo, please.
21:40:13 As you can see in this area, I'm sure Mr. Garcia will
21:40:16 also point out to you, this area is in enormous
21:40:21 Approximately every other parcel is either office, or
21:40:25 some other type of medical related type of use.
21:40:31 Directly to the rear is RO.
21:40:36 Down the street is a large PD.
21:40:37 And toward the east of that, RO.
21:40:44 So it's in quite a transitional adaptive use in
21:40:48 24th area as well as new construction, new medical
21:40:55 Here is the aerial of the property again.
21:40:58 West Isabella, West Virginia Avenue on the north, and
21:41:07 north Habana on the west.
21:41:13 Showing you some pictures of property.
21:41:14 This is the current subject parcel, which will be
21:41:20 demolished, I would think.
21:41:21 This is a house directly across the street.
21:41:27 This is a house across the street, and actually the
21:41:33 same side as the subject parcel. This is the house
21:41:36 next to it.
21:41:37 As you can see, this is the other PD I pointed out to
21:41:41 you earlier.
21:41:45 This is looking on northbound on Tampania.
21:41:56 This is Tampania, and St. Isabella.
21:42:04 This is looking north on Tampania.
21:42:07 And this is a very, very nice house, right directly
21:42:10 behind, to the north of the subject parcel.
21:42:13 And then you have an office complex.
21:42:15 You can see the parking over here.
21:42:18 Maybe you can't see it but this is a two-story office
21:42:21 complex two doors down.
21:42:24 If there are any questions, I will be available for
21:42:32 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:42:37 I have been sworn.
21:42:42 The land use categories for this are residential 10,
21:42:50 residential 20, and community mixed use 35.
21:42:53 The request to go to medical office is normally not
21:42:56 allowed in the residential land use category but as
21:42:59 Mr. Shultz has told you, this is specifically in
21:43:02 accordance with policy 4.1 of the comprehensive plan
21:43:05 that allows in-fill development for development for
21:43:08 adaptive reuse of existing parcels within a
21:43:11 particularly defined boundary within this area of
21:43:14 Habana, which is in close proximity to St. Joseph's
21:43:18 hospital regional medical facility.
21:43:21 And as already shown you in the zoning map there are
21:43:23 varieties of medical offices already in existence, on
21:43:27 this segment of Virginia Avenue.
21:43:28 Of course, this is an office on Habana.
21:43:34 There is actually a huge medical office system built
21:43:38 that goes from Virginia all the way to St. Isabel
21:43:42 And medical office here, here, here, and several other
21:43:45 locations in proximity to the proposed site in
21:43:53 Mr. Dingfelder, there's only a couple of fast food
21:43:57 places close to here.
21:43:58 The circle K, Burger King.
21:44:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: West Tampa.
21:44:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Don't forget checkers.
21:44:21 >> You gotta eat.
21:44:24 >> Thank you very much.
21:44:24 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the
21:44:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:44:34 >>> Good evening by this time.
21:44:35 Linda Pearson again, West Platt, Tampa.
21:44:39 And I have been sworn.
21:44:41 Thank you for letting us to be heard tonight.
21:44:45 This is a perfect example of a minor change that needs
21:44:48 to be occurring on a site plan.
21:44:50 The minor changes that will be occurred will just be
21:44:54 the addition of language for waiver number 3 and
21:44:57 number 4.
21:44:58 There will be no change to the site plan.
21:45:01 I have some graphics to share with you to further
21:45:03 verify the request that we have before you tonight.
21:45:09 If I could refer to the Elmo.
21:45:11 We are at the northwest quadrant of San Isabel and
21:45:18 My aerial photograph will show you of Habana, St.
21:45:21 Joseph's hospital, also the former women's hospital,
21:45:24 now St. Joseph's hospital as well.
21:45:27 Armenia to the east.
21:45:30 The predominant land use in this area --
21:45:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there any neighborhood
21:45:41 >>> I don't think so but I can make it very brief if
21:45:43 you want to know that.
21:45:44 Do I have any opposition?
21:45:46 >>GWEN MILLER: You can stop right there, Mrs. Pearson.
21:45:52 Mr. Miranda.
21:45:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just for the record, let me state
21:45:55 that whatever that comp plan 1.467-13, I think it was,
21:46:02 at one time, there was none, zero, medical offices
21:46:07 Not one.
21:46:10 >>> Now they are shown as pink on this graphic.
21:46:13 >> And that's what I am going to get to.
21:46:15 There was no pink there.
21:46:16 In fact, MacDill Avenue didn't go through.
21:46:20 It stopped at saint Isabel.
21:46:23 There was in a hospital on either side.
21:46:26 There was no stadium on either side.
21:46:30 There was nothing there but good quality living,
21:46:33 mocking birds, cardinals and that kind of stuff.
21:46:37 Horses, in fact.
21:46:38 Out by my house on horseback.
21:46:40 But let me tell you.
21:46:42 It's not that I'm not going to support this.
21:46:45 It's that somewhere along the line, there's got to be
21:46:48 a line drawn and I'm tired of listening to the same
21:46:51 so-and-so and they are entitled to do, and no matter
21:46:53 what St. Joseph's does is always right.
21:46:56 Well, I'm going to tell you that when the next time
21:46:59 comes, I'm going to be amply prepared to show you
21:47:01 everything that they've done, everything that they
21:47:04 said that they needed to do and everything that they
21:47:07 said they didn't need to do that they had to do
21:47:09 because they needed to do it.
21:47:10 Do you understand?
21:47:12 That's kind of confusing.
21:47:14 >>> I'm following that.
21:47:15 I'm getting concerned.
21:47:16 >> Well, because it's a fact.
21:47:21 They said they didn't need it for a parking locality
21:47:22 because they had ample parking.
21:47:24 The next thing you know you have 500 cars parking
21:47:26 there. They said they didn't need a parking garage
21:47:28 then they built a ten story parking garage.
21:47:31 They didn't need the corner of Gomez and I believe it
21:47:34 was Virginia, they tore down a house and made it
21:47:37 So everything they said was not fact you'll.
21:47:41 That's a nice kind way of saying they lied.
21:47:46 So what I'm saying, is a perfectly substantial, 100%
21:47:51 good neighborhood has been destroyed.
21:47:56 No facts about it.
21:47:57 Your pink is the evidence.
21:47:58 And that's not you I'm talking about.
21:48:00 I'm talking about a system that's much greater than
21:48:02 you and I or this city.
21:48:05 That pink has destroyed a complete competent,
21:48:09 substantial neighborhood that was 100% thriving.
21:48:13 And that's what I'm going to say.
21:48:15 Thank you very much.
21:48:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion to continue this.
21:48:21 >> So moved.
21:48:22 >> How many weeks do you need?
21:48:23 >>> I have them in my suitcase to submit right this
21:48:25 very minute.
21:48:26 But I think Phil would like me to wait until at least
21:48:30 9:00 in the morning.
21:48:30 And so a two-week continuance.
21:48:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two weeks, 10 a.m.
21:48:37 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
21:48:39 (Motion carried).
21:48:40 Item 16.
21:48:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, before you do and
21:48:43 before I forget, because I know I will,ed
21:48:46 administration, in regard to this morning's agenda we
21:48:48 had items 17 and 18 which caused some discussion.
21:48:53 Mr. Smith showed up at the end of the meeting.
21:48:55 And I discussed with Mr. Smith and he has respectfully
21:48:58 requested instead of a two week continuance that we do
21:49:00 a one-week continuance and I'm okay with that.
21:49:03 So I would like to amend my earlier motion from
21:49:06 earlier this morning for item 17 and 18 to be heard
21:49:10 June 21st, one week from today, under old business
21:49:13 and ask Mr. Spearman and Mr. Hart to attend.
21:49:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Got motion and a second.
21:49:21 (Motion carried).
21:49:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd forget otherwise.
21:49:28 >> The next item is Z 07-47 in district 6, Sulphur
21:49:32 Springs action league neighborhood locate at 715 and
21:49:36 708 east Waters Avenue.
21:49:38 Metropolitan Ministries is the petitioner.
21:49:40 The development review committee has reviewed the
21:49:42 petition and has no objections to a request based on
21:49:46 the site plans submitted 60107.
21:49:49 The rezoning is to rezone from RS-50 and CG commercial
21:49:56 general to PD planned development for a single family
21:49:59 attached with residential clubhouse.
21:50:02 Waivers being requested are, one, from section 13,
21:50:05 161-E, a waiver to reduce the required 8-foot
21:50:09 landscape buffer to 3 feet for a distance of 20 feet
21:50:13 along east Waters Avenue to mitigate impact on
21:50:16 protected grand trees located there, which I will show
21:50:19 you on the aerial in just one moment.
21:50:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt. The clerk
21:50:23 informs me there was no motion to open.
21:50:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to open.
21:50:29 >> Second.
21:50:29 (Motion carried).
21:50:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And you will incorporate your
21:50:33 previous statements into the record.
21:50:37 >>> Waiver number 2 is a waiver to reduce the number
21:50:39 of required parking spaces from 27 to 25.
21:50:43 And waiver number 3 is per section 27-246, a waiver to
21:50:47 reduce required drive aisle from 26 to 24.
21:50:50 Again I want to point out before I get into my
21:50:52 summary, the petitioner did work with the DRC
21:50:56 diligently to try to rearrange the parking areas, and
21:51:00 some of these structures to protect all of the trees
21:51:02 on this site that deserve protecting.
21:51:06 Petitioner is proposing to rezone the property located
21:51:09 at 708, 750 east Waters Avenue from residential single
21:51:12 family 50, and commercial general, to planned
21:51:16 development, to create a multifamily residential
21:51:21 project with a residence clubhouse.
21:51:23 The petitioner's proposed project also includes a 1200
21:51:27 square foot clubhouse and two, 2-story apartment
21:51:34 buildings with six units each.
21:51:35 The project fronts on east Waters Avenue on the south,
21:51:38 north Taliaferro street on the west, north Arden
21:51:44 Avenue on the east, and east Rampart on the north.
21:51:48 The front yard setback on east Waters Avenue are 20
21:51:52 feet, the side yard front back on north Taliaferro,
21:51:58 north Arden Avenue 10 feet and the rear front yard on
21:52:01 east Rampart is 10 feet.
21:52:04 Again because it's taking up an entire city block.
21:52:06 The petitioner has been very cooperative with the DRC
21:52:11 in reworking the site planned and screen dumpster
21:52:13 location to protect two grand trees, on the eastern
21:52:16 boundary of the property.
21:52:18 Elmo, please.
21:52:23 Here's the subject property.
21:52:24 Here's east waters.
21:52:25 This is Arden.
21:52:29 Rampart on the north.
21:52:32 Taliaferro on the west.
21:52:34 Across the street here, this is the dog racing track.
21:52:40 The zoning, you can see CG, Waters Avenue.
21:52:51 The site north and south.
21:52:53 Currently there is an existing church on the site
21:52:57 which is looking northwest from Arden and Waters
21:53:05 This is looking down Arden street to the north.
21:53:13 This is directly across the street that fronts on
21:53:17 It's a paved vacant parking lot.
21:53:20 And in the two houses adjacent to that.
21:53:24 Here is a picture directly across the street of the
21:53:28 dog racetrack.
21:53:34 Here, this is a repair, automotive repair across the
21:53:39 street on Taliaferro.
21:53:41 You can see the CG use along the street right-of-way
21:53:50 This is looking down on the north side.
21:53:56 Subject property.
21:54:00 This is a current building on the subject parcel.
21:54:03 From Taliaferro street.
21:54:08 This is looking at Arden, and Taliaferro.
21:54:20 And this is looking in the other direction from
21:54:25 Arden -- excuse me, down Rampart street.
21:54:35 Rampart street.
21:54:40 This is the subject parcel looking at it from the
21:54:43 intersection of Rampart and Arden.
21:54:47 This site is where all these protected trees are.
21:54:54 They currently have a playground area there, in this
21:54:58 area here the townhouse will be over here.
21:55:07 It will be retained as part of the children's play
21:55:13 And then this is directly across the street.
21:55:15 You can see the to the right, this is the house
21:55:20 directly across the street from the park.
21:55:25 If there are any questions, I'll be available.
21:55:34 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:55:38 And I have been sworn.
21:55:49 What we have are four categories.
21:55:50 Residential 10 to the north.
21:55:59 Waters, we have CMU 35 to the north.
21:56:01 The greyhound track directly to the south.
21:56:04 Urban mixed use 16.
21:56:07 On Nebraska heavy commercial 24.
21:56:12 The existing uses, the site basically interfaces a
21:56:17 huge parking lot surrounding the greyhound track.
21:56:21 The course is surrounded by east waters.
21:56:26 The arterial of Nebraska.
21:56:34 Based on what the use is, and the intensity of the use
21:56:37 relative -- relative to what is interfacing, it's
21:56:40 really a lot less than what can potentially go on the
21:56:43 site as far as CMU 35 designation is concerned.
21:56:48 The site is understood the density.
21:56:59 It's consistent with the comprehensive plan.
21:57:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:57:12 >>> Judy James, 325 south Boulevard.
21:57:14 I have been sworn.
21:57:15 This is an affordable housing project which is being
21:57:18 developed by Metropolitan Ministries with partnerships
21:57:20 with home maid which is a subsidiary of the Tampa Bay
21:57:24 builders association and MAAP.
21:57:29 They are for families that have been homeless, and the
21:57:31 Metropolitan Ministries have gone through their life
21:57:35 skills program but are now ready for independent
21:57:37 They can't afford market rents, and it will be
21:57:40 subsidized rental.
21:57:42 The residents will be working.
21:57:43 Some will be in school.
21:57:44 They will be paired with the community and sign a
21:57:48 lease which will have conduct provisions.
21:57:50 The town homes are actually two story, 1150 square
21:57:54 feet to 1500 square feet.
21:57:55 Some are two bedrooms, two and a half baths to four
21:57:58 bedrooms, three and a half baths, the units are to be
21:58:01 built by Lennar homes, similar to ones built in Pasco
21:58:03 County at meadow point, sell for approximately
21:58:07 After meeting with the citizens in the Sulphur Springs
21:58:11 action league, decided to have 24 hour on-site
21:58:14 property management. The property is being donated by
21:58:17 the church.
21:58:17 Currently the building on-site has been condemned.
21:58:20 Up to 20 units could be built on this site.
21:58:23 They are proposing 12 town homes and the clubhouse for
21:58:26 exclusive use of the residents.
21:58:28 We did work diligently on the site plan.
21:58:30 The town homes basically have two front faces towards
21:58:35 the play area where the large grand oak is and also to
21:58:38 provide for streetscape.
21:58:40 The amount of open space provided on this site is
21:58:42 triple the amount required by the code.
21:58:45 I did want to state that my clients met with the
21:58:47 Sulphur Springs action league.
21:58:49 During that process they discovered that the Sulphur
21:58:51 Springs action league didn't actually represent this
21:58:54 So they sent out 500 notices to people within a
21:58:57 quarter mile and had a meeting on-site to introduce
21:59:01 the neighbors to the property.
21:59:02 And one housekeeping item.
21:59:03 I have to state for the record that the landscaping
21:59:06 technical objection to the DUA opaque fence around the
21:59:10 louver rock parking area to Orange Avenue will be
21:59:14 We are here tonight to ask for your support.
21:59:18 I want to thank staff for their cooperation and help.
21:59:20 Thank you very much.
21:59:21 >> Anyone in the public want to speak on item 17?
21:59:26 Item 16, sorry.
21:59:27 Item 16.
21:59:30 >>> Morris Hensman, Metropolitan Ministries, North
21:59:34 Florida Avenue, and I have been sworn in.
21:59:39 This particular project is an exciting project,
21:59:42 because of what is so desperately needed in our
21:59:48 As many of you know, our mission is to young families,
21:59:51 to move into self-sufficiency.
21:59:54 Our treatment program is filled with 45 families, many
21:59:59 of whom are diligently moving onto self-sufficiency,
22:00:03 and once they get to that stage where they have a
22:00:07 vocational degree and a skill set, moving out into the
22:00:11 community is a very difficult effort for them in order
22:00:16 to find proper housing, as well as affordable housing.
22:00:21 We have another 30 to 40 single moms and their kids
22:00:25 waiting for a spot to come into our treatment program,
22:00:29 and they in turn would also have to begin to look for
22:00:32 a place to live that's affordable.
22:00:36 Every day, I hear the voices of the mothers saying,
22:00:40 how can my children and I be a part of
22:00:42 self-sufficiency, and have a job and a good place to
22:00:46 And so for 35 years, Metropolitan Ministries has been
22:00:49 committed to that and continues to be committed.
22:00:53 Most in this room are keenly aware of the desperate
22:00:57 need for affordable housing in our community.
22:01:00 Some kind of transitional housing that fits into the
22:01:03 coalition's continuum of care in order to get people
22:01:07 back into a stable situation.
22:01:11 It's a key to self-sufficiency to have a place to go
22:01:17 once you get back on your feet.
22:01:19 And so these townhouses are just that.
22:01:22 They are a place in which families can find a new
22:01:26 beginning, and a place where they can experiment
22:01:30 without the high rent, experiment what a real life
22:01:35 situation is again and take care of themselves.
22:01:37 One of the things I want to say about this is talk a
22:01:41 little bit about partnership.
22:01:43 This is not a usual situation.
22:01:45 This is not Metropolitan Ministries just going out and
22:01:50 deciding to build a facility.
22:01:52 This is a partnership that has been brought together
22:01:57 as a result of a group called home made, a national
22:02:02 nonprofit organization, that joins the hands of
22:02:05 communities all over the United States.
22:02:08 They are located in 25 cities across America, and I'm
22:02:13 proud to say that our relationship with them brings
22:02:16 them to Florida, the only city in the State of Florida
22:02:21 to partner, and to help make these kinds of projects
22:02:25 happen in the spirit of affordable housing.
22:02:27 Those partners -- and I'd like to just call those out
22:02:31 because this is not anything we could do on our own.
22:02:33 The United Methodist Church, Dr. Blumquist, district
22:02:39 superintendent is here.
22:02:40 He and the church donated this entire property for
22:02:42 this project.
22:02:44 Home made, with its 27 chapters across America, has
22:02:49 come in and working with the Tampa builders
22:02:54 And Joe Margowit is here and he is one that helped
22:03:00 bring this all together.
22:03:01 And what can I say about Robin Kessel from homemade
22:03:07 who is here tonight who helped us put this all
22:03:10 together and make sure some 12 families are going to
22:03:12 have affordable housing.
22:03:14 Lennar homes and Larry Teeble, the regional
22:03:19 vice-president who stepped up to be the first
22:03:21 vice-president of the homemade chapter here in Tampa
22:03:24 Under the leadership of bill Martin, the past
22:03:27 president, MAAP who is here stepping up to help build
22:03:30 this clubhouse. This is all volunteer activity.
22:03:33 And the homeless coalition, Rayme Nuckles and the
22:03:37 faith community, the City of Tampa, the staff, Jerome
22:03:40 Ryans of the housing authority, and Hillsborough
22:03:43 County for lending encouragement, guise guidance and
22:03:47 And then there's Liz Abernathy of Wilson Miller, Judy
22:03:51 names of Malloy and James, Mike Bening, Stewart and
22:03:55 Stewart, and the Board of Directors of Metropolitan
22:03:57 Ministries, and many in this room tonight, who are
22:04:00 generous donors to make sure that this project
22:04:05 So all of these are all volunteers, donating their
22:04:07 work pro bono, in order that this vision can come
22:04:10 alive for these young families in transition seeking
22:04:15 affordable housing.
22:04:16 In closing, I just want to say just think of the
22:04:19 families and the kids who will be helped forever.
22:04:22 Think about 12 young families bent on being
22:04:24 self-sufficient that they never realized could happen
22:04:27 to them, of being good neighbors with wonderful
22:04:30 neighbors, all contributing to make a great
22:04:33 neighborhood, and a positive life.
22:04:36 This project, called the sanctuary, affordable
22:04:38 housing, is for those -- those who need it the most.
22:04:44 Thank you.
22:04:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:04:57 >>> Good evening.
22:04:58 My name is Joe he have Robinson, and I have been
22:05:02 I live at 1521 east Mulberry drive in Sulphur Springs.
22:05:10 I do have quite a few people here that that want to
22:05:14 see this project go.
22:05:15 That's good.
22:05:17 While this program seems worthwhile, I am apprehensive
22:05:22 about what message will be sent if this variance is
22:05:26 Maybe this program will fit better in a more stable
22:05:30 For years, concerned residents have been trying to
22:05:32 change Sulfur Springs' image from a negative to a
22:05:37 When people hear the name Sulphur Springs, we do not
22:05:40 want them thinking drugs, crime, duplexes.
22:05:45 In the '90s the community stopped the building of
22:05:50 duplexes an if they were vacant for more than six
22:05:52 months they are to be converted to single-family
22:05:58 This was in the hope of stabilizing the community with
22:06:05 In the year 2000 the police department award add weed
22:06:09 and seed grant to rid the neighborhood of drugs and
22:06:12 other unwanted elements, and to restore -- restore
22:06:19 this neighborhood to restoration, prevention and
22:06:21 treatment and communication.
22:06:23 They have decreased crime and drug traffic.
22:06:27 With the help of solid waste and neat, the
22:06:30 neighborhood is a lot cleaner.
22:06:32 Because of these things, we are seeing the building of
22:06:35 many single-family homes and people having started to
22:06:38 fix up their properties.
22:06:41 57% of our population is rental.
22:06:45 This is Sulphur Springs.
22:06:47 62% of the residents that live in Sulphur Springs are
22:06:50 there only for five years.
22:06:56 The density for persons per square mile for Sulphur
22:06:59 Springs is 6,314.
22:07:03 Comparing the density of City of Tampa is 1,687.
22:07:08 Comparing the density of Hillsborough County, it's
22:07:15 We have over 2800 children with 800-plus children
22:07:20 attending Sulphur Springs elementary school.
22:07:22 They walk there.
22:07:26 This transit population of 52% causes problems for the
22:07:31 school teaching staff.
22:07:32 These children, one day they are in and the next day
22:07:35 they move.
22:07:36 The teachers don't know who is coming back.
22:07:42 It's so transient.
22:07:43 I have concerned about what they are going to do here.
22:07:47 How is this project different from rental duplexes?
22:07:50 These are just vertical.
22:07:55 There will be a guaranteed turnover every two years.
22:07:59 This is what they told us.
22:08:01 So it's a resolving door.
22:08:02 These students that they have and children that they
22:08:04 bring to this area, it's going to go to the Sulphur
22:08:11 Springs elementary school and be part of the resolving
22:08:16 The teachers will never know who is there.
22:08:18 They are going to turn these people over every two
22:08:25 How does this help stabilize this neighborhood?
22:08:27 (Bell sounds).
22:08:30 I'm sorry for the delay.
22:08:33 These persons need to be -- these questions need to be
22:08:38 My time is up.
22:08:40 I do respect the tame and thank you very much.
22:08:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Robinson, City Council is very
22:08:49 happy to see down here again.
22:08:51 You have been such a powerful spokesperson for Sulphur
22:08:53 Springs for so many years.
22:08:55 Thank you for your continued involvement and
22:08:58 This site, is this surrounded on either side and
22:09:03 across the street with residential uses or commercial
22:09:06 >>> Residential uses behind it.
22:09:09 And in front of it is the dog track.
22:09:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I really understand, you
22:09:13 know, what you're saying about the stability of the
22:09:16 But given the fact that the dog track, which is I
22:09:20 would consider a very commercial use, immediately
22:09:22 across the street, if you are going to have
22:09:24 multifamily, don't you think this would be a more
22:09:28 appropriate location for it than the heart of the
22:09:33 >>> Maybe so.
22:09:34 But there are single-family homes right there behind
22:09:37 They are putting up duplexes this way.
22:09:40 And the single-family homes are right behind it.
22:09:42 So that changes the whole complexion and may set a
22:09:47 precedent for other people to come up. This
22:09:48 neighborhood is -- it's prime for grant.
22:09:54 Anyone applying for a grant is showing up to get it
22:09:56 and if you set a precedent here now with doing this,
22:09:58 it's going to come again.
22:09:59 It's going to happen again.
22:10:00 This becomes a regular dumping ground to anyone that
22:10:03 wants to come up.
22:10:04 Even though they are good people.
22:10:05 It's not knocking them.
22:10:07 But the way they are doing in the this neighborhood is
22:10:08 not stable enough right now to accept something like
22:10:13 There are other neighborhoods that are better suited,
22:10:15 more stable, that can handle things like that.
22:10:17 Sulphur Springs has come out of the dumps.
22:10:20 And this is not going to help.
22:10:21 And the school system will suffer.
22:10:24 Because they are not going to stay.
22:10:28 We don't have a recreation center.
22:10:31 It was just taken out of the budget.
22:10:32 A library was just taken out of the budget.
22:10:34 Everything is going downhill.
22:10:36 Just taken out of the budget.
22:10:38 We were budged for all of this up until three months
22:10:43 Now it's gone.
22:10:46 We need some consideration.
22:10:48 Even though there are some worthwhile things, we need
22:10:54 more than what we have and we don't need to be -- even
22:11:02 though it's a good thing but it's a problem because we
22:11:04 don't have the wherewithal the change it.
22:11:07 We have a recreation center that hold 200.
22:11:09 200 children.
22:11:10 And we have 2800 children in Sulphur Springs.
22:11:17 It's really bad.
22:11:18 That recreation center needs to be built.
22:11:20 The library, they have to walk mails to a library.
22:11:23 How can they get educated with this high tech society?
22:11:28 No computers.
22:11:31 Three quarters don't even know what they are.
22:11:33 They hear about it but he they don't know what they
22:11:36 So that puts them that much further back in school.
22:11:39 Somewhere along the way we have to come up with
22:11:41 something that's going to work.
22:11:42 And another home like this, as good as it may be, is
22:11:46 not going to help Sulphur Springs.
22:11:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Robinson, I thank you for
22:11:53 coming down here. The budget has not been final.
22:12:02 >>> I heard directly from pat green, director.
22:12:05 The library is cut.
22:12:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: All right.
22:12:10 And the recreation, is that also the county or is that
22:12:12 the city?
22:12:13 >>> Well, that's the city.
22:12:14 But --
22:12:16 >> Did they tell that you was cut too?
22:12:18 >> They said it's just about on the chopping block.
22:12:20 >> I wouldn't courage you to talk to the mayor, okay?
22:12:22 Because it's got to come to this council before it's
22:12:26 You may hear in the newspaper or read in the newspaper
22:12:28 that it's cut.
22:12:29 But I encourage to you call the mayor's office to tell
22:12:33 them that you need that recreation facility.
22:12:36 You probably don't even have sidewalks there, correct?
22:12:39 >>> No, very few.
22:12:41 >> You need to call the administration and tell them
22:12:45 you want sidewalks and you want a recreation park
22:12:49 >>> That's been an ongoing battle, sir.
22:12:53 >> You have got to talk to them.
22:12:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:12:57 Next speaker.
22:13:08 >>> Mike Keller, north Mitchell Avenue.
22:13:10 I have been sworn in.
22:13:11 This neighborhood, of this proposed rezoning, is a
22:13:15 very defined, defined by the roads around it, no
22:13:24 access to the west, interstate 275.
22:13:26 There's no access north, because the park does not go
22:13:31 through the Yukon. The only access is to the east and
22:13:35 to the south.
22:13:39 If you go through this neighborhood you will find it's
22:13:41 pretty much completely built out and relatively small
22:13:45 But if you will notice you go by there now, three and
22:13:49 four cars in front of each of these houses.
22:13:51 We are maxed out on humanity in that neighborhood now.
22:13:57 Metropolitan Ministries is going to take a piece of
22:13:59 land that if zoned single-family would accommodate six
22:14:05 50 by 100 lots, six small houses.
22:14:09 I think their plan is to put as many as 24 adults and
22:14:12 perhaps as many as 50 children, shoe horned into this
22:14:15 already crowded neighborhood.
22:14:20 Further to exacerbates this, Tampa's busiest fire
22:14:23 house -- I don't know why this didn't come up in the
22:14:25 city review -- is to two blocks away in the middle of
22:14:28 this neighborhood, station number 7.
22:14:30 And all calls will have to go south right by this
22:14:34 I agree with what Joe is saying that this part of
22:14:38 Sulphur Springs west of Nebraska Avenue, we don't have
22:14:42 We feel like we have the seal of Seminole Heights
22:14:46 instead of Sulphur Springs.
22:14:48 We have homeowner-occupied houses there, a very stable
22:14:52 community, that people have been there for 20 and 30
22:14:55 years, a lot elderly.
22:14:57 They don't like the idea of the mother of all duplexes
22:15:02 landing in the middle of this community.
22:15:03 It's just going to ruin the stability that we now
22:15:07 And elderly people are very concerned about the
22:15:10 problem of at-risk children wondering the
22:15:18 Once you are in there you can't get out.
22:15:19 The kids won't be able to go over the interstate, go
22:15:24 through that west land of the dog track and they won't
22:15:27 be able to travel to the east side.
22:15:29 So whoever ends up in that neighborhood will stay in
22:15:31 that neighborhood.
22:15:34 Density is too high, and people coming in are very
22:15:37 I would like to think they are going to make model
22:15:40 citizens but these are people who have been homeless,
22:15:42 or are on the verge of homelessness.
22:15:44 As far as I'm concerned, they have crossed a line that
22:15:50 I am a little uncomfortable with.
22:15:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, I have a question.
22:15:54 This is immediately across the street from the dog
22:15:57 >> Correct.
22:15:58 >> What other kinds -- I mean, this isn't like in the
22:16:02 middle of the neighborhood surrounded by homes. This
22:16:04 is on the edge of a very commercial corridor, waters
22:16:08 at this point is very commercial.
22:16:09 >>> Yes.
22:16:10 >> Wouldn't you think that this would be an
22:16:11 appropriate location if you are going to do
22:16:14 multifamily to have an apartment complex like this?
22:16:18 >>> Well, it's just that again, this is already a
22:16:20 built-out neighborhood with access from only two
22:16:27 These kids have no place to play.
22:16:29 There are no activities around there.
22:16:34 Also run-off.
22:16:34 If you look at the area map it's nothing but a sea of
22:16:37 concrete and this project all the way down to the
22:16:39 Hillsborough River.
22:16:41 There's dog track parking lot, Waters Avenue, another
22:16:45 parking lot that serves as a full-time residents for
22:16:49 six or seven homeless people that live in N their cars
22:16:52 and then the river.
22:16:53 Metropolitan Ministries plan is to make their lot even
22:16:55 less permeable than it is now.
22:16:58 Thus adding to the stormwater run-off.
22:17:00 And that's a big issue with the city.
22:17:02 This council back in the beginning of May set a
22:17:04 precedent for unpopular town home projects and
22:17:10 residential neighborhoods.
22:17:14 I'm hoping we can get the same respect in Sulphur
22:17:16 Springs that you gave the people in East Tampa.
22:17:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:17:21 Next speaker.
22:17:27 >>> My name is Mac McNeil and I lived in Sulphur
22:17:31 Springs since '69 and I used to I have been involved
22:17:37 in the neighborhood.
22:17:38 And it was a quiet, lovely little neighborhood.
22:17:42 And I fell in love.
22:17:43 Sulphur Springs reminds me of the flowers that try to
22:17:49 grow between the sidewalks and the big towns, New
22:17:52 York, Boston.
22:17:53 And they get stepped on again and again.
22:17:56 And this has happened.
22:17:57 You cannot ask any neighborhood to support the hurt
22:18:04 and injured people that we have trade to support over
22:18:06 the years.
22:18:09 Did you know that not too long ago Sulphur Springs was
22:18:13 listed as the worst neighborhood in the United States
22:18:15 to raise a child?
22:18:18 The newspapers said that, the Tampa Tribune.
22:18:21 We have made progress.
22:18:24 And I do not belong to the Sulphur Springs action
22:18:29 They have done great work over the years.
22:18:31 I have been in and out and they have done great work.
22:18:33 I ran my office out of Sulphur Springs for years.
22:18:36 I have seen the duplexes and the crimes come in and
22:18:41 the disaster that this caused.
22:18:43 I am glad we are taking care of the trees.
22:18:48 That's wonderful.
22:18:48 I'm all for trees.
22:18:50 But the children come first.
22:18:53 We have more children in that neighborhood than you
22:18:57 would care.
22:18:57 This is a wonderful project.
22:18:59 I congratulate you on it.
22:19:01 It's a wonderful project.
22:19:02 It's a project that needs to be done.
22:19:05 The plan is great.
22:19:10 The area is not.
22:19:11 It is not an area of nothing but commercial.
22:19:16 I have been to look at this property twice.
22:19:17 It is not an area that's nothing but commercial.
22:19:23 There are one family homes all over the place.
22:19:26 We know now that a child is raised by the neighborhood
22:19:31 and I'm old enough to know neighborhoods and this is
22:19:34 what Sulphur Springs needs.
22:19:35 I urge you to encourage this plan.
22:19:38 I am all for the it and will do anything to help you.
22:19:42 God knows I love to talk.
22:19:45 I urge you to put this project, a wonderful project.
22:19:53 Duplexes and the quads, the state, the government come
22:19:57 in, and it was taken over by businessmen, and lawyers,
22:20:02 and it was a disaster who helped to destroy that
22:20:10 I ask you now, Sulphur Springs needs a fighting
22:20:16 We ask you for that help.
22:20:18 Thank you.
22:20:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt you but for
22:20:20 the record were you sworn in?
22:20:22 >>> No.
22:20:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You were not sworn in?
22:20:25 >>> No.
22:20:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
22:20:26 Mr. Clerk.
22:20:27 Did you want to ask, Madam Chair, if there's anyone
22:20:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that came in to speak that needs
22:20:33 to be sworn in.
22:20:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ma'am, would you come back?
22:20:36 Anybody else who is going to be speaking or came in
22:20:38 late, any of the remaining petitioners that have not
22:20:40 been sworn, would you please stand and raise your
22:20:42 right hand?
22:20:43 Ma'am, would you do that, too, please?
22:20:45 (Oath administered by Clerk)
22:20:50 Sorry to do that to you.
22:20:51 Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who came in
22:20:53 late, council rules require that you affirm on the
22:20:56 record that you have been sworn.
22:20:57 I ask you if you do that when you state your name.
22:20:59 There's a sign that will remind you.
22:21:01 Thank you.
22:21:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
22:21:12 >>> Good evening.
22:21:13 Joseph Narquis, Tampa builders association, Kennedy
22:21:19 Boulevard, yes, I have been sworn, thank you very
22:21:24 We looked at this project from the builders
22:21:26 association standpoint, and we were looking for
22:21:29 something that we could do to help alleviate the
22:21:33 demand, the need for affordable housing.
22:21:35 And in so far as looking at what could be done, we
22:21:38 wanted to try to do something that had more meaning
22:21:40 than just building straight affordable housing.
22:21:44 With Metropolitan Ministries, good track record, and
22:21:47 with the home made America stepping forward, MAAP,
22:21:55 everyone else stepping forward, we thought this could
22:21:57 be something that could perhaps have a positive impact
22:22:01 on the neighborhood.
22:22:02 And we viewed it T glass as being half full rather
22:22:08 than seeing the develop for a garage or convenience
22:22:12 store, or some other type of use.
22:22:14 We view this.
22:22:15 This could be a good transitional use from the dog
22:22:18 track into the residential neighborhood, serve as a
22:22:21 good use buffer and with the $2 million project on a
22:22:24 particular area, perhaps could set a trend that would
22:22:28 perhaps take hold and help develop the area into
22:22:32 something more than what it is now.
22:22:36 In these redevelopment areas you are always looking
22:22:38 for this project that will hopefully start a trend.
22:22:42 When you are putting a $2 million town home project
22:22:44 under the auspices of Metropolitan Ministries, we feel
22:22:47 that's something, a project that the builders
22:22:49 association can be proud to be part of.
22:22:51 Thank you very much.
22:22:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:22:57 >>> Randy baron, 217 west Comanche eve Avenue.
22:23:01 I have been sworn.
22:23:02 Old Seminole Heights is the neighborhood directly to
22:23:04 the south of Sulphur Springs.
22:23:07 I wasn't going to speak tonight because this is a very
22:23:09 tough decision. This is a wonderful, marvelous
22:23:11 project and we all know that we need affordable
22:23:13 housing in Tampa.
22:23:14 But what we also need to do is we need to save our
22:23:18 And I heard the previous gentlemen talk about
22:23:25 This is about a neighborhood, Sulphur Springs, trying
22:23:28 to pull's up from its bootstraps.
22:23:31 When you think about Sulphur Springs in the real world
22:23:33 you think about duplexes, you think about drugs, you
22:23:36 think about crime.
22:23:37 And this project, as good as it is, belongs somewhere
22:23:41 We don't hear about these projects happening in Hyde
22:23:43 We don't hear about these hide parks in Virginia park.
22:23:46 We hear about them happening in Old Seminole Heights
22:23:49 and we hear about them happening in Sulphur Springs.
22:23:52 We need to figure out a way to distribute the social
22:23:54 services, because right now, Sulphur Springs, like the
22:23:57 previous woman stated, is saturated with social
22:24:02 So I would ask that council consider this and
22:24:05 understand that a neighborhood needs some foundation.
22:24:09 A neighborhood cannot support constantly being the
22:24:11 recipient of additional social service, no matter how
22:24:14 good this project is, and it is a marvelous project,
22:24:17 and I have to thank everyone for putting this
22:24:20 But let's think about putting these kinds of projects
22:24:22 in an area that can better absorb it.
22:24:25 Thank you.
22:24:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
22:24:35 >>> Larry Peebles, Lennar homes, 600 North Westshore,
22:24:41 suite 600, Tampa 33609.
22:24:45 Regional vice-president for Lennar homes, and
22:24:47 currently the president of the new homemade chapter in
22:24:52 Tampa, and Kuwait proud to be so.
22:24:55 Lennar has supported homemade in its various endeavors
22:24:58 all across the nation.
22:25:00 And locally, Lennar homes and the Lennar foundation
22:25:03 have been big supporters and big fans of Metropolitan
22:25:05 Ministries, as I'm sure many of the people in the room
22:25:08 are tonight.
22:25:10 I would just say that our commitment to this project
22:25:14 is to act as builder captain, which means we will take
22:25:18 responsibility for building these town homes.
22:25:22 These town homes come right out of our inventory of
22:25:25 quality homes that we build all over Hillsborough
22:25:27 County and Pasco County and beyond, and contain normal
22:25:33 and usual high level of finishes that the term
22:25:38 affordable housing has used are not inexpensive to
22:25:42 I think Metropolitan Ministries was quite pleased when
22:25:45 we walked them through a model of these town homes in
22:25:49 Pasco County.
22:25:50 I think they were more than amazed at the level of
22:25:53 finish in these homes.
22:25:54 So these are not inexpensive town homes.
22:25:58 It does seem to me as a 20-year developer in this
22:26:01 community that this is a good location for these from
22:26:05 a transitional standpoint.
22:26:08 I think we would all realize that single-family homes
22:26:12 most likely will not be built facing Waters Avenue and
22:26:15 the dog racetrack parking lot.
22:26:19 And, in fact, the front half of this property is zoned
22:26:22 for much more intense commercial uses, and you saw the
22:26:26 photographs of not only the parking lot but the auto
22:26:28 repair place to the west.
22:26:31 We do not want to do crossroads with the neighborhood
22:26:36 but it does seem to be a logical transitional use and
22:26:38 this is not an inexpensive project.
22:26:41 There are a lot of community leaders that have come
22:26:44 together to try to make this a dream, a reality for
22:26:49 Morris Hensman and Metropolitan Ministries.
22:26:53 We are proud to be associated with it and we thank you
22:26:55 for your consideration.
22:26:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
22:26:58 >>> I was.
22:26:59 I'm sorry, I didn't say that.
22:27:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's all right.
22:27:08 >>> Bill Martin.
22:27:09 I'm the MAAP representative on this project, and, yes,
22:27:13 I have been sworn in.
22:27:15 MAAP's relationship with Metropolitan Ministries goes
22:27:19 back a number of years.
22:27:20 We helped them with their campus and the one thing we
22:27:22 do every year is we help them get their tent built for
22:27:26 the holiday to feed some 10,000 families during
22:27:30 Thanksgiving, then it turns over into a Christmas
22:27:33 tent, and they provide toys and services for some 12
22:27:36 to 15,000 families over Christmas.
22:27:39 The operation of MAAP, and getting involved in this,
22:27:44 on a state level and national level, one of the things
22:27:47 that is challenging, that Tampa areas as well as any
22:27:49 other areas of affordable housing.
22:27:51 That's a hot topic.
22:27:52 And it's not just for people that can't afford it.
22:27:55 It's for people that are coming in to an industry to
22:27:58 actually work.
22:27:59 So where do you do affordable housing?
22:28:02 You do affordable housing where it makes sense, where
22:28:05 you have an opportunity to do this.
22:28:07 This is a tremendous opportunity, I think, for not
22:28:10 only MAAP and the home builders but also home made,
22:28:13 which is a national organization, has chosen Tampa and
22:28:16 chosen Metropolitan Ministries to do this project.
22:28:22 I don't want Tampa to stub their toe.
22:28:25 I can't look, you know, in another area where you have
22:28:29 taken what could be commercial zoning, allow a
22:28:34 convenience store.
22:28:35 You could put more density than we are putting in now.
22:28:40 We have got some three times the amount of green space
22:28:42 that you need.
22:28:43 We are saving all of the historic trees on that site
22:28:46 and putting this on two, two and a half million dollar
22:28:50 project here that will allow families to make -- to
22:28:53 have that transition so that they get back into the
22:28:58 I mean, these are people that have worked hard to get
22:29:01 where they are.
22:29:05 They have trained.
22:29:05 And obviously their next step to have a chance in
22:29:08 But it's also Tampa's next step.
22:29:10 Because a lot of people are looking to see how Tampa
22:29:12 does with this.
22:29:13 And this is just a start of one project, that homemade
22:29:17 is going to be involved in.
22:29:18 So how better to address, you know, the idea of
22:29:21 affordable housing than to partner both public-private
22:29:26 and with such an organization as homemade and
22:29:29 Metropolitan Ministries, to get a site donated from a
22:29:32 church, where the easiest thing for them to do is flip
22:29:35 it over and turn it into a convenience store and make
22:29:38 a heck of a lot more money for the church than they
22:29:41 would donating it.
22:29:42 But all these people have chosen this site, and this
22:29:45 area, to make a statement about how you do things
22:29:48 right in Tampa.
22:29:50 And I understand the citizens concern.
22:29:52 But if we were sticking this in the middle of their
22:29:55 neighborhood I would probably be right up here with
22:29:57 them saying it didn't make sense.
22:29:59 But we are putting it on a commercial area, to
22:30:04 actually transition them from looking across the
22:30:07 parking lot of a dog track and abandoned parking lot
22:30:10 and put a nice project here for families that when
22:30:13 they come out of here, they may well be the families
22:30:16 that go buy those single family house was their new
22:30:19 families in the Sulphur Springs area, because that's
22:30:21 their next step is to become a single homeowner.
22:30:25 Thank you.
22:30:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
22:30:31 >>> Jerome lands.
22:30:32 I have been sworn in.
22:30:33 And I am also the Executive Director of the housing
22:30:35 authority along with serving as a board member of
22:30:38 Metropolitan Ministries.
22:30:39 You know, while I'm sensitive to the concerns and the
22:30:42 issues affecting all of our community, I think it's
22:30:46 one of those rare opportunities where we have an
22:30:48 opportunity to provide some good housing.
22:30:50 I'm not necessarily -- I don't necessarily support
22:30:53 everybody in this business of affordable housing.
22:30:55 But I think that when you talk about Metropolitan
22:30:58 Ministries I think that says a mouthful.
22:31:01 These guys have been in business for over 35 years and
22:31:03 they do a tremendous job in this community.
22:31:05 And if I wanted someone to manage properties in the
22:31:07 community, I would rather have somebody like
22:31:09 Metropolitan Ministries managing these properties for
22:31:12 very obvious reasons.
22:31:13 They know what they are doing and they are treating
22:31:14 the same population that we are treating.
22:31:17 I think one of the problems that we have in this
22:31:19 community is affordable housing.
22:31:20 I think it's a major I shall knew this community.
22:31:22 But I also think when you have an opportunity to do a
22:31:25 project like this, in terms of the -- not only does
22:31:27 Vermont a positive impact on the community but also
22:31:29 has a positive impact on the land itself, and the tax
22:31:33 structure in this community.
22:31:34 It's unusual to find someone that's willing to build
22:31:37 this type of a project in a neighborhood like this.
22:31:39 And I understand the sensitivity of how the issues
22:31:43 affect the community like this.
22:31:44 But I think overall, you know, I think the community
22:31:47 couldn't do any better than Metropolitan Ministries.
22:31:49 And that's where I am with it.
22:31:52 And I think also, too, as we begin to look at the
22:31:55 community as a whole, when you look at land costs in
22:31:57 this community, it's only a few places in this
22:31:59 community you can build affordable housing.
22:32:02 We can also change the value if you build good solid
22:32:04 affordable housing.
22:32:05 And I think that's what's getting ready to happen in
22:32:08 this case.
22:32:08 So I would encourage to you support this project
22:32:10 because we do need affordable housing in this
22:32:12 community, as much as we can get.
22:32:13 Not only affordable housing.
22:32:15 We need any kind of housing that will allow people in
22:32:17 those kinds of circumstances including the people that
22:32:19 we serve the opportunity to own their ohm home and
22:32:24 live in a place.
22:32:25 I would support this project.
22:32:26 And I will continue to support this project.
22:32:27 One of the things that I think is so important about
22:32:29 this, and you talk about Metropolitan Ministries,
22:32:32 because we do have a linkage and relationship with
22:32:34 Metropolitan Ministries.
22:32:35 I have looked at their programs.
22:32:36 I see the things they are able to do in this community
22:32:38 and the positive impact they have on this community.
22:32:40 So I really believe that if the council -- that the
22:32:44 council sees fit to support this project I don't think
22:32:47 you can go wrong.
22:32:48 I think you have the right people managing and
22:32:50 developing the project.
22:32:50 Thank you.
22:32:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
22:32:53 Petitioner, would you like rebuttal?
22:33:00 >>> Council members, I want you to think about the
22:33:01 purpose of this project.
22:33:02 It was to bring people that were formerly homeless
22:33:05 into an environment where they learn the skills to own
22:33:08 a home and how to manage it.
22:33:10 That's exactly what we are doing.
22:33:11 One of the things we talked about as we met as a team
22:33:15 to go over this project is we are bringing new
22:33:18 homeowners to the neighborhood.
22:33:19 One of the gentlemen that spoke to that, visited our
22:33:24 project for several years and acquired the skills,
22:33:26 they are most likely to be the new Homer in Sulphur
22:33:28 Springs. If you look at our surrounding areas,
22:33:32 something on the Elmo here, this shows our property
22:33:37 Everything in pink is commercial around this.
22:33:39 Not even talking about the dog track.
22:33:41 The orange highlights every property around it is a
22:33:45 rental property so there are rental properties
22:33:46 surround this with the commercial.
22:33:49 If you look at the zoning map, talk about the
22:33:51 transition areas, we have multifamily zoning, but the
22:33:59 family across the street back in that residential area
22:34:05 for multifamily.
22:34:06 Lou at your comp plan.
22:34:07 Again, this is not in the residential area.
22:34:10 We have the CMU 35.
22:34:13 We have the R-10.
22:34:17 Then we have a highway commercial district.
22:34:19 So this is a transitioned area on the periphery.
22:34:22 We believe that the town homes will be a good
22:34:29 Much higher quality going in at the moment.
22:34:31 The new construction that we can do, and we ask for
22:34:34 your approval.
22:34:35 Thanks very much.
22:34:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a couple of questions about
22:34:38 the perimeter buffering.
22:34:42 It says things like hedge, or proposed hedge.
22:34:47 I'm particularly interested to the north of the
22:34:50 property, between this development and the residential
22:34:54 uses to the north, and also on the side.
22:34:59 What kind of -- what will it look like?
22:35:02 What kind of hedge?
22:35:03 How high?
22:35:04 Is there any kind of solid fence?
22:35:06 What is it going to be?
22:35:09 >>> Rose Abernathy with Wilson Miller, and I have been
22:35:13 sworn in.
22:35:16 The buffering, the vision for what's around the
22:35:19 perimeter is basically an open wrought iron type
22:35:23 looking fence material that will allow kind of an open
22:35:28 view to the unit.
22:35:29 So it won't feel -- let me restate that -- so it will
22:35:35 feel the homes are part of the neighborhood.
22:35:40 We have taken great strides to maintain the tree can
22:35:44 open think, and it's really almost a park-like
22:35:47 setting. The playground area at the northeast corner
22:35:50 of the site has beautiful live oaks as well as a
22:35:54 number of oaks along the street, which provides some
22:35:58 natural landscaping along the east side of the
22:36:03 We will be planning on planting hedges, and probably
22:36:08 be the typical two-foot high planting.
22:36:13 I would imagine -- and we can bring them up if
22:36:18 necessary -- that they will keep those trimmed to the
22:36:20 level which again won't shut the project out from the
22:36:25 neighborhood, and be able to be very open to the
22:36:28 And that's basically kind of the plan for buffering.
22:36:32 And they also do some materials also to bring a little
22:36:37 more green to the site.
22:36:39 With the existing canopy there now, it does have a lot
22:36:42 of landscaping and beautiful property.
22:36:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?
22:36:51 We need to close the public hearing.
22:36:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Move to close the public hearing.
22:36:55 >> Second.
22:36:55 (Motion carried).
22:36:57 >>MARY MULHERN: I would love to see something like
22:37:05 this be presented to another neighborhood.
22:37:09 And I know we have got another big hearing coming up.
22:37:12 So maybe they could find room in their rezoning where
22:37:17 they are going to ask for all this density for some
22:37:20 transition will a housing but that's probably not
22:37:22 going to happen.
22:37:23 And I'm sensitive to what the neighborhood is wanting
22:37:30 to bring this up to be a better neighborhood.
22:37:34 But I really have a sense that, you know, maybe these
22:37:39 homeless families that need somewhere to go, to
22:37:43 transition back to a home, were living in a
22:37:48 neighborhood like this.
22:37:49 But now, they are to the point where they have nowhere
22:37:52 to live at all.
22:37:55 So I'm sensitive to that but I just feel like this is
22:37:58 a gift the church is giving them this land, and all
22:38:00 these people are willing to donate their time and
22:38:05 their energy and their money.
22:38:07 And I just think we have got to do what's right for
22:38:11 these people who need our help more than anybody else.
22:38:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I support this project.
22:38:17 I think it's a great thing.
22:38:21 The builders association, everybody affiliated with
22:38:25 People need a new start in life.
22:38:27 And I think this is a great opportunity.
22:38:29 Especially the fact that it's facing the dog track,
22:38:33 like they said, it could be a convenience for or
22:38:36 automobile place or any one of those businesses.
22:38:39 I think it's a great, great thing for the city, also.
22:38:42 Thank you.
22:38:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance?
22:38:49 Ms. Mulhern, would you like to read that?
22:38:51 >>MARY MULHERN: I move to adopt an ordinance on first
22:38:55 reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
22:38:59 vicinity of 708 and 750 east Waters Avenue in the city
22:39:02 of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
22:39:05 section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
22:39:09 residential single family and CG commercial general to
22:39:12 PD, planned development single family attached with
22:39:15 residence clubhouse providing an effective date.
22:39:19 >> Second.
22:39:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
22:39:20 Question on the motion, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
22:39:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
22:39:25 Most petitions aren't that complex.
22:39:27 This one is really difficult.
22:39:28 Because we have an extremely important use proposed.
22:39:32 And we have an extremely vigilant neighborhood who has
22:39:35 worked so hard to improve things.
22:39:37 And my decision, I just want to share, it's very
22:39:44 The gentleman in the neighborhood brought up the
22:39:47 neighborhood in East Tampa where we didn't allow the
22:39:49 density in the middle of a neighborhood.
22:39:51 But that was in the middle of the neighborhood.
22:39:53 I see the site as being on the periphery, not in the
22:39:57 It's on the edge.
22:39:58 It's fronting waters.
22:40:00 It's fronting the dog track.
22:40:01 It's going to be buffered.
22:40:02 It's going to have a site with some really mature
22:40:05 I think it will give it a softness that will help it
22:40:09 blend in and I think it will be a decent quality
22:40:12 It's a difficult call.
22:40:13 I'm going to support it.
22:40:15 But I pledge -- and I know the other council members
22:40:18 will pledge -- to not say, oh, well, let's put five
22:40:21 more uses like this in Sulphur Springs.
22:40:24 Because that wouldn't be fair to you all, for all the
22:40:26 hard work that you into upgrading Sulphur Springs.
22:40:29 I was on council when we undid the duplexes which were
22:40:33 a terrible decision in the mid '60s.
22:40:36 I'm going to support this but this will be a unique
22:40:40 >> We have a motion and second.
22:40:41 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
22:40:42 Opposed, Nay.
22:40:44 (Motion carried)
22:40:44 Item 17 is continued public hearing.
22:40:49 >>PHIL SCHULZ: Yes, Madam Chairman.
22:40:51 Item 17 is V 07-19 in district 6, Old Seminole Heights
22:40:55 neighborhood association.
22:40:56 Seminole Heights overlay district.
22:40:59 6501 north Nebraska Avenue.
22:41:04 John and Calvin Presbyterian church is the petitioner.
22:41:08 The development review committee reviewed the petition
22:41:10 and has no objections to the request based on revised
22:41:13 site plan submitted on 6-4-07.
22:41:15 Council did review this previous to this.
22:41:20 It was continued from 5-24-07.
22:41:24 In the effort to be shorter, at the direction of City
22:41:28 Council, petitioner made all the changes as requested
22:41:31 for DRC.
22:41:33 And if you don't have any other questions, I'll let
22:41:36 Mr. Garcia proceed with his presentation.
22:41:45 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
22:41:47 I plan to be just about as concise as Mr. Shultz was.
22:41:54 Located in Old Seminole Heights area so we have
22:41:56 another church in the Old Seminole Heights area
22:41:58 Daytona tonight.
22:41:59 Two in the same neighborhood.
22:42:00 That's kind of rare.
22:42:01 Same use.
22:42:03 24 residential 10.
22:42:05 Basically have an existing church here.
22:42:08 This is Calvin Presbyterian church and it's to expand
22:42:14 the use of a daycare center which will serve the use
22:42:18 of the surrounding community.
22:42:19 Planning Commission has no objections to the proposed
22:42:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
22:42:31 >>> David Fukes, and I have been sworn, I'm with the
22:42:34 engineering firm of Fukes engineering, here to
22:42:38 represent the petitioner.
22:42:39 We agree with the staff findings.
22:42:42 I would like to talk to you about a couple issues that
22:42:44 have come up in the neighborhood.
22:42:47 And with me tonight, I have three representatives of
22:42:50 the daycare and church.
22:42:52 First I would like to introduce reverend Earl Smith,
22:42:56 the pastor of John Calvin Presbyterian church.
22:43:05 >>> I have been sworn.
22:43:06 I'm Earl Smith, pastor of John Calvin Presbyterian
22:43:09 church, 6501 north Nebraska Avenue.
22:43:12 And I also serve as the pastor of St. John
22:43:15 Presbyterian church which is located in West Tampa on
22:43:18 MacDill Avenue.
22:43:19 I want to show you something about the nature of John
22:43:22 Calvin Presbyterian church, because it's a little
22:43:25 unique and a little unusual.
22:43:27 And I think it would help you tonight.
22:43:31 It was founded over 50 years ago when Tampa Heights
22:43:34 Presbyterian church in north Tampa Presbyterian church
22:43:37 came together to build a church on this particular
22:43:41 Originally it was a fairly large congregation with
22:43:45 lots of things going on.
22:43:46 But over the years, as inner city churches do, it has
22:43:52 riddled in size of the congregation itself.
22:43:55 It continues to be a very active community ministry
22:43:58 and outreach to the community and providing services
22:44:00 for our neighborhood.
22:44:04 The building that we are asking -- that we are
22:44:07 planning to use for the learning center that we are
22:44:11 going to build there was the home for the Tampa A's
22:44:17 network, where it got started before it got too big
22:44:20 for the facility and moved to another place N.more
22:44:23 recent times, the church of the resurrection which was
22:44:29 a spinoff of St. Mary's Episcopal church in Tampa used
22:44:32 that facility and used our sanctuary.
22:44:35 We shared it with them for two years, and they left
22:44:37 our facility to move to their own place on North
22:44:40 Florida Avenue about a year ago.
22:44:43 And that building is not being used for anything.
22:44:49 But we are sharing our facilities with other Christian
22:44:51 congregations, and fellowships, charity fellowship
22:44:56 international is in our church two evenings a week on
22:44:59 Tuesdays and Thursday evenings.
22:45:02 It's an African-American evangelical group.
22:45:06 And they also use our sanctuary on Sunday when we
22:45:10 leave there, services from 9:30 to 10:30 and use our
22:45:14 sanctuary from 11:30 till late in the afternoon around
22:45:18 And we are currently also sharing the facility with a
22:45:22 church of God and Christ group that uses the sanctuary
22:45:26 on Sunday evenings and also has a Bible study on
22:45:30 Wednesday evenings.
22:45:31 And we have had a 7th Day Adventist Hispanic
22:45:35 congregation that use our facilities on Saturdays.
22:45:40 It's a congregation of almost 100 people with lots of
22:45:42 children, there from about 9:00 in the morning till
22:45:47 about 5:00 in the evening and they serve lunch to
22:45:49 their folks there either using our facilities in the
22:45:56 basement, or using picnic tables in the yard.
22:46:02 And the other thing that we do, which we have
22:46:05 historically done, anyone in our city who has any
22:46:10 problems with drug abuse or alcohol abuse addiction
22:46:15 and is looking for a place to get help has
22:46:18 historically gone to John Calvin Presbyterian church
22:46:22 has been provided space for AA meetings for almost
22:46:26 this entire time.
22:46:29 For a long time, longer than anyone else in our city.
22:46:34 We currently have an AA group every morning from 7:00
22:46:39 to 8:30 seven days a week.
22:46:41 There's an NA group that meets every evening except
22:46:44 for Wednesdays.
22:46:45 We are the only place, I think, that you can find in
22:46:47 Tampa, teenage NA group that meets on Monday nights.
22:46:53 My contact person for that group is a teenage girl,
22:46:56 who I can't share her name with you, but a wonderful
22:46:59 young lady.
22:47:01 What I am trying to tell you all of this is because
22:47:04 for 50 years now we have been providing ministry and
22:47:09 outreach to people, family with children, all of these
22:47:12 groups come with children and we encourage them to
22:47:14 bring their children there.
22:47:15 And so this is a place where families with children
22:47:20 normally gather on a regular basis, and it has for 50
22:47:25 years now.
22:47:29 I want to thank the city for working in partnership
22:47:31 with us, with the crime watch, the Seminole Heights
22:47:36 crime watch folks, Hillsborough organization for
22:47:40 progress and equality, because in partnership the
22:47:43 three of us have been able to get rid of most all the
22:47:48 prostitutes that used to hang out right there in front
22:47:52 of our church.
22:47:53 I have been there for six behalf years now.
22:47:56 When I first came there, this was a serious problem.
22:47:58 And I want to thank the city because they have helped
22:48:02 us in this process, along with the neighborhood
22:48:04 association, of getting rid of these folks, the
22:48:08 prostitutes and the people who -- sexual offenders
22:48:13 from our community.
22:48:16 Do you have any questions you would like to ask me?
22:48:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You obviously are the best person
22:48:21 at scheduling that I have about ever heard.
22:48:28 You are so open in sharing it with such a variety of
22:48:33 groups and congregations in the community.
22:48:35 I think that's just great.
22:48:37 >>> Thank you very much.
22:48:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
22:48:39 wants to speak on item number 17?
22:48:45 Let's see if we have any opposition.
22:48:48 Got opposition?
22:48:52 We have some opposition.
22:48:57 >>> Next we have B. drier, the chairman of the John
22:48:59 Calvin daycare to explain the operation of the
22:49:09 >>> My name is Bea drier.
22:49:12 I'm here as board president of St. John Presbyterian
22:49:15 learning center.
22:49:16 We take care of children in underserved neighborhoods.
22:49:21 Most of our students are from West Tampa.
22:49:23 We are located on the property of St. Johns
22:49:26 Presbyterian church at 4110 north MacDill Avenue.
22:49:30 We serve 100 children, and we give all of our students
22:49:39 who qualify scholarships to attend because families
22:49:42 can't afford quality early education for their
22:49:45 We take care of 3, 4 and 5-year-old children.
22:49:50 It's a wonderful program.
22:49:51 We have a family literacy program.
22:49:53 Most of our students who graduate from the learning
22:49:56 center going to Tampa Bay school up on Tampa Bay
22:50:01 And go to kindergarten.
22:50:04 The majority of them are higher level grades and it's
22:50:10 a wonderful place.
22:50:12 Three years ago we raised $500,000 to build a new
22:50:15 building for the learning center.
22:50:17 And I wish you all could see it.
22:50:19 It's wonderful.
22:50:21 We want to build a second site.
22:50:26 We have been given space by John Calvin Presbyterian
22:50:28 church to renovate that space and bring it up to cold
22:50:33 for preschool.
22:50:33 And we could accommodate 50 children from that
22:50:36 underserved neighborhood as well.
22:50:39 I know we would make a very positive impact on the
22:50:42 It would be a great improvement for all those working
22:50:46 for the single parents, and families alike.
22:50:50 And we are accredited.
22:50:54 We have a great curriculum.
22:50:56 We offer anything in our family literacy program that
22:51:02 the families and children might need, such as ESOL
22:51:06 classes and G.E.D. class classes, parenting skills
22:51:10 classes, whatever it is they need.
22:51:12 We ask them, and we provide that for them.
22:51:17 We are currently undergoing a capital campaign.
22:51:20 We need 470,000 to renovate the space to accommodate
22:51:25 15 more children at the second site.
22:51:27 We have raised over $300,000 so we have about 106 or
22:51:33 $70,000 to go and most of this money has come from the
22:51:36 private sector.
22:51:40 It's a great school.
22:51:41 I don't know what else to say.
22:51:43 If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.
22:51:46 Thank you.
22:51:50 >>> The next representative is MINA Morgan to talk Mr.
22:51:54 An issue with neighbors to the north.
22:52:02 >>> Good evening.
22:52:02 I'll keep it short.
22:52:04 I know the hour is late.
22:52:05 My name is MINA Morgan.
22:52:08 I live at Clifton street in Seminole Heights.
22:52:11 I have lived in Seminole Heights for a little over 30
22:52:13 years now.
22:52:15 The issue with the neighbor to the immediate north
22:52:20 appears to be the neighbor is leasing apartments to
22:52:27 sex offenders and to registered sexual predators.
22:52:36 Our sign has been up for, I believe, reverend submit
22:52:39 can verify, at least five months stating that we want
22:52:42 to put the learning center on this site.
22:52:44 So the neighbor to the north has been on notice that
22:52:47 that was the intent, the intended use of the property
22:52:51 by the church for at least that long.
22:52:53 And yet he continued to sign leases with sexual
22:52:56 predators, and with persons who are on probation for
22:53:00 sex offenses.
22:53:01 I believe that the church can properly deal with the
22:53:04 safety issues there.
22:53:06 I have been a criminal defense lawyer for 30 years,
22:53:09 and it's going to be our intention to check everyone
22:53:11 who is registered at that property.
22:53:16 I can get access through the public records to
22:53:18 determine what type of offenses they did commit.
22:53:21 And I can stay on the probation office to make sure
22:53:24 that if there are any infractions that they will be
22:53:28 enforced and that violations will be filed.
22:53:30 And I do have faith in the Hillsborough County judges,
22:53:33 if there are any problems, that they will not allow
22:53:38 anyone to continue to live next to the daycare center.
22:53:40 I believe that arguably, these particular individuals
22:53:44 would already be barred from living at that site
22:53:48 because we are well within a thousand yards of them.
22:53:53 And John Calvin has been used as a place where
22:53:57 children regularly congregate for a number of years.
22:54:02 And the statute language is rather broad.
22:54:06 I'm sure you are familiar because I know the city and
22:54:08 county have both entertained reducing or expanding the
22:54:12 thousand feet restriction for sexual offenders.
22:54:16 And I'm just here to answer any questions that the
22:54:19 council might have about that concern and the concerns
22:54:22 of the safety of our children.
22:54:31 >>> I have one last item.
22:54:33 We have read the staff report.
22:54:34 We are in agreement with their findings.
22:54:36 However, during the negotiations on the site plan, an
22:54:38 issue came up with sidewalks that I want to bring to
22:54:40 your attention and ask for some relief.
22:54:53 The staff has made a determination on the north side,
22:54:55 a that a sidewalk is not practical.
22:55:01 That street was platted as a street.
22:55:03 It really functions as an alley.
22:55:05 It's a 25-foot right-of-way.
22:55:07 The pavement width is about 12 feet wide.
22:55:11 And there's several large oak trees on our side of
22:55:18 that road that would preclude building a sidewalk on
22:55:23 our side.
22:55:24 On the north side it's basically a parking lot and
22:55:27 And the staff has rightfully determined there's in a
22:55:30 room for a sidewalk.
22:55:31 However, asked us to make contribution of $13,000 to
22:55:37 the overall sidewalk improvement fund.
22:55:39 And as you heard from Bea earlier in the presentation
22:55:43 all the funds to construct this facility are occurring
22:55:46 from donations from very generous folks.
22:55:49 And it's our opinion that that money could be better
22:55:52 spent on textbooks, curriculum, furnishings, things of
22:55:56 that sort, and some sort of overall sidewalk
22:56:01 improvement program.
22:56:02 And I'm not sure about the correct procedure to ask
22:56:04 your approval of this.
22:56:06 But we would ask for your consideration in waiving
22:56:09 that fee.
22:56:11 That is our presentation for now.
22:56:12 And happy to address any questions.
22:56:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know if we have the ability
22:56:19 to waive the fee but on the PD site plan we might be
22:56:23 able to waive the sidewalk.
22:56:24 Ms. Cole?
22:56:25 On the PD site plan we might be able to waive the
22:56:30 If we waived the sidewalk, then the effectiveness of
22:56:33 that would be to waive the fee.
22:56:34 >>JULIA COLE: If you waive the sidewalks then the code
22:56:39 would require payment of the in lieu fee.
22:56:42 So I believe would you also need to waive the --
22:56:46 waiving the in lieu fee.
22:56:48 >> Can we waive the in lieu fee?
22:56:51 >>JULIA COLE: I believe you have done it in the past
22:56:53 and there's no reason that you can't dot.
22:56:56 >> Then we'll do it.
22:56:57 >>> I don't believe it is on the site plan.
22:56:59 So in order to place it on the site plan.
22:57:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That would be a delay but I'm sure
22:57:10 it's a worthwhile delay.
22:57:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone to speak on item 17?
22:57:14 >>> Christian Stouffer.
22:57:15 I have been sworn in.
22:57:18 I would like to say I'm not in the church or daycare.
22:57:23 I think what these people are doing is a beautiful
22:57:25 thing and I wish I wasn't here opposed to it.
22:57:29 Had signs been properly posted during the time that I
22:57:31 purchased this property, I wouldn't have purchased it,
22:57:34 because I would have known that there was a daycare
22:57:36 being built.
22:57:37 But there was no zoning -- I didn't find out until
22:57:40 about a month and a half ago that this property was
22:57:44 even being zoned for daycare because there were no
22:57:46 signs posted as there are supposed to be.
22:57:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When did you purchase?
22:57:51 >>> I began the process of purchasing actually in
22:57:54 I didn't close on it until January.
22:57:56 I didn't see a sign in front about the zoning daycare
22:58:00 change until May.
22:58:01 I tried to contact the church about two weeks after
22:58:05 that, of which nobody responded to any of my phone
22:58:10 As I said, I'm not opposed against the church or
22:58:13 I just think this is a bad area for one.
22:58:17 I have got right here in front of me an eight-page
22:58:21 list of around 70 sex offenders that live within a
22:58:23 mile whereof this daycare is going to be built.
22:58:29 The apartment complex that I have got has been
22:58:30 approved by the Department of Corrections it was
22:58:32 approved by them before I purchased it.
22:58:34 I understand they are doing a public service, and the
22:58:37 public service that I am providing may not be the most
22:58:40 desirable one, but there is a need for housing for
22:58:44 these people.
22:58:46 There's a great demand for it.
22:58:48 There is not many places there because of the fact
22:58:51 that there are churches and daycares and schools all
22:58:55 throughout Tampa.
22:58:56 Now, I talked to the public defender's office and I
22:59:02 have also talked to the Department of Corrections it
22:59:04 is my understanding -- and I know the attorney said
22:59:08 the judges will do, now, they'll do what is right, but
22:59:14 it's my understanding and what I have been told by the
22:59:16 department of corrections and from friends the public
22:59:18 defenders office that these sex offenders will be
22:59:21 grandfathered in.
22:59:22 The properties where they live will most likely be
22:59:24 grandfathered in as well.
22:59:26 So I feel like it's a public safety concern putting a
22:59:31 daycare right across the street from an apartment
22:59:33 complex that is being utilized to house sex offenders.
22:59:43 I've informed the church, had a meeting with them
22:59:47 about the situation.
22:59:49 I have concerns that this is a great liability for the
22:59:52 city and for the church to put the daycare there if
22:59:56 these people are grandfathered in, and I was told that
22:59:59 that's what liability insurance is for.
23:00:00 I feel that is not a good thing.
23:00:02 I feel that putting these children at risk is -- I
23:00:07 feel it's a horrible thing.
23:00:10 I don't think putting a daycare right across the
23:00:13 street from a strip club or a bar district or, you
23:00:17 know, a jail facility would be a good idea.
23:00:19 And I don't think putting a daycare in a -- right
23:00:22 across the street from an apartment complex that
23:00:24 houses several sex offenders is a good idea, either.
23:00:27 Especially when there's a high, high risk that they
23:00:30 will be grandfathered in, and apartments will be
23:00:35 grandfathered in as well.
23:00:39 I don't know if you guys are going to have to decide
23:00:41 on this tonight, or if you guys can postpone it.
23:00:45 But I would strongly suggest that if you guys are
23:00:48 going to -- okay.
23:00:51 Well --
23:00:53 >>CHAIRMAN: Finish your statement.
23:00:55 >>> I want to say if you guys are going to decide on
23:00:57 it tonight would hope that maybe you guys can do your
23:01:00 research before you decide on it because I have been
23:01:02 told by the department of corrections and by the
23:01:04 public defenders office that these people will be
23:01:06 allowed to -- and not only them but the other 70 sex
23:01:10 offenders that live within a mile will be
23:01:13 grandfathered in.
23:01:13 So I think it's a great risk to these children.
23:01:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, this church, it sounds like
23:01:23 it's been a very busy place.
23:01:25 And if it predated your use in the neighborhood,
23:01:31 weren't you precluded from having your use from across
23:01:34 from a church that was so active?
23:01:37 >>> No.
23:01:37 Not by the Department of Corrections they actually
23:01:39 approved it before I purchased the property.
23:01:43 They thought it was going to be a good thing that it
23:01:45 was a put the street from a church.
23:01:50 I would think that -- I personally before purchased
23:01:54 the thing thought it was great there was a church next
23:01:57 There's a vacant lot behind the building.
23:01:59 The old police benevolent society was across from the
23:02:03 other adjacent building so putting these people here
23:02:05 to me, personally it seemed like a good place for
23:02:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: To the petitioner.
23:02:18 Excuse me, sir.
23:02:27 Tell me about fencing.
23:02:28 What type of fencing are you proposing around -- any
23:02:32 fencing around the facility, especially on -- what's
23:02:37 the street, Diana street or something?
23:02:40 >>> Well, up until now we weren't proposing fencing
23:02:43 along that area.
23:02:44 But as of the last couple of days we decided to put
23:02:48 fencing on Diana.
23:02:53 The students will be dropped off in this area right
23:03:03 And then they will walk on the sidewalk to the
23:03:06 building here.
23:03:08 They will be in a play yard over here which will be
23:03:10 What we are thinking of doing is adding a fence close
23:03:13 to the sidewalk, and this northwest corner of the
23:03:18 So there will be screening from the apartment complex
23:03:20 to the north.
23:03:22 And we would think that will provide a secure
23:03:25 environment for students to go from the parking lot.
23:03:28 Once they are in the daycare building they will just
23:03:30 be going out in the play yard.
23:03:32 That's one area they'll be allowed to go through.
23:03:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So all the way up to your one-way
23:03:37 drive pretty much?
23:03:39 >>> Correct.
23:03:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I also had a question for you and I'm
23:03:46 sorry if I missed this.
23:03:47 And I don't have the plan in front of me.
23:03:50 But are you asking just to expand the daycare?
23:03:54 There's already daycare facility on the site?
23:03:58 >>> No.
23:03:59 They are going to be renovating inside the building
23:04:02 there. Will be no new structures built but the
23:04:04 daycare is a new use.
23:04:09 >> I'm sorry, there isn't -- you're not asking for
23:04:11 additional -- there's no daycare on the site now?
23:04:15 >>> Correct.
23:04:16 >> What was the daycare that you were --
23:04:21 >>> Operating an existing facility on MacDill.
23:04:23 And very successful one.
23:04:25 They want to replicate that here.
23:04:28 >>CHAIRMAN: We have another speaker that wants to
23:04:34 >>> Randy baron, 217 west Comanche, Old Seminole
23:04:37 Heights neighborhood association, I have been sworn.
23:04:40 First of all, the neighborhood association is
23:04:42 absolutely in favor of having this daycare.
23:04:45 Given a choice of daycare and sex offenders, I think
23:04:48 you know where we come out on that.
23:04:50 I'm still confused as to how a sex offender residence
23:04:55 can play so close to a church.
23:04:59 I thought that was one of the uses within a thousand
23:05:01 feet that you couldn't have sex offenders.
23:05:03 The church has been there a long time.
23:05:06 We are in favor of it.
23:05:07 I am concerned about security, obviously, if a sex
23:05:11 offender location is allowed to remain.
23:05:14 And all the realities of that.
23:05:17 Unfortunately we do have a lot of sex offenders in
23:05:20 Seminole Heights.
23:05:20 We seem to attract them more than other neighborhoods.
23:05:23 It's unfortunate, we seem to be the recipient in
23:05:28 Sulphur Springs of a lot of social service
23:05:31 We are working hard to try and change that perception
23:05:35 of Seminole Heights to. That end there's also another
23:05:37 project that I want to speak about.
23:05:39 While we are in favor of the daycare, two parcels to
23:05:41 the south, there's an empty lot that was here a couple
23:05:43 months ago for a PD with a big grand tree in the
23:05:46 middle of it that you rezoned to put a restaurant in.
23:05:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let's just stick to the subject
23:05:54 matter we are in.
23:05:56 >>> I am just saying we are going to be asking --
23:05:58 petitioner is asking for a wet zoning.
23:05:59 And --
23:06:04 >>CHAIRMAN: Talk about the daycare.
23:06:10 >> We are in favor of the daycare.
23:06:13 >> We are opposed to the sex offenders.
23:06:15 And we will work with the daycare to do whatever they
23:06:18 need possible in order to avoid any interaction with
23:06:23 sex offenders and would also like council to look into
23:06:26 adding sex offenders into our neighborhood in the
23:06:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I can eh test to certain things
23:06:34 that were brought up, St. John's, that's in the
23:06:37 western part of the corner of Ohio.
23:06:44 They have done an enormous service not only to their
23:06:46 community but to the whole city.
23:06:48 They built in the back some wonderful medical
23:06:50 facilities for those that don't have.
23:06:53 They were one of the pioneers on Ohio Street, where
23:06:56 they built the first homes for those that had some
23:06:59 learning disabilities and so forth.
23:07:01 And not one neighbor has ever complained to me.
23:07:05 And this is talking about 20 years ago.
23:07:07 So they have done an out standing job in the
23:07:10 Their property is always immaculate.
23:07:12 And it's a wonderful asset to the community that I
23:07:16 live in.
23:07:17 I can tell you about this neighborhood.
23:07:19 I do remember Diana street being an alley.
23:07:22 It is an alley.
23:07:23 And we used to park back there.
23:07:25 We used to have debates in that church years ago.
23:07:29 50 years ago.
23:07:30 Well, it's really 20.
23:07:31 But it seems like 50.
23:07:33 And those are the things that are going on.
23:07:36 I agree that the sidewalk should not even be in the
23:07:41 plat because that's not a street.
23:07:43 It might be a dedicated street but it's never been
23:07:46 It's not a street.
23:07:47 There's no traffic signs, no speed signs on that.
23:07:49 So it's an alley.
23:07:51 It's not a street.
23:07:52 And I understand the legalities of the city why they
23:07:56 say that.
23:07:57 If not we would be saying, how come you didn't do
23:08:01 Either way it went we are going to be wrong.
23:08:03 But I have no problems with this rezoning going
23:08:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you want rebuttal?
23:08:10 You can't speak again.
23:08:11 One time only.
23:08:16 >>> Yes, thank you.
23:08:17 First I would like to enter into the record a letter
23:08:19 of support from the Seminole Heights business
23:08:33 And what I recommend is because you all seem to be
23:08:37 leaning towards giving us the waiver on the sidewalk,
23:08:40 I think the fence is an important issue.
23:08:42 I would like to have the opportunity to revise the
23:08:45 plan tomorrow and get right back down to your staff,
23:08:48 and then come before you again for a very brief
23:08:51 presentation for hopefully approval.
23:08:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cole, how long will it take?
23:08:57 >>JULIA COLE: Two weeks.
23:08:59 He has to have that submitted to staff by Monday.
23:09:02 And we could do it.
23:09:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If it's a day meeting --
23:09:09 >>> Day meeting.
23:09:12 >>JULIA COLE: If it's council's pleasure, council can
23:09:15 do this at a day meeting.
23:09:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe it moves up the deadline.
23:09:19 Is that right, Mr. Shultz?
23:09:25 >> Move to continue.
23:09:26 >>> If it puts a burden on staff, three or four weeks
23:09:28 will be fine.
23:09:30 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll be on vacation then.
23:09:31 >>> Okay.
23:09:32 Whatever is best for you all.
23:09:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to continue, two weeks,
23:09:36 10 a.m., and suggesting that the petitioner amend his
23:09:39 site plan to include six foot fencing in the
23:09:42 appropriate places to hopefully buffer Diana street,
23:09:48 as well as waive the in lieu sidewalk fee for Diana
23:09:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
23:09:54 (Motion carried).
23:09:55 >>GWEN MILLER: 18 is a continued public hearing.
23:10:14 >>> The last item on the agenda tonight is Z 07-38,
23:10:18 continuance from 5-24-07 located at 211 and 227 north
23:10:25 Meridian Avenue.
23:10:26 Development review committee reviewed the petition and
23:10:29 had objections at the time of my staff report.
23:10:31 However, all objections have been mitigated by each of
23:10:37 those respective staff members.
23:10:41 We do have urban design that would like to make some
23:10:44 And I believe Michael, do you want to make comments on
23:10:51 bonus density?
23:10:53 In closing your documents.
23:10:55 There are two waivers requested.
23:10:56 One for 27-246 to allow drive aisles from 26 to 25
23:11:05 feet and the parking structure, item 2 is per section
23:11:09 27-247 to allow for reduction of required loading
23:11:13 bearths from four space.
23:11:17 The requesting petitioner is requesting to rezone
23:11:20 property to north Meridian Avenue from CD 1 to CD 3 to
23:11:25 develop a mixed use project.
23:11:27 1.33, 46 square foot site is currently improved,
23:11:35 warehouse uses.
23:11:35 The proposed uses include 259 residential units
23:11:40 totaling 394,682 square feet with 8,840 square feet of
23:11:47 proposed retail space.
23:11:51 Office, restaurant, and commercial uses are also
23:11:54 proposed in lieu of retail square footage, not to
23:11:58 exceed the minimum square footage permitted, as long
23:12:02 as appropriate parking standards are met.
23:12:04 The retail shall be located on the ground floor of the
23:12:07 proposed development.
23:12:09 The building has a maximum height of 425 feet
23:12:14 consisting of 38-story point tower located at the
23:12:18 northernmost portion of the site.
23:12:21 The balance of the site consisting of a 7 story base
23:12:24 A total of 448 parking spaces are required and 545 are
23:12:29 being provided and will be located internally to the
23:12:33 7-story base with the linear residential units along
23:12:35 the perimeter.
23:12:37 The proposed setbacks for the proposed setback are 5
23:12:41 feet along Kennedy Boulevard and zero on north
23:12:43 Meridian Avenue.
23:12:44 The site consists of 403,522 square feet of proposed
23:12:49 development and a proposed floor area ratio for this
23:12:53 site is 7.0, which translates into an additional
23:12:56 201,761 square feet bonus density for the project.
23:13:03 The base F.A.R. of 3.5 permits 201,761 square feet.
23:13:10 A bonus density analysis has been attached to the
23:13:12 staff report that provides documentation that
23:13:16 petitioner will meet the minimum 10.1 value factor as
23:13:20 defined by the Channel District strategic action plan
23:13:25 by providing 4,236,981 dollars worth of improvements
23:13:30 to the project.
23:13:31 Bonus features include a minimum lead standard of --
23:13:35 LEED standard of open space enhancements such as
23:13:38 plaza, fountain, pedestrian, common area, public art,
23:13:41 and ground floor retail.
23:13:43 According to the submitted elevation it is building
23:13:45 will be constructed with a contemporary modern style
23:13:48 of architecture with no distinctively discernible
23:13:53 The petitioner at the direction of City Council has
23:13:56 made all the corrections recommended by the DRC.
23:14:01 >> Would you like me to go further?
23:14:07 >> Mr. Dingfelder?
23:14:07 >>: One of the waivers that you mentioned speaks to
23:14:11 reduction of required berths from 4 to zero.
23:14:22 >>> That's correct.
23:14:23 I would defer that to the petitioner and have them
23:14:24 address that.
23:14:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said there's no staff
23:14:28 >>> No.
23:14:29 >> So you don't have an issue on the loading berth?
23:14:33 >>> No, we do not.
23:14:34 >> Why?
23:14:35 >>> I defer to Brian Gentry on that in transportation
23:14:40 to address that issue.
23:14:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is he here?
23:14:59 >>> Brian gentry.
23:15:00 I have been sworn.
23:15:01 >> With no loading berth where would they load and why
23:15:06 wouldn't there be an objection?
23:15:08 >>> The reason there wouldn't be an objection is the
23:15:10 proximity to the Channelside area being more like a
23:15:19 They would essentially use the compacter access lane.
23:15:25 They had it labeled as a loader berth.
23:15:29 In the previous site plan.
23:15:31 However, we had them take that off from four to zero.
23:15:36 They would coordinate it with the --
23:15:41 >> It's not going to be on the street?
23:15:42 Loading and unloading on the street?
23:15:44 >>> No.
23:15:45 >> Why wouldn't you leave it on the plan so at least
23:15:47 that way if somebody tried to load and unload on the
23:15:49 street, then somebody could look at the plan and say
23:15:51 that's not appropriate?
23:15:53 >>> Right.
23:15:54 >> Loading and unloading in the garbage lane.
23:15:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
23:16:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to hear from Mr.
23:16:13 >>> Wilson Stair, urban design differentiation, and I
23:16:15 have been sworn.
23:16:16 I would like to make a couple comments right out
23:16:18 Some of them are kind of housecleaning kinds of
23:16:21 But in terms of this project, because of its height,
23:16:25 and density, of course, we are not objecting to it if
23:16:32 it meets the bonus criteria that they are proposing.
23:16:39 They have activated the street, which is where we look
23:16:43 in any dense building.
23:16:45 In other words, they have got row tail along Meridian
23:16:48 and Kennedy.
23:16:50 We have asked them to incorporate the Meridian
23:16:54 streetscape design instead of putting in their own,
23:17:00 which they didn't do among the conceptual plans, put
23:17:05 shade trees especially on the west side of the
23:17:07 building, and also be sensitive as they can to the
23:17:14 other developer that's developing next door to them.
23:17:19 I think both projects have merit.
23:17:23 They both met all the urban design streetscape berths
23:17:28 for kinds of things with visual interest, and
23:17:32 interaction with the street.
23:17:34 But the height is a point tower which I'm sure the
23:17:41 developer will talk about.
23:17:43 But at least at the street level, they have got the
23:17:48 activity and the design, and they are going to follow
23:17:52 the Channel District strategic action plan in terms of
23:17:56 its streetscape, in terms of their bonus, and the
23:18:02 maximum F.A.R., and the maximum height.
23:18:06 They are asking for a lot more.
23:18:08 And that's what you will consider later.
23:18:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wasn't the plan for this area to
23:18:18 have a maximum height of 12 stories?
23:18:24 >>> In terms of the strategic action plan, it's 175
23:18:32 And F.A.R. of 5.
23:18:36 The basic Channel District plan that exists in place
23:18:40 today, it has a 60-foot height and an F.A.R. of 3.5.
23:18:47 Those are the maximum.
23:18:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In other words, when this property
23:18:52 was purchased, the existing zoning allowed a height of
23:18:56 60 feet and an F.A.R. of 3.5?
23:19:00 >> That's correct.
23:19:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
23:19:22 >>> Good evening, council. The bonus density was
23:19:26 scrutinized pretty tightly.
23:19:28 Particularly since this is the first full LEED
23:19:32 certification that came before us.
23:19:33 In terms of a question that was posed earlier this
23:19:36 evening, what does it take to get a developer the kind
23:19:41 of incentives, I think the request on this reflects
23:19:44 something that will kind of put at least part of the
23:19:50 answer to that question.
23:19:51 The bonus density requested in this project is almost
23:19:54 entirely meant by the value of the L did D
23:20:01 certification that would be included.
23:20:02 In addition to the LEED certification there are some
23:20:04 other public enhancement amenities that qualify
23:20:07 qualifies for bonus and are included as well.
23:20:11 Among those being some ground floor retail.
23:20:15 That factor was also scrutinized pretty closely, and
23:20:20 in fact in previous zonings when we have evaluated
23:20:25 value to the ground floor I think we were a bit more
23:20:28 liberal in terms of the incentive allowed, because of
23:20:32 the expectation of the timing of this project when it
23:20:37 were to come on the market would not be faced with as
23:20:40 soft a market as it would be today.
23:20:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.
23:20:44 >>> And I was sworn in.
23:20:45 I'm sorry.
23:20:47 67 what's your name?
23:20:48 >>> Michael Chen, urban development department.
23:20:52 So with a great deal of scrutiny, we are prepared to
23:20:56 endorse the volume associated with the bonus density
23:21:01 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
23:21:14 I have been sworn.
23:21:26 A couple of things we have all been pretty familiar
23:21:28 with the Channel District but I need to say them for
23:21:31 the record.
23:21:34 We still have several parcels that still have
23:21:36 refuse -- heavy commercial land use categories north
23:21:39 of Twiggs Street and east of Channelside Drive.
23:21:47 The site is in proximity on the western perimeter of
23:21:50 the Channel District in proximity with central
23:21:54 business district.
23:21:57 Most of our more intense projects that have come in,
23:22:00 that have exceeded your normal standard F.A.R. of 3.5
23:22:04 all on the eastern periphery.
23:22:06 You all already approved Seaboard square which was in
23:22:10 excess of 5.9, I believe.
23:22:12 You have already approved also a site further to the
23:22:15 south over here that has an F.A.R. of 6.71.
23:22:18 So most of the more intense use that is you have
23:22:21 approved in the area from an F.A.R. basis on the
23:22:24 eastern periphery, as Mr. Chen has state towed and as
23:22:30 Mr. Shultz has already alluded to, you are using the
23:22:33 square footage to maximize the potential based on what
23:22:36 has been presented to the administration for a maximum
23:22:38 potential of 7.0.
23:22:42 The request is consistent with those projects that are
23:22:45 seeking out the use of the central district periphery
23:22:48 bonus to provide any type of bonus provision to the
23:22:52 city administration for consideration.
23:22:53 The applicant has submitted a development proposal
23:22:57 requiring the 7.0 floor area ratio. The applicant has
23:23:00 also in accordance with the policies that talked about
23:23:04 the bonus provisions and the categories that we have
23:23:08 which you already have in your report there in front
23:23:10 of you, they have submitted a CBD appropriate bonus
23:23:14 proposal by the city administration and staffed.
23:23:19 It has been reviewed by the members of the Land
23:23:21 Development Coordination office, in addition to Mr.
23:23:28 The proposed project is located on the corner of what
23:23:31 is considered to be a major gateway into the Channel
23:23:34 District and of course into the central business
23:23:36 district as it is located on Kennedy Boulevard.
23:23:39 Predicated on the city administration finding the
23:23:41 proposed bonus analysis and provided by the applicant
23:23:44 sufficient and in accordance with the requested F.A.R.
23:23:47 figure Planning Commission staff will find the
23:23:49 rezoning request consistent with the and Tampa
23:23:54 comprehensive plan does not object to the proposed
23:23:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
23:23:57 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: 501 East Kennedy tonight here
23:24:07 representing key developers and I have with me tonight
23:24:10 the president of key developers, Liz Abernathy and
23:24:16 Wilson Miller, and the former chairman of the
23:24:23 municipal planning board for the city of Orlando so he
23:24:25 has the same perspective that you all have in addition
23:24:29 to now working with developers.
23:24:31 And he's also by the way a two-year resident of the
23:24:34 Channel District.
23:24:35 What I am going to do is ask Mr. Vinsene to walk you
23:24:42 through the project and come back and address the
23:24:44 density, the bonus density and the amenities that are
23:24:47 being provided.
23:24:48 Right now, I would like to ask him to walk you through
23:24:52 the project.
23:24:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Zelman, if I could, in light of
23:24:58 the late -- in the late hours could we concentrate on
23:25:03 what might be controversial?
23:25:04 I don't know what it is.
23:25:05 I can't presume I am going to know what's
23:25:09 But I have heard through the grapevine generically
23:25:11 there might be some controversy.
23:25:14 I mean, it's a lovely drawing, and all that.
23:25:17 But if we just focus on what might be the most
23:25:20 controversial issues it might help everybody.
23:25:23 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I am going ask mark if he would like
23:25:25 to talk a little more about the height because I think
23:25:27 it is designed to be sensitive.
23:25:31 Let me remained you of a couple of things also.
23:25:35 You're correct, Ms. Saul-Sena, on paper the Channel
23:25:37 District does still have 3.5 F.A.R. and the 70-foot
23:25:41 height. This council has in the last year approved
23:25:44 projects in the Channel District of heights of 350
23:25:47 feet, 306 feet, 380 feet.
23:25:50 So this is not unprecedented.
23:25:53 And to address your question, Mr. Dingfelder, I think
23:25:58 the rumble I heard is people are questioning what we
23:26:01 are doing to get this density, and as Michael Chen
23:26:03 told you, the city really did carefully scrutinize
23:26:06 this but I will simply tell you, as you mentioned, we
23:26:11 have made a commitment on our site plan which no other
23:26:14 developer in the Channel District has done.
23:26:16 And to my knowledge no one else in the city has done
23:26:18 to achieve LEED certification.
23:26:22 And that's to include the projection costs of this
23:26:26 project of over $5 million, and they will explain that
23:26:29 to you in more detail.
23:26:31 But that is a condition of the site plan.
23:26:33 Other developers have promised that they will try to
23:26:36 achieve it.
23:26:37 They have not made a condition of their site plan as
23:26:40 we have.
23:26:41 This is a first.
23:26:44 As mentioned there are a number of other amenities.
23:26:46 There's a public open space plaza, retail space,
23:26:50 there's public art, there's enhanced pedestrian
23:26:53 streetscape, there's a green roof, there's parking in
23:26:56 excess of code almost 100 additional spaces.
23:27:00 A site plan condition requiring to us pay almost
23:27:03 $160,000 in off-site transportation improvements which
23:27:07 again we did the research.
23:27:09 No other developer in the Channel District has paid
23:27:11 that kind of money for off-site transportation
23:27:16 And those are the issues that people have been
23:27:23 I can go into more detail on that but I think for now
23:27:25 I would like to let him show you the project and talk
23:27:29 about the height I shall knew particular.
23:27:30 Thank you.
23:27:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena has a question.
23:27:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to clarify.
23:27:35 There's a silver building, an office building being
23:27:38 built on Kennedy and they didn't ask for a thing.
23:27:42 Just stating that.
23:27:43 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Remember in the Channel District we
23:27:45 have to provide --
23:27:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm just saying --
23:27:50 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: They don't have the F.A.R. limit.
23:27:53 You're saying they the LEED certification?
23:27:56 >>> I'm saying people do LEED building because they
23:27:59 realize it's a good thing to do, not because they can
23:28:02 get a lot more square feet.
23:28:03 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I think that's something we hope that
23:28:05 some day everyone will do.
23:28:07 But again, when this council put together the
23:28:10 strategic action plan for the Channel District, LEED
23:28:13 certification was indicated as something that would
23:28:15 allow one to achieve a bonus density.
23:28:17 And again we looked at all the other projects that
23:28:19 have been approved in the Channel District, and no one
23:28:22 is required as a condition of their site plan to do --
23:28:26 to get LEED certification.
23:28:30 Go ahead.
23:28:34 >>> Mark: I reside at 217 north 12th Street here in
23:28:42 Yes, I have been sworn.
23:28:45 There's an awful lot that I can go into with regards
23:28:47 to the design and the whole aspect of what we are
23:28:51 trying to bring to this project but let me take you
23:28:53 back just a few actually couple years now, that we
23:28:56 have been in the process as a community, not just this
23:28:59 developer, to try to change how residential community
23:29:05 in the Channel District is going to be brought to
23:29:13 We have spent time hear showing a point tower
23:29:17 configuration for housing Channel District being
23:29:20 envisioned and very happy to see that the city has
23:29:23 embraced that.
23:29:24 We have been part of that.
23:29:27 We have been allowed the ability to go forward with
23:29:29 phase 2 tower, which is also a 35-story tower,
23:29:33 300-some-odd feet.
23:29:36 The other projects that have recently by City Council
23:29:39 been approved approaching 400 feet have been approved
23:29:45 in this forum and now moving forward.
23:29:47 So we are not the only ones asking for this.
23:29:50 And amplified some of the reasons why we are asking
23:29:54 for it.
23:29:55 And any residential community is extremely important.
23:29:58 It is not a matter of us all trying to create the same
23:30:01 kind of building envelope to reside in.
23:30:06 That was the initial vision a few years back when this
23:30:09 06-foot, 75-foot height was imposed, all big box
23:30:16 square type buildings from site line to site line
23:30:19 impacting this whole area.
23:30:21 What we have now seen is that this is changing, and we
23:30:24 are showing now the next reiteration of that.
23:30:28 What we are doing here is not a rubber stamp of a
23:30:33 project that we continue to do over and over.
23:30:35 This is now the third project that we are bringing
23:30:37 father in this Channel District area and it is
23:30:39 something that continually involves.
23:30:41 We are trying to improve one of the developing
23:30:44 projects in this area and this is now the third
23:30:46 iteration of that and we are very happy to show this
23:30:49 to you.
23:30:49 I know there are some specific questions that you
23:30:51 would like to ask and I will be happy to answer any of
23:30:54 But I will just briefly take you to the building, why
23:30:56 we designed it the way we are designing it and how it
23:30:59 has come to be at this point.
23:31:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Take the hand mike with you.
23:31:10 >>> The site is 53,000 square feet of area, and we
23:31:15 could have very easily put a 200,000 square foot
23:31:18 building on this site, taking it up to the nine, ten
23:31:22 stories in height and encompassed the whole site area
23:31:26 and not provided anything else.
23:31:30 That would have been allowable.
23:31:32 What we have trade to do is really studied the
23:31:35 opportunity to put a point tower type building on this
23:31:37 site, and dot in a fashion that would really enhance
23:31:41 the area around view corridors, and also be respective
23:31:48 for the rest of our neighbors in the area.
23:31:50 A lot of time has been spent, countless renditions of
23:31:54 these buildings and the different options we have
23:31:56 studied and I can very quickly explain how it has come
23:32:03 From the east elevation on over to the south and to
23:32:05 the west, that we have really pushed the building
23:32:10 footprint of the tower over to the far northern part
23:32:14 of the site in order to allow not to impact our
23:32:18 neighbors as a shadow, on our neighbors building.
23:32:23 What we have done that we are prepared to show you if
23:32:28 you would like to see that but our intent was to put
23:32:33 all the mass of the building in one point area.
23:32:35 We have basically taken about a fifth of the overall
23:32:38 site area and gone vertical with that and that's what
23:32:40 you see with the tower configuration as it goes up on
23:32:43 the north side.
23:32:45 The remainder of the building is about a 7-story
23:32:47 building matching up with our neighbors all around the
23:32:52 rest of the site, roughly at the same height.
23:32:55 The building has on, it happens to be on one side of
23:33:00 the site. What we have also done is take into account
23:33:03 the various aspects of the retail, we had our latest
23:33:09 meeting with the Channel District, and we are asking
23:33:11 really to look at putting some restaurant, cafe type
23:33:15 environment on the ground level which we have done.
23:33:17 So the main retail area at the base of the building is
23:33:20 mostly a restaurant outdoor cafe area, to really allow
23:33:23 that 3,000 square feet of outdoor seating and public
23:33:27 space to take place in that corner.
23:33:29 Now also keep in mind this is a heavily trafficked
23:33:32 Kennedy and Meridian are very heavily trafficked, very
23:33:36 fast moving, even shifted into the parking area away
23:33:40 from this intersection where Jackson tees into
23:33:46 Meridian and allowed access for vehicle search of this
23:33:50 building to Kennedy.
23:33:52 Keeping the flow of traffic on Meridian in good
23:33:58 As the building goes on up, you really look at the
23:34:02 retail activity continuing, and then having some
23:34:06 two-story units that go up to seven story, as
23:34:10 So you don't have this parking -- this open parking
23:34:14 that you see everywhere else.
23:34:15 It is all residential units.
23:34:18 Buried in behind the building.
23:34:20 Completely enclosed.
23:34:22 So that was something that we were very adamant about.
23:34:27 Now I will go into some detail about the LEED
23:34:31 certification. This has a lot to do with way beyond
23:34:33 what people think is a cliche.
23:34:35 It's just a thing of the moment.
23:34:38 What this is really about is enhancing the
23:34:41 construction of this site, as it is under construction
23:34:48 so all the components that we can talk about as to how
23:34:52 the site was developed, the fact that density is LEED
23:34:56 certification, providing more density on a site, in
23:34:59 order to really work out the ability for the site to
23:35:03 be -- on and on.
23:35:09 But it also goes into construction and materials that
23:35:12 are used, recycled, how water is used during the
23:35:16 construction of the building, and then obviously as
23:35:19 the building is being used what we have for water
23:35:25 information or waste management, for energy uses, and
23:35:30 renewable energy type things.
23:35:32 So that is what is all encompassed in this project
23:35:37 There's quite a few -- I can show renderings, I can
23:35:42 show what this we are trying to do.
23:35:46 It's a little difficult to show in these drawings.
23:36:02 This rendering right here shows the ground plain.
23:36:07 But again, the whole idea of having an activity area
23:36:11 on the base of the building is extremely important in
23:36:16 the Channel District and also the staff members.
23:36:19 We provided that.
23:36:22 It has to be done in a very sensitive way obviously
23:36:25 for the security reasons and safety.
23:36:28 As you can see, we are really looking forward to a
23:36:31 very open and airy face of the building, view
23:36:38 corridors for the retail and heavily landscaped and
23:36:41 very attractive enhancement to the base of the
23:36:44 This is a view of the building.
23:36:46 Again lots of grass, as a LEED certification item,
23:36:54 allowing daylight into the building during the day so
23:36:57 you get a nice energy use of the building.
23:36:59 Conversely we have to make sure that we are using
23:37:04 materials to minimize energy, and also the fact that
23:37:11 the building is energy efficient.
23:37:13 A lot of detail I can go into.
23:37:22 The T pal is on the seventh floor top deck area and it
23:37:25 is also a completely green area.
23:37:51 Again this is a good drawing to show how much of that
23:37:55 building side is used.
23:37:57 As I said earlier.
23:38:01 The verticality of that again wanted to make sure
23:38:06 enough of that public space on that upper floor is
23:38:09 green, has to do with a lot of water usages, the
23:38:16 circulating structure, where you want it, things like
23:38:34 Again very lush environment.
23:38:35 Something that again does not necessarily just benefit
23:38:38 the residents of this development.
23:38:41 Other developments in the surrounding areas have view
23:38:43 corridors to this.
23:38:44 So it has to also be for them to look at something
23:38:49 like this versus a flat roof with nothing going on.
23:38:52 On a big building.
23:39:10 As I said earlier, we have gone through a process of
23:39:15 doing the study for this.
23:39:17 There were some questions that the neighbors had with
23:39:19 regard to how that shadow did impact their adjacent
23:39:23 And again we could go through -- we do have that here.
23:39:32 At this point I'm not sure if I should just open it up
23:39:37 for questions or if I should have somebody else
23:39:41 I'm really open at this point.
23:39:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we hear from neighbors,
23:39:47 and then you all have time for rebuttal.
23:39:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
23:39:51 wants to speak on item 18?
23:40:02 >>> I have been sworn in.
23:40:03 My name is Juan Puerlo and I am the developer
23:40:10 mentioned on this project, a 280 unit project.
23:40:16 We commenced demolition and 60% of the units under
23:40:20 contract, and we will commence construction in N about
23:40:24 30 days, which is something to be said, because two,
23:40:26 three years ago, I started a few buildings, and it was
23:40:30 much easier.
23:40:32 Now the market is soft.
23:40:34 Everything is tough.
23:40:35 It's harder to get projects out of the ground.
23:40:39 And here we are starting a real project.
23:40:44 My main concern with this project is first of all, we
23:40:49 have the strategic action plan, which I don't know if
23:40:52 it's been adopted.
23:40:53 It's going to be heard at the first hearing or the
23:40:57 second hearing.
23:40:58 There is a F.A.R. limit.
23:41:01 We are seeing a project of 7.0.
23:41:04 There's 175-foot limit.
23:41:06 Here we are seeing a project of over 400 feet.
23:41:08 I think we are all over the board.
23:41:11 First of all, this site is CBD1 which is what I was
23:41:18 zoned and then to go from 2.0 to 3.5, I had to
23:41:23 incorporate some green open space on my project.
23:41:26 Here we have basically a 7-story structure
23:41:31 encompassing the whole site.
23:41:34 There's in a green open space.
23:41:35 And now, then this project is asking for 435-foot
23:41:40 building, which is basically 30-some stories on top of
23:41:44 that, 7-story structure.
23:41:47 I mean, they are asking for everything, and they are
23:41:53 just not getting anything.
23:41:55 And based on the discussions that I had with Michael
23:41:57 Chen supposedly when you are asking for bonuses, there
23:42:00 has to be some consideration for the neighbors.
23:42:05 The project has to complement and has to be
23:42:09 considerate of the neighbors.
23:42:10 Here you have a 7-story wall structure all on the
23:42:15 property line of my project.
23:42:16 So it's just a big wall all along.
23:42:19 The only structure that I have up against the property
23:42:22 line, which they share with -- that we share with
23:42:26 them, is basically the garage.
23:42:30 But here there is 100% of the -- of that platform, the
23:42:37 7 story structure is encompassing the whole parcel.
23:42:42 And then they are asking for all these bonuses, and
23:42:44 not really giving anything.
23:42:45 They are saying they are going to do the LEEDS thing
23:42:49 which is great.
23:42:50 But that doesn't mean that you have a license to abuse
23:42:53 and ask for all these F.A.R. and all this density.
23:42:59 So here we have a project asking for F.A.R.
23:43:06 They have their engineering plan that's helping them
23:43:09 design their project.
23:43:10 There's also the author of the strategic action plan,
23:43:14 which I don't know if that's a conflict it interest.
23:43:17 Sound like a conflict of interest but there's just so
23:43:20 many things going on.
23:43:21 It's kind of crazy, you know.
23:43:24 When I brought my project here, they said you have to
23:43:29 confirm with a 3.5 F.A.R.
23:43:32 They gave me strict regulations.
23:43:34 I conformed.
23:43:35 Everything was organized.
23:43:37 And now it's like everybody can go for the taking.
23:43:42 (Bell sounds).
23:43:43 So those are my thoughts.
23:43:45 And I'm against it.
23:43:46 And most likely will appeal if it's approved today.
23:43:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
23:43:58 >>> Henry Lewis, 119 north 11th street.
23:44:02 I have been sworn in.
23:44:05 First of all, as you know, I'm a proponent of
23:44:09 I worked many years to bring in development both
23:44:12 Channelside and downtown.
23:44:15 There's been a lot of problems with this project.
23:44:19 First of all, I'm addressing my personal concerns, not
23:44:24 that of the CBC which I'm the vice-president of.
23:44:32 My allowing F.A.R. of 75 feet to 425 feet, I think it
23:44:37 will set a precedent for not only new developers but
23:44:40 also open the doors to current developers who have
23:44:43 projects already approved but not constructed.
23:44:48 They will be able to come back and make changes and
23:44:53 And I think some of them are doing that now as far as
23:44:56 repositioning their properties in a building.
23:45:00 The other thing is, now, in just a few short months,
23:45:04 eleven months, we have gone from 60 feet to 175 feet
23:45:10 to now well over 420 feet and that's in one year.
23:45:14 That's a lot.
23:45:19 We have had projects for 360 feet.
23:45:21 There's a lot of difference between 306 and 420.
23:45:25 That's almost like ten floors?
23:45:33 I can see the point of perhaps using 5 or 10% of LEEDS
23:45:37 as a bonus.
23:45:38 But 100% for bonus?
23:45:42 40-some-odd stories?
23:45:46 There's very little land left in the Channel District.
23:45:48 Very little.
23:45:52 We need infrastructure.
23:45:54 We need obtainable housing.
23:45:57 There is numerous things we need before we need a LEE
23:46:00 de building.
23:46:01 LEED buildings will not produce any more revenues for
23:46:04 the Channel District.
23:46:07 It will only benefit the new owners and or the
23:46:21 I think that's all I have to say.
23:46:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
23:46:29 >>> Francine Macado, 12th Street, been in the Channel
23:46:36 District for two and a half years, and in front of
23:46:38 City Council many times.
23:46:40 First of all, the height is not just on the eastern
23:46:43 periphery of the Channel District.
23:46:47 There are buildings of varying heights, towers, large
23:46:51 projects, throughout the Channel District.
23:46:53 So there's a project that is right smack in the middle
23:46:58 so I first want to clear that up.
23:47:00 If next thing is that the residents, when I first
23:47:02 moved in, I was one of the residents, red T-shirt
23:47:06 wearing people who really demanded that the city keep
23:47:09 within that limit.
23:47:13 We fought.
23:47:13 We fought.
23:47:14 We fought.
23:47:14 We did not win.
23:47:15 And the projects began to be approved.
23:47:17 So my point of view, being in the architectural
23:47:21 business, I wanted to support the projects that I felt
23:47:25 would benefit the city architecturally, designwise,
23:47:28 there would be a lot of -- being that it was our
23:47:31 neighborhood is going to turn into a very urban
23:47:34 I grew up in New Jersey close to New York.
23:47:36 I like urban neighborhoods so I was okay with that.
23:47:41 So I started to support the projects that I thought
23:47:43 would contribute architecturally.
23:47:47 When you set up the bonus points, you initially --
23:47:52 essentially force the developers to say, look, I am
23:47:55 going to give you LEED certification or other things
23:48:00 for height.
23:48:00 So it's not just buildings that will, you know, use
23:48:03 LEED certification on their own but this isn't the
23:48:06 certification, as the attorney said, that this is
23:48:10 something in a works on the developers.
23:48:11 Trying to get through my bullet points here.
23:48:13 I am a LEED certified professional.
23:48:15 I don't know if anyone else in the room is.
23:48:17 I know what it means.
23:48:20 LEED, US green building council set up LDs, for
23:48:27 buildings to impact the whole world.
23:48:30 It's a global impact.
23:48:32 The more buildings that are put on this earth that are
23:48:35 LEED certified, the better off we will be.
23:48:38 So to have -- to be so short sighted to say that
23:48:41 having a silver LEED building in the channel district
23:48:45 only benefits the developer and the residents, I
23:48:48 really, really disagree.
23:48:50 I will give you my LEED certification booklet and you
23:48:53 can read through all that it will take to obtain
23:48:57 silver LEE de certification and it's quite expensive.
23:49:02 It would impact the neighborhood.
23:49:03 So I am in full support of LEED certification.
23:49:07 I'm on the Channel District council and the Channel
23:49:10 District council voted 7 to 6 to support this project.
23:49:14 So I wanted to let you know that.
23:49:16 We didn't get the results back and I was out of town
23:49:18 at the last meeting.
23:49:21 Don't stop the great projects, please.
23:49:24 I have lived across the street from the place save one
23:49:30 I watched it go up.
23:49:32 There are architectural details, design details in
23:49:34 that building that did not have to be put in there.
23:49:37 It's a beautiful project that will attract very
23:49:40 sophisticated, wonderful people, people who will make
23:49:42 this city vibrant, people who have created -- creative
23:49:47 minds and a wonderful sense and who will know how to
23:49:49 enliven and urban neighborhood.
23:49:51 And you approve projects like this, you draw in a lot
23:49:55 of people.
23:49:56 I moved from New Jersey to here.
23:49:58 You are going to draw in a lot of very vibrant people.
23:50:01 (Bell sounds).
23:50:02 When you approve these projects that's the type of
23:50:04 people that you draw in.
23:50:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
23:50:07 I would like to ask you a question because you have
23:50:10 been in the trenches for awhile.
23:50:13 >>> For awhile.
23:50:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The 7-story base of this building,
23:50:18 how do you feel this responds to context?
23:50:23 >>> I did not add that.
23:50:24 I feel that the objections are coming from not one
23:50:30 surrounding development.
23:50:31 What I feel, it's more of a personal business dilemma
23:50:36 rather than something that's really a consideration
23:50:39 for what would be good for the neighborhood.
23:50:41 Of course, a lot of people do not want a big building,
23:50:44 or a parking garage or another structure up against
23:50:48 But you know what?
23:50:49 The two separate parcels of land, and I do believe we
23:50:53 have a free economy, that if you purchased your
23:50:56 property, you are able to develop this property in a
23:51:00 way that you think suits you best.
23:51:03 In looking at the plan, it appears to me, being an
23:51:06 architectural professional, that they were sensitive
23:51:10 to the other development around them.
23:51:14 You know, what were you supposed to do, buy it and put
23:51:18 a park?
23:51:19 Then that really would have been sensitive.
23:51:21 He's trying to develop a large but very attractive and
23:51:23 worthwhile project.
23:51:24 I think he has every right to do that.
23:51:26 Of course the other project isn't going to like that.
23:51:29 But what I have been noticing is that even on that
23:51:33 first project that he is causing a lot of internal
23:51:36 space despite the fact you only have certain amount of
23:51:40 footage -- there's internal space.
23:51:44 So you have people looking onto people.
23:51:48 It's very similar when you have two developments
23:51:50 coming up against each other, that I live in the