Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Thursday, January 24, 2008
6:00 p.m. session

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

18:10:29 [Sounding gavel]
18:10:30 >>CHAIRMAN: Tampa City Council is called to order.
18:10:32 Roll call.
18:10:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
18:10:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
18:10:41 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
18:10:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
18:10:47 Are you going to clean the agenda?
18:10:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to take care of items 1
18:10:51 and 2 first?

18:10:52 >> I thought you said we didn't have anything.
18:10:54 >> Two little ones.
18:10:55 >> Joseph Caetano, vice chair.
18:10:57 Would you handle the resolution, please?
18:11:03 Item 1?
18:11:04 >> If you want to ask member members of the public if
18:11:07 there's anyone to speak on items 1 and 2.
18:11:09 >> Anyone want to speak on items 1 and 2?
18:11:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I see no one.
18:11:14 >> Just move the resolution.
18:11:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I move item 1.
18:11:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
18:11:19 (Motion carried).
18:11:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move item 2.
18:11:24 >> Second.
18:11:25 (Motion carried).
18:11:26 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
18:12:03 Item number 6 is amended to a PD and therefore
18:12:12 requests a continuance to February 28th at 6 p.m.
18:12:15 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that came to
18:12:19 speak on item number 6?
18:12:22 Number 6.

18:12:23 Did you come to speak on item 6?
18:12:27 It's a church on 15th street.
18:12:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 4202-15th street north.
18:12:37 Amen church.
18:12:38 >> Are you agreeing to the continuance?
18:12:40 >>> Tom Moore, I live at 4706 north 10th street.
18:12:46 I'm a member of the civic association.
18:12:48 And we don't really know what's proposed.
18:12:52 All we see is a sign out there.
18:12:54 >>GWEN MILLER: They are going to continue so they will
18:12:56 be meeting with you all.
18:12:57 >> That's not a problem.
18:13:01 We are not really familiar with what's being proposed.
18:13:03 >> Make sure they meet with you before February
18:13:05 28th.
18:13:06 Is petitioner here?
18:13:07 >> I don't believe so.
18:13:12 >>CHAIRMAN: Would you go to the church and see if they
18:13:15 will meet with you?
18:13:16 >> Why don't we get your name and address and phone
18:13:19 number and we'll have the church call you.
18:13:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, the request is to continue this

18:13:25 to February 28th, 2008 at 6 o'clock p.m.
18:13:28 That's when it will be heard.
18:13:29 Do you understand?
18:13:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to open the public hearing
18:13:38 number 6.
18:13:38 >>GWEN MILLER: We already opened it.
18:13:40 Need to continue it.
18:13:42 >> So moved to continue to February --
18:13:45 >>GWEN MILLER: I said we opened -- all right, let's
18:13:48 open number 6 again.
18:13:49 Open 6 again.
18:13:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Clerk, excuse me, I don't know if I
18:13:52 am playing Nana sandbox or playing marbles or ball or
18:13:58 what.
18:13:58 Did we open it or not?
18:14:01 Move to open number 6.
18:14:02 >> Second.
18:14:03 (Motion carried).
18:14:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Continue it now.
18:14:05 >> I move to continue item number 6 to February
18:14:07 28th, '08, at 6 p.m.
18:14:10 >> Right.

18:14:13 Second.
18:14:14 (Motion carried).
18:14:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we request that the gentleman
18:14:17 who came up here give his name to the clerk, and that
18:14:20 the clerk pass that along to the petitioner?
18:14:22 >>CHAIRMAN: We told him.
18:14:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And doesn't the petitioner have to
18:14:27 be here when a request is made for a continuance?
18:14:31 >> Not if they do it in writing.
18:14:32 >>> We advised them they needed to be here.
18:14:35 >> Well, they are not here.
18:14:38 >>> We told them they need to be here.
18:14:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't think it's a strict rule, I
18:14:43 mean.
18:14:45 >>CHAIRMAN: Let's move on, Ms. Feeley.
18:14:51 >> I want to make sure the gentleman gets the word to
18:14:54 contact this gentleman.
18:14:55 >> Item 8 number 8 requested a continuance to March
18:14:59 13th at 6:00.
18:15:00 >> Move to open.
18:15:02 >> Second.
18:15:03 (Motion carried).

18:15:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
18:15:05 to speak on item number 8?
18:15:06 We need a motion.
18:15:07 >> Move to continue to March 13th, '08 at 6:00.
18:15:13 >> Second.
18:15:13 (Motion carried).
18:15:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 9, we request that be
18:15:20 removed from the agenda and reset for February
18:15:22 28th, 2008.
18:15:24 >> Is there a motion?
18:15:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved to reset to February
18:15:30 28th, 6 p.m.
18:15:31 >> Second.
18:15:32 (Motion carried).
18:15:33 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 11 has requested a
18:15:38 continuance to February 28th.
18:15:41 6 p.m.
18:15:42 >> Motion and second.
18:15:43 (Motion carried)
18:15:46 Anyone came to speak on item 11?
18:15:49 You can speak on the continuance.
18:15:50 Do you agree or are you opposed to a continuance?

18:15:56 >>
18:16:04 Is the petitioner here?
18:16:05 Would you come up and explain, please?
18:16:07 >> My name is Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin Street.
18:16:11 I represent the petitioner.
18:16:13 We haven't had any feedback from any association or
18:16:16 neighbors but not withstanding that we'll gladly get
18:16:18 we've the neighbors or whomever you direct us to.
18:16:21 The reason for the continuance is we had some concerns
18:16:24 raised by staff in the report concerning the scale of
18:16:27 the proposed development, and we want the opportunity
18:16:29 to sit down to modify, to get staff support,
18:16:34 essentially.
18:16:37 >>CHAIRMAN: You can Tau talk with him.
18:16:39 We need a motion to continue.
18:16:40 >> So moved.
18:16:41 >> Second.
18:16:42 >>GWEN MILLER: February 28th.
18:16:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: February 28th, '08 at 6:00.
18:16:48 >>CHAIRMAN: I have a motion an second.
18:16:49 (Motion carried).
18:16:50 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I would like to clarify for item

18:16:55 number 6 that was reset, not continued for the
18:16:57 28th of February.
18:17:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:17:01 Number 6.
18:17:02 >> And then item number 12 has -- we requested it be
18:17:08 removed from the agenda and we will set it at a later
18:17:10 date.
18:17:10 >> Move to strike 12.
18:17:13 >> Second.
18:17:14 (Motion carried).
18:17:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:17:20 Item number 3 we need to open.
18:17:22 >> So moved.
18:17:23 >> Second.
18:17:23 (Motion carried).
18:17:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
18:17:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone).
18:17:42 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:17:43 If I could just take a moment.
18:17:47 I would hear number 3 and 4 together and --
18:17:52 >> So moved.
18:17:53 >> Second.

18:17:53 (Motion carried).
18:17:53 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:17:57 You may recall that I think it was approximately four
18:18:01 or five weeks ago I presented you with a proposed
18:18:04 settlement agreement relating to the comprehensive
18:18:07 plan amendment that is in front of you.
18:18:10 This comprehensive plan amendment was before City
18:18:16 Council a couple years ago, we were in litigation and
18:18:19 what we had done is sent a settlement agreement to you
18:18:23 which you approved which would simply have the effect
18:18:26 of allowing the comprehensive plan amendment to be
18:18:28 reheard by you, and then also have the associated
18:18:31 rezoning heard by you.
18:18:33 In terms of process, it's appropriate under the this
18:18:37 situation to go ahead and open those together, after I
18:18:40 have finished explaining it all, I will ask Ms.
18:18:44 Petrucha to go ahead and present what the
18:18:47 recommendation of the Planning Commission was as
18:18:49 relates to comprehensive plan amendment.
18:18:51 At that time we will go ahead and go into the
18:18:52 rezoning, and we'll talk about the rezoning.
18:18:55 At the end of the process, we will go ahead.

18:18:57 I will probably get up and just take a moment to
18:19:00 explain what you will be reviewing and determining the
18:19:05 comprehensive plan amendment as well as the standard
18:19:06 review on the rezoning just so that's clear, since the
18:19:11 record is a little unusual, and then I will ask you to
18:19:13 go ahead and take a vote on the comprehensive plan
18:19:15 amendment, and then a vote on the rezoning.
18:19:18 So those generally where we are.
18:19:20 At the end of all the presentations I will again get
18:19:23 up and explain to you where we are legally in terms of
18:19:25 taking the vote and how the vote needs to proceed.
18:19:28 Thank you.
18:19:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire, Madam Chair?
18:19:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
18:19:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to having the witnesses
18:19:33 sworn for the purposes of the quasi-judicial portion
18:19:36 of the hearing, do you suggest the witnesses be sworn
18:19:38 now?
18:19:39 >>JULIA COLE: I would go ahead and swear the witnesses
18:19:41 for the entire proceeding.
18:19:43 Part of it is legislative but I think it's
18:19:46 appropriate.

18:19:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, if you would like to
18:19:49 swear in the witnesses for all the hearings.
18:19:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:19:52 wants to speak on items 3 through 10, would you please
18:19:57 stand and raise your right hand?
18:20:05 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:20:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask that all written
18:20:09 material -- Mr. Clerk, do you have items that have to
18:20:12 be received and filed?
18:20:13 I would ask that all written material that has been
18:20:16 available for public inspection in council's office be
18:20:18 received and filed into the record at this time by
18:20:19 motion, please.
18:20:20 >> So moved.
18:20:21 >> Second.
18:20:21 (Motion carried).
18:20:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ladies and gentlemen, to speed things
18:20:25 along when you do state your name, please reaffirm for
18:20:27 the record that you have been sworn.
18:20:29 Thank you.
18:20:31 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
18:20:33 I have been sworn.

18:20:34 This agenda item is related to plan amendment 05-31.
18:20:40 It is located in the vicinity of South Dale Mabry and
18:20:44 Estrella street.
18:20:45 The Planning Commission heard this amendment on
18:20:49 February 13th, 2006, through the public hearing
18:20:55 and found it consistent.
18:20:56 I am just going to brief you on the findings of that
18:20:58 particular amendment.
18:21:08 Planning Commission reviewed this particular area,
18:21:11 then the amendment, it's located in the advice
18:21:13 vicinity -- vicinity of Dale Mabry and Estelle street,
18:21:17 which is in an area which for the most part serves as
18:21:20 a community activity center.
18:21:22 In this particular area, there is large commercial
18:21:25 projects, Publix shopping center, plaza, an additional
18:21:31 commercial project at Dale Mabry and Henderson, and
18:21:38 there is also many access in the area including parks
18:21:40 and schools and a library.
18:21:42 The it is located approximately a block south of the
18:21:46 Publix supermarket on Estrella street.
18:21:50 In this particular area, there have been many projects
18:21:53 and many redevelopments activities.

18:21:56 The Publix shopping center itself was renovated a
18:21:59 number of years ago, and there is a commercial project
18:22:03 located on the south side of Neptune across from the
18:22:06 Publix, south town project.
18:22:11 Ed and again the amendment is located in the general
18:22:14 vicinity of Dale Mabry, which is a major corridor and
18:22:22 mass transit along this area and a lot of commercial
18:22:24 development.
18:22:29 This is the existing development pattern in the area.
18:22:32 Again the amendment is located on Estrella, west of
18:22:35 Dale Mabry.
18:22:38 It is located adjacent to many commercial projects to
18:22:43 the east, to the north, to the northwest, as well as
18:22:46 to the south.
18:22:50 The comp plan designation in this area is residential
18:22:54 6.
18:22:55 The residential 6 classification is a category that
18:22:59 only allows single-family detached housing on a large
18:23:03 lot pattern of development.
18:23:06 The request is to go to community mixed use 35, which
18:23:13 is in keeping with the development pattern in and
18:23:15 around this particular area.

18:23:19 Again the considerations for this particular site is
18:23:24 that the residential 6 will only allow single-family
18:23:27 detached residential uses.
18:23:29 The site is impacted by commercial activity to the
18:23:31 northwest, north, east, and south.
18:23:34 This particular site is separated from the residential
18:23:37 areas by a wall and access easement.
18:23:43 This is at the edge of the Palma Ceia west
18:23:46 neighborhood.
18:23:47 There was an opportunity for redevelopment for office,
18:23:50 specialty retail or mixed use through the plan
18:23:52 amendment.
18:23:53 There are adequate public facilities. This particular
18:23:56 site is adjacent to mass transit lines and is within
18:24:00 walking distance to community activity center.
18:24:02 In keeping with the plans that recognize the urban and
18:24:09 mixed use development within Tampa's activity centers
18:24:11 and corridors, it maximizes the redevelopment
18:24:14 activities and encourages an appropriate mix of land
18:24:16 use in the mixed use category.
18:24:18 That the development and redevelopment shall be
18:24:20 integrated with adjacent land uses through the

18:24:22 creation of like uses, complimentary use beings,
18:24:26 mitigating efforts and transportation connection.
18:24:29 And mixed use 35 planned category recognizes areas
18:24:33 that are suitable for general commercial, professional
18:24:35 office, residential development, development pattern,
18:24:38 adequate public facility and market demand.
18:24:42 Again the Planning Commission heard this at public
18:24:43 hearing on February 13th and found it consistent
18:24:45 with the comprehensive plan.
18:24:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
18:24:49 Is that the staff recommendation, also?
18:24:51 >>> It was the staff recommendation, also.
18:24:52 >> Did you consider the fact that all the other
18:24:54 commercial uses that you recognized are on commercial
18:24:57 streets, and this is a local residential street?
18:25:01 >>> We were looking at it in terms of an overall
18:25:04 activity center, and this particular area, there is
18:25:08 commercial development to the -- commercial lines that
18:25:13 goes all the way to this property.
18:25:15 We looked at this property in context to everything
18:25:19 that happened around it.
18:25:20 >> Well, I guess the glass can be half empty or half

18:25:23 full.
18:25:24 Thank you.
18:25:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Petrucha, is that the north-south
18:25:29 street on the west side?
18:25:31 Is that church street?
18:25:32 >>> This is church street.
18:25:34 >> What's the one with the yellow and the pink dotted
18:25:36 line?
18:25:37 >>> This particular --
18:25:40 >> The north-south one.
18:25:41 >>> Yeah.
18:25:42 This yellow is the amendment site.
18:25:44 >> But what's the north-south dotted line?
18:25:47 >>> This dotted line is a line that shows where there
18:25:50 is commercial --
18:25:52 >> Right where your pen is.
18:25:54 >>> It's not a street.
18:25:56 This is the edge of where the commercial zoning and
18:26:02 development is located westbound this pink line and
18:26:04 that's all part of the community activity center.
18:26:06 >> Is this something we voted on, we just voted on
18:26:10 this very recently, right?

18:26:12 We did.
18:26:16 >>> The amendment came before you in 2006.
18:26:18 We're not on the council at that time.
18:26:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
18:26:21 There was something right in that same backyard.
18:26:24 It was the plaza north thereof that we voted on?
18:26:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We voted on Swann and Henderson.
18:26:32 >>MARY MULHERN: No, it was something right by Publix,
18:26:37 and right by that little shopping center.
18:26:39 John will remember.
18:26:42 Just a couple weeks ago.
18:26:44 Recently.
18:26:49 >>> There was a plan amendment Swann and Henderson but
18:26:53 that is to the northeast.
18:26:54 >> That was the bank, right?
18:26:57 Yeah, no, I'm not talking about that.
18:27:03 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I was sworn.
18:27:07 On allowing the rezoning and the plan amendment to
18:27:09 come forward as part of the settlement agreement.
18:27:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:27:15 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
18:28:04 I have been sworn.

18:28:05 We are here for petition Z 07-94 located at 3809 west
18:28:10 Estrella street from RS-75 residence single-family to
18:28:14 PD planned development with a proposed use of business
18:28:18 professional office, retail, lawn and garden.
18:28:20 The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property
18:28:23 for the redevelopment of this site under one of two
18:28:26 developments scenarios, to include the potential uses
18:28:29 of business, professional office, retail, lawn and
18:28:32 garden.
18:28:33 The first development proposal removes the existing
18:28:36 single-family home and proposes a development of a
18:28:39 3500 square foot office building with a maximum height
18:28:42 of 30 feet.
18:28:44 The site setbacks for this scenario are 25 feet for
18:28:48 the front, 25.5 feet for the west, 10 feet for the
18:28:52 east and 33 feet for the rear.
18:28:55 The second development proposal retains the existing
18:28:59 975 square foot single-family home located in the rear
18:29:02 of the property and construct a 2025 square foot
18:29:08 building with a minimum height of 30 feet -- with a
18:29:11 maximum height of 30 feet.
18:29:13 Site setbacks for this scenario are 25.5 photo feet

18:29:18 west side, 10 feet east side, 8-foot rear.
18:29:21 Total parking required for both scenarios are 12
18:29:23 spaces.
18:29:24 A total of 11 spaces have been provided.
18:29:26 Waiver has been requested for the deficit parking
18:29:29 space.
18:29:30 There are several large trees on-site including a
18:29:33 35-inch grand oak, a 30-inch live oak, 26-inch oak and
18:29:38 25-inch Laurel oak.
18:29:48 We have a zoning map of the local area.
18:29:55 You can see along the Dale Mabry corridor,
18:30:01 predominantly CG, PD to the south
18:30:13 This is an aerial of the site.
18:30:23 I believe what you were talking about before is an
18:30:29 easement along the side of the parcel.
18:30:33 This is a picture of the site.
18:30:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Under both of these scenarios, it
18:30:56 says the two trees and the one closest to us is an oak
18:31:00 and I can't tell what the next one back is.
18:31:02 Under both of those scenarios, both of those trees,
18:31:06 come out?
18:31:09 Is that what I'm seeing?

18:31:12 >>> I believe in scenario 1 --
18:31:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Looks like there's parking.
18:31:24 Says 17-inch tree, remove 30-inch tree.
18:31:27 >>> When I'm finished transportation will come up on
18:31:32 transportation issues and then Mary will come up with
18:31:34 every issue pertaining to the tree and landscaping.
18:31:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just while the picture is up, those
18:31:39 are the two main trees on the site.
18:31:47 >> Mary Daniels Bryce, Land Development Coordination.
18:31:50 I have been sworn.
18:31:51 The tree up front, the 30-inch, is alive oak.
18:31:58 And they are proposing to save it.
18:32:00 However, they are not providing the adequate setback
18:32:03 required to mitigate for the canopy.
18:32:07 >> That's effective removal?
18:32:11 Okay.
18:32:12 And the one behind it is straight removal?
18:32:16 >>> It's a straight removal.
18:32:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:32:25 >>> That's assumed an effective removal. They
18:32:26 actually need to go out and stake the property.
18:32:33 They haven't done so as of yet.

18:32:37 This is the commercial uses that are happening east of
18:32:44 the site.
18:32:55 This is to the south of the site.
18:32:57 This is the Colonial Bank whose parking lot abuts the
18:33:02 site to the south.
18:33:05 This right here is the 6-foot masonry wall that
18:33:09 divides the subject site with the adjacent
18:33:14 single-family parcel.
18:33:18 >> What's the zoning on that parcel?
18:33:20 >> That is R-75.
18:33:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
18:33:27 And there's a house next door to that?
18:33:30 >>> Yes.
18:33:31 This is the home.
18:33:33 And this is looking down Estrella.
18:33:40 This is the commercial use that is directly to the
18:33:43 east of the site.
18:33:44 And this right here is the masonry wall and the
18:33:48 easement that is existing on the site that appears to
18:33:52 be a road.
18:33:54 But it isn't.
18:33:56 City staff finds this petition to be inconsistent with

18:34:03 our regulations.
18:34:04 >>Land Development Coordination, we need the
18:34:06 petitioner to revise the scale on the site plan
18:34:10 because it's not scaled properly.
18:34:13 And we want them to be aware that they have not
18:34:18 requested any outside storage area, and they have
18:34:20 requested the use of lawn and garden.
18:34:22 So either they need to remove that use from the site
18:34:24 plan, or else if you decide to approve it, you can
18:34:28 request that they though show that area on the site
18:34:30 plan.
18:34:34 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dingfelder.
18:34:35 >> Ms. Saul-Sena was first but I did have a question.
18:34:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the width of Estella, the
18:34:41 actual width?
18:34:42 >>> It's difficult for us to determine based on the
18:34:47 site plan because it not to scale.
18:34:49 >> Okay.
18:34:51 So my other question, if you wouldn't mind clarifying,
18:34:54 I saw the tree and I ran back in here.
18:35:02 >> The tree hugger.
18:35:04 >> My question could be if you would just reiterate,

18:35:08 is the tree protected in both site plans, or either?
18:35:12 >>> Well, our tree and landscaping department has
18:35:14 requested from the first review that they stake out
18:35:17 the approximate location of the proposed structure to
18:35:21 be able to determine if it's going to effect the
18:35:23 canopy or the tree.
18:35:24 They have not done so.
18:35:27 That's where we have an objection.
18:35:28 >> How could we -- how could you then really review it
18:35:31 and how could we go forward with this hearing?
18:35:35 >>> They opted to do so.
18:35:38 We brought forward an objection in our staff report.
18:35:40 >> No, this is a Julia Cole question.
18:35:44 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:35:45 I don't know that it's one of the criteria that you
18:35:48 have in determining whether or not a site plan -- one
18:35:53 of the criteria that you can look at as to whether or
18:35:55 not they met the criteria in the code.
18:35:57 I will say I think the petitioner disagreed with that,
18:36:00 so I would probably wait to hear what their position
18:36:04 is and then ultimately you make that determination as
18:36:06 to

18:36:10 >> Joe Jill, your recommendation is, you don't have
18:36:19 any objection, except your technical objections that
18:36:21 you stated on the record.
18:36:23 But your recommendation, because this is a little
18:36:26 unusual case, is contingent upon the home phone
18:36:31 category being changed.
18:36:37 >>> Even with that we are objecting to the use of
18:36:40 commercial, retail and commercial.
18:36:45 We don't feel that's appropriate.
18:36:47 We don't feel it's necessarily appropriate for
18:36:49 single-family residential in that exact location.
18:36:51 But limiting it to an office use is more in terms of
18:36:57 what we would like to see.
18:36:59 >> More of a passive use.
18:37:01 >>> Yes.
18:37:01 A lower impact sort of use.
18:37:03 >> I have a little bit of issue also -- pulling that
18:37:08 building forward, I mean, 30 feet is not necessarily
18:37:11 an egregious height because obviously single-family
18:37:14 could be 35.
18:37:15 As a matter of fact, I think the property across the
18:37:18 street, one of those is two story, and two lots over

18:37:21 is two story.
18:37:23 So 30 feet doesn't bother me so much.
18:37:24 But what I am a little disturbed about is the
18:37:28 proximity to the street.
18:37:32 Because the setbacks, I am going to call it the
18:37:36 adjacent house even though it's two lots over, for all
18:37:38 intents and purposes, it's an adjacent house, is a
18:37:41 residential setback on RS-75 which is set back what?
18:37:46 >>> 25 feet.
18:37:47 >> 2525 feet.
18:37:48 And the ones across the street are probably likewise
18:37:51 also 25 feet.
18:37:52 And both of the site plans show a setback of, what, 20
18:37:58 feet?
18:37:59 It looks even closer.
18:38:01 Not really sure.
18:38:07 >>> Yes, 20 feet.
18:38:10 >> Then my other question, and maybe this is
18:38:13 transportation, if Melanie is here.
18:38:20 This is a residential street.
18:38:22 It's a local road.
18:38:25 And this question related not only to the PD but also

18:38:29 to the comp plan amendment itself.
18:38:34 Do we have any comments about a commercial setting or
18:38:40 on a local road?
18:38:41 That seems to be a precedent for this block.
18:38:44 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
18:38:48 I have been sworn.
18:38:49 They are accessing this but it's their only access.
18:38:54 They have no act from Dale Mabry so that's the only
18:38:57 access.
18:38:58 >> Right.
18:38:58 But my question is, is there any other precedent on
18:39:01 this block or even on the other block nearby for
18:39:05 commercial property or office property on any of those
18:39:11 local streets?
18:39:12 I can't picture any.
18:39:14 And I cut through those neighborhoods regularly.
18:39:18 >>> Yes, actually there is a bank located across the
18:39:21 street, Colonial Bank across Estrella.
18:39:24 >> Right.
18:39:26 But that's not on this lot.
18:39:30 If I guess I looked at the plat map.
18:39:37 I am not being very clear.

18:39:39 But I looked at the plat map.
18:39:40 What I am saying is this deep into the neighborhood,
18:39:42 is there precedent for it?
18:39:44 I recognize on the properties that use Dale Mabry,
18:39:47 some of them have a side entrance, you know, because
18:39:52 they do.
18:39:53 The car wash has a side entrance and a front entrance
18:39:56 on Dale Mabry.
18:39:57 But this one uniquely would just be -- my concern is
18:40:03 setting the precedent, and that deep into the
18:40:05 neighborhood.
18:40:08 >>> I can show you this aerial that I have that might
18:40:10 help you.
18:40:11 But the only way to get to the drive-through is to go
18:40:17 through this entrance that is almost directly located
18:40:19 south of this property.
18:40:22 This is the subject property.
18:40:24 And this is the Colonial Bank.
18:40:26 And this is the only way they can use their
18:40:29 drive-through.
18:40:31 They exit to Dale Mabry.
18:40:32 There is a parking lot in this location.

18:40:34 However, this is the only way vehicles can come here
18:40:36 and use the drive-through.
18:40:38 >> But the lot is directly across the street -- the
18:40:43 lot directly across the street, across the street,
18:40:46 there, that lot doesn't have -- that lot is not CMU.
18:40:52 And it's not CMU.
18:40:56 I think it's the residential category.
18:41:00 I don't know how the bank got to do that.
18:41:05 But I think if we look at the comp plan map --
18:41:15 >>> okay, you're looking at the plan classification
18:41:17 across the road.
18:41:19 Is that a question?
18:41:20 >> Right.
18:41:22 >>> Okay.
18:41:35 What that was, in terms of when the flex provision was
18:41:39 provided so in effect the flex was provided from Dale
18:41:42 Mabry to the back of that property, because that land
18:41:45 area is zoned CG.
18:41:46 >> Because it's the same owner.
18:41:48 >> Same owner.
18:41:49 >> And the same use so you can flex in.
18:41:51 >>> It's flexed.

18:41:53 In fact it's basically a CMU 35.
18:41:57 For purposes of zoning there's a CG across the street
18:41:59 from it.
18:42:02 CG is 300 feet deep.
18:42:04 >> But the map we are looking at formally speaking,
18:42:08 that lot across the street from the subject property
18:42:10 has never had a formal comp plan change.
18:42:13 >>> Because they had the ability to do it with the
18:42:16 flex flux.
18:42:17 >> So theoretically, leave it up for a second.
18:42:20 If Mr. Montanaro, this petitioner, had sold his
18:42:23 property to the Dale Mabry, adjacent Dale Mabry folks,
18:42:27 then they wanted to try to flex in, then it's possible
18:42:31 he might have been able to do it that way.
18:42:32 >>> But the flex provision was removed from the comp
18:42:36 plan after the --
18:42:37 >> We don't flex anyone?
18:42:40 >> You have not flexed for years, and that's why the
18:42:43 request is for an amendment to the comprehensive plan
18:42:45 but is the only provision provided at this time.
18:42:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for
18:42:49 transportation again.

18:42:52 What is the width of Estrella?
18:42:54 >>> I'm looking at the aerial.
18:42:57 And it seems to me, if you look at this aerial, you
18:43:01 can see that closer to the commercial properties, the
18:43:05 pavement -- I have looked down this area and it looks
18:43:13 more narrow down to 20, larger in this location.
18:43:18 >> My particular question about the site plans in
18:43:21 front of us, we have a very narrow access point on the
18:43:24 western part of the property, and we have a very -- we
18:43:27 have a narrow residential street.
18:43:28 And I wondered, what is your professional opinion
18:43:31 about that?
18:43:33 >>> I actually had passed out a handout to you.
18:43:39 The first handout, the first one shows -- actually
18:43:44 this is a small turning radius for a car at 21 feet.
18:43:48 It shows the turning radius of the car.
18:43:51 And our code requires a 20-foot, keep in mind a
18:43:54 20-foot two-way traffic.
18:43:59 This is 15 and we had objections to that.
18:44:00 Then I showed you the first -- their site plan is a
18:44:04 little off on their scale.
18:44:05 >> Could you move it over a little bit?

18:44:08 >>> Their site plan is a little off on their scale.
18:44:10 However it's close 1 to 30.
18:44:13 I drew in a car and this is the outside turning radius
18:44:16 of the wheel.
18:44:16 And it shows on the current configuration, because
18:44:18 they do not provide a buffer -- a 20-foot access
18:44:24 easement.
18:44:25 This car actually cannot turn into this.
18:44:29 And then the third page that I have given you, it
18:44:33 shows you if they did provide the 20 feet as well as
18:44:36 an 8-foot landscape buffer they would be able to turn
18:44:40 it to this ADA, because this ADA is quite tight
18:44:44 because of the turning radius of a car.
18:44:46 However, a slight bit of it will be using the aisle,
18:44:50 kind of a flex area.
18:44:51 >> Thank you.
18:44:52 I have one quick staff question.
18:44:54 There's no request -- is everybody listening?
18:44:57 There's no request on our thing for a waiver of
18:44:59 buffers.
18:45:00 But I believe when there's a commercial use adjacent
18:45:03 to a residential use, there has to be side setbacks

18:45:08 and rear setbacks.
18:45:09 It wasn't listed on the waiver request.
18:45:11 >>> That's because there is a 15-foot easement that is
18:45:17 there.
18:45:18 They the masonry wall is already exist.
18:45:21 >> the easement, isn't that what they are using for
18:45:24 their driveway?
18:45:25 >>> There's also an 8-foot landscape buffer.
18:45:29 >> Why didn't you mention the landscape buffer?
18:45:37 It wasn't listed as a request for a waiver.
18:45:44 >>CHAIRMAN: She hasn't given her report yet.
18:45:46 >>>
18:45:47 >> But it wasn't written down.
18:45:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead, Ms. Finney.
18:45:54 >>> We also request that they revise their parking
18:45:57 waiver on the site plan from 12 to 11 scenario.
18:46:03 For the spaces.
18:46:05 Like I said, transportation and the tree and
18:46:13 landscaping will come up and present their
18:46:18 inconsistencies.
18:46:19 Parks and recreation, there is somebody here from
18:46:23 parks and recreation if you have further questions.

18:46:26 For development scenario 1, move retention pond 5 feet
18:46:31 to the northwest to provide 20 feet for 35-inch grand
18:46:35 tree.
18:46:35 The second grand tree has been approved for removal at
18:46:38 the waiver request, and third scenario development
18:46:44 number 2 please provide the 20-foot radius for the
18:46:46 35-inch grand tree revised site plan to illustrate it.
18:46:50 Second grand tree has been approved for removal as the
18:46:53 waiver request for the inch for inch replacement.
18:46:58 Please add note to the plan, site and landscape plans
18:47:00 will be reviewed and approved by Parks and Recreation
18:47:00 at the time of permitting.
18:47:06 Solid waste would like them to remove from development
18:47:11 scenario number 1, all depictions limitations that
18:47:15 limit dumpster service.
18:47:16 In addition to what is currently noted on the site
18:47:18 plan, they need to -- that all carts will be stored
18:47:24 within the screening.
18:47:25 The enclosure will be a minimum of four feet in height
18:47:28 and with compatible materials in the front of the
18:47:31 building as well as the main building.
18:47:34 Locations needed, solid waste collection, service will

18:47:37 be by dumpster for both structures with all applicable
18:47:42 notes for that.
18:47:43 And visual depictions needed is that they need to show
18:47:46 the dumpster screening enclosure drawn to scale on the
18:47:50 site plan.
18:47:51 And ten feet, approximately ten feet, minimum 10-foot
18:47:55 opening.
18:47:58 Stormwater requests that they add a note to the plan
18:48:00 that says the developer will retain 50-year storm with
18:48:03 no credit for existing impervious.
18:48:13 Mary will come up and go over her comments from tree
18:48:16 and landscaping at this point.
18:48:24 >> Mary Daniels Bryce, Land Development Coordination.
18:48:27 I have been sworn.
18:48:29 The site plan needs several corrections regarding the
18:48:36 tree size and species and how the tree table counts
18:48:41 those trees.
18:48:42 Also, I had asked from day one in my staff report that
18:48:48 the trees be staked in the front, the 30-inch tree,
18:48:52 because we need to determine canopy conflicts.
18:48:57 There are a number of branches that look like they are
18:48:59 going to be affected.

18:49:00 They are providing 20-foot setbacks, but that is not
18:49:02 adequate in this case because the canopy extends out
18:49:05 more than 36 feet.
18:49:07 And I have pictures to show that.
18:49:09 Also, they need to provide the information regarding
18:49:13 their vehicle use area green space.
18:49:17 And if a waiver is requested, we need that waiver on
18:49:19 the plan.
18:49:20 With respect to your question regarding the buffer,
18:49:24 Mrs. Saul-Sena, that is a question transportation
18:49:26 requirement.
18:49:26 They do meet chapter 13 buffers.
18:49:29 Building is in front of the parking area which does
18:49:31 block and create the buffer.
18:49:34 And the buffer requirement is 8 feet.
18:49:37 It's well beyond 8 feet back from the front property
18:49:39 line.
18:49:42 On the east side is required a 3-foot wide buffer.
18:49:47 They are providing it on the west side.
18:49:48 Whether it's an opaque barrier or the code allows to
18:49:52 have the opaque barrier as the buffer, and then you
18:49:56 provide one shrub or vine every ten feet along that

18:50:04 opaque barrier.
18:50:05 They have met those requirements for 13.
18:50:07 Also, the calculation on the plan for the minimum
18:50:11 required trees based on one per 1500 square feet, that
18:50:17 calculation is not on the plan.
18:50:20 There's a tree on-site that I asked inch for inch
18:50:24 replacement for.
18:50:25 It is listed as a 17-inch tree and a 30-inch live oak.
18:50:29 I am calling that tree a single tree.
18:50:37 Picture on the Elmo.
18:50:40 This is the tree that's being removed in mid-lot.
18:50:55 It is actually a single tree.
18:50:57 They share a root collar and the tree measures 42
18:51:02 inches.
18:51:02 I'm asking for full inch for inch replacement.
18:51:05 Tree is very unusual because the west half of the tree
18:51:10 is a Laurel oak.
18:51:11 The east half fork is a live oak.
18:51:16 But it's still a single tree on a single system.
18:51:21 So I want inch for inch replacement.
18:51:23 The trees -- we would allow it to be removed but we
18:51:32 would like it for replacement for that tree.

18:51:36 Regarding the tree in the front, this is that 30-inch
18:51:40 oak that you asked if it was going to be preserved.
18:51:42 They are showing a 20-foot setback and a 25-foot
18:51:45 setback on the respective plans.
18:51:50 If you would look on the plan, this is a side shot of
18:51:53 that tree.
18:51:55 And when you look on the plan, you see the cabbage
18:51:59 palm which is probably maybe about close to 40 feet
18:52:02 back, which is this tree right here.
18:52:05 That canopy comes all the way back.
18:52:08 Now, that canopy has major structural branches.
18:52:12 I have asked them to state exactly where that building
18:52:15 is going and 20 feet would put it in the proximity of
18:52:19 right here which would have blocked major structural
18:52:23 components and been a an effective removal.
18:52:26 The petitioner has not done that.
18:52:28 And whether or not that canopy can be preserved has
18:52:30 not been --
18:52:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a protected tree at this
18:52:34 point?
18:52:35 >>> It is a protected tree.
18:52:36 On a scale of 175 points for a live oak to be

18:52:41 considered a grand, it's a 30-inch live oak.
18:52:44 We are looking at 168, 170 points, so it is very, very
18:52:49 close to being a grand.
18:52:51 And based on the canopy, it really needs more
18:52:56 protection.
18:52:59 The greater setback.
18:53:08 >>CHAIRMAN: Questions from council members?
18:53:09 Petitioner?
18:53:25 >>> I am going to speak to the rezoning.
18:53:27 This is what's rather unique about the situation in
18:53:31 process.
18:53:32 I would like to preface my comments by letting you
18:53:34 know what my findings are going to be this evening is
18:53:37 based on whether or not this council goes ahead and
18:53:40 approves the plan amendment.
18:53:41 So the rezoning is based on whether this property is
18:53:43 actually going to be CMU 35
18:53:50 That's what the findings are based on.
18:53:52 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know why we are not doing them
18:53:54 separately.
18:53:55 Did I miss something?
18:53:57 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

18:54:01 Given the litigation that was part and parcel of what
18:54:05 you approved with the concept, but this you would
18:54:08 rehear the comprehensive plan amendment, and also hear
18:54:10 the zoning petition.
18:54:13 So you are hearing this together.
18:54:16 You, for the purposes of the zoning and approving the
18:54:18 zoning, he is opine to the being CMU 35.
18:54:28 You will -- and I say this at the beginning -- at the
18:54:31 close of this hearing you will take a vote first on
18:54:33 whether or not you are changing the comprehensive plan
18:54:35 designation.
18:54:36 And then you will deal with the rezoning.
18:54:37 If you take that vote, it obviously will allow to you
18:54:40 move forward on the rezoning.
18:54:43 >> I still don't get it.
18:54:47 I mean tonight why aren't we doing them separately and
18:54:49 voting separately?
18:54:50 >>> You are voting on them separately.
18:54:52 You are just hearing them together.
18:54:54 >> Why are we hearing them together?
18:54:56 >>> Why we are hearing them together, and this is part
18:54:59 of the discussion relating to the settlement

18:55:01 agreement, as to when this was originally heard.
18:55:04 A lot of the of this particular comprehensive plan
18:55:07 amendment -- and that was heard by a different
18:55:09 council, related to the specific uses of the property.
18:55:13 It seemed to be one of the overriding concerns.
18:55:16 So given two things, one, the fact we were in this
18:55:19 litigation and we had the opportunity to bring --
18:55:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Was that a settlement that we would do
18:55:24 this?
18:55:25 >>JULIA COLE: That would you hear them together.
18:55:27 You make a decision.
18:55:28 But you hear them separate.
18:55:32 >>> The process can cause a little bit of confusion.
18:55:38 This is a very unique instance.
18:55:40 But please bear in mind again our preference that my
18:55:44 comments are based on the supposition that the project
18:55:48 will go to CMU 35.
18:55:52 It cannot even be brought up under the residential 6
18:55:54 category.
18:55:55 So it was strictly based on whether or not this body
18:55:59 this evening will find the CMU 35 consistent with the
18:56:02 comprehensive plan.

18:56:03 So that's what this opinion is going to be based on,
18:56:08 the supposition that this will be approved by this
18:56:10 body.
18:56:10 That being said I am going to go ahead and continue --
18:56:14 with a couple of extra comments.
18:56:16 As you can see, the subject site does have a
18:56:18 residential 6 land use category contained within the
18:56:21 boundaries of the Palma Ceia west neighborhood
18:56:26 association and it's one of the few associations in
18:56:28 the urban core that actually has a land use 6
18:56:31 residential, which is a very low intensity, in fact
18:56:36 very rarely can you really have a nonresidential use
18:56:38 on a residential 6 but it is allowed within the
18:56:41 locational criteria.
18:56:42 This particular parcel is what I think the applicant
18:56:49 is requesting in CMU designation.
18:56:52 That is the most close land use designation to the
18:56:55 site that would allow a nonresidential use
18:56:58 consideration.
18:57:01 Ms. Petrucha again has told you all this evening about
18:57:08 the reasoning by the Planning Commission as to the
18:57:15 extension of the CMU 35 in this particular area.

18:57:18 You can see by the aerial, there are uses primarily on
18:57:28 this particular parcel, most of the residential uses
18:57:33 to the south side are a little bit more -- they really
18:57:36 don't meet the RS-75 but they are still residential,
18:57:39 and we have to take that into consideration.
18:57:41 The parcel hinges on commercial use to the south, as
18:57:47 has already been discussed.
18:57:48 There are a variety of other uses that extend almost
18:57:51 as far back on the western side of Dale Mabry all the
18:57:54 way to the south.
18:57:55 I think one example, Mr. Dingfelder, for you, and this
18:57:59 will kill two birds with one stone, the steak and
18:58:02 shake further to the south extends almost as far as I
18:58:05 think this particular parcel, has access on the north
18:58:08 and to the south.
18:58:13 I it's about three blocks from this particular area.
18:58:21 But the Palma Ceia west and Virginia park, in that
18:58:24 area.
18:58:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But my question was, is there a
18:58:27 free standing commercial use abutting any of these
18:58:32 residential streets?
18:58:35 , that does not have a Dale Mabry -- the Dale Mabry

18:58:39 frontage?
18:58:39 I recognize that throws a lot of properties that have
18:58:44 the Dale Mabry frontage and may also come out on the
18:58:47 side.
18:58:47 But I can't picture any free standing commercial or
18:58:50 office use.
18:58:52 But by itself only has frontage on a residential.
18:58:58 >>> On the local street.
18:59:01 >> On the local street.
18:59:02 >>> I would think if memory serves me correctly, also,
18:59:05 I would probably have to agree with you on that
18:59:07 aspect.
18:59:08 Most of the commercial uses of course that are on Dale
18:59:10 Mabry, that extend farther into the neighborhood, I'm
18:59:14 sure this council has had to grant a on a variety of
18:59:17 occasions waivers, as Mrs. Saul-Sena has alluded to
18:59:20 and she pointed out on the site plan as far as the
18:59:22 waiver box is concerned, there would have to be a
18:59:25 waiver allowing access to a commercial use from a
18:59:27 residential street.
18:59:30 That is the case of course in all of the cases when do
18:59:32 you have a commercial use that access a local road.

18:59:36 That being said, going back to the CMU 35 years use on
18:59:40 this particular piece of parcel, one of the --
18:59:45 probably the most telling thing, actually two more
18:59:48 things.
18:59:49 I want to go into my report, and basically comment on,
18:59:56 as you have already heard, there are still a variety
19:00:00 of impediments, technical impediments to make this
19:00:04 property functional as a nonresidential use.
19:00:07 And council will also have to take that into
19:00:09 consideration.
19:00:10 And I do believe the applicant does understand that,
19:00:12 also.
19:00:13 We do have a policy that talks about neighborhood
19:00:15 serving commercial and residential office uses, that
19:00:18 serve the daily uses of residents, residential
19:00:22 development.
19:00:23 They can be considered provided that these activities
19:00:25 are compatible with surrounding existing planned
19:00:28 residential development, and that they are developed
19:00:30 in accordance with applicable development regulation.
19:00:33 As far as that particular policy states, that has not
19:00:39 been met at this juncture since there are still a

19:00:42 variety of technical impediments to the functionality
19:00:45 of the site for nonresidential use.
19:00:47 Coming in as a CMU 35, the uses that are being
19:00:51 requested by the applicant are consistent with the CMU
19:00:54 35 category.
19:00:55 I think the one saving grace, based on the particular
19:01:00 PD presented this evening, is there are only two
19:01:02 specific uses that are being requested by the
19:01:05 applicant on the site.
19:01:06 So the site is very restrictive as far as the type of
19:01:09 uses that can be considered.
19:01:10 As to whether or not this council, this body
19:01:12 determines whether or not any of those uses are too
19:01:16 much of an impact to the immediate residential area,
19:01:20 is up to you to ultimately decide as the ultimate
19:01:24 determiners of consistency of what Land Development
19:01:26 Code or the comprehensive plan.
19:01:29 We find that based on objectively speaking, what the
19:01:32 applicant is proposing, down to the CMU 35, it is
19:01:35 consistent based on how it interrelates to a
19:01:37 commercial use directly to the south of the site, in
19:01:40 its proximity to a major arterial, which is Dale

19:01:43 Mabry.
19:01:44 So Planning Commission overall found the proposed plan
19:01:49 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
19:01:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm just kind of following up on Mr.
19:01:54 Dingfelder's question.
19:01:56 Maybe you could put the color coded match.
19:02:00 It's probably under that pile there.
19:02:04 >>> When you say color coded --
19:02:06 >> Your future land use map.
19:02:08 Yeah.
19:02:10 When you look -- a couple things that bother me.
19:02:15 When you talk about the property underneath it's
19:02:17 actually part, as Mr. Dingfelder stated, it's part of
19:02:22 the property, it's owned by the same and used for the
19:02:26 same uses, the bank which is on Dale Mabry, right?
19:02:28 So it's not that, as if it were that lot across the
19:02:32 street.
19:02:32 It's part of the bigger property.
19:02:35 And I shop at Publix and had a child graduate from
19:02:40 plant so I'm driving around there all the time.
19:02:43 And I can't think of any side street that has a
19:02:47 commercial property on it, in that neighborhood.

19:02:52 But you can see that is pretty much a straight line,
19:02:57 north-south, yellow, single-family, or -- I know there
19:03:03 are different -- maybe different classifications.
19:03:06 But what is the yellow?
19:03:09 >>> 6.
19:03:11 >> 6?
19:03:13 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:03:14 >> So that's not part of what you look at for
19:03:16 consistency, the fact that it's on a side street?
19:03:21 >>> My determine, Mrs. Mulhern, is based on whether
19:03:24 you approve the CMU 35.
19:03:26 I'm log at zoning of CMU 35.
19:03:30 That's what I have to do.
19:03:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
19:03:32 Thank you.
19:03:32 >>> So I'm trying to be as subjective as possible,
19:03:36 trying to give you as much information as possible so
19:03:38 you can make an informed decision.
19:03:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you have one hat on and rose has
19:03:42 a different hat on.
19:03:43 >>> Thank you, sir.
19:03:45 Any more questions?

19:03:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:03:51 >>> Graham Carothers, here in Tampa, address 101 East
19:04:02 Kennedy Boulevard, suite 2800.
19:04:04 For the record I have been sworn.
19:04:06 And I am pleased to be here this evening on behalf of
19:04:08 the petitioner.
19:04:15 You know, this has been a very long, arduous process
19:04:19 that involves a unique piece of property that's
19:04:23 situated in a very unique location, and it presents a
19:04:25 lot of challenges, and a number of different ways.
19:04:30 If this were easy, we wouldn't have spent the last two
19:04:33 and a half years working with the staff, the city
19:04:35 attorney's office, and the Planning Commission folks
19:04:40 to try to come back before you with something we felt
19:04:44 was fair, reasonable and acceptable.
19:04:45 So I guess the first thing I would like to do is
19:04:50 specifically thank those with whom we have been
19:04:51 working over the past couple of years, Abbye Feeley,
19:04:54 Julia Cole, the folks from the traffic department,
19:04:58 Melanie and her group, Mary and her team from parks
19:05:02 and recreation.
19:05:03 We have met with each of these people on a number of

19:05:05 occasions over the past year or two, and what we have
19:05:08 come back before you with this evening represents a
19:05:11 lot of hard work by a lot of people.
19:05:13 So thanks to those who helped us out over the past
19:05:21 months and years.
19:05:21 What I would like to do is start with a couple of
19:05:26 additional aerial photographs, and some photographs of
19:05:28 the property which I think may provide a little bit
19:05:31 more detail on context to what we are dealing with
19:05:36 here tonight, go over some of the zoning and future
19:05:39 land use maps, which show you the designations based
19:05:44 on use, current active uses on the property, which I
19:05:48 think will be a little bit easier to understand and
19:05:51 probably help answer a couple of the questions that
19:05:54 have been raised during the staff's comments.
19:05:59 I want to spend a little bit more time dealing with a
19:06:01 number of very unique physical features and
19:06:05 limitations of this lot, talk a little more and
19:06:08 clarify to the extent that I can some of the issues
19:06:11 raised in the staff report and in the comments you
19:06:13 heard tonight.
19:06:15 And then talk a little bit about the history of the

19:06:17 property before I wrap up.
19:06:19 So with that, if I could start with this.
19:06:26 Can all of you see this okay?
19:06:31 This is an aerial photograph that was actually taken
19:06:33 in 2004, was obtained through Hillsborough County,
19:06:36 south Dale Mabry is shown going north and south here,
19:06:40 Neptune and the Publix shopping center is shown here.
19:06:44 This is Estrella street.
19:06:46 Subject property is located just right here.
19:06:50 This particular map, although the resolution isn't
19:06:55 very good, the demolition of the development which
19:07:00 happened just to the north of us, and I have a more
19:07:02 recent aerial view that shows the completed
19:07:06 development, which does impact a portion of the west
19:07:09 boundary of the subject property.
19:07:12 What I would like to point out is a number of things.
19:07:19 All of the uses to the east, all along Dale Mabry
19:07:23 Highway, are general commercial uses.
19:07:28 That's now been expanded all the way back to church
19:07:30 Avenue, the north end of this block by the south town
19:07:33 development which you will see in a minute.
19:07:36 To the south is all commercial development.

19:07:38 And I'll get to the driveway issue here in a minute in
19:07:41 a little more detail.
19:07:43 To the west, although this is a residential
19:07:46 neighborhood, the property immediately adjacent to the
19:07:49 west is actually also used for commercial purposes,
19:07:52 and it has a limitation which I will put on the Elmo
19:07:57 to show you that in a moment.
19:07:58 It may also be used as a residence.
19:08:00 But we have documented proof it's also being used for
19:08:03 business purposes which I will show you in a minute.
19:08:09 The point to that is to let you know, this is the 2006
19:08:17 aerial.
19:08:18 Which shows that the subject property, that we are her
19:08:21 on tonight, is in fact entirely surrounded by
19:08:24 commercial use property.
19:08:27 This shows the completed south town project, the
19:08:30 parking lot which comes so far south in this block
19:08:34 that it does in fact impact the western boundary of
19:08:37 this property.
19:08:39 This is Estrella street.
19:08:42 We'll come back to this in a minute.
19:08:53 To go through just a couple of photographs which I

19:08:56 again think will put in this in a little more context,
19:09:02 and if we could see it on the Elmo, it was taken on
19:09:06 Tuesday afternoon.
19:09:07 This is the corner of Dale Mabry and Estrella.
19:09:10 I believe it was councilman Dingfelder who a moment
19:09:12 ago made a reference to the encroachment of
19:09:16 nonresidential uses, this being back into a
19:09:19 neighborhood.
19:09:20 Just for a point of reference, I don't know if you can
19:09:22 see it well enough on -- do you have screens right in
19:09:25 front of you?
19:09:27 >> Yes.
19:09:28 >>> There's a yellow box truck the top of which you
19:09:30 can see right here.
19:09:32 That's actually on the property located.
19:09:34 -- located west of the subject property.
19:09:37 This white truck is parked at the corner of the
19:09:40 subject property.
19:09:42 So in terms of depth into the neighborhood, we are
19:09:50 very really very close to Dale Mabry.
19:09:51 This is a little bit closer shot there.
19:09:54 You can still see the yellow box right behind the

19:09:57 Colonial Bank sign.
19:09:58 Again that's located on the property which is zoned
19:10:00 residential, located immediately to the west of the
19:10:02 subject property.
19:10:05 This is taken from the east side of Dale Mabry.
19:10:10 That's the house, located west of the subject
19:10:12 property.
19:10:15 This truck is parked at the corner of the property.
19:10:20 This is just a shot of Dale Mabry showing you the uses
19:10:22 which directly abut this property to the east, which
19:10:27 face on Dale Mabry.
19:10:28 This again is the subject property.
19:10:33 It's a little wider angle than what you were shown
19:10:36 previously.
19:10:36 You can really see the impact of this masonry wall,
19:10:39 which I'll talk about in a little bit more detail
19:10:43 again in just a minute.
19:10:44 This is a view from the south side of Estrella.
19:10:48 This is the aforementioned 30-foot tree which I will
19:10:54 also talk about in a minute.
19:10:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 30-inch.
19:10:58 >>> I'm sorry, 30-inch.

19:10:59 This is the rear of the buildings which face Dale
19:11:01 Mabry and directly above the subject property.
19:11:03 This is really a very good picture which shows the
19:11:07 relationship of the subject property, zoned
19:11:11 residential to the west.
19:11:14 This is the structure which as I mentioned is also
19:11:19 being used for commercial purposes.
19:11:21 The yellow box truck, which is typically parked in the
19:11:23 backyard.
19:11:24 And you can see the rear of the south town plaza site
19:11:29 center between the streets here.
19:11:32 >> Mr. Carothers, are you testifying that -- are you
19:11:37 under oath and are you testifying about the use of
19:11:39 this the adjacent property?
19:11:42 >>> I'll show you the documentation.
19:11:44 I can do it now if you like.
19:11:49 This is the most current annual report for a company
19:11:51 called bay star builders, incorporated.
19:11:54 It was felt that the Secretary of State in the summer
19:11:57 of 2007 -- again this is most recent available
19:12:01 report -- in which the principal place of business is
19:12:04 the address on Estrella and the current address is

19:12:10 also the house --
19:12:12 >> So this is a home office?
19:12:15 There's a family living there.
19:12:16 >>> There very well may be.
19:12:20 I don't know.
19:12:20 >> All right, it's the home of a builder but it's a
19:12:23 family living there.
19:12:24 For the record I know the family.
19:12:27 There's a mother and father, there's a family living
19:12:30 there.
19:12:30 >> There's also construction materials and supplies
19:12:32 being stored there from time to time.
19:12:34 >>> If you say it, I believe it.
19:12:36 But because he is a builder, but he lives there.
19:12:39 I don't want anybody to be misled into saying we -- we
19:12:43 just want to make sure the record is clear.
19:12:45 >> Well, I do want to make sure the record is clear.
19:12:47 And I am certainly not testifying that a family does
19:12:49 not live there.
19:12:49 >> Okay.
19:12:50 >>I don't know.
19:12:51 Way do know is --

19:12:53 >> Is it homesteaded?
19:12:55 >>> I don't know that.
19:12:56 What I do know is that address is the principal
19:13:00 address for a contracting business licensed to do
19:13:03 business in Florida.
19:13:05 There are business uses happening at the adjacent
19:13:09 piece of property.
19:13:12 This photograph was taken from the subject property
19:13:14 looking directly south across Estrella to the parking
19:13:20 lot of the Colonial Bank which faces Dale Mabry.
19:13:24 And as you heard earlier this evening, the driveway
19:13:27 that you are looking at now is in fact the only way to
19:13:30 get into the Colonial Bank lot, the purposes of the
19:13:35 drive-through.
19:13:36 This photo is taken from the subject property just
19:13:39 looking to the southeast towards Dale Mabry, which I
19:13:42 think gives a little better context how deeply we are
19:13:48 into the neighborhood there.
19:13:56 Hopefully that helps in terms of the context.
19:13:58 I would like to now go to the Planning Commission's
19:14:03 feet land use map.
19:14:04 This is based on use.

19:14:07 The subject property is on block 9 and it is in fact
19:14:13 normally residential use property, which lies to the
19:14:16 east of the masonry wall, this line roughly here in
19:14:21 this area, in this two blocks.
19:14:25 This is an existing zoning map.
19:14:29 Again you can see that the subject property, which is
19:14:34 highlighted here, is the only residential zoned
19:14:39 property which kind of juts out into the areas which
19:14:43 are used for commercial purposes in that location.
19:14:52 >>MARY MULHERN: How come your map looks different if
19:14:54 from the two maps we saw from the Planning Commission?
19:14:56 >>> Because these show the current uses, not the land
19:15:00 use designations.
19:15:01 For example, this area here are actually designated
19:15:09 under the comp plan for residential purposes.
19:15:11 But because of the flex provisions that the owner of
19:15:16 the Colonial Bank property was entitled to use, they
19:15:22 are using a residentially zoned area for commercial
19:15:25 purposes.
19:15:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
19:15:26 But those not the map that we were -- I would like to
19:15:29 know from the Planning Commission.

19:15:30 Is this your map that you gave the petitioner?
19:15:35 >>> Pulled from the their web site just yesterday.
19:15:38 This is by use.
19:15:39 >>> This is existing use of how development is on the
19:15:46 ground today by the property appraiser.
19:15:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Was this the land use --
19:15:53 >>> showed current future land use plan map
19:15:55 designation which showed a residential 6.
19:15:59 But this is how the uses are today on the land.
19:16:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
19:16:04 Thanks.
19:16:12 >>> Thank you, Rose.
19:16:14 I would like to go now to this photograph and talk
19:16:16 about a couple of, again, pretty unique physical
19:16:20 characteristics of this particular property.
19:16:26 Again, it is in fact the only residentially zoned
19:16:29 property beings or residentially designated property
19:16:33 under the comp plan located east of this wall.
19:16:38 That 6-foot concrete block wall was constructed at the
19:16:41 time that south town center was developed, and it was
19:16:44 in fact a condition for approval of the south town
19:16:47 development by City Council.

19:16:50 The practical effect of that wall, obviously, is that
19:16:53 it Severs the property, which we are here on tonight,
19:16:56 from the other residentially zoned properties to the
19:16:59 west.
19:16:59 And it creates a situation where this property is
19:17:01 really walled in with nothing other than commercial
19:17:06 property to the east.
19:17:09 The applicant objected to that wall at the time as a
19:17:13 neighboring property owner, by the way.
19:17:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Carothers, it's a 6-foot
19:17:18 concrete wall.
19:17:19 >>> Yes.
19:17:20 >> Aren't there six-foot concrete walls separating one
19:17:23 residential home from another residential home, all
19:17:25 across South Tampa?
19:17:27 >>> I'm sure there are.
19:17:28 >> You and I live in South Tampa.
19:17:33 I mean, it's just a matter of fact, correct?
19:17:36 >>> That's correct.
19:17:37 >> And not talking about an 8-foot wall or 12-foot
19:17:42 wall, talking about a 6-foot masonry wall which
19:17:45 unfortunately seems to be coming the norm separating

19:17:49 single families from single families, correct?
19:17:52 >>> I can't speak to whether or not that's the norm or
19:17:54 not.
19:17:55 It's certainly not in my neighborhood.
19:17:58 >> But it's not uncommon.
19:18:00 >>> Not this common.
19:18:04 It's certainly uncommon in this neighborhood, yes.
19:18:06 I think it is.
19:18:07 >> Well, there are clearly many, many 6-foot fences
19:18:12 all over, and now many of them are converting to
19:18:14 concrete block walls.
19:18:16 I don't know that I like it but I think it's just a
19:18:20 common sense thing.
19:18:21 >>> In that context, though, I think it's also
19:18:23 important for the council to understand that a 6-foot
19:18:26 masonry is exactly what your code requires between a
19:18:30 commercial and residential zoned properties.
19:18:36 I think that perhaps the council's requirement that
19:18:39 that wall be placed there, all the way down Estrella,
19:18:44 not withstanding the fact that the south town property
19:18:46 doesn't go down that far, is perhaps an indication
19:18:50 that council at the time considered the subject

19:18:52 property to relate more to the commercial properties
19:18:55 located to the north, east and south than it does to
19:18:59 the residentially zoned properties to the west.
19:19:14 >> Who owns the alley?
19:19:17 >> Well, it not an alley.
19:19:19 It was granted in 1967 by the -- the applicant owns
19:19:23 that property in fee.
19:19:26 I'll show you that dock number just a minute.
19:19:27 >> How wide is the easement?
19:19:30 >>> 15 feet.
19:19:31 >> And so the traffic flow is allowed under that
19:19:34 easement?
19:19:35 >>> No.
19:19:35 Which I will also get to in just a minute.
19:19:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask you one more question just
19:19:44 because tough photograph up?
19:19:45 What is the building when you look straight back?
19:19:48 It looks like a house or garage.
19:19:50 These to the right.
19:19:51 >>> That's the subject property.
19:19:53 >> Oh, there's a house on it?
19:19:55 >>> There's an existing residence on the property.

19:19:57 >> Oh, I didn't realize that.
19:19:58 >>> And if you look at building scenario number 2 on
19:20:01 the site plan, it's shown there in the rear of the
19:20:03 lot.
19:20:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a photograph of it?
19:20:25 >>> I don't know if that shows it any better.
19:20:27 >> Do you have any closer photographs?
19:20:28 >>> No, I'm sorry, I don't.
19:20:42 Jill has some.
19:20:43 >> Thank you.
19:20:45 >>> The property opposite this house is the parking
19:20:59 lot for the buildings -- and the 6-foot masonry wall
19:21:03 is here.
19:21:05 Again, while we are on this topic, while we are on
19:21:18 this photograph, rather, this is the easement area.
19:21:29 Now I have lost my picture.
19:21:32 Here it is.
19:21:40 I apologize.
19:21:41 This is the easement area.
19:21:43 What you are looking at is the far westerly 15 feet of
19:21:46 the subject property.
19:21:47 When you look downtown.

19:21:50 And this is the easement document pursuant to which
19:21:53 the City of Tampa uses the property.
19:22:01 I'd like to read for you the highlighted language and
19:22:04 just point out a couple of things.
19:22:10 What's granted in this document is a permanent
19:22:15 right-of-way and a permanent easement for the purposes
19:22:17 of installing, maintaining, replacing, using,
19:22:20 operating, rebuilding and reconstructing a public
19:22:23 sanitary sewer with all necessary and suitable
19:22:25 connections therewith, across, over and through the
19:22:29 following described property.
19:22:30 That's the 15 feet.
19:22:33 It goes on to grant the City of Tampa, its successors
19:22:36 and assigns, the right to access that property for
19:22:40 purposes of performing the maintenance, installation,
19:22:43 and operations activities, which they are granted, and
19:22:49 I think significantly going back to some of the
19:22:53 questions that were asked earlier about, you know, we
19:22:57 are using this as our driveway, you know, why this
19:23:00 location, why this width and so on.
19:23:04 The document specifically provides that the parties of
19:23:06 the first part, that's the property owner, shall have

19:23:09 the right to use said property as an access road for
19:23:11 the purpose of ingress and egress and to pay pave the
19:23:15 same.
19:23:15 So the city accepted this deed in -- the easement
19:23:22 rather back in 1957 with the express proviso that the
19:23:26 property owner could use that 15 feet for purposes of
19:23:28 the roadway to access the parcel.
19:23:37 It's not a utility easement for anyone other than City
19:23:40 of Tampa and it's not an access easement for members
19:23:43 of the public.
19:23:44 As a very practical matter, however, that's how it's
19:23:47 used today.
19:23:49 And here's why.
19:23:52 When the south town plaza development was constructed
19:23:56 several years ago, and frankly I don't know whether it
19:24:01 was by the developer south town or the property owner
19:24:05 between this property and south town, the only other
19:24:09 means of access to the parking lots, which are located
19:24:14 to the north of the subject property, subject property
19:24:20 is located here, the alley goes, or the easement,
19:24:24 rather, goes up here to this turn-around area which
19:24:30 serves as a parking lot for the property owners whose

19:24:33 property faces Dale Mabry.
19:24:35 I understand the employees and owners of the property
19:24:38 park back there.
19:24:40 The garbage collection facilities, the dumpsters,
19:24:43 which these parcels use, are also located back here.
19:24:46 So the city's garbage trucks use this area for
19:24:52 purposes of collecting the garbage from these sites.
19:25:00 Prior to the development of south town, there was
19:25:02 another means of accessing this parking lot area for
19:25:05 the owners of this property.
19:25:07 Now there is a fence across here, and a retention
19:25:10 pond, which physically blocks any other means of
19:25:17 access to and from that parking lot.
19:25:18 So again as a practical matter, the impact on the
19:25:22 subject property, when City Council approved the south
19:25:26 town project and when it was ultimately developed, has
19:25:29 been to cut off any other access for those folks who
19:25:33 own properties north of the subject property, which
19:25:34 means they have to use this easement area for purposes
19:25:38 of accessing that property.
19:25:40 This is something that we have reviewed with
19:25:42 transportation staff and with the legal department.

19:25:49 And I think they will all agree to that, so an
19:25:51 accurate and fair characterization of this situation.
19:25:56 The easement area is only 15 feet wide.
19:25:59 As you see on this picture, there are a few
19:26:05 limitations on what we can do in terms of lighting it.
19:26:08 One of the waivers that we are requesting on the site
19:26:10 plan is to reduce the width of the drive aisle from 20
19:26:13 feet to 15 feet, and to which the transportation
19:26:15 department objects.
19:26:21 We are entitled to use this area as a driveway.
19:26:26 It's also the only location which meets the city code,
19:26:32 locational criteria, and it does, in fact -- you heard
19:26:37 before, doesn't have locational requirement.
19:26:44 When it was ultimately developed TECO located some
19:26:46 facilities within an easement area not withstanding
19:26:50 that it's not a TECO easement and not an electrical
19:26:52 power easement in this area, which in order to widen
19:26:56 the 15-foot easement area, this property owner, would
19:27:01 be required to relocate and accommodate, you know, an
19:27:06 alternative means of accessing power lines for the
19:27:09 owners and users of the south town center.
19:27:11 Obviously, we can't do that.

19:27:15 Nor should we be expected to do that, in my opinion.
19:27:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Graham, I got confused earlier and
19:27:22 I apologize.
19:27:23 >>> Sure.
19:27:24 >> Legally, why can't you put up a 6-foot Cypress
19:27:32 fence at the back of your property line, and not allow
19:27:35 south town to use that will alley for transportation
19:27:40 purposes?
19:27:43 >>> Two --
19:27:47 >> Or can you?
19:27:48 >>> Well, to answer your first question, absolutely.
19:27:50 As far as I'm concerned from a legal perspective we
19:27:53 could put a wall across that easement area at the
19:27:55 north end of our property.
19:27:57 >> I mean, you can't stop the city's ability to
19:28:02 service a sewer line.
19:28:03 Other than you have no legal obligation to service
19:28:05 south town plaza.
19:28:07 >>> That's correct.
19:28:07 >> And therefore just so the record is clear,
19:28:10 therefore you could put up a 6-foot cypress fence or
19:28:15 some other somewhat temporary structure across that

19:28:17 alley and preclude south town from using it for
19:28:21 transportation purposes.
19:28:22 Is that correct?
19:28:24 >>> Yes.
19:28:25 The south town users are not the ones using that.
19:28:27 It's the property located between the subject property
19:28:29 and south town.
19:28:31 There's a piece there --
19:28:32 >> That circle.
19:28:33 I thought that circle was south town.
19:28:34 >>> No.
19:28:35 That's immediately south of south town.
19:28:37 >> So whoever is using it, could you preclude them
19:28:39 from using it.
19:28:40 >>> Yes.
19:28:41 Just like we can preclude the city from collecting
19:28:43 garbage in city trucks.
19:28:46 To do so would exacerbate the existing problem, and
19:28:50 that's certainly not what we are out to do here.
19:28:54 The property owner is happy to continue, you know,
19:28:57 letting those uses go on, in order to do that,
19:29:01 however, we need some flexibility -- to use the

19:29:10 property in a reasonable fashion.
19:29:11 >> But you have got commercial uses going up and down
19:29:14 that little alley that legally you could stop.
19:29:17 >>> Yes.
19:29:20 I don't know what folks would do with their dumpster
19:29:23 or where they would have deliveries on Dale Mabry.
19:29:25 But, again, those not what we are here to do.
19:29:28 We want very much to accommodate that situation rather
19:29:32 than make it worse.
19:29:35 Which again is one of the challenges that we are
19:29:37 presented and attempting to rezone this property for
19:29:40 some reasonable manner.
19:29:45 The other thing I would like to point out about
19:29:49 widening that drive aisle, we heard a little bit ago
19:29:52 about the number of trees being removed from the site.
19:29:57 Two of the trees, which are slated for removal, to
19:30:01 which the recreation department objects, you can see
19:30:05 are located directly underneath.
19:30:11 And therefore get the tops cut out every two or three
19:30:19 years, and as I said to the folks in the recreation
19:30:21 department I want to be fair about the trees that are
19:30:23 being removed and two of them, I think we can all

19:30:25 agree are not high quality specimen trees, nor will
19:30:29 they ever be as long as they are located under the
19:30:32 power lines and get the tops cut out of them every few
19:30:35 years.
19:30:38 While we are on the subject of trees, again I want to
19:30:40 be fair.
19:30:40 The staff report -- and you heard earlier this evening
19:30:43 that there are quote-unquote a substantial number of
19:30:45 trees being removed from the site.
19:30:48 I don't know that I necessarily agree with that
19:30:50 characterization.
19:30:52 There are three, perhaps four depending on the site
19:30:53 plan, trees being removed.
19:30:57 What you didn't hear again is a couple of them were
19:31:00 located on the power lines.
19:31:03 There are a large number of trees, beautiful trees
19:31:05 which are being preserved on the site.
19:31:08 I specifically recall at the ARC meeting on this
19:31:12 application, and we were talking about the replacement
19:31:14 trees, whether we were going to do on-site
19:31:16 replacement.
19:31:19 Specifically that the inch for inch replacement of the

19:31:22 grand tree that you saw the photograph of before, with
19:31:24 the live oak growing out of the Laurel oak, the
19:31:28 petitioner is happy, we are thrilled to provide inch
19:31:31 for inch replacement of the trees that are being taken
19:31:33 out, either on-site or off site.
19:31:36 During the DRC meeting it was interesting.
19:31:40 I didn't realize that the folks in the recreation
19:31:42 department, they don't like for you to plant
19:31:44 replacement trees underneath the canopy existing trees
19:31:48 that will be left on-site.
19:31:49 And there was a discussion at that time about -- and a
19:31:53 concern frankly about our ability to provide on-site
19:31:57 replacement on an inch for inch basis of these trees
19:31:59 because so many trees are remaining and the canopies
19:32:02 are so large that we wouldn't be able to plant them
19:32:06 unless we did it underneath the canopy of existing
19:32:10 trees.
19:32:10 So again I kind of feel like what you heard before,
19:32:14 and in all due respect to Mary, we have enjoyed very
19:32:16 much working with her and we appreciate her feedback.
19:32:19 I feel like you maybe got a little bit of a doom and
19:32:23 gloom scenario on the trees, and I don't necessarily

19:32:27 degree with that characterization.
19:32:29 I think we all already beat the drive aisle width
19:32:31 easement to death.
19:32:35 And lastly, and I think this is important, too, this
19:32:37 property has been used for commercial purposes for a
19:32:41 long, long time.
19:32:48 These are copies of the City of Tampa directory.
19:32:51 I don't know if you can show it up an and down
19:32:54 fashion.
19:32:55 Over the last four 40 years, 50 years, going back to
19:32:59 the early 50s, and 1950 with is when we stopped
19:33:02 looking, the subject property has been used for an
19:33:05 auto repair shop, a fruit market, sod and grass
19:33:10 company, a trucking company, then back to a sod and
19:33:13 grass company.
19:33:14 It's not a historically residential property.
19:33:16 In fact there is about four years -- 40 years of
19:33:19 history which again we documented here for the record
19:33:23 I will submit into the record when finished, we have
19:33:26 records going back from 1951 to the late '80s, which
19:33:31 document the nonresidential commercial uses for this
19:33:34 property.

19:33:36 And going back to an issue that councilman Dingfelder,
19:33:42 you raised earlier in the evening you posed the
19:33:45 question, if this petitioner sold this parcel to the
19:33:48 owner of the piece that faces Dale Mabry, could they
19:33:52 then do it?
19:33:53 We want to do it by what used to be the flux
19:33:56 provision.
19:33:56 In fact, this property did used to be part of one
19:34:00 parent parcel, which fronted on Dale Mabry.
19:34:02 It was not until the very late '80s or maybe 1990s
19:34:08 based on our research that the parent parcel was split
19:34:10 and the subject property was first used for
19:34:12 residential purposes.
19:34:13 I think that's important, that sort of historical
19:34:17 perspective is important, and in your deliberations
19:34:21 tonight.
19:34:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem with that testimony,
19:34:26 Graham, is the picture that you have in front of us
19:34:28 which shows probably a 1940s house.
19:34:37 We all recognize some people have a house and they
19:34:39 work on cars in their front yard.
19:34:41 Maybe that was the case with that gentleman that you

19:34:43 showed from the 50s directory.
19:34:45 But you are not testifying that this wasn't a
19:34:48 residential use?
19:34:51 >>> I'm not.
19:34:52 I'm testifying that this was a commercial use dating
19:34:54 back as long as 1951.
19:34:57 >> But perhaps also a residential use?
19:34:58 >>> It very well was also used for residential.
19:35:01 >> Is it currently a residential use?
19:35:03 Because I'm looking at two cars and a motorcycle.
19:35:05 >>> Yes.
19:35:07 The property owner has a tenant who lives there now.
19:35:10 Really only because she's not permitted to do anything
19:35:13 else on this property.
19:35:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In 1951, I believe this was in the
19:35:22 city.
19:35:23 I believe this is stopped at like Howard and south of
19:35:27 Dale Mabry.
19:35:27 I mean there, were no rules.
19:35:33 >>> And I don't think we had a modern zoning code in
19:35:35 1951, certainly.
19:35:38 The only purpose of my presenting this evidence and

19:35:41 giving that testimony is so the council will
19:35:42 understand that there was a long period of time during
19:35:46 which properties that we are talking about tonight was
19:35:49 actually used for nonresidential purposes.
19:35:52 Which is consistent with what we are asking you to
19:35:54 review and approve tonight.
19:36:02 Just to sort of recap and close up here W.respect to
19:36:04 the comp plan request, as you know, we were here in
19:36:06 February of 2006.
19:36:08 With a recommendation for approval to CMU 35 from the
19:36:12 Planning Commission staff, and the Planning Commission
19:36:14 itself.
19:36:17 The basis for the council's denial at that time was a
19:36:20 concern about the uncertainty of the ultimate use for
19:36:25 which this property would be put.
19:36:28 I feel like we have done exactly what the council at
19:36:31 that time asked to us do by coming back before you
19:36:37 with zoning which shows a limited number of uses for
19:36:40 which the property will be used.
19:36:43 Again, the Planning Commission staff and Planning
19:36:45 Commission have recommended approval.
19:36:48 They found that it's -- that it furthers the goals and

19:36:53 objectives of the comp plan.
19:36:54 For those reasons I think upon reconsideration this
19:36:56 evening it should be approved.
19:36:58 With respect to the rezoning request, we propose two
19:37:02 alternative plans, one which contemplates a business
19:37:05 and office use, the second contemplates office and
19:37:11 retail use.
19:37:12 We tried very hard to limit these uses.
19:37:14 A year ago we had a list that was significantly longer
19:37:16 than what you see tonight.
19:37:18 And in order to accommodate some concerns voiced by
19:37:23 the neighborhood, residents back in February of '06,
19:37:27 as well as concerns by your staff, more recently, we
19:37:32 have agreed to limit very significantly the allowable
19:37:36 uses in the site plans.
19:37:38 Both plans, square footage of any improvements to
19:37:43 2900, 3,000 square feet on one development scenario
19:37:46 and about 3400 square feet in another scenario.
19:37:49 That's certainly not at all out of line with modern
19:37:52 development in South Tampa and in this area of South
19:37:54 Tampa.
19:37:57 We feel like what we proposed are good, reasonable

19:38:01 transitional uses.
19:38:03 Between the heavy general commercial uses directly on
19:38:06 Dale Mabry and the residential uses which are to the
19:38:10 west of the property.
19:38:13 We said from the beginning, we are happy to do on-site
19:38:16 or off-site tree replacement.
19:38:19 We are happy to address the technical objections and
19:38:21 clarifications and corrections to the notations and to
19:38:24 the visual depictions on which you see on the site
19:38:27 plan.
19:38:30 We just need your understanding of flexibility, and
19:38:33 assistance, and approving a reasonable transitional
19:38:38 nonresidential use for this property.
19:38:42 As you deliberate, I would like to you remember a few
19:38:44 things.
19:38:45 The property is entirely surrounded by properties
19:38:48 which are being used for commercial purposes.
19:38:54 The property is already buffered from the residential
19:38:56 neighborhood located to the west by the masonry wall
19:38:59 which is exactly what your code requires.
19:39:01 There is no buffer between this property and
19:39:04 commercial properties located to the east, the north

19:39:06 and the south.
19:39:08 This property has are adversely affected by prior
19:39:14 actions by former City Councils.
19:39:16 I'm being referred to being rolled off the
19:39:20 neighborhood property, cutting off the access to the
19:39:22 neighborhood to the north, to the properties to the
19:39:24 north.
19:39:26 Please remember Planning Commission staff has voted
19:39:28 now twice or recommended now twice the approval of the
19:39:32 CMU 35.
19:39:33 Planning Commission agrees.
19:39:35 The property is used for 40 years or so for
19:39:40 nonresidential purposes.
19:39:43 We have voluntarily significantly limited the proposed
19:39:45 uses under the site plan.
19:39:48 And we have also limited the height and the total
19:39:51 square footage that would be permitted to be
19:39:53 respectful of and mindful of the residential
19:39:55 neighborhood to the west.
19:39:58 As I stand here today, I have not received a single
19:40:00 letter or telephone call from a neighboring property
19:40:02 owner or the association voicing any objections to the

19:40:05 position.
19:40:09 And we are certainly willing to continue accommodating
19:40:12 the TECO facilities, the commercial traffic, which
19:40:16 traverses the easement area, and benefits those
19:40:20 properties to the north and so forth; if we have a
19:40:24 reasonable nonresidential use of this property.
19:40:27 Please remember this as you deliberate.
19:40:30 That concludes my presentation.
19:40:31 I appreciate your patience and am happy to answer any
19:40:35 questions.
19:40:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I realize what you are saying and
19:40:39 the easement that was given some time back.
19:40:43 But is it not true that new development there was
19:40:48 always development on Neptune?
19:40:50 There was at the corner of Neptune and Dale Mabry, a
19:40:54 CONSUELO's restaurant, and to the west a cleaners and
19:41:02 donut shop.
19:41:03 So was that easement already being used at that time
19:41:06 or not?
19:41:09 The reason I say that is because you kept saying the
19:41:11 former council.
19:41:12 Since I was a former council member I want to make

19:41:15 sure I didn't make the mistake.
19:41:17 >>> No.
19:41:18 You're right, there has, as long as I know, based on
19:41:22 our research, there was always a way for the Consuela
19:41:26 connection using this easement crossing through the
19:41:28 parking lot which has a circle on it.
19:41:30 >> I want to make sure I didn't commit the wrong
19:41:32 error.
19:41:33 >> And into the same property that we now call south
19:41:35 town.
19:41:35 What I'm saying is at the same time that south town
19:41:39 was developed, that means needed access to get from
19:41:43 the current south town property to the property
19:41:46 located immediately south of that was closed off.
19:41:52 Those folks who used Dale Mabry have no other way to
19:41:56 get to the parking lot except using the easement
19:41:59 aerial that was granted to the City of Tampa.
19:42:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
19:42:05 Mr. Dingfelder.
19:42:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Graham, could you put that last
19:42:10 picture back up?
19:42:15 Thank you.

19:42:18 This is an unusual case because of the settlement
19:42:20 agreement, we have the PD with the comp plan amendment
19:42:23 at the same time.
19:42:23 So as long as we do, and as long as both cases are
19:42:26 open, it begs the question of why aren't you -- you
19:42:32 know, obviously it's a residential house, I think we
19:42:35 have all concluded it looks like a 1940s asbestos,
19:42:39 single-sided -- shingle-sided house.
19:42:44 >>> Easy for to you say.
19:42:46 >> Modest house, maybe a thousand square feet,
19:42:48 something like that.
19:42:49 It beg it is question, why aren't you using that
19:42:52 footprint?
19:42:53 Why aren't you tearing that thing down?
19:42:55 Because with all due respect, you know, it looks like
19:42:58 your typical South Tampa -- why aren't you tearing
19:43:03 that down and using that as your footprint for your
19:43:06 proposed proves office or -- I can't remember the
19:43:12 other retail use.
19:43:13 >>> There are a couple of answers to that question.
19:43:19 The footprint is a little less an thousand square
19:43:21 feet.

19:43:22 Understand development number 2, which is a specialty
19:43:25 retail, we have provided for maintaining that
19:43:28 structure for use as perhaps an office for the lawn
19:43:34 and garden shop, that it is a possibility on the site.
19:43:39 The other answer to your question is that the code
19:43:42 calls for a buffer of the parking lot, and so without
19:43:47 a building between the road and the parking lot, even
19:43:50 if we do see the existing footprint, we wouldn't meet
19:43:54 that buffering requirement.
19:43:55 So that design we have worked out --
19:43:59 >> The code calls for buffering where?
19:44:01 >>> It calls for a buffering of the parking lot, which
19:44:05 one of the staff members, I can't remember which,
19:44:07 testified before we were in that meeting.
19:44:09 >> The buffer from what to where?
19:44:10 Buffer where?
19:44:11 I understand the concept of buffering.
19:44:17 >>> I'm being told it's a buffer between the public
19:44:19 right-of-way and the parking spaces, and it's a
19:44:21 transportation requirement.
19:44:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, my whole point is this.
19:44:27 You are coming in for a PD.

19:44:28 Okay?
19:44:31 Assuming -- just for argument sake -- and I don't
19:44:35 think we are there yet -- but for argument sake
19:44:38 assuming you got the comp plan you are looking for,
19:44:40 then we look at the PD, well, if there was an office
19:44:43 use on that footprint, and yes, it's only a thousand
19:44:47 square feet but I see room over to the east and I
19:44:49 don't see any trees over to the east on that site
19:44:51 plan.
19:44:51 So it looks like -- because it's a PD, because it's a
19:44:55 PD, we have the flexibility to allow you to get pretty
19:44:59 close to that those fence lines, and so you don't have
19:45:04 to necessarily worry about your standard setback.
19:45:09 I'm just for argument sake, I wouldn't necessarily
19:45:12 have a big problem with this entire thing if there was
19:45:15 a plan that used -- only used that building site as a
19:45:19 site because it would be plenty set back off of
19:45:22 Estrella, if it's a modest use like 2,000 -- what are
19:45:29 you proposing, 3,000 square feet?
19:45:34 2025.
19:45:35 So that's a two-story building, a thousand feet per
19:45:39 floor.

19:45:39 That's a pretty modest office use, if it's set back
19:45:43 behind all those trees.
19:45:46 Yes, you have got some decent access coming in and out
19:45:48 of that alley.
19:45:49 And I think could you have plenty of parking without
19:45:52 taking down many of those nice trees.
19:45:54 In and around those trees.
19:45:55 I think it could be a little more creative.
19:45:59 But, yes, would you only have one structure on the
19:46:01 site.
19:46:02 So you know what?
19:46:05 The world is all about give and take.
19:46:06 But to me, that would have been the more creative, and
19:46:12 most importantly, compatible site plan, okay?
19:46:17 And I'm not seeing compatible site plan in front of us
19:46:20 today.
19:46:20 But we can hear more from the neighborhood if there
19:46:22 are neighbors here at all.
19:46:25 >> Another question by council members?
19:46:29 >> The only problem, and I don't necessarily disagree
19:46:34 with anything you just said but the only problem is
19:46:37 the fact there is a 35-foot inch grand oak immediate

19:46:41 immediately to the east of the grand house which is
19:46:42 being preserved.
19:46:43 >> But we can waive that distance, also.
19:46:47 I mean, if you do those -- what are those things
19:46:50 called, the lintels where it's elevated, and that sort
19:46:53 of thing, it's not a grand tree, it's a protected
19:46:56 tree, and we can waive that distance requirement.
19:46:59 Look, the house is already pretty close to it as it
19:47:01 is.
19:47:02 Now granted it's only a one-story house and we are
19:47:04 talk about perhaps a two-story structure.
19:47:08 But let's hear the rest of the testimony from the
19:47:10 neighborhood and that sort of thing.
19:47:11 I'm just saying there might be a way we can work on
19:47:14 this together and come up with a solution.
19:47:16 I just don't think the solution you have right now are
19:47:19 compatible with the existing neighborhood.
19:47:24 >>CHAIRMAN: Other questions by council members?
19:47:25 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:47:30 I would like to clarify for the record that it's
19:47:31 not -- it's general retail.
19:47:37 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that wants

19:47:38 to speak on -- did you want to say something?
19:47:41 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
19:47:43 I just wanted to clarify also that 8-foot is a
19:47:50 transportation requirement to have eight feet for this
19:47:52 adjacent -- before the start of your first parking
19:47:57 space, so that this car can maneuver, especially
19:48:05 maneuver into this space.
19:48:06 This is the eight-foot buffer.
19:48:07 I just want to clarify.
19:48:09 This is a transportation requirement so they can
19:48:11 maneuver into the first space and the turning radius
19:48:15 of the car.
19:48:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But if you want to make that --
19:48:21 Melanie, what I am saying, in my scenario you are
19:48:24 eliminating that 30-foot tall building.
19:48:26 Point to where I am pointing at.
19:48:27 That building.
19:48:28 So could you put more parking spaces there.
19:48:33 >>> I understand what you're saying.
19:48:35 I just want to clarify what this actually was.
19:48:41 >> Does anyone in the public want to speak on item 3
19:48:43 and 4?

19:48:44 You may come up and speak.
19:48:48 >>> Good evening.
19:48:52 Thank you for letting me speak.
19:48:53 My name is Karen Gay.
19:48:55 Palma Ceia west neighborhood association.
19:48:59 It came before us two years ago on this.
19:49:02 We had a meeting, discussed it, voted against it.
19:49:05 It is inappropriate in our neighborhood.
19:49:07 As you saw by the signs, we are completely boarded on
19:49:11 the east by all commercial.
19:49:12 You come down Henderson.
19:49:14 Again it's commercial.
19:49:16 We don't want it coming in the neighborhood any more.
19:49:20 They have no access to Dale Mabry from this property
19:49:21 at all.
19:49:22 The home owner has many properties.
19:49:27 This is not his only one.
19:49:29 He's also part owner in one of the properties on Dale
19:49:32 Mabry which concerns us.
19:49:35 We have two bars and a liquor store.
19:49:37 We have a problem now with people coming out late,
19:49:40 throwing trash, even the wall doesn't protect the

19:49:43 neighbors from that.
19:49:44 He would don't need anything else.
19:49:47 They are not specific in what they plan to do there.
19:49:50 It is a residential lot.
19:49:52 We don't want it infringing any more on our
19:49:54 neighborhood.
19:49:55 They didn't come to us again on this.
19:49:58 So thank you for your consideration.
19:50:00 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Next.
19:50:07 >>> I have been sworn in.
19:50:09 I am on Estrella.
19:50:11 And I am one of the neighbors within a two-block
19:50:14 radius of where this is going to be located.
19:50:17 Out of all my neighbors that live in our neighborhood,
19:50:19 we have 16 neighbors that are opposed to having this
19:50:24 retail building or whatever this is going to be,
19:50:28 trying to take place in our neighborhood.
19:50:29 We have a lot of traffic issues already.
19:50:35 We have over 1200 cars that come into our neighborhood
19:50:37 daily.
19:50:38 We have speeding.
19:50:38 We have many -- what do you call those little road

19:50:43 things, and then working on trying to help us in our
19:50:47 neighborhood.
19:50:48 We are concerned about, now, all the traffic coming
19:50:50 through.
19:50:50 It's a narrow, like we said, street.
19:50:52 We have got seven different schools right there in the
19:50:55 area with children trying to walk home in the
19:50:57 afternoon.
19:50:57 We don't need additional traffic going through our
19:50:59 neighborhood.
19:50:59 We are real concerned about this.
19:51:06 The junior high, they play in the neighborhood.
19:51:09 There is no place safe out there.
19:51:11 Ask you cars to slow down.
19:51:12 They sit there and holler at you when you are shutting
19:51:15 off in front of your home just trying to -- they don't
19:51:18 care.
19:51:19 If this goes in, we are going to have additional
19:51:21 traffic coming up and down the street.
19:51:23 We have no curbs in the street.
19:51:25 And from Westshore all the way down to Dale Mabry.
19:51:29 And it's just like a major highway, feels like.

19:51:32 We would like some help from somebody.
19:51:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for the record, because I
19:51:39 don't want to be the testimony on the record on this.
19:51:42 The two-story house next door to this property, victor
19:51:49 owe and her husband still live there?
19:51:51 >> Correct.
19:51:52 And the little girl.
19:51:53 >> I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
19:51:56 >>> No personal business being done from what I see at
19:52:00 their home.
19:52:02 A very nice family.
19:52:06 >>CHAIRMAN: Would anyone else like to speak?
19:52:08 Mr. Carothers, do you want rebuttal?
19:52:11 >>> Just a couple of quick points.
19:52:15 I'm certainly happy to talk to anyone from the
19:52:17 neighborhood.
19:52:19 Again, the notices went out went with my name and
19:52:26 phone number and I didn't hear from a single person.
19:52:30 In objection.
19:52:31 I did in fact hear from two people who owned
19:52:34 properties along Dale Mabry.
19:52:35 They asked me to describe what we were proposing in

19:52:40 the rezoning application, which I did.
19:52:43 And they both actually indicated to me at the time
19:52:46 that they would be supportive of the project.
19:52:54 One thing I think we can all agree on, everyone from
19:52:57 the Planning Commission staff to your staff, and as I
19:53:01 recall even in our public hearing back in February of
19:53:05 2006, the subject property is not appropriate for a
19:53:10 single-family residence.
19:53:14 And that is specifically set forth in the staff report
19:53:17 that you have seen.
19:53:22 If we do everything that the Parks and Recreation
19:53:24 Department asks us to do, this property is not
19:53:28 developable.
19:53:29 If we met every request that the transportation
19:53:32 department asked us to meet, this property is not
19:53:35 developable.
19:53:38 We very substantially limited the permissible uses on
19:53:41 the property after two years of meetings with various
19:53:47 departments throughout the city.
19:53:51 And we have come up with something that we think is a
19:53:53 reasonable transitional use between the commercial and
19:53:56 residential.

19:54:00 I guess I will leave you with a question.
19:54:01 If it's not appropriate for single-family residential
19:54:03 use, which I think clearly it's not, and the
19:54:10 professional staff and Planning Commission have agreed
19:54:12 with me on that, and we can't use it for commercial
19:54:15 retail uses, what are we to do with it?
19:54:19 Thank you.
19:54:21 >> Questions by council members?
19:54:22 >> I have a couple of questions.
19:54:24 Mr. Carothers, how long has your client owned this
19:54:31 property?
19:54:31 >>> I believe it was '92.
19:54:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And what was it used for
19:54:41 previously?
19:54:42 >>> Based on our research, it was --
19:54:45 >> I mean since your client has owned it.
19:54:50 >>> Around three units, residential rental units.
19:54:54 >> Okay.
19:54:56 My thought is that what in my opinion as a former
19:55:00 planner, what you are asking for is too intense, based
19:55:05 on the fact that it's the only point of access, is on
19:55:11 a local residential street and you are asking for CMU

19:55:14 35.
19:55:15 Or something like that.
19:55:16 Isn't that what you are requesting?
19:55:18 >>> That's correct.
19:55:21 >> It seems to me that a small office, not just
19:55:24 commercial but the small office, would be an
19:55:27 appropriate transitional use.
19:55:29 Or perhaps, you know, very small multifamily.
19:55:34 I think a small office would be the best use.
19:55:37 But what you are requesting is a much more intensive
19:55:41 classification.
19:55:42 Have you considered a land use category and a PD that
19:55:47 would just recognize the small office?
19:55:51 Have you considered that?
19:55:53 >>> We did.
19:55:55 And if I could just respond to it in a couple of
19:55:57 things, I think a 2200 square foot office is a small
19:56:04 office.
19:56:06 The residents directly to the west according to the
19:56:08 property appraiser, I believe, is about 5700 square
19:56:12 feet of covered space.
19:56:16 So at 2200 or 3,000 square foot building on this site,

19:56:24 I wouldn't characterize as being out of scale for the
19:56:26 neighborhood.
19:56:31 We did consider an alternative comp plan designation,
19:56:34 that being res 20.
19:56:39 The problem with that is that in order to accommodate
19:56:41 any specialty retail --
19:56:44 >> We don't want specialty retail.
19:56:45 We want a small office.
19:56:46 >>> Well, the property owner wants the option to do
19:56:49 specialty retail.
19:56:50 >> See, then you have commercial traffic on this local
19:56:53 residential street.
19:56:56 Thank you.
19:56:56 I just wondered if you had explored that.
19:56:58 >>> The reason we didn't do res 20 is because the
19:57:01 locational criteria requirements for these specialty
19:57:04 retails that we wish to have an option for, we can't
19:57:08 meet based on how close we are to Dale Mabry.
19:57:12 >>MARY MULHERN: Did you say that it's not suitable for
19:57:17 residential?
19:57:18 Is that what you said?
19:57:19 >>> Yes.

19:57:20 >> But there's a little house there that someone is
19:57:23 living in right now, right?
19:57:25 That's a rental unit?
19:57:26 >>> There is a tenant in the rental unit now.
19:57:29 >> So someone living there, it's residential right
19:57:32 now.
19:57:32 I don't understand why we make this assumption that
19:57:35 it's not suitable for that when someone is living
19:57:37 there right now.
19:57:41 Might not be a big, beautiful house, but as Mr.
19:57:47 Dingfelder suggested, it could be a nice little house,
19:57:49 maybe even, you know, duplex.
19:57:59 I don't see the rush when it's zoned residential, and
19:58:04 there is a house with someone living in it and a house
19:58:06 next door with someone living in it and it's on a
19:58:09 residential street that we just -- that you would just
19:58:12 say it's not suitable.
19:58:15 That's what it is.
19:58:24 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:58:25 And what I wanted to just talk to you about is the
19:58:29 legal requirements for the comprehensive plan
19:58:31 designation and the legal requirements for the zoning

19:58:33 and I want to keep the public hearing open because Mr.
19:58:37 Carothers would have an opportunity to comment if he
19:58:40 want to comment on any of the legal parameters that I
19:58:42 am going to describe to you so you want to leave it
19:58:45 open for that reason.
19:58:45 As relates to the comprehensive plan amendment, and
19:58:48 bear in mind I am not your typical comprehensive plan
19:58:50 amendment attorney, so I actually went and did some
19:58:53 research and pulled out some case law because I
19:58:56 thought that would be the best way to describe what
19:58:57 that standard of review is.
19:58:59 And I noted this is an unusual process because we have
19:59:03 opened a comprehensive plan, and the rezoning
19:59:05 together.
19:59:06 However, that being said, you review the comprehensive
19:59:10 plan designation and that request separate and
19:59:13 completely apart, the basis of your denial isn't
19:59:15 whether or not you think the zoning is appropriate or
19:59:17 not, it's simply a question of whether or not the
19:59:19 comprehensive plan request is appropriate.
19:59:21 And again, I know you have all heard this, but when
19:59:24 you look at a comprehensive plan designation, your

19:59:27 standard, one, whether or not it's suitable and in
19:59:33 making that determination of that particular policy
19:59:35 issue between you and the comprehensive plan and
19:59:37 determining whether or not it's fairly debatable, I
19:59:40 thought it would be a good idea to read to you from
19:59:42 the case because I thought this is a good explanation,
19:59:45 and since I am not an expert it says it probably
19:59:47 better than I could sum it up.
19:59:49 Comprehensive plan amendment request will require that
19:59:53 the governmental entity determine whether societal
19:59:57 desirable to reformulate the policies previously
20:00:00 formulated to the orderly future growth of the
20:00:03 candidates.
20:00:05 This will in turn require that it consider, the local
20:00:09 government consider the likely impact that the
20:00:11 proposed amendment would have on traffic, utilities,
20:00:14 other services, and future capital expenditures, among
20:00:18 other things.
20:00:18 And it's the coastal development of north Florida
20:00:24 versus city of Jacksonville, supreme court case, 2001,
20:00:28 and that's really the standard of the review of the
20:00:31 comprehensive plan amendment, it's a policy decision,

20:00:34 you are to determine whether or not it is an
20:00:37 appropriate change given the context of where it's
20:00:40 located, given the surrounding area, given the
20:00:43 transportation, traffic pattern, what roadway, those
20:00:47 are the issues that you are to look at.
20:00:48 And again I just want to state for the purposes of the
20:00:50 record and because this is a little bit of a confusing
20:00:52 question, the question of whether or not the zoning is
20:00:55 appropriate isn't the question.
20:00:57 It is simply what I have stated to you.
20:01:00 Whether or not it's fairly debatable, but this is an
20:01:03 appropriate decision given all of the issues I have
20:01:05 described.
20:01:09 I will just take it a step further to say as you go
20:01:13 forward, I would ask that you deliberate on one, and
20:01:16 then on the rezoning depending on what occurs.
20:01:20 I will tell you that you will be taking a vote on
20:01:21 both, not withstanding your decision on either one,
20:01:25 unless you take some other action.
20:01:27 But I would want you to take a vote on the
20:01:29 comprehensive plan amendment and then on the rezoning.
20:01:32 However, so the record is clear, if you deny the

20:01:36 comprehensive plan amendment, you would still need to
20:01:39 take a vote on the zoning but it would on its face be
20:01:43 inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, so I ask
20:01:45 that you consider that in making that decision.
20:01:49 And I just wanted to put that all out front so if Mr.
20:01:52 Carothers feels I said anything incorrect or he wants
20:01:55 to correct the record in any way, he has that
20:01:57 opportunity.
20:02:00 >>MARY MULHERN: A couple things.
20:02:02 Can you -- can you reread that?
20:02:04 You said we need to consider the likely impact on
20:02:10 traffic, and what else after that?
20:02:14 >>> I'll read the statement again.
20:02:15 This will in turn require that it consider, the local
20:02:18 government consider the likely impact that the
20:02:20 proposed amendment would have on traffic, utilities,
20:02:24 other services, and future capital expenditures, among
20:02:27 other things.
20:02:31 That is the general policy consideration.
20:02:32 >> And then future capital expenditures of the
20:02:35 governmental entity.
20:02:39 >>> Correct.

20:02:41 That's the general standard.
20:02:42 So it is any comprehensive plan amendment.
20:02:45 >> And the general -- when you said fairly debatable,
20:02:50 does that mean our decision, our -- I don't understand
20:02:55 that.
20:02:56 I know the basics.
20:02:57 But fairly debatable decision we make?
20:03:02 Or petitioner?
20:03:05 >>> The given the request of the petitioner, if a
20:03:10 court were to review, depending on what you did, what
20:03:14 a court will look at is whether or not your decision
20:03:18 was fairly debatable given the information presented
20:03:21 to you.
20:03:22 What does that mean?
20:03:22 What than means is the court will review whether or
20:03:26 not a reasonable person, as to whether or not your
20:03:31 policy decision is appropriate, given the context of
20:03:34 what I talked about it.
20:03:36 When two people differ as to whether or not there's
20:03:38 traffic impact, when two people differ as to whether
20:03:41 or not there are capital impacts, those are the issues
20:03:45 which you have to determine, and you will be reviewing

20:03:49 and a court would ultimately review.
20:03:51 And that's very important in this situation, given the
20:03:54 fact that you are also reviewing the rezoning, and I
20:03:56 want to make it absolutely clear whether or not you
20:04:01 like the rezoning or you don't like the rezoning is
20:04:03 not a factor in your decision, it's simply that policy
20:04:05 decision, and a court will just decide whether or not
20:04:09 what you send is reasonable.
20:04:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask another question about this?
20:04:15 Part of our decision, though, isn't it whether
20:04:20 consistent with land use, future land use element?
20:04:23 >>> That's part of the second analysis.
20:04:26 >> That's the zoning?
20:04:28 >>> That's part of the zoning analysis.
20:04:30 Since I kind of mushed these together I'll explain
20:04:35 that.
20:04:36 Anytime you look at a rezoning request, the first
20:04:38 question that comes in front of you, and you heard me
20:04:41 say this before, what a court will look at is whether
20:04:44 or not it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:04:49 That is one of the things you look at.
20:04:50 That is one -- he was log at in the context of being a

20:04:58 CMU 35, a request for the office, and the specialty
20:05:01 retail, could not be considered under an existing
20:05:06 comprehensive plan designation.
20:05:08 So assuming it gets passed, the plan amendment, the
20:05:13 question in front of you, the first question is
20:05:14 consistency with the comprehensive plan.
20:05:16 And that's what Tony was opining to.
20:05:23 Not in every single rezoning do you is the first --
20:05:26 once you get passed whether or not the rezoning is
20:05:29 consistent with the comprehensive plan discussion, one
20:05:33 of complying with city codes, whether or not there's
20:05:35 competent, substantial evidence to support the
20:05:39 decision.
20:05:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
20:05:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Julia, tell us about the
20:05:44 significance or lack of significance of the Planning
20:05:50 Commission staff report.
20:05:52 I mean, is it pined binding authority upon us, and
20:05:55 that we have to -- you know, we have to vote that way?
20:05:58 >>> No.
20:06:01 It's a recommendation to you.
20:06:03 It is part of the record that you review.

20:06:05 It's part of your decision-making process.
20:06:07 But you are the ultimate determiner of whether or not
20:06:10 something is appropriate in the policy decision, to
20:06:15 change the comprehensive plan is he appropriate, and
20:06:17 when you get into the zoning contact whether or not
20:06:20 the code has been met, for example, as you heard, Mr.
20:06:25 Carothers had some different opinions as to whether
20:06:29 certain codes are triggered or not.
20:06:31 Ultimately you make that decision which is why in this
20:06:33 case, it's on the zoning part, was appropriate to hear
20:06:38 that and you may very well say, no, we agree with Mr.
20:06:42 Carothers on one thing or another.
20:06:43 That's your determination ultimately as part of the
20:06:45 public hearing process.
20:06:46 >> The other thing I want to do before we close the
20:06:49 public hearing, and Mr. Carothers --
20:06:55 >>> Mr. Carothers indicated to me, the staff report,
20:07:01 the comprehensive plan designation and in the
20:07:03 rezoning, and the rezoning it would be competent
20:07:06 substantial evidence that he would be considering as
20:07:07 well as part of the record you review for the
20:07:11 comprehensive plan amendment.

20:07:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to make sure that this
20:07:15 document got in the record.
20:07:19 It was sent top my office, and we always copy the
20:07:21 clerk but I want to make sure that Mr. Carothers was
20:07:24 aware of it, which was a letter from Fernandez, Jr.,
20:07:27 the president of Palma Ceia west, and I'll just read
20:07:30 it into the record and then provide Mr. Carothers.
20:07:33 It says dear councilman, we received the petition to
20:07:37 rezone, last year this petition was rejected,
20:07:40 et cetera, et cetera, in January 2008, as mentioned by
20:07:43 the vice-president of our organization, two residents
20:07:47 intended to state their objections causing this will
20:07:50 cause commercial encroachment, increasing traffic,
20:07:54 speeding into neighborhood the Palma Ceia west
20:07:58 neighborhood association objects.
20:07:59 I think this is already in the clerk's file but we'll
20:08:04 make sure that it is.
20:08:05 Mr. Carothers has an opportunity to see it and that we
20:08:09 make sure it's in the record.
20:08:10 With that, Ms. Petrucha.
20:08:14 Let's talk about the plan.
20:08:20 You pulled out some of the planned policies that

20:08:22 support this petition and support your recommendation.
20:08:25 But in digging into the comprehensive plan, there's
20:08:28 some other policies that I just want to make sure they
20:08:30 are still good policies.
20:08:33 We pulled them off the computer a few minutes ago.
20:08:37 But policy B-5.3 -- I don't know if you have your plan
20:08:42 book with you.
20:08:42 >>> I don't, no.
20:08:44 >> It says the expansion of appropriate commercial
20:08:47 uses adjacent to residential uses should be considered
20:08:51 only if such a expansion maintains the residential
20:08:56 character of and mitigates to the effect of the
20:08:58 expansions, nonresidential traffic into the adjacent
20:09:02 neighborhood.
20:09:03 Is that still a good policy?
20:09:05 >>> That would still be a good policy.
20:09:06 That's correct.
20:09:07 >> And then policy objective B-6 of the Tampa
20:09:13 comprehensive plan says that we want to encourage
20:09:16 commercial redevelopment in areas where it is needed
20:09:19 in a manner that is compatible with surrounding
20:09:23 residential uses.

20:09:24 And that's still good?
20:09:30 >>> Yes, sir.
20:09:31 >> And policy B-2-15, says, quote, establish
20:09:38 neighborhoods and emerging neighborhoods shall be
20:09:41 protected by restricting incompatible land uses.
20:09:45 That's still good?
20:09:48 >>> I would say in the context of where the site is,
20:09:53 the area where this particular amendment is located,
20:09:57 the area is predominantly a commercial area and not a
20:10:01 residential area.
20:10:02 >> How many single-family --
20:10:05 >>> I stated in the report, this is on the edge of
20:10:08 Palma Ceia west area.
20:10:09 >> How many single-family houses there are on that
20:10:11 block?
20:10:12 >>> On that block, there are, I believe, four houses
20:10:16 to the west, on that street, and I believe either one
20:10:19 or two on the north side of that block.
20:10:21 >> On that block is six single-family familiar houses?
20:10:27 >>> And that's probably equivalent to half the block.
20:10:30 Half the block is commercial.
20:10:32 >> Half the block is commercial?

20:10:34 There's only one --
20:10:35 >>> from church.
20:10:36 >> If you go all the way to Dale Mabry.
20:10:37 >>> Yeah.
20:10:38 But that's the street.
20:10:39 >> And then -- okay.
20:10:43 But that's still a good policy.
20:10:45 B-2.
20:10:47 Established neighborhood shall be protected by
20:10:54 compatible land uses.
20:10:57 I'll assume it is.
20:11:03 Anyway, there's a few more.
20:11:05 Let me ask petitioner.
20:11:07 As I said -- where is the petitioner? As I said
20:11:10 earlier, I have got a problem.
20:11:13 I have a problem with the site plan.
20:11:15 I think it is incompatible.
20:11:17 I think it's incompatible with these policies.
20:11:20 When you come in asking for -- I think it's general
20:11:22 retail.
20:11:23 Is that what you said?
20:11:30 >>> Yes.

20:11:30 The requested use, general retail, and the lawn and
20:11:33 garden.
20:11:34 >> And I think you got a smorgasbord of options there.
20:11:37 And I think at least two of them are really wholly
20:11:40 incompatible with this block.
20:11:44 And that would be the general retail and the lawn and
20:11:47 garden.
20:11:48 I mean, lawn and garden sounds like we might be doing
20:11:52 lawnmower maintenance, or perhaps selling plants with
20:11:58 trucks delivering plants.
20:11:59 You know, to and from that site.
20:12:01 I don't know exactly what but it doesn't sound
20:12:03 consistent or compatible pursuant to the policies I
20:12:06 just read.
20:12:07 So I would like to give you an option from my
20:12:10 perspective, and I can't speak for the rest of the
20:12:12 five members who are here.
20:12:13 I think as Mrs. Saul-Sena indicated perhaps there's a
20:12:16 comp plan category that's a lesser use that would
20:12:19 allow a smaller office, like a 2,000 square foot
20:12:24 office, number one.
20:12:26 Number two is I think you could take -- you wouldn't

20:12:30 even have to readvertise it, I don't think, because
20:12:33 it's a lesser comp plan category.
20:12:34 You could come back to us with that.
20:12:36 Could you come back to us with a modified site plan
20:12:39 that uses the footprint in the back as the PD.
20:12:42 And I think you would have plenty of parking spaces,
20:12:45 and you wouldn't have to take down a whole lot of
20:12:47 trees.
20:12:47 Frankly from my perspective if you want to use that
20:12:50 15-foot alley and get the 5-foot waiver I don't have a
20:12:53 big problem with that.
20:12:54 That makes sense.
20:12:55 Plus you are a good neighbor and you are letting the
20:12:57 other people go up and down the rest of that alley.
20:12:59 I would like you to consider talk that over with your
20:13:01 client if that's something you might consider.
20:13:03 Otherwise, I'm going to have plenty of policy in the
20:13:07 comprehensive plan, in my opinion, that would warrant
20:13:10 a denial of this.
20:13:11 Both of the plan amendment and the rezoning.
20:13:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have any comment?
20:13:23 >>> I don't think there was a question there except

20:13:26 whether we would reconsider and readdress the res 20
20:13:29 comp plan.
20:13:30 And I will need a minute to discuss that with my
20:13:32 client.
20:13:33 Having said that, there have been a number of
20:13:37 inaccurate statements made in the last few minutes
20:13:39 that I would like to respond to.
20:13:43 To clarify what Julia Cole read into the record a
20:13:48 minute ago relating to the Planning Commission staff
20:13:49 report, there is a long line of Florida case law which
20:13:53 makes it very clear that staff report from the
20:13:57 Planning Commission is deemed to competent,
20:14:01 substantial evidence.
20:14:04 You read a number of policies out of the comp plan
20:14:07 dealing with impact on traffic in the surrounding
20:14:10 neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera.
20:14:12 And I would just like the record to reflect that this
20:14:15 council has not heard from one single person, one
20:14:18 expert or otherwise, except the opinion testimony of a
20:14:22 neighbor from two blocks away, that this project will
20:14:24 have any negative impact on the transportation grid in
20:14:27 this area in Tampa.

20:14:30 The letter councilman Dingfelder that you read into
20:14:33 the record a minute ago is simply replete with errors.
20:14:35 I have not seen this letter.
20:14:38 I have not been contacted by Mr. Hernandez.
20:14:40 The first sentence says the last year, a petition to
20:14:44 rezone was rejected by the association and by City
20:14:47 Council.
20:14:48 We haven't gone to this neighborhood until December of
20:14:52 2007.
20:14:54 With the petition to rezone.
20:14:56 And this council has never denied a petition to
20:14:58 rezone.
20:14:58 It's simply not an accurate statement.
20:15:00 The second sentence says if the November 2007, the
20:15:03 membership of the association voted against the
20:15:06 petition.
20:15:06 I find that difficult to agree with, given the notices
20:15:13 for this didn't even go out into December of 2007.
20:15:17 So I'm not sure how to respond, councilman Dingfelder,
20:15:24 to your request that we reconsider the comp plan
20:15:27 designation and get that through a new site plan,
20:15:32 except to say that we worked very hard over the course

20:15:35 of two years now with your staff and with the Planning
20:15:37 Commission, to come up with something that we thought
20:15:39 would be reasonable and acceptable.
20:15:42 But I'll need a minute to discuss it with him.
20:15:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
20:16:30 >>CHAIRMAN: Have you made a decision?
20:16:32 >>> Yes.
20:16:32 Although we appreciate the decision, suggestion, we
20:16:36 politely decline the offer, given the statements that
20:16:39 I made earlier about how we just don't feel like a
20:16:43 2200 square foot building is out of scale or
20:16:45 inappropriate or out of line or inconsistent with the
20:16:49 residential neighborhood to the west.
20:16:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You are declining the invitation to
20:16:59 intensity?
20:17:00 >>> We think a 2200 square foot office is perfectly
20:17:03 compatible with this neighborhood.
20:17:04 >> So you are declining the offer.
20:17:06 >>> Yes.
20:17:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to share with you that I
20:17:09 think an office use as stated previously would be
20:17:15 acceptable, but the underlying lying land use request

20:17:20 for CMU 35, that's a very intense request, and I will
20:17:25 not be able to support it.
20:17:29 >>> That's precisely why we came back with such a
20:17:31 limiting PD site plan in terms of the uses.
20:17:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
20:17:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close the public hearing.
20:17:43 >> So moved.
20:17:45 >>GWEN MILLER: What is the privilege on item 3 first?
20:17:50 Mr. Dingfelder?
20:17:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
20:17:52 To start with, I have got the -- out of our comp plan,
20:17:59 future land use element, there's a definition for
20:18:02 community mixed use 35.
20:18:03 I think it's important to clarify for the record, it
20:18:07 says the purpose is to designate areas suitable for
20:18:10 general commercial, professional office, and
20:18:15 multifamily development.
20:18:16 And then it goes on to say, talk about, you know,
20:18:20 reference to existing development patterns, encourage
20:18:24 the development of residential use in conjunction with
20:18:27 office and retail uses, et cetera.
20:18:29 But I think it's just as important to note that CMU 35

20:18:36 as Ms. Saul-Sena pointed out, and as staff pointed
20:18:38 out, allows for general commercial, which under our
20:18:42 zoning code is a wide range of uses.
20:18:47 This particular petitioner has come to us to include
20:18:52 some of those uses, including general commercial, on
20:18:59 part of the property and garden on part of the
20:19:03 property.
20:19:04 Based on that and the testimony I heard tonight from
20:19:06 staff and the residents I'll move to deny.
20:19:08 I believe that the project --
20:19:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
20:19:10 >> That the comp plan amendment is inconsistent with
20:19:14 the following policies in our comprehensive plan, and
20:19:18 I won't read them again into the record, but the court
20:19:22 can take judicial notice of them if it goes to court
20:19:24 again, and that will be policy B-1.2, B-2.1, B-2.2,
20:19:37 B-2.15, and all of those deal with inconsistent and
20:19:43 incompatible commercial uses adjacent to neighborhoods
20:19:49 and residential uses.
20:19:55 In addition I believe the proposed comp plan amendment
20:19:58 is inconsistent with objective B-6 which I read into
20:20:01 the record earlier of the comprehensive plan, and also

20:20:04 B-5.3, which says that the expansion of commercial
20:20:10 uses must maintain the residential character of and
20:20:14 mitigate the effect of the expansion as nonresidential
20:20:17 traffic into the residential neighborhood.
20:20:19 I haven't seen any reference whatsoever on either of
20:20:22 these petitions of mitigating the impacts of the
20:20:25 potential commercial use into this existing
20:20:29 neighborhood.
20:20:30 And also, I want to point out for the record that
20:20:33 there's been testimony, I think from staff, that
20:20:36 there's six single-family houses on this block face,
20:20:40 not to mention all of the dozens of single-family
20:20:44 houses that are on this street further to the west.
20:20:52 I don't know, I can't think of anything else, except
20:20:55 to say that this project, in the petition to modify
20:21:00 the comprehensive plan, is wholly inconsistent and
20:21:03 incompatible with surrounding residential use.
20:21:06 I move to deny.
20:21:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:21:08 (Motion carried).
20:21:11 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano voting no.
20:21:15 And with Scott being absent.

20:21:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In regard to petition number 4,
20:21:22 item number 4, petition Z 04-94, again I would cite to
20:21:27 the fact that first off, as Ms. Cole indicated, the
20:21:32 petition for PD, commercial, and the other uses in the
20:21:37 PD, is currently inconsistent with the 6 comp plan
20:21:43 designation that's currently on the -- on the
20:21:48 property, so that's sort of a no-brainer there but on
20:21:53 top of that I'll site to the other comprehensive plan
20:21:56 provisions that I cited to a minute ago, in the other
20:22:00 denial, incorporate them by reference in this denial,
20:22:03 to say that once again that the PD as proposed would
20:22:07 be inconsistent, income could patible with the
20:22:09 surrounding residential uses.
20:22:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
20:22:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
20:22:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano voting no and
20:22:19 Scott being absent.
20:22:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may ask the chair.
20:22:24 I know we have 5 and then 7 but Mr. Brad Berry, head
20:22:31 of the Tampa water department has been here since this
20:22:33 morning with me in various meetings and I wonder if we
20:22:35 can take 7 out of order if there is no opposition to

20:22:38 7.
20:22:38 If there is we will hold it and take 5.
20:22:40 >> Is there anyone that came to talk against item 7?
20:22:45 Opposition to 7?
20:22:46 We'll do 7.
20:22:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open number 7.
20:22:50 Second Mrs. Saul-Sena's motion to open number 7.
20:22:52 (Motion carried).
20:22:53 >> Thank you, Mr. Stutzman, for your accommodation.
20:23:22 >>> LaChone Dock, Land Development Coordination, and I
20:23:28 have been sworn.
20:23:29 Petition before you tonight is petition number V08-03
20:23:33 for the property located at 3710 west Wisconsin
20:23:36 Avenue. The current zoning is RS 50 residential
20:23:36 single-family.
20:23:43 The proposed special use is for a public service
20:23:45 facility for repump station improvements.
20:23:50 Petitioner is requesting a special use to make
20:23:52 improvements to the existing City of Tampa interbay
20:23:54 repump station.
20:23:57 The existing building on-site will be increased by
20:23:59 approximately 246 square feet in order to add a new

20:24:02 generator and concrete gas tank enclosure to the east
20:24:06 side of the existing operations building.
20:24:10 The operations conducted at this location do not
20:24:12 require -- therefore this expansion does not result in
20:24:17 any additional demand for parking, or an increase in
20:24:20 required parking.
20:24:44 This is the location of the property.
20:24:49 This is the property located on Wisconsin.
20:24:52 The property to the east and south are zoned
20:24:57 residential single-family with RS-60 to the east and
20:25:01 RS-50 to the south, and west of the site, the Dale
20:25:05 Mabry corridor with a commercial zone.
20:25:10 And here is an aerial of the site.
20:25:15 Wisconsin is north.
20:25:16 Dale Mabry is to the west of the site.
20:25:19 Iowa is south of the site.
20:25:20 And Sterling is to the east.
20:25:29 Pictures of the site itself.
20:25:34 This is a picture of the site.
20:25:35 This is where the addition will occur on the east side
20:25:39 of the building.
20:25:42 Here is another view of the site.

20:25:48 This is another picture of the site itself.
20:25:50 And again the addition will occur on this side of the
20:25:53 building.
20:25:58 This is across from the site. This is the northwest
20:26:01 corner of Wisconsin and Sterling.
20:26:03 Located west of the site.
20:26:08 And this is located east of the site.
20:26:18 There is one waiver requested, and it is for section
20:26:24 27-133 section E to utilize an existing -- in excess
20:26:31 of 4 feet for security purposes.
20:26:34 Throws another waiver that was listed but it was
20:26:38 placed in error on the report.
20:26:39 And the project will comply with lighting regulations.
20:26:43 Staff has reviewed the petition and finds it
20:26:45 consistent.
20:26:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know that the trick here is
20:26:53 balancing your needs for safety and transparency with
20:26:59 a concern for fed -- have you seen if you can do
20:27:07 anything to make this more attractive?
20:27:09 >>> I'm not certain that that was part of what
20:27:13 petitioner is proposing, and with this addition.
20:27:21 >> Maybe creeping ficus, creeping jasmine?

20:27:27 >>CHAIRMAN: Let's let them finish their presentation,
20:27:29 Mrs. Saul-Sena.
20:27:30 >>> Brad Baird, Tampa water department.
20:27:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Let us here from Planning Commission
20:27:36 first.
20:27:41 >>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
20:27:46 Just very quickly, land use category is residential
20:27:49 20.
20:27:49 We do know this is for an improvement to a facility
20:27:56 for public benefit and will be used to continue to
20:27:58 accommodate the growth of the area. It is consistent
20:27:59 with objective D-4 in the future land use element and
20:28:04 policy D-4.6, policy D 4.7 for public facilities, and
20:28:11 how it will be used to maximize efficiency for public
20:28:14 couples, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
20:28:16 request with the comprehensive plan.
20:28:20 >> Brad Baird, Tampa water department.
20:28:28 I have been sworn.
20:28:31 Yes, Mrs. Saul-Sena, we are doing other improvements
20:28:35 as part of that, aesthetic improvements including
20:28:38 planning six oak trees along the south property line,
20:28:41 the hedge along the west property line, hedge and

20:28:45 landscaping to shield the parking area, which will, by
20:28:51 the way, be a grass parking area to have pervious for
20:28:57 the groundwater.
20:28:58 Hedge around the electric transformer, and sod
20:29:04 installed in areas where currently we don't have
20:29:07 grass.
20:29:07 We tried to -- in addition, we will improve the
20:29:12 aesthetics of the building to, you know, make that a
20:29:17 little more favorable for the neighborhood.
20:29:20 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
20:29:23 on item number 7?
20:29:24 >>> I have been sworn.
20:29:33 I'm going to be very brief because I know you all had
20:29:35 a long day.
20:29:36 I can tell you this, that when they sent me the fuller
20:29:43 explaining what they are going to do, I emailed that
20:29:46 to over 150 people.
20:29:47 I got feedback from one individual that had some
20:29:50 questions regarding some things.
20:29:52 I turned it over to Brian Picard.
20:29:54 And I assume that that gentleman that got his
20:29:58 questions answered.

20:29:59 We are not opposed to this in any way.
20:30:01 I was last, at the last meeting this did come up and a
20:30:06 couple people asked questions, and I'm down here to
20:30:09 ask those two questions.
20:30:10 Number one, we know what happened in the freeze when
20:30:14 the temperatures went up and down with the
20:30:16 improvements to this pumping facility.
20:30:19 They said, what effect this had on a very aging old
20:30:25 infrastructure down there in terms of pressure
20:30:27 variances, volumes, et cetera and so forth.
20:30:30 The other question is, as many of you are aware, the
20:30:34 city has just installed a 20-inch water main from Dale
20:30:38 Mabry to Westshore, which was paid for by the folks at
20:30:43 New Port Tampa Bay.
20:30:44 If and when New Port Tampa Bay gets moving, and I'm
20:30:49 sure that they hope it does, and, you know, it's just
20:30:53 a Barron waste land, will this change in this facility
20:30:57 be able to pick up the slot by pushing another 20
20:31:02 inches of water through this line from Dale Mabry,
20:31:04 which is -- and this facility is not far away from it.
20:31:08 So those are the two questions that I had, that I was
20:31:11 asked to ask this evening, and I'll sit down.

20:31:16 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Barron?
20:31:17 >>> Actually this pumping station is designed to do
20:31:23 exactly what Mr. Steenson just said, and that is to
20:31:28 keep up with the growth without impacting existing
20:31:32 water customers, to decrease the system pressure
20:31:37 swing, so that will improve in that area, to increase
20:31:43 water service reliability.
20:31:45 I could get into details about that but I'll save you
20:31:47 that.
20:31:48 Improve the ability to provide water service during
20:31:52 and after an emergency situation.
20:31:55 And then finally to improve water quality, because we
20:31:58 have improved the way, or the water automatic way of
20:32:04 turning over the water in that tank.
20:32:06 So all of those things.
20:32:07 This is a very good project.
20:32:09 It is part of the CEAC improvements or contribution in
20:32:16 aid of construction, that it's tied into large
20:32:20 pipeline, that is proposed, to come down from the
20:32:25 David Tippin plant to South Tampa, and these pumping
20:32:29 station upgrades are in concert with that pipeline.
20:32:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?

20:32:35 Need to close.
20:32:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Did you get an answer to the freeze
20:32:47 question, Al?
20:32:48 >>> In terms of the temperature swings and pipelines,
20:32:53 what happened what happens is, when the temperature
20:32:56 drops, pipeline system contracts.
20:33:00 When it warms up again is when we see an increase in
20:33:04 water leaks.
20:33:05 For instance, this last freeze, we saw, I think, 14
20:33:09 additional line breaks than we normally see.
20:33:12 When it warmed back up.
20:33:15 The pipeline replacement program that City Council
20:33:21 supported, with the five-year rate increase program,
20:33:25 will replace many pipelines in this area.
20:33:28 In fact right now we are working in the four blocks
20:33:31 south of Gandy, between MacDill and Himes to do that.
20:33:39 Really you need to upgrade those pipelines to prevent
20:33:42 that from happening.
20:33:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It's my understanding that we used
20:33:47 to do ten miles a year replacement pipeline, for five
20:33:51 years is 50 miles.
20:33:53 That was a difference of what we did in this council,

20:33:56 stimulation, looking forward for a long period of
20:33:58 time.
20:33:59 We are doing 200 miles every five years.
20:34:01 So we certainly have come a long way in the last four
20:34:05 or five months, in making the city a better place.
20:34:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank you for the
20:34:11 enhancement for the neighborhood, the additional
20:34:13 landscaping, the turf parking.
20:34:16 I think that's all to the good.
20:34:17 Thank you.
20:34:18 >>> You're welcome.
20:34:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak on 7?
20:34:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
20:34:24 >> Second.
20:34:24 (Motion carried).
20:34:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for special use
20:34:28 permit S-2 approving a special service facility, RS 50
20:34:34 residential single-family zoning district in the
20:34:36 general vicinity of 3710 west Wisconsin Avenue in the
20:34:39 city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in
20:34:42 section 1 therefore approving waivers as set forth

20:34:46 herein providing an effective date.
20:34:47 >> I have a motion and second.
20:34:48 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:34:51 We now go back to --
20:34:53 >>THE CLERK: I need a second on that motion.
20:34:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
20:34:58 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
20:34:59 absent at vote, Scott being absent.
20:35:03 >> Move to open number 5.
20:35:05 >> Second.
20:35:05 (Motion carried)
20:35:20 >> LaChone Dock, Land Development Coordination.
20:35:35 I have been sworn.
20:35:35 The next petition before you is Z08-01 for property
20:35:40 located at 1206 east Curtis street from residential
20:35:47 single-family to PD planned development for
20:35:48 residential single-family detached use.
20:35:52 We have no waivers requested with this petition.
20:35:53 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
20:35:56 split the 10,918 square foot parcel and create two
20:36:00 buildable lots.
20:36:01 The site currently has 150-foot of frontage along west

20:36:06 Curtis street.
20:36:07 Proposed frontages will be 54 feet for the lot on the
20:36:09 west and 48 feet for the lot on the east.
20:36:12 The existing 1300 square foot home on lot 15 will
20:36:16 remain.
20:36:17 The PD setbacks from lot 15 are as follows: 23.2 feet
20:36:24 front, 30.2 feet rear, 19.2 feet west side yard, and
20:36:27 3.9 feet east side yard.
20:36:30 The building setback -- are 24 feet front, 20 feet
20:36:37 rear, 3 feet west side yard, and 9 feet east side
20:36:41 yard.
20:36:41 The minimum building separation is 6.9 feet.
20:36:45 Setbacks under the proposed 1663 square foot structure
20:36:50 exceed the minimum RS-50 requirement.
20:36:52 The structure will have a maximum height of 35 feet.
20:36:57 The site is located within the Seminole Heights
20:36:59 overlay, and they are complying with design standard
20:37:03 for the district.
20:37:15 Here is a map of the property.
20:37:18 And this is the site located on Curtis.
20:37:22 And the surrounding property designations are RS-50 to
20:37:27 the north.

20:37:28 This is RS-60.
20:37:31 And there are a couple of TD sites.
20:37:40 Here is an aerial of the site.
20:37:43 This is the site located on Curtis.
20:37:47 12th Street is to the west.
20:38:00 This is the east side of the lot.
20:38:02 Where the proposed development will occur.
20:38:05 This is a picture of the west side of the lot, the
20:38:09 existing home that will Romaine.
20:38:14 Going further west, this is the lot west of that
20:38:17 existing home.
20:38:21 This is on the northwest corner of Curtis and
20:38:24 12th.
20:38:31 This is across Curtis to the church.
20:38:33 This is the view looking south on 12th.
20:38:38 This is on the southwest corner of Curtis and
20:38:41 12th.
20:38:44 This is across the street from the site.
20:38:53 And that's another picture across the street from the
20:38:57 site.
20:38:59 And this is the view looking east down Curtis.
20:39:06 City staff finds the request consistent if the

20:39:15 churches are made between first and second reading.
20:39:22 The radius extending from the edge of the trunk of the
20:39:24 tree and the corner 13-164 section 1.
20:39:29 For parks and recreation, a notice required for
20:39:31 special construction when building a protective root
20:39:36 zone.
20:39:36 For solid waste the one-story resident, visual
20:39:40 depiction showing opening door measuring two feet
20:39:43 across, need to match the of four feet across for what
20:39:52 is being approved.
20:39:54 And that concludes staff's report.
20:40:10 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:40:14 For the first time, Mr. Shelby, I have been sworn in.
20:40:17 I think it's the first time.
20:40:18 >> So you have been sworn in.
20:40:20 I have been sworn at.
20:40:22 >>> I think I can join knew that category, too, Mr.
20:40:25 Miranda.
20:40:25 The site is located in the southeast Seminole Heights
20:40:27 neighborhood association, predominant land use
20:40:30 category residential 10.
20:40:32 The purpose of the request is to create one buildable

20:40:34 lot.
20:40:35 You already have an existing lot on the monitor before
20:40:40 you this evening, so the purpose is to split the lot
20:40:43 to be able to build a buildable lot.
20:40:46 As you also saw based on the photographs, there are a
20:40:50 variety of architectural styles in the area from
20:40:52 concrete masonry to bungalow style, 1950s ranch
20:40:58 style homes in the area.
20:40:59 So the overriding architecture, southeast Seminole
20:41:03 Heights has undergone a consistent resurgence of new
20:41:09 residential redevelopment in the area, and continued
20:41:12 that trend.
20:41:12 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
20:41:15 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:41:17 >> Good evening.
20:41:24 My name is Jim Stutzman, address 3314 Henderson
20:41:28 Boulevard, suite 108 in Tampa, and I have been sworn.
20:41:39 A rendered version of the site plan that we have
20:41:41 submitted.
20:41:42 The site is just under 11,000 square feet and it's
20:41:46 actually composed of two platted lots, and the purpose
20:41:51 of the PD request was due to the fact that the

20:41:55 existing home on the western lot actually is on the
20:42:01 lot, the eastern lot line of that western lot.
20:42:05 So there was practically zero setback on this -- with
20:42:12 this structure.
20:42:13 And part of the request is to realign the lot loin to
20:42:19 give us two buildable lots.
20:42:22 We did explore going through the waiver process,
20:42:25 through the Variance Review Board, and it was
20:42:27 determined by staff and us that the PD was the best
20:42:30 route to go.
20:42:32 We are showing the 3-foot setback for the proposed
20:42:37 house.
20:42:38 And this was one of the concerns raised by the
20:42:40 neighborhood association.
20:42:42 I did have discussion with members of that
20:42:44 association.
20:42:46 And I did explain that there are two large trees on
20:42:48 the eastern side of the eastern lot, and that's what
20:42:53 prompted us to try to keep the proposed structure to
20:42:57 the west.
20:42:58 And we do have a little over six-foot separation.
20:43:03 And typically the zoning code and Euclidean zoning

20:43:07 district allows an intrusion of three feet into the
20:43:10 setbacks where these are architectural features and
20:43:16 one of the.
20:43:17 That we proposed on our site plan was to reduce that
20:43:20 to two feet and try to keep separation between the two
20:43:23 structures.
20:43:25 He would do include a porch in the front and a porch
20:43:28 in the rear.
20:43:30 And one thing I would like to mention is the there is
20:43:33 a little discrepancy between the architectural
20:43:36 renderings that we submitted and the site plan.
20:43:39 And it's my understanding that the architectural
20:43:43 renderings, the elevations, are to show the character
20:43:45 of the area.
20:43:46 They are not construction plans.
20:43:49 And because we have this little bit of cut-out on the
20:43:53 eastern side, we try to maintain, or square footage
20:43:59 for the house we don't match exactly what the
20:44:01 elevations that are submitted but again it does show
20:44:04 the character of the home that we are trying to
20:44:06 construct.
20:44:07 And, also, this is the building footprint.

20:44:10 And I tried to use the setbacks that are outlined in
20:44:14 the RS-50 district to give us a building footprint.
20:44:21 The actual structure may be a little smaller than
20:44:24 this, and one concern expressed by the homeowners
20:44:28 association was that they felt that the 1600 square
20:44:31 feet may be a little large for the neighborhood.
20:44:34 We would be happy to go down to 1400 maximum.
20:44:38 We could even put that inside the envelope saying that
20:44:40 would be the maximum square footage we would build.
20:44:43 Another concern raised was the fact that we have set
20:44:45 back 30 feet, that exceeds the existing footprint.
20:44:50 Again, the trees were something we considered in
20:44:53 trying to maintain some separation in that area, and
20:44:57 the staff did do analysis of the neighborhood and
20:45:00 determined that the average setback in this
20:45:01 neighborhood was about 30 feet.
20:45:04 And we have actually -- it's 31 feet and change but
20:45:08 then the porch does exceed and intrude into that
20:45:13 setback of the primary structure.
20:45:15 We have not asked for any waivers for this.
20:45:18 We feel it's an appropriate in-fill project, single
20:45:21 story, has the front rear porch.

20:45:24 We have agreed to comply with the Seminole Heights
20:45:26 residential overlay district.
20:45:28 And the comp plan and the appropriate redevelopment of
20:45:35 the area.
20:45:36 I would be happy to answer any questions.
20:45:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
20:45:40 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
20:45:41 item number 5?
20:45:42 >>> Tom Moore, I live at 4706 north 10th street.
20:45:54 I'm a member of the Southeast Seminole Heights civic
20:45:57 association.
20:45:57 And in reviewing the PD plan, we definitely are in
20:46:02 support of redevelopment in the neighborhood.
20:46:05 But we definitely think there should be some
20:46:07 consideration made because we are dealing with a
20:46:10 smaller lot.
20:46:11 And the first part, I really think that the setbacks
20:46:16 for the new house should be at least seven feet on
20:46:18 that one side.
20:46:20 If we are talking about six feet between the building
20:46:22 that's basically just enough space for a sidewalk.
20:46:25 And don't think it would be appropriate and fit in

20:46:31 with the neighborhood.
20:46:32 Otherwise, in regards to the elevation, the civic
20:46:38 association would recommend that the house, the shows
20:46:44 the exterior, it looks like stuck oh, we recommend
20:46:48 that the stereo be siding to fit more -- I think the
20:46:54 intent of the elevation was more like a bungalow.
20:46:58 And it wasn't clear from what we got, P how big that
20:47:03 porch is going to be.
20:47:04 Really we recommend that the porch be at least eight
20:47:08 to fiend ten feet deep, and another suggestion, and
20:47:14 it's really just a suggestion, that they may consider
20:47:16 putting in a carport rather than a garage.
20:47:21 To fit in better without being a bungalow.
20:47:26 And what's shown on the site plan, that might be the
20:47:30 appropriate place to put it.
20:47:33 But otherwise we are in support.
20:47:35 We just think we need to reconsider how to work on
20:47:38 that lot.
20:47:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?
20:47:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand the carport and the
20:47:47 garage, but there are garages in Seminole Heights.
20:47:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you want rebuttal?

20:47:53 >>> Yes, there's many garages, and many carports.
20:47:57 >> Most of them are in the back.
20:48:00 >>> Correct.
20:48:06 The structure in the front is only 2 feet, and that's
20:48:09 again -- if Mary would let us encroach into that tree
20:48:14 we would be happy to slide everything over but I think
20:48:16 we might get some objections from that.
20:48:18 And we felt that the 28 feet width for the primary
20:48:22 width of the structure was getting pretty narrow to
20:48:25 have a single car garage and the porch.
20:48:30 The porch is about eight feet and that was one of
20:48:34 those questions.
20:48:35 But if council feels that we need oh to narrow the
20:48:39 house and give a larger setback on that side we could
20:48:42 do that.
20:48:43 But again, it getting pretty narrow.
20:48:46 >> May I continue the questioning?
20:48:47 Earlier, I believe you said in testimony the house to
20:48:50 the east, you can reduce it from 1663 to 1400?
20:48:56 >>> We would be willing to cap --
20:48:58 >> Would that give you more easement between the two
20:49:00 houses?

20:49:00 >>> Well, that would be one way to reduce the square
20:49:03 footage.
20:49:03 Cot come from the back, if that's your desire, we
20:49:06 could reduce it by two feet on the west side of that
20:49:09 --
20:49:10 >> I can't speak for everybody else but I think that
20:49:13 would be appropriate.
20:49:14 >>> And that's a change we could make between first
20:49:16 and second reading and would be happy to do that.
20:49:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Actually this might be a question for
20:49:22 staff but from the site plan it looks like there is
20:49:26 some room within the tree canopy that you could --
20:49:32 >>> a couple of the notes that Mary asked us to put on
20:49:34 the plan addressed the tree issues.
20:49:37 She wants us to expand the 15-foot radius a little
20:49:40 bit.
20:49:41 And so we are getting squeezed there.
20:49:44 We don't want to make Mary mad.
20:49:46 >>MARY MULHERN: You never want to make Mary mad.
20:49:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe the neighborhood
20:49:54 suggested you do hardy board. Had you all thought of
20:49:55 that?

20:50:00 >> We would agree to that.
20:50:00 >> Again you could do that between first and second
20:50:02 reading which is why we are so grateful to our staff
20:50:03 for changing the rules so we can make changes.
20:50:08 It makes everybody's life better.
20:50:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?
20:50:11 We need to close.
20:50:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to close.
20:50:14 >> Second.
20:50:15 (Motion carried)
20:50:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I believe we have to state with the
20:50:21 conditions, whoever reads this thing here, 1400
20:50:24 setback, the board.
20:50:28 >>GWEN MILLER:
20:50:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
20:50:31 the general vicinity of 1206 east Curtis street from
20:50:38 zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
20:50:42 single-family to PD planned development residential
20:50:45 single-family detached providing an effective date,
20:50:49 adding notes on the site plan to increase the setbacks
20:50:54 on the west side, and to -- what is it?
20:51:05 Hardy board.

20:51:06 Is there anything else?
20:51:07 >>GWEN MILLER: That's it.
20:51:10 >> Just to make sure the changes were noted that were
20:51:13 requested.
20:51:19 >> We have a motion and second.
20:51:21 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:51:23 Opposed, Nay.
20:51:24 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott being absent.
20:51:28 Second reading and adoption will be on February
20:51:30 7th at 9:30 a.m., as with the previous ordinance,
20:51:39 Z 0-03.
20:51:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open number 10.
20:51:42 >> So moved.
20:51:43 >> Second.
20:51:43 (Motion carried)
20:52:14 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
20:52:15 I have been sworn.
20:52:16 We are here for petition Z 07-109 located at 8732
20:52:22 north 46th street from RM-24 multifamily to a PD
20:52:26 planned development with the uses of daycare school.
20:52:29 The petitioner proposes to rezone the property to
20:52:31 convert the existing building to a daycare school use.

20:52:34 The zoning is located one block south of Busch
20:52:38 Boulevard.
20:52:39 Use to the north is a fitness center.
20:52:41 There is an open space ball field to the south of the
20:52:44 site.
20:52:44 The PD setbacks are as follows.
20:52:47 6.5 feet to the north and south.
20:52:50 15.3 feet to the east and 30.4 feet to the west.
20:52:55 These represent the existing structure on-site.
20:52:58 This is essentially an adaptive reuse of the site.
20:53:09 Here is a running map of the local area.
20:53:16 You can see that there's a mix of all different sorts
20:53:19 of zonings in the immediate vicinity.
20:53:27 Here is an aerial of the site.
20:53:30 Busch Boulevard to the north of 46th to the east.
20:53:40 This is a picture of the site.
20:53:45 This is looking north on the site towards Busch.
20:53:50 This is located to the east of the site.
20:53:54 This is southeast of the site.
20:54:01 This is the church park located directly to the south
20:54:05 of the site.
20:54:08 And here is multifamily residential located to the

20:54:12 west.
20:54:19 This is looking towards Busch and this is looking east
20:54:23 on Curtis.
20:54:25 City staff finds this request to be consistent with
20:54:40 our regulation with a provision that the following
20:54:42 changes occur between first and second reading.
20:54:47 Tree and landscaping, the request is a deficit square
20:54:50 footage of the 176 square feet be added to the in lieu
20:54:55 fee language.
20:54:56 There would be a total of 534 feet, and solid waste
20:55:00 has requested that the plan needs to show visuals,
20:55:05 visually, connects to the screening, closure to the
20:55:07 parking drive aisle and the site plan needs to note
20:55:12 the dumpster needs to be on wheel.
20:55:14 These revisions I make between first and second
20:55:17 reading.
20:55:17 Staff finds this consistent.
20:55:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Would you mind putting pictures of the
20:55:22 site back up on here?
20:55:23 Because when I look at the black and white copies it
20:55:27 looks like a bunker with no windows.
20:55:29 Are there no windows?

20:55:30 >> This is currently residential?
20:55:46 What is it?
20:55:50 It's RM-24.
20:55:53 The current use on the site, I believe that it was
20:55:56 vacant, at one time anything used it for a boxing -- I
20:56:01 believe it had been used for boxing and karate studio.
20:56:09 >>MARY MULHERN: Will they be putting any windows in
20:56:11 there?
20:56:11 >>> I don't believe they will be touching the
20:56:13 structure at all.
20:56:14 They are just trying to do an adaptive reuse for the
20:56:16 site.
20:56:24 >>> I'm available for questions if you have any.
20:56:29 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:56:31 I have been sworn.
20:56:39 The site is located on the son part of the north Tampa
20:56:42 area, and Busch is really where you start going up
20:56:47 closer to the New Tampa area.
20:56:48 This is just south of the university area, close
20:56:51 proximity, the municipal -- Temple Terrace a few
20:56:57 blocks to the east, as you can see, 46th over
20:57:01 here, a few blocks farther to the east.

20:57:05 The predominant land use categories on Busch Boulevard
20:57:08 which of course is a major commercial corridor in the
20:57:10 City of Tampa is community mixed use 35 in this
20:57:13 particular area.
20:57:13 And it transitions down to residential 35 and
20:57:17 residential 20.
20:57:18 Subject site is residential 35, consideration of
20:57:21 single-family attached, multifamily uses, and of
20:57:23 course community serving uses such as daycares,
20:57:27 schools, and charter schools, and churches.
20:57:31 The applicant has made a special use request for
20:57:34 charter school and for daycare.
20:57:36 The site is located within the Temple Crest
20:57:39 neighborhood civic association boundaries.
20:57:42 And it's consistent with policies B-2.1, B-3.2, 3.1.
20:57:50 The site is not located directly on an arterial road,
20:57:54 in close proximity to Busch Boulevard and is
20:57:57 compatible and meets the intent of neighborhood
20:57:59 serving community uses for the general neighborhood
20:58:01 area.
20:58:02 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed request
20:58:05 consistent.

20:58:10 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner.
20:58:15 >>> Jim Stutzman, Henderson Boulevard, Tampa 33609.
20:58:20 I have been sworn.
20:58:25 A rendered version of the site plan was submitted, a
20:58:31 little easier to follow along.
20:58:34 Also, here with me this evening is reverend mason and
20:58:37 he would like to say a few words after my
20:58:39 presentation.
20:58:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't think we need to hear from him.
20:58:47 [ Laughter ]
20:58:50 I am going to stop to you see if there's any
20:58:52 opposition.
20:58:52 Anyone who wants to speak against item number 10?
20:58:55 >> Move to close.
20:58:58 >> Second.
20:58:58 (Motion carried)
20:59:06 >> Move the following ordinance for first reading, an
20:59:09 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
20:59:11 8732 north 46th street in the city of Tampa,
20:59:14 Florida more particularly described in section 1 from
20:59:15 zoning district classification RM-24 residential
20:59:18 multifamily to PD planned development, daycare,

20:59:21 school, providing an effective date.
20:59:24 Jill, were there any changes?
20:59:25 >>> The note on solid waste to show the roll-out for
20:59:39 the bin.
20:59:39 >> Were those two changes to be incorporated between
20:59:42 first and second reading.
20:59:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:59:47 >>THE CLERK: I need a second and first reading motion.
20:59:52 The motion carried with Miranda being absent at vote
20:59:55 and Scott being absent.
20:59:56 Second reading and adoption will be on February
20:59:58 7th at 9:30 a.m.
20:59:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file all
21:00:02 documents.
21:00:02 >> Second.
21:00:03 (Motion carried)
21:00:07 >> Happy Gasparilla.
21:00:09 >> Anything to come before council?
21:00:11 We stand adjourned.

The preceding 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 file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.