Tampa City Council
Thursday, March 27, 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.
18:08:38 [Sounding gavel]
18:08:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
18:08:40 Roll call.
18:08:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
18:08:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
18:08:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
18:08:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
18:08:52 Is there anything in the public that wants to speak on
18:08:54 item 1 and 2?
18:08:57 We will now go to move them.
18:08:58 Reverend Scott?
18:08:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
18:09:04 I would like to move item 1 on the agenda, please.
18:09:07 >> Second.
18:09:07 (Motion carried).
18:09:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano vice chair, would you move
18:09:16 number 2, please?
18:09:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Do you want me to read it?
18:09:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Just move it.
18:09:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move number 2.
18:09:40 A super majority vote.
18:09:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If five of us vote we got it.
18:09:49 >>GWEN MILLER: You move item 2?
18:09:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
18:09:52 (Motion carried).
18:09:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our public hearing.
18:09:56 Anything to clean up first before we start?
18:10:07 Any items we need to clean up?
18:10:12 Any items to be removed from the agenda?
18:10:18 >>> Good evening.
18:10:21 LaChone Dock, Land Development Coordination.
18:10:26 Item number 4, petitioner is requesting to withdraw
18:10:29 the petition.
18:10:31 Council has a letter from David Smith.
18:10:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair, this is a continued
18:10:41 public hearing, does not have to be -- under the
18:10:46 letter from Mr. David M. Smith to withdraw, I move to
18:10:55 allow that to happen.
18:10:56 >> Item number 5.
18:10:57 Petitioner is requesting a continuance to May 22nd.
18:11:01 >> Is there anyone in the public that came to speak on
18:11:03 item number 5?
18:11:04 You can speak on the continuance only.
18:11:05 >>> Al Steenson: 4100 West Lela Avenue, president of
18:11:18 the Gandy civic association. With the advent of the
18:11:21 withdrawal of the vacating petition, which our
18:11:25 association, we were opposed to the vacating, I feel
18:11:28 that it's very appropriate that this council grant the
18:11:32 petitioner his continuance, and we are totally
18:11:37 Thank you very kindly.
18:11:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:11:39 Do you want to speak, sir?
18:11:43 >> Joe Booker, representing the homeowners on the
18:11:49 property immediately north of the Zaremba property to
18:11:53 be rezoned.
18:11:54 We feel like this is a worthwhile project, and that we
18:11:56 would like to support their request to give them a
18:11:59 little more time to get things together.
18:12:02 Thank you very much.
18:12:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:12:03 Would anyone else like to speak on the continuance of
18:12:06 number 5?
18:12:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move continuance to May 22nd of '08
18:12:11 at 6:00 in the evening.
18:12:13 >> Second.
18:12:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
18:12:15 (Motion carried)
18:12:16 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Item number 6.
18:12:21 To remove and reschedule for May 22nd, 2008.
18:12:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move to open the public hearing.
18:12:29 >> Second.
18:12:30 >>GWEN MILLER: It can't be heard so we don't open it.
18:12:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to --
18:12:37 >> Second.
18:12:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that May 22nd at 6 p.m.?
18:12:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
18:12:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
18:12:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 6.
18:12:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It was rescheduled, sir.
18:12:53 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
18:12:54 Anyone in the public that's going to speak on item
18:12:56 number 3 -- number 4 and 7?
18:13:02 That's it.
18:13:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No 4.
18:13:08 >> 3, 7, 8, 9, 10.
18:13:15 >>GWEN MILLER: 3, 7, 8, 9, 10.
18:13:23 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:13:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I ask that all written
18:13:36 communications relative to tonight's hearings which
18:13:37 have been available for public inspection at the City
18:13:39 Council office be received and filed into the record
18:13:42 by motion, please.
18:13:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
18:13:45 >> Second.
18:13:46 (Motion carried)
18:13:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A quick reminder briefly, if you had
18:13:51 any verbal communication with any petitioner or any
18:13:53 member of the public in connection with tonight's
18:13:57 hearings, please disclose the substance and with whom
18:14:01 that occurred, and there's a sign-up sheet outside.
18:14:04 Please sign that.
18:14:05 And for the record, when you state your name, please
18:14:07 reaffirm that you have been sworn.
18:14:08 I put a sign up to remind you.
18:14:10 Thank you, Madam Chair.
18:14:17 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
18:14:21 I have been sworn.
18:14:23 We are here for petition Z-07-99 at 2005 east Osborne
18:14:30 Avenue and 4616-22nd street from RM-24, RS-50 and CG
18:14:38 commercial general to PD planned development with the
18:14:39 use of single-family attached and semi detached
18:14:45 The petitioner originally was before City Council on
18:14:48 February 14, 2008.
18:14:49 At that time, City Council directed the petitioner to
18:14:52 revise the site plan and building elevations in order
18:14:55 to mitigate staff concerns.
18:14:57 The petitioner has done as requested and submitted
18:14:59 revised site plans.
18:15:00 One minor objection from transportation remains which
18:15:03 can be resolved between first and second reading.
18:15:06 Petitioner has agreed and made the requested revision.
18:15:15 This is 22nd street to the east.
18:15:32 This is an aerial of the site.
18:15:34 This is the southwest corner of the site.
18:15:46 The view from 22nd street.
18:15:57 >> This is the area located off the site.
18:16:05 Middleson high school.
18:16:12 This is the southeast corner of 22nd and Osborne.
18:16:25 A few more pictures of the area.
18:16:31 The inconsistency that I had mentioned was coming from
18:16:41 the transportation department.
18:16:43 They just would like to have a recovery area, 2.5 feet
18:16:48 between the roadway and the sidewalks within the
18:16:50 internal portion of the site.
18:16:52 The one way entrance roadway can be narrowed to 12
18:16:56 It would accommodate between first and second reading.
18:16:59 And if that would be done, staff would amend their
18:17:02 findings to be consistent.
18:17:05 That's our presentation.
18:17:06 Thank you.
18:17:18 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:17:19 I have been sworn.
18:17:20 Planning Commission has not reversed or found any
18:17:24 evidence to change its original finding of consistency
18:17:27 with the proposed project.
18:17:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:17:30 >>> A.G. Spicola, Jr., 412 Madison street, Tampa
18:17:39 33602. I have been sworn.
18:17:41 This hearing was held back in February 14th,
18:17:49 described an area, there were numerous concerns voiced
18:17:53 both by staff and by council.
18:17:57 We have revised the site plan and added notes to meet
18:18:00 all of those concerns.
18:18:04 Unfortunately, when we modified to meet those
18:18:08 concerns, another item popped up, that two and a half
18:18:12 foot wide strip, we have agreed to amend the site plan
18:18:17 and improve that between now and second reading.
18:18:23 We have with us Jim Stutzman who can either give an
18:18:28 overview of the site plan or answer any questions you
18:18:32 may have about the request.
18:18:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When you were developing this site
18:18:39 plan, did you try to avoid the grand tree that's
18:18:43 scheduled for removal?
18:18:44 >>> It was impossible to avoid.
18:18:48 And the city department didn't have -- actually had
18:18:57 more trouble with some of the structures to the other
18:19:01 trees, which we have taken care of by moving the
18:19:09 >>> Jim Stutzman, address 3314 Henderson Boulevard,
18:19:17 suite 108, Tampa and I have been sworn.
18:19:21 As A.G mentioned I will do a brief overview of the
18:19:26 site plan and describe some of the changes than we
18:19:28 made based on the last hearing.
18:19:33 There was a little confusion last time about the
18:19:44 primary access off of Osborne.
18:19:45 This is an existing right-of-way.
18:19:48 The property vacate this portion of poinsettia last
18:19:53 year but our primary access will be from a new access
18:19:56 road off of Osborne, and we will not be altering the
18:20:00 access of the parking area for the church that's
18:20:03 located in this site.
18:20:06 In this location the church actually owns this
18:20:08 property and they use that as a residence.
18:20:11 The access will be a one-way drive coming in off of
18:20:14 Osborne and exiting on 22nd street.
18:20:18 The area that staff mentioned about the grass strip is
18:20:22 in this location.
18:20:24 And as they said, we can reduce the drive aisle to 12
18:20:29 feet and give the two and a half foot grass strip, the
18:20:33 little safety area between the sidewalk and the
18:20:39 The project has 31 townhouses.
18:20:43 The ten units are A-type units and those are the units
18:20:49 that do have a single-car garage.
18:20:52 And there was discussion about trying to maintain a
18:20:55 straight facade in the front but because of the
18:20:57 modular structure of the units, we cannot alter that.
18:21:02 The garage does intrude somewhat into the structure.
18:21:06 We still need enough for that one-car garage.
18:21:10 And we have added a waiver to the site plan that would
18:21:13 accommodate that change.
18:21:15 We also added a waiver discussing the internal
18:21:19 orientation of the units.
18:21:23 The B units do not have garages, and there are 15 of
18:21:27 So we have a dolt of 31 townhouse units.
18:21:33 15 units per acre.
18:21:34 Some of the changes we made based on our discussion
18:21:37 last time are the setback in this location is
18:21:42 increased from 10 feet to 15 feet.
18:21:45 That's standard for the Euclidean districts and we
18:21:48 feel that's appropriate, and that's what caused the
18:21:54 shortfall in the green space along the drive aisle.
18:21:57 We have also increased the setback.
18:22:00 It's now 24 feet for these units, and there was a
18:22:05 green space gap between the units in this location.
18:22:08 We did move that down and leave the green space here
18:22:11 to accommodate a large branch that extends out from
18:22:14 the grand tree in this location.
18:22:17 We also added the Hartline bus stop in this location.
18:22:24 And Hartline wanted -- we did add those also to the
18:22:29 list of note on the site plan.
18:22:33 Those are the primary changes we made based on staff
18:22:36 input and your comments at the last hearing.
18:22:38 And we feel that this project does provide a nice
18:22:40 transition from the uses along 22nd street to the
18:22:44 residential neighborhoods to the west, and that's the
18:22:48 private comp plan, future land use element.
18:22:50 I would be happy to answer any questions.
18:22:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real quickly, where is the grand
18:22:58 tree being removed?
18:22:59 Because it doesn't show on the site plan.
18:23:04 >>> I don't believe we were removing any grand trees.
18:23:08 >> Effective removal?
18:23:10 >>> Oh, yes.
18:23:13 In this location, yes.
18:23:14 And we did add that to the list of waivers.
18:23:20 I think 38 and 42 are both in this location.
18:23:30 Any other questions?
18:23:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I have one.
18:23:33 32 units.
18:23:34 Are they going to be kind of -- is it too much for
18:23:40 that area?
18:23:41 >>> The 31 units.
18:23:42 And the density is 16 units per acre.
18:23:44 Part of this property is currently zoned CG so it's
18:23:48 fairly intense.
18:23:49 Now this part is zoned CG.
18:23:51 The next part is RM-24.
18:23:54 So we are even below that density that would be
18:23:57 permitted in the Euclidean district and then the
18:24:00 remainder of the property is RS-50.
18:24:04 >> How far to the west behind those single-family
18:24:07 To the end of that property?
18:24:11 >>> There's single family homes on Osborne and then
18:24:14 there is one further south of Osborne.
18:24:22 >> Do you have to have 31 units back up in there?
18:24:25 >>> The developer says he needs 31 units.
18:24:29 They originally tried to do this as a single-family
18:24:33 development and the church is a partner in this
18:24:35 development, and the economics just didn't work as a
18:24:39 single-family detached subdivision.
18:24:41 >> Which church, the church that's located there
18:24:49 >>> College Hill church.
18:24:50 >> Okay.
18:24:53 I thought you said they were a partnership.
18:24:57 Any other questions by council members?
18:24:59 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
18:25:01 item number 7?
18:25:07 >> Move to close.
18:25:08 >> Second.
18:25:10 >> We have a motion and second to close.
18:25:12 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:25:13 Opposed, Nay.
18:25:15 What's the pleasure of council?
18:25:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll read the ordinance, see what
18:25:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
18:25:20 Because I'm letting you know now, that is too much
18:25:25 back there, and they have the church, and they have
18:25:30 the park.
18:25:31 If they put a street, they will be taking away from
18:25:34 the church.
18:25:34 I think it's not going to be good for that area.
18:25:44 >> The church on the corner?
18:25:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
18:25:46 And they have a house there, too.
18:25:52 >> Same church?
18:25:53 >> Different church.
18:25:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance rezoning
18:25:57 property -- oh, sorry.
18:26:00 In the general vicinity of east Osborne, 2005 east
18:26:06 Osborne Avenue and 4616-22nd street from zoning
18:26:10 district classification RS-50 residential
18:26:14 single-family RM-24 residential million and CG to PD,
18:26:21 semi detached, providing an effective date.
18:26:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a question on the motion.
18:26:26 Mr. Dingfelder?
18:26:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
18:26:31 Mr. Spick cola?
18:26:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you going to ask a question of
18:26:35 the petitioner?
18:26:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to reopen the public hearing.
18:26:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's okay, we can do that.
18:26:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to ask a question about
18:26:43 the church since Madam Chair raised the issue.
18:26:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to reopen the public
18:26:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You might have mentioned this
18:26:54 before I came in.
18:26:55 I apologize.
18:26:56 But you had communications.
18:26:59 I assume the church is adjacent to the property.
18:27:02 Have you had communication was this church, or are you
18:27:06 >>> Spick cola: The applicant has met with them, and
18:27:11 there is no question about parking.
18:27:14 >> Did they raise any questions about anything?
18:27:16 >>> No, sir.
18:27:17 >> The gentleman who was here, I think he was the only
18:27:20 one who expressed concern about the project.
18:27:23 He was to the west?
18:27:25 >>> That's correct.
18:27:25 >> Was that on MLK?
18:27:28 And he's not here?
18:27:30 >>> On Osborne.
18:27:32 >> Osborne, excuse me.
18:27:33 He's not here tonight.
18:27:34 But I think we moved the project a little bit further
18:27:37 away from his --
18:27:41 >>> we now meet the code.
18:27:44 >> And nobody else has appeared.
18:27:48 >>> No, sir.
18:27:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
18:27:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?
18:27:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
18:27:54 >> Second.
18:27:55 (Motion carried).
18:27:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Reading?
18:28:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess with all due respect, I'm
18:28:03 not hearing the community be upset about it.
18:28:06 The church doesn't seem like they are upset about it.
18:28:09 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:28:12 Opposed, Nay.
18:28:14 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miller voting no.
18:28:16 Second reading and adoption will be on April 17th
18:28:19 at 9:30 a.m.
18:28:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 8 is a continued public
18:28:34 >> 7.
18:28:41 >> I thought we did 7.
18:28:44 >> No.
18:29:09 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Land Development Coordination.
18:29:11 I have been sworn.
18:29:11 The property located at 3901 North Boulevard.
18:29:15 The request is to rezone the property from RS-50
18:29:18 single-family residential to PD planned development.
18:29:21 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
18:29:23 allow for professional office use.
18:29:26 The 13,618 square foot site surrounded by a mix of
18:29:30 single-family residential homes and professional
18:29:32 office uses.
18:29:34 The site contains an existing 1995 square foot,
18:29:38 one-story building which will be used for the proposed
18:29:40 professional office and an existing 228 square foot
18:29:45 accessory building which will also remain on-site.
18:29:49 Site plan setbacks are as follows.
18:29:51 To the west 10.2 feet.
18:29:54 To the north 49.69 feet.
18:29:56 South 2.89 feet.
18:29:57 East 67.79 feet.
18:30:01 The existing building has 20 feet.
18:30:02 Required parking is 7 spaces and 7 parking spaces will
18:30:05 be provided.
18:30:06 The majority of the block facing Boulevard is
18:30:09 residential office and commercial general.
18:30:22 And I have an aerial.
18:30:25 And this is the site located on Virginia.
18:30:30 North Boulevard is to the west.
18:30:32 MLK is north of the site.
18:30:35 There are a couple of sites that have been rezoned.
18:30:37 PD to the west and south of the site.
18:30:40 Mostly commercial running along MLK.
18:30:48 Here is an aerial of the site.
18:30:50 And this is the site located on Virginia, and
18:30:55 MLK is north of the site.
18:30:57 And also just to know that this, the commercial
18:30:59 building that is here is now removed.
18:31:02 This is vacant and this site is vacant.
18:31:05 This is a doctor's office and attorney's office
18:31:08 located there.
18:31:10 And I have pictures of the site.
18:31:18 This is the site on North Boulevard.
18:31:24 That's the rear of the site.
18:31:25 That's the entrance off of Virginia.
18:31:31 Another view of the site.
18:31:36 And this is north of the site.
18:31:53 West of the site.
18:32:01 The residence located southwest of the site.
18:32:04 And that's located south of the site.
18:32:10 This is southeast of the site.
18:32:13 And this is the residence located directly east of the
18:32:22 Staff has reviewed the petition and finds it
18:32:25 inconsistent with City of Tampa Land Development Code.
18:32:28 However, the following changes are made between first
18:32:30 and second reading, our staff will amend the finding
18:32:34 and find it consistent.
18:32:35 From landscape, to add one additional native tree, or
18:32:39 increase the caliper of the shade tree.
18:32:47 Transportation would like waiver number 4 to off-site
18:32:53 parking space from 8 feet to 3.45.
18:32:56 Provide on the site plan Tampa 3.45-foot buffer to be
18:33:01 a green space instead of concrete.
18:33:03 And please provide on the site plan a note, shall
18:33:07 comply with chapter 27 regulations.
18:33:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Was this person found not in
18:33:17 compliance with rules and that's why they are going
18:33:19 through the tree zoning -- rezoning request?
18:33:22 >>> They are going through the rezoning to bring the
18:33:24 site into compliance so they are -- but they are not
18:33:26 in violation currently.
18:33:28 >> They are not in violation?
18:33:29 >>> No.
18:33:30 >> I thought a residential home you had to have -- you
18:33:33 couldn't have so much pure pavement.
18:33:34 >>> That I'm not certain the amount of green space
18:33:42 required for a residence.
18:33:44 It's currently used as an office now.
18:33:46 >> But it's zoned residential.
18:33:48 >>> Correct.
18:33:49 >> So it's not in compliance now.
18:33:53 >>> It was never cited though.
18:33:59 It's not in compliance but it wasn't cited.
18:34:03 And the petitioner may have more for you regarding the
18:34:05 background of it.
18:34:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: To go back to your aerial map.
18:34:14 Your aerial photo.
18:34:19 Where were we two weeks ago?
18:34:23 South of here?
18:34:24 >>> Yes, it was south of this site.
18:34:27 This is the site in question.
18:34:31 >> Across the street?
18:34:32 >>> Further south.
18:34:33 I'm sorry.
18:34:34 >> And across the street.
18:34:42 >> Does the character of the neighborhood change the
18:34:44 closer you get to MLK?
18:34:49 >>> I can put up this area for you just to show you
18:34:56 the view.
18:34:57 This is MLK.
18:34:58 And all of these along here, there are no residences
18:35:03 that are here.
18:35:03 This is his proposed use here.
18:35:06 And this is an attorney's office.
18:35:09 And this is a doctor's office.
18:35:12 This is the one that's vacant.
18:35:15 >> Across the street you said there was what?
18:35:17 >>> Across the street is an office, and -- let me show
18:35:22 you this real quick.
18:35:23 >> The PD --
18:35:25 >>> the PD.
18:35:26 One is a residence.
18:35:27 >> I'm sorry?
18:35:28 >>> The other one is a residence.
18:35:30 >> Above the PD?
18:35:34 >>> That's west.
18:35:35 Above the PD?
18:35:36 >> Yes.
18:35:36 >>> Yes, sir.
18:35:37 >> It's a residence?
18:35:38 >>> Yes, sir.
18:35:48 >> Okay.
18:36:00 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:36:01 I have been sworn in.
18:36:03 To build a little more on what Ms. Dock has already
18:36:06 informed you about in referring to your question about
18:36:08 the area, Mr. Dingfelder, this particular area from
18:36:12 Virginia Avenue north to MLK does have a significantly
18:36:15 different character than to the south.
18:36:18 As she has already alluded to there is an attorney's
18:36:21 office on the site, six or seven years ago.
18:36:28 This existing block rezoned commercial either
18:36:31 residential office or CG.
18:36:36 A multi-purpose use over here.
18:36:39 This is a neighborhood -- office over here, gas
18:36:44 station here, an office over here.
18:36:47 What else is significant about the site it is
18:36:49 residential 10 but allows for the commercial in-fill
18:36:52 under the comprehensive plan, plus the site is also
18:36:56 has an orientation to North Boulevard.
18:36:59 So it does have a natural orientation to the street.
18:37:02 Conversely from the other plan amendments obtained
18:37:05 several months ago which actually had an orientation
18:37:08 to the neighborhood streets.
18:37:09 There is a significant difference as far as the
18:37:12 circumstances regarding this particular site in
18:37:15 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
18:37:17 consistent with --
18:37:19 >> Did you bring your tools with you tonight?
18:37:20 >>> I need some more.
18:37:22 I need some more.
18:37:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:37:31 >>> Timothy H. Powell, president of TSP companies,
18:37:39 Inc., Post Office Box 1016 Tampa, Florida 33601.
18:37:45 Yes, I have been sworn in.
18:37:46 I'm the spokesman tonight for the property owner.
18:37:49 The applicant is requesting rezoning for the subject
18:37:51 property to a planned development PD for converting
18:37:53 the existing 1,995 square foot residential structure
18:37:58 to accommodate an office professional land use to be
18:38:02 contained within the existing structure.
18:38:03 Although not specifically stated but now it has been
18:38:06 brought up, in the staff report, the subject property
18:38:12 has been a residential structure located on it that is
18:38:14 occupied by nonconforming office use.
18:38:17 The property owner remodeled the existing residential
18:38:19 structure that had been abandoned and which had
18:38:22 substantially deteriorated.
18:38:24 He removed a dilapidated garage storage structure and
18:38:28 covered over an unused inground swimming pool creating
18:38:32 a large concrete area.
18:38:33 He then realized that he had overlooked the property
18:38:36 zoning which did not allow office uses.
18:38:39 I have some pictures that will show you what the
18:38:41 condition of the site was before.
18:38:43 >> How could he have pulled permits?
18:38:45 >>> Because the permits that he was pulling were
18:38:47 pulled, and we have copies of the permits for
18:38:50 residential structure.
18:38:52 In other words, he has a demo permit, and he had
18:38:56 improvements permits that we actually communicated and
18:39:00 e-mailed over to the city staff that the client had
18:39:04 e-mailed me, that he obtained through normal
18:39:07 >> That he said he was using for residential
18:39:10 >>> Yes, ma'am.
18:39:11 In other words, it was a residential structure at the
18:39:19 A large concrete area, when you fill a swimming pool
18:39:21 and pave it over it is a concrete area.
18:39:27 He had the demo that had concrete underneath of it.
18:39:30 And this was a picture of the structure.
18:39:34 So obviously it was quite dilapidated.
18:39:41 Although he had not been cited by the city, he
18:39:44 proactively sought out the necessary, landmark
18:39:49 Survey the property to find the zoning issues,
18:39:53 prepare, submit and process a PD zoning which would
18:39:55 possibly allow the property to be utilized for
18:39:57 professional office for a company that he owns.
18:40:01 Months of conversations and meetings with city staff
18:40:04 and a last minute accommodation of a citizen request
18:40:06 which by the way resulted in the continuance from last
18:40:09 month taken into account have resulted in coming here
18:40:12 tonight with the fifth iteration of a revised PD site
18:40:15 plan for your review and approval.
18:40:18 Site plan before council tonight with two minor note
18:40:21 changes will have received the consistency
18:40:23 determination from staff for all issues except the
18:40:26 access to Virginia Avenue.
18:40:28 As noted by staff, the existing surrounding zoning
18:40:32 patterns are to the north, RO for residential office,
18:40:35 to the east, RS-50 for residential, to the south which
18:40:39 is Virginia Avenue, a PD for professional office, and
18:40:43 to the west across North Boulevard, a PD for
18:40:46 professional office.
18:40:49 The proposed development as noted earlier, the
18:40:51 proposed application is to rezone the subject property
18:40:54 to PD, a Lough the current residential structure to be
18:40:56 utilized for office professional land use.
18:40:58 The subject property is located on the segment of
18:41:01 North Boulevard.
18:41:02 It has previously been allowed to have several similar
18:41:04 type of zonings for professional offices.
18:41:08 Most specifically, the properties immediately to the
18:41:10 north, west and south.
18:41:14 I can go ahead and show you the photos which obviously
18:41:17 staff has already shown you some of them.
18:41:27 Obviously, this is looking west across North Boulevard
18:41:38 to the structure which is immediately across north
18:41:44 This is the subject property looking south along North
18:41:46 Boulevard, which is the front of the structure.
18:41:51 This is immediately south of property which is another
18:41:55 office building.
18:41:56 And that's the access point that's directly across
18:41:59 from the access point that we are suggesting on
18:42:02 Virginia Avenue.
18:42:03 And this is the west elevation of the property,
18:42:10 residential structure.
18:42:12 Based on the existing location of the subject
18:42:15 property, surrounding land uses and its location on
18:42:19 this segment of the transportation network, it is this
18:42:22 planner's position that a structure dedicated to a
18:42:26 single-family residence is not sustainable, and the
18:42:30 applied-for PD site plan allowing the land use for
18:42:34 offices will be sustainable.
18:42:38 Under the city, and the city-county planning staff
18:42:41 review, under the city comments, after extensive
18:42:44 discussion, and negotiations with various city
18:42:46 departments, and the city-county Planning Commission
18:42:49 staff since last October, in attempting to come up
18:42:51 with an acceptable site plan, that met all of the city
18:42:55 departments requirements, recognizing that there were
18:42:58 significant site, structural and neighborhood
18:43:00 limitations that created problems with such an adapted
18:43:05 reuse of the property, this application is being
18:43:07 brought to council having addressed all of the issues
18:43:10 raised by staff.
18:43:11 With the exception of one outstanding technical
18:43:15 transportation issue, and some site plan notes that
18:43:18 can be revised between first and second reading of
18:43:21 counseling, we have been able to address all of the
18:43:23 city's concerns.
18:43:24 Waivers sought address physical limitations created by
18:43:27 the original residential development of the site.
18:43:30 In the city staff report, staff received consistent
18:43:33 recommendations from the Hillsborough County
18:43:34 city-county Planning Commission, fire, stormwater,
18:43:37 wastewater, solid waste and water.
18:43:39 We are asking for four waivers to address the
18:43:41 outstanding Perhaps and land development issues.
18:43:45 They include the first one, which is to section
18:43:48 27-246-J, which is requesting approval to access
18:43:53 Virginia Avenue for the parking lot, based on the
18:43:55 existing site conditions.
18:43:57 There is an alternative access.
18:44:00 However, based on input of the citizens, who as
18:44:05 indicated will be speaking here tonight with,
18:44:07 knowledge of the Planning Commission staff, the access
18:44:09 to North Boulevard which was originally requested by
18:44:11 city staff and shown on the originally submitted site
18:44:13 plan, was eliminated.
18:44:16 Since Virginia Avenue is already accessed by the
18:44:19 neighboring professional office located south across
18:44:22 Virginia Avenue, this request is not setting a
18:44:25 We have not received any negative responses from the
18:44:28 adjoining property owners on Virginia Avenue to the
18:44:31 zoning request.
18:44:33 Waiver of section 27-130, which is allowing an
18:44:36 existing wood fence in lieu of the required six foot
18:44:40 masonry fence on the eastern property line, three, a
18:44:44 waiver of section 13-161, reducing the required
18:44:48 buffers to the existing parking lot on the east of the
18:44:51 VUA, vehicle use area, and reduces the required 8-foot
18:44:56 buffer on the south side of the VUA, to 3.45 feet, and
18:45:00 four, finally, a waiver to section 13-161-E allowing
18:45:04 payment in lieu fee for reduction of green space of
18:45:07 903 square feet along the boundary along Virginia
18:45:12 Avenue which is taking into account the item that was
18:45:16 referenced in number 3.
18:45:18 The first and third waivers listed combined with
18:45:22 changing the wording of a note which will be done
18:45:24 between the two readings by council if approved will
18:45:27 address the transportation department issues of
18:45:30 The second and fourth waivers address Land Development
18:45:32 Code requirements for fencing and buffers to the VUA
18:45:36 which are necessitated by the existing physical
18:45:38 conditions of the site.
18:45:40 As noted in the staff report, this rezoning is in
18:45:43 compliance with city code section 27-321, purpose
18:45:47 provision, items 1 through 9.
18:45:51 On the Planning Commission staff recommendation, they
18:45:54 state that the rezoning request is consistent with and
18:45:57 furthers the intent of the goals, and policies of the
18:46:00 City of Tampa comprehensive plan as outlined in the
18:46:03 record including 5.3, 5.5 and D-3.1.
18:46:10 Three statements contained within the Planning
18:46:11 Commission staff report summarized the justification
18:46:16 for this requested rezoning.
18:46:18 They state, and I quote, the request can be considered
18:46:22 as the site meets locational criteria under the
18:46:24 residential 10 classification.
18:46:26 Since more than 50% of the block face along this
18:46:29 segment of North Boulevard is already zoned for
18:46:31 commercial use, existing uses along this segment of
18:46:35 North Boulevard between Martin Luther King Jr.
18:46:37 Boulevard and Columbus drive consists of a low density
18:46:41 office uses and single-family detached residential.
18:46:44 Quoting further from the report, existing uses on
18:46:47 North Boulevard are mixed, single-family residential
18:46:52 The site in question is immediately adjacent to
18:46:55 another office use situated along this corridor and
18:46:58 will retain the residential character and scale of
18:47:01 other office uses along North Boulevard.
18:47:04 In addition, they state that the site does have a
18:47:06 logical orientation to North Boulevard, a collector
18:47:10 road and meets locational criteria standards, as it
18:47:12 applies to the residential 10 future land use
18:47:16 designation, and the conclusion they state that the
18:47:18 Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent
18:47:21 with the provisions of the Tampa comprehensive plan.
18:47:25 As it pertains to signage, which has been brought to
18:47:29 our attention, currently the PD zoning signage is
18:47:35 conditioned under note number 8 which states: New
18:47:39 signage, if requested, shall comply with RO-1 and CM
18:47:48 (Section 27-325-2-B and applicable provisions to code
18:47:51 section 20.5.
18:47:55 We have received a citizen comment that requests
18:47:57 further limitations on this condition.
18:47:59 My client has met with the city's Mark Grunsley to
18:48:03 review what he can and cannot do with the proposed
18:48:07 We have reviewed signage along this immediate segment
18:48:10 of North Boulevard, and I have photos showing what has
18:48:13 been constructed on other business professional
18:48:21 This sign is located immediately to the south of the
18:48:25 property on the office building directly across
18:48:33 This is signage of the law office located to the north
18:48:36 on North Boulevard.
18:48:38 This particular sign is directly across the street on
18:48:45 North Boulevard, the office building directly across
18:48:48 the street.
18:48:49 This signage is on North Boulevard one block north.
18:48:58 And this signage you can see right in here is on North
18:49:01 Boulevard three blocks to the south.
18:49:08 Currently this is the sign being proposed as a wall
18:49:11 sign for my client.
18:49:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How big is that?
18:49:17 >>> Good question.
18:49:21 >> Up and down real fast.
18:49:24 >>> I'll leave it there.
18:49:27 There's no scale.
18:49:29 If I had to guess, Mr. Dingfelder, I think it's
18:49:31 probably about two by three and a half.
18:49:35 Or two by four.
18:49:39 Although -- this addresses your question.
18:49:49 Although I have a fault oh of the proposed signage my
18:49:52 client requests he be held to the same signage
18:49:54 requirements of those properties contiguous to the
18:49:58 property to the are west, north and south.
18:50:00 Additionally limitations would be unfair and arbitrary
18:50:03 and hold my client to a more restrictive standard when
18:50:06 he literally is surrounded by more liberal sign
18:50:10 Additionally it is my opinion that the signage shown
18:50:12 in the photos is respective of the community in which
18:50:14 they reside.
18:50:16 There are signs that are not commercial in character,
18:50:19 or characteristic of office professional signage
18:50:21 located throughout the city.
18:50:24 Since this is not a designated design district, the
18:50:27 city's codes should be deemed the adequate standard.
18:50:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
18:50:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Our code changed.
18:50:37 We now allow pole signs and we say monument signs have
18:50:41 to be smaller.
18:50:42 >>> Okay.
18:50:42 >> So three out of the four signs you showed us
18:50:46 wouldn't currently be allowed.
18:50:47 So we know you want to do something real really small
18:50:51 and tasteful.
18:50:52 >>> Well, I think my point is, I think the note says
18:50:55 that we'll comply with your code.
18:50:57 So there's no doubt in our mind that whatever is the
18:51:00 current code, we'll comply with it.
18:51:02 And you have got a good point.
18:51:04 If in fact those signs were the old code, then your
18:51:06 point is well taken.
18:51:07 But we just want to go by the note that's on the site
18:51:12 plan, which the city has in essence signed off on.
18:51:16 In conclusion, we prepared a thorough professional
18:51:20 submittal package in compliance with the city's Land
18:51:22 Development Code requirement based on months of
18:51:25 negotiations and accommodations to staff comments, and
18:51:28 our efforts of re-- are reflective in the staff
18:51:32 positive review.
18:51:33 We have noticed the surrounding neighbors.
18:51:34 At this time I want to put into the record a letter
18:51:39 from the editor of the new Heights magazine which
18:51:42 supports rezoning.
18:51:45 Additionally you may hear from some that are here
18:51:47 tonight and support the petition.
18:51:49 I will go ahead and read this letter, assuming I'm not
18:51:51 running out of time I'll go ahead and read it.
18:51:54 This says: Dear City Council.
18:51:56 And I will go ahead and provide a copy.
18:51:58 Do you want it now or after I read it?
18:52:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Put it into the record.
18:52:02 >>> Just put it in the record but don't read it?
18:52:05 >>GWEN MILLER: You can put it in the record and read
18:52:08 >>> AP new Heights publication read by 20,000 people
18:52:11 within Tampa's historic urban corridor, which includes
18:52:14 Tampa Heights, Riverside Heights, Seminole Heights and
18:52:17 seven other surrounding neighborhoods.
18:52:19 I am writing you today requesting rezoning.
18:52:27 As editor of new Heights, I am not only regularly
18:52:32 attend our neighborhood civic association meeting, but
18:52:34 I speak on a daily basis directly with many of the
18:52:37 areas residents and business owners.
18:52:40 Mark lovinger's transformation of North Boulevard from
18:52:43 a dilapidated unlived in home into a beautiful
18:52:46 community serving business has been overwhelmingly
18:52:49 held in success by those to whom I have spoken.
18:52:54 Area resident and business owners applaud the results,
18:52:56 and are grateful to Mr. Lovinger who also lives in the
18:53:00 urban corridor for his investment of time, energy and
18:53:02 money into the improvement of the community.
18:53:05 Unlike many people who tend to.
18:53:10 Who ask for Tampa Heights and surrounding areas to be
18:53:13 revitalized, Mr. Lovinger has taken action to make it
18:53:16 His belief in the community should not only be -- it
18:53:20 should be rewarded with an a improved change in
18:53:24 zoning. This approval combined with the trend in
18:53:25 recent zoning requests approved by City Council that
18:53:30 support other communities serving urban corridor
18:53:32 businesses, Cathy's, Starbuck's, et cetera, will be a
18:53:37 win-win for the neighborhood and further bolster the
18:53:39 city's commitment for helping revitalize Tampa's urban
18:53:42 corridor neighborhood.
18:53:44 Therefore, making them even better places to live and
18:53:46 do business.
18:53:47 I'm available at any time to answer your questions via
18:53:51 personal cell phone, and please do not hesitate do
18:53:55 It's signed by Jay McGee, editor.
18:54:06 That concludes my presentation.
18:54:08 I respectfully request any time I have left over for
18:54:10 rebuttal if it's necessary.
18:54:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Somebody from staff.
18:54:15 What does the code speak to in terms of signage right
18:54:22 And since it's a PD, and it not on Dale Mabry or
18:54:27 Kennedy or what have you, I'm not sure that we
18:54:31 couldn't limit the signage.
18:54:33 We have limited the signage, and -- but -- on the side
18:54:50 of the building?
18:54:51 >>> For the time being, yes, sir.
18:54:53 I guess the question --
18:54:55 >> That wasn't a question.
18:54:56 >>> Well, the question is obviously on the long-term.
18:54:59 This is a PD.
18:55:00 If in fact after several years it goes -- it expands
18:55:05 or he sells it, obviously if it expands he has to come
18:55:09 back for PD.
18:55:10 But let's say he sells the building and the only thing
18:55:13 allowed is that one particular sign, then that's it.
18:55:16 And he would have to literally have to come back for a
18:55:19 whole change of a PD.
18:55:20 Maybe it's a non-substantial change in order to be
18:55:23 able to put just one other site out there.
18:55:26 So what he's trying to say, look, the city code is the
18:55:30 standard, and I understand what you're saying, that
18:55:32 some areas are more sensitive than others.
18:55:34 But I guess my perspective is, if you are driving down
18:55:40 North Boulevard and you are wanting to find this
18:55:41 place, it's just one small wall sign which he's
18:55:48 willing to live with for the time being.
18:55:49 Is that adequate?
18:55:50 And again, it's what I'm used to as an urban planner,
18:55:56 even being sensitive to various residential
18:55:58 neighborhood characteristics.
18:55:59 >> Actually, I would agree with you, sort of, and
18:56:03 disagree otherwise.
18:56:04 I would say, let's put in the PD, the parameters of
18:56:07 the signs that this council wants to allow forever,
18:56:11 okay, without having any vagaries and without just
18:56:14 referring to the sign code which I don't know exactly
18:56:17 what the sign code allows.
18:56:18 So let's just put in on the PD as a condition a small
18:56:22 monument sign of a certain dimension, lower to the
18:56:27 ground, because I don't believe anybody really finds
18:56:29 that offensive.
18:56:30 Well, there might be some in the neighborhood that
18:56:32 might but we'll hear from them soon.
18:56:34 But since there is a PD and be done with it, so that
18:56:39 way everybody knows what we can expect, and there
18:56:41 aren't any big surprises down the road.
18:56:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?
18:56:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair, I am going to need a
18:56:50 legal opinion on what "for the time being" means.
18:56:54 I guess it means the time being the time before I
18:56:57 spoke, or the time after I spoke?
18:57:00 I think it's whatever it is, it is.
18:57:02 And there is no time being.
18:57:05 The future is not the time being.
18:57:07 Tomorrow is not the time being.
18:57:08 But today is the time being.
18:57:11 If it passes, it passes with whatever council so
18:57:15 chooses regarding the sign ordinance presently passed
18:57:20 So I don't want to -- I don't like to politic too
18:57:25 I just say it like it is.
18:57:27 Time being to me doesn't matter, because whatever
18:57:30 passes today, that's how it stays.
18:57:33 >>> And I didn't mean --
18:57:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And I understand that and I'm not
18:57:36 talking to you.
18:57:38 I'm talking about those three words "for time being."
18:57:41 >>> I'm trying to make sure I know in my mind.
18:57:44 >> Thank you very much.
18:57:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to come back.
18:57:49 We are going to listen to the public and come back to
18:57:51 >>> But I did not address --
18:57:53 >>GWEN MILLER: You will have time for rebuttal.
18:57:55 >>> It's not a rebuttal.
18:57:56 Councilwoman Saul-Sena asked about the amount of
18:57:59 pavement that was on -- thank you.
18:58:02 And I was going to refer to the -- the one reason you
18:58:07 were saying that, you were saying the pool but we
18:58:12 didn't see the T very large green area in here.
18:58:17 Which is a yard and that stays a yard.
18:58:20 I don't know if -- okay.
18:58:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:58:34 wants to speak on item number 7?
18:58:35 Anyone want to speak on item number 7, please come up
18:58:38 and speak.
18:58:40 >>> William Fisher, 716 West Woodlawn Avenue.
18:59:10 I have been sworn.
18:59:11 I suppose you all know who I am by now.
18:59:13 We are here again on another zoning issue from North
18:59:17 The problem I'm having is the same as usual.
18:59:20 We just keep going over and over and over and keep
18:59:23 trying to add more and more offices to North
18:59:25 I wish you would take a look at the pictures because
18:59:27 they will explain a little bit of what you are shown
18:59:30 in the aerial pictures and what Mr. Powell was showing
18:59:33 you too about the signs and stuff on these other
18:59:37 The citizen he talked about was me.
18:59:41 When I first looked at the site plan for the office
18:59:43 the city was requiring them to take the fence down
18:59:45 that's on the left side of that building and put a
18:59:47 driveway onto North Boulevard there.
18:59:49 And I told him that if they had to do that, that we
18:59:53 would really be against it because then it left a
18:59:55 driveway to see all the cars parked and stuff.
19:00:00 He had a side entrance which is basically another
19:00:03 office which is there.
19:00:04 That's why I spoke with Mr. Powell first and Mr.
19:00:07 Lovinger later on and it was the only two requests I
19:00:10 And I spoke about that one and asked that they didn't
19:00:13 put the driveway in the front, that they keep it on
19:00:15 the side so it looks residential and they didn't see
19:00:17 that big driveway and the parking in the back.
19:00:20 The second one was the sign, size and placement.
19:00:23 They were already to go for the driveway apparently
19:00:26 because that got changed.
19:00:27 But when I asked for the sign placement, apparently
19:00:30 that doesn't sit well with them because I want add
19:00:33 smaller sign on the left side of the door that you see
19:00:35 in the picture, there's a space there big enough to
19:00:37 put a sign, big enough to see from the street, it not
19:00:40 obtrusive where you will look at the other pictures of
19:00:44 3907, I believe it is, where Mr. Powell showed you
19:00:46 two, next door, that has a six foot by six foot sign
19:00:50 on the wall of the building.
19:00:53 That's not way consider a nice little sign.
19:00:55 I thought the sign for the zoning for that area said
19:00:57 it was a four foot by four foot ground sign.
19:01:01 Well, in any of those pictures I don't see any ground
19:01:04 The problem is once you say it okay, it's not in the
19:01:07 PD, these people come in and put up whatever sign they
19:01:09 want to.
19:01:10 I'm not blaming you but nobody on City Council or
19:01:12 zoning goes out and checks to make sure that they
19:01:14 abided by the rules.
19:01:16 They just don't.
19:01:17 They just do whatever they want.
19:01:18 And like he was saying here, we are also talking about
19:01:21 a house that is already not in compliance, hasn't been
19:01:25 since the day it was started.
19:01:26 And now they are coming to you and saying, oops, maybe
19:01:29 you should give me the zoning.
19:01:31 Well, you know, I told them when I first started if I
19:01:36 could get the request I was asking for of the driveway
19:01:40 being hidden and the sign being smaller, the left side
19:01:45 remaining looking like a residency said I would go
19:01:47 along with that.
19:01:48 Apparently that didn't work out my way because they
19:01:50 changed it at the last minute on me on the signage.
19:01:53 But I'm still willing to say, okay.
19:01:55 And the only reason I am is because if you look at the
19:01:57 zoning map where there's so much around there, there
19:02:04 But the lawyer's office where they kept the tall sign,
19:02:08 and the one next door, and you noticed the sign was a
19:02:12 closeup of a very small sign about this big, looks
19:02:15 like a for-sale sign.
19:02:17 That sign was okay.
19:02:18 But that's what I'm trying to tell you.
19:02:21 I'm trying to just get them to limit the signs on the
19:02:23 building and keep the building looking residential.
19:02:26 Then I wouldn't have a problem because the office next
19:02:29 door has a small sign, the last of the offices from
19:02:35 that stretch from North Boulevard all the way south
19:02:37 till the one you did last week almost.
19:02:40 (Bell sounds).
19:02:41 There's one in between but that's pretty much
19:02:44 So we are just trying to keep that residential.
19:02:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up, sir.
19:02:52 >>> Chris -- 3602 North Boulevard.
19:03:03 I have been sworn.
19:03:04 We are here again.
19:03:05 As you can see, North Boulevard is in transition.
19:03:10 A picture is worth a million words.
19:03:12 You saw before when it was a residence.
19:03:16 I lived there.
19:03:20 Facing most issues that people in the neighborhood
19:03:22 don't have to face.
19:03:23 Cars crashing into the house.
19:03:25 Cars crashing into the fence.
19:03:26 Children can't play in the yard.
19:03:28 With all these offices along North Boulevard, it's
19:03:33 well maintained.
19:03:34 It's something that's he is at the time theoretically
19:03:37 pleasing so not just to the residents of the
19:03:39 neighborhood but other members of the city that drive
19:03:41 through this route on a regular basis.
19:03:44 A dilapidated run-down home sitting there vacant.
19:03:48 How does that improve the neighborhood?
19:03:49 More importantly how does it improve the city?
19:03:56 A vast difference from what it used to be.
19:04:00 Speaking of signage, I'm in favor of small signage.
19:04:03 While I think we need to maintain a residential
19:04:06 character, a wall sign is perfect for me.
19:04:08 I don't care much for the taller signs, pole signs or
19:04:12 anything like that.
19:04:13 I'm all for making residential character of the
19:04:16 neighborhood with these professional offices on a case
19:04:18 by case us basis.
19:04:20 It's not just saying okay, let's do a blanket zoning
19:04:23 and every house on North Boulevard becomes an office.
19:04:25 You have to look at them independently if they have
19:04:27 adequate parking and access and everything else.
19:04:30 Like I say, I live on North Boulevard.
19:04:32 I run my business out of there.
19:04:36 I heard mention that all the port people speaking
19:04:40 against it, yeah, there were 15 people speaking
19:04:43 against it but we can't discredit the 32 people that
19:04:43 were speaking in favor of it as well.
19:04:49 So I ask we improve it for the betterment of our
19:04:53 Thank you.
19:04:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody else to speak?
19:04:56 Petitioner, do you want rebuttal?
19:05:14 >> Under chapter 27 for a PD development, it doesn't
19:05:18 specify the size of the signage.
19:05:20 But for residential office and commercial neighborhood
19:05:23 districts, states that free standing signs shall be
19:05:26 limited to ground signs, not to exceed four feet.
19:05:29 >> Four feet?
19:05:31 >>> Four feet in height.
19:05:32 >> What kind of width?
19:05:34 >>> Doesn't specify the width on it.
19:05:37 And if the signage is incorporated into the
19:05:39 architectural design of the building the signs shall
19:05:41 not exceed the apex of the roof pitch.
19:05:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano?
19:05:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That four-foot sign, you are
19:05:52 talking about what it's standing on or just the sign
19:05:57 >>> The sign itself.
19:06:03 >> The whole sign can't be higher than four feet.
19:06:08 >>> How many square feet -- what the maximum that they
19:06:11 can have?
19:06:11 >>> It doesn't specify the square footage of the sign.
19:06:14 >> Doesn't?
19:06:15 >>> Not within chapter 27.
19:06:16 >> I don't live out there.
19:06:18 But in looking at some of these signs, I think code
19:06:21 enforcement has to go out there and take a look and
19:06:23 see if some of these signs are valid, see if they have
19:06:26 permits, because I see this all over the city, and I
19:06:31 know where I live.
19:06:33 We have an overlay district.
19:06:36 And you can hardly put up a for-sale sign.
19:06:39 And I don't like it.
19:06:42 And I'm not opposed to the redevelopment of the area,
19:06:46 as long as they stay looking like a residential house.
19:06:49 But when you stick a big sign up, some of these signs
19:06:52 are probably 24 square feet.
19:07:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The staff had requested this
19:07:04 petitioner make a commitment to enlarging the tree
19:07:07 that's supposed to go on here and I haven't heard him
19:07:10 say it.
19:07:13 >>> Yes, we agreed to that one.
19:07:18 Wasn't there something else?
19:07:19 The green space.
19:07:20 There's that green space.
19:07:21 We agreed to that also.
19:07:22 And I'll bring that up.
19:07:26 I wrote down something that I'm assuming that the
19:07:30 client is going to approve.
19:07:31 I was thinking of four foot height and the maximum
19:07:36 face is 12 square feet on each face which is, you
19:07:41 know, again, I'm trying to figure out something that
19:07:50 would ab maximum -- three-foot -- yeah, three-foot
19:07:54 high, four-foot wide, but the sign can't go over four
19:07:58 foot high.
19:08:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if we could have, with
19:08:03 regard to the sign code, it turns out it hasn't been
19:08:08 We are going to request a current copy of the sign
19:08:10 It will take a few more minutes.
19:08:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll wait, but in the meantime,
19:08:15 the first thing I heard out of staff was on a PD that
19:08:24 we have flexibility in terms of what we owe.
19:08:26 So the petitioner has requested that we be down by the
19:08:31 sign code, but we are also willing to go ahead and set
19:08:35 a limitation.
19:08:36 >>> I am not going to argue your case.
19:08:37 I think it's a very good point.
19:08:39 So I think if you want to go ahead and establish --
19:08:44 >> Include it as a condition, and then nail it down.
19:08:47 >>> In other words, we can modify number 8, be
19:08:51 specific, saying not just as per the city code, it is
19:08:53 this particular size, the sign, if you could help me
19:08:58 with the wording.
19:08:59 >> Marty, do you think that's relevant?
19:09:04 Or do you think because it's a PD we can just move
19:09:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I belief you can move forward.
19:09:09 The issue was, what ultimately -- if that note remains
19:09:14 what would be the parameters of the present code?
19:09:22 If council wishes to place a condition, I believe that
19:09:33 would be appropriate.
19:09:36 If you want to make that as a condition.
19:09:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I looked at the site plan right,
19:09:45 there's no ingress or egress on North Boulevard.
19:09:48 Am I correct?
19:09:48 >>> Yes, sir.
19:09:49 >> The only ingress and egress would be --
19:09:53 >>> east.
19:09:53 >> East of the building in from West Virginia.
19:09:56 Am I correct?
19:09:57 >>> Yes, sir.
19:09:58 >> I have to admit that I'm not a sign expert.
19:10:01 I know that at two feet, you mentioned earlier that
19:10:05 you thought that the sign that you showed was two feet
19:10:08 by two and a half feet.
19:10:10 Am I correct?
19:10:10 >>> Yes, sir.
19:10:12 That was an educated guess.
19:10:13 >> I would think that that would be ample enough to, I
19:10:18 mean, to see on the building itself.
19:10:23 The sign just south of you -- and you can read it
19:10:29 If you put 100 lines in it you won't be able to see it
19:10:32 but if you put just a name and what you are, your
19:10:34 address, I think that's visible.
19:10:36 >>> And also what I was requesting is that he also be
19:10:40 allowed to do a monument sign the same size.
19:10:43 >> Well, the problem that I see -- and I'm not trying
19:10:47 to tell you or your client how to do this or what to
19:10:51 If this was in a business area where it's all -- they
19:10:53 are all the same, I would say I have no problem with
19:10:56 But we are actually in a neighborhood.
19:10:59 And I understand what your client did.
19:11:01 Maybe even a little appreciative of what he did.
19:11:03 He got a dilapidated house, pulled a permit, it all
19:11:07 surprised up and I understand the pool was in bad
19:11:10 shape and did whatever he had to do to bring it up to
19:11:13 respectability, let's say.
19:11:15 Then say, maybe since I got this far, let me try to
19:11:18 rezone it.
19:11:19 And I understand that and I can appreciate that.
19:11:21 But along with that comes a commitment from that
19:11:23 developer, whoever that person is, I guess in this
19:11:26 case Mr. Lovinger, to be as compatible where he's at,
19:11:35 and in another area of the city he might be able to
19:11:38 get this or might not ever be able to get this, in
19:11:42 another area other than that area he might be able to
19:11:44 get a larger sign because of the structure, of
19:11:47 wherever that structure is.
19:11:48 But I just feel that we have to do what we think is
19:11:56 And I firmly believe that a two by two and a half foot
19:12:00 sign on the building is ample.
19:12:02 No one is going to miss it.
19:12:04 If you are in business and you still have your letter
19:12:06 where you are at, your business card and so forth.
19:12:10 >> Questions by council members?
19:12:14 Mr. Dingfelder?
19:12:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we need -- even though our
19:12:21 legal department just stepped out, I think we need you
19:12:24 to agree to that before we vote on it.
19:12:29 >>> I will agree.
19:12:29 >> I'm sorry?
19:12:30 >>> I will agree.
19:12:31 >> Okay.
19:12:32 Move to close.
19:12:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
19:12:35 (Motion carried).
19:12:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to move the following
19:12:46 ordinance for first reading contingent upon the
19:12:49 following changes being made between first and second
19:12:51 reading including a limitation on the signage.
19:12:55 And this will be an express limitation on the signage.
19:12:57 The only signage allowed on this property, the only
19:13:00 commercial signs allowed on this property is a two by
19:13:06 two and a half -- do you care which way it is?
19:13:09 >> No, I don't care.
19:13:10 >> Two by two and a half wall sign on the building,
19:13:13 >> Second.
19:13:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other conditions include the
19:13:17 conditions stated by staff as related to landscape,
19:13:19 green space, transportation, and I think a four-inch
19:13:23 tree instead of a two inch tree?
19:13:24 >>> No, one additional tree.
19:13:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll let you all work it out
19:13:31 between first and second reading.
19:13:34 Something related to an additional tree.
19:13:39 And I will incorporate the staff report by reference.
19:13:42 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
19:13:44 of 3901 North Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida
19:13:46 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
19:13:48 district classifications RS-50 residential
19:13:50 single-family to PD planned development, professional
19:13:53 office use, providing an effective date.
19:13:54 And I just wanted to thank Mr. Fisher for coming down
19:13:59 here, being supportive, making this as good a site as
19:14:04 And thank you.
19:14:05 I appreciate it.
19:14:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
19:14:09 >> Second.
19:14:11 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Dingfelder, can I amend the
19:14:15 size of the sign against the building to a two by
19:14:18 I think two by two and a half is a little small, could
19:14:21 be three feet across, and two feet up, using six
19:14:27 square feet.
19:14:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll defer to my sign expert to the
19:14:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not a sign expert but that's
19:14:36 what I thought the petitioner thought the sign was.
19:14:39 >>> Ironically, I was sit hearing really regretting
19:14:42 the two and a half foot.
19:14:43 I wish I had said two by three.
19:14:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
19:14:49 I'll accept that as a friendly amendment.
19:14:51 We'll make it three feet wide.
19:14:53 Two feet tall.
19:14:53 On the wall.
19:14:55 That's the only sign allowed.
19:15:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have the sign measurements?
19:15:07 Or do we have to reopen?
19:15:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me say what transpired while
19:15:11 you were out.
19:15:12 >>I was watching.
19:15:13 >> You heard it?
19:15:14 I think it's up to council's discretion to be
19:15:16 sensitive to the neighborhood, I think that's what we
19:15:18 are doing.
19:15:19 Can we do that?
19:15:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Take the code size?
19:15:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are going to limit to the that.
19:15:26 No code sign.
19:15:28 >>> Under the new plan what he is entitled to get
19:15:31 under that.
19:15:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we did beyond that.
19:15:36 >> Motion to open.
19:15:39 >> Second.
19:15:39 >>> I apologize for that.
19:15:44 The new code has not been updated with the code just
19:15:47 passed by City Council.
19:15:48 He would be permitted under the new code under 20.5
19:15:52 two wall signs, of 1.25 feet per one linear foot of
19:15:59 building frontage.
19:16:00 So we would have to look at the building frontage.
19:16:02 If the building frontage was 25 feet, then he would
19:16:05 get 1.25 feet per each linear foot of building
19:16:09 And he could have one wall sign on Boulevard ab and
19:16:12 one wall sign on Virginia.
19:16:15 Another provision, you talked about the --
19:16:20 >> Feet or inches?
19:16:21 >>> Feet.
19:16:22 >> He's going to have a 50 by 50 sign?
19:16:31 >> Residential office conversion, thinking of a
19:16:38 >>> 27-325 is the most restrictive, the RO-1, which is
19:16:44 the four-foot.
19:16:47 Square foot.
19:16:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
19:16:56 So move to close again.
19:16:57 >> Second.
19:16:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close.
19:17:01 (Motion carried).
19:17:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I accept Mr. Caetano's
19:17:05 substitute, three feet wide, two feet tall.
19:17:12 Three feet wide, two feet tall.
19:17:14 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:17:15 (Motion carried).
19:17:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being
19:17:21 absent at vote.
19:17:21 Second reading and adoption will be on April 17 at
19:17:24 9:30 a.m.
19:17:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 8 is a continued public
19:17:38 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:17:52 I have been sworn.
19:17:55 The case before you tonight Z 08-12 was previously
19:18:00 heard by council but there was not a full council.
19:18:02 It was continued to this evening in order to get a
19:18:05 full vote of council.
19:18:06 At the time it was originally presented to you, staff
19:18:08 had had some concerns based on the site plans that
19:18:11 were submitted.
19:18:12 Given the amount of time for the continuance, the
19:18:14 petitioner has been allowed to resubmit the site
19:18:17 plans, and there is a revised staff report that was
19:18:23 doc agendaed and staff does find the petition
19:18:27 The petition is for 125 Adelia Avenue.
19:18:30 It is requesting rezoning from RS-50 to PD to create
19:18:37 additional single-family lot, additional single-family
19:18:41 lot of a single-family home on the property.
19:18:44 Right now, this a substandard lot because when you get
19:18:51 to the back of the required front setback, it does not
19:18:55 measure 50 feet.
19:18:56 It measures 49.88 feet, which is one of the reasons
19:19:00 for the PD request before you this evening.
19:19:07 They are proposing to rezone the property to split the
19:19:09 11,499 square foot parking to two buildable lots.
19:19:13 The site has 100 feet of frontage but because of the
19:19:17 curvature of the lot when you get to the back of that
19:19:19 front yard it's only 49.88 feet.
19:19:22 The PD setback for lot 17, which is the west lot are
19:19:28 as follows -- 23.8 feet from 3-foot rear to the
19:19:32 accessory structure, 1.6-foot west side yard to the
19:19:36 accessory structure, and 4.2 feet to the other side
19:19:41 The building setbacks for the proposed house on the
19:19:43 east lot are 20-foot front, 20-foot rear, 9.8 feet
19:19:48 west side, and 7.7 feet east side.
19:19:51 These do meet the minimum requirements on RS-50 lots.
19:19:56 Minimum building separation is at 14 feet, which --
19:20:04 side yards at 7 feet you would have minimum building
19:20:06 separation of 14 feet.
19:20:08 The petitioner has submitted four sided building
19:20:12 elevations of the proposed structure attached to the
19:20:14 site plan.
19:20:16 No waivers are being requested.
19:20:22 The reason for the PD, like I explained, is the limb
19:20:27 lot width of the front yard.
19:20:32 To familiarize you with the site.
19:20:44 It is on Davis Island.
19:20:46 That's Adelia.
19:20:56 I have an older one that I can put up there.
19:21:01 Davis Boulevard.
19:21:12 It's about five lots off of Davis Boulevard.
19:21:15 What's interesting about this is, everything on this
19:21:18 side of Adelia is RS-50.
19:21:21 Everything on the east side here is RS-75 with the
19:21:27 exception of the corner of the RM 35.
19:21:30 So you have a mix of uses.
19:21:35 Here is the zoning at last.
19:21:45 Again you see the RM 35, RS-50.
19:21:51 There's RM-24 along Davis Boulevard.
19:22:04 To show you some pictures of the site.
19:22:08 This is the existing home.
19:22:19 This is on the same side of Adelia, the RS-50 side of
19:22:28 Just a few lots.
19:22:30 This is directly across the street on the RS-75,
19:22:36 This is also on the RS-75 portion of Adelia.
19:22:42 This is a single-family structure to the north of the
19:22:54 And this is the house, the first lot off of Davis.
19:23:04 On Adelia.
19:23:05 On the east side.
19:23:09 >> I would like you to put up the photo of the tree
19:23:28 that's in question.
19:23:29 And I would like to know how come the house is 4.2
19:23:32 feet away from the eastern side when the side yard
19:23:36 setbacks are seven feet.
19:23:41 >>> The existing house when you split it to create the
19:23:44 two RS-50 lots given the location of the existing
19:23:47 house, that would be the setback of the 4.2 feet,
19:23:50 which is part of the reason for the PD.
19:23:54 >> And the new house is going to be 4.2 feet away?
19:23:59 >>> No.
19:24:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The existing house -- it's on the
19:24:10 west side of the existing house is 4.2 feet?
19:24:12 >>> Here is the 4.2 feet.
19:24:14 >> Got it.
19:24:15 >>> Now, typically --
19:24:19 >> Okay, I get it.
19:24:20 I just needed to see which side it's on.
19:24:24 >>> Mary Daniels Bryce, Land Development Coordination.
19:24:39 I have been sworn.
19:24:40 The tree in question is a Laurel oak.
19:24:42 It is 30 inches but it does not contain enough points
19:24:46 to be considered a grand tree.
19:24:47 The tree is under stress currently.
19:24:51 It does have evidence --
19:25:01 >> Wow.
19:25:03 >>> It has a number of prunings that have taken place
19:25:08 on the tree.
19:25:09 The prunings for the most part appear to be healing
19:25:13 very well.
19:25:14 There is one small pruning cavity here that does have
19:25:17 a smaller amount of decay in it.
19:25:22 Because this side of the tree has been pruned, you
19:25:26 have an imbalance with the tree.
19:25:30 This particular branch here does have some woodpecker
19:25:34 damage to the limb.
19:25:37 I would recommend that that limb be taken off.
19:25:40 And there are small pockets within the tree.
19:25:51 So the tree, although it's a viable tree, it is doing
19:25:57 reasonably well at this point.
19:25:59 It is showing signs of stress and is towards the end
19:26:07 of its life span.
19:26:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So is part of the plan to remove
19:26:11 the tree?
19:26:13 >>> They are proposing to remove the tree, and I have
19:26:15 requested inch for inch replacement, and have talked
19:26:19 to the petitioner about possibly doing some larger
19:26:21 trees on-site, and they have agreed to that.
19:26:24 >> And that also structure on the back, I assume
19:26:27 that's going?
19:26:32 >>> I believe the petitioner will be able to answer
19:26:35 >> The lot behind it?
19:26:36 So that's on the lot behind it.
19:26:38 And I saw there was a reference to stormwater.
19:26:41 Is anybody here from stormwater?
19:26:46 Sometimes we get stormwater in and sometimes we don't.
19:26:51 >>> I don't know if they are here this evening there.
19:26:55 Was a note they wished to have added to the site plan
19:26:57 that was added and they have found it consistent.
19:27:00 >> What's the note?
19:27:02 The reason I mention it while you are looking is
19:27:06 several years ago I had a constituent right on the
19:27:08 street, right on the same side of the street, about
19:27:11 four or five houses down, and he called me up
19:27:16 regularly and he told me all the big house as round
19:27:19 were flooding.
19:27:21 Do you remember him?
19:27:23 He used to call you, now he calls me.
19:27:26 One time my wife and I went over with sandbags when
19:27:29 the whole city was sandbagging about four or five
19:27:33 years ago, because he was kind of older.
19:27:37 >>> The note does state that the developer will retain
19:27:40 on-site the first one half inch of stormwater run-off
19:27:43 for the entire area with no credit given for existing
19:27:45 impervious areas.
19:27:47 The property will be required to provide discharge
19:27:50 from stormwater retention area to the road.
19:27:52 The owner will retain maintenance responsibility, and
19:27:59 convey water from the north side of the property to
19:28:01 the stormwater management facility.
19:28:07 Mr. Stutzman can tell us about that when he comes up.
19:28:10 >>CHAIRMAN: Planning Commission.
19:28:20 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:28:21 I have been sworn.
19:28:24 Just very briefly, a couple of additional statements.
19:28:27 You see what the categories are in the area.
19:28:29 Ms. Feeley already stated to you that the zoning
19:28:32 districts on this particular part of Adelia is RS-50,
19:28:37 RS-75 to the south over here and you have an R-6 land
19:28:42 use category.
19:28:43 This is R 35 and R 50 right across the street.
19:28:48 Which account for the variety of different types of
19:28:50 residential products that are in the area.
19:28:53 As you can see, the lot in question almost directly
19:28:55 interface it is parking lot for the development
19:29:00 directly on the corner over here, Adelia and Davis
19:29:04 >> There are two houses in between.
19:29:06 >>> Yes.
19:29:07 That's correct.
19:29:10 Based on the request for residential, a variety of
19:29:15 different housing, architectural features, Planning
19:29:18 Commission staff finds the proposed request consistent
19:29:21 with the comprehensive plan.
19:29:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:29:24 >>> My name is Jim Stutzman, address 3314 Henderson
19:29:36 Boulevard, suite 108, and I have been sworn.
19:29:40 Also here with me this evening is Collin Fitzgerald
19:29:46 attorney for the project and Joe Samnick is our
19:29:49 If you have any questions about that tree you can ask
19:29:56 Abbye gave a pretty good description of the purpose of
19:30:03 the request for the PD.
19:30:06 This is a graphic that shows similar lots with similar
19:30:10 characteristics to the immediate area.
19:30:12 And I would also like to mention that these are two
19:30:15 existing platted lots.
19:30:17 This is not one parcel, and the existing house was
19:30:21 developed on I believe lot 18, the one to the west.
19:30:26 And when it was developed, it was developed years ago
19:30:28 with that 4.2-foot setback.
19:30:33 You can see all the lots in green are all
19:30:37 single-family homes and they are all similar in
19:30:40 They have 50-foot of frontage, but because of the
19:30:44 linear nature of the street if you take a
19:30:46 perpendicular measurement from the side yard you come
19:30:48 to short of 50 feet.
19:30:49 And I can't tell you that's exactly that every lot has
19:30:52 that problem but the streets are curve linear slightly
19:30:56 and it does create that problem.
19:30:57 We do have 100-foot of frontage.
19:31:00 But some of the lots actually don't even have 50 feet
19:31:04 of frontage.
19:31:05 But it's an old subdivision.
19:31:06 So obviously there's some problems meeting today's
19:31:21 This graphic shows the existing land uses in the area.
19:31:23 You can see along Davis Boulevard, there is quite a
19:31:25 bit more intense use.
19:31:27 This is the mid rice apartment building.
19:31:31 And before that, the RM 35 does extend to about
19:31:36 halfway back to our property on the south side of the
19:31:41 And then there's various uses, duplex, townhouse and
19:31:45 apartment along Davis Boulevard.
19:31:47 So we are just out of that transitional area.
19:31:59 The future land use element shows reinforce that is
19:32:04 trend of having intense development along Davis
19:32:06 Boulevard, and transition to the res 10 internally to
19:32:11 the neighborhood.
19:32:18 The zoning map that Abbye showed you, you can see the
19:32:22 RM 35 zoning district again follows closely the
19:32:27 apartment complex in this area.
19:32:30 This is actually used for parking for the structure
19:32:33 that's in this location.
19:32:34 But again the RM 35 zoning does come back on the south
19:32:38 side to about halfway through our property.
19:32:46 This is some other shots of homes.
19:32:48 Some of them south.
19:32:56 This is a two-story home with two-car garage across
19:33:05 the street. This is looking catty-corner from the
19:33:06 subject property.
19:33:07 You can see the mid-rise apartment building along
19:33:10 Davis Boulevard.
19:33:12 This is another house across the street on Adelia.
19:33:16 This is a house to our rear on Adriatic.
19:33:19 You can see the fairly substantial massing of some of
19:33:22 these homes.
19:33:24 >> Where are the one-story houses, Jim?
19:33:27 Did you include those?
19:33:29 >>> I don't believe I have shots of those.
19:33:31 Those houses are prime for redevelopment.
19:33:36 >> I thought they were already gone.
19:33:41 >>> This is another house.
19:33:42 I believe Abbye did show this house.
19:33:44 It's one lot to our west.
19:33:47 And this is directly behind these two.
19:33:50 These are both on Adriatic.
19:33:53 And you can see this is a fairly massive single-family
19:33:55 home and that was developed under the RS-50 standards.
19:33:58 This is another house that's on Adelia, just down the
19:34:01 block to the west, on the south side of Adelia from
19:34:04 our property.
19:34:10 >> You didn't show the garden that's next to it.
19:34:12 >>> Pardon me?
19:34:14 >> What's directly across the street, the garden
19:34:16 that's next to that brick house?
19:34:18 >>> A garden?
19:34:20 >> A garden.
19:34:23 >>> This is a rendering of the elevation of the site
19:34:31 plan that we have submitted.
19:34:34 And this is the existing one-story house, and this is
19:34:37 a garage in the rear.
19:34:39 Mr. Dingfelder, the structure that you talked about
19:34:42 was on this lot to our rear.
19:34:46 This is the proposed structure.
19:34:47 We produced the square -- reduced square footage from
19:34:52 4300 square feet down to 3200 square feet, and the
19:34:56 darker shaded area is the footprint of the second
19:35:00 So we drastically cut out parts of that to break up
19:35:04 the massing of the structure.
19:35:07 It is going to have two-car garage.
19:35:09 We have met RS-50 setbacks and height restrictions.
19:35:17 We are keeping as Abbye mentioned the 14-foot
19:35:20 separation between the two structures.
19:35:21 And we are going to have front and rear porches for
19:35:26 the site, and we'll share that on the elevation.
19:35:37 This is a shot of the front of the house looking from
19:35:44 You see we do have the two-car garage.
19:35:46 And there's a great amount of relief on the structure,
19:35:49 set back, the number of areas.
19:35:51 This would be the entry feature.
19:35:53 And you can see that we are going to have to raise it
19:35:56 to get the finished floor elevation above flood level,
19:35:58 and that will be about a little over four feet.
19:36:01 But instead of filling in the lot, what we would do is
19:36:05 just put extra blocks to raise the finished floor
19:36:11 And I did have a number of discussion was the
19:36:13 stormwater department.
19:36:14 And it was their opinion that there really wasn't a
19:36:17 flooding problem from stormwater on this part of Davis
19:36:20 They said that the reason the finished floor elevation
19:36:24 is required to be at 11 feet is because of the storm
19:36:27 surge potential.
19:36:28 But there is a potential for flooding, but it's not
19:36:31 primarily from stormwater run-off.
19:36:39 This is a shot of the house from the west side, would
19:36:43 be the left side elevation, shows you again the amount
19:36:46 of relief that we have created on the second floor,
19:36:52 there would be a rear porch, and front entry.
19:36:55 This is the garage, Adelia is in this location.
19:37:01 This should be a shot from the Davis Boulevard side,
19:37:04 again showing the number of cut-outs in the second
19:37:07 And this is Adelia.
19:37:13 A shot of the rear yard showing the entry to the rear.
19:37:18 Again there's a porch on the second floor also.
19:37:20 But there is a number of areas where we have set back
19:37:23 that second story.
19:37:25 So we feel that the project as it's designed now is
19:37:29 compatible with the development trend in the area,
19:37:32 consistent with the plan, in-fill project on this part
19:37:37 of Davis Island.
19:37:38 I would be happy to answer any questions.
19:37:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Where are the drainage swales?
19:37:46 I didn't see it on the plan.
19:37:48 >>> We haven't shown it on the plan.
19:37:50 Obviously we haven't done any engineering for the
19:37:52 site. They would be required.
19:37:53 There is plenty of green space where that could
19:37:58 It could run on either side yard.
19:38:04 >>CHAIRMAN: Other questions by council members?
19:38:06 >>> Toni Fitzgerald, 201 North Franklin Street.
19:38:12 I just want to add something to Mr. Stutzman's
19:38:15 We did notice all of the neighbors, of course, in
19:38:18 accordance with the rules.
19:38:19 And we were contacted by one neighbor who asked about
19:38:23 the plans and had some concerns about the initial
19:38:25 plans of the larger house.
19:38:26 I did speak with him and I provided him via FedEx and
19:38:31 e-mail the revised plans and I have not heard from
19:38:34 I asked him to call me or write me or e-mail you with
19:38:37 any concerns.
19:38:39 I did reach out to Lee Medart, chair of the Davis
19:38:42 Island neighborhood planning task force, and Turner
19:38:48 Reece of the Davis Island civic association, to ask if
19:38:50 they had any questions.
19:38:51 I did send e-mail correspondence asking them to call
19:38:54 me and informed them the hearing was continued to this
19:38:56 date, and so far I haven't received any questions.
19:38:59 So you have seen both the professional planning staff
19:39:03 of the city and the Planning Commission have found
19:39:05 this petition, this request, for rezoning to be
19:39:08 consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan and would
19:39:13 ask you to approve that tonight and I would be
19:39:15 available for any questions.
19:39:17 Our arborist is here for any questions and I would
19:39:19 like to save any time for rebuttal.
19:39:22 >> Subpoena there anyone in the public that wants to
19:39:24 speak on item number 8?
19:39:26 Any questions by council members?
19:39:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Abbye, just a general question.
19:39:35 When they submitted -- I was looking at the clerk's
19:39:39 When they submitted, they had them file the old
19:39:44 drawings compared to the knew drawings.
19:39:46 >>> Yes, sir.
19:39:48 >> It looks like the new drawing is an improvement in
19:39:51 terms of mass and scale.
19:39:52 >>> Yes, sir.
19:39:54 >> Did the new drawings get attached to the PD as part
19:39:59 of the PD?
19:40:00 >>> Yes, sir.
19:40:01 >> So there's no question as the fail progresses to
19:40:07 the building permit what they have been approved for?
19:40:10 >> Yes, sir.
19:40:11 Elevations are part of the site plan control zoning.
19:40:14 Elevations would be part of the file and the certified
19:40:19 site plan which would then dictate the zoning on the
19:40:27 >> Move to close.
19:40:28 >> Second.
19:40:29 (Motion carried).
19:40:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
19:40:43 the general vicinity of 125 Adelia Avenue in the city
19:40:47 of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
19:40:49 section 1 from zoning district classification RS-50
19:40:52 residential single-family to PD planned development
19:40:55 residential single-family detached providing an
19:40:58 effective date.
19:40:59 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and question.
19:41:01 Question on the motion, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
19:41:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Although the current site plan
19:41:05 before us is better than the initial site plan I am
19:41:07 going to vote against this because what you are doing
19:41:10 is taking then somebody's garden and putting a house
19:41:15 that I don't think it's consistent and in scale with
19:41:17 the existing houses to the east or the west.
19:41:20 You are going to put in 50% impervious surface,
19:41:24 particularly driveways and walkways, which is going
19:41:27 to, in my opinion, exacerbate the flooding in the
19:41:31 Although you are building up to the 35-foot hate
19:41:34 limit, the homes both to the east and the west are
19:41:37 much less high, much less massive, and I think that
19:41:41 what you are proposing is just inconsistent and
19:41:44 I think you end up with a much more satisfying
19:41:46 situation if you added onto the existing house, made
19:41:49 it lovelier, and didn't try to cram this house onto
19:41:54 this lot.
19:41:55 I really don't think the neighbors are going to
19:41:57 appreciate it.
19:41:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:41:59 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and
19:42:05 Dingfelder voting no.
19:42:07 Second reading and adoption will be on April 17th
19:42:09 at 9:30 a.m.
19:42:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:42:13 Item number 9 is a continued public hearing.
19:42:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 9 and 10 can be heard together.
19:42:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Both of them are continued.
19:42:24 >>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
19:42:34 I have been sworn. Petitioner is requesting to vacate
19:42:34 the portion of 14th street lying between Channelside
19:42:34 Drive and Ybor Channel, running south on Adamo Drive
19:42:40 to a dead-end.
19:42:45 This is 14th street running south on Adamo Drive
19:42:48 on the north.
19:42:49 Runs under the Crosstown expressway, then dead-ends at
19:42:57 harbor street which was vacated in 2000.
19:42:59 This is a shot of 14th street looking south from
19:43:02 Adamo Drive.
19:43:05 A shot of 14th street looking south to the
19:43:12 You can see from the photo 14th street is a brick
19:43:18 Another shot of 14th street looking south, toward
19:43:21 the dead end, mid-block, terminates at the entrance to
19:43:23 the dry docks.
19:43:27 Going back the other way.
19:43:28 This is looking north.
19:43:31 Towards Adamo from the dead-end.
19:43:37 Shot of 14th street looking north.
19:43:43 From mid block.
19:43:47 Just getting closer and closer to Adamo Drive.
19:43:50 Finally, this is where it terminates at Adamo Drive.
19:43:53 Staff is objecting to what's based on comments and
19:43:56 objections received to the department of public works.
19:43:58 Their comments are based on the brick ordinance.
19:44:04 Although we have the language in the ordinance,
19:44:08 petitioner also placed a note on the site plan to a
19:44:10 dress the bricks.
19:44:13 I just point that out we do have an objection.
19:44:16 We made objections on the site plan.
19:44:19 >> Wouldn't the conditions then satisfy the objection?
19:44:25 >>> I will let Calvin speak to the objection.
19:44:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
19:44:31 Come on down.
19:44:37 >>CALVIN THORNTON: I have been sworn.
19:44:43 We are working on the vacating, in some of our
19:44:48 previous conversations we talked about the ability if
19:44:51 they were to do an easement agreement, and in that
19:44:54 easement agreement we were going to call out the
19:44:56 specifics of how we were going to operate this
19:44:59 roadway, and authority we would have over this
19:45:03 We were hoping that language got into the vacating
19:45:06 It did not.
19:45:07 So as of say 5:00 this evening we are still holding
19:45:12 them to get that condition in the vacating ordinance.
19:45:15 >> It's not a function of the bricks then, it's a
19:45:18 function of access?
19:45:20 >>CALVIN THORNTON: It's also how to vacate the street,
19:45:24 relocate the street, give us back an easement, and the
19:45:28 historic preservation determined where those bricks
19:45:31 are going to be placed in the street.
19:45:33 That will be done, those conditions and language will
19:45:36 be called out in the easement agreement.
19:45:38 We want the easement -- we want the condition of the
19:45:41 vacating predicated upon we successfully negotiate an
19:45:47 easement agreement we both can agree upon.
19:45:53 I don't want the vacating --
19:45:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: To clarify this here, 14th
19:45:58 street, there is ingress and egress to 14th
19:46:02 street, or is there?
19:46:04 >>> Go from Adamo Drive down to, I think, the dry
19:46:10 There is a roadway there.
19:46:12 >> And is it a functional roadway?
19:46:14 >>> Yes, used every day.
19:46:16 >>: And there's traffic every day?
19:46:18 >>> Traffic going to the dry docks.
19:46:20 >> Correct.
19:46:26 It goes from 14th street.
19:46:28 What a country.
19:46:31 >>> You can see the port authority actually put the
19:46:45 barrier to keep people running the gate, a secured
19:47:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's just keep our flow going,
19:47:04 Anything else?
19:47:10 So did we open both of these?
19:47:13 >>> Yes.
19:47:16 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:47:18 I have been sworn.
19:47:21 I have been the zoning person for this now.
19:47:24 Petitioner Z 07-102 located at 1317, 1323 and 1325
19:47:30 Channelside Drive, 739, 14th street, 1412 and 610
19:47:35 harbor street, 1615 east Adamo Drive, and 1601 east
19:47:39 Sahlman drive, going from IH industrial heavy and CD-2
19:47:48 to CD 2 Channel District 2, with uses of residential,
19:47:53 retail, office, professional, and business.
19:47:56 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property to
19:47:59 allow for a mixed use development with residential
19:48:02 office and retail uses on-site.
19:48:05 22.70-acre site is bisected by Ybor channel, Lee Roy
19:48:13 Selmon Crosstown expressway on the north and
19:48:15 surrounded by predominantly industrial uses.
19:48:17 The subject site is anticipated to become a
19:48:20 development of regional impact.
19:48:22 The developer has a preliminary development agreement
19:48:25 with the department of community affairs.
19:48:27 To date this agreement has not been issued.
19:48:29 The entitlements associated with this rezoning are for
19:48:32 the western portion or phase one of the site zoned
19:48:38 There are no entitlement being requested for the
19:48:40 planned development portion at this time.
19:48:44 It is the intent of the developer to rezone the PD of
19:48:46 the site phase 2 concurrently with a DRI review and
19:48:50 The petitioner is proposing the entitlement to the PD
19:48:53 portion to the site, 1,105 multi-family residential
19:48:58 units, 298,000 square feet of office, 55,000 square
19:49:03 feet of general commercial, accessory retail, and
19:49:07 The site will contain three structures.
19:49:09 First building structure A consists of retail on the
19:49:12 first floor, structured parking, and residential
19:49:16 The floor is -- and an office floors 9 through 23.
19:49:23 Proposed maximum height is 304 feet.
19:49:25 The second building structure B is connected to
19:49:27 structure A through the parking garage.
19:49:31 It will consist of a podium with retail on the first
19:49:33 floor and structured parking residential development
19:49:37 on floors 2 through 9 with a 29-story residential
19:49:40 tower above.
19:49:41 The proposed maximum height is 395 feet.
19:49:44 The third building structure C will be located in the
19:49:47 south of structure A and consist of retail on the
19:49:51 first floor, structured parking to the residential,
19:49:57 floors 2 through 3, and 30 story tower above the
19:50:00 parking structure, 9 through 39.
19:50:03 The proposed maximum height to this structure is 395
19:50:08 The proposed principal structure setbacks are as
19:50:12 follows: From the north, 39 feet, from the east, 19
19:50:15 feet, from the south, 17 feet, and from the west, 2
19:50:19 However, the petitioner is requesting a zero foot
19:50:21 building setback for the site allowing building
19:50:26 through the incremental site plan process.
19:50:31 The required number of parking spaces is 1,568 and
19:50:33 3,265 spaces are being provided.
19:50:39 That's in excess of 1,697 spaces.
19:50:42 The proposed site design is predicated on the approval
19:50:46 of petition Z-07-23 for the vacating of 14th
19:50:57 We have a zoning map of the area.
19:51:04 You will see directly to the north, which becomes
19:51:07 Adamo Drive, to the north is Ybor, predominantly IG,
19:51:12 directly abutting with CG 2 to the west, and here is
19:51:17 Ybor channel heading through.
19:51:19 Again an aerial of the site.
19:51:27 With the Crosstown here and Adamo Drive going across.
19:51:33 Here is a picture of the site on Channelside Drive.
19:51:42 Now looking a little bit south.
19:51:49 This is moving over to the east of the site.
19:51:54 And this is looking east from 14th street.
19:51:58 14th street is there.
19:52:01 This is looking down 14th street.
19:52:03 You can see the brick roads.
19:52:08 This is looking north on the site.
19:52:14 This is looking directly across highway 60 to the
19:52:22 And moving over to the east northeast.
19:52:27 This is the northeast corner.
19:52:34 This is the eastern most portion of the site.
19:52:38 And moving southeast.
19:52:41 Located south of the site.
19:52:43 You can see the cruise ship over here.
19:52:47 Channelside development is around in here.
19:52:51 And this is looking west of the site.
19:52:55 This is Adamo looking south on the site right in the
19:53:07 Staff currently finds this petition to be
19:53:09 I do have a paper here entitled site plan changes that
19:53:15 I would like to submit into the record.
19:53:19 If these changes are made between first and second
19:53:21 reading then we would be able to amend our report to
19:53:25 be consistent.
19:53:26 Thank you.
19:53:40 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:53:42 I have been sworn in.
19:53:44 Some additional comment as relate to the comprehensive
19:53:49 I apologize in advance, though, right now because I am
19:53:51 bringing you a dated map that doesn't show the future
19:53:53 land use changes that were made.
19:53:56 Council did adopt several months ago the land use
19:53:59 changes to the site.
19:54:02 This parcel here which is actually the parcel
19:54:04 requested this evening does have a land use category
19:54:08 RMU 100, over here, which extends from this point
19:54:11 forward all the way down to the street over here.
19:54:17 The site in question is contained within the
19:54:20 enterprise zone, and therefore is allowed to blend the
19:54:23 land use categories, proposed land use, the proposed
19:54:31 site which allows to density, F.A.R. much 2.2 which is
19:54:37 far underneath either the UMU F.A.R. of 2.5 or the 3.5
19:54:44 RMU 100.
19:54:48 Giving you the specifics as to what's being requested
19:54:50 by the applicant, as far as the number of units and
19:54:53 the type of units, it is going to be a mixed use
19:54:58 development which is similar to most of the projects
19:55:00 that have been proposed and adopted for the Channel
19:55:09 Filling in the last pieces of the puzzle for this
19:55:12 part, the Channel District.
19:55:13 As we are seeing over here, we are actually seeing the
19:55:16 filling in of the North Port of Ybor channel which has
19:55:19 been at least the eastern section of it has been
19:55:21 languishing for some time, now has underutilized
19:55:25 industrial parcel.
19:55:26 This continues, though, the trend of commercial
19:55:29 redevelopment in the area and the mixed use as we do
19:55:33 know this is a major gateway, the Lee Roy Selmon
19:55:36 Expressway Crosstown expressway to the north. This is
19:55:38 at the major intersection of Channelside Drive and
19:55:41 Adamo Drive which has been recently redesignated a
19:55:44 redevelopment corridor from here to 26th street to
19:55:47 the east.
19:55:48 You do have a variety of regional attracters in the
19:55:52 There's Channelside itself, the port, Ybor City,
19:55:55 central business district, and connectors, the Lee Roy
19:56:00 Selmon Expressway Crosstown expressway, I-4, Hartline,
19:56:03 and the TECO.
19:56:06 Based on the request, based on the location of the
19:56:08 site, and all the connectivity to it, Planning
19:56:11 Commission staff finds the proposed request consistent
19:56:13 with the comprehensive plan.
19:56:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
19:56:25 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
19:56:29 I'm here on behalf of the applicant Michael Scarfia,
19:56:34 I have a number of people to introduce.
19:56:36 And I would like to ask, since the two petitions are
19:56:39 combined, I think our presentation is pretty close to
19:56:42 15 minutes, and we will be brief as possible.
19:56:46 But I would like, council's indulgence if we could, of
19:56:51 taking an extra five minutes from the two petitions
19:56:53 for a total of 20.
19:56:56 And I think that will be more than enough time for us.
19:57:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
19:57:05 >>DAVID MECHANIK: In introducing our team, not all of
19:57:08 these people are here to speak, but are going to be
19:57:13 available to answer any questions that council may
19:57:15 First we have David Gamble, architect, and urban
19:57:20 designer with Chan, Krieger and Associates out of
19:57:26 Michael English, Wilson Miller planner.
19:57:28 Albert Alfonzo, Alfonzo architects.
19:57:33 Leo Del Costo, as well as Courtney Bush, landscape
19:57:39 Elton Smith and David Winkel, of Wilson Miller,
19:57:42 transportation engineers.
19:57:44 We have Evan Johnson with Wilson Miller, planner.
19:57:47 Just a couple of housekeeping items.
19:57:50 As Jill mentioned, we have agreed to several changes
19:57:55 in the notations at the request of city staff.
19:57:59 We are in total agreement with those.
19:58:01 And so those will render the staff report to be
19:58:05 consistent, and recommendation for approval.
19:58:11 A little bit of clarification.
19:58:13 The condition that Calvin Thornton mentioned early in
19:58:18 the hearing, we received that request from Calvin.
19:58:23 We would like to just have an opportunity to work with
19:58:26 the legal department to brush up the language.
19:58:29 But the language that Calvin sent me in an e-mail this
19:58:32 afternoon is basically fine.
19:58:34 We are agreeable.
19:58:35 The language suggests that we would enter into an
19:58:39 easement agreement which would address the realignment
19:58:43 use, alteration and permitting of the brick streets.
19:58:46 So we would be addressing all of those issues as part
19:58:49 of an agreement.
19:58:51 And I believe that Julia indicated we could add that
19:58:55 as a condition to the ordinance so we can work out
19:58:57 that language.
19:58:59 I would also like to point out the traffic currently
19:59:01 on 14th street is the international ship repair,
19:59:05 which is the current owner of the property, and the
19:59:10 tenant intends, of course, to leave upon, we hope, the
19:59:14 approval of this project this evening.
19:59:17 So that traffic is -- I don't believe there's any
19:59:20 general public traffic that's using that particular
19:59:24 At this time I would like to introduce Mr. David
19:59:26 gamble who will do an initial presentation, followed
19:59:30 by Mike English and Albert Alfonzo.
19:59:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me ask a question, David,
19:59:36 before we get into it.
19:59:37 As I looked through your book, are we just talking
19:59:40 about -- I mean, you have a U-shaped property.
19:59:43 Are we just talking about one leg of the U today?
19:59:46 >>> Yes.
19:59:46 We are asking for approval of phase one, and that is
19:59:49 reflected, the totals for phase one, are reflected on
19:59:52 page 2 of the staff report.
19:59:55 In order to actually receive a zoning approval for the
19:59:58 full site, we will have to go to a development of
20:00:01 regional impact review which, as you know, is probably
20:00:04 a year and a half kind of time frame.
20:00:08 But we are all about to ask for preliminary
20:00:14 development agreement as well as a phase one rezoning
20:00:16 which would allow an early start on the development,
20:00:18 which we would like the opportunity to do.
20:00:21 >> Just for argument sake, what if we approve this
20:00:27 phase, your DRI?
20:00:30 I assume this phase one has not hit the threshold?
20:00:33 >>> Yeah, it's below the threshold.
20:00:35 That's a requirement of a PDA.
20:00:39 >> So if the state didn't approve the DRI, then we are
20:00:44 stuck with phase one?
20:00:45 >>> Yes, we would be stuck at the levels approved into
20:00:49 the zoning approval.
20:00:50 >> Put single-family detached somewhere else?
20:00:55 >>> This actually would be -- just for clarification,
20:00:57 the DRI approval was actually -- comes before City
20:01:00 Council, and the state is really more of a review
20:01:10 >>> David gamble, 8 story street, Cambridge,
20:01:21 Massachusetts with the firm of Chan Krieger in
20:01:26 We do design work in a lot of different sites and
20:01:31 waterfront in particular.
20:01:31 I am going to underscore the importance of this
20:01:33 project through a few examples that I want to show
20:01:38 >> It looks like you enjoyed our sunshine today.
20:01:40 >>> I loved it.
20:01:41 I'll tell you.
20:01:43 We had 40 degrees this morning.
20:01:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
20:01:47 Were you sworn?
20:01:48 >>I was sworn, yes.
20:01:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
20:01:52 >>> I can a sure you whatever we do will have very
20:01:57 small signs on it.
20:01:58 [ Laughter ]
20:01:59 I am going to show sow general precedence, looking at
20:02:02 sites around the world.
20:02:02 This is very much -- this rezoning represents a
20:02:06 paradigm shift about ways in which cities are looking
20:02:09 at the waterfront in a much different light.
20:02:11 Less for industrial, although this is still a working
20:02:15 part but more for quality of life issues that this
20:02:17 site has the potential to hold and I would modify a
20:02:21 statement made a few minutes ago.
20:02:22 This isn't just adding another piece of the puzzle.
20:02:25 This is really starting a new puzzle because this is
20:02:28 on the water itself which is a very different
20:02:30 conception than being somewhere else in the
20:02:32 Channelside district.
20:02:33 If I could have the first slide there.
20:02:35 This is the view looking southwest on the site.
20:02:41 A much larger area.
20:02:43 The site we are talking about today in phase one is
20:02:45 less than ten acres.
20:02:46 A much smaller portion of this site.
20:02:48 Again one of the urban design principles is the next
20:02:53 largest picture.
20:02:56 Something to remember, that despite the fact that the
20:02:58 housing market may rise and fall, or have potential,
20:03:05 the transformation. Waterfront is a long-term process
20:03:08 and I would like you to remember that.
20:03:09 We are looking at a 15 to 20 year time frame as this
20:03:12 area starts to grow and be connected to many of the
20:03:14 initiatives that Tampa has already tried to do.
20:03:20 And there is a very particular character here that
20:03:24 really could be quite advantageous to creating a
20:03:26 particular type of place.
20:03:28 Alongside a transit line that's perhaps a little
20:03:31 underutilized and adjacent to Ybor, which is really a
20:03:35 phenomenal neighborhood, which many cities would envy
20:03:39 to have that relationship with such a dynamic
20:03:42 And that aura is something we want to try to capture
20:03:45 in the planning for this.
20:03:48 This idea of a waterfront Promenade that you currently
20:03:51 have -- do you have a question?
20:03:57 In Cincinnati.
20:03:58 The idea that transformation of a waterfront needs to
20:04:01 have some amount of public infrastructure but also
20:04:03 some amount of public space is very critical and
20:04:06 therefore we looked very closely at the relationship
20:04:08 of the density through a series of open spaces on the
20:04:12 site, that can really become places of public
20:04:14 interaction, and an extension of a public network that
20:04:17 you currently have.
20:04:20 We also see a great potential in the development of
20:04:22 this site.
20:04:22 It not just being a homogenized district of very
20:04:29 individual buildings, and Albert is going to talk
20:04:33 about the architectural language.
20:04:34 But here we have an opportunity, think of the
20:04:36 development more as a series of brothers and sisters,
20:04:40 identical twins, and trying the modulation in the
20:04:44 area, it's very important to create a very particular
20:04:47 character that we said this area has which may be
20:04:50 slightly different, and you can do that in the public
20:04:52 realm and do that in the character of the architecture
20:04:57 It must be a place for living inasmuch as it is for
20:05:00 commercial and retail development, and therefore the
20:05:02 55,000 square feet of commercial development is either
20:05:07 mining the parking structures or activate these public
20:05:10 places we have created.
20:05:12 So they must be places of activity, but they also have
20:05:13 to have strong concentrations of residential
20:05:17 And, yes, there are infrastructure barriers to
20:05:22 There's a lot of the sea wall is still in place.
20:05:25 There is new roads that have to be built.
20:05:27 But these are not insurmountable.
20:05:29 Again, thinking about the long-term transformation,
20:05:32 there's great opportunity.
20:05:33 As you saw those pictures it's hard to manage such a
20:05:37 place can be created but there's great opportunity in
20:05:39 laying out the infrastructure, in overcome these
20:05:42 barriers for a particular player and not just thinking
20:05:47 about the public spaces or the green space that is may
20:05:49 connect to these other environments and Channelside
20:05:52 and Ybor, but thinking about the Promenade itself, the
20:05:56 character and design of that public space as it
20:05:58 relates to the water's edge.
20:05:59 Again, slightly different conceptualization and
20:06:02 projects occurring not too far away.
20:06:04 So in that way, we see that there's a site specific
20:06:10 And lastly, we are thinking about these connections
20:06:15 that are either late -- could be developed later down
20:06:20 the road. So despite the fact we are concentrating on
20:06:22 these nine acres it's very important to think about
20:06:24 the larger scale networks, either natural systems,
20:06:28 roadways, or pedestrian walkways, or the
20:06:30 transportation system, but to inform the design of
20:06:33 this place and really create something that's
20:06:35 networked and part of Tampa.
20:06:38 I am going to it over to Michael English to talk about
20:06:44 how these particular principles are applied to the
20:06:46 site specific.
20:06:49 >>> Michael English with Wilson Miller.
20:06:53 Can I have the PowerPoint back up, please?
20:06:58 I have been sworn.
20:07:00 I'm very pleased to be here tonight.
20:07:02 This is a highly qualified -- my job is simple.
20:07:06 I am merely linking David gamble's understanding of
20:07:11 urban waterfront around the world has redeveloped, and
20:07:16 talking about the urban design issues, and
20:07:18 architectural issues associated with this great
20:07:21 I want to talk briefly about contexts.
20:07:27 This is a great map.
20:07:28 You can see our property in the middle.
20:07:29 Kind of a yellow and green, very close to Ybor, in the
20:07:37 development corridor.
20:07:38 We are talking about Palmetto Beach full of young
20:07:41 professionals, people who lived there working together
20:07:45 for that neighborhood.
20:07:46 You have been up to your neck in the Channel District
20:07:48 for several years, and you know all the things that
20:07:50 are going on there.
20:07:51 The Central Park project, the Heights project, which
20:07:55 doesn't show, and the central business district are
20:07:57 all part of the urban core.
20:07:59 This property really is a linchpin, and as David said
20:08:04 a unique opportunity.
20:08:05 It is the urban center.
20:08:11 Mr. Garcia and Ms. Karsi have been tell you this is
20:08:15 consistent with a comprehensive plan, that meets the
20:08:19 guidelines of the Land Development Code.
20:08:21 We believe it is consistent that it's really going to
20:08:23 provide a great contribution to the community.
20:08:28 It's also important to think about the connectivity of
20:08:30 this property and this project.
20:08:33 In just a moment I will show you a little more about
20:08:38 the green space and the riverwalk.
20:08:39 But this alone will show you that not only is Adamo
20:08:42 Drive very important and the Crosstown expressway but
20:08:47 trying to create internal connectivity, that we don't
20:08:50 actually have to drive on Adamo Drive or Channelside
20:08:53 Drive to get through this area.
20:08:56 We are purposely making a connection to the south, but
20:09:02 we can connect internally with the port authority's
20:09:06 property and we have shown two ways, perhaps more in
20:09:08 the future, for how to get out straight which then
20:09:12 takes you to 21st and 22nd street.
20:09:16 Very briefly, the graphic on your left, both of which
20:09:21 David did, kind of shows a green space of the plan as
20:09:27 it exists today in the district with the things that
20:09:30 we are going to provide in the upper right-hand
20:09:36 The right hand graphic shows, number one, is a park
20:09:39 next to a streetcar stop, the developer is going to
20:09:44 fill the -- he is going to provide a wonderful --
20:09:49 there's going to be a second at the north end of the
20:09:52 channel which will be accessible to the public and
20:09:54 create the most spectacular evening views probably in
20:09:59 And then there's going to be almost a thousand feet of
20:10:02 riverwalk constructed, and it will be a number of ways
20:10:13 in which public open spaces are celebrated on this
20:10:18 And I think it's something we are particularly proud
20:10:21 of because there isn't another project in the city.
20:10:25 I wouldn't think, that is making this toward the
20:10:31 public space and open access, visual access, by the
20:10:36 public to the water.
20:10:37 This is a master plan.
20:10:40 And about 1100 drawing units, just under 300 that you
20:10:45 square feet of office.
20:10:46 And a modest amount of retail which will be
20:10:49 restaurants and retail, and retail connected with the
20:10:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Michael, I'm very excited about the
20:11:07 But what I am wondering about is let's say you're the
20:11:12 typical upland Channelside dweller, okay?
20:11:15 On the other side of Channelside Drive.
20:11:18 And you know there's all this wonderful waterfront and
20:11:21 riverwalk to enjoy.
20:11:25 Looking at this picture that I'm looking at, how did
20:11:29 they get there?
20:11:31 How do they easily get there from where they are on
20:11:33 the other side of Channelside?
20:11:35 I'm sure there's a way.
20:11:36 >> I'll bring the picture back up in just a minute.
20:11:40 >>> We are looking at it.
20:11:42 There it is.
20:11:42 >> Today, the way in would be --
20:11:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not today.
20:11:47 I meant when you guys --
20:11:49 >> Let's say we built this, and you would GOP in at
20:11:52 the streetcar stop.
20:11:53 And there's also a city urban trail across this site
20:12:00 and the developers also made a commitment to do some
20:12:03 extensive landscaping and maintenance under the
20:12:06 Crosstown to beautify that.
20:12:08 So there will be public access all across the site to
20:12:13 get all the way through the property, all to the
20:12:15 riverwalk, into every park.
20:12:17 >> Okay.
20:12:17 So, in other words, looking at this, I'll just use the
20:12:21 So if I am coming from where most of the people in
20:12:24 Channelside live, they come over that area one.
20:12:27 >>> Right.
20:12:27 >> Do they drop to the south, or do they head over
20:12:31 towards area ten and then drop down?
20:12:33 >>> This is a bigger version.
20:12:36 >> There's a lot of big buildings in between.
20:12:39 >>> There will be access, if you go in to the
20:12:42 streetcar stop, there will be access across the top
20:12:45 and through the project.
20:12:53 You can come in on the west side of the building and
20:12:55 get to riverwalk.
20:12:59 >> I guess the, is it inviting?
20:13:04 Saying we have water, we have retail, we really want
20:13:07 you to come, here is the waterfront, let's enjoy it
20:13:10 >>> Okay.
20:13:13 >> Albert Alfonzo, Alfonzo architects.
20:13:16 I have not been sworn in.
20:13:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anybody else?
20:13:32 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:13:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sure now where I am going.
20:13:36 >>> I do.
20:13:37 You know, councilman Dingfelder, when we started the
20:13:41 site strategy of this project, we really believe that
20:13:45 the number one priority is public access to our public
20:13:50 And so that was really sort of -- you sort of stole my
20:13:54 thunder on my presentation a little bit.
20:13:56 Because we have provided really three or four
20:14:00 different ways to -- and I can outline them and be
20:14:05 Unfortunately I don't have a pointer but I can use the
20:14:07 overhead if you would like.
20:14:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe I a pen.
20:14:19 Do you have a pen?
20:14:20 >>> Does that show up?
20:14:21 A little pointer?
20:14:25 >>> Creating new ways to present.
20:14:32 We have a very large ribbon park here which has
20:14:34 connectivity to the street park.
20:14:36 So you will see some of these later in my
20:14:40 But that was a really important urban strategy to be
20:14:44 able to get to the river.
20:14:45 What we would like people to do is just come along
20:14:49 what we call the ribbon park where there would be
20:14:52 possibly farmers markets, and really ACT activate
20:14:56 under the interstate, come around to this performance
20:14:58 park, walk along the harbor walk, and then do
20:15:02 basically a loop back to the streetcar.
20:15:04 So that was absolutely a strategy that was a priority
20:15:09 for us.
20:15:09 >> Signage and --
20:15:13 >>> All that good stuff, yes.
20:15:14 So if I could kind of jump in, that's a great segue,
20:15:18 So when we looked at our site, we saw really -- when
20:15:24 you do an open village like this, it's really as
20:15:26 important to think about the voids as it is to think
20:15:30 about the solids.
20:15:31 When you have three large structures like that, it
20:15:35 really provides you opportunities to be provide public
20:15:37 spaces, Piazzas, parks, and whatnot.
20:15:45 We subconsciously put them sort of juxtaposed not only
20:15:49 to open up views.
20:15:54 This is the ribbon park we were talking about that
20:16:03 gets awe round the big buildings.
20:16:06 And we provided five different schematic parks.
20:16:12 This would be the streetcar park, which allows people
20:16:15 to have access along Channelside.
20:16:19 We put in a new station there. I would envision a
20:16:22 very large piece of public art here, like a Calder,
20:16:26 something of that scale, that really acts as a
20:16:29 rotation piece that brings you around from Channelside
20:16:32 to Adamo.
20:16:33 And traffic sort of rotates around that.
20:16:36 I could see something really nice as a backdrop for
20:16:39 This is what we call a performance park, which this
20:16:44 was a very important park, because obviously -- and I
20:16:49 really want to say that the developer always has
20:16:53 pushed us to do quality architecture and quality urban
20:16:58 This would obviously be a great site for a building.
20:17:00 But it's also the corridor, looking down the channel.
20:17:04 So the logic here was to give that to the public, make
20:17:09 this a public park that there could be obviously
20:17:12 performances and whatnot along the harbor walk.
20:17:16 This is what we call the also PIAZZA, which would have
20:17:22 restaurants on this, which would border the harbor
20:17:25 walk, much more intimate in scale, something that
20:17:31 there would be anchor probably with a little
20:17:34 restaurant cafe, restaurants along the edges that
20:17:39 would activate this as a public space. When we
20:17:43 started to manipulate obviously the facades of the
20:17:47 project, we really wanted to think about movement in
20:17:52 and out, a warm modernism.
20:17:56 Obviously, the project had some ways to go, but we
20:18:00 always like to give council at least a hint of the
20:18:05 You all are very interested in aesthetics and
20:18:08 And we like that.
20:18:10 So even though this project sort of has a way to go,
20:18:15 we kind of see this sort of warm modernism, almost
20:18:18 like a Mies van der Rohe project that's on the lake in
20:18:26 Chicago. That kind of thing.
20:18:26 So again, it's very early, obviously.
20:18:29 The project has to be pushed forward and designed.
20:18:34 And this what we thought was to give you a little bit
20:18:39 of architectural character.
20:18:41 So with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Mechanik and
20:18:46 finish the presentation.
20:18:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other question, Albert.
20:18:50 I don't know if people think I'm silly when I say this
20:18:53 but you have 1100 units, and you have got a lot of
20:18:59 Any dog parks?
20:19:02 >>> Are you a dog park fan?
20:19:04 >> I don't know but they seem to be really popular
20:19:07 around town and in the urban setting.
20:19:10 >>> I think this would be a great spot to put it in
20:19:12 the performance park.
20:19:14 I think that's where it would go.
20:19:17 >> I was thinking about under the Crosstown.
20:19:22 [ Laughter ]
20:19:23 >>> Yeah, when we get down to that level of detail we
20:19:30 would love to give you a bite of the apple to talk
20:19:33 about a dog park.
20:19:36 >> I don't think I would have another bite, no pun
20:19:40 >>> The parks are a good way to activate spaces.
20:19:45 Certainly there's been a lot of residential units
20:19:47 And you always want to provide places for people to
20:19:51 take their pets.
20:19:55 Like I said, we have four or five different
20:19:58 opportunities for that.
20:20:03 >>> I'll tell what you John is looking for when he
20:20:05 retires, he wants to walk dogs.
20:20:09 To supplement the income.
20:20:12 [ Laughter ]
20:20:13 David Mechanik.
20:20:17 I don't think this was mentioned earlier.
20:20:19 But regarding the Crosstown, it not part of our zoning
20:20:23 proposal, so it was not really part of our
20:20:26 But we are in discussions with the expressway
20:20:29 authority to enhance the landscaping underneath the
20:20:34 expressway there.
20:20:35 We think a considerable amount could be done.
20:20:38 In fact enhance the landscape.
20:20:40 I don't think there is any landscaping to think of.
20:20:43 But we are looking to do that and have that
20:20:46 I would say that the expressway authority is not keen
20:20:51 from a liability standpoint on encouraging people
20:20:54 activity underneath the structure of the rode.
20:20:57 So I would just mention that in the context of our
20:21:01 programming it for any kind of activities like that.
20:21:04 But we certainly hope to beautify that area.
20:21:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sure our representative on the
20:21:12 expressway can help you with that.
20:21:13 >>> Certainly.
20:21:14 >> But I am looking at your page 2.16 and you are
20:21:17 showing improvements under the expressway.
20:21:21 And that would be an ideal place for a dog park.
20:21:25 >>> If that could be done that would be something we
20:21:27 would love to consider.
20:21:32 That does conclude our presentation and we will be
20:21:34 happy to answer any questions that council may have.
20:21:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Council, any questions?
20:21:37 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on 9
20:21:40 or 10?
20:21:41 Anyone that wants to speak on 9 or 10, come up and
20:21:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before the public does speak, I
20:21:48 believe Ms. Kabougeris has one issue relating to the
20:21:57 brick streets that I believe Mr. Mechanik is aware of
20:22:00 and just wants to bring it to council's attention.
20:22:00 >>> Julie Kabougeris: Legal Department. There was
20:22:04 some discussion of the brick streets this morning, and
20:22:06 it pertains to this vacating.
20:22:08 One of the conditions of the vacating is that there be
20:22:14 a separate hearing for placement, of the brick street.
20:22:21 On a separate hearing process.
20:22:23 And we are requesting that a second hearing, the
20:22:28 second public hearing is set, that I believe
20:22:34 petitioner wants to set that brick street ordinance
20:22:37 for second reading.
20:22:38 >> I believe Mrs. Kabougeris has prepared a resolution
20:22:42 to that effect which council can move once they
20:22:44 determine what date you are going to continue it for
20:22:46 with certainty, and she will fill in that date and
20:22:49 provide that to the clerk.
20:22:51 >>GWEN MILLER: You may come up and speak now.
20:22:57 >>> Andy Joe Scaglione, I own the property across the
20:23:01 street from this property for the last 26 years, been
20:23:04 very involved in Channelside from the time it was
20:23:07 called 13th street, and you know the rename
20:23:14 I am also very excited about this property.
20:23:16 As you know, I have opposed many projects on
20:23:19 Channelside because I haven't believed in them,
20:23:21 including my own property that people made me offers
20:23:23 on, I haven't accepted because I didn't believe in the
20:23:27 I want quality development.
20:23:28 I don't want quantity.
20:23:31 I want to be proud of the end product.
20:23:33 Because I am going to be living here the rest of my
20:23:35 life and looking at it.
20:23:38 I have done a lot of research on this developer.
20:23:41 He has an impeccable reputation.
20:23:43 They are long-term thinkers, unlike most developers
20:23:45 that want ton blow in and blow out.
20:23:48 As we know, a development is only as good as the
20:23:55 people are solid behind it.
20:23:57 I have met with them and talked with them on numerous
20:24:02 Of my concerns, I'm totally satisfied.
20:24:06 I have also taken a trip to Chicago to understand this
20:24:11 project better, the Navy pier and get ideas.
20:24:15 They have done a detailed presentation to the
20:24:18 Channelside district, which I have been very involved
20:24:21 with for the past 20 years.
20:24:23 And I wholeheartedly support this project.
20:24:26 And I respectfully request that you all do also.
20:24:29 Thank you very much.
20:24:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
20:24:33 Mrs. Saul-Sena.
20:24:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
20:24:37 This project is so excited.
20:24:38 And it really will take an area that I think all of us
20:24:43 have completely overlooked and transform it into
20:24:45 something that will be extraordinary.
20:24:47 I just wonder, because I see that he's here, if Wilson
20:24:52 Stair, the urban design manager, has anything to add
20:24:55 to the city's commentary on this.
20:24:58 I think it's really important that something of this
20:25:00 significance, that we would have had some urban design
20:25:05 feedback from our staff.
20:25:06 >>> Wilson Stair, architectural review, urban design
20:25:09 division, and I have been sworn.
20:25:11 Good evening.
20:25:12 Yes, we have looked at this project and got into
20:25:19 probably more detail than they really got to in terms
20:25:25 of conceptually.
20:25:27 But I think councilman Dingfelder brought up a very
20:25:31 good point in terms of connections.
20:25:35 One of the main concerns we had at first was when you
20:25:39 get inwardly facing projects that don't connect very
20:25:44 well to streets, like he brought up in terms of the
20:25:52 riverwalk, and we will be working with him through
20:25:54 incremental review, too.
20:25:56 But the statement you made in terms of making it more
20:26:01 inviting, and for the people coming in and getting to
20:26:09 the riverwalk, and really enjoying the project as a
20:26:12 whole, in other words, as staff looks at it, we will
20:26:18 want it to be more softer and inviting to the
20:26:25 pedestrians rather than a fortress.
20:26:32 I think they have a lot of things going on.
20:26:33 They have addressed a lot of our concerns in terms of
20:26:36 making the buildings more pedestrian.
20:26:38 But it's -- the connections that we were most
20:26:42 concerned about, the questions I had had to do with
20:26:48 how people would be able to drive and get there from
20:26:52 the streets at first, and I asked them about the
20:26:57 connection on Channelside, where the streetcar stops.
20:27:05 And they make the point that that would be one of the
20:27:09 main pedestrian connections.
20:27:12 But overall, I'm impressed at least with their
20:27:18 commitment, and they have addressed the major issues
20:27:23 we brought up.
20:27:26 And I just see it as a positive statement for that in
20:27:30 the Ybor channel.
20:27:32 It will be a gateway, an identifier and I think it can
20:27:38 blend very well.
20:27:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And you are going to have 30, 60,
20:27:43 90 like most of them?
20:27:45 >>> Yes, sir.
20:27:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:27:48 Come and speak, sir.
20:27:50 >>> Thomas Taylor.
20:27:52 I reside at 2628 Clark street.
20:27:57 I have been sworn.
20:27:59 I'm here this evening to speak as not only a resident
20:28:02 of Palmetto Beach, the adjacent neighborhood, but also
20:28:06 as the president of the Palmetto Beach community
20:28:14 We have over the last several months had dialogue with
20:28:18 Wilson Miller that provided much like they have you
20:28:22 all, different types of information, they have come to
20:28:25 a couple of our association meetings, make
20:28:27 presentations, at the they made presentations, they
20:28:36 made themselves readily available for all different
20:28:39 types of e-mail, comment, questions, and concerns.
20:28:44 All that being said, there's almost unanimous support,
20:28:50 and even with just the neighborhood residents that I
20:28:52 talked to about the project for both of the items on
20:28:58 the agenda this evening, specifically, to get the
20:29:03 project further along.
20:29:12 And the one that Matt showed, excited to have another
20:29:15 area that would even be in walking distance, that when
20:29:18 could utilize the multi-use trails, that would access
20:29:22 it from our small little niche of the neighborhood
20:29:26 where I call home.
20:29:29 I would also be remiss if I failed to mention that
20:29:32 what they are proposing is certainly visually far
20:29:37 superior to what we dropped by.
20:29:44 Thank you.
20:29:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for your service as
20:29:48 president of the neighborhood association.
20:29:48 >>> Thank you.
20:29:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
20:29:51 Question by council members?
20:29:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for staff.
20:29:59 Some notes that we got here, it talked about if things
20:30:02 don't move ahead, then the developer will pay an
20:30:06 assessment for the park area.
20:30:11 I don't want the assessment.
20:30:13 I want the park.
20:30:14 Is there any way we can make sure that we get the park
20:30:16 instead of the assessment?
20:30:18 Because frankly, the park is a lot more valuable.
20:30:21 >>> Yes, I believe they were doing a formula of one or
20:30:26 the other but that was in case the DRI was not
20:30:29 approved, just a precautionary measure that we put in
20:30:32 there, but I do believe that they are fully intends to
20:30:35 do the park land.
20:30:37 >> And the DRI will come back before City Council?
20:30:39 >>> Yes.
20:30:39 >> Good.
20:30:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
20:30:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I noticed our real estate manager
20:30:46 Mr. Fecker is here.
20:30:50 Since this is the last item of the night, I assume you
20:30:52 are here for this one.
20:30:54 Does the city own property -- what brings you here?
20:31:00 Do you really enjoy this stuff?
20:31:02 >>> I would rather remain anonymous.
20:31:04 I am Herb Fecker, manager of the real estate division.
20:31:07 I have been sworn.
20:31:09 There are two small parcels within this project that
20:31:14 our city owned.
20:31:16 And known as number 5 and number 18.
20:31:19 This small parcel down here in this corner, and this
20:31:22 parcel above, which abuts what is now the
20:31:27 And from the very beginning conceptually, real estate
20:31:30 has worked with the representatives of the developer,
20:31:34 to the conclusion that if the project is both zoned
20:31:37 and vacated those properties would be acquired by the
20:31:40 developer at fair market value.
20:31:44 And that would be in accordance with the real estate
20:31:46 policies for the city.
20:31:48 And it would include an appraisal.
20:31:50 >> So the city's parcels are included in the rezoning?
20:31:54 >>> Indeed.
20:31:55 >> Okay.
20:31:56 Thank you.
20:31:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you want anything else?
20:32:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question of David as he
20:32:04 comes up.
20:32:05 Public parking, you have got retail, and I guess you
20:32:07 want to encourage the public to join you, public
20:32:13 >>> Well, certainly the retail areas and the office
20:32:17 areas would be open to the public.
20:32:18 And there's quite a bit of excess parking.
20:32:22 There's some 1400 excess parking spaces over all.
20:32:28 >> But I mean they are excess but are they accessible
20:32:32 to the public?
20:32:33 >>> Oh, absolutely, yes.
20:32:35 Not the condominium parking spaces would not be
20:32:37 because those are usually secured.
20:32:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
20:32:40 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I was just going to clarify that the
20:32:45 second reading date would be under the new code
20:32:48 provisions April 17th.
20:32:50 So the hearing date on the brick streets, we would ask
20:32:54 that that coincide with that date on April 17th.
20:32:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
20:33:01 Mrs. Saul-Sena?
20:33:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As a big brick street lover, I
20:33:05 would just say that the bricks not be lost.
20:33:11 I prefer that they be reused on-site, if they couldn't
20:33:14 be reused on-site that they be given to the city for
20:33:17 our use somewhere.
20:33:18 >>> That was the intent behind that condition.
20:33:20 And we'll put that in floor they're for sure.
20:33:23 >> Move to close.
20:33:25 >> Second.
20:33:25 (Motion carried)
20:33:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 9 first.
20:33:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The question I have, can we do the
20:33:38 I want to do the vacating.
20:33:40 I want to read it first.
20:33:41 But if there's conditions that staff and Calvin, he's
20:33:46 still working out, are we just going to resolve those
20:33:49 between first and second reading?
20:33:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, sir.
20:33:52 And the vacate, it would be my recommendation if you
20:33:55 do -- that you do not take the vacating second reading
20:33:58 until you affirm and adopt.
20:34:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: With regard to the vacating, I move
20:34:05 an ordinance vacating closing discontinuing abandoning
20:34:08 a certain right-of-way all that portion of 14th
20:34:11 street lying south of Adamo Drive, and north of Harbor
20:34:13 Street in Tampa, dock companies estuary subdivision, a
20:34:18 subdivision located in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
20:34:20 County, Florida, the same being more fully described
20:34:21 in section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
20:34:23 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
20:34:25 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott and Mulhern
20:34:31 being absent at vote.
20:34:32 Second reading and adoption will be on April 17th
20:34:34 at 9:30 a.m.
20:34:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 10.
20:34:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For the record I was back here
20:34:40 watching it on television.
20:34:49 That was Mr. Garcia who thinks he's an attorney.
20:34:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In regard to Z 07-102, I'll
20:35:00 incorporate by reference the memorandum of Wilson
20:35:03 Miller stationary dated March 27, 2008, to Jill Karsi
20:35:09 from even Johnson and these would be three pages of
20:35:12 proposed changes that will be incorporated into the
20:35:19 And I hope that eventually we'll see a dog park there.
20:35:22 I move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
20:35:24 vicinity of 1317, 1323 and 1325 Channelside Drive,
20:35:29 739, 14th street, 610 and 1412 harbor street, 1615
20:35:35 east Adamo Drive, and 1601 east Sahlman drive from
20:35:43 zoning district classifications IH industrial heavy
20:35:46 and CD-2 Channel District 2, to PD, planned
20:35:49 development, residential, retail, office, business,
20:35:52 professional, and CD-2, Channel District 2, providing
20:35:56 an effective date.
20:35:57 I hope you guys work out the address.
20:35:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:36:00 (Motion carried)
20:36:03 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott and Mulhern
20:36:05 being absent at vote.
20:36:06 Second reading and adoption will be on April 17 at
20:36:10 9:30 a.m.
20:36:12 >> Move the resolution setting the public hearing for
20:36:16 brick streets for April 17th at 6 p.m
20:36:21 9:30 a.m., excuse me, on April 17th.
20:36:24 Pursuant to resolution prepared by legal.
20:36:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
20:36:28 (Motion carried)
20:36:31 We need to receive and file.
20:36:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to receive and file all the
20:36:36 >> Second.
20:36:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else coming before council?
20:36:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Adjournment.
20:36:40 >>GWEN MILLER: We are adjourned.
(City Council meeting 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.