Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, July 31, 2008
5:30 p.m. session

DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this 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.

[Sounding gavel]
17:41:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
17:41:30 order for our evening session.
17:41:32 We'll have roll call.
17:41:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:41:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:41:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
17:41:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
17:41:45 For the record, again, we have a memorandum from
17:41:47 councilman Charlie Miranda, please be advised I will

17:41:52 be out of town from July 21-31 and will not be in
17:41:57 attendance at the meeting on July 24 and July 31,
17:42:01 2008.
17:42:02 Please read the reason for my absence into the record.
17:42:05 So the clerk already has a copy of this.
17:42:07 So I just wanted to again mention that for our public
17:42:11 and the viewing audience that councilman Miranda is
17:42:13 out of town.
17:42:14 Okay?
17:42:17 We will take up now our 5:30 public hearing, items
17:42:22 related to the Tampa comprehensive plan.
17:42:27 >>RANDY GOERS: Land Development Coordination.
17:42:28 This is a first adoption hearing of two map
17:42:32 amendments.
17:42:32 These map amendments were heard by City Council on
17:42:37 April 10.
17:42:38 This is also the first of a new program that the City
17:42:41 of Tampa is participating in under the legislation
17:42:46 that was passed last year called the alternative plan
17:42:48 amendment review process.
17:42:50 As you remember, in prior large-scale plan amendments,
17:42:54 a local government would transmit the map amendments

17:42:56 or plan amendments to the Department of Community
17:42:57 Affairs.
17:42:59 They would take those amendments, distribute them to
17:43:02 regional and state agencies for review, compile their
17:43:06 comments and usual you an ORC report, and they would
17:43:10 have a certain amount of time, I think 60 days, to
17:43:13 respond and come back for action.
17:43:14 Under the alternative plan amendment review process,
17:43:17 there is no longer an ORC report for plan amendments.
17:43:23 The size of local governments that are part of the
17:43:25 program this year.
17:43:28 Under the program, we transmit the transmittal that
17:43:32 you approved on April 10th to all of the state and
17:43:35 regional agencies that DCA normally would transmit to.
17:43:38 They send their comments directly to the local
17:43:41 government, and we receive those comments, and then we
17:43:43 prepare a staff report and a follow-up action.
17:43:46 So there's no ORC report.
17:43:50 That puts the local government now in responsibility
17:43:53 of enforcing and interpreting chapter 163, and rule 95
17:43:59 to make sure that we have the plan amendments that are
17:44:02 in compliance with state law.

17:44:05 We will then, at the adoption hearing, which is
17:44:07 scheduled, I believe, in a few weeks, I'm not exactly
17:44:10 sure of the exact date, when it is adopted, the
17:44:14 agencies will have 30 days.
17:44:16 The report will be transmitted to them as well as the
17:44:19 final action of the local government.
17:44:22 They have 30 days then to challenge the action.
17:44:24 There's no longer an ORC report.
17:44:28 They read the report.
17:44:29 They determine whether or not our report met their
17:44:31 concerns or not.
17:44:32 And if they see that everything is fine they'll just
17:44:34 let it go.
17:44:35 If they have a problem with it, then they issue a
17:44:38 challenge at that point.
17:44:39 So with that, we did send out the report to the
17:44:45 agency.
17:44:45 The agency that normally would review these, the state
17:44:48 agencies department of environmental protection,
17:44:51 department of state, Department of Transportation, and
17:44:53 the department of community affairs, the regional
17:44:57 agencies of the regional Tampa Bay planning council

17:44:59 and SWFWMD, also Hillsborough County planning growth
17:45:03 management received it as well as MacDill Air
17:45:05 Force Base.
17:45:05 We received comments from all agencies except for
17:45:08 Hillsborough County, planning and growth manage: In
17:45:11 all, the comments were fairly -- they really broke
17:45:20 down to five major areas of concern or clarification.
17:45:23 One had to do with protection of wetlands and
17:45:26 environmental assets, consideration of traffic
17:45:28 impacts, the protection of historical, archaeological
17:45:33 resources.
17:45:33 There was questions as to the criteria used to promote
17:45:37 that ability of military bases.
17:45:39 And then the compatibility with MacDill Air Force
17:45:41 Base.
17:45:43 These were both -- the comments were related to both
17:45:47 of the map amendments and since they are close to each
17:45:51 on the.
17:45:51 What we did is we looked up the Planning Commission
17:45:55 staff report as well as what was transmitted to the
17:46:00 agencies, in all cases we found -- we felt that the
17:46:04 information had been addressed in the staff report.

17:46:07 It probably did not contain enough clarification, or
17:46:11 we could provide more clarification to the agencies.
17:46:13 So we are not suggesting or recommending any changes
17:46:21 to the action itself but providing additional staff
17:46:26 information to respond to their comments.
17:46:29 We sent you a staff report earlier today.
17:46:32 You may not have had enough time to review that.
17:46:35 But I could go over any specific questions.
17:46:38 I would like to say that we did address from an
17:46:41 environmental standpoint that all wetlands have to
17:46:44 follow the EPC and SWFWMD regulations.
17:46:48 Those are policies in our comp plan.
17:46:50 The traffic impacts, we showed in the report that
17:46:55 there is no difference between the proposed land use
17:46:58 that they were seeking and the existing land use, and
17:47:02 all traffic impacts would have to be reviewed when it
17:47:05 came in for a site plan.
17:47:07 Under the historical protection of historical and
17:47:10 archaeological resources, there are policies in our
17:47:13 plan that do require that should they find any -- we
17:47:16 didn't find -- there didn't seem to be evidence of
17:47:22 historical resources at this point in time but if they

17:47:24 do find any, then they will be required to protect
17:47:27 those in accordance with state law.
17:47:29 We do have a criteria.
17:47:30 We went through in the staff report.
17:47:34 That criteria for approving plan amendments.
17:47:37 And the Planning Commission staff report had gone
17:47:41 through that same process that we reemphasized our
17:47:46 current criteria. And then we also showed
17:47:48 compatibility, MacDill Air Force Base, in both
17:47:56 cases they are close to the Air Force Base, and
17:48:02 PA-07-02, part of it is in the clear zone.
17:48:06 Development is not going to occur in the clear zone.
17:48:09 Other is in the flight path, but it is within a
17:48:12 density that is allowed around the surrounding
17:48:16 parcels.
17:48:16 I can go over some of the specific questions as we
17:48:20 hear more from the petitioner and from our legal
17:48:23 staff.
17:48:23 But I do want to give you some report, and then also
17:48:28 give you and report to the clerk so we can have it for
17:48:32 the final adoption.
17:48:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Why don't we open the public hearing

17:48:36 at this point because I don't believe it has been
17:48:38 officially opened.
17:48:39 >> So moved.
17:48:41 (Motion carried).
17:48:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And to ask the council to receive and
17:48:44 file this.
17:48:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
17:48:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to receive and file.
17:48:47 >> Second.
17:48:48 (Motion carried).
17:48:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other comments from staff?
17:48:56 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:48:58 As you may recall from the transmittal public hearing,
17:49:02 I don't know if we opened up 07-02.
17:49:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You just opened up one.
17:49:09 Do you wish to open two?
17:49:10 >>JULIA COLE: No, but my comments will be the same for
17:49:12 both.
17:49:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to open up two so anyone that
17:49:16 wants to speak they can both address simultaneously so
17:49:19 I suggest we move to open --
17:49:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open 1 and 2.

17:49:23 >> Second.
17:49:24 (Motion carried).
17:49:24 >>JULIA COLE: What I want to indicate is during the
17:49:27 transmittal public hearing as it relates to both of
17:49:30 these comprehensive plan amendments, our City Council
17:49:33 directed that certain conditions be added to the
17:49:35 ordinance as it relates to the future development of
17:49:39 the cooperative.
17:49:42 And I think the petitioner may address some of these
17:49:44 issues but I did want City Council to know that the
17:49:48 petitioner has had opportunity to review them, and as
17:49:51 far as I know has no objection to them.
17:49:53 Did he not have objection to them, and they would have
17:49:56 force and effect at the time of development.
17:49:58 Thank you.
17:50:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
17:50:03 >>> Good evening.
17:50:07 My name is Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin Street,
17:50:10 Tampa 33602.
17:50:12 I represent the applicant in connection with items
17:50:14 number 1 and 2 on your agenda.
17:50:16 As you recall, they are both roughly 25 acres and the

17:50:23 request is essentially the same from LI to community
17:50:28 mixed use 35.
17:50:29 The LI would a produce 1.5 likewise to propose CMU so
17:50:34 there's no change in terms of potential intensity of
17:50:36 development for nonresidential office retail,
17:50:39 et cetera.
17:50:41 Theoretically on both parties could you as we speak
17:50:44 assuming you met your other codes about 1.7 million
17:50:48 square feet.
17:50:48 I know throws wetlands on the property.
17:50:51 I'm just letting now the -- when we do 01, continuous
17:50:58 to MacDill, there's concern because reportedly a
17:51:01 part of the property, roughly 67 acres, is what
17:51:05 MacDill characterizes as their clear zone.
17:51:08 As you remember last time, we had a long discussion
17:51:11 about this and we agreed to the stipulation that we
17:51:14 limit the density on that property.
17:51:16 If it were to be developed as residential to 15 versus
17:51:19 the 35 that would be allowed under the CMU 35.
17:51:22 We thought that was a very fair compromise.
17:51:25 I think council -- everybody voted for that at that
17:51:27 point in time.

17:51:28 And then we also agreed to grant the city an easement
17:51:32 in the southeastern portion of the property to
17:51:33 facilitate what we are all doing, the upper Tampa Bay
17:51:38 trail, or the greenway.
17:51:42 Something like that. So those are two conditions that
17:51:44 have been imposed and actually Julia put those in the
17:51:47 ordinance.
17:51:47 So that's respect to 01.
17:51:49 02 is in the Florida property off Dale Mabry about a
17:51:53 half mile I guess outside the base more or less, and
17:51:57 here again the density on the comp plan surrounding
17:51:59 the entire property is R-10 so we agree to a condition
17:52:03 with respect to this certain plan amendment for
17:52:05 Florida so it would go from LI to CMU with a condition
17:52:13 you couldn't exceed the 10 and that's what these are
17:52:17 all about.
17:52:17 So we respectfully request you pass the ordinance.
17:52:20 Thank you very much.
17:52:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone that wishes to address council,
17:52:27 come forward, state your name and address for the
17:52:31 record.
17:52:32 You have three minutes.

17:52:34 >>> Al Steenson, president of the Gandy civic
17:52:37 association.
17:52:39 Although technically this particular property does not
17:52:41 lie within our boundaries, we are the closest
17:52:44 neighborhood association to it.
17:52:47 We have discussed this on several occasions, discussed
17:52:49 the plan amendment and things like that, at a couple
17:52:53 of meetings, and although the association is not
17:52:57 thrilled with the fact that this could develop into a
17:53:00 greater densities, I can tell you right now that there
17:53:03 was no formal vote taken either are for or against it.
17:53:08 So with that being said, I would have to say that we
17:53:11 have no objection.
17:53:12 But there is one item that I would hope that
17:53:16 Mr. Bentley could maybe clear up for me.
17:53:22 At the Planning Commission, Mike and myself and I
17:53:25 believe the gentleman's name was Mr. Copping who is
17:53:29 with spraymaster, we were talking down in the lobby,
17:53:34 if you look at the aerial view you have, it appears
17:53:37 there's like five bodies of water there.
17:53:39 He made the comment to me, and I would like to get
17:53:42 some clarification, that he may look into the issue

17:53:45 that since these were man-made lakes, apparently from
17:53:49 a prior mining operation, were going to look into the
17:53:53 fact those could be drained and filled, and I would
17:53:56 just love to get some clarification on that, because I
17:54:01 think if you look in your backup material which I did
17:54:04 today, the aerial shows five distinct little bodies of
17:54:07 water.
17:54:07 I'll call them lakes.
17:54:09 And I would hope that this would not happen, and any
17:54:13 future development that could be used from anesthetics
17:54:17 standpoint to maintain, you know, the beauty and the
17:54:21 environment.
17:54:22 So if Mr. Bentley can give some clarification on that,
17:54:26 I would have to say that the association has no
17:54:30 objection at this point.
17:54:31 I think there's some things that may come up, when we
17:54:34 get to the rezoning.
17:54:35 But if I can get some clarification on that, that will
17:54:37 answer a big question in my mind, because the members
17:54:41 weren't there to hear what I heard, or got the
17:54:46 impression from Mr. Copping.
17:54:48 Thank you.

17:54:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public wish to
17:54:51 address council on these two public hearings?
17:54:54 Okay, councilman Saul-Sena.
17:54:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to ask this question of the
17:54:59 staff, and maybe the petition core respond to it in
17:55:02 its rebuttal.
17:55:03 I haven't seen this property, but from an aerial it
17:55:06 looks like it's very heavily treed, and I wonder -- I
17:55:09 know this is not a micro zoning, this is, you know, a
17:55:13 plan amendment.
17:55:14 But what is the condition of vegetation on this
17:55:21 property?
17:55:21 And would -- would the petitioner have to take into
17:55:27 account protecting it appropriately for any future
17:55:29 proposal?
17:55:30 Because that could seriously affect, you know, what is
17:55:34 ultimately built there.
17:55:36 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:55:38 When this is obviously the comprehensive plan
17:55:40 amendment, which would be the first step there would
17:55:43 be prior to them come in for any form of zoning or
17:55:46 development from the process in which they would be

17:55:48 obligated to comply with our code, and also, and I
17:55:52 know that the Planning Commission was aware that this
17:55:58 also potentially contained an environmentally
17:56:01 sensitive -- there is an overlay designation which
17:56:04 exists on these plan amendments until such time as
17:56:06 that is ultimately delineated by the appropriate
17:56:09 governmental entity.
17:56:10 And it would be the EPC, and probably department of
17:56:18 environmental protection.
17:56:19 I am not as familiar with those processes.
17:56:21 So all of those processes would be required prior to
17:56:24 any actual development occurring on this property.
17:56:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's say this is ten acres, and
17:56:32 let's say this goes to a certain density.
17:56:37 Maybe 60% of the land isn't developable, because it
17:56:40 has environmental concerns, would he be able to take
17:56:43 the total overall density projected for the property
17:56:47 and put it on the uplands or, you know, the 40% that
17:56:52 would be developable?
17:56:53 >>> There is an opportunity to do that under the
17:56:55 comprehensive plan, and I think it a percentage that
17:57:01 you can use for the areas that are construed as

17:57:05 environmentally sensitive.
17:57:06 And they would then have to comply with our code
17:57:08 because at that point they are in the development
17:57:10 stage.
17:57:11 Trees and all those issues.
17:57:14 >> I would just say to you, Mr. Bentley, that I prefer
17:57:16 this zoning to light industrial but I'm very concerned
17:57:19 about the trees and the wetlands, and that it looks to
17:57:26 me like this can be a very difficult parcel for
17:57:29 anyone's development, and I would not be supportive if
17:57:33 they came in and asked for a huge density on a tiny
17:57:36 portion of it because the majority of it isn't
17:57:38 developable.
17:57:39 I need to share that with you up front.
17:57:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?
17:57:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm looking at the section in this
17:57:51 document that Randy gave us of protection of wetlands,
17:57:55 and it says on there, there are one parcel, or one of
17:57:59 the amendments is 13.6 acres of environmental area,
17:58:04 and then the other one is 8.6.
17:58:07 So that's like 23.
17:58:09 How many acres are both of them together?

17:58:15 >>> 51 acres total.
17:58:18 They are in two separate sites.
17:58:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
17:58:21 Okay.
17:58:22 So there's your answer, Linda, as far as percentages
17:58:25 go.
17:58:26 It's not half but --
17:58:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Significant.
17:58:34 >>MARY MULHERN: A third at least.
17:58:37 And it says the conservation element.
17:58:40 Is that 3.1, is that our --
17:58:47 >>> Yes.
17:58:48 >> Okay.
17:58:48 Our comp plan?
17:58:49 >>> Yes.
17:58:50 >> So that says no net loss of wetlands, or other
17:58:53 surface water function.
17:58:57 Does that mean that they can't do -- Julia, I know
17:59:01 that you just answered this.
17:59:11 You are talking about a percentage?
17:59:15 >>JULIA COLE: If you have a portion of your property
17:59:17 that is con screwed as environmentally sensitive, any

17:59:20 property, and this would apply to whether or not the
17:59:23 comp plan amendment occurs or not, what would happen
17:59:26 is, say 50% of your property, say the property has 50
17:59:31 acres, 25 acres are unusable wetlands for the purpose
17:59:39 of some of these regulations.
17:59:41 I understand that you can't transfer the density from
17:59:45 one half to the other half as a one for won density
17:59:50 meaning there's a percentage of that density that you
17:59:53 can then, cluster development into the area, which is
17:59:59 able to be developed.
18:00:02 I just can't recall exactly what that percentage is.
18:00:09 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:00:11 Magic number is 25%.
18:00:12 If the amount of property on a parcel of land has 25%
18:00:16 or more of what's classified as environmentally
18:00:21 sensitive or wetlands area you factor in 1.25 versus
18:00:27 uplands on AP remaining parcel and that would be the
18:00:29 number you would use to calculate your density based
18:00:31 on whatever your density is allowable for particular
18:00:34 parcel.
18:00:34 >> And that's according to our --
18:00:36 >> To our comp plan?

18:00:37 >> Our comp plan.
18:00:39 It's interesting, because when you look at the
18:00:44 overhead as Mr. Steenson said, there's a lot of bought
18:00:47 there and it looks to me like that water would
18:00:49 represent whatever they are estimating, I mean.
18:00:58 What I'm trying to say is when they determine
18:01:00 environmentally sensitive lands, are they just
18:01:04 including what's, you know, liquid?
18:01:08 >>> There's a whole litany that includes certain types
18:01:12 of swamp lands, certain types of species that thrive
18:01:17 within wetland areas, and includes water bodies.
18:01:21 In this particular instance, as was stated in the
18:01:23 report, you will have regulatory agency come on-site
18:01:31 to go ahead and make a delineation. Site to determine
18:01:33 exactly at the end of the day exactly how many acres
18:01:36 will be determined to be environmentally sensitive
18:01:38 area.
18:01:39 In addition to that, when this property comes in for
18:01:42 rezoning, you will have your department come up, and
18:01:49 Ms. Bryson will be going on-site and also making a
18:01:51 determination as to the species that will be out
18:01:54 there.

18:01:56 The species that will be out there in addition to the
18:01:58 species in relationship to the species to the water
18:02:01 bodies, because as I understand the water bodies have
18:02:04 been there for about four decades.
18:02:06 I would just recall that H.you can't hold me to it but
18:02:09 I believe that's what was stated at the plan
18:02:10 amendment, because someone asked how long they had
18:02:13 been there.
18:02:14 That will factor into the appropriate agency
18:02:17 determining whether or not these are now considered
18:02:20 full-blown ecosystems.
18:02:23 And that's something that again will be determined by
18:02:25 the appropriate regulatory agency.
18:02:27 And of course when it gets down locally to Ms. Bryson,
18:02:30 who represent it is city over here and the city's
18:02:33 regulatory process.
18:02:34 >> Okay.
18:02:35 This is interesting to me, because I guess it's not
18:02:38 probably the same people we are looking -- Randy?
18:02:41 The same agencies we are looking at, this plan
18:02:44 amendment, as the DCA would have submitted rather you
18:02:55 submitting it direct will but is that the case that

18:02:57 the DCA doesn't look at the species or anything like
18:03:00 that?
18:03:02 >>> They will during the actual development of the
18:03:06 site plan.
18:03:10 The comments we receive from the agencies directed to
18:03:14 us to make sure that we were -- that we do have the
18:03:17 policies and procedures in place to address those
18:03:19 issues.
18:03:19 And Wan we reminded them is we do have policies in
18:03:23 place that say we will follow SWFWMD regulations, but
18:03:27 EPC's department regulations.
18:03:29 So we were just reaffirming back to the state agency
18:03:32 that he yes, we do have those policies in place that
18:03:35 you were looking for us.
18:03:36 >> It's just interesting to me that the real -- you
18:03:42 make a land use change and put off when you can see
18:03:44 this parcel, you know, these are two parcels of land.
18:03:47 It doesn't make sense to me that those considerations
18:03:52 aren't made -- and I know this is just the process we
18:03:56 have but seems like they should be made by all the
18:03:58 environmental agencies that supposedly look at this.
18:04:02 I guess it comes back to us in the end for zoning to

18:04:05 make those decisions.
18:04:13 My other question, and I don't know if anyone will
18:04:16 know but it doesn't look like there was ever light
18:04:18 industrial there.
18:04:18 >>> I'm not sure about that.
18:04:24 >> Pretty much rough land.
18:04:25 >> I don't know what the history of it, beyond my 20
18:04:30 years here in the city.
18:04:31 I don't know what was there a long time ago.
18:04:33 But it's vacant now.
18:04:34 >> So how did it get zoned light industrial?
18:04:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would guess many years ago it was
18:04:44 lands around the Air Force Base were designated
18:04:48 industrial, and were probably more industrial uses in
18:04:52 that area.
18:04:53 Whether or not this was one of them.
18:04:54 >> Everything stopped at that street.
18:04:59 >> Okay.
18:05:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You heard Mr. Steenson's question
18:05:12 about the --
18:05:16 >>> We are talking with respect to number 01.
18:05:21 According to my client the history is you see those

18:05:23 lakes.
18:05:24 Those are man made borrow lakes, the landing strips at
18:05:29 MacDill or Dale Mabry Highway.
18:05:31 I guess could you say the jury is still out to what
18:05:34 extent they are jurisdictional, okay?
18:05:36 And in terms of knowing that law, if they were
18:05:38 jurisdictional, and let's say the client wanted to
18:05:41 develop them, they would have to mitigate as a pretty
18:05:44 significant ratio, Ms. Mulhern.
18:05:46 It's not like a one for one type thing.
18:05:48 But that's not actually in the cards right now.
18:05:51 That's going through this process.
18:05:52 There was a lot of interest in developing the
18:05:55 property.
18:05:55 Primarily the northern half for residential
18:05:57 development because of its proximity to the base.
18:06:00 So jurisdictional land, even if we weren't rezoning
18:06:05 the property we have to go through rigorous zoning to
18:06:09 get through those wetland.
18:06:12 I wouldn't be too concerned about that.
18:06:14 This is kind of a big picture, is residential
18:06:16 appropriate at that location is the way I see it and

18:06:18 then it comes back to you to what degree is it
18:06:22 appropriate?
18:06:22 >> Now let me ask my question.
18:06:26 Do you have an idea how deep the borrow pits are?
18:06:28 >> No.
18:06:29 I am going to speculate.
18:06:32 I think I talked to bill, and George's real estate
18:06:36 development, and they were pretty deep.
18:06:38 They were like 30, 40 feet, something of that
18:06:40 magnitude.
18:06:41 >> And they are pretty good size.
18:06:43 So it's sort of hard for me to imagine the developer
18:06:48 going in and filling them.
18:06:51 >> We have already committed as a condition of
18:06:53 southeast quadrant, that's where we can convey the
18:06:56 easement to the City of Tampa.
18:06:58 We know nothing is happening there, you know.
18:07:00 That's all I can tell you.
18:07:01 >> I heard it.
18:07:03 I'm not overly concerned about this, because it will
18:07:05 come back in to some future City Council for a
18:07:10 rezoning, if and when, you know, it develops.

18:07:13 I think the protections are there right now and I'm
18:07:16 comfortable with it.
18:07:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Bentley, if would you share
18:07:26 with your client that this council is really
18:07:29 protective -- my memory serves there were major trees
18:07:33 on this parcel and we are going to think of very
18:07:36 protective terms.
18:07:37 >>> I understand.
18:07:41 Thank you very much.
18:07:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Move to close?
18:07:45 >> So moved.
18:07:46 >> Second.
18:07:56 (Motion carried).
18:07:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We do have.
18:08:09 >> To take action, council.
18:08:21 >> An ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan,
18:08:26 future land use element, future land use map, for the
18:08:28 property located in the following general vicinity of
18:08:29 Interbay Boulevard abutting MacDill Air Force Base
18:08:29 between Lois Avenue and Dale Mabry Highway, from light
18:08:31 industrial LI to community mixed use 35, CMU 35, and
18:08:36 potentially environmentally sensitive areas, ESA,

18:08:38 providing for additional conditions of the
18:08:43 development, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
18:08:45 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
18:08:47 effective date.
18:08:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded Pi
18:08:53 councilman Caetano.
18:08:54 (Motion carried)
18:08:55 Do we need to --
18:08:57 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
18:09:00 Second reading and adoption will be August 21st at
18:09:03 9:30 a.m.
18:09:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 2.
18:09:07 Do you have item 2 associated with this?
18:09:10 >> Future land use element, future land use map for
18:09:18 the property located in the general vicinity of Dale
18:09:20 Mabry highway, Sterling Avenue south of inner bay
18:09:24 Boulevard, from light industrial LI 2 community mixed
18:09:27 use 35, CMU 35, and potentially environmentally
18:09:32 sensitive area ESA providing for additional conditions
18:09:35 for development, providing for repeal of all
18:09:38 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
18:09:40 providing an effective date.

18:09:40 >> Second.
18:09:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
18:09:46 All in favor?
18:09:48 Opposed same sign?
18:09:50 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
18:09:52 Second reading and adoption will be on August 21st
18:09:56 at 9:30 a.m.
18:09:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
18:09:59 We need to take up the item of the firefighters
18:10:03 contract.
18:10:04 We originally discussed August 20th and it's my
18:10:14 anticipation we will have a full board on the
18:10:17 20th.
18:10:19 So the alternative Davis have been suggested is August
18:10:22 18th, is a Monday morning at 9 a.m., or the
18:10:25 19th at 1:30 p.m
18:10:29 So, council, what is your pleasure?
18:10:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I make a motion to Monday morning at
18:10:35 9 a.m.
18:10:35 >> On the 18th?
18:10:36 >> The 18th.
18:10:37 >> Is everybody's calendar clear for that?

18:10:40 >> Does anybody need to check their calendars to be
18:10:44 certain?
18:10:44 >> Real quick.
18:10:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: While they are doing, that let get
18:10:56 have been sworn in for the other items that are here.
18:10:59 So we'll just table that motion.
18:11:01 If you are going to address council tonight, will you
18:11:05 stand and raise your right hand?
18:11:06 If you will be addressing council, if you will be
18:11:09 speaking tonight to council, you have to be sworn in.
18:11:11 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:11:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that City
18:11:18 Council receive and file those documents for tonight's
18:11:24 hearing which have been available in for public
18:11:26 inspection at City Council office prior to taking
18:11:28 action.
18:11:29 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
18:11:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A second?
18:11:34 >> Second.
18:11:34 (Motion carried).
18:11:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Secondly, if you have had any
18:11:38 ex parte communication was any party relating to any

18:11:41 of the hearings tonight, please disclose the sum and
18:11:43 substance with whom the communication occurred, prior
18:11:46 to the vote.
18:11:47 Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I put a sign up there
18:11:49 to remind you, if you could, please, if you do
18:11:52 remember, please reaffirm for the record that you have
18:11:54 been sworn.
18:11:55 There is a sign-up sheet outside.
18:11:58 And on the wall it explains council's policies.
18:12:00 If you could, and you do intend to speak, if you could
18:12:03 be sure on your way out, if you have not signed that
18:12:06 sign-in sheet for the clerk's record, if you could
18:12:08 please sign the sign-in sheet, if you do speak
18:12:11 tonight.
18:12:12 Thank you.
18:12:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder?
18:12:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The 20th?
18:12:23 >> Monday morning the 18th at 9 a.m. in the
18:12:25 morning.
18:12:26 So, council, are we fine with administration?
18:12:30 Okay.
18:12:32 Need to confirm with administration on that Monday

18:12:34 morning as well.
18:12:38 Could staff review our agenda while we are doing that?
18:12:41 We have a number of continuances that we need to look
18:12:44 at.
18:12:44 So let's clear the agenda for those items.
18:12:47 Council, we only have about six items tonight.
18:12:50 We don't have to be here till midnight.
18:12:53 I hope that we stay focused and be direct.
18:12:56 In our questions.
18:12:57 And not too long a meeting unnecessarily.
18:13:01 If you all cooperate with me and I cooperate with you
18:13:03 and the public cooperates, we can be done by 8:00.
18:13:18 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Land Development Coordination.
18:13:21 I passed out the agenda.
18:13:22 And I just like to go through the items briefly.
18:13:25 Items number 4 and 5 are requested to be rescheduled
18:13:31 to September 11th.
18:13:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open item number 4.
18:13:34 >>: Second.
18:13:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's do 4 and 5.
18:13:40 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:13:43 Opposes?

18:13:43 Okay.
18:13:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: September 11th, 6 p.m.
18:13:50 >>GWEN MILLER: September 11, 6 p.m.
18:13:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:14:01 Okay.
18:14:01 Motion?
18:14:03 All in favor okay, 4 and 5 continued to September 11,
18:14:12 6 p.m.
18:14:13 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Item number 10, we request -- the
18:14:17 petitioner would like to request a continuance to
18:14:19 August 28th, 2008.
18:14:23 That would be the next available hearing date.
18:14:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open.
18:14:25 >> Second.
18:14:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's on 10 and 11.
18:14:30 They are both requesting a continuance.
18:14:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion to continue 10 and 11 to
18:14:35 August 20th 28 at 6 p.m.
18:14:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone that wishes to address council
18:14:48 on the continuance?
18:14:48 Anyone that wishes to be speak to the continuance?
18:14:51 Seeing none, nobody wants to say anything.

18:14:53 Thank you.
18:14:54 Okay, there's a motion first to open on 10 and 11.
18:14:58 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:15:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What is the date and time?
18:15:03 >>GWEN MILLER: 10-8.
18:15:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion made by councilman Miller to
18:15:15 continue these two items, seconded by Mulhern.
18:15:17 (Motion carried).
18:15:19 That's on 10 and 11.
18:15:20 So the items that are remaining are items 3, 6, 7, 8,
18:15:27 9, and 12.
18:15:29 Am I right?
18:15:30 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Yes.
18:15:31 Thank you.
18:15:33 >> Did you confirm anything with administration yet?
18:15:39 Okay then.
18:15:40 >>THE CLERK: Was that date September the 18th?
18:15:43 Because there was a civil service board hearing at
18:15:45 1:30 p.m. in the chambers.
18:15:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll be through.
18:15:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We'll be through by then.
18:15:57 >> So the 18th at what time?

18:16:00 >>GWEN MILLER: 9 a.m.
18:16:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 9 a.m.
18:16:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's on the motion that we just
18:16:07 made, right?
18:16:09 >>THE CLERK: No, on the firefighters.
18:16:11 >>CHAIRMAN: That's what we are waiting to hear from.
18:16:15 Item number 3.
18:16:20 Staff.
18:16:32 >>> Abbye Feeley.
18:16:34 She just stepped outside.
18:16:35 But I want to indicate there is a substitute ordinance
18:16:37 on this adding conditions as discussed at previous
18:16:42 hearings and I'm going to go ahead and hand those to
18:16:44 the clerk.
18:16:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we agree to take this up first, so
18:16:48 everything has been done, so we pretty much just need
18:16:52 to have staff then give us an overview and then we can
18:16:54 go ahead and take action, is that correct?
18:16:57 So item number 3.
18:17:07 >>> Item number 3, the bungalow bistro wet zoning, it
18:17:11 was my understanding at the last herring on July
18:17:13 17th that council had closed the public hearing

18:17:16 and was going to take a vote once the substitute
18:17:18 ordinance was provided by legal per direction of
18:17:21 council.
18:17:21 I believe those conditions have been added.
18:17:24 Staff and the zoning administrator reviewed those
18:17:26 conditions, and also we did hear from Mrs. Long with
18:17:32 the neighborhood association saying they were fine
18:17:33 with the conditions.
18:17:34 Staff is available for any questions.
18:17:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
18:17:40 Do you have any questions?
18:17:41 I thought you had -- okay.
18:17:43 Yes, sir?
18:17:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to make a quick
18:17:46 disclosure, because of an ex parte conversation.
18:17:51 Somebody came up to me when I was walk ugh out of the
18:17:54 building whenever I was here last time on this issue
18:17:56 and just started talking, and there wasn't really time
18:17:59 to stop them talking so that's why I want to disclose
18:18:02 but basically what they said was, they said, did now
18:18:06 that half the people spoke in favor of these longer
18:18:08 hours, et cetera, where employees of the bistro.

18:18:12 Now whether or not that's true or not I don't know.
18:18:15 It doesn't matter to me.
18:18:16 I voted against it anyway because of the hours.
18:18:18 But the only point I'm making is not only am I
18:18:21 disclosing that ex parte communication but we have a
18:18:24 rule, I believe, I think Mr. Miranda, councilman
18:18:27 Miranda, put forth, that says that if you have a
18:18:31 particular interest in a project that you need to
18:18:34 disclose that, and I think it's have been posted
18:18:37 perhaps.
18:18:37 So I just want to remind people, everybody, not just
18:18:41 on this petition, but anybody who is listening or
18:18:44 cares, that that is our council rules, that we don't,
18:18:47 you know, if you are an employee, fine.
18:18:49 If you are friends, fine.
18:18:50 If you are neighbors, fine.
18:18:51 But at least give council the benefit of what your
18:18:54 interest is.
18:18:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Or if you own a business in the
18:18:58 adjacent area, also.
18:19:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All sorts of stuff.
18:19:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can read the council rule.

18:19:06 And perhaps council would like the rule read at each
18:19:10 hearing if that's council's desire.
18:19:11 But the rule does state, and that's rule 6-G, all
18:19:16 persons who provide testimony, information or opinion
18:19:18 regarding a pet in a quasi-judicial matter such as a
18:19:22 rezoning pending before City Council, must disclose
18:19:25 any direct or indirect business or personal interest
18:19:28 between themselves and the petitioner, or applicant,
18:19:30 which is requesting action.
18:19:32 The information shall not be used to deny the petition
18:19:36 or matter that goes to the weight of the evidence,
18:19:39 information or opinion provided.
18:19:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
18:19:42 Motion to close, item 3.
18:19:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
18:19:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor.
18:19:49 (Motion carried).
18:19:51 Councilwoman Mulhern, do you want to read the
18:19:53 ordinance?
18:19:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Are we going to vote these on one
18:20:00 vote?
18:20:01 >> Item 3.

18:20:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A single petition.
18:20:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we separate them?
18:20:09 >> No.
18:20:15 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:20:16 It's presented in one petition and is brought to you
18:20:18 in one ordinance.
18:20:21 It's presented to you as one petition, and it is --
18:20:27 the entire part is within one ordinance.
18:20:30 So you just read the one ordinance and vote on that.
18:20:35 >> I move an ordinance making lawful the sale of
18:20:37 beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine
18:20:39 and liquor, 4(COP-X), for consumption on premises only
18:20:43 at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
18:20:46 located at 5137 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida,
18:20:50 and beverages containing alcohol not more than 1% by
18:20:56 weight and not more than 14% weight beer and wine
18:21:00 2(COP) for consumption on premises and in sealed
18:21:02 containers for consumption off premises at or from
18:21:04 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at
18:21:08 5135 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, said
18:21:11 property more particularly described in section 2
18:21:14 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance

18:21:17 based upon certain findings, imposing certain
18:21:20 conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
18:21:22 conflict, providing an effective date.
18:21:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion made by Councilwoman Mulhern,
18:21:28 seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
18:21:32 All in favor?
18:21:34 Opposes?
18:21:34 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried -- motion did not carry.
18:21:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion carried.
18:21:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It carried.
18:21:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you want a hand vote?
18:21:46 >>THE CLERK: That might help, yes.
18:21:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
18:21:52 Opposed?
18:21:52 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent,
18:21:55 Dingfelder and Caetano voting no. Second reading and
18:21:58 adoption will be on August 2121stst at 9:30
18:22:02 a.m.
18:22:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 6.
18:22:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open.
18:22:07 >> Second.
18:22:08 (Motion carried)

18:22:37 >> This is the revised staff report.
18:22:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order,
18:22:45 if I could ask your opinion, I have been a patient --
18:22:49 a patient?
18:22:50 I have been a patient of this veterinary hospital.
18:22:53 [ Laughter ]
18:22:57 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree with that.
18:22:59 >> Really?
18:23:00 [ Laughter ]
18:23:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My dog has been a patient of this
18:23:05 veterinary hospital since probably around when it
18:23:07 opened, Dr. Avery, I think, and subsequently Dr.
18:23:10 Candless, he's here.
18:23:13 And other than that, you know, and I'm still a
18:23:16 patient.
18:23:19 Our family is still a patient of Dr. Candless.
18:23:25 That's the extent of my relationship with the
18:23:27 petitioner but I want to make sure we didn't feel that
18:23:30 was any reason to recuse.
18:23:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire, Mr. Dingfelder?
18:23:36 Do you have any financial interest in the outcome of
18:23:40 this petition?

18:23:44 >> I don't think he's going to charge any more or less
18:23:47 so I would say no.
18:23:49 >> And the second question would be, do you feel that
18:23:51 you would be able to render a fair decision, impartial
18:23:54 decision based on competent, substantial evidence in
18:23:56 the record?
18:23:57 >>> Yes, I do.
18:23:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I see no conflict based on the facts
18:24:01 I have before me, and subject to that I believe you
18:24:03 are required to vote.
18:24:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
18:24:10 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Land Development Coordination, and I
18:24:13 have been sworn.
18:24:13 The next item on tonight's agenda is petition number
18:24:18 Z-08-23 for the property at 2412 and 2413 west north A
18:24:28 street.
18:24:29 Proposed special use is parking off-street commercial.
18:24:31 Petitioner is requesting a special use for an
18:24:33 off-street commercial parking lot to provide required
18:24:37 off-street parking for the parking use south of the
18:24:41 site.
18:24:41 Property is separated from the existing commercial use

18:24:44 alley that will be used as an access to the off-site
18:24:47 parking.
18:24:47 Land use is adjacent to the site include residential
18:24:50 to the east, north, and west, and commercial to the
18:24:53 south.
18:24:57 And I have an atlas of the area.
18:25:05 This is the property that is in green.
18:25:10 Tampania is west of the site, and north bay is north.
18:25:14 This is Kennedy, south of the site.
18:25:23 And this is an aerial of the site.
18:25:33 And this is a site on Tampania and north A.
18:25:39 This is a view of the site on Tampania.
18:25:42 And this is the entrance into the site.
18:25:48 This is the commercial site, the south of it.
18:25:51 Another view on Kennedy.
18:25:56 This is southwest of the site at the corner of
18:25:59 Tampania and Kennedy.
18:26:02 West of the site.
18:26:07 Northwest of the site.
18:26:09 North of the site.
18:26:11 And this is east of the site.
18:26:14 The development review committee has reviewed the

18:26:21 petition and transportation finds the request
18:26:23 inconsistent with City of Tampa Land Development Code,
18:26:27 and it was basically due to the fact that the code
18:26:32 requires the property to access the street and not an
18:26:34 alley, and then this site of course has the access to
18:26:37 the alley.
18:26:38 That's transportation's inconsistency.
18:26:41 And Land Development Coordination requests the change
18:26:43 on the plan, and it's to remove waiver request number
18:26:47 2 and add as note number 18 under general note
18:26:50 section.
18:26:53 And that concludes staff's presentation.
18:26:56 If you have questions.
18:26:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18:26:59 So it seems to me if our goal is to protect the
18:27:07 neighborhood, which it seems to me our goal should be,
18:27:10 that it would be better to access from the alley
18:27:14 rather than from the residential street, north A
18:27:17 street.
18:27:18 So I don't know if logic allows to weigh in with
18:27:24 transportation but it seems to me this is better
18:27:26 coming off the alley than impacting the neighborhood.

18:27:28 So, anyway, if we ignore transportation's objection,
18:27:31 and they make the change on the note and the site
18:27:33 plan, then would staff recommend approval?
18:27:37 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Yes, ma'am.
18:27:39 That's correct.
18:27:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Other questions by council?
18:27:44 Planning Commission?
18:27:45 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:27:50 And I have not been sworn in.
18:27:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else here has not been sworn?
18:27:56 Anyone else has not been sworn?
18:27:57 Okay.
18:28:02 (Oath administered by Clerk) now, Mr. Shelby, I have
18:28:09 been sworn in.
18:28:14 Going to this establishment for 30 years.
18:28:28 As far as the location is concerned, this has been a
18:28:30 long-standing community, this veterinary clinic for
18:28:38 over 50 years, serves quite a few people in the area.
18:28:42 So as far as the parcel in question, let me give you a
18:28:49 couple of aspects as far as the uses.
18:28:52 Urban mixed use, 35 over on Armenia.
18:28:59 The primary use is located right over here, a little

18:29:06 perspective right here.
18:29:07 Ms. Saul-Sena has pointed out as far as access to my
18:29:10 knowledge, and that lot has been back there serving as
18:29:13 that functioning as an ancillary parking to this site
18:29:16 for I think at least 20 years, and I know that most of
18:29:19 the cars that do currently use that particular parking
18:29:24 lot do access it from the existing alley, and I think
18:29:28 it's been functioning, and I guess I can personally
18:29:31 attest to that from going there quite a few times that
18:29:34 it functions rather well, as an ingress egress point.
18:29:40 The request is consistent with policy that is deal
18:29:43 with parking lots, as far as being able to be designed
18:29:46 and minimize the impact to residential neighborhoods.
18:29:49 They have met all the requirements under site plan as
18:29:52 far as buffering and screening.
18:29:53 And I have spoken with their legal council regarding
18:29:56 any off-site lighting impacts, because the site will
18:29:59 be lit.
18:30:01 I believe there will be some language which will be
18:30:03 integrated before second reading for the parcel to
18:30:06 ensure that there is any safety issues can be
18:30:10 addressed for employees that do stay there during the

18:30:17 evening hours.
18:30:18 They might have to work later during shifts, because
18:30:20 that is required at some points in time due to the
18:30:24 nature of this particular business.
18:30:25 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
18:30:28 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
18:30:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Anyone here in
18:30:34 opposition to this petition?
18:30:35 Anyone here in opposition?
18:30:41 Anyone here in the gray area that don't know?
18:30:47 Do you want to state your name and address?
18:30:49 >>GINA GRIMES: Law firm of hill ward and Henderson.
18:30:54 >> Do you want to add anything else to your
18:30:55 presentation?
18:30:56 >> I would like to simply put into the record our
18:30:58 presentation material.
18:30:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:31:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:31:15 Motion?
18:31:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance approving a special
18:31:27 use permit S-2 special parking in an multifamily
18:31:33 zoning district in the general vicinity of 2412 and

18:31:38 2414 west north A street in the city of Tampa, Florida
18:31:42 and as more particularly described in section 1 hereof
18:31:46 approving waivers as set forth herein providing an
18:31:49 effective date.
18:31:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion by councilman Caetano, seconded
18:31:53 by Councilwoman Mulhern.
18:31:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to speak after he would pass
18:31:58 the motion.
18:31:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
18:32:01 Opposes?
18:32:01 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being accent,
18:32:04 Saul-Sena being absent at vote, second reading and
18:32:07 adoption will be on August 21st at 9:30 a.m.
18:32:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
18:32:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to say that since it
18:32:15 passed unanimously, I felt comfortable saying it, but
18:32:18 Tampa veterinary folks especially Dr. Avery who is now
18:32:21 gone, Dr. Samuel, Dr. Webster, are just the most
18:32:26 wonderful people and they are beloved by this
18:32:28 community and we appreciate all their wonderful work
18:32:30 over the years.
18:32:31 Thank you.

18:32:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we move to item number 7 we
18:32:45 need to take up the wet zoning from this morning.
18:32:47 I believe the clerk has the substitute ordinance.
18:33:01 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Gina, what is the difference in
18:33:03 this ordinance and the other one?
18:33:05 >>> The difference was the agreed-to condition by the
18:33:13 petitioner's representative to not have single sales,
18:33:18 is my understanding.
18:33:23 >> Because of the glass containers?
18:33:25 >> It could be glass but I believe he agreed it
18:33:27 wouldn't be single unit sales, that they be six packs
18:33:31 or whatever.
18:33:31 That was Mr. Michelini's presentation.
18:33:34 >> The one you talked about that we heard, the small
18:33:37 business people.
18:33:39 All right.
18:33:39 Want to read the ordinance?
18:33:41 >> An ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 for
18:33:45 alcoholic beverage sales, small venue, and making
18:33:48 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
18:33:52 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
18:33:56 and wines regardless of alcohol content beer and wine,

18:34:00 2(APS), in sealed containers for consumption off
18:34:03 premises only at or from that certain plot, lot or
18:34:10 tract of land located at 1718 west Main Street, Tampa,
18:34:13 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
18:34:17 hereof, approving waivers as set forth herein
18:34:22 approving certain conditions providing for repeal of
18:34:25 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
18:34:26 date.
18:34:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And a second?
18:34:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I believe, Mr. Caetano, this
18:34:33 motion is for second reading and adoption.
18:34:36 Is that correct?
18:34:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
18:34:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And are you going to take a roll call
18:34:41 vote for purposes of second reading?
18:34:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
18:34:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by councilman Caetano, seconded
18:34:57 by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
18:35:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You might have said this H.I
18:35:03 stepped out for a second.
18:35:04 Condition was add board of director no singles?
18:35:08 >> While you were gone we sneaked it in.

18:35:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We put it in, yeah.
18:35:16 [ Laughter ]
18:35:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Conditions?
18:35:24 I don't think I see it.
18:35:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who did that today, Rebecca?
18:35:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It says here that it shall not sell a
18:35:49 sipping will can, single bottles or quart bottles
18:35:55 regardless of alcoholic content.
18:35:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's what was requested.
18:35:59 Okay.
18:36:00 Are you going to do roll call?
18:36:03 >>THE CLERK: Voice roll call with Miranda being
18:36:07 absent.
18:36:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
18:36:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
18:36:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
18:36:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
18:36:12 >>MARY MULHERN: No.
18:36:13 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
18:36:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent
18:36:20 and Mulhern voting no.
18:36:23 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Dingfelder, can I ask you a

18:36:27 question?
18:36:28 It was your request because of the glass containers,
18:36:31 is that it?
18:36:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
18:36:33 My request -- and I'll just state it generically
18:36:36 because I don't favor the sale of singles really
18:36:40 anywhere.
18:36:41 It encourages drinking in the street.
18:36:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.
18:36:45 >> The brown bag syndrome.
18:36:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, we need to go back, again we
18:36:51 seem to have a problem again with the firefighters
18:36:54 coming before us.
18:36:56 It is my understanding administration said that the
18:36:58 18th and 19th will not work, that the best
18:37:03 dates for them is the 20th.
18:37:04 However, I want to have a full council, and
18:37:08 Councilwoman Mulhern cannot be here on the 20th.
18:37:11 That's my understanding.
18:37:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can you be here at 1:30 in the
18:37:14 afternoon, Ms. Mulhern?
18:37:16 >>MARY MULHERN: I have to check my calendar.

18:37:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's the one on the --
18:37:21 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know what time.
18:37:23 I have a board meeting but I don't know what time.
18:37:25 I have to look at my calendar.
18:37:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open item number 7.
18:37:32 >> Second.
18:37:33 (Motion carried).
18:37:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 7.
18:38:09 >> Petition Z 08-42 for the property located at 10701
18:38:14 north Nebraska Avenue and 904 east Seneca Avenue.
18:38:19 Property is currently zoned RS-50 residential
18:38:21 single-family and the request is to rezone to a PD
18:38:24 planned development.
18:38:25 The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property
18:38:27 from RS-50 to PD planned development to allow for a
18:38:31 business professional office use.
18:38:34 The 5,250 square foot site contains an existing 1850
18:38:38 square foot storage building which will remain.
18:38:41 The petitioner proposed to convert the existing
18:38:44 storage building into an office for the commercial use
18:38:46 located west of the site.
18:38:49 The PD setbacks are as follows.

18:38:51 North and east, zero feet.
18:38:53 West, two feet.
18:38:55 And south, 66 feet.
18:38:57 A total of seven parking spaces are required and five
18:39:00 parking spaces are being provided.
18:39:05 And I have the zoning atlas of the local area.
18:39:15 This is the site in green on Seneca.
18:39:20 And just west of the site.
18:39:22 Here's Nebraska.
18:39:25 And there's been recent PD activity along the site on
18:39:31 Holland and a recent PD.
18:39:36 This is an area of the site.
18:39:45 This is the site on Seneca.
18:39:51 This is the commercial use which is west of the site.
18:39:56 Another view of that commercial use that's on the
18:39:59 Nebraska.
18:40:02 Another view of the site.
18:40:06 This is west of the site on Nebraska.
18:40:11 West of the site.
18:40:14 Further west on Nebraska.
18:40:18 This is north of the site.
18:40:23 This is east of the site.

18:40:25 And south of the site.
18:40:29 >> Would you slide that up a little bit?
18:40:32 >>> I'm sorry.
18:40:35 The development review committee has reviewed the
18:40:42 petition, and finds it inconsistent with applicable
18:40:44 City of Tampa land development regulations.
18:40:47 However, the applicant revise it is site plan with the
18:40:50 required notes, the site plan revisions between first
18:40:53 and second reading, the DRC will amend its
18:40:56 determination and find the petition consistent.
18:41:02 I have also included a revision sheet with packet.
18:41:09 The changes requested are from Land Development
18:41:10 Coordination and the site data section please add the
18:41:14 building setbacks for the north, south, west and east,
18:41:16 and please remove waiver number 4.
18:41:20 Transportation department adds the following waiver,
18:41:23 section 27-246-J, to allow access to a local street,
18:41:28 which is Seneca Avenue, and remove note number 15, and
18:41:33 add the following waiver.
18:41:35 Section 22-103, City Council approval to pay in lieu
18:41:41 fee instead of placing a sidewalk on Seneca Avenue.
18:41:45 Stormwater will request the following note in place of

18:41:48 note number 8.
18:41:49 At the time of permitting the developer will abide by
18:41:51 the following stormwater requirements.
18:41:53 The developer will retain on-site the first one half
18:41:57 inch of stormwater run-off with no credit given for
18:42:01 the impervious areas.
18:42:03 Landscape specialists request the following note for
18:42:06 section 13-155-D.
18:42:09 Developer will request waiver to pay in tree bank for
18:42:13 trees not able to plant on-site.
18:42:15 And correct planning note number 9 by removing the
18:42:18 portion of the note that states there are no off-site
18:42:22 trees, and correct planning note number 10 by removing
18:42:25 waiver of buffer width.
18:42:29 And that concludes staff's presentation.
18:42:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
18:42:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I see from the aerial photo that it
18:42:39 does not appear that there are any sidewalks on that
18:42:42 side of Seneca.
18:42:43 But I think it's a little unusual that we would be
18:42:46 waiving it during the PD process.
18:43:01 Not completely without precedent.

18:43:03 What's the story on the sidewalk?
18:43:04 >> I believe they requested to have that waiver due to
18:43:07 transportation's code.
18:43:08 And I think that was the request from the
18:43:11 transportation department.
18:43:11 If I can check with them.
18:43:17 >> I see Mrs. Melanie hiding in the back behind hiding
18:43:22 behind her paperwork.
18:43:23 >> I think they have the request at this time.
18:43:28 >> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
18:43:37 Here's an aerial of the property.
18:43:41 There's no sidewalk there.
18:43:44 The street and sidewalk, chapter 22.
18:43:47 It gives them the ability if they don't want to place
18:43:50 the sidewalk, they have the ability to ask City
18:43:53 Council if they could pay the in lieu fee, instead of
18:43:59 after applying for the in lieu fee they do have the
18:44:01 ability if they can pay the in lieu fee instead of
18:44:04 placing the sidewalk, and they are saying in this
18:44:06 little portion right here.
18:44:12 That's like 50-foot of frontage right there.
18:44:17 >> That's not something you guys are asking for?

18:44:20 >> No.
18:44:20 >> They are asking for it?
18:44:21 >> Yes.
18:44:22 >> Thanks.
18:44:27 >> Planning Commission.
18:44:28 Mr. Garcia.
18:44:33 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18:44:35 Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.
18:44:37 I have been sworn.
18:44:46 >> There are two appraise dominant land use
18:44:48 categories.
18:44:50 Where this particular site is located.
18:44:52 On Nebraska we, supports all these commercial
18:44:56 district.
18:44:57 Neighborhood commercial, general commercial,
18:44:59 commercial intensive.
18:45:00 The site in question, the land use category is
18:45:04 residential 20.
18:45:05 You can see it's directly off of Nebraska Avenue.
18:45:09 As Ms. Dock has already pointed out to you this
18:45:11 evening, you have already had some rezoning activity
18:45:14 in this area, in the last several months, has approved

18:45:17 this particular parcel over here, to the south of
18:45:23 Chilokuth, directly centered over here between the two
18:45:32 properties we are talking about, or between the former
18:45:34 PD, the PD before you this evening.
18:45:39 Let me go ahead and show you.
18:45:43 This site basically uses the support, for the primary
18:45:47 use of what we have been able to garner from the
18:45:50 application, from the applicant.
18:45:51 This was basically used for storage that will now be
18:45:54 used for an office, as it's requested on the report.
18:46:00 The footprint will not are changing.
18:46:04 Reason for the waiver is obviously you have an
18:46:05 existing structure on the site.
18:46:07 But the site being residential 20, it does meet
18:46:11 locational criteria as it is within 250 feet of a
18:46:14 collector road or higher, and as already stated and as
18:46:18 Ms. Dock stated you have already approved the
18:46:20 residential office use a block to the south, and I
18:46:26 think the one to the south is going to be a little bit
18:46:29 higher intensity.
18:46:30 Basically your footprint is there.
18:46:31 The structure exists.

18:46:32 I do believe that the residential unit adjacent to
18:46:35 this one is also owned by the applicant, the parcel to
18:46:39 the east is owned by the applicant that's submitting
18:46:41 the request this evening for this parcel.
18:46:42 And that they are providing whatever is needed as far
18:46:46 as mitigating whatever impacts, any adjacent
18:46:49 residential uses that are proximate to the site.
18:46:54 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
18:46:57 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
18:46:58 >> Any other questions, council?
18:47:00 >> Thank you.
18:47:00 I have a question for transportation.
18:47:06 If you come up.
18:47:06 I'm looking at this site.
18:47:08 And it appears that this building supports the other
18:47:11 building that fronts on Nebraska and has direct
18:47:14 transportation access onto Nebraska, and wants to
18:47:20 protect the neighborhood.
18:47:21 So could we not close the access onto Seneca and just
18:47:26 have access into and out from Nebraska?
18:47:30 >>> As you see they are asking for that waiver.
18:47:34 Melanie Calloway, transportation.

18:47:36 And they are asking for that access to the local
18:47:39 street waiver.
18:47:42 In the aerial --
18:47:44 >> I can see that.
18:47:45 What I am asking you as a transportation professional,
18:47:47 don't you think they could adequately use just the
18:47:51 Nebraska access?
18:47:54 >>> They do have cross-access available, because they
18:47:58 are under the same ownership.
18:47:59 >> Well, that's my point exactly, because I don't want
18:48:03 this to be sold off and be a separate use and just be
18:48:06 dependent on Seneca which is a local residential
18:48:09 street rather than Nebraska which is a commercial
18:48:11 street.
18:48:11 So what I would like the petitioner to address, when
18:48:15 they come up here, is I don't have a problem with the
18:48:21 use, but I do have a problem with the commercial
18:48:23 access onto Seneca.
18:48:25 And since the two parcels are under the same
18:48:27 ownership, had I don't see why they can't use the
18:48:30 Nebraska Avenue access point.
18:48:32 >>> The petitioner might be able to answer that better

18:48:35 for you than I could.
18:48:36 >> But from your standpoint --
18:48:38 >>> Yes, we are objecting to that.
18:48:40 We do find it inconsistent.
18:48:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
18:48:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
18:48:44 >>> Michael Horner, 14502 North Dale Mabry highway
18:48:54 suite 200 representing the petitioner Tammy and Bryan
18:49:01 Harre.
18:49:03 I have been sworn.
18:49:05 We have been in this process about two and a half
18:49:08 years.
18:49:09 And I'm thankful to staff to try to find a solution,
18:49:13 essentially trying to conform the structure that
18:49:16 unbeknownst to my client is zoned RS-50.
18:49:19 Some years ago he purchased this property, was
18:49:22 represented even in the appraisal report as all CG.
18:49:25 He had this structure in place, 1850 square feet, used
18:49:29 for storage, unfortunately two of the four walls
18:49:33 started to deteriorate.
18:49:35 He replaced them.
18:49:38 He was cited.

18:49:39 He was surprised by the citation.
18:49:41 Now it's gotten to the point each after structural
18:49:43 engineers and de facto permitting, everybody has been
18:49:47 essentially resolved in their conflict except for the
18:49:50 zoning issue.
18:49:52 So now my client finds himself in a position where
18:49:56 don't we just rezone all of it? It's now
18:49:58 nonconforming in the air conditioning business.
18:50:00 I sat down with Tony six months ago, and Tony said,
18:50:04 R-20, I can't support any commercial zoning on the
18:50:07 back portion.
18:50:08 My client and I sat down and we said, the best way to
18:50:11 resolve this, we think, and be as fair as possible to
18:50:14 all parties, is simply convert that existing structure
18:50:19 to an office use, and what that would do is allow his
18:50:22 internal office component to go into that structure,
18:50:26 because they are working right there, and now all the
18:50:28 air conditioning equipment will now go back into the
18:50:31 warehouse, from an economies of scale seems to make
18:50:35 sense, sat back down with Tony and staff, we filed for
18:50:38 I think an RO, said I can't support an RO because of
18:50:42 some of the waiver issues.

18:50:43 We want went to PD, filed the PD, now we stand before
18:50:47 you.
18:50:47 So the good news is nothing has changed, it's only
18:50:50 going to be more improvement in terms of the open
18:50:52 space, the pervious service, the tree preservation
18:50:57 efforts.
18:50:58 On point to your question, Mrs. Saul-Sena, my
18:51:00 client -- the driveway has been there forever and a
18:51:03 day that it made sense to maintain it.
18:51:07 He's going to pave it.
18:51:08 He's going to maintain the tree island, put in
18:51:10 additional landscape buffering on top of that access
18:51:12 line, it would just make sense to the building for his
18:51:15 employees.
18:51:16 That was why we asked for the waiver.
18:51:18 I wasn't aware of an objection quite honestly.
18:51:21 I knew it was found inconsistent but not a strong
18:51:23 objection.
18:51:23 We do have notes to place on this property, which
18:51:28 there was no objection to.
18:51:29 You can see on the site, if I can just zoom in a
18:51:35 little bit.

18:51:35 This is all designated as light industrial currently.
18:51:39 In the land use information system.
18:51:41 My client has indicated, acquired a base
18:51:44 representation.
18:51:45 This is the plan that we came up with.
18:51:48 Zoom back out.
18:51:52 And you can see, this would all now become paved, but
18:51:55 we would maintain these tree island, maintain green
18:51:58 space planning, restore this buffer, maintain that
18:52:01 same site, maintain access to the west, and the
18:52:07 sidewalk, councilman Dingfelder with, these 36-inch
18:52:11 oaks and the ponds it didn't make a lot of sense to
18:52:13 force a sidewalk in the front right-of-way area.
18:52:16 My client I think has done a number of good things for
18:52:19 this neighborhood.
18:52:19 He's been a game player for years, and trying to
18:52:22 contribute to charities.
18:52:26 As a token of a good faith gesture, the property owner
18:52:29 to the east, there was a death in the family, the
18:52:35 owner passed, the heirs came to my client and said
18:52:39 it's a mess, we don't want to deal with this, would
18:52:41 you acquire this property?

18:52:42 Do you have an interest?
18:52:43 My client doesn't have any interest in that
18:52:45 single-family house.
18:52:47 He purchased to the bail them out of their situation.
18:52:49 I know we have a zero set back on the east side, an
18:52:51 entire lot to the east is owned by my client.
18:52:54 So I'm trying to tell you we are conform to the
18:52:57 closest extent possible.
18:52:58 Turning into an office, we are right next to HC 24.
18:53:02 I really think it's the best situation we can make it
18:53:05 right now.
18:53:07 To tell you the truth, he's even been -- he went for
18:53:11 refinancing on his house in north Tampa, and precluded
18:53:14 the refinancing, the lien filings on this property for
18:53:19 the nonconforming Cord Enforcement Board action.
18:53:22 So we want this resolved.
18:53:23 Is the city has been most gracious.
18:53:25 I don't think we had any opposition.
18:53:27 We appreciate your support.
18:53:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we have anyone from the public?
18:53:33 Anyone from the public want to address council on this
18:53:36 rezoning?

18:53:37 Anyone from the public?
18:53:38 Okay.
18:53:39 Council member Mulhern and Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
18:53:48 >>MARY MULHERN: My question is, do you own that house?
18:53:51 >> I'm sorry?
18:53:52 >> Your Clint owns the house to the east on Seneca?
18:53:55 >> He does.
18:53:56 Yes, ma'am.
18:53:56 >> And they are still -- they are asking to use the
18:53:59 access on Seneca?
18:54:02 >>> Correct.
18:54:03 It just makes sense.
18:54:04 >> And my question was, the old code enforcement
18:54:08 citation, has that been paid?
18:54:11 >>> I believe they have now released it pending the
18:54:14 final resolution.
18:54:16 Not releasing it -- once council passes zoning we have
18:54:20 to go back and ask for the fine reduction and show the
18:54:22 hardship up to this point.
18:54:25 They are unwilling to do that until we show legal
18:54:27 conformity.
18:54:28 We filed all the structure plans, and they are happy

18:54:30 with that.
18:54:31 The de facto permitting.
18:54:33 But the final process --
18:54:36 >> You were cited for being nonconforming, or your
18:54:40 client was, and you were told by us to get the
18:54:43 rezoning and then you wouldn't have to --
18:54:47 >>> Correct.
18:54:48 The building was existing.
18:54:49 My client was cited for repairing it.
18:54:52 They said it's an illegal structure, storage in RS-50.
18:54:56 My client said it's not RS-50.
18:54:59 They showed the maps.
18:55:00 It is.
18:55:00 My client's only option is to rezone and conform.
18:55:04 He has gone back to the engineering side.
18:55:07 Structural engineering side and showed the county
18:55:09 through his own structural engineer it was done per
18:55:12 city rules and procedures for permitting process.
18:55:15 He still is under violation because it's a commercial
18:55:18 structure in an RS-50.
18:55:21 >> Is there -- it been repaired?
18:55:24 >>> Yes.

18:55:25 And we can't get commercial in res 20 the comp plan so
18:55:31 it makes sense, it's office, so he sat down and said
18:55:33 why not move the office to the structure?
18:55:36 >> That's of interest to us because of another case
18:55:39 that we heard this morning about code enforcement.
18:55:42 Thank you.
18:55:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
18:55:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what's before us is an
18:55:50 improvement.
18:55:51 Mr. Horner, I feel like, you know, a reasonable thing
18:55:56 to do here is to say, you don't really need this
18:56:02 access to Seneca, because you have the access into
18:56:06 Nebraska, and you could just continue your landscaping
18:56:10 across.
18:56:12 You will save the money of repaving that driveway, and
18:56:15 you can put it into landscaping, and make the view for
18:56:17 the people who live across the street better.
18:56:19 So I think -- and I think it's a staff question.
18:56:23 Couldn't he just, you know, draw that in tonight, you
18:56:27 know, that there's a little circle which indicates
18:56:30 some kind of landscaping to go all the way across on
18:56:33 Seneca?

18:56:35 And that would address the issue raised by
18:56:37 transportation.
18:56:37 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:56:39 That's one of the changes that we can just go ahead
18:56:41 and have made between first and second reading.
18:56:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It wouldn't even be delayed.
18:56:45 >>JULIA COLE: No, but I would like to change that on a
18:56:49 council motion, assuming that petitioner is willing to
18:56:53 in essence amend what is request is for access on the
18:56:58 local street.
18:56:59 Thank you.
18:57:03 >>> You raise very compelling arguments.
18:57:04 I think it makes sense.
18:57:06 I don't think a sidewalk makes sense.
18:57:08 But I think to have the additional green area and the
18:57:10 landscaping, it's always going to be married, always
18:57:14 going to have the ancillary principle use forever.
18:57:18 So I think we can agree to that.
18:57:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, thank you, thank you.
18:57:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
18:57:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On your staff report, (off
18:57:37 microphone) it's confusing to me because then we have

18:57:40 been told otherwise, that we are just dealing with
18:57:46 Seneca.
18:57:46 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Land development.
18:57:47 That is one complete parcel currently.
18:57:51 So it is under one folio.
18:57:54 Another was issued just for that, if the CD is
18:57:59 granted, then it would have a separate address.
18:58:04 Currently as it stands now it all one parcel.
18:58:07 >> It's one parcel but we are splitting the parcel for
18:58:10 the purposes of the PD?
18:58:17 It's all one folio.
18:58:19 >>> This is one folio currently.
18:58:21 This piece that is not included in the rezoning
18:58:24 tonight is currently zoned commercial.
18:58:27 This piece that is included in the rezoning tonight is
18:58:30 residential.
18:58:32 So the request for you tonight was only to rezone the
18:58:35 residential piece of it.
18:58:37 >> So for advertising purposes, we include the -- both
18:58:42 addresses under the folio.
18:58:43 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Yes.
18:58:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just curious.

18:58:48 Thank you.
18:58:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Julia Cole, you know how we are
18:58:53 always frustrated when someone on council does
18:58:56 something that creates something that isn't logical?
18:59:01 It isn't logical to create this landlocked first
18:59:09 cousin to the parcel on Nebraska.
18:59:15 Can't we just put it all together?
18:59:17 I'm concerned that if we approve the PD, it's got to
18:59:23 go with the piece on the commercial street, but it's
18:59:27 going to have its own little parcel number and it's
18:59:29 not going to have access.
18:59:30 Do you understand?
18:59:33 >> Now that you closed off, it has to go together.
18:59:37 >>JULIA COLE: The petition in front of you relates to
18:59:39 a parcel which would be eligible to service I think
18:59:48 the property owner with Land Development Coordination,
18:59:51 there's nothing that prohibits them from doing it that
18:59:53 way.
18:59:54 I mean, I think admittedly now that the petitioner has
18:59:58 agreed not to have separate access, and to access
19:00:01 through a secondary parcel, I'm not going to tell that
19:00:06 you couldn't still handle it this way.

19:00:09 If petitioner wants to move forward with that, but
19:00:12 that's certainly appropriate.
19:00:12 However, the issue could potentially come up at some
19:00:16 point in time, if these two parcels end up in separate
19:00:21 ownership it would then be a violation of the PD to
19:00:24 close off that access.
19:00:26 But in terms of looking -- it may be property owners
19:00:31 benefit, a better way to go to bring the entire parcel
19:00:34 in.
19:00:35 There's no legal obligation them to do that.
19:00:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:00:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
19:00:45 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't understand why our land
19:00:47 development people, one parcel here, he told us these
19:00:53 two properties are married, one of them zoned
19:00:56 commercial general, which is the Nebraska Avenue site.
19:01:01 That's the appropriate zoning for it, right?
19:01:03 >> Yes.
19:01:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Commercial general.
19:01:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Why didn't land development leave them
19:01:22 in that direction?
19:01:23 >>LaCHONE DOCK: In order to rezone it commercial

19:01:27 general, it would have to be that zoning designation
19:01:30 so it has to be 10,000 choir foot total area.
19:01:36 The setbacks, the lock area --
19:01:37 >> The land use category was wrong.
19:01:41 >> The existing building does not meet the
19:01:44 requirement.
19:01:46 So PD was the only zoning designation, where they
19:01:52 could request the waivers that are needed.
19:01:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say that I'm really
19:02:01 excited the petitioner agreed to cut off access to
19:02:03 Seneca.
19:02:04 And based on what I think will be a real bona fide
19:02:07 improvement to the neighborhood I'm willing to accept
19:02:08 this PD and.
19:02:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close?
19:02:13 >> So moved.
19:02:14 >> Second.
19:02:14 (Motion carried).
19:02:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The ordinance?
19:02:19 Councilwoman Saul-Sena?
19:02:22 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19:02:24 I would like to move an ordinance rezoning property in

19:02:26 the general vicinity of 10701 north Nebraska Avenue
19:02:29 and 904 east Seneca Avenue.
19:02:36 In the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly
19:02:38 described in section 1 from zoning district
19:02:40 classifications RS-50 residential single-family to PD
19:02:44 planned development, business professional office,
19:02:46 providing an effective date, including the verbally
19:02:50 stated provision for closing access to Seneca, and
19:02:55 adding landscaping there, between and second reading.
19:03:00 >> Second.
19:03:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Also all the staff comments and
19:03:02 provisions are included in the motion.
19:03:04 Councilman Dingfelder.
19:03:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to point out, I'm going
19:03:10 to support the motion but I just want to read for the
19:03:12 record, it looks like there's a Thomas and Diana SEN,
19:03:20 they would be out of town, own the property at 914
19:03:23 east Seneca. Anyway, they objected to it.
19:03:28 I guess they were concerned about precedent and that
19:03:30 sort of thing.
19:03:31 But I think that Ms. Saul-Sena's solution of closing
19:03:35 off that access will hopefully protect the rest of the

19:03:37 street.
19:03:37 So I'm willing to support it.
19:03:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A you will in favor?
19:03:42 Opposes?
19:03:43 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
19:03:46 Second reading and adoption will be on August 21st
19:03:50 at 9:30 a.m.
19:03:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 8.
19:03:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open.
19:03:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
19:03:59 (Motion carried)
19:04:27 >>> Petition Z 08-43 for property located at 1702
19:04:46 inner bay Boulevard.
19:04:48 The request is to rezone the property from IGM
19:04:51 industrial general to PD planned development.
19:04:53 The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property
19:04:56 from IG to PD to construct a 113 ram hotel.
19:05:02 4 story building will have ingress he agrees off inner
19:05:06 bay Boulevard, a total of 115 parking spaces are
19:05:08 required and 113 spaces are being provided.
19:05:12 The subject site is located in South Tampa within the
19:05:15 proximity of MacDill Air Force Base.

19:05:17 The site contains 70,678 square feet, and is boarded
19:05:22 by vacant parcels to the west, south and east, and
19:05:25 commercial use to the north.
19:05:36 Council, I did want to show, I put a map with the APZ
19:05:46 zone, the parcel that's on inner bay just west of the
19:05:49 clear zone.
19:05:54 And this is the zoning atlas of the area.
19:05:58 This is the parcel located on inner bay.
19:06:01 Dale Mabry is east.
19:06:04 Residential multifamily is west of the site.
19:06:08 Commercial and industrial to the east.
19:06:13 >> Mr. Bentley's client's parcel that we saw earlier
19:06:17 tonight?
19:06:17 >>> Yes, sir.
19:06:18 And this is an aerial of the site.
19:06:27 Picture of the site on inner bay.
19:06:38 This is northwest of the site on inner bay.
19:06:45 This is north of the site.
19:06:55 This is east of the site. This is south of the site.
19:07:04 This is a view of the site.
19:07:05 Southern end on pinewood street.
19:07:12 Be the development review committee finds it

19:07:13 inconsistent with applicable City of Tampa land
19:07:15 development regulations.
19:07:17 However, if the applicant resides revises the site
19:07:21 plan with the required notes and site plan revisions
19:07:23 between first and second reading, it will find the
19:07:31 plan consistent.
19:07:31 Land Development Coordination, identified the type of
19:07:35 fence surrounding the pool and the fence height, and
19:07:38 in the waiver request section.
19:07:40 Please remove request number 6 and 7, in the site data
19:07:43 section please add the following, yard setbacks, front
19:07:46 ten feet, side and rear zero feet, please add the
19:07:50 following waiver, section 27-130 to reduce the
19:07:53 required buffer from 10 feet to zero feet along the
19:07:56 east property line.
19:07:58 Please add the following waiver.
19:08:01 Section 20.5 to allow additional 156.5 square footage
19:08:06 of signage.
19:08:14 Solid waste department, omitting a portion of the last
19:08:16 sentence as determined to be appropriate, permitting
19:08:19 in accordance with recommendation of the project
19:08:22 geotechnical engineer.

19:08:25 Landscape specialist, one more on-street tree will
19:08:30 need to be retained, in place of transplanting.
19:08:34 Correct the table of tree debit and credit to
19:08:37 accurately reflect the trees removed by the
19:08:39 development.
19:08:40 And also to verify the calculations on the plan
19:08:43 regarding the green space.
19:08:46 Please verify the depth of the ditch on the west.
19:08:49 If it is two feet in depth this area will not count as
19:08:53 green space.
19:09:02 There is a waiver that's listed for the ten side by
19:09:07 side spaces that are required.
19:09:09 That generally require a landscape island in between.
19:09:13 Land development recognizes that waiver and we do
19:09:15 support that waiver.
19:09:17 There were a number of parking spaces that were
19:09:19 eliminated on the west property to provide proper
19:09:22 protective radius to preserve additional trees.
19:09:26 And this is the reason for the alternate plan and
19:09:31 landscape was in agreement with that arrangement.
19:09:39 That concludes staff presentation, if you have any
19:09:42 questions.

19:09:42 >> Quick question.
19:09:45 I have an elevation but not a site plan.
19:09:48 Are the trees -- there appear to be a vast parking
19:09:53 area, and I don't have any indication whether those
19:09:57 trees in the parking area are shade trees.
19:10:00 But I remember if it makes it a little softer, if
19:10:04 there was any thought to redesigning it, to group the
19:10:09 trees, where you actually have -- you can see what
19:10:14 appears before -- it looks like this is a plan they
19:10:21 developed up and down the eastern seaboard.
19:10:34 This is an opportunity to really improve it.
19:10:36 And I wonder if any thought had been given to being a
19:10:39 little more imaginative in the site plan, to create
19:10:43 more opportunity for shade.
19:10:46 Could I hear from our landscape specialist?
19:10:51 >>> Mary Daniels Bryson, Land Development
19:10:56 Coordination, tree and landscaping.
19:10:58 I did speak with one of the agents of the petitioner
19:11:01 about that very issue, and, yes, they are going to
19:11:04 provide a variety of trees, some shade, some
19:11:10 ornamental, a good mix of different species.
19:11:15 >> Did you talk to them at all about perhaps being

19:11:21 more imaginative in their design so there would be
19:11:24 enough trees to actually create shade?
19:11:26 >>> We did.
19:11:27 On the western boundary, there is a large amount of
19:11:30 trees, and the alternative that you see before us is
19:11:34 what we came up with to save all those trees on the
19:11:37 west, and provide the protective radius that those
19:11:40 trees need in order to retain the west boundary.
19:11:45 >> We just heard the petitioner, Mr. Bentley.
19:11:51 Mr. Bentley.
19:11:52 Mr. Bentley?
19:11:53 This plan is premised on protect willing all the trees
19:12:00 on your property.
19:12:02 >>MARK BENTLEY: Oh, really?
19:12:03 >> Yes.
19:12:04 So it really important when you come back to us some
19:12:06 day that we have done this to save those trees.
19:12:09 So we need those trees to stay there. Because this
19:12:11 place is looking a little --
19:12:14 >>MARK BENTLEY: I think I have to confirm that with
19:12:17 Mr. Grandoff.
19:12:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

19:12:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I received a letter to receive and
19:12:29 file.
19:12:30 We all got this.
19:12:31 I just want to mention that.
19:12:37 An e-mail to Mr. Grandoff from Chad Durand.
19:12:46 Here's my point.
19:12:47 I'm reading the backup attached to this.
19:12:49 And there are letters from MacDill Air Force Base
19:12:53 referring to the land use change that we made earlier
19:12:56 tonight saying that they weren't in favor of it.
19:12:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, Councilwoman Mulhern, let's
19:13:02 finish the report and then we can raise those issues.
19:13:04 I thought maybe you had a report about her report.
19:13:09 I want to finish and then we can come back and raise
19:13:15 whatever concerns you have.
19:13:15 Go ahead.
19:13:18 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:13:20 I have been sworn.
19:13:21 I would like to let you all know what the surrounding
19:13:27 land uses are in this particular area.
19:13:30 We are all fairly familiar with it because of the plan
19:13:33 amendments we have already discussed earlier this

19:13:35 evening.
19:13:35 On the south side of inner bay Boulevard, the land use
19:13:39 area of light industrial, subject sites, land use is
19:13:43 light industrial.
19:13:43 That being the case, with the F.A.R., you can fit a
19:13:49 warehouse in excess of 60,000 square feet at the
19:13:52 height.
19:13:53 Right now if you were to come in with just the IG
19:13:55 Euclidean zoning existing on-site, in excess of 60,000
19:13:59 square feet and also at the height of 60 feet, the PD
19:14:03 rezoning which is reflective of something that would
19:14:06 be considered to be a CG zoning, much less intensive
19:14:10 type of use.
19:14:11 Then drop in intensity for what's being requested for
19:14:14 the area.
19:14:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are going to have to stop for a
19:14:16 minute.
19:14:17 >> We lost our quorum.
19:14:26 >> Would a staff person please run back there and tell
19:14:28 somebody?
19:14:29 Because I can't leave
19:14:34 Would you go get an additional council member?

19:14:36 >> The trend has been to a higher density.
19:15:22 So while this is not fitting in necessarily with the
19:15:24 trend, it is, A, a permitted use, it is, B, something
19:15:27 that's much less intensive, and C, something that can
19:15:29 be considered a complementary use to the trend that
19:15:33 you are seeing over here along inner bay which is a
19:15:37 residential presence.
19:15:38 You do have quite a few of course you do have a
19:15:50 proposed development of what it will consist of to the
19:15:55 west and that's yet to be determined until that
19:15:57 particular parcel comes in for a rezoning in the
19:16:06 future.
19:16:07 But in that it is a drop in intensity Planning
19:16:11 Commission staff felt that the proposed use based on
19:16:14 what is currently there is much less, also the traffic
19:16:20 that can be generated on the project presently and
19:16:23 what can be generated on the project in the future, if
19:16:25 it were to come in under this proposed PD over here.
19:16:30 Based on all of those things, and supporting policies
19:16:34 to support what they are asking for, Planning
19:16:35 Commission staff found the proposed request consistent
19:16:37 with the comprehensive plan.

19:16:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Mulhern, question to the
19:16:55 petitioner?
19:16:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, my problem here is relating to
19:16:58 the land use change we already voted on because there
19:17:03 are letters here that aren't part of -- weren't
19:17:08 presented to us and aren't in the file that were sent
19:17:11 to -- well, there was one sent to Gwen Miller, but I
19:17:20 didn't see it.
19:17:20 But there are also letters to the Planning Commission,
19:17:27 and to Randy Goers, I think.
19:17:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Those letters have been presented to
19:17:42 you tonight relevant to the hearing that you have
19:17:44 before you.
19:17:45 I suspect Mr. Grandoff is going to make those letters
19:17:50 relevant to his discussion when he does discuss them.
19:17:53 With regard to the other --
19:17:58 >>MARY MULHERN: There's a letter to the mayor,
19:18:00 actually, but I think it was to go to our land use --
19:18:04 the planning people because now it doesn't go to the
19:18:06 DPA.
19:18:07 They transmitted to the agencies, including the Air
19:18:11 Force Base.

19:18:13 So we didn't have -- I guess we had one of the letters
19:18:17 in the file.
19:18:17 But it wasn't brought up.
19:18:24 >> Could you relate what date that is so the record --
19:18:28 >>> I don't know why, this letter to the mayor isn't
19:18:31 dated.
19:18:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, point of order.
19:18:36 Mr. Chairman, point of order.
19:18:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ye okay, yes.
19:18:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Mulhern, you have totally valid
19:18:43 points to bring up but I think we ought to finish this
19:18:46 hearing first.
19:18:47 >>MARY MULHERN: These were submitted for this.
19:18:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
19:18:53 >>MARY MULHERN: They'll be brought up, I'm sure.
19:18:56 Okay, I'm done snoop let's finish this hearing and
19:18:58 then revisit the other one later, if you want to.
19:19:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
19:19:06 My question to staff is this.
19:19:07 This is the question, Julia, and we'll make a copy of
19:19:10 this for you.
19:19:11 If we get a letter, we the Air Force really think this

19:19:17 is a bad idea to have people in the flight zone
19:19:20 because it's really dangerous, we are endangering
19:19:23 people.
19:19:23 Don't Tau that into account in develop your staff
19:19:26 opinions?
19:19:26 >>> The problem is, is what you are talking about
19:19:30 relates to the plan amendments, that the public
19:19:33 hearing on first reading, you should not be talking
19:19:36 about that now.
19:19:37 >> But, excuse me, what this is talking about is we
19:19:42 are in a flight zone.
19:19:44 You want to build a hotel.
19:19:45 You want to put a lot of people there.
19:19:46 This is dangerous.
19:19:47 Shouldn't that inform your land development opinion?
19:19:52 >>> On the petition that's in front of you?
19:19:54 >> Yes.
19:19:55 >>> Or the petition that previously was --
19:19:58 >> Yeah.
19:19:59 >>> Before I can respond to that I need to understand
19:20:01 the context of the letters you are talking about
19:20:03 because I'm having a hard time understanding the

19:20:05 context of the letter so that I can respond in a
19:20:08 manner which doesn't impact the petition.
19:20:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, no.
19:20:13 Let me -- let me just make sure we get back.
19:20:17 Problem we have here is that we are trying to mix two
19:20:20 applications.
19:20:20 You can't do that.
19:20:21 Legally, you cannot do that.
19:20:23 These letters here are reference here to a petition
19:20:27 that is before us.
19:20:28 Now, and they are going back and trying to introduce
19:20:32 the prior comp plan that was before us.
19:20:35 We had a hearing on that.
19:20:37 If you think back, they came and addressed that issue
19:20:40 before.
19:20:43 We have been through this.
19:20:44 This is not new.
19:20:47 >>JULIA COLE: And if I could for the record, I was
19:20:51 hand add letter from Christine, a representative of
19:20:54 the base planner relating to the petition you are
19:20:57 speaking about, Z 08-43, the one that's in front of
19:21:01 you, indicating that they do not have an objection to

19:21:04 this petition.
19:21:08 Because it is not within the clear zone.
19:21:10 So as it relates to the petition that's in front of
19:21:12 you there, no objection or other comment from
19:21:16 MacDill --
19:21:17 >>MARY MULHERN: That's in our file?
19:21:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's not in my file.
19:21:22 >>JULIA COLE: That I don't PS know the answer to.
19:21:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me look.
19:21:27 >> You should get these things.
19:21:43 >> What's the Air Force Base date?
19:21:46 What's the date of the Air Force Base?
19:21:50 Then we should have it.
19:21:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, sir.
19:22:03 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
19:22:08 And I have the pleasure of representing 24 LLC which
19:22:12 is the applicant this evening, for the candlewood
19:22:16 suites hotel, that will be 113 rooms, and to orient
19:22:20 you, the intersection of Dale Mabry and Interbay, as
19:22:26 you proceed west on Interbay and you look on your left
19:22:29 a little past the McDonald is where this property is
19:22:31 located.

19:22:32 We are doing a PD to replace the IG that's already on
19:22:38 the property.
19:22:39 My client has negotiated the site plan with the staff.
19:22:42 We agree to all the changes that Ms. Dock has
19:22:45 suggested.
19:22:46 In fact we already have a redraft, of corporate
19:22:48 interchanges.
19:22:49 We can make the changes by second reading.
19:22:52 And we respectfully request your approval this
19:22:56 evening.
19:22:57 I will reserve most of the remainder of my comments if
19:23:00 any on rebuttal.
19:23:01 Let me just add this is really an up-and-coming area,
19:23:04 and the sun is setting on the industrial uses down
19:23:07 here, and I think that is a very positive sign from
19:23:10 planning issues.
19:23:12 Obviously MacDill Air Force Base would be
19:23:15 benefited by this hotel.
19:23:18 They issued an e-mail to LaChone Dock on April 15
19:23:24 which said that the site is not located in the clear
19:23:26 zone.
19:23:26 That is what they were referring to earlier.

19:23:29 Perhaps Ms. Miller is not finding it with you.
19:23:32 We have support from sun bay south homeowners
19:23:36 association to Mr. Al Steenson.
19:23:38 We notified the Port Tampa civic association, Mr. Tom
19:23:43 vento.
19:23:44 We have no objections from him either.
19:23:45 Jobs are good for the economy.
19:23:46 Let me just close and say I'll reserve the rest of my
19:23:49 comments for rebuttal.
19:23:51 Thank you very much.
19:23:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
19:23:54 Any comments from the public?
19:23:58 Wishing to address council may come forward.
19:23:59 Anyone wishing to address council may come forward at
19:24:01 this time.
19:24:02 >>> Al Steenson, president of the Gandy civic
19:24:08 association.
19:24:08 As Mr. Grandoff just indicated, he and I have had
19:24:13 several phone conversations, we have e-mailed back and
19:24:15 forth.
19:24:16 I have had a chance to go over the site plan and the
19:24:20 architectural renderings.

19:24:22 I did bring this to the membership at the last
19:24:24 meeting.
19:24:25 And again let me point out that this particular parcel
19:24:28 of land does not fall within our boundary.
19:24:31 We are the closest association to it.
19:24:32 Our boundaries go right down the middle of inner bay
19:24:35 Boulevard.
19:24:35 And this is to the south of it.
19:24:38 I brought this up at a meeting and the only questions
19:24:42 to members I ask is motel, what kind of clientele are
19:24:46 they going to serve.
19:24:48 And I knew that was coming, because the throw motels
19:24:51 in the general area don't have the best reputation in
19:24:56 town.
19:24:56 I already discussed this with Mr. Grandoff and I
19:24:59 explained to the members, this is basically for TY
19:25:03 folks, and I got no indication that there was any
19:25:06 objection from the base, and again, this is a
19:25:09 situation where it does not lie within our boundaries.
19:25:13 I asked them if they wanted to do an up or down vote.
19:25:16 They said no.
19:25:16 So I would take that as a no objections to it.

19:25:20 From a personal standpoint, me talking, I would
19:25:24 welcome this.
19:25:24 Number one, it's a far better use than most of what we
19:25:32 have been experiencing over the years.
19:25:34 And I also -- if you go to page 4, paragraph 4 of the
19:25:39 staff report, and it indicates down in italics, this
19:25:44 would be a far less intensive use than industrial use
19:25:46 and underlining zoning and it would serve the area
19:25:49 well.
19:25:49 And with that, that concludes anything I have to say.
19:25:53 Thank you.
19:25:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
19:26:00 Questions.
19:26:00 Councilman Dingfelder.
19:26:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Durante wrote an interesting
19:26:07 letter.
19:26:08 He was here.
19:26:09 He stepped out.
19:26:10 Is he still in the hallway?
19:26:16 There's an interesting question, Mr. Grandoff.
19:26:27 Perhaps you reserved rebuttal to address this issue.
19:26:31 What he's saying is basically we are deintensifying

19:26:35 the use on your property, from industrial down to
19:26:38 whatever this is.
19:26:40 It's not a residential, but what is it?
19:26:44 >> Hotel.
19:26:45 >> PD.
19:26:48 And he's insinuating in doing that, it's going to
19:26:51 change what he has to do on his property in terms of
19:26:54 buffering and screening.
19:27:03 And normally, we are worried in the other direction,
19:27:05 you know, how you are building and your buffering and
19:27:08 stuff.
19:27:08 But you are not looking for any buffering or screening
19:27:10 waivers.
19:27:11 So, anyway, I don't know.
19:27:13 He said you guys talked about this.
19:27:15 What's your response back?
19:27:17 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Well, good question, Mr. Dingfelder.
19:27:20 On our east side, we are requesting a waiver of the
19:27:24 10-foot buffer, so we can place the sidewalk there for
19:27:28 the exit on the rear of the building, and we have got
19:27:30 a little bit of a parking area in there and a little
19:27:33 bit of a lift station.

19:27:36 So that's in the buffer waiver that LaShon has
19:27:39 enunciated, and we are requesting, and they have
19:27:42 supported that.
19:27:43 This is one of those things in the zoning code where
19:27:46 we are approving the planned area.
19:27:49 We are becoming -- try to be succinct about it.
19:27:53 We are now becoming a "B" use instead of a C use.
19:27:57 So we are a more compatible desirable use.
19:28:01 A home is an "A" use.
19:28:08 His use is a C use because he's IG but existing but
19:28:12 he's vacant.
19:28:13 If we were to build our project today under IG and his
19:28:16 project under IG we would both have a zero setback.
19:28:20 Since we are both C uses, no buffer required.
19:28:23 I mean, wall to wall.
19:28:25 Now we are coming in, and we become a "B" use, and if
19:28:28 he does nothing, and then one day pulls a permit to
19:28:32 build an IG use, since he is the more incompatible
19:28:37 use, the buffer burden falls on him, which is not --
19:28:42 that's just the way the code reads.
19:28:45 I had an extensive discussion with Mr. Durante about
19:28:48 this and he said the code presumes that he's coming to

19:28:51 the "B" use, not the reverse.
19:28:53 And we read it backwards and forwards and that's where
19:28:57 it is.
19:28:58 You know, his problem is when he develops his
19:29:00 property.
19:29:00 Now he has to buffer from us.
19:29:02 >> What I wondered about was, could we put a
19:29:06 condition, since we have this sort of strange
19:29:09 sequence, could we pose a condition that you would
19:29:12 waive his future buffer requirement?
19:29:17 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yes.
19:29:18 When he goes to permitting -- let me think if I have
19:29:21 this right.
19:29:22 When he goes to permitting, he's allowed to ask the
19:29:25 CSC to waiver the buffer.
19:29:27 And I'm going to stretch a little bit here.
19:29:29 I think he has to come to us and get a written waiver
19:29:33 from us that we don't mind that he asked for the
19:29:35 waiver.
19:29:35 >> But my point is on your PD, so it's just a function
19:29:40 of running with the land, could we include that waiver
19:29:43 as just an automatic so therefore we are not really --

19:29:47 I mean, he says we are infringing on his rights. In
19:29:50 some strange way I feel like we are.
19:29:52 But if we put in the a condition of your PD, you know,
19:29:56 then down the road he wouldn't have to deal with --
19:30:00 well, he would have to deal with it but he could just
19:30:02 plug to the PD and it's already done.
19:30:04 >> Let me talk to my client.
19:30:06 Let me talk to Julia and make sure that flies legally.
19:30:10 We could certainly address that between now and second
19:30:13 reading.
19:30:13 We are glad to look at it.
19:30:14 >> I mean it not huge but it's unusual.
19:30:17 >>> I've never seen it before either.
19:30:23 And I wish he would have stayed.
19:30:24 I don't know what happened.
19:30:25 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: That's all I have.
19:30:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.
19:30:28 >> So moved.
19:30:29 >> Second.
19:30:30 (Motion carried).
19:30:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, what's the pleasure?
19:30:40 >> I wanted to apologize, thought you were in the

19:30:44 clear zone.
19:30:44 >> Oh, no, no.
19:30:46 Understood.
19:30:47 >> Shade tree.
19:30:49 >> Councilman Dingfelder.
19:30:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This warehouse has been kind of a
19:30:58 big nasty mess.
19:31:00 Putting a hotel there I think is great.
19:31:02 And the base will appreciate it.
19:31:03 And I think the community will appreciate it.
19:31:05 So I move for approval on first reading an ordinance
19:31:08 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 7102
19:31:11 inner bay Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida more
19:31:13 particularly described in section 1 from zonk zoning
19:31:15 district classification IG industrial commercial to PD
19:31:19 planned development hotel, providing an effective
19:31:20 date.
19:31:21 And I appreciate a report on second reading as to what
19:31:25 we can do on that other issue.
19:31:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And the motion includes all the staff
19:31:28 comments and changes?
19:31:30 >> Yes.

19:31:31 >>JULIA COLE: Let me note a few things.
19:31:33 First of all, the way our rules are, the determination
19:31:37 has to be made tonight.
19:31:38 We can't talk about it and a vote needs to be taken,
19:31:41 set that condition or waiver a note would be added a
19:31:44 on the site plan, so to work out and then bring
19:31:48 language back to you, and we have to either make a
19:31:50 decision tonight that that's something we are going to
19:31:53 do or we need to continue the first reading so that we
19:31:56 can discuss that issue.
19:31:57 Second of all, I do have some concerns with the
19:32:00 concept that what you are doing is putting this
19:32:03 petitioner on the site plan, something that would be
19:32:06 enforceable through a code enforcement process, the
19:32:10 idea that they will agree to a presupposed waiver.
19:32:14 We don't know now what waiver they are going to
19:32:16 request, what the nature of the waiver is, what the
19:32:18 use is.
19:32:20 I'm frankly not comfortable with that.
19:32:21 And this petitioner has indicated on the record
19:32:24 tonight that they won't have a problem with it.
19:32:28 >> All right.

19:32:29 You are not in a creative mad tonight so we'll just
19:32:32 let it go.
19:32:33 [ Laughter ]
19:32:34 >> Then we need to -- we need to -- we are taking that
19:32:40 off then.
19:32:42 >> Just forget that reference.
19:32:45 Mr. Durante didn't stick around long enough to hear it
19:32:48 so forget about it.
19:32:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then we are back to the motion.
19:32:52 >> That was accepted by who?
19:32:54 >> Ms. Saul-Sena.
19:32:55 >> All in favor signify by saying Aye.
19:32:58 Opposes?
19:32:59 Okay.
19:33:00 >> Motion carried with Miranda being accent, Mulhern
19:33:03 being absent at vote.
19:33:04 Second reading and adoption will be on August
19:33:06 21st, 9:30 a.m.?
19:33:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize.
19:33:12 I'm just kidding.
19:33:13 >>> Request second reading on August 28th.
19:33:18 I have a commendation I would like to make.

19:33:21 >>
19:33:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: In the morning.
19:33:29 There's no 28th meeting.
19:33:30 That's a workshop day.
19:33:35 You want second reading the 28th.
19:33:37 There's no board meeting the 28th.
19:33:38 That's a workshop day.
19:33:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The only second readings available in
19:33:44 August are -- the only day meetings --
19:33:50 >> Day.
19:33:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Has to be day.
19:33:51 >>> Well, it depends.
19:33:53 It's council's choice.
19:33:54 Day meetings in August are August 7th and August
19:33:56 21st.
19:33:58 There is no meeting at all on August 14th.
19:34:00 On August 28th you have a workshop in the morning,
19:34:05 and the evening session, with rezonings --
19:34:10 Okay.
19:34:11 There is no meeting.
19:34:12 The option, the 21st, or you have to go to
19:34:15 September.

19:34:15 >> September is fine.
19:34:18 >> So the first meeting in September.
19:34:19 What's that date?
19:34:21 >>> The 4th?
19:34:24 >> September 4th.
19:34:24 >> So moved.
19:34:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 10 a.m.
19:34:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
19:34:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's second reading.
19:34:35 Second reading.
19:34:36 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
19:34:39 Opposed?
19:34:40 So second reading on the 4th of September.
19:34:42 >>> Thank you for your time.
19:34:44 I appreciate it.
19:34:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I have my calendar.
19:34:47 So if we want to.
19:34:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: August 20th?
19:34:56 >>MARY MULHERN: 28th?
19:34:59 >> 20th at 1:30.
19:35:01 >>MARY MULHERN: No, I cannot do it at 1:30.
19:35:04 I can clear my entire morning calendar.

19:35:09 But I can't do anything basically starting at 2:00.
19:35:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you can do on the morning of the
19:35:16 20th.
19:35:17 That's a Wednesday morning, right?
19:35:21 Let's set it for Wednesday morning the 20th at 9
19:35:24 a.m.
19:35:25 Make sure we don't have a conflict again.
19:35:28 Make sure we don't have a conflict.
19:35:43 Wednesday morning, 9 a.m.
19:35:45 Do you want to check with administration?
19:35:48 Find out from somebody.
19:35:53 1:30 on Wednesday.
19:35:55 That's what the request was.
19:35:59 You said it wasn't?
19:36:01 >>MARY MULHERN: 1:30 is what they asked for.
19:36:07 We negotiated.
19:36:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Legal?
19:36:18 Legal department?
19:36:19 I have a question.
19:36:20 One of my assumptions is that council gets all the
19:36:26 useful information prior to making a zoning decision,
19:36:28 to help us make the best possible decision.

19:36:33 If there's a critical piece of information that's not
19:36:36 shared with us, is that a basis for going back and
19:36:39 rethinking our decision?
19:36:45 >>JULIA COLE: If it's something you don't have in
19:36:47 front of you, you receive it either at the first
19:36:50 public hearing or some point in this public hearing
19:36:52 process, then, yes, during second reading you would
19:36:55 have the opportunity to potentially make a different
19:36:59 decision on the basis of that evidence.
19:37:01 I think we addressed a similar question earlier, and I
19:37:05 would just indicate for the purposes of the record, it
19:37:08 would be a good opportunity if you are going to change
19:37:12 your vote to identify the information that is newly
19:37:16 received either within the record at first reading
19:37:19 that you didn't have the benefit of or newly received
19:37:21 at the second.
19:37:21 I mean, not to continue -- that's the purpose of your
19:37:28 public hearing.
19:37:28 You take information, and you make decisions.
19:37:32 You have that opportunity at every public hearing that
19:37:35 you have.
19:37:37 And because we have a system in which you have two

19:37:39 public hearings, at those two public independent
19:37:43 hearings you have that opportunity.
19:37:45 And if I could also just say, I apologize to, and Mr.
19:37:49 Dingfelder did apologize to me.
19:37:52 I accepted the apology.
19:37:53 I took it in the manner sent to me.
19:37:56 I did want to make that clear.
19:38:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good.
19:38:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Back to the firefighters.
19:38:05 My understanding is the problem now is we don't have
19:38:08 the chambers that morning, that code enforcement meet.
19:38:11 In the morning.
19:38:13 The question becomes, can we reverse it, 1:30, we meet
19:38:20 at nine?
19:38:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's probably already noticed.
19:38:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't know what we are going to do
19:38:26 then, because right now, apparently all the dates we
19:38:28 suggested there's a problem, there's a conflict.
19:38:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we send it to the county
19:38:36 commission?
19:38:38 >> Might have to, yes.
19:38:39 >>MARY MULHERN: We need to have the chambers, and they

19:38:42 just need to show up.
19:38:45 Maybe we should start with when the chambers are
19:38:47 available and we are available.
19:38:55 >>CHAIRMAN: They can't do the 19th at 2?
19:38:58 >> I can't remember what the reason was.
19:39:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, what about the 19th, a
19:39:10 Tuesday?
19:39:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The 19th of August, I believe
19:39:13 there was something in the morning that's not
19:39:16 available.
19:39:17 And I believe I was told that the 18th and the
19:39:22 19th were no good for the administration.
19:39:24 That's way was informed.
19:39:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What about 1:00 on the 19th?
19:39:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council cleared their schedule and
19:39:37 said either the 19th at 1:30, I communicated that
19:39:41 to Mr. Smith and he informed the chair's aide that
19:39:45 neither of those dates were acceptable or available,
19:39:47 for whatever series of reasons.
19:39:49 >> Are they not working that day?
19:39:54 >> The problem is I understand the people who need to
19:39:56 present their case will be out of town.

19:39:59 That is my understanding.
19:40:01 >> It has to be coordinated with obviously the lawyers
19:40:05 representing city, the lawyers representing the union,
19:40:08 and has to be coordinated with staff and has to be
19:40:12 coordinated with council's schedule and the
19:40:13 availabilities of these chambers.
19:40:16 >>> My calendar, I am not available the afternoon of
19:40:19 the 20th.
19:40:20 I can -- I'll move anything around that I have to.
19:40:26 Four of us are on the MPO.
19:40:28 So if we schedule it, then none of us can attend that.
19:40:31 So --
19:40:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Given that these are City Council
19:40:38 chambers, and that it's important that our meetings
19:40:41 are televised, couldn't the code enforcement group
19:40:45 meet in the mayor's meeting room?
19:40:49 >>GWEN MILLER: No, they have a lot of people for that.
19:40:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would suggest that would be
19:40:53 problematic for several reasons.
19:40:55 Number one is you have to accommodate code enforcement
19:40:57 day, accommodate a lot of people.
19:40:59 Number two is those are recorded by the clerk and

19:41:03 those have to be properly, procedurally followed.
19:41:07 And this chamber is set up specifically for that
19:41:09 purpose on that particular day.
19:41:12 You will notice there are sometimes tables here for
19:41:14 exhibits and it does take a lot of space.
19:41:16 And of course there are notices sometimes in advance
19:41:19 to give people the required notice to show up at this
19:41:25 place in time.
19:41:26 So for them to have to come here at whatever time they
19:41:29 have to and then travel elsewhere -- if council wants
19:41:34 to look into it.
19:41:35 But I have been told repeatedly that code enforcement
19:41:39 is difficult to move elsewhere.
19:41:43 >>GWEN MILLER: What about Friday?
19:41:45 >>MARY MULHERN: Can we finish our public hearings and
19:41:47 then resolve this at the end of our meeting so
19:41:49 everyone doesn't have to --
19:41:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, it would require everyone to
19:41:53 stay throughout the end of the meeting because
19:41:55 obviously it's going to require coordinating the
19:41:57 schedule.
19:41:57 So it would be unfortunate if members for whatever

19:42:00 reason could not stay till the end and then could you
19:42:02 not set the time.
19:42:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Well, check for August 22nd.
19:42:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Friday?
19:42:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Friday.
19:42:15 I move to open item number, which one, 9.
19:42:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
19:42:19 (Motion carried).
19:42:20 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Land Development Coordination.
19:42:48 Next item is 08-44 for the property located at 201
19:42:52 South MacDill Avenue.
19:42:56 The request is from PD planned development, from PD to
19:43:02 PD to allow for medical office use.
19:43:04 The property contains approximately 8,154 square feet.
19:43:09 The site was previously approved under the current PD
19:43:18 for massage therapy use, the petitioner plans to
19:43:29 retain Tampa building.
19:43:31 PD setbacks are as follows.
19:43:34 North 10.1 feet, south 6.7 feet, west 70.9 feet, and
19:43:38 east 23.8 feet.
19:43:41 A total of 9 parking spaces are required, and 8 spaces
19:43:45 are being provided.

19:43:46 The parking waiver was approved under the previous PD
19:43:49 and is requested with this proposal.
19:43:52 The property uses are commercial to the north, east
19:43:56 and south, and residential to the west.
19:44:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Primarily what we are doing is
19:44:04 changing use.
19:44:06 That's what's proposed.
19:44:07 That's the changes from massage to medical?
19:44:12 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Correct.
19:44:13 Under the previous PD the terms --
19:44:15 This is what we want to really address.
19:44:17 >>> Everything else was --
19:44:21 Okay, thank you, thank you.
19:44:22 Planning Commission.
19:44:25 Planning Commission.
19:44:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The abbreviated version.
19:44:37 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:44:38 I have been sworn.
19:44:39 The land use category is residential 20, CMU 35 across
19:44:44 the street, CMU 60 from Kennedy Boulevard.
19:44:50 The request is to go from an than crease in intensity
19:44:53 from a massage therapy.

19:44:54 They want to have full medical office.
19:44:56 I do believe they are requesting some waivers.
19:44:58 But as far as what's been going on on this western
19:45:01 side of MacDill Avenue, and has been for those of
19:45:04 you that everybody sitting on council for awhile, we
19:45:06 have had several rezonings to residential office, PD
19:45:11 on this particular segment between Cleveland and
19:45:14 Azeele.
19:45:17 Following this site to just this one parcel on the end
19:45:19 is still residential.
19:45:20 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
19:45:23 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
19:45:33 >> I'm Tony Huggins.
19:45:35 I have been sworn in.
19:45:38 I'm at 1121 east Twiggs, swat 200.
19:45:45 There's a few various items that we have been asked to
19:45:50 agree to, and we didn't have any problem with the two
19:45:52 that were requested of us.
19:45:58 If there are any additional questions.
19:45:59 It's pretty much the same use as it was.
19:46:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
19:46:03 Thank you, sir.

19:46:05 Does anyone here want to address council on the change
19:46:07 of use on item 9?
19:46:09 Anyone want to address council?
19:46:11 Thank you, sir.
19:46:11 Motion to close.
19:46:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
19:46:18 Sir, right behind you, the street behind you is all
19:46:21 residential.
19:46:22 And their concern is classically, is there going to be
19:46:26 parking?
19:46:27 Are there going to be parking issues because you are
19:46:29 not providing enough space?
19:46:30 You are asking for a medical use.
19:46:32 Some doctors use -- have a lot more patients than
19:46:40 others.
19:46:41 Are you requesting aware of one of your parking
19:46:45 spaces?
19:46:46 >>> The numbers of spaces, there will probably be one
19:46:49 physician there with one other worker.
19:46:50 They anticipate four to favor maximum patients per
19:46:53 day.
19:46:53 >> What kind of physician?

19:46:57 >>> They basically will do different types of therapy.
19:47:03 They do a combination of anti-aging therapy.
19:47:06 They do -- some of the physicians, one is a
19:47:11 gynecologist.
19:47:12 They have different type of physicians that
19:47:14 participant and they rotate in.
19:47:16 One is a nutrition center.
19:47:18 And they also do facial skin treatments.
19:47:20 >> So they promise not to become so popular that they
19:47:23 drive the neighbors crazy.
19:47:25 And on the site plan you committed to hours, I lye
19:47:28 think nine to six, Monday through Friday, no night --
19:47:35 >>> That's correct.
19:47:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.
19:47:36 Motion to close?
19:47:37 >> So moved.
19:47:37 >> Second.
19:47:38 (Motion carried).
19:47:39 >> Move to approve the rezoning.
19:47:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mrs. Saul-Sena.
19:47:47 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
19:47:49 vicinity ever 201 South MacDill Avenue, Tampa,

19:47:52 Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from
19:47:54 zoning district classifications PD, planned
19:47:57 development, massage therapy, PD planned development,
19:48:00 medical office, providing an effective date.
19:48:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?
19:48:04 >> Second.
19:48:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Been moved and seconded by
19:48:06 Councilwoman Mulhern.
19:48:08 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
19:48:11 Opposed?
19:48:12 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
19:48:14 Second reading and adoption will be on August 21st
19:48:17 at 9:30 a.m.
19:48:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The last item is item 12.
19:48:25 Item 12.
19:48:29 We could have been done if it weren't for this
19:48:42 firefighter thing.
19:48:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development coordination.
19:48:57 I have been sworn.
19:48:59 Final case before you this evening, Z 08-34 is located
19:49:03 at 1802 north Morgan street.
19:49:06 This is a PD to PD application for professional

19:49:10 office.
19:49:12 The staff report I provided you with a staff report.
19:49:15 The case was originally scheduled for July 17th,
19:49:18 and the petitioner sought additional time to work with
19:49:22 staff on some issues related to the site.
19:49:26 If you will look on page 1 of the staff report, you
19:49:28 will see that the DRC has found it inconsistent, and
19:49:32 those findings of inconsistency are related to Land
19:49:35 Development Coordination and tree and landscape.
19:49:38 And I will go into that a little bit in just a moment.
19:49:40 Second finding is that this is in the Tampa Heights
19:49:43 historic district.
19:49:44 It did go before the ARC on June 2nd, and the ARC
19:49:50 recommended for denial for the rezoning.
19:49:52 And stated three reasons for that.
19:49:55 That the proposal caused for ample space for parking
19:49:59 and this type of structure is unprecedented in the
19:50:02 Heights district.
19:50:02 It is inconsistent with the building mass and form
19:50:06 founded in the district and that it is inconsistent in
19:50:08 other details with historically prevalent commercial
19:50:11 building forms as set forth on page 42, 45 and 49 of

19:50:15 the Heights design guide line.
19:50:16 The ARC finding and staff report are included in the
19:50:20 back of the rezoning staff report.
19:50:23 I do not believe anyone is here from ARC this evening
19:50:27 to discuss that finding.
19:50:29 The PD that is on the property currently is for two
19:50:33 buildings of office with a total of 9,480 square feet.
19:50:39 The petitioner came into LDC, we talked about
19:50:45 potential enlargement of the second building that was
19:50:48 never built.
19:50:49 Only one of the two buildings was built.
19:50:51 We talked about a potential increase, and given what
19:50:54 they were desiring, we just decided that it was
19:50:57 probably best to re-PD the project.
19:51:00 So that is what is before you this evening.
19:51:06 There are several waivers.
19:51:07 One is to reduce the required parking from 36 spaces
19:51:09 to 27 spaces.
19:51:12 Second is to allow for maneuvering in the right-of-way
19:51:14 for solid waste service vehicle.
19:51:16 The third is to remove more than 50% of the existing
19:51:19 trees, with payment of fee in lieu.

19:51:22 And the fourth is to request aware of the required
19:51:25 vehicle use area green space in the amount of 179
19:51:29 square feet.
19:51:31 When this petition originally came in there was a
19:51:34 vacating that went with it for the alley, behind the
19:51:36 property.
19:51:37 And as a DRC we did talk about that, made a
19:51:42 determination there was another PD that accesses that
19:51:45 alley, therefore the vacating of the alley was not
19:51:48 feasible in order to provide additional land space for
19:51:51 parking so that was removed.
19:51:54 The site plan that I handed you came to staff earlier
19:51:57 this week on Tuesday.
19:51:59 That's why you don't have a revised staff report.
19:52:04 The really only difference in that is that they saved
19:52:09 several more trees along the eastern boundary of the
19:52:12 site.
19:52:12 You will see there are, I believe, seven Sycamore
19:52:18 trees that have been saved over there that were
19:52:19 previously shown for removal.
19:52:22 So that is where nine, I'm sorry, nine trees on the
19:52:30 eastern boundary.

19:52:31 Mary Daniel Bryson is still objecting to the removal
19:52:35 of the Sycamores along the south side of the property.
19:52:38 I provided her revised comments to you in your
19:52:41 packages this evening.
19:52:45 The objections that are coming from Land Development
19:52:47 Coordination are in relation to the PD criteria.
19:52:51 They begin on page 2 of your staff report and go to
19:52:54 page 3.
19:52:56 One was the purpose that talks about impacts on
19:53:00 on-site natural resources.
19:53:03 Inconsistency was in relation tots number of trees
19:53:06 being removed by the petitioner.
19:53:10 And number 6, which talks about location character and
19:53:14 compatibility with the surrounding impacted
19:53:17 neighborhood.
19:53:18 This project is in the Heights historic district.
19:53:26 There are different structures.
19:53:27 However, there is nothing, this tape of design with
19:53:31 the parking underneath in the district.
19:53:33 So you'll see that I had some concerns there and
19:53:39 objection relating to consistency and inconsistency
19:53:44 there.

19:53:45 Staff is available for any questions.
19:53:50 Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't show you the site.
19:53:54 The site is located on 7th and Morgan.
19:54:01 Morgan to the east.
19:54:02 7th street to the south.
19:54:11 The exist office building that is going to be changed
19:54:16 just a little bit, they are going to improve the ADA
19:54:18 ramp and then a new structure is going to be built on
19:54:20 the east side, which you have in your elevation
19:54:23 package.
19:54:25 There's parking to the south of the site for adjacent
19:54:28 office uses.
19:54:28 There are town homes here to the southeast of the site
19:54:33 and then there is another vacant parcel right to the
19:54:36 east of the site.
19:54:40 This is the existing office.
19:54:51 This is to the east where the existing parking, and
19:54:55 the existing PD would allow for another office
19:54:57 building of two stories to be built.
19:55:00 This is a view looking west.
19:55:04 Another view looking west.
19:55:06 This is a PD to the north, residential that was

19:55:10 converted to office.
19:55:12 The PD to the west that is also an office.
19:55:17 These are the town homes I briefly spoke of.
19:55:21 Some shots it parking lot.
19:55:23 I then have some other pictures of some office
19:55:27 buildings.
19:55:27 These were the residential conversions that I spoke to
19:55:32 earlier in the immediate approximate immateriality of
19:55:34 the subject parcel.
19:55:39 And this is the one right on the corner of Florida
19:55:42 and -- the southeast corner.
19:55:47 It is two stories.
19:55:48 It does not again have parking on the bottom.
19:56:06 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:56:07 I have been sworn.
19:56:10 We have two appraise dominant land use categories in
19:56:13 this area which is north of the central business
19:56:15 district.
19:56:15 It's fairly close proximity to the central business
19:56:18 district.
19:56:18 Residential 83, which is what the subject site along
19:56:29 Florida Avenue and Franklin.

19:56:32 This area was targeted by a prior administration to be
19:56:40 used primarily to be converted primarily for an office
19:56:43 district.
19:56:47 There are very few if any residential uses in this
19:56:50 particular area south of palm, as evidenced by the
19:56:53 aerial that you have in front of you here.
19:56:56 If you will recall some of the photographs that Ms.
19:56:59 Feeley has already shown you, you will see that the
19:57:01 vast majority of what she showed you, she showed you a
19:57:04 town home that was a three-story town home, many
19:57:07 two-story professional office that is were basically
19:57:10 historic homes that had been reconfigured for office
19:57:14 use, and the site is also in fairly close proximity to
19:57:18 one of our major arterial roads, commercial districts,
19:57:21 which is Florida Avenue, and of course Franklin Street
19:57:23 here, which is also home to a variety of older
19:57:26 historic structures that are of a greater scale than a
19:57:30 single-family residential homes.
19:57:31 So the scales as she stated and the masses of many of
19:57:36 the structures in this area are very eclectic indeed.
19:57:40 There's a variety of different sizes and types of
19:57:43 structures that are here.

19:57:43 And you have the highest one over here which is in
19:57:46 excess of ten stories, and then you have the variety
19:57:48 of institutional uses that are also in close
19:57:51 proximity, the YMCA and a church over here.
19:57:56 Based on the request, the one issue here is really
19:57:58 going to be a site specific one, a technical issue as
19:58:01 far as what the IRC raises as far as parking concern
19:58:05 on the first level. That is an issue, that would be
19:58:07 something that I think this particular body this
19:58:09 evening would have to decide whether or not that would
19:58:11 be an appropriate thing, or would be too much of an
19:58:13 impact for this particular area, which has already
19:58:15 been designated as an office area, and therefore
19:58:20 earmarked for a higher type intensity for this
19:58:22 particular section of Tampa Heights.
19:58:24 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
19:58:26 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
19:58:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was trying to cut you off before
19:58:31 you came to that conclusion, Tony.
19:58:33 What is the comprehensive plan day about historic
19:58:40 uses, historic designations, ARC, all that type of
19:58:46 stuff?

19:58:47 I really was hoping to cut you off before you came to
19:58:49 that conclusion.
19:58:52 You know, yes, the land use is consistent.
19:58:54 But if you have got policies and stuff that speak to
19:58:57 historic preservation, how does that interplay with
19:59:01 your response, or your recommendation?
19:59:04 >>> With your existing uses in the area, also depict
19:59:07 the historic character. I would say you have a valid
19:59:11 pointed there. But when you have apartments to the
19:59:14 southeast which are not historic in character at all
19:59:17 with the Tampa Heights area, I don't think you have a
19:59:19 lot of validity there.
19:59:21 >> Then why make it a district?
19:59:23 Why is it part of the district if we are not going to.
19:59:32 >>> I think you need to ask the historic people, not
19:59:35 me.
19:59:35 >> In the comprehensive plan that --
19:59:38 >>> There's a historic resources element that talks
19:59:41 about trying to retain the historic character of an
19:59:44 area, when you have a vacant piece of property over
19:59:46 there that's adjacent to another piece of property
19:59:49 that interfaces another building that's in excess of

19:59:52 ten stories.
19:59:52 I don't see what the historical validity is.
19:59:55 >> maybe you can share some of those policies as we
20:00:04 proceed with this rezoning.
20:00:05 >> Maybe not at this reading because I don't have a
20:00:07 copy of the comprehensive plan with me.
20:00:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:00:18 >>> Good evening, Madam Chairman, and members of
20:00:52 council.
20:00:53 Mark Bentley once again, 201 North Franklin Street
20:00:56 representing the petitioners.
20:01:04 And what I distributed is to facilitate the
20:01:08 presentation.
20:01:08 I am going to gob through some exhibits and hopefully
20:01:11 enlighten you as to what's actually going out.
20:01:15 To respond to councilman Dingfelder's concern about I
20:01:18 guess design standards or what have you.
20:01:20 There are Tampa Heights design standards that have
20:01:22 been adopted by the City of Tampa which we have to
20:01:23 adhere to because we actually fall within the
20:01:33 district, and we hope this will be a positive impact,
20:01:35 we think it should be, and many who appear in front of

20:01:38 the ARC to get a certificate of appropriateness.
20:01:43 For the actual building.
20:01:44 So the road doesn't end right here in terms of design
20:01:46 is what I'm telling you.
20:01:47 But let me back up here.
20:01:51 I'm here tonight with architect Susan Elsman and also
20:01:55 land planner Jim Stetsman.
20:01:58 As Abbye indicated we have been working for months and
20:02:01 trying to balance these competing interests between
20:02:03 what different agencies want and also to satisfy our
20:02:06 client.
20:02:06 And we have come up with what we think is a really
20:02:08 good plan at this point in time, and it really comes
20:02:11 down to from our perspective this technical issue on
20:02:15 saving four Sycamore trees, somewhere in the magnitude
20:02:18 of ten-inch radius and would replant those and you
20:02:21 will hear an explanation of why those have to go and
20:02:24 for what it's worth my client planted the trees to
20:02:27 begin with.
20:02:28 So we have made every effort we can to preserve as
20:02:31 much greenery as we can on the property.
20:02:33 In any event the property is owned by two prominent

20:02:35 attorneys, Harvey Schonbrun and Anthony LaSpada,
20:02:41 northwest corner of Morgan and 7th. They are what
20:02:45 you'd call urban pioneers.
20:02:46 They moved into the property in 1983 and built their
20:02:48 law office, and they have been very successful,
20:02:51 actually Abbye showed you some of the development in
20:02:53 surrounding areas of PD directly north of a massive
20:02:57 conversion of house to office.
20:02:58 That's Harvey's other property.
20:03:00 So these guys have been part of the ongoing design
20:03:03 Renaissance for the past 20 years. Now they are in a
20:03:07 position to actually do something. This was their
20:03:09 vision a long time ago.
20:03:10 The original zoning in 1984 had two buildings and was
20:03:14 roughly 9500 square feet.
20:03:16 When I approached the city, because there were new
20:03:19 building code requirements, cut into your square
20:03:22 footage in terms of elevator shaft, stairwells and
20:03:26 things like that, we want to increase the square
20:03:28 footage and the city suggested we go through the PD.
20:03:31 Unfortunately the down side to doing that is we are
20:03:33 subject to all these new code provisions whether they

20:03:35 have to do with dumpsters, designs, ARC, et cetera.
20:03:38 If you rewind the situation back to '84 you didn't
20:03:42 have obviously most of these codes and there was no
20:03:44 such thing as a historic district, so that's what we
20:03:47 are trying to deal with at this point in time.
20:03:50 Rezoning PD to PD, both professional office, the
20:03:53 existing and proposed, the difference is we are trying
20:03:55 to increase the project by 2300 square feet.
20:04:01 Just as kind of a footnote to this -- and you all see
20:04:04 this on a regular basis -- is that in my view the City
20:04:07 of Tampa had certain codes that worked very well, like
20:04:10 a clean slate, vacant property in Hunter's Green more
20:04:15 suburban type development.
20:04:16 But when you are trying to deal with these
20:04:18 redevelopment projects in an urban area you are
20:04:20 dealing with a different breed of cat, such as the
20:04:23 subject property we are dealing with they are
20:04:25 typically smaller, constrained by access issues, they
20:04:28 can't meet landscaping requirements, parking and
20:04:31 things like that so you have to be kind of creative
20:04:33 and actually get some of these waivers to make these
20:04:35 things work.

20:04:36 Otherwise it's just not going to work as development.
20:04:39 So what works in Hunter's Green doesn't necessarily
20:04:41 work in Tampa Heights or Ybor City. I'm sure you all
20:04:43 can appreciate that. We have asked for a couple minor
20:04:46 waivers which is pretty typical for a redevelopment
20:04:49 project.
20:04:50 As Abbye indicated when we first came in we petitioned
20:04:53 to vacate the alley as kind of a key alley, and
20:04:56 everybody continuous to that alley supported the
20:04:59 vacating.
20:05:00 And the reason we were doing that was trying to
20:05:02 achieve some additional parking.
20:05:04 However, staff wasn't really favorable to that
20:05:06 request, and for various reasons we dropped that,
20:05:09 okay.
20:05:09 So we lost some parking by doing that.
20:05:12 Secondarily, when we came in, the ARC didn't like the
20:05:15 design of our building, and they suggested that we
20:05:18 emulate a property that had a Mediterranean style type
20:05:29 property similar to our property and as has been
20:05:31 stated I guess by both Tony and Abbye, there's no
20:05:34 uniform design, architectural design type theme.

20:05:38 It's not like Hyde Park or anything like that.
20:05:41 It's a very eclectic mix.
20:05:44 You are going to see a ranch house next to a bungalow
20:05:48 next to a big institutional office.
20:05:50 So there's not much to key on.
20:05:51 My point is staff said, look, why don't you all
20:05:54 emulate, there's a nice Mediterranean building next to
20:05:58 the interstate and I took that to heart, and I got
20:06:01 this on the Elmo.
20:06:02 You can see the subject property is in blue here.
20:06:06 The property we are going to talk about that we are
20:06:08 going to key our design on is over here to the east.
20:06:12 To the west we have the new building with the parking
20:06:15 underneath which I'll show you.
20:06:18 >> Is this within the district?
20:06:19 >> No, it's just outside, John, okay?
20:06:22 And then Stetson university college of law had the
20:06:24 same Mediterranean revival tape architecture.
20:06:30 So if we kind of go through the graphics here, I think
20:06:35 then I can cut to the chase, and then have Susan talk
20:06:37 a little bit about some of these design issues.
20:06:40 First we have the aerial photo which I just showed

20:06:43 you, and staff rejected, that we emulate a property
20:06:47 that's further away than Stetson.
20:06:50 The zoning map as I mentioned, Harvey owns the PD to
20:06:54 the north.
20:06:54 If you go to the photos on page 5, exhibit 5, if you
20:07:03 wouldn't mind, you'll see the building I'm talking
20:07:05 about that we keyed off of.
20:07:07 We came in with a pitched roof, and staff said they
20:07:10 didn't like that.
20:07:10 This is ARC staff and they like this architectural
20:07:14 style.
20:07:14 So we changed Garys, redesigned our building
20:07:17 accordingly.
20:07:18 And pretty much a mirror image of that building.
20:07:23 That is photos 1-A and 1-B.
20:07:30 Then if you look at photos 2, 3 and 4, this is a bush
20:07:35 wall law firm, Mediterranean revival with parking
20:07:40 underneath, it's received a lot of accolades and
20:07:42 rewards.
20:07:43 You don't even know there's parking underneath.
20:07:45 You are going to see when Susan gives you her
20:07:47 presentation you wouldn't even know there's parking in

20:07:49 our building.
20:07:50 Here again if you can't park underneath these
20:07:53 buildings like outside Hyde Park historic district
20:07:57 it's hard to do these redevelopment projects.
20:07:59 If we didn't have seven spaces underneath the
20:08:01 building, we really couldn't do the project, okay?
20:08:04 And if you look at photos 5 and 6, here again you have
20:08:08 Stetson, same type of architecture, then Dave
20:08:11 Mechanik's office, you have a picture of that as well.
20:08:15 I would also like to point out to council that I
20:08:17 worked on a project, and that was approved by this
20:08:19 council, I think the latter part of 2006 or early
20:08:22 2007.
20:08:24 It was at 5th Avenue and 13th.
20:08:26 We did a mixed use project and that's that exhibit 6.
20:08:30 And here again, this council approved parking
20:08:32 underneath that building.
20:08:34 And you couldn't even tell there was parking there.
20:08:36 You had the facade if it was retail, and fenced in.
20:08:42 >> I didn't watch it.
20:08:47 >> My son had a track meet that night so I wasn't
20:08:50 there but my colleagues here said they didn't really

20:08:52 have a problem with the height, they just had a
20:08:54 problem with this concept of parking underneath.
20:08:56 But I am going to show you all in a second actually in
20:08:59 the Tampa Heights design standards, it says it's
20:09:02 accessible to have the parking behind the building
20:09:04 underneath the building and things like that, okay?
20:09:07 And the design standards, they are not the gospel,
20:09:12 they are just a guide lane to give you some guidance.
20:09:14 So it's a real tough situation because there's really
20:09:17 nothing to key off of.
20:09:19 Here again if you can't see the parking, don't know
20:09:21 it's parking, I really don't know what the problem is,
20:09:24 okay?
20:09:24 And then if you go to tab 8, I will just touch on
20:09:30 these.
20:09:30 What I have done is taken bits and pieces out of the
20:09:33 Tampa Heights design standards.
20:09:35 And you can see the first one that I just mentioned to
20:09:37 you.
20:09:38 It says that they want to maintain the visual
20:09:41 character, so you can put parking behind buildings,
20:09:44 et cetera, et cetera.

20:09:45 Also, they indicate these design standards I think in
20:09:48 the second one are not -- are a guide not intended to
20:09:54 dictate a certain design.
20:09:55 And for what it's worth, there's the do's and don'ts
20:09:58 in the Tampa Heights design standards, and to say
20:10:01 that -- or everyone remotely suggest that you
20:10:04 shouldn't have parking underneath the building.
20:10:06 Okay?
20:10:06 So it's pretty subjective, you know.
20:10:09 What do you like?
20:10:10 What do I like?
20:10:11 What's good design?
20:10:12 What's bad design?
20:10:13 That type of thing.
20:10:14 And I think we can do it very tastefully.
20:10:16 And as I mentioned here, the one you might be looking
20:10:19 at, it says it is permissible to, quote, screen
20:10:22 parking on the street with landscaping, fencing,
20:10:24 walls, our buildings.
20:10:27 Okay?
20:10:32 So I am going to have Susan come up in a second.
20:10:34 I don't want to belabor this but it really comes down

20:10:37 to two issues, the four trees on 7th Avenue which
20:10:41 we are willing to mitigate completely.
20:10:43 And there's good reason for that, ADA compliance.
20:10:46 And also this issue about the design, which we think
20:10:51 is somewhat subjective, and after Susan, if you have
20:10:55 any questions, that's fine.
20:10:57 I don't think anyone is here in opposition.
20:11:01 And I think the last exhibit, too, is there are two
20:11:04 letters in support.
20:11:05 And these are from people who actually own property.
20:11:08 They are both continuous property owners next to
20:11:11 Harvey's property over there.
20:11:13 So these guys, I think you have to give them a lot of
20:11:16 credit.
20:11:17 It's been kind of a war zone for a long time.
20:11:20 They have they are willing to put their neck on the
20:11:21 line and build a very significant building that costs
20:11:24 millions of dollars and try to get some more
20:11:26 professionals into that area, CPAs and attorneys, so
20:11:29 we have this little technical issue we can debate
20:11:32 about parking, is it okay or isn't it okay?
20:11:35 Quite frankly most of these redevelopment projects, if

20:11:37 you have done a lot of concessions a lot of them are
20:11:40 not going to be viable projects.
20:11:48 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question.
20:11:49 We have a Tampa Heights drew up a community plan, and
20:11:53 there's a very active -- I don't know what they are
20:11:57 called.
20:11:57 Neighborhood associations, Tampa Heights?
20:12:01 Did you notify them?
20:12:04 >>> We notified them and we had to give notice to them
20:12:09 at the ARC.
20:12:10 >> I don't have --
20:12:12 >>> We never received any feedback at all.
20:12:14 Okay, Susan?
20:12:15 Here's a hand Mike.
20:12:22 >>> Susan Elsman.
20:12:24 I'm the architect on the project.
20:12:28 I reside at 1296 Inverness drive in Dunedin.
20:12:31 I have not been sworn in.
20:12:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else need to be sworn in to
20:12:40 speak?
20:12:40 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:12:48 >>> My design for the building based on Mr. Shown

20:12:53 Berg's desire for a Mediterranean design similar to
20:12:56 the one that is Mr. Bentley just mentioned to you,
20:13:00 which are not in the historic district which are
20:13:02 actually closer to this site than another building
20:13:06 that is in the historic district that is also
20:13:09 Mediterranean revival style.
20:13:12 In the Tampa Heights design guidelines do state the
20:13:16 Mediterranean revival is a design in the district and
20:13:19 there is precedence for it in the district so that was
20:13:21 my original design direction.
20:13:30 The photo you see on the Elmo, your photo number 1
20:13:33 that's in the binder you have is the only building
20:13:36 that is a Mediterranean revival that is in the
20:13:40 district, at the corner of Lamar and oak Avenue.
20:13:43 It is currently, I believe, a condominium use.
20:13:46 It was probably an apartment building or boarding
20:13:49 building of some type When it was originally built.
20:13:52 So obviously its use and scale are considerably
20:13:56 different than the commercial business office that we
20:13:58 are proposing to build.
20:14:02 Nevertheless, as Mr. Bentley said, you can see the use
20:14:06 of arched opening, the parapet style roof at the top,

20:14:11 the small barrel tile, shed roof around the perimeter,
20:14:15 that lend the Mediterranean style to the building.
20:14:21 When I first met with Mr. Schonbrun we were discussing
20:14:27 about what to do with the building and we were talking
20:14:29 about tearing down the existing building which is
20:14:31 about 3600 feet but the building is perfectly
20:14:34 functional, structurally sound, nothing wrong with it.
20:14:37 Financially, economically, environmentally, didn't
20:14:40 make any sense to tear it down so way proposed was
20:14:43 giving that building a face lift, stylistically tying
20:14:46 it to the new structure which is just to the east of
20:14:49 it here.
20:14:53 And having two buildings on the property, which as
20:14:55 Mr. Bentley mentioned the property was already zoned
20:14:57 for -- we were just requesting an additional 2300
20:15:02 square feet to be added to that original PD.
20:15:08 There are several issues on the existing site, one of
20:15:10 which is there's a significant grade drop to the west
20:15:14 side of the site.
20:15:15 And so you have to address that with stormwater, which
20:15:20 staff already reviewed that.
20:15:21 We also have to review it with regard to the design of

20:15:23 the building and the ADA compliance issues.
20:15:26 The current building right now is not compliant with
20:15:30 the -- and the entry to the building here on the south
20:15:34 side is not a pleasant place to go in.
20:15:38 So we are going to have address that all along the
20:15:40 pedestrian entry, the new building and the existing
20:15:43 building.
20:15:44 And that is an usual you that may be causing some
20:15:48 trouble with the existing Sycamore trees on the south
20:15:50 side of the property.
20:15:55 This is the front elevation of the building's south
20:15:59 side on 7th Avenue.
20:16:01 This is the existing building.
20:16:02 Abbye showed you the photo of the building.
20:16:04 It's very flat and I guess some people might call it a
20:16:07 modernist style.
20:16:08 Roof is leaking badly, and Mr. SCHONBRUN requested a
20:16:18 roof that doesn't leak.
20:16:19 We are proposing a bit of a face lift on the new roof
20:16:22 in that building.
20:16:23 And with the new building immediately east of that,
20:16:27 which is intended to be two stories of office space

20:16:30 above parking below.
20:16:31 The parking will be screened by this arcade of columns
20:16:35 that will fit about 6 feet forward of the evenly of
20:16:38 the parking and will use a decorative iron or steel
20:16:41 fencing kind of treatment in the opening, so you can
20:16:47 see the cars behind there.
20:16:50 So this is the south elevation.
20:16:55 On the east elevation, again two stories with office
20:16:59 space, entry into the parking area, this is parking
20:17:03 screen by solid wall here and here, again it will be
20:17:05 treated with a deck rah TV tiff steel iron
20:17:09 architectural treatment.
20:17:10 >> How are you going to keep people from sleeping in
20:17:16 the arcade?
20:17:17 >>> There's fencing on the south side of the property
20:17:19 now, and the east, it runs along the south perimeter
20:17:23 and the east side.
20:17:23 There is currently a masonry wall on the north side of
20:17:27 the property, here, that's really brutal.
20:17:34 And Mr. SCHONBRUN in an attempt to brute Phi the site
20:17:39 wants to remove that and he is willing to sacrifice a
20:17:41 little bit of security on the site in an attempt to

20:17:45 beautify it and sort of recreate the historic
20:17:48 character of that alley that's there.
20:17:50 But it also is one of the reasons that he would like
20:17:52 the underbuilding parking because it's more secure for
20:17:55 staff, that may be working late hours, and the area
20:18:01 does have some crime and security issues.
20:18:03 >> So you are not taking the entire lot --
20:18:08 >> No, it not his intention.
20:18:16 The north side of the property will be the exit from
20:18:19 the underbuilding parking and egress outs of the site
20:18:22 will go through the alley which the ARC has expressed
20:18:26 their support for because that was the original tenth
20:18:28 intent was transportation use.
20:18:30 And then again the existing property.
20:18:34 And then this is the elevation which will be this view
20:18:39 between these two buildings.
20:18:41 As I stated there is precedent for the Mediterranean
20:18:44 revival style in the district.
20:18:46 Furthermore, the design guidelines state, with regard
20:18:53 to massing and building which is one of the ARC's
20:18:57 objections, it does say, it is permissible to have a
20:19:00 building form which is unique in Tampa Heights, but

20:19:03 relates to the neighboring buildings, and to the
20:19:05 neighborhood through its overall massing so this
20:19:11 building was more directly related to the massing and
20:19:13 use. Bourgeois building to the west of this property,
20:19:19 really than anything else in the Tampa Heights
20:19:21 district.
20:19:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Bentley, anything else?
20:19:27 >>MARK BENTLEY: No, unless you have any more questions
20:19:32 on design issues, and I'll let Susan go.
20:19:34 But I would like to point out we keep talking about
20:19:37 Stetson and Bush Ross, and we scaled them off, and I
20:19:42 think Bush Ross is 800 lineal feet away and Stetson is
20:19:45 900, whereas what the staff suggested we emulate is
20:19:49 closer to a half mile away, okay?
20:19:51 So that area, that's the kind of theme, the
20:19:54 architecture there, in terms of the Mediterranean
20:19:57 revival, and specifically in the guidelines, they say
20:20:01 that's an acceptable type of architecture, that we are
20:20:05 promoting.
20:20:06 So, you know, and then on the other issue on the trees
20:20:09 on the south, I don't know if you are familiar with
20:20:11 the property or not.

20:20:12 But there's a very severe grade, and city owns a
20:20:15 parking lot to the west right on Morgan and you are
20:20:18 talking about a very severe slope so we have to
20:20:21 elevate and do a lot of fill there and put in our ADA
20:20:24 ramps so there's four Sycamore there is in a T
20:20:27 magnitude 10-inch radius to whatever.
20:20:30 It's on the plan.
20:20:30 And those would have to be removed.
20:20:32 Here again we would mitigate those and place them on
20:20:37 the site.
20:20:39 That's all we have.
20:20:40 I'm sorry, go ahead.
20:20:41 >>> I had one more remark with regard to the parking.
20:20:44 The parking, to go out on a limb, I'm pretty safe in
20:20:48 saying it was the single-most deciding factors for the
20:20:51 ARC staff in not recommending the design as is.
20:20:55 But I would like to point out again and Mr. Went
20:20:59 Bentley touched on it briefly in the design guidelines
20:21:02 it does say, it is permissible to provide parking to
20:21:05 meet the City of Tampa zoning code which does not
20:21:07 distract from the visual character of the Tampa
20:21:09 Heights historic district.

20:21:11 It is permissible to screen parking from the street
20:21:14 with landscaping, fencing, walls, or buildings.
20:21:19 So I think it doesn't say -- it doesn't specifically
20:21:22 say under building parking, but that it's preferable
20:21:27 and desirable to screen the parking and the use of the
20:21:29 building.
20:21:39 >>MARY MULHERN: The bush Ross building and Stetson,
20:21:42 are those in the Tampa Heights historic district?
20:21:44 >> They are just west of the boundary, Mrs. Mulhern.
20:21:47 They are called Tampa Heights but they are not
20:21:49 technically in the district.
20:21:50 >> In the historic district.
20:21:53 And this is a beautiful Mediterranean revival building
20:21:56 but did you say that's the only example of that style
20:21:59 in the district?
20:22:00 >>> Yes.
20:22:00 It's the only remaining one that we are aware of and
20:22:03 the ARC, the staff specifically directed me to look at
20:22:07 this for my design.
20:22:10 >> And that's what maybe used to thereby?
20:22:12 >> Yes.
20:22:13 The original design, Mr. Bentley indicated that we

20:22:16 have modified the design already.
20:22:18 The original design for the building, for both
20:22:21 buildings indicated a Spanish roof so I had a similar
20:22:26 type of roof over this entire building and they
20:22:28 thought that was too massive and overwhelming.
20:22:30 So I went back and looked at that building on Lamar,
20:22:34 and revised to this smaller per a pet roof.
20:22:40 It's lower and not as massive.
20:22:42 The other added benefit there is that we can put the
20:22:45 air conditioning units on the rooftop and hide them
20:22:47 from the site.
20:22:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was any staff person present for
20:22:59 the ARC meeting?
20:23:01 Was anybody in this room present for the ARC meeting?
20:23:04 >> Abbye was.
20:23:06 >> Oh, that was my question.
20:23:08 >>> I am not an ARC staff person.
20:23:10 I was in attendance for the ARC meeting.
20:23:12 So whats Mr. Stefan.
20:23:16 >> What I am having trouble with is Mr. Bentley has
20:23:18 been pretty persuasive on showing us the provisions
20:23:21 that say -- of the historic code that say that this

20:23:25 could be allowable, might be allowable, that sort of
20:23:28 thing.
20:23:28 What did the ARC get so hung up on?
20:23:31 And you know what?
20:23:32 According to Dennis Fernandez report dated June
20:23:35 4th it's not just the parking above.
20:23:38 His report says inconsistent with building mass and
20:23:41 form, and consistent with historically commercial
20:23:44 building forms.
20:23:45 So you were there.
20:23:47 We don't have the transcript in front of us.
20:23:51 I just need a little help here.
20:23:52 I don't wanted to just totally discount and discard
20:23:56 the ARC and all the good time that they spend on this.
20:23:59 But at the same time, some pretty good arguments as to
20:24:04 why this isn't such a bad thing.
20:24:05 >> The item that I can recall was in Mr. Villa's
20:24:12 presentation that he made concerning the parking and I
20:24:14 guess that parking bumped the building up and that
20:24:20 could have been related to massing but I do not recall
20:24:22 the discussions surrounding massing of the building
20:24:26 and how that was consistent.

20:24:27 >> And was this unanimous?
20:24:29 Do you have any recollection?
20:24:30 >> It was unanimous.
20:24:32 It was a vote of 4 to zero.
20:24:35 Of who was present that evening.
20:24:37 That evening I do recall we had a little trouble
20:24:38 getting started because we didn't have a quorum, and
20:24:41 we had to wait until I believe almost 7:30 or 8:00 to
20:24:46 get started.
20:24:47 And then it went pretty quickly.
20:24:50 >> Mr. Stetsman?
20:24:55 >> Mr. Dingfelder, I did want to mention should it be
20:24:57 council's pleasure to a proffer this this evening,
20:24:59 this project would still require certificate of
20:25:01 appropriateness from the ARC afterward.
20:25:05 >> But we have a process in place, that they give us a
20:25:09 recommendation, and they have given us a
20:25:11 recommendation.
20:25:12 So that's why I am asking these questions.
20:25:14 >>> John, if I could, it's really a land use issue.
20:25:17 So --
20:25:19 >> Then we shouldn't have that process.

20:25:21 >>> It's kind of hard for them to take that frame of
20:25:25 mind and segregate it from a land use issue versus a
20:25:28 design issue.
20:25:30 To me it's not a design issue at this point in time.
20:25:33 It's a land use -- is land use appropriate at this
20:25:37 location?
20:25:37 Now we have to go back and get in design with them.
20:25:39 But go ahead.
20:25:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
20:25:42 But the bottom line is once we approve this PD site
20:25:53 plan, then you go back with the presumes you are going
20:25:56 to have a garage on the first floor.
20:25:57 So then they work from that point forward.
20:25:59 That's why I guess we have the process.
20:26:01 >>> Can I make a comment?
20:26:05 Excuse me.
20:26:05 Objection is the fact that there is no precedent in
20:26:07 the district for parking under the building.
20:26:10 And there isn't.
20:26:11 Historically, it hasn't been done.
20:26:13 It's a fairly contemporary idea based on conservative
20:26:18 use of our land and not having swollen parking lots

20:26:23 and that sort of thing all around.
20:26:25 No, there isn't precedent for it.
20:26:27 And that was, you know, technically, I was told, we
20:26:30 have to object because there isn't precedence for it.
20:26:33 >>
20:26:37 >> Jim, did you point out this vision that you point
20:26:39 out tonight that speaks to the fact that -- I can't
20:26:42 remember what tab it's under but speaks to the fact
20:26:45 that it's permissible that parking, provide parking
20:26:50 which does not distract from -- did you point that
20:26:55 out?
20:26:55 And how did they accept that or reject that?
20:26:58 >>> Jim Stutzman, Tampa, I have been sworn.
20:27:03 We didn't specifically get into that in detail.
20:27:06 >> You didn't?
20:27:07 >> No, just to expand a little bit on their denial,
20:27:12 they had mentioned to us, the staff had, that we could
20:27:16 put up a three-story building and they wouldn't have a
20:27:19 problem with that.
20:27:19 It was -- so the mass would still be the same.
20:27:23 It's just they didn't like the parking.
20:27:25 So if they don't like the parking, they start adding

20:27:28 other reasons why they are going to recommend against
20:27:29 our project.
20:27:30 That's my personal opinion of why there are more
20:27:34 things than just parking in their denial.
20:27:36 >> So you would put one-story parking underneath and
20:27:40 then two stories use above.
20:27:43 You think they would have still had problems?
20:27:44 >> No, that's what we.
20:27:47 If we had put three stories of office in the same
20:27:51 envelope, I think they would have not had a problem.
20:27:53 The issue was the parking underneath, and they just
20:27:56 could not get over that one issue.
20:28:01 >> Ms. Saul-Sena, then Ms. Mulhern.
20:28:04 >> Okay.
20:28:05 John, there's a memorandum to Abbye from Dennis
20:28:08 Fernandez, and it spells out -- and I'll read it to
20:28:12 you -- the ARC reviewed the referential
20:28:17 recommendations to City Council to rezone at its
20:28:20 meeting, and recommended denial.
20:28:24 Bullet points.
20:28:25 One was about the parking.
20:28:27 And it's unprecedented, but it also -- obviously adds

20:28:33 another floor.
20:28:36 So that's about the massing and the scale.
20:28:38 And I think there isn't anything around there that's
20:28:44 anywhere near that height.
20:28:45 And it's a four-story building that as far as the
20:28:50 mass.
20:28:56 Well, what are those towers?
20:28:58 >> Just pretend things.
20:28:59 >> Stair and elevators service areas are permitted to
20:29:01 be higher. That's what those are.
20:29:03 >> So there's no -- no actual space up there?
20:29:08 >> There's no usable space in there, no.
20:29:11 >> Because it adds to the mass and scale of the
20:29:13 building.
20:29:14 I think it's probably not a -- wasn't a good choice.
20:29:21 >> It does serve a practical function which is the
20:29:24 operation of the elevator and equipment.
20:29:26 But it does not -- it's not leasable office space, no.
20:29:35 >> But it's mass.
20:29:36 So there's a mass.
20:29:38 Three, it's inconsistent with other details of
20:29:40 historically appropriate commercial buildings.

20:29:46 And then the fourth bullet point references pages of
20:29:51 the Tampa Heights design guidelines.
20:29:55 So we perhaps should see those if we are not sure.
20:29:59 >> You have those in the back of the bind theory
20:30:02 Mr. Bentley gave you.
20:30:03 I'm not sure that you have all of them.
20:30:05 But I know that you have at least page 45, which
20:30:08 represents massing of building.
20:30:12 >> You might want to look at that you are comments it.
20:30:16 Page 42, 45 and 49.
20:30:27 My feelings are the ARC's recommendations, you can
20:30:30 accept it but I think it pretty clear if you look at
20:30:38 that building in the context of the neighborhood and
20:30:40 the neighboring buildings, it is much bigger.
20:30:48 >> The apartment building directly north, which is ten
20:30:51 stories?
20:30:52 >> A ten story building.
20:30:53 It's not a contributing structure in the district but
20:30:57 it is within the district Abbye showed you.
20:30:58 >> We have given you all the pages except for 42 and
20:31:01 some additional ones.
20:31:02 It shows how subjective it is.

20:31:04 We are reading these things to you and it sounds
20:31:07 logical and buttressing our arguments and then
20:31:10 conversely the ARC used the same language to justify
20:31:13 their position so it is unprecedented because there's
20:31:15 only one of the Mediterranean buildings in Tampa
20:31:18 Heights but it's acceptable design.
20:31:20 And it's just -- I don't know if you have been out
20:31:22 there, Ms --
20:31:29 >> That's the reason to me of designating it a
20:31:32 historic district and I'm sure that apartment building
20:31:36 is not zoned or built when there were design
20:31:40 guidelines there.
20:31:41 So, you know, one tall building before the guidelines
20:31:50 isn't really justified.
20:31:51 >> The image on the Elmo, the apartment buildings that
20:31:54 are on the southeast corner diagonal from our property
20:32:00 and that's a three-story apartment building.
20:32:02 >> The city built those.
20:32:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I can shed some light on this
20:32:15 because I used to go to Dr. Philip Adler, they were
20:32:20 one story, on this little brick street, lovely granite
20:32:24 curbs, and the reasons they are very incompatible is

20:32:28 because Mayor Greco talked to Monsignor Higgins,
20:32:33 because that's where the original St. Joe's was to
20:32:36 give those structures have nothing appropriate but I
20:32:49 wasn't on council at that moment but that's how it
20:32:51 came to be.
20:32:52 And the ten-story high-rise which is most unattractive
20:32:57 that houses senior citizens was built 30 years ago
20:32:59 with money for senior citizen high-rise property.
20:33:02 But now it's a new day.
20:33:03 We have got a neighborhood that's active and I'm
20:33:07 really surprised they are not here.
20:33:08 They worked very hard on their plan.
20:33:10 There's been so much reinvestment in residential uses
20:33:14 around here.
20:33:15 And if we were to look on the land use plan you have
20:33:25 residential uses and then along Main Street you have
20:33:27 commercial uses and I think it's a question of
20:33:29 compatibility and I think we should respect the ARC.
20:33:37 If you tip the floor of the parking lot and just have
20:33:39 it as an office and your client purchased some
20:33:45 additional parking, put in some bike wracks, that
20:33:49 might be better.

20:33:56 But the good David Mechanik Nuccio, it wouldn't have
20:34:02 been approved in the historic district.
20:34:03 The other places you cited aren't part of the Tampa
20:34:06 Heights historic district.
20:34:12 >> If it's acceptable we can describe it so it
20:34:15 doesn't --
20:34:16 >> What I would say to you is that Tampa street is a
20:34:19 major thoroughfare.
20:34:21 Whereas Morgan street subpoena this rather intimate
20:34:24 brick street.
20:34:24 It's only about 18 feet across.
20:34:27 It's -- called Tampa Heights because there is actually
20:34:36 an elevation.
20:34:40 And perhaps it's your plan -- and it's very
20:34:43 attractively drawn.
20:34:45 If you put it on a commercial street, that is in this
20:34:49 little Morgan street is okay.
20:34:50 It's just not good here.
20:34:52 That's the challenge.
20:34:57 >> Could you put up the existing one-story building,
20:34:59 the photographs, if you have them?
20:35:02 Abbye?

20:35:09 And after she puts that up, or if you can do it on the
20:35:12 same frame, the proposed facade.
20:35:27 >>> Mr. Chairman, we have some supporters here.
20:35:40 I just thought I would bring that to your attention.
20:35:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions, and then we'll take public
20:35:47 comment.
20:35:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't realize there were more
20:35:50 people to speak.
20:35:51 I think at the end of the day I am going to support
20:35:52 this and I'll tell you why.
20:35:54 I'm looking at it.
20:35:54 Right now that little one story thing with all due
20:35:57 respect to the counselors who worked there is just a
20:36:00 1960s, 1970s looking pent.
20:36:03 And what they are looking to do as part of this entire
20:36:09 site plan is redo it and make a lovely little
20:36:12 one-story building and not too-bad looking three-story
20:36:17 building and I think the fact that they are hiding
20:36:19 seven or eight cars behind -- behind, you know,
20:36:22 really, really hiding it behind the structure is
20:36:26 better than parking cars outside.
20:36:33 So I try to support our various boards as often as

20:36:36 possible.
20:36:37 That's what I was trying to dig out from staff, is
20:36:40 what was their problem?
20:36:41 What was their issue? What was their discussion?
20:36:43 And I'm not getting a lot back.
20:36:45 So I think in between first and second reading I am
20:36:48 going to try to read the transcript from the ARC but
20:36:51 short of that, I think this is very persuasive.
20:36:54 I think it's a big improvement to the entire site.
20:37:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me take public comment.
20:37:05 Anyone here that wishes to address council.
20:37:07 Yes, come forward.
20:37:17 >>> I purchased the property at 202 east 7th
20:37:22 Avenue which is right next to this property.
20:37:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The petitioner did, right?
20:37:33 >> No, the property next to it.
20:37:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
20:37:36 >> And I work out of that office.
20:37:39 We have an international company there. As you can
20:37:41 see, my ancestors are Spanish.
20:37:44 I like history.
20:37:45 I like architecture.

20:37:47 And I love the Ybor City style and so on.
20:37:50 But I just don't understand the thinking here.
20:37:54 What they are proposing here is great.
20:37:55 It's magnificent.
20:37:57 I mean, have you ever been in that area?
20:38:03 I mean, I am there every day.
20:38:05 So are my colleagues back here. We all see the
20:38:06 drawings.
20:38:06 You need to focus on another area.
20:38:08 You need to approve this and focus on the trash.
20:38:13 The Salvation Army is right across the street from us,
20:38:15 from them.
20:38:17 That building, I believe, is three or four stories
20:38:19 high.
20:38:21 You are saying there's no other buildings like that.
20:38:25 The lines there in the afternoons, the people going
20:38:28 through there, the trash that is being left behind,
20:38:30 and you are worrying about the trash?
20:38:33 Are you making sure they pick up the trash every day?
20:38:36 Because right now, right next door to our property,
20:38:38 there's piles of clothing, blankets, all kinds of
20:38:42 items that make the whole area look terrible.

20:38:46 Tampa Heights.
20:38:48 All there is is one column.
20:38:51 It says historical district.
20:38:53 I can't tell how far that goes.
20:38:57 I look especially at the university.
20:38:59 Mediterranean style.
20:39:00 So are some of the other buildings.
20:39:02 They are fantastic.
20:39:03 I wanted to do the same thing to my building.
20:39:06 And I was waiting for Harvey and the history people to
20:39:12 finish so I renovate the inside totally, but I left
20:39:16 the outside waiting for them to do their construction
20:39:18 so that I can follow suit and make it similar to
20:39:21 theirs so it fits into the local area.
20:39:24 But the parking, what is the issue about? You can't
20:39:33 even see the automobiles.
20:39:34 Do you want them to park in the street?
20:39:39 And then people come around and do damage to it?
20:39:42 We have people that came to our building and stole,
20:39:45 you know, cell phones.
20:39:48 Nobody is worrying about that.
20:39:51 I mean, what they want to do is I really support it.

20:39:57 So does our whole staff.
20:39:58 We had the drawings.
20:39:59 We looked at it.
20:40:00 And we think it's magnificent.
20:40:02 And I just don't understand why the negative thing
20:40:07 with parking under N.E.A.T. and the issue, that it's
20:40:10 not like the rest of the buildings in the area,
20:40:13 because they want to build three stories?
20:40:17 There's that high-rise building right next to us
20:40:21 that's like 15 stories high.
20:40:24 Salvation Army is right across the street from
20:40:26 7th.
20:40:26 And I know it's two floors but I think it's three --
20:40:30 or a little higher.
20:40:33 And I just don't understand it.
20:40:35 I'm sorry.
20:40:35 But I hope you can change your mind and see it our
20:40:38 way.
20:40:39 Thank you.
20:40:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?
20:40:46 Rebuttal?
20:40:47 >>> Well, reverend, I'm not a religious man but I see

20:40:52 that look and when a preacher looks at you that way I
20:40:56 know when to shut up and I think we said everything we
20:40:59 need to say.
20:41:00 We think it's a great project and hopefully you will
20:41:02 support it.
20:41:04 Thank you.
20:41:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions?
20:41:06 Additional questions?
20:41:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
20:41:09 >> Second.
20:41:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you explain how you were
20:41:15 going to mitigate for the trees you were going to
20:41:19 destroy?
20:41:19 >>> We will be making an in lieu payment to the city
20:41:28 and we plan to, where necessary, we are somewhat
20:41:32 limited for green space on the property.
20:41:37 We worked out with staff already Mr. SCHONBRUN's
20:41:43 original request was to remove all of the Sycamore
20:41:46 trees because he planted them himself, and in the
20:41:49 spirit of cooperation, we agreed to leave the ones all
20:41:53 along the east property line here.
20:41:56 The ones on the south property line as I mentioned

20:41:59 earlier, the shaded area here indicate where the
20:42:03 10-foot tree radius is already being impeded by the
20:42:07 existing building line.
20:42:10 It's about 30 inches for each tree.
20:42:12 So the feet are already being stepped on.
20:42:17 We are going to be removing some of the sidewalk and
20:42:20 ramp and dropping grade a bit and dropping some new
20:42:23 sidewalk to meet ADA requirement which means we are
20:42:27 going to be trying our very best not to step on those
20:42:30 trees' roots anymore but it's virtually impossible
20:42:33 given what we are going to have to do to meet ADA
20:42:36 access to the building.
20:42:37 And so we would like to remove these and plant healthy
20:42:41 new trees on the site that have plenty of room to
20:42:44 grow, and won't cause problems or do damage in the
20:42:48 future.
20:42:48 >> I think Mary Bryson thinks there might be an
20:42:55 alternative approach.
20:42:56 >>
20:42:56 >> Mary Daniel Bryson, Land Development Coordination.
20:42:59 I did an assessment to the impact to those trees.
20:43:10 Basically, the four trees here, the roots have

20:43:19 already -- you are not going to have roots within the
20:43:24 specific area.
20:43:25 Even if it were the other case around, they would have
20:43:28 root pruned at this point prior to constructing that
20:43:33 new ramp.
20:43:33 And those roots again would have grown away from that.
20:43:37 >> So you think they can survive?
20:43:39 >> I do think they can survive.
20:43:44 I would say that this tree right here, because of the
20:43:53 impact of this tremendous ramp as far as the levers
20:43:57 dropping, the Sycamores having fruit that would also
20:44:00 drop.
20:44:00 But I would say these three trees on the west would --
20:44:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question of petitioner
20:44:10 then?
20:44:10 Would the petitioner consider savoring the three trees
20:44:13 to the left?
20:44:14 >>> We will, but here again, we are at the zoning
20:44:18 stage.
20:44:18 If I can show you one --
20:44:20 >> Between first and second reading you can make that
20:44:22 note.

20:44:22 >>> Okay.
20:44:23 We'll look at that.
20:44:24 But I just want to show you one thing.
20:44:26 If you look at this photo here, this is from 7th
20:44:28 Avenue looking at this property.
20:44:29 See this severe grade right there, and there's a
20:44:32 Sycamore?
20:44:33 We have to elevate all that with fill and deal with
20:44:35 these trees and we are adding onto that building so
20:44:38 it's going to be very difficult, and, you know, might
20:44:41 impact these trees.
20:44:42 What we are saying, let's put some healthy significant
20:44:45 trees on the property instead of trying to dance
20:44:47 around and deal with this issue here.
20:44:49 But we'll look at it, okay?
20:44:51 Between first and second reading.
20:44:57 >> I don't think that's what it allows to us do.
20:45:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
20:45:00 It's like "we will save these trees" that's a note on
20:45:04 the site plan.
20:45:05 >>> As I said earlier, to do anything that needs to be
20:45:09 articulated tonight, what the change will be, because

20:45:12 that is the process, and the zoning, can't certify the
20:45:18 site plan at second reading unless there is some
20:45:21 indication at first reading as to what the specific
20:45:23 conditions are.
20:45:24 So that's the problem.
20:45:25 >>> I'm sorry, we will commit to that but here again
20:45:28 in the process of construction they could be damaged
20:45:30 irreparably but we will commit to that to the extent
20:45:33 we can save those trees.
20:45:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not to the extent.
20:45:38 We will save these trees.
20:45:40 >>> Mary Daniels.
20:45:41 If those trees are damaged at the time through
20:45:43 construction, that is an effective removal at that
20:45:47 point, and at that point it would be inch for inch
20:45:49 replacement for those trees, because of the damage
20:45:52 that was inflicted through the construction process.
20:45:54 >>> So we'll just flat out commit with the caveat Mary
20:45:59 said if they are damaged we'll do the mitigation but
20:46:01 we will commit to saving those three trees.
20:46:03 >> We don't want you to be out there during
20:46:07 construction.

20:46:07 >>> Not that I know anything about trees.
20:46:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anything else you want to add?
20:46:13 >> No, thank you.
20:46:14 >> Motion to close.
20:46:15 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
20:46:17 Mr. Caetano?
20:46:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I respect Mrs. Saul-Sena who has
20:46:30 been here almost 20 years but we have got to change or
20:46:33 we are still going to be behind the 8 ball.
20:46:35 We are never going to get there.
20:46:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: do you have the language?
20:46:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
20:47:01 The three Sycamore trees.
20:47:05 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Bentley, are you going to be
20:47:07 out there supervising when they do these trees?
20:47:09 I'll read this.
20:47:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clerk, do you have a copy of that
20:47:14 book?
20:47:15 I'm sorry.
20:47:15 Yes, thank you.
20:47:16 Sorry.
20:47:17 >>> Rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1802

20:47:20 north Morgan street in the city of Tampa, Florida more
20:47:24 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
20:47:26 district classifications PD planned development,
20:47:29 business professional office, to PD planned
20:47:32 development, business professional office, providing
20:47:35 an effective date.
20:47:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
20:47:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Great cities respect their history,
20:47:46 and I think great cities also respect the
20:47:49 neighborhoods and how they want their neighborhood to
20:47:52 grow.
20:47:52 And I think, you know, we can all grandstand about how
20:47:59 we are so appalled when historic building goes down,
20:48:04 but if you are not willing to support historic
20:48:08 neighborhoods, then, you know, you're not going to be
20:48:12 the next great city, you are just going to be the same
20:48:15 old city like everybody else that's building -- that's
20:48:20 not respecting their history, and not respecting their
20:48:23 neighborhoods, and not respecting their professional
20:48:31 commission to gave us a recommend to deny this and it
20:48:35 could have been a building that was designed
20:48:36 appropriate to the design guidelines, and it's not.

20:48:39 So I'm not going to support it.
20:48:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Saul-Sena.
20:48:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I won't be supporting this either,
20:48:49 because the ARC -- because I can see the way the wind
20:48:53 is blowing.
20:48:54 I wanted to make sure I protected the trees.
20:48:56 But I feel so strongly that Tampa Heights has made
20:49:00 tremendous strides, and this building -- while it's a
20:49:04 nice building for another location, doesn't respect
20:49:07 Tampa Heights character.
20:49:09 So that's why I will not be supporting this.
20:49:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Caetano, does your motion include
20:49:15 the preservation, the direction to staff, to add a
20:49:20 note to preserve the three of the first -- the first
20:49:26 three of the four Sycamore trees in the front?
20:49:29 >>> Mr. Bentley said he would.
20:49:30 >>> Yes, that's correct.
20:49:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That was part of your motion?
20:49:34 >> That is right of the motion.
20:49:36 >>> Thank you.
20:49:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am going to support the motion.
20:49:38 And I think the only issue that I note that the ARC

20:49:43 really highlighted is the parking issue.
20:49:45 That's what they focused in on primarily.
20:49:47 And you can see the parking in the design of this
20:49:51 building.
20:49:52 I will tell you, one it's in my district.
20:49:54 Two, I go through there all the time.
20:49:56 And to improve -- this is a great improvement.
20:50:00 In fact it would allow things, I see it when I go
20:50:03 through.
20:50:03 So I am going to support the motion, because it does
20:50:06 enhance the community.
20:50:08 And then lastly, believe me, if that community didn't
20:50:12 want this, they would have been out here.
20:50:13 They would have been here in big numbers opposing this
20:50:17 tonight.
20:50:17 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree.
20:50:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Believe me.
20:50:19 I know that about Tampa Heights.
20:50:20 Okay?
20:50:21 There's a motion on the floor.
20:50:22 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
20:50:24 Opposes?

20:50:25 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Mulhern
20:50:30 voting no.
20:50:31 Miranda being absent.
20:50:33 Second reading and adoption will be on August 21st
20:50:36 at 9:30 a.m.
20:50:37 >>> Thank you very much for your time and
20:50:39 consideration.
20:50:40 Appreciate it.
20:50:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
20:50:42 That was our last rezoning item tonight.
20:50:45 We have one other issue.
20:50:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Receive and file as well.
20:50:48 >> So moved.
20:50:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
20:50:50 (Motion carried).
20:50:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, I didn't see the letter
20:50:57 from MacDill saying they didn't support the
20:51:01 planned amendment.
20:51:02 So what do we do about that?
20:51:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion, council, my
20:51:07 suggestion, council --
20:51:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The first go-around.

20:51:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Without getting into details, you
20:51:16 recall, to refresh council's recollection, there was
20:51:18 also a transmittal hearing.
20:51:19 And my suggestion is that you take the opportunity --
20:51:30 this is not a quasi-judicial hearing.
20:51:34 The comprehensive plan amendment.
20:51:36 That you take the opportunity to review the record,
20:51:38 get your questions answered, refresh your
20:51:41 recollection, so you can relay the issues when it
20:51:46 comes back and Mr. Bentley has the opportunity to
20:51:49 address these concerns.
20:51:50 >> I want to point out that the transmittal hearing
20:51:55 sent this to MacDill.
20:51:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My understanding also is this did go
20:52:00 to DCA.
20:52:01 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
20:52:05 Transmittal public hearing sends to the department --
20:52:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to move.
20:52:15 >>> The Department of Community Affairs the
20:52:19 comprehensive plan amendment.
20:52:21 In that process.
20:52:22 And this is generally --

20:52:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Julia, Randy stood up here and said
20:52:28 this was a pilot -- what was that business about a
20:52:30 pilot program where it didn't go to the --
20:52:33 >>JULIA COLE: No, it goes to DCA for their review.
20:52:36 It's just under a general -- the way we have done
20:52:38 before, you actually had a different level of review
20:52:41 by the department of community affairs, and a
20:52:46 different action that you take in reacting to the
20:52:49 Department of Community Affairs, and what they call an
20:52:53 ORC report which is objections, recommendations and
20:52:56 comments report.
20:52:56 We don't have that process anymore.
20:52:59 The DCA does not get as involved in the pilot programs
20:53:05 in terms of review and comment as they would generally
20:53:09 do.
20:53:09 So that's the only difference in the process.
20:53:13 DCA still reviews it.
20:53:15 They review what's in the record.
20:53:17 They make comments, but you are not obligated in the
20:53:20 same manner to be responsive.
20:53:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, I'll just reread.
20:53:26 We need to reread it.

20:53:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we get a transcript for
20:53:30 council?
20:53:32 >>> Of what, of the transmittal public hearing?
20:53:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we do normally?
20:53:42 >>MARY MULHERN: You can request part of this in the
20:53:44 handout we got from that other lawyer.
20:53:48 >>MARK BENTLEY: Just to explain, actually the
20:53:51 gentleman who had the zoning supplied that and caused
20:53:53 this confusion.
20:53:54 He gave you part of the transcript.
20:53:55 If you look at it, the colonel from MacDill showed
20:53:57 up at that hearing in April.
20:54:02 >> It's been in the file.
20:54:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
20:54:05 Let's -- okay.
20:54:06 The one last item is on the firefighters.
20:54:12 Long day.
20:54:13 Long day.
20:54:13 The proposed date now is the 22nd, which is on a
20:54:17 Friday.
20:54:17 Friday morning.
20:54:23 I can do 10 a.m., I can't do 9 a.m.

20:54:26 I have a doctor's appointment.
20:54:27 >>> Friday morning, August 22nd, council?
20:54:30 10:00?
20:54:34 I believe it's been cleared with most of your aides.
20:54:36 >>MARY MULHERN: We keep changing it.
20:54:39 Hold on.
20:54:40 August --
20:54:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's a Friday morning.
20:54:43 Chambers are available.
20:54:45 Mr. Darrell Smith has been informed.
20:54:47 He will make the necessary arrangements.
20:54:49 If there is any issue with it, it will be resolved
20:54:51 between now and the time of council's next regular
20:54:54 meeting.
20:54:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, I'm fine.
20:54:57 10 a.m.?
20:54:58 >> 10 a.m.
20:54:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: He will begin this process in
20:55:00 accommodating that date and time if at all possible.
20:55:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
20:55:07 >> Second.
20:55:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved and seconded we set the

20:55:10 hearing for the contract resolution on the
20:55:14 firefighters union, the 22nd of August at 10 a.m., in
20:55:18 these chambers.
20:55:20 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
20:55:22 Opposes same sign.
20:55:23 Okay.
20:55:25 Yes, sir.
20:55:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We had almost a 12 hour as of right
20:55:31 now a 12 hour day and a triple header.
20:55:34 I understand we have another one scheduled in August.
20:55:36 And I would like to suggest we figure out a
20:55:39 different -- what's the date of the triple header?
20:55:44 >>GWEN MILLER: 21st.
20:55:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion is, and if council
20:55:50 wishes I'll work with the chair and with the clerk's
20:55:52 office.
20:55:53 Under the new process, you have nine wet zoning
20:55:56 hearings, wet zonings scheduled for 1:30.
20:55:58 You have one closure public hearing scald for 1:30.
20:56:01 You have one appeal of the variance review board
20:56:05 scheduled for 1:30 and you have a meeting of the
20:56:07 Community Redevelopment Agency at 1:30.

20:56:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You and the chair need to work on
20:56:14 that.
20:56:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But the problem I don't know how the
20:56:16 CRA got scheduled on our regular meeting -- I don't
20:56:18 know what happened with that.
20:56:19 >> Throw the CRA off and do it in September.
20:56:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Because we mentioned meeting on the
20:56:26 2nd.
20:56:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I understand but if we didn't have
20:56:29 a meeting in August maybe it wouldn't be the end of
20:56:31 the world.
20:56:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a suggestion.
20:56:34 The reason that August is so crazy is because of the
20:56:38 Florida League of Cities meeting.
20:56:39 My question is, because -- usually we have to -- this
20:56:47 year it's in Tampa.
20:56:48 I personally would be available to meet that Thursday.
20:56:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The 14th.
20:56:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perhaps if we could shift something
20:56:58 to that day it would lighten the burden.
20:57:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes we could shift the
20:57:03 CRA to that day.

20:57:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will be available.
20:57:06 If we could get three more people to be available that
20:57:09 would really make life easier and my thought is we
20:57:12 would probably be done with the CRA meeting in two
20:57:14 hours.
20:57:14 So, I mean, that would be I think a resolution.
20:57:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only reason we block out that
20:57:24 week is we are traveling to some other part of the
20:57:26 state.
20:57:27 This year it's in Tampa.
20:57:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, my suggestion, council, when
20:57:36 you come back you only allow a week between the CRA on
20:57:41 the 14th.
20:57:42 The next tame you come back is August 2nd.
20:57:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion that
20:57:49 we reschedule our August CRA meeting till August
20:57:52 14th at 9 a.m
20:57:54 Instead of the 21st.
20:57:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
20:58:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
20:58:02 Opposes?
20:58:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And the third issue is --

20:58:06 My only question is, I don't know how that got moved
20:58:09 anyway.
20:58:09 I don't know what happened.
20:58:19 >>> (off microphone)
20:58:28 >>MARY MULHERN:... the streetcar by HART?
20:58:34 Well, you will.
20:58:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What is the motion?
20:58:36 Is it a request?
20:58:38 >>MARY MULHERN: To put it on the agenda for
20:58:40 discussion.
20:58:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What day?
20:58:45 >>MARY MULHERN: Don't we have a regular council
20:58:47 meeting next week?
20:58:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have a regular council meeting.
20:58:50 Are you intending to invite anybody to that or is that
20:58:53 a council discussion of it?
20:58:55 Because you should be able -- unfortunately, with only
20:58:58 a week's time if you intend to invite somebody, you
20:59:01 have to factor that in.
20:59:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know.
20:59:09 We can invite David Amijo.
20:59:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm just curious, Mrs. Mulhern, would

20:59:20 your office be able to do that invitation?
20:59:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah.
20:59:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a second?
20:59:25 >> Second.
20:59:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So there's a motion to have a
20:59:27 discussion on our regular agenda meeting during staff
20:59:32 time, staff report time, street car, and inviting the
20:59:38 Executive Director for the Hart board.
20:59:51 , made a motion, that we have some backup information.
20:59:58 >>MARY MULHERN: I will report to you on -- I'm on the
21:00:01 Tampa historic streetcar board.
21:00:03 And we had a meeting yesterday, a policy meeting.
21:00:08 So I'll report on that.
21:00:10 And if someone shows up from Hart, they can -- and,
21:00:15 John, you have a meeting next week, don't you?
21:00:17 >> And the other issue is the time, how much time is
21:00:20 going to be needed, because we have a full agenda that
21:00:23 day, too.
21:00:25 So the time will be another issue.
21:00:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council rules state if there is in a
21:00:38 time set by council, the time normally set is five
21:00:41 minutes for the presentation.

21:00:42 If you wish to set any additional time, I would
21:00:44 recommend that for scheduling purposes do you that
21:00:47 today.
21:00:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the issue is, she's going to
21:00:49 make the presentation, evidently, and then inviting
21:00:52 other people to come.
21:00:53 That's what it sounds to me.
21:00:54 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know.
21:00:58 It will depend on what happens, who shows up.
21:01:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor.
21:01:02 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:01:04 Opposes?
21:01:05 Okay.
21:01:05 So moved.
21:01:06 Any other business need to come before council?
21:01:09 Okay.
21:01:10 Seeing none we stand adjourned.
21:01:13 Well past 8:00.
21:01:20 (City Council meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.)


DISCLAIMER:

The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this 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.