TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, May 28, 2009
5:01 p.m. Session
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
17:05:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
17:05:53 We'll have roll call.
17:05:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
17:05:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:05:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:06:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
17:06:04 I have a memorandum from councilman John Dingfelder
17:06:10 that he will be absent from Thursday May 28, 2009
17:06:13 evening meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
17:06:20 It's in the record for the clerk.
17:06:23 We'll pick up now with the workshop on the chapter --
17:06:31 oh, you made it.
17:06:31 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Of course I did. Land development.
17:06:39 These will be pretty straightforward, these
17:06:42 What you have, I sent to you last week.
17:06:45 It's pages 1 through 35.
17:06:47 There is only one privately initiated amendment this
17:06:50 cycle, and that is at then of the booklet so I will go
17:06:53 quickly through the initiated.
17:06:58 The first 2 through 6 is the revision to the Garrison
17:07:01 Channel district, character district, in the downtown
17:07:07 The revision -- and I'll show you on the overhead.
17:07:14 You will note the description of the Garrison Channel
17:07:18 district currently.
17:07:19 We have 12 districts downtown.
17:07:21 The current description downtown is a CBD only.
17:07:25 It's very limited.
17:07:26 It mention it is convention center, a cruise ship
17:07:30 terminal at Harbor Island, when in fact the cruise
17:07:33 ship terminal is in the Channel District.
17:07:35 This revision actually bridges all of this area, with
17:07:40 the new addition of the museum.
17:07:42 It runs from the convention center all the way to the
17:07:46 This is a correction that's needed to occur,
17:07:49 basically, to unify this district.
17:07:52 This is how it's been developed.
17:07:55 So it's a modification to the downtown language, the
17:07:58 clarification of what that district actually is.
17:08:00 And it's also similar modification of the Channel
17:08:03 What this gives council also is a better description
17:08:06 of what is area is.
17:08:08 So in future decision that is you make and policy
17:08:10 decision that is you make, it better captures that
17:08:14 The second change starting on page 7.
17:08:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we want to vote on each one?
17:08:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's completely up to you.
17:08:25 We can do it section by section.
17:08:27 You would have to ask if there's public comment.
17:08:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
17:08:30 I thought maybe we could just run through them.
17:08:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
17:08:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And then have public comment.
17:08:36 Why don't we do it that way?
17:08:38 Otherwise, we have to have the public for each and
17:08:42 we'll be here all night.
17:08:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The second change starting on page
17:08:47 7, this was a direction that City Council, in the last
17:08:52 You will note that the garage setbacks were 18 feet
17:08:54 for one-car garage, and 10 feet for a two-car garage,
17:08:59 from street.
17:09:00 The change that was directed was that it be 18 feet
17:09:04 setback regardless of the size of the garage.
17:09:07 And then a 10-foot for alley.
17:09:11 I have been in discussion was various members of
17:09:13 They would like to leave the language the way that it
17:09:16 I changed it at the direction of council.
17:09:18 When council did make the direction, I did note on the
17:09:21 record that increasing it to 18 feet does add
17:09:25 additional curbage area, basically from a staff
17:09:31 We can go either way on it.
17:09:33 I was reacting to the motion of council on that one.
17:09:36 The next one, page 9, and 10, this also was at the
17:09:41 direction of council.
17:09:42 If you remember the last cycle, the Port Authority had
17:09:46 initiated amendments for the area down in the port to
17:09:48 have 90-foot stacking in their particular area.
17:09:52 Council directed me at that point in time to look at a
17:09:55 way to deal with the stacking and other open storage
17:09:59 areas, because six feet was the limit, and as you know
17:10:02 in a lot of the industrial areas, six feet isn't
17:10:11 practical for a lot of the areas.
17:10:12 We came up with two tables, 6-1 deals with stacking
17:10:16 when it's not adjacent to residential or abuts
17:10:19 Table 6-2 on page 10 is when it does abut residential.
17:10:23 I did make some modifications after the public
17:10:26 information workshop that we held three weeks ago.
17:10:30 The first change was on table 6-2, on page 10, and you
17:10:35 should have the changes, through that agenda.
17:10:39 The third row you will see a double strike through
17:10:42 So when the this opened storage is adjacent to
17:10:46 residential, or separated by an alley, you don't reach
17:10:50 a 15-foot height, you only reach the 8-foot height.
17:10:53 Also, I'm also suggesting that instead of having the
17:10:58 six-foot height in paragraph B on page 9 that we just
17:11:01 simply increase to the 8 feet at the minimum, and then
17:11:05 where it says the additional language in paragraph B,
17:11:09 Heights may exceed 6 feet in height subject to the
17:11:12 What I think it should say based on all the
17:11:14 conversations and research that we have done, Heights
17:11:17 may exceed 8 feet in IH districts only.
17:11:20 When subject to the following.
17:11:21 So you only utilize the tables for increased height
17:11:24 when you are in IH which is the heavy industrial
17:11:27 We went ahead and developed some graphics.
17:11:30 The point was actually proven once we developed them.
17:11:35 This is a 15-foot stacking height in table 6-2 and
17:11:43 what I had the designer do is have a 20-foot setback
17:11:46 from the 8-foot wall so if this is the person standing
17:11:49 at the back door of their house, typical setback of 20
17:11:53 feet, so their line of site, a 6-foot person at an
17:11:56 8-foot wall does see the piling at 15 feet.
17:12:01 We took the 15 feet out because the purpose is so you
17:12:04 don't see it from residential.
17:12:06 Table 6-1, however, you do see in a similar scenario,
17:12:17 at 20-foot, you do see with an 8-foot wall a 40-foot
17:12:21 You see probably the top two-thirds of the stack.
17:12:24 That was the purpose for the IH district only so that
17:12:28 you don't even have residential necessarily around or
17:12:30 even separated by a street, or even a block.
17:12:33 It's within that district only can you get the
17:12:35 increased height because the surrounding properties
17:12:37 will be IH predominantly as well.
17:12:40 It makes sense to do that.
17:12:44 So those are the changes for the open storage.
17:12:50 The creation of a truck rental used in a CG district.
17:12:54 City Council initiated this as well.
17:12:58 We have done research, Jacksonville, Sarasota,
17:13:02 St. Pete, Orlando, Hillsborough County, Clearwater, to
17:13:04 look at how other jurisdiction versus done this.
17:13:07 Just to see if anybody was similar in this particular
17:13:11 This language is similar to Hillsborough County.
17:13:14 It is special use 2 in the CG district and then a
17:13:18 permitted use in CI, GH, a permitted use for vehicle
17:13:24 storage in those particular districts.
17:13:25 Basically, the real change is the CG, special use.
17:13:28 The one change that was agreed to by the group was
17:13:33 only minor vehicle repair would occur in conjunction
17:13:36 with this use in a CG district.
17:13:42 There is concern, though, from the neighborhood groups
17:13:44 that this type of use be allowed in CG.
17:13:48 Staff noted the concerns as well when City Council
17:13:51 made the initial motion to have it in the cycle.
17:13:54 CG is the predominant commercial district on the
17:13:58 variety majority of the minor arterial and the
17:14:02 collector roadways in the city and along some of the
17:14:04 major arterials.
17:14:05 The majority of the zoning along Kennedy Boulevard is
17:14:09 There is a lot of CG on MacDill.
17:14:11 There is a lot of CG along Martin Luther King and so
17:14:16 So there's lots of different roadways, so the only
17:14:22 concern was that large vehicles be allowed to be in a
17:14:25 general retail district.
17:14:27 But the caveat section of City Council is the process,
17:14:30 the fact that it is put in as a special use 2, and
17:14:34 these conditions that are being proposed for the
17:14:36 property itself has to have 10,000 square feet minimum
17:14:39 of lot area.
17:14:40 The property has to have frontage and direct access to
17:14:44 an arterial roadway.
17:14:47 Vehicles available for rental at least shall not
17:14:49 exceed 24 feet in length so there is a cap on the
17:14:52 Storage areas for trucks will be located in the rear
17:14:55 of the lot and screened from view.
17:14:59 But it's all masonry wall.
17:15:01 Parking area for employees, customers, using rental
17:15:03 services, shall be located in the rear.
17:15:06 All vehicle trailers for rent shall be parked on
17:15:08 either asphalt, concrete, or pervious pavement pads.
17:15:12 The number of trucks available is limited to one
17:15:14 vehicle per 400 square feet of the undeveloped land on
17:15:19 the property in the not to exceed 10 trucks.
17:15:22 And then the only vehicle repair that can be on the
17:15:24 property in conjunction is minor vehicle repair which
17:15:28 is typically an oil change or a tire change, or a belt
17:15:32 change, not a transmission overhaul or auto body
17:15:37 There are still concerns, though, as noted from the
17:15:39 public, the representative that spoke before council
17:15:41 that owns one of these facilities is here and will
17:15:44 probably speak on the record about his use as well.
17:15:49 The next change, page 12, this is a list of changes,
17:15:56 and these are really the general clean-up changes.
17:15:59 Many of them are typos, or there are reference that is
17:16:02 were changed in other codes that we had to correct in
17:16:04 this code.
17:16:04 The first one is the addition of the private Yacht
17:16:07 Club, and the use table, private Yacht Club has
17:16:11 already been issued as a determination of use by the
17:16:14 zoning administrator, with a formal definition of City
17:16:17 Council, except subsequently rezonings on a particular
17:16:21 piece of property for yacht clubs so it's formalize,
17:16:25 this is just getting it into the code since it's been
17:16:28 The second change as I said is a record to the
17:16:30 building code that needed to be corrected.
17:16:33 The next page, page 13, this is section 272, 27-272,
17:16:42 irregular lot.
17:16:43 If you noticed in paragraph E, we struck figure blow
17:16:48 because there's actually no figure below in the code.
17:16:50 It's referencing a diagram so that's a correction.
17:16:53 Public notice requirements.
17:16:55 This is at the direction of the legal department.
17:16:57 Specifically Julia Cole, she's not here to speak about
17:17:02 The state statute requirement for notice for published
17:17:05 notice in the newspaper is that you notice before ten
17:17:08 days prior to the second reading of a public hearing.
17:17:11 That's the only change that's occurring in public
17:17:13 Everyone will still receive the letters, the good
17:17:17 neighbor notice and the posting of the sign as usual.
17:17:24 Being added over institutional uses, large scale
17:17:27 commercial development, clarification of that
17:17:31 Private Yacht Club and trailers.
17:17:38 Page 14.
17:17:40 This was actually unintentional change that was done.
17:17:46 You will note probably two cycles ago we -- maybe
17:17:52 three cycles ago we changed the alcoholic beverage
17:17:55 Right at the very end there was a compromise made to
17:17:57 the -- between council and member of the public on
17:18:01 whether or not "R" classifications could go into the
17:18:04 large scale commercial developments, the malls, I'll
17:18:07 call them for short.
17:18:08 The compromise was made that if it had an "R" and they
17:18:14 close at midnight that was the general criteria.
17:18:20 As I recall, I had to make the change immediately
17:18:22 because it was right down at the podium.
17:18:24 Then I had to run and make the change.
17:18:26 What I had done was put "shall" instead of "may" so
17:18:32 this forced people into the S-1, and there was no
17:18:36 other way for someone to get the "R" with a different
17:18:41 time frame other than on appeal so we corrected it.
17:18:44 It's an S-1 if you want to be midnight and "R" at a
17:18:50 mall or come straight to City Council and ask for
17:18:52 something can I have different.
17:18:53 So the way the code is now only on appeal can we go to
17:18:56 City Council so we were trying to give you the full
17:18:58 hearing with all the criteria, the correction in the
17:19:06 Page 15.
17:19:10 As I said, about the "R" classification, paragraph
17:19:14 B-3, that's a clarification, I had to reword the way
17:19:20 the R's were listed here.
17:19:23 At this time same criteria, 1,000 feet for everyone.
17:19:27 For those that are R, the processes, you may take a
17:19:30 zero because you are allowed to do that through the
17:19:32 large scale commercial development and you close at
17:19:35 So it's a restatement of that.
17:19:38 One note from the public on this was that if we
17:19:42 could -- and I believe they are going to ask council
17:19:45 for this as well -- to add the condition that when
17:19:47 there is outdoor seating that there be no amplified
17:19:51 That will comb up.
17:19:52 We have no objection to that.
17:19:54 I just wanted to note that for you.
17:19:57 The next page, page 16, you will note paragraph 4 at
17:20:01 the top, City Council shall grant waivers to the
17:20:04 minimum distance separation if the applicant
17:20:06 demonstrates that if that after granting a waiver the
17:20:09 applicant -- the application is consistent with the
17:20:12 general standard.
17:20:13 It did say "may" before.
17:20:15 It says "shall" now, deals with the burden, and when
17:20:18 it shift in the case.
17:20:19 The bottom line is when someone comes before you,
17:20:22 everyone has the same set of criteria.
17:20:24 27-269, the general standard.
17:20:27 They have those standards to prove to you that they
17:20:29 meet them.
17:20:31 The burden then shifts to you.
17:20:32 You review those criteria and find whether or not they
17:20:35 need them.
17:20:35 The public has the same criteria to prove otherwise.
17:20:39 Once you find as City Council that, you are obligated
17:20:44 at that point to grant the waivers.
17:20:46 Once you find that they are met.
17:20:48 So that's why it was changed from may to shall.
17:20:53 There's also a case recently in Hillsborough County
17:20:55 that the courts found that as well.
17:20:57 Ms. Kert can explain that further if you have any
17:21:01 The next change, page 17, leading into 18 through
17:21:11 This is an overhaul of the sidewalk cafe regulations.
17:21:15 I know we have spoken about this several times.
17:21:18 We have had debates over how to do them.
17:21:20 We have had issues and complaints that everything has
17:21:23 to be public hearing and they don't jive as far as
17:21:26 timing and it takes so long to do them, and the permit
17:21:28 process is difficult and strange.
17:21:32 What we did is we took chapter 22.
17:21:34 I worked with public works on it, took chapter 22,
17:21:37 looked at that, did the revisions necessary for that,
17:21:40 and we went back in the sidewalk with cafe regulations
17:21:43 in the alcoholic beverage section and cleaned up that
17:21:47 What that process ultimately does now is if you are in
17:21:50 the Channel District proper, downtown, CBD proper, or
17:21:54 within Ybor City, historic district, you can process
17:21:58 administratively to receive your public works permit
17:22:01 to operate, and then you can receive administratively
17:22:04 your sidewalk cafe alcohol permit which is just the
17:22:07 extension of your alcohol internally.
17:22:10 Once you get your right-of-way permit, we will issue
17:22:14 your sidewalk cafe, alcoholic beverage permit.
17:22:17 It becomes administrative for those three districts.
17:22:21 When you are outside of those three districts the
17:22:23 permit still processes the same way except ultimately
17:22:26 the City Council has to approve the final permit to
17:22:29 operate in the right-of-way.
17:22:30 If you approve the final permit to operate, permits to
17:22:35 extend the alcohol is still administrative because you
17:22:36 have given them the ability to operate.
17:22:38 All we will do then is extend the alcohol.
17:22:40 The alcohol that's extended is no more than an X or an
17:22:45 They cannot sell package from the right-of-way,
17:22:48 If there is an R on the inside, it's an R extension.
17:22:51 If it's an X on the inside it's an extension.
17:22:54 We will not expand a straight for out into the
17:22:59 right-of-way without it being on premises only.
17:23:02 So I just wanted to clarify that if there's any
17:23:07 We also did expand who can get a sidewalk cafe permit
17:23:11 because they have some different issues in Ybor with
17:23:13 cigar bars, and coffee shops, because it was strictly
17:23:17 a restaurant before.
17:23:18 So we did clarify that if it's a restaurant, coffee
17:23:22 shop, retail, oh tobacco shop could receive a sidewalk
17:23:25 cafe permit.
17:23:30 That takes us through the privately initiated
17:23:45 The language that was included in the draft,
17:23:47 unfortunately, and I completely take the blame for
17:23:49 this, was the original draft that I had digitally in
17:23:51 my system.
17:23:52 There is a revised draft that because this is an
17:23:58 M.A.P. district, a municipal airport district, we had
17:24:01 to send it to the HDAA, the Aviation Authority, to
17:24:04 review and there was some revision to the language
17:24:07 between the petitioner for this, and the city was
17:24:10 involved as well discussing what kind of rules they
17:24:13 had to follow.
17:24:15 This is specifically for radios, TV, transmission
17:24:19 And I wanted to give you the corrected version.
17:24:31 The language actually isn't that much different.
17:24:33 There's an additional provision noting the FAA
17:24:35 regulations that they needed to state for that review.
17:24:40 I do want -- I did have some questions from the public
17:24:43 of whether or not this change to the code has anything
17:24:46 to do with wireless communication towers or cell
17:24:49 towers as they are commonly called in the rest of the
17:24:52 city, and as I state to the public and I'll state to
17:24:54 City Council, this is a radio-TV tower specifically in
17:24:59 the M.A.P. 2 district, not in any other zoning
17:25:02 district in the city.
17:25:03 And even in the code, they are in completely different
17:25:06 sections of the code.
17:25:07 So if there were any amendments to the wireless
17:25:10 communication tower, regulations, that would actually
17:25:13 be in a completely separate section of the code.
17:25:15 And you would see a different amendment.
17:25:18 So this has nothing to do with cell phone towers
17:25:20 anywhere else in the city.
17:25:22 It's a totally different animal.
17:25:23 So I'm available for any questions, if you have any.
17:25:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Miranda was first.
17:25:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You got page 18, correct?
17:25:41 On 18 when you talk about sidewalks, we are making an
17:25:45 assumption here, just giving us a scan, that a
17:25:52 contractor is an agent of the owner.
17:25:56 I don't see it that way.
17:26:02 I have received many calls where only a realtor, I
17:26:06 think an agent for the owner, when you see here on
17:26:11 A-1, someone comes in and wants to expand a building
17:26:18 by 50%, then everything kicks in.
17:26:22 The contractor, through no fault of theirs, goes out,
17:26:27 gets a permit, the city checks it out, it's all ready
17:26:32 to go.
17:26:33 The contractor does a job, we inspect the job, and
17:26:36 things look great.
17:26:37 So the owner comes in and gets the CO.
17:26:40 Then tells the owner, where is your sidewalk?
17:26:45 The owner says, what sidewalk?
17:26:47 There's a misconnect here where we are assuming that
17:26:51 the contractor is the agent of the owner.
17:26:53 I see that differently.
17:26:57 I say if you are going to change this to any degree,
17:27:00 let the owner sign along with the contractor that he
17:27:03 or she understands what happens at that moment when
17:27:08 they apply for a permit.
17:27:13 I have a file of many who have had to pay in-lieu fees
17:27:19 not knowing they had to pay in-lieu fees when a
17:27:23 contractor did something.
17:27:24 And I am not after the contractor when they say that.
17:27:28 So there's a disconnect somewhere. And at the end,
17:27:31 the ones that were trying to help are the ones that
17:27:34 have to go out and borrow money, or who would only
17:27:38 have to do to get their CO.
17:27:41 I can tell you that 50%, fine.
17:27:49 But no one tells them -- if I was going to build
17:27:53 something 50% I would come see you, and you say,
17:27:57 listen, you have to pay me $10,200, sidewalk all
17:28:01 around, and you look and there's a ditch all around
17:28:04 your house and you can't build a sidewalk.
17:28:09 That party is being double jeopardy, penalized twice,
17:28:14 and that money goes somewhere else.
17:28:17 And that's all I'm saying.
17:28:23 The expansion is 49.92%, nothing kicks in.
17:28:29 But they are not told that.
17:28:32 And there's nothing on paper that I know of that says
17:28:37 when you come in, the contractor gets, takes it to the
17:28:41 homeowner, the homeowner signs it and brings it in,
17:28:46 and the 50% expansion that, and try to solve problems
17:28:53 before it gets to the point where they have to call
17:28:56 That's all I'm saying.
17:28:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I definitely hear what you are
17:29:01 I understand the issues that you are raising.
17:29:03 We are not actually addressing that.
17:29:04 That is a much larger policy decision.
17:29:06 I think that it would have to be discussed because you
17:29:09 are actually dealing with the in lieu fee and the
17:29:12 process for that.
17:29:13 And it's not that that couldn't be changed or
17:29:16 But that's actually not what we are doing in this
17:29:19 particular section.
17:29:20 Just to clarify, what we are doing, and you mention
17:29:26 when you have over 50% expansion there's quite a few
17:29:30 provisions in when sidewalks kick in.
17:29:31 You know, as you noticed, I don't know if you noticed,
17:29:34 you probably haven't, when you are sitting in City
17:29:36 Council and have a rezoning or special use 2 in front
17:29:39 of you, the people that are going through, there's
17:29:43 applications required to put in sidewalks.
17:29:45 That is paragraph 3.
17:29:47 Sometimes you will see them asking you that it's
17:29:50 impractical to place the sidewalks.
17:29:51 There's actually that caveat.
17:29:57 You can find it in that process.
17:29:59 The in lieu fee kicks in.
17:30:01 What this particular change that we are proposing does
17:30:05 is that for a special use 2, excluding requests for
17:30:10 alcoholic beverage sales and existing structures,
17:30:13 unless there is a change of use or increase in
17:30:16 intensity, you don't have to put the sidewalk in.
17:30:19 The reason that being is sometimes you do.
17:30:21 You have alcoholic beverage applications that are
17:30:24 special use 2 that come before you and all it is is a
17:30:26 You didn't have alcohol before.
17:30:28 It's asking for alcohol now.
17:30:29 We are trying to exclude those out of this process so
17:30:32 that they are not triggered to do any other site
17:30:35 improvements anyway through the process other than get
17:30:37 the alcohol permit.
17:30:39 So we excluded them from the sidewalk requirement
17:30:41 because they are actually not obligated to go get a
17:30:44 permit from construction services for anything.
17:30:46 So it didn't make sense to require them to get the
17:30:49 sidewalk when they are physically not changing
17:30:51 anything about the property.
17:30:52 That's reason for that change.
17:30:53 The larger discussion about the in lieu fee and
17:30:56 whether it applies and how, I think, is a valid
17:30:59 discussion, but I think that's not what we are
17:31:01 actually looking to do here.
17:31:03 So it's something that could you certainly raise and
17:31:06 talk about.
17:31:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may, one more.
17:31:09 Because when you look at three, it says shall be
17:31:11 constructed, in the public right-of-way along the full
17:31:15 length of the street.
17:31:19 I can show you evidence where they make them construct
17:31:25 them on their property, because they had a sloping
17:31:27 ditch in front on the right-of-way.
17:31:31 And in order for them to comply, we, the city, not us,
17:31:35 the council, puts that burden, takes the property away
17:31:39 from the property owner, and makes them construct the
17:31:42 sidewalk, on their property, and that's happening all
17:31:46 over the city.
17:31:47 I have got graphs of that galore.
17:31:53 >> I will refer to public works on that.
17:31:56 I'm not the sidewalk person.
17:32:02 >>MARY MULHERN: I answered the question, that you were
17:32:05 brought up about the sidewalks.
17:32:06 I would like to ask Mr. Shelby if he would help us
17:32:09 draft, and I would work on that if no one else wants
17:32:12 to volunteer.
17:32:13 >> It's already done.
17:32:16 I haven't brought it up because the atmosphere hasn't
17:32:18 been well lately in these chambers.
17:32:20 I have been holding it off I would say a month.
17:32:23 I just have it in a drawer.
17:32:25 >> Now that it's raining.
17:32:27 [ Laughter ]
17:32:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Other questions by council?
17:32:38 Then we will take public comment at this time.
17:32:40 Anyone here who wishes to address council.
17:32:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is public comment, just relative
17:32:48 to the workshop, item 27.
17:32:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm sorry, if I corks Mr. Davis is
17:32:54 the agent for the private initiated amendment.
17:32:57 He probably should speak first, just to tell you about
17:33:00 the amendment.
17:33:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
17:33:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can just take it now.
17:33:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Davis.
17:33:12 >>> Richard Davis, 220 east Madison street, suite 512.
17:33:17 I'm here this evening on behalf of Simms
17:33:21 communications and we have been working for about the
17:33:23 past year with the staff and with the Aviation
17:33:25 Authority to build into the code the opportunity to
17:33:29 present to you the city the possibility of having an
17:33:33 antenna to transmit radio signals in the M.A.P. 2
17:33:37 district rather than having to transmit signals from a
17:33:40 radio station along telephone lines to an antenna some
17:33:45 distance away.
17:33:46 And it is important to keep in mind that one of the
17:33:50 critical underpinnings of the district years ago when
17:33:53 there was an absolute prohibition was a concern by the
17:33:56 Aviation Authority that they did not want
17:33:59 interference, certainly very legitimate concern.
17:34:02 When we began work on this some time ago, we involved
17:34:05 the Aviation Authority in the process.
17:34:07 And the language you have before you tonight is
17:34:09 language which arose out of a series of conference
17:34:12 calls that was Ron with the Aviation Authority, and
17:34:20 again this, the language you see before you tonight,
17:34:23 is intended to ensure that there is no conflict
17:34:26 between the radio signals and anything going on at the
17:34:28 airport, and we would respectfully request that you
17:34:32 permit this amendment to move on through the process,
17:34:35 because it will make a significant difference for the
17:34:38 radio station, in order to transmit right there from
17:34:42 their home office as opposed to transmitting along
17:34:45 telephone lines.
17:34:46 Certainly I'm here to answer any questions you have.
17:34:49 But we submitted this amendment.
17:34:51 And as I say, we have been working on it for about the
17:34:54 past year and enjoy the opportunity to be before you
17:34:56 this evening.
17:34:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
17:35:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
17:35:09 I'm sorry.
17:35:10 So this should be an M.A.P. property which is an
17:35:12 airport, and as we know the airport is really close to
17:35:16 some commercial areas.
17:35:17 I can't think of any residential areas that are
17:35:20 adjacent to it.
17:35:21 I was just concerned about the aesthetics.
17:35:23 What is the height limit here?
17:35:25 >>> Actually from the perspective of this particular
17:35:29 user who has a one-story building, their antenna would
17:35:33 not be -- actually their antenna would not be as high
17:35:38 as buildings adjacent to that which are higher.
17:35:41 Certainly, council members, it's important to note
17:35:43 that this remains within the special use category of
17:35:46 your code.
17:35:46 So we would be back in front of staff to ensure that
17:35:50 height and all other issues complied with the general
17:35:56 standards you have for radio and antenna.
17:35:59 I can tell you that in this particular case the
17:36:01 antenna will not be installed in adjacent buildings.
17:36:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
17:36:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
17:36:08 Next speaker.
17:36:16 >>> Christy Haas, on broad street in Old Seminole
17:36:22 I specifically want to talk to you about the garage
17:36:25 I am going to show you a couple of pictures that I
17:36:27 took earlier today.
17:36:30 As it started raining this morning.
17:36:32 And you will note that this is a two-car garage.
17:36:37 It's historic.
17:36:38 It's probably built in 1925, 1926.
17:36:42 You can see that it doesn't meet the current code, and
17:36:47 that I understand is a concern.
17:36:48 And then there's a couple other garages which
17:36:51 obviously don't meet the current code.
17:36:55 My concern is you are increasing the hardship on these
17:37:00 property owners in the event that something were to
17:37:02 happen to their home or their garage, they would not
17:37:06 be able to rebuild the garages that exist today, and
17:37:13 for that reason I'd like to request that you leave the
17:37:15 language that was already in existence in this section
17:37:19 alone and not make it more difficult for the property
17:37:22 owners in our area.
17:37:24 Thank you.
17:37:29 >> We'll come back to that.
17:37:32 We need to come back to that and clarify on that
17:37:36 >>> Good afternoon.
17:37:38 I'm Wolford Johnson, 4625 Longfellow Avenue and
17:37:43 president of T.H.A.N.
17:37:44 When we got the these proposed amendments, T.H.A.N.
17:37:49 did -- our zoning committee did meet a week and a half
17:37:53 Three our or four of us also attended the information
17:37:57 workshop that they had.
17:38:00 So we met last week or ten days ago.
17:38:03 And went over the proposed changes.
17:38:06 So what I am giving you here is some of the thoughts
17:38:14 of the zoning committee meeting.
17:38:19 On the truck rental.
17:38:21 Of course our preference would be there not be any
17:38:25 operations of this type in CG categories, or
17:38:28 However, our feeling is that if you feel this must be
17:38:34 approved for some reason, then what we would ask if
17:38:37 that we have strict adherence to the criteria that is
17:38:41 set forth in this proposed amendment.
17:38:43 For those type operations.
17:38:45 There's lots of CG around in abutting neighborhoods
17:38:50 throughout the city.
17:38:50 So we do have concerns, to get out of hand unless
17:38:57 there are strict adherence to the criteria.
17:39:02 On the sidewalk cafes, T.H.A.N. strongly recommends
17:39:06 that a provision be included that prohibits amplified
17:39:11 music outside the establishment, that we think is
17:39:17 need, is necessary, an should be put into the code at
17:39:19 this point.
17:39:21 Frankly, in addition to that, we really would
17:39:23 recommend not having to do anything with these
17:39:25 amendments, but you look at the possibility of
17:39:29 amending the code that applies to restaurants and to
17:39:32 bars, et cetera.
17:39:34 We see lots of them nowadays that are putting tables
17:39:37 outside of their operation, and there again, we think
17:39:40 that should be on the basis of no amplified music in
17:39:44 those areas.
17:39:49 On the alcohol beverage issue, City Council shall
17:39:58 grant waivers to the distance separation if the
17:40:01 applicant demonstrates the application, is consistent
17:40:03 with the general standards.
17:40:04 Here again, we recommend that since there's a court
17:40:08 case, or court cases that require that you grant
17:40:12 waivers to the minimum distance, if the criteria is
17:40:17 met, we request that the criteria be strictly adhered
17:40:20 to, including the criteria regarding compatibility.
17:40:25 That's it.
17:40:26 Thank you.
17:40:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
17:40:29 Next speaker.
17:40:32 >>> Curtis walker, 5229 South MacDill.
17:40:35 And I'm here to talk to you in regards to the truck
17:40:40 I met with you all.
17:40:41 I think it was back in November, came to you and
17:40:44 explained my situation.
17:40:48 Not to belabor the situation again, but there's many
17:40:52 small businesses that are in the CG zoning currently
17:40:55 that operate rental trucks, let me say household
17:41:02 trucks, not talking about refrigeration trucks, but
17:41:05 talking about big semi trucks.
17:41:07 We are talking about U-haul type trucks, across town,
17:41:12 across country, and this is what we are dealing with.
17:41:15 We would like refrigeration trucks, diesel trucks and
17:41:21 And sort of the mechanics, this is Bruce, he's with
17:41:27 U-haul, manager.
17:41:28 As a dealership, not corporate store but as a
17:41:31 dealership, we do very limited mechanical work
17:41:38 Really, U-Haul is one of six new trucks.
17:41:42 Basically just jump start a truck that might have the
17:41:46 a customer might have left the lights on but we don't
17:41:49 do mechanical work, don't do oil changes, don't do
17:41:53 starters or transmissions, don't do any of that.
17:41:58 If we can't jump start it they send in a wrecker
17:42:01 service to get it.
17:42:02 So that's not even a concern as far as mechanic work
17:42:05 Basically, I had the convenience store, plus I have
17:42:08 the U-haul dealership.
17:42:10 There's many of the U-haul dealerships throughout the
17:42:14 City of Tampa as well as other budget and Home Depot
17:42:21 location on Florida Avenue that's CG.
17:42:24 And so really there's a lot -- lot of people affected
17:42:30 if this does not pass.
17:42:32 I'm not trying to make a million dollars.
17:42:35 I'm just trying to stay in business.
17:42:36 This is one more business that's in South Tampa that
17:42:38 would be closed down if the CG special zoning, I think
17:42:45 they call it, if it's not passed.
17:42:50 It's a nightmare.
17:42:51 We have we have been battling this about a year and a
17:42:53 half now.
17:42:54 All I want to do is stay in business.
17:42:56 All the other locations just want to stay in business.
17:42:59 We are willing to, personally speaking for my
17:43:01 location, I'm willing to make concessions, do whatever
17:43:07 I have to do, as far as making the parking lot, pave
17:43:11 the parking lot, or putting in some shrubbery to, you
17:43:15 know, block off the side of my store.
17:43:17 But I'm on MacDill Avenue.
17:43:20 I have a real estate office to the left of me.
17:43:23 To the right of me, our repair business across the
17:43:26 To the right I have a plumbing business.
17:43:28 A restaurant.
17:43:29 A little further that way.
17:43:30 Open air laundromat two blocks south.
17:43:33 So we are not talking Channelside.
17:43:34 We are not talking north Tampa, New Tampa area where
17:43:38 things are a little different.
17:43:39 We are talking this is South Tampa.
17:43:43 You know, I'm not in the Ritzy part of town.
17:43:47 Most of the U-haul dealerships, and Mr. Bruce here, he
17:43:50 can let you know this, but most U-haul dealerships
17:43:53 that are on CG are not in the high influence
17:43:57 Channelside or New Tampa areas.
17:44:02 We are mostly in the places that have been around the
17:44:03 City of Tampa for years.
17:44:04 (Bell sounds)
17:44:06 So thank you very much for your time.
17:44:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One of the criteria that we are
17:44:12 going to be discussing is whether the site has 10,000
17:44:15 square feet.
17:44:16 Do you have 10,000 square feet?
17:44:18 >>> I'm lucky.
17:44:19 I have 10,000 square foot.
17:44:21 Yes, ma'am.
17:44:21 But to be honest with you, the others, that are going
17:44:26 to be affected, probably do not have.
17:44:28 But on the same token these other locations, let me
17:44:33 throw a couple out there, there's a Tampa florist
17:44:36 that's on Platt Street.
17:44:40 They don't have near the square footage.
17:44:42 But they only have one or two trucks.
17:44:45 And so they -- you know, 10, 12 trucks, where are they
17:44:54 going to fit?
17:44:56 Thank you.
17:44:56 Any other questions?
17:44:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
17:44:58 Yes, sir.
17:44:59 >>> Morris Bruce, U-haul manager, Tampa, Florida.
17:45:06 One of the issues, the concerns of repair of our
17:45:09 equipment on these properties.
17:45:11 That's not what we do.
17:45:13 If our equipment needs any type of repair, we repair
17:45:16 it just well enough to either get to the our facility
17:45:19 or shop, on Hillsborough Avenue, or we get it towed
17:45:24 out thereof.
17:45:24 We are not in the business of repairing our equipment
17:45:27 out in the field.
17:45:28 Second of all, as far as the square footage, I
17:45:33 understand the square foot rule.
17:45:37 There are location that is don't have 10,000 square
17:45:40 We take that into consideration, a location that
17:45:43 doesn't have that kind of square footage, would
17:45:45 probably be a one-truck location just for Intown
17:45:49 loads, for that particular area.
17:45:52 And there was also some verbiage in there about a
17:45:57 divider wall for lack of better terms is a 6-foot
17:46:05 concrete wall, because those walls, it could be
17:46:14 So we were hoping maybe to get a variance to shrubbery
17:46:21 or even a wood-type wall, fence structure situation.
17:46:27 You haul is not in the business to upset the
17:46:31 We are in the business to help.
17:46:32 We are in the business to stay green, be there for the
17:46:38 community, and just for convenience.
17:46:40 So I understand the concerns of the residents.
17:46:44 It's not pretty.
17:46:49 Our trucks are orange.
17:46:50 They are what they are.
17:46:51 But this is all for the community and that's what we
17:46:55 intend to do and that's what we have always done since
17:47:09 >> Good evening, council.
17:47:10 Spencer Kass, 10011 North Howard Avenue.
17:47:14 First I want to thank city staff tremendously for
17:47:16 doing their site charts.
17:47:20 Chapter 27 revision.
17:47:22 It took a lot of work.
17:47:25 There are two provisions that currently have not been
17:47:27 put before you that I would respectfully ask that you
17:47:30 direct staff to work on, preferably this go around,
17:47:37 chapter 27 changes.
17:47:38 I just talked with staff.
17:47:39 And I think if we limit them to the West Tampa overlay
17:47:42 district, staff can live with them.
17:47:46 The first one is awnings.
17:47:48 Originally, I heard this in Seminole Heights, in West
17:47:51 Tampa, people want to put in awnings.
17:47:54 As part of the awning process, when everything is said
17:47:56 and done, you are still force to go in front of City
17:47:59 Council to sign off on an ordinance.
17:48:01 It's extra work.
17:48:02 It's not necessary.
17:48:05 There's you have never denied one, ever.
17:48:08 It wastes your time.
17:48:09 It wastes petitioner's time.
17:48:11 I don't see any reason why we can't let staff sign on
17:48:14 that once staff has approved so I ask you to direct
17:48:18 staff to make the change directing that.
17:48:20 The second thing is adoptive reuse.
17:48:23 As you know a lot of the buildings over in West Tampa,
17:48:26 they are billed out to the street, they fill the
17:48:28 entire piece of property and we have a lot of
17:48:31 We want to see people get back to it.
17:48:34 I can stand in front of my building in West Tampa and
17:48:37 people will beg me for work.
17:48:38 We want to see the buildings filled up.
17:48:40 We want to see people put to work.
17:48:42 For that we need to adaptively re use these buildings.
17:48:46 One of the biggest problems we have is as you go to
17:48:49 change of use, you are required to bring that building
17:48:51 up to all the code regulations, the parking, the
17:48:54 stormwater, the garbage, all those things that the
17:48:56 City of Tampa wants.
17:48:58 The problem is, if your property is -- if you filled
17:49:05 out your building there's nothing to do about it and
17:49:07 petitioners are forced to come in front of council,
17:49:09 the, and they can't afford that.
17:49:23 Adaptive reuse is allowed.
17:49:25 And if staff can approve those waivers that are
17:49:28 Once again, these would only be -- we already have
17:49:35 buildings that have this problem.
17:49:36 I discussed it with staff.
17:49:40 We don't want massage parlors, car lots, all of the
17:49:43 staff to work out.
17:49:45 I spoke to some of the other neighbors.
17:49:49 No one had a problem with it.
17:49:51 So if you could direct staff to those two changes I
17:49:53 would greatly appreciate it.
17:49:55 Thank you for your time.
17:49:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else want to address council?
17:49:59 Come forward at this time, please.
17:50:01 >>> My name is Sue Lyon.
17:50:04 I'm here as a member of the T.H.A.N. zoning committee.
17:50:10 We want to particularly thank Cathy for all the work.
17:50:13 She met with us several times.
17:50:16 Otherwise, we had a list, and she explained certain
17:50:22 things to us and changed certain things and worked
17:50:24 very well with us.
17:50:25 And I know -- he didn't change anything to the
17:50:32 sidewalks this time.
17:50:34 You will have to fight it out one other time.
17:50:36 But I thank you very much for your concerns.
17:50:38 And there are certain things that need to be worked
17:50:41 But that's next time.
17:50:44 This time, I think we are pretty close to agreeing
17:50:47 what Cathy has come up with and how she's explained
17:50:50 And the gentleman, a truck dealership, that's all we
17:50:56 are trying to do is just if you put it, and put all
17:51:03 these specific things, how we can use it, well,
17:51:07 already they are starting to say we would like to have
17:51:10 this and we would like to have this.
17:51:12 So if you come up and you make real, real strict
17:51:15 rules, then they say, well, we can't live by these
17:51:18 really strict rules, and we'll have to change them.
17:51:20 So we would kind of like to have it rather than
17:51:23 changing the whole ordinance to giving some kind of
17:51:28 variance or something, so he can still keep his
17:51:31 business but not change the whole city.
17:51:33 But we really want to thank Cathy for all the work
17:51:35 that she's done.
17:51:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
17:51:40 Okay, I think you need to respond to a couple of the
17:51:44 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Were there any additional questions
17:51:46 from council?
17:51:48 >> Just the garage, the issue knew Seminole was raised
17:51:52 by the first speaker.
17:51:53 And then the truck issue.
17:51:55 And then amplified music from outside.
17:51:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
17:51:59 The garage setback issue as I mentioned before, that
17:52:03 was directed by council as staff, and reviewing these,
17:52:07 we are okay with the way the code reads today which I
17:52:09 believe is what the public is saying.
17:52:11 We don't have to change it, if council directs me not
17:52:13 to change it that's fine.
17:52:15 It actually works the way that it is today.
17:52:17 >> So the way it is now we can leave that?
17:52:20 >> Correct.
17:52:21 You could direct me to pull the amendment that's on
17:52:23 page 8 from the cycle.
17:52:28 It's number 8, page 8.
17:52:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Why don't we start making a motion and
17:52:33 ask you to come and point those out to us.
17:52:36 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, need to remove the change to
17:52:40 number 8 on page 8.
17:52:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Need a motion.
17:52:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
17:52:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?
17:52:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The garage setbacks.
17:52:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And agree with that wholeheartedly.
17:52:56 What we are talking about is specific neighborhoods
17:52:58 and I have a lot of those.
17:52:59 So if we change it, guess what.
17:53:01 You are going to have one house.
17:53:03 They are going to have a garage somewhere that doesn't
17:53:06 meet the criteria of the existing neighborhood.
17:53:09 So I understand that.
17:53:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
17:53:15 All in favor?
17:53:18 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If you go back to the changes, page
17:53:20 2 through 6, those are the changes to the Garrison
17:53:22 Channel district in the CBD and the Channel District.
17:53:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
17:53:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
17:53:31 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The motion to transmit to the
17:53:34 Planning Commission for the next cycle.
17:53:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved by Councilwoman Saul-Sena,
17:53:39 seconded by councilman Miranda.
17:53:41 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
17:53:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Pages 9 and 10, the open storage.
17:53:49 With the changes that I have inserted verbally,
17:53:54 changing six feet to eight feet as a base and then
17:54:01 paragraph B, moving pages 9 and 10, those changes for
17:54:05 consideration along with the verbal changes.
17:54:08 >> So moved.
17:54:09 >> Second.
17:54:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I wanted to thank you for the
17:54:12 That really is tremendously helpful.
17:54:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We are going to try to provide more
17:54:19 graphics in the future to be able to show it to you.
17:54:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by Councilwoman Miller, seconded
17:54:24 by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
17:54:25 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
17:54:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Page 11 is the truck rental,
17:54:33 directed by council.
17:54:34 These are the changes that we came up with based on
17:54:36 that direction.
17:54:37 This is completely in your realm on what to do.
17:54:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: How do we adjust to the help this
17:54:43 gentleman out?
17:54:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The neighborhood people spoke about
17:54:49 allowing some type of variance and not changing the
17:54:51 There is no variance for him to achieve.
17:54:53 That is why the code is being proposed to be changed.
17:54:56 The underlying land use doesn't allow the intensity.
17:54:59 The zoning direct district that he has does not allow
17:55:04 these types of vehicles without a code change to the
17:55:07 code itself so if you don't make the this change to
17:55:09 the code he's in violation.
17:55:16 >>GWEN MILLER: What do you have to do to get in
17:55:19 >>> That's why he's changing the code.
17:55:22 >> Just take Ms. Miller's question and extrapolate on
17:55:26 I really understand people's concern about the CG,
17:55:31 because the creeping up to residential but a lost CG
17:55:37 wouldn't be 10,000 square feet, and that's the thing
17:55:40 that -- the 10,000 square feet means it probably
17:55:46 doesn't have residential quite so close.
17:55:47 Can you speak to that?
17:55:49 >>> 10,000 square feet is actually the minimum lot
17:55:52 size for CG.
17:55:54 It's required to have 10,000 square feet by the
17:55:56 Euclidean standard.
17:55:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anything else we can do?
17:56:00 >>> Keep in mind this is parallel to churches, places
17:56:03 of religious assembly F.there are special uses in
17:56:05 residential district then they are required to have
17:56:07 20,000 square feet.
17:56:08 Many churches that come before council do not have
17:56:11 20,000 square feet.
17:56:12 They are very small lots.
17:56:17 In the testimony just like I mentioned about the
17:56:18 burden and the use of the general standards, you
17:56:20 finding that they meet the compatibility standard, you
17:56:23 are finding the same thing here.
17:56:25 You have the ability to waive these criteria if
17:56:28 certain circumstances, if the petitioner is showing
17:56:29 you that they meet the general standards of the code.
17:56:32 So it will be a case-by-case basis.
17:56:34 Someone could come in potentially with 8500 square
17:56:37 Or they could come in with 15,000 square feet.
17:56:40 You are going to consider each case by case based on
17:56:42 the general standards.
17:56:44 You have the ability through that process then to look
17:56:46 at and consider each one based on that consideration.
17:56:53 We have similar standards for other uses that you do
17:56:56 So it's really your option at this point.
17:56:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So if we don't move this forward, then
17:57:02 he's out of compliance?
17:57:03 >>> He's in violation today, yes.
17:57:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to inquire, if I understand
17:57:13 this correctly, what you are saying is if council does
17:57:15 allow this to move forward, if he's less than 10,000
17:57:19 he could come to City Council to request being able to
17:57:22 be in compliance?
17:57:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If this were to be approved and he
17:57:26 were less than 10,000 square feet co-petition through
17:57:28 the special use S-2 process and the waiver that he ask
17:57:34 for is the size of the lot and then if he needed any
17:57:36 other waivers.
17:57:37 If he want add 26-foot truck, or if he wanted
17:57:42 something else, that is different than these criteria.
17:57:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can just say then, what you are
17:57:47 saying then is this change does give him a mechanism
17:57:50 to address those concerns where thinks property is
17:57:53 less than 10,000 square feet?
17:57:55 >>> Yes.
17:57:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this.
17:57:59 I can attest that the repair shop for this company,
17:58:07 U-haul, is in the Drew Park, I believe it falls into
17:58:10 the Drew Park area, which is about 46, 4700 block of
17:58:15 west Hillsborough Avenue.
17:58:17 And then they have another one, four, five mails down,
17:58:21 this one off the southern part, the other one on the
17:58:24 northern part of the road.
17:58:26 That one has storage.
17:58:30 This one here who on west Hillsborough Avenue has two
17:58:32 or three big bays.
17:58:34 And I know they do the repair there is because I had
17:58:37 to use U-haul once, and I had to drop off the truck
17:58:41 that I rented.
17:58:43 I'm sorry I had to rent it because it cost me more
17:58:45 than the car that I was towing in it but that's
17:58:48 another question for another day.
17:58:53 But anything came home safely.
17:58:56 And, you know, the neighborhood has a right to be
17:59:01 But other than start-up or changing a tire, I think
17:59:07 that's all you are going to get out of these things.
17:59:09 They are not equipped.
17:59:10 There's no pullies there, no mechanism to change an
17:59:15 engine or nothing of that sort.
17:59:19 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry, I'm sure you explained this
17:59:22 but I was a little late.
17:59:24 Is this allowing the trucks and commercial general --
17:59:31 >>> as a special use 2.
17:59:36 >> This is going to be for all areas in the city?
17:59:38 >>> That's correct.
17:59:39 >> So this if this is special use 2 approved
17:59:45 >>> 2's come to City Council.
17:59:47 >> If it's under 10,000 square feet, it doesn't have
17:59:50 to come to us?
17:59:51 Or it does?
17:59:52 >>> It's they can only come and ask as a special use
17:59:56 There is no administrative approval for truck rental
17:59:58 on CG.
18:00:00 The application is an S-2.
18:00:03 >> Are there a lot of things in there that are not
18:00:06 allowed that are actual commercial enterprises?
18:00:10 Is this one of the larger -- I mean trucks, I guess,
18:00:15 But it's still a commercial operation.
18:00:17 >>> This is a difference between CG and CI commercial
18:00:21 intensive, and this is where -- CG doesn't allow the
18:00:25 storage, open storage of anything.
18:00:27 It does not allow car sales or vehicle sales at all.
18:00:30 It's a general retail use.
18:00:33 CI is where you have that outdoor display, you have
18:00:36 the storage, the accessory to whatever principle use.
18:00:40 That's why when you have the large car lots, they are
18:00:44 on CI property, or IG or IH property.
18:00:47 It's just not allowed in CG.
18:00:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What if the building is to the
18:00:59 rear of the lot, so they could not park their rental
18:01:03 trucks in the front of the building?
18:01:05 >>CATHERINE COYLE: In that particular case, what they
18:01:14 would more than likely be presenting to council is the
18:01:16 building is in the rear and the trucks have to be out
18:01:19 front, and normally what you would probably do is have
18:01:22 them screen it then in the front, if they need a
18:01:25 6-foot wall, they would be asking for allowance for
18:01:28 City Council to allow the trucks in the front instead
18:01:30 of the rear because of the existing condition.
18:01:32 That's often how we propose it.
18:01:33 It's based on existing conditions.
18:01:34 >> So they would put a wall next to the sidewalk in
18:01:38 the front?
18:01:40 >>> If you are selling cars and have them do that
18:01:44 based on the layout and compatibility issues of the
18:01:46 property, yes.
18:01:47 It's hard to answer specific questions on hypothetical
18:02:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have so much CG in our
18:02:04 residential areas, I mean adjacent to residential
18:02:06 areas, and we heard from our T.H.A.N. zoning committee
18:02:11 that they are not comfortable with this.
18:02:13 I am personally not going to be able to support it.
18:02:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Do you want me to go to the rest of
18:02:21 them and pond they are one for a little while and come
18:02:23 back to it?
18:02:23 Because the rest of them I think are pretty
18:02:28 Page 12.
18:02:31 Change to the table for the private Yacht Club.
18:02:34 The change to the reference to the building code.
18:02:37 And the change 27-242 for the parking ratio for the
18:02:41 private Yacht Club.
18:02:42 You can make a motion to transmit the changes on page
18:02:50 >> So moved.
18:02:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?
18:02:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is on Channelside?
18:02:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Which one?
18:03:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We are talking about 12.
18:03:02 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The private Yacht Club?
18:03:06 That one actually came about because of the one on
18:03:08 Tyson that was zoned CI or IG.
18:03:11 IG originally.
18:03:12 >> This has nothing to do with the city-owned marinas?
18:03:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Oh, no, this is private.
18:03:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
18:03:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
18:03:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
18:03:22 Moved by councilman Saul-Sena.
18:03:24 Seconded by councilman Miranda.
18:03:27 All in favor?
18:03:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Page 13, the change in reference on
18:03:31 the regular lots, clarifying that or correcting it.
18:03:33 The change in the public notice requirement to meet
18:03:35 the state statute.
18:03:37 In 27-394.
18:03:39 And then the definition changes, 27-545 that runs
18:03:43 through the middle of page 14.
18:03:46 A motion to do that.
18:03:47 I'll do the alcohol separately.
18:03:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to transmittal.
18:03:51 >> Second.
18:03:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
18:03:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The alcohol changes, the page 16,
18:04:00 page 14 and 77.
18:04:02 Then on page 15 the correction to the large venue
18:04:06 alcoholic beverage sales with the reference for the
18:04:10 "R" classifications and then adding that an outdoor
18:04:12 seating and dining area, that there be no amplified
18:04:17 As well as page 16, changes that were made, with a
18:04:24 clarification on if you look at the top of page 16,
18:04:28 it's number 4.
18:04:30 It's carried through number 4 in all of the small and
18:04:33 large venue, alcoholic beverages.
18:04:35 This is a clarification I just received from Ms. Kert.
18:04:38 It's just a correction to the way that it's stated.
18:04:40 City Council shall grant waivers to the minimum
18:04:42 distance separation if City Council finds the
18:04:45 application after granting a waiver is consistent.
18:04:48 It's a cleaner way to read it.
18:04:52 Says the same thing, just cleaner.
18:04:54 With that change running through to page 17, about
18:05:00 two-thirds of the way down the page.
18:05:01 Then I will do the sidewalks in the next round, if you
18:05:03 can make a motion to transmit those changes.
18:05:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to transmit.
18:05:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by Councilwoman Miller, seconded
18:05:12 by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
18:05:14 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:05:18 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Bottom of page 17, alcoholic
18:05:19 beverage sales, sidewalk cafe, special use criteria,
18:05:23 making those changes as drafted and then adding the
18:05:26 provision, no amplified music.
18:05:28 Under the special use criteria.
18:05:30 Leaving in the page 18, the changes through to the
18:05:35 line in the middle of the page.
18:05:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: May I ask a question?
18:05:43 The permit fees for sidewalk ordinance, 1900 and 45
18:05:50 >> When we come back for the changes, the changes to
18:05:54 the draft itself, the true ordinance, we will be
18:05:56 giving you a substitute resolution -- not a substitute
18:05:59 resolution but a change resolution for the fee.
18:06:02 And we have estimated that the permit fee for the
18:06:04 sidewalk cafe, alcoholic beverage sales, is going to
18:06:07 be $150.
18:06:08 It's similar to the annual vendor permit fee.
18:06:11 A heck of a lot less than 1945.
18:06:14 >> Well, I know, but I had one here, I don't know if
18:06:17 it's an old one but existing proposed sidewalk
18:06:20 ordinance application process, and says sidewalk
18:06:27 When I said that, I said, dump the sidewalk.
18:06:33 Let it on sand or something.
18:06:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Once the rule is in effect then we
18:06:37 can immediately apply the fee correctly.
18:06:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we have a second on the motion?
18:06:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
18:06:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by Councilwoman Saul-Sena,
18:06:45 seconded by councilman Miranda.
18:06:47 All in favor?
18:06:51 (Motion carried).
18:06:51 >>> Under chapter 22 the exchange excluding the
18:06:54 alcohol beverage applications, when there is no
18:06:56 increase in intensity or change of use for special use
18:07:00 sidewalks of the moving to page 1919, I also want to
18:07:03 add in the provision as noted by the public, no
18:07:06 amplified music as part of the permit condition for
18:07:09 sidewalk cafes.
18:07:10 Moving into page 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
18:07:19 transmitted as is with the amplified music change.
18:07:23 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved for transmittal.
18:07:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
18:07:29 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:07:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The final changes, the privately
18:07:34 initiate amendment which would want to remind council,
18:07:37 this is privately initiated obligated to transmit.
18:07:42 So the transmission to transmit.
18:07:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
18:07:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
18:07:47 (Motion carried).
18:07:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you, council.
18:07:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Back to the truck issue.
18:07:56 And that is, as I recall --
18:07:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I thought I made a clean getaway.
18:08:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As I recall, more inclined to approve
18:08:09 it with the strict conditions.
18:08:13 Do you want to clarify that on the truck issue on the
18:08:18 Otherwise, we leave some of the people out of
18:08:24 Okay, yes, sir.
18:08:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: On the truck issue, I am going to
18:08:27 support it.
18:08:28 Along with the caveat that Mr. Johnson brought up.
18:08:32 And my word is my bond, my handshake is my contract.
18:08:35 If I have trouble with this here in the future, guess
18:08:37 what, it goes back to Watt was.
18:08:40 So what I'm saying is, here's an opportunity to try to
18:08:44 balance the scale.
18:08:45 And if it doesn't work, then this slide down slide
18:08:49 down anymore.
18:08:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you are moving?
18:08:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm moving the rental truck.
18:08:59 >> Second.
18:09:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We want to make sure you understand
18:09:05 then, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Lyons, and the gentleman from
18:09:10 the U-haul?
18:09:12 It's been moved and seconded.
18:09:13 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:09:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
18:09:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
18:09:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you go, before you go.
18:09:22 I'm sorry, just remind council what the process is
18:09:24 from this point on relative to these changes, when it
18:09:27 will be coming back to them.
18:09:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I checked with the Planning
18:09:29 Commission, and the July meetings of the Planning
18:09:33 Commission has been canceled.
18:09:35 So it will be going in the August, unfortunately,
18:09:37 because we are at the end of the month.
18:09:39 So it will be going in the August session.
18:09:42 And then we should be able to bring -- it will be
18:09:44 August 10th, I believe, which is the second
18:09:47 I'm hoping to schedule the first reading public
18:09:49 hearing that very week on the second Thursday.
18:09:51 And then run through.
18:09:54 If not, it will be August, which we want to keep as
18:09:57 close to on schedule as possible, if we can have this
18:10:00 effective by the end of August.
18:10:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, thank you for your work.
18:10:04 And working with the neighborhood and working to bring
18:10:07 this forward.
18:10:08 You did a very good job.
18:10:10 Thank you very much.
18:10:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
18:10:13 Before you leave, I thought the two issues raised by
18:10:15 senor is Cass were really current issues.
18:10:19 I'm aware of the fact that -- what I would like to do
18:10:22 is ask you to do the work on those, and transmit them,
18:10:26 and then bring it --
18:10:29 Bring it here first.
18:10:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the appropriate process?
18:10:33 Is it about awnings and this would just be for West
18:10:35 Tampa overlay to --
18:10:38 I believe he's looking to create an administrative
18:10:40 review and approval of encouragements within the
18:10:43 right-of-way for awnings within the West Tampa
18:10:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was beautiful.
18:10:48 >>> And for to us work with public works and come up
18:10:52 with the appropriate process.
18:10:54 That would fall in the July cycle so they can have a
18:10:56 little extra time to work on it.
18:10:58 >>MARY MULHERN: I think we should do that, the whole
18:11:01 city, awnings, unless -- there must be some category
18:11:06 where these become so large, a sailboat or something.
18:11:11 But it seems silly that we make anybody do that.
18:11:13 I certainly wouldn't know when I change my awnings.
18:11:16 I have awnings.
18:11:18 I haven't changed them yet, or put any new ones in.
18:11:23 And I wanted to thank you for your patience with us as
18:11:28 we have been continuing this over the last year,
18:11:30 however much time it was.
18:11:31 And I really want to thank T.H.A.N. for all the
18:11:35 incredible attention they give to every line by line,
18:11:39 and I really appreciate it, because you are really
18:11:43 doing a lot of the work that we don't have the time to
18:11:47 So thanks.
18:11:50 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: On number B on 27-294, how would
18:11:57 you recognize who had a license for 1945?
18:12:01 How is that established?
18:12:03 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm sorry, what page are you on?
18:12:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Page 18.
18:12:08 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Page 18.
18:12:11 >> How do we determined who is grandfathered in and
18:12:16 has a license, 1945?
18:12:21 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
18:12:25 You do have a hearing on this issue.
18:12:31 But basically they need to provide evidence that's
18:12:34 sufficient for the city to determine that they were
18:12:36 legally operating prior to 1945.
18:12:38 And what that is will be determined on a case-by-case
18:12:42 >>> In other words does the state have records of who
18:12:45 had these in 1945?
18:12:48 >>REBECCA KERT: I have heard statements that they do
18:12:50 not but I cannot verify that.
18:12:52 >> So how will it be determined?
18:12:53 >>> They will have to present evidence.
18:12:55 >> In other words, by customers, perhaps their --
18:13:04 >>> I can't say what would be sufficient evidence but
18:13:06 they would have to produce substantial, competent
18:13:09 evidence that they were in existence and the ones that
18:13:11 you have now, that would be determined by the zoning
18:13:13 administrator that could then be a polled to one of
18:13:15 the variance review boards and eventually to City
18:13:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion.
18:13:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
18:13:25 I thought that Ms. Mulhern's suggestion was excellent
18:13:28 so what I would like to amend my motion to be exactly
18:13:31 what Ms. Coyle stated eloquently but city-wide and it
18:13:35 was seconded.
18:13:37 >>THE CLERK: May I ask that the motion be stated
18:13:39 formally for the record, please?
18:13:42 >>> To create encouragement review and approval
18:13:46 process that is done administratively for awnings or
18:13:48 other encroachments city-wide.
18:13:51 For staff to work with the department of public works
18:13:54 to create the appropriate criteria. Bring back in the
18:13:57 July cycle.
18:13:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That was moved by Councilwoman
18:14:01 Saul-Sena, second -- I'm sorry, Miller.
18:14:04 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:14:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Secondly, I would like to take the
18:14:10 other issue that Mr. Kass brought up which is
18:14:12 something that people have been wrestling with all
18:14:15 over town, the question of a adaptively re using older
18:14:21 structures that are not able to meet existing
18:14:24 criteria. These are really tough issues.
18:14:26 I think if we start out looking at it in West Tampa,
18:14:29 and grapple with it there, maybe we'll figure out the
18:14:32 solution, and then apply that city-wide.
18:14:34 So it would go back to staff for you all to craft the
18:14:37 language, and then come back to us in July.
18:14:42 To facilitate the adaptive reuse of older structures
18:14:46 that are very difficult to make, to meet existing
18:14:50 current code.
18:14:51 Did I say that?
18:14:53 You say it better.
18:14:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's also to create a review and
18:14:58 approval process at an administrative level to deal
18:15:01 with all of the code criteria for re use of existing
18:15:05 structures based on current code, be it solid waste,
18:15:09 parking, landscaping, and so on, at administratively
18:15:13 might have level having to force someone into a public
18:15:15 hearing process, also in the July cycle within the
18:15:18 West Tampa overlay district only at trial.
18:15:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
18:15:25 That's my motion.
18:15:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
18:15:28 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:15:31 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you again.
18:15:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That concludes the workshop on chapter
18:15:39 We move to our 5:30.
18:15:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We're getting there.
18:15:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Items.
18:15:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, items 1, 2 and 3 are
18:15:53 committee reports, consent agenda, resolutions for
18:15:58 council's consideration.
18:15:59 I would request that you open for general agendaed
18:16:03 public comment for items 1, 2 or 3 prior to taking
18:16:07 action on them.
18:16:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move to open 1, 2 and 3.
18:16:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, it's not a public hearing.
18:16:17 These are on the consent docket.
18:16:19 My suggestion is rather than calling it a public
18:16:21 hearing, because what they normally would be during
18:16:25 the day, bring it up for --
18:16:31 We have to have this on the CDBG so you do have to
18:16:34 have public comment so anyone who wants to address
18:16:36 council on item 1, 2 and 3?
18:16:40 >>> Spencer Kass.
18:16:42 This time representing park neighborhood association.
18:16:48 In a few weeks or months you are going to hear from
18:16:50 city staff that there is no money available for the
18:16:52 rehabilitation of friendship park.
18:16:54 As we know that's falling into disrepair.
18:16:58 Handicapped children cannot access the park in any
18:17:01 They can't access any of the restroom facilities.
18:17:03 It's truly falling apart on its own.
18:17:06 Regular CDBG funds are only for low income
18:17:11 However, if you look through your package on page, I
18:17:14 believe, 14, what you will find is that these rules
18:17:17 actually allow almost 70% must be used in low income
18:17:22 And I counted the way that computer -- there's up to 3
18:17:31 or 400,000 that could be theoretically available for
18:17:34 Junior Friendship Park.
18:17:35 I realize the city is taking 100,000 of that as their
18:17:38 overhead expense.
18:17:40 That leaves us with 200,000.
18:17:42 And the park requires far more work than that it's at
18:17:47 lowest a starting point to start helping some children
18:17:49 in our area.
18:17:50 As now the Junior Park doesn't have a CRA.
18:17:52 So our tax dollars go to play police and fire and we
18:17:56 are happy to help them.
18:17:57 But we can't just have our areas completely abandoned
18:18:00 and falling apart.
18:18:01 Given that there is this opportunity, we would
18:18:03 respectfully request that $200,000 of this money be
18:18:08 set aside within this, frozen for friendship park for
18:18:14 work to be done there. Thank you.
18:18:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public wish to
18:18:17 address council on this particular?
18:18:20 Staff here to address that item on CDBG funding?
18:18:23 Anyone from -- I'm not sure that we can do that
18:18:29 That's why I'm asking staff to come and address it.
18:18:32 I don't know if we can do that or not.
18:18:34 I don't know other intent in terms of those revenues.
18:18:37 >>> Dennis, budget office.
18:18:41 To my understanding the park referenced has not been
18:18:44 verified as being CDBG funding eligible.
18:18:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe it is because we have
18:18:49 done it before.
18:18:55 >> We would have to look into that.
18:18:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we did it you can come back next
18:19:00 week and tell us that we couldn't do it.
18:19:02 >>> We can certainly come back and tell you that it's
18:19:04 CDBG eligible as it relates --
18:19:08 Well, I do know that CDBG funding is designated for
18:19:13 below income areas and I think this area does not
18:19:16 I thought that's what he said in the opening
18:19:19 It's not an area.
18:19:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't have it in front of me but
18:19:28 what he said was 30%.
18:19:29 70% had to be designated.
18:19:32 And so I guess we just need to into that, what the
18:19:36 wording is, and for the use of those fund.
18:19:38 >>> Spencer Kass.
18:19:42 That's correct.
18:19:43 It specifically said 70% to be used.
18:19:49 Other uses, not CDBG funds.
18:19:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So I ask the administration to bring
18:19:53 back a report on that, and then on this issue this has
18:19:57 to move forward tonight because it's time sensitive.
18:19:59 That's why it's on the agenda.
18:20:02 So we can't hold this up.
18:20:03 It's time sensitive.
18:20:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, the truth is that what's
18:20:08 before us is simply saying we are going to do
18:20:12 something with this money, but this does not
18:20:15 specifically designate the particular expenditure so
18:20:19 we could both move this tonight and ask for something
18:20:23 under staff reports at our next council meeting asking
18:20:27 whether we can spend $200,000 of this money on
18:20:31 friendship park.
18:20:33 So let's move it.
18:20:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That makes sense, for to us say
18:20:38 let's pass it now and then -- no, I think the right
18:20:41 thing to do is what I just said.
18:20:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion then
18:20:44 that --
18:20:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, if you just hold it till
18:20:49 we complete the public items.
18:20:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We took public comment.
18:20:51 We have already taken public comment.
18:20:53 So this is staff.
18:20:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I didn't know if there was anybody
18:20:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I raised that question.
18:20:57 I asked if there was anyone else.
18:20:59 Mr. Spencer Kass came forward.
18:21:01 I asked if there was anyone else from the public.
18:21:04 I asked the public if they want to speak.
18:21:05 I am not going to wait for somebody to decide if they
18:21:08 want to speak or not.
18:21:09 That's why I asked staff to come forward.
18:21:15 >>> And it does have to be approved tonight.
18:21:19 We have to submit this to HUD on June 5th.
18:21:21 If you want to make any adjustments or amendments you
18:21:23 could do that at that time.
18:21:24 But it had to be shovel ready within 20 days, and the
18:21:31 friendship park project, we don't know the specifics
18:21:34 of that.
18:21:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They have come to us with a very
18:21:37 specific plan but you can figure that out between now
18:21:40 and our next council meeting.
18:21:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could put your name on the
18:21:45 record for the clerk.
18:21:47 >>> Tamara Taylor --
18:21:52 -- from budget office.
18:22:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I move item number 1.
18:22:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
18:22:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and second that we move item
18:22:10 number 1.
18:22:12 All in favor?
18:22:14 Item number 2.
18:22:15 Councilman Caetano, 2 and 3.
18:22:20 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move item number 2 under building
18:22:22 and zoning.
18:22:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Number 3.
18:22:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move items 2 and 3.
18:22:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
18:22:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Miranda.
18:22:34 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:22:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move we get a
18:22:41 report back from staff under staff report of the
18:22:45 ability to identify 200,000 in the 1,600,000 just
18:22:53 allocated to be spent on the -- the Friendship park.
18:23:15 That's the percentage you are allowed to spend in an
18:23:17 area that's not designated.
18:23:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: (off microphone) it might be
18:23:24 already allocated.
18:23:25 I'm not sure.
18:23:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This falls under the stimulus package,
18:23:30 so that's what this money is here, as I understand it.
18:23:33 So it has to meet a certain criteria.
18:23:36 That's what we are asking, I guess Mr. Miranda
18:23:38 asked --
18:23:42 >> I think you all probably have it.
18:23:44 It's a series of things from Wayne Papy, Seminole
18:23:47 Heights, the MLK gym, to the dossier center in Port
18:23:54 Tampa, energy management systems and a number of --
18:23:57 The question to staff is, bring us back a report,
18:24:00 looking at these items, and whether friendship park
18:24:07 will qualify under the stimulus program or package.
18:24:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's my motion.
18:24:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:24:13 Is there a second?
18:24:16 >> Second.
18:24:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And by the 5th, obviously, is that
18:24:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have a meeting on the 4th.
18:24:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that's on our agenda for the
18:24:25 All in favor?
18:24:27 So it will be on our agenda for the 4th.
18:24:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open items 4 and 5.
18:24:32 >> So moved.
18:24:33 >> Second.
18:24:37 (Motion carried).
18:24:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes to remove item
18:24:49 number 6, the motion would be to remove it from the
18:24:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move to withdraw item number 6
18:24:56 from the agenda.
18:24:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone who wishes to address item
18:24:58 number 6 or speak to council on item number 6?
18:25:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to withdraw.
18:25:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
18:25:05 (Motion carried)
18:25:14 Item 4 and 5.
18:25:15 Planning Commission.
18:25:17 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
18:25:19 Good to see you, Mr. Miranda.
18:25:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: My pleasure.
18:25:22 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: This is a historic moment.
18:25:24 The next two amend amendments will be the last
18:25:27 amendments reviewed under the Tampa comprehensive
18:25:32 The amendments were initiated in November 1st,
18:25:40 cycle and determined to be relevant to the old Tampa
18:25:43 comprehensive plan.
18:25:45 The effective despite of the new livable cities
18:25:48 comprehensive plan was April 23rd, 2009, and we
18:25:54 will be bringing amendments to you with regarding that
18:25:58 comprehensive plan in September of this year.
18:26:02 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18:26:15 >> Jake Hollings, Planning Commission staff.
18:26:19 Your first amendment for tonight is PA-08-05.
18:26:23 If you look here at your -- let me turn this on.
18:26:27 There we go.
18:26:29 This is 1302 east 23rd Avenue.
18:26:33 This is in Ybor, just north of Ybor City in the East
18:26:39 Tampa community redevelopment area he.
18:26:43 The plan amendment site here outlined in purple.
18:26:47 Currently the site is designated public-semi-public.
18:26:49 The privately initiated amendment is requesting
18:26:52 residential 20.
18:26:54 Residential 20 allows consideration of only one
18:26:59 developable unit on the site.
18:27:01 This is 24th Avenue to the north.
18:27:04 There to the east is Avenida Republica de Cuba.
18:27:11 Also to the south, it's of interest to note the pool
18:27:19 is to the south of this.
18:27:20 Also to the west of this, again out of this aerial is
18:27:24 the home association, a near 100-year-old institution
18:27:27 for being in Ybor City, being that it's a skilled
18:27:32 nursing facility.
18:27:33 This property right here today is called Centro place.
18:27:40 Historically it was the old Centro hospital.
18:27:43 The City of Tampa in partnership with the Bank of
18:27:45 America redeveloped this site as a senior living
18:27:49 facility, retirement home, if you will.
18:27:52 That's where this property comes in.
18:27:53 This property was part of that hospital at one time.
18:27:58 That's why it has that public-semi-public designation.
18:28:02 Public-semi-public used for hospitals, major
18:28:05 government facilities, airports, universities, and the
18:28:08 Residential 20 can be used primarily for single-family
18:28:11 detached residential, which you see lining the
18:28:18 24th Avenue, Republica de Cuba.
18:28:24 This site itself is vacant.
18:28:38 The plan site is outlined in purple.
18:28:43 Centro place is residential 35, single-family detached
18:28:47 around the site is residential 10.
18:28:51 You will notice on the blue there on the to the west,
18:28:57 that's the home association, future land use, police
18:29:12 A-7-5, historic character of neighborhoods,
18:29:18 We spoke to the fact that this is historic in nature,
18:29:21 this neighborhood being in Ybor.
18:29:24 Policy B-1.2, this is the issues of available
18:29:29 residential land for redevelopment of populations
18:29:34 coming in.
18:29:34 Again, we are in the East Tampa community
18:29:36 redevelopment area.
18:29:39 The intent of the redevelopment area for in-fill
18:29:43 Also policy B-3.3.
18:29:46 The residential redevelopment project shall be
18:29:48 minimally disruptive to adjacent areas, discussed
18:29:52 briefly that the majority of the lands around it there
18:29:55 on 24th and Avenida Republica de Cuba are detached
18:30:04 With that let now on May 11, 2009 the Planning
18:30:06 Commission found PA 08-05 consistent with the goals,
18:30:14 objectives and policies of the Tampa comprehensive
18:30:16 Thank you for your time.
18:30:17 This concludes my presentation.
18:30:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.
18:30:21 In the over head map we have there's a little dotted
18:30:24 line drawing and it looks lake right on top, two grand
18:30:31 >> I am going to show you that again on the aerial.
18:30:37 This is the map that you are speaking to, ma'am?
18:30:43 The oak trees here in this city have a wonderful
18:30:47 That's the site.
18:30:48 So what you are seeing is the canopy.
18:30:51 Those two trees are actually on the property line, and
18:30:54 they are actually to the property to the east.
18:30:57 They are actually in the property owner to the east,
18:31:00 their property.
18:31:01 But the canopy does go over into the applicant's
18:31:07 properties, as you can see here.
18:31:09 This picture was taken probably about two months ago
18:31:12 at the site.
18:31:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, it's fine if we
18:31:20 change the land use.
18:31:21 But if we are allowing an intensity that's going to
18:31:24 mean that the trees get chopped up, how are we certain
18:31:30 that they will be protected, or that is the part of
18:31:34 our consideration?
18:31:35 >>> Well, that's a wonderful question, and it would be
18:31:37 a question that would be covered, I assume, by this
18:31:39 body at the rezoning phase.
18:31:41 >> But they are not going to argue that, well, you
18:31:44 have given them this underlying lying land use and
18:31:47 therefore in order to play out the land uses potential
18:31:50 they are going to have to --
18:31:51 >>> The land use will only allow for one developable
18:31:54 unit. It's going to be a single-family detached
18:31:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
18:31:59 That's fine.
18:31:59 >>> Yes, ma'am.
18:32:02 >> Any other questions from council?
18:32:05 Thank you.
18:32:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public wish to address
18:32:17 Anyone from the public wish to address council?
18:32:20 >> Move to close.
18:32:21 >> Second.
18:32:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You want to speak?
18:32:24 You need to come down here to speak on it.
18:32:30 6 move to close.
18:32:31 >> Second.
18:32:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:32:36 >> Get the ordinance down to Mr. Miranda.
18:32:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for first
18:32:45 reading, (off microphone) Tampa comprehensive plan,
18:32:50 future land use element, future land use map for
18:32:53 property in the located in the general vicinity of
18:32:55 1302 east 23rd Avenue, on the north side of
18:32:59 23rd Avenue, west of Avenida Republica de Cuba,
18:33:04 from public semi-public to residential 20, providing
18:33:07 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing
18:33:10 for preservability, providing an effective date.
18:33:14 >> Second.
18:33:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
18:33:18 absent, Mulhern being absent at vote.
18:33:20 Second reading and adoption will be on June 25th
18:33:22 at 9:30 a.m.
18:33:24 >> The next case is PA-08-06 located at the
18:33:36 intersection of Avenida Cuba.
18:33:44 The property consists of six plotted lots located
18:33:47 above the east and west side of Hubert Avenue on the
18:33:51 south side of West Gray Street.
18:33:53 The site is currently vacant.
18:33:55 It is 1.3 acres and located in the Westshore Tampa
18:34:00 Palms neighborhood within the Westshore area.
18:34:09 The boundaries of Westshore palm neighborhood are
18:34:11 I-275 on the north, Kennedy Boulevard on the south,
18:34:15 Lois Avenue on the east, and Westshore Boulevard on
18:34:19 the west.
18:34:27 This map shows the adopted land use.
18:34:34 The site plan indicates -- and the light brown
18:34:39 residential 35.
18:34:40 The existing R-20 designation allows 30 units from the
18:34:44 subject site.
18:34:44 The proposed change to R-35 will allow up to 53 units.
18:34:52 This is an increase of 23 units.
18:34:55 R-35 allows mid rise multifamily residential which has
18:35:00 a form of three to eight stories.
18:35:04 The aerial shows single-family attached housing to the
18:35:15 north and east of the subject property, once a family
18:35:20 residential is located to the south where you see the
18:35:23 There's also City of Tampa park SU-II south of the
18:35:26 subject property and the other lots have single-family
18:35:28 detached housing.
18:35:29 The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and
18:35:32 considers existing and expected future development
18:35:35 patterns in the area.
18:35:36 The following neighborhood compatibility issues were
18:35:38 raised, building Heights, compatibility, adjacent
18:35:45 development, and the intensity of the impact on the
18:35:48 Other issues raised include traffic, water use and
18:35:51 tree protection.
18:35:52 The Planning Commission found PA 08-06 to be
18:35:59 consistent inconsistent with the comprehensive plan
18:36:03 and recommendation PA 08-06 be denied.
18:36:06 That concludes my presentation.
18:36:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is a public hearing.
18:36:18 Anyone wishing to address council on this petition?
18:36:28 Alan Johnson, here for this plan amendment.
18:36:53 >> Are you the petitioner?
18:36:54 >> Pardon me?
18:36:56 >> Are you the petitioner?
18:36:57 >>> Yes, sir.
18:36:58 I have lived here now for 15 years and I have owned
18:37:01 property here in the Westshore neighborhood for about
18:37:04 eight years.
18:37:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:37:05 Just hold up for a second.
18:37:07 Anyone here other than petitioner wishing to address
18:37:09 council on this petition?
18:37:10 Anyone else here wishing to address council on this
18:37:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: (off microphone) if I may, the
18:37:25 Planning Commission denied the request.
18:37:27 Am I correct?
18:37:28 >>> That's correct.
18:37:30 >> I'm not a lawyer but I would advise the council
18:37:34 that the gentleman complete his statement so that the
18:37:36 record is complete.
18:37:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:37:39 Thank you.
18:37:39 You may proceed.
18:37:41 >>> All right.
18:37:43 Well, first off, I am going to begin by stating back
18:37:48 in 2006 I had come before council, and we had a
18:37:54 meeting in 30 minutes which was approved which I was
18:37:56 very appreciative of.
18:37:57 And if I had a crystal ball, and say what was going to
18:38:01 happen, I certainly wouldn't be here now.
18:38:04 But as you know, economic conditions have changed out
18:38:08 And things aren't the way they were or how they
18:38:12 thought they were going to be back in 2006.
18:38:14 So we had to come back and try to figure out something
18:38:16 else to do.
18:38:17 And -- okay.
18:38:27 Just basically, the economic conditions there in the
18:38:31 area have changed.
18:38:32 And all the PDs, in the area on hold have been
18:38:41 But developers, just can't make the numbers work.
18:38:52 However, this market is the only thing we can get
18:38:59 financing on for a variety of reasons, and you are
18:39:02 fully informed of what's going on in the economy, and
18:39:09 when you switch gears in terms of what we want to do.
18:39:17 What it amounts to, really, is where before we had
18:39:22 presented say for every three town homes of about
18:39:27 2,000 square feet we would propose five units that
18:39:30 actually would be smaller.
18:39:33 They had a distribution of sizes, 700 square feet to,
18:39:38 say, 1600 square feet and actually the buildings
18:39:41 themselves may actually be less than what you were
18:39:43 proposing before.
18:39:44 Actually had more units.
18:39:46 And these were the units that would save more debt.
18:39:55 We believe that the market will continue to remain
18:39:58 strong in Westshore.
18:39:58 This project is about a $10 million injection into the
18:40:03 economy creating jobs for construction and related
18:40:06 I have people all the time calling wishing they could
18:40:08 work, and of course we have nothing for them.
18:40:13 The neighborhood encroachment investment.
18:40:15 And as the economy improves, it's still going to be
18:40:18 very viable.
18:40:20 Now one thing I did, when I presented this, there's a
18:40:28 plan amendment and it's my understanding that you are
18:40:31 looking for the macro level and the overall trend in
18:40:34 the neighborhood and the overall need in the
18:40:36 So in my presentation, this is the general area here,
18:40:44 with the international mall, Westshore plaza, and all
18:40:48 the commercial close to the airport and so forth.
18:40:51 And I am going to show you other things.
18:40:59 What I did was try to put it all into perspective, is
18:41:03 I pulled up a report that was done in October of 2008,
18:41:09 actually by Land Development Coordination division.
18:41:21 And then it gives us some interesting data.
18:41:25 Just a table of contents.
18:41:29 Just to point out a couple things.
18:41:35 What I am talking about data, the data pertaining to
18:41:38 the Westshore district here.
18:41:45 And what I have done, the completed projects in
18:41:53 Westshore, and the big thing that really sticks out is
18:41:59 the amount of commercial growth here that's occurring
18:42:03 in Westshore compared to -- I am going to show you a
18:42:07 table but I wanted to kind of show you in this report,
18:42:13 what I am doing is comparing those to the other
18:42:24 You will see why it's important to look at residential
18:42:27 housing here in the area.
18:42:29 And the population compared to the office and retail,
18:42:34 hotel rooms and so forth.
18:42:40 And what I did is compare this to the other district,
18:42:47 At the top of that, it's actually somewhat--we are
18:43:01 taking the numbers from the top of the sheet.
18:43:03 And there's the central district, South Tampa
18:43:14 district, the now Tampa district, and university
18:43:22 So what I have done is I have pulled those numbers
18:43:26 into a table.
18:43:28 The units estimated for you here, based on the growth
18:44:03 of this, there's 4-point -- let me find the number.
18:44:14 On all of that data that I was showing you, of all the
18:44:17 new development, there's about 4.8 million square feet
18:44:20 of office space coming into Westshore in addition to
18:44:24 the 11.6 million square feet of space that's there.
18:44:27 That's a 42% increase.
18:44:30 There's 4.7 million square feet of retail space and
18:44:36 another 1.1 million coming in, a 24% increase. Hotel
18:44:40 rooms are increasing by 29%.
18:44:45 The number of employees is going from the existing of
18:44:48 99,000 up to 21,000, just under 22,000.
18:44:55 There's currently only a little over -- or almost
18:44:58 12,000 people that live in the Westshore area compared
18:45:01 to the number of people that actually work there.
18:45:08 And compared to the other districts, all of this new
18:45:11 development that's coming in and you make a
18:45:13 comparison, the other districts, the number of new
18:45:18 employees coming in to -- it's like a one to one
18:45:23 ratio, whereas here, in Westshore, it's like over five
18:45:33 to one ratio, the numbers coming in that don't have a
18:45:37 place to live, and it's not in Westshore.
18:45:39 It's not there.
18:45:52 You see oh Westshore how much more that is, with the
18:45:59 housing unit compared-oh unit compared to the other
18:46:03 The university is different.
18:46:09 This is a map taken down basically collecting all of
18:46:31 the same data, plotting it, plotting it on a map, and
18:46:43 here, how many units are going in, versus out by the
18:46:46 It only happens on the east side of the airport which
18:46:51 is the area we are actually talking about.
18:46:53 We have to take those units out, the ones that are
18:46:56 west on the airport, west housing unit and Westshore
18:47:02 And just to kind of show you here, these are all
18:47:09 commercial projects scheduled to coming in to the
18:47:11 Westshore area.
18:47:12 All already in.
18:47:16 And that's come into the Westshore area.
18:47:33 4.79 million.
18:47:37 So when you actually take out what's on the east at
18:47:44 the airport, you actually end up with an 11-point
18:47:48 ratio, which is what it's showing, including taking
18:47:57 out the -- there's not sufficient housing for all the
18:48:03 people in these places.
18:48:15 When you look at the comprehensive plan, again this is
18:48:19 the area we are talking about here.
18:48:26 On Kennedy between Westshore, and up here is the
18:48:32 M.A.P. and the residential can be there, down below,
18:48:35 Beach Park, orange, and then in the ping most of that
18:48:45 is where your commercial activity is, only a very few
18:48:48 residential companies going in so very logical place
18:48:51 where it's going to be is down here, where we actually
18:48:56 already have 5, and I'm only talking, we already have
18:49:03 res 35 in these blocks, this part of the neighborhood
18:49:08 has been taken away from the interstate.
18:49:10 And so it's only the one block adjacent to where the
18:49:15 res 35 is.
18:49:17 So to me it makes perfect sense, that where else are
18:49:21 you going to be doing it?
18:49:25 And of course that's what we are trying to do in
18:49:31 Westshore in terms of trying to integrate your
18:49:36 commercial and your restaurants, retail, residential,
18:49:41 add it all together, and not have people driving long
18:49:45 distances in traffic jam that is want to be close to
18:49:47 where they are working and going to restaurants and so
18:49:52 So that's what that's all about.
18:49:53 So it's really important.
18:49:55 We need it.
18:49:56 And I have met with the Westshore neighborhood
18:50:02 And the neighborhood association, they want
18:50:10 development in the first place back in 2006.
18:50:12 They want something to happen.
18:50:16 I'll give you a copy of this letter and I'll read it
18:50:18 to you.
18:50:23 Okay, um, Tampa City Council, this letter is written
18:50:50 in support of a land use change from res 20 to res 35.
18:50:54 Westshore Palms has always had a mix of single-family
18:50:57 homes, town homes, condos, and apartments, and as a
18:51:02 community we have always been supportive of
18:51:05 We recognize we are an integral part of the greater
18:51:07 Westshore community and as it has continued to grow we
18:51:10 will serve as a source of housing for the people that
18:51:12 work and patronize us and the establishments that are
18:51:15 in such close proximity.
18:51:17 Due to the economy, many of the projects have been
18:51:19 proposed have been postponed indefinitely or canceled
18:51:23 By increasing the density at this time, it will be the
18:51:26 catalyst needed in order for redevelopment to continue
18:51:29 and will position the neighborhood for the future as
18:51:32 the greater Westshore area continues to grow.
18:51:35 We have met with the developer regarding this change,
18:51:38 that the site in question will be developed in a
18:51:40 manner consistent to the neighborhood at this time, as
18:51:42 well as for the future.
18:51:44 The developer has assured us that when the design is
18:51:47 completed for the planned development approval that he
18:51:51 will share for input in the plan just as he has done
18:51:53 in the past.
18:51:54 Weaver we have we are confident he has the best
18:51:57 interest of the neighborhood at heart and will do an
18:51:58 excellent job and we urge you to approve the petition,
18:52:01 signed by Carlton Polk, the president of the
18:52:04 neighborhood palms neighborhood association.
18:52:07 In addition to that, I have a few petition letters
18:52:14 that of support here.
18:52:16 I'll be honest with you, this is a different procedure
18:52:18 for me, the plan amendment.
18:52:25 The procedure is a little bit different.
18:52:27 I can a sure you that when we get to the PD stage,
18:52:31 I'll have even more support, because just as in the
18:52:35 past on the previous project and on other projects, I
18:52:37 have worked very closely with did neighborhood
18:52:39 association and with the neighbors, the adjacent
18:52:41 property owners, et cetera, and we are going to make
18:52:45 it where it's a good project, and just like before,
18:52:49 those that were on council back in 2006 may recall,
18:52:53 and I did have around 70 petition letters supportings
18:53:01 the project, and I want to do the same thing again
18:53:06 And I think the big thing is that I hear, you know,
18:53:10 when I'm speaking to people in the neighborhood, they
18:53:12 want something to happen.
18:53:14 They had been wanting something to happen for quite
18:53:17 And they don't want overgrown homes that need to be
18:53:24 torn down.
18:53:25 They want something stimulating and for something to
18:53:28 happen in the neighborhood.
18:53:31 (Bell sounds).
18:53:34 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Saul-Sena.
18:53:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How many grand trees are on the
18:53:37 >>> There are white quite a few.
18:53:38 >> I know.
18:53:39 I am looking at the aerial.
18:53:41 >>> And I don't recall the exact number right now,
18:53:43 because it's been awhile since -- when we did that PD
18:53:48 back in 2006, I walked the property with David Riley.
18:53:52 We went over all the grand trees.
18:53:55 We made sure the positioning of the buildings and
18:53:57 everything were such that they did not affect any of
18:54:00 the grand trees, and it was great.
18:54:03 There was nothing to be reed moved except there was
18:54:06 one which was damaged, and Scud us to remove even
18:54:12 though we didn't need to for the plan.
18:54:14 An when we get to the PD stage we'll do the things
18:54:17 that need to be done.
18:54:20 It's a big asset to the property.
18:54:26 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Caetano?
18:54:29 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You said the Planning Commission
18:54:31 did not approve this.
18:54:32 >>> Yes.
18:54:32 And if I may --
18:54:34 >> Is there a reason why?
18:54:35 >>> Yes.
18:54:35 I can shed a little bit of light from my perspective,
18:54:39 and hopefully support some of what I am saying as a
18:54:44 result of what they said that evening, and what was
18:54:47 First off, the vote was 3-6.
18:54:53 6 had opposed and 3 had supported.
18:54:55 And I think a lot of what was discussed, it seemed to
18:54:59 me they were focusing on a lot of steps that take
18:55:02 place during the PD process.
18:55:05 Also, I hadn't gone through this plan amendment
18:55:10 process before.
18:55:11 And so because, you know, on a planned plan amendment
18:55:16 it's such a bigger macro thing.
18:55:18 I had not gone to the neighborhood association at that
18:55:21 I don't know if that would have made a difference, and
18:55:25 they realize how important the neighborhood
18:55:26 association feels that it is to get things going
18:55:28 there, the that neighbors were actually supportive of
18:55:32 Maybe it would have gone differently.
18:55:33 And between about two weeks ago and now, I went to
18:55:37 them and discussed and said, look, I need your
18:55:40 support, to take it before council and so forth.
18:55:43 And so I got it.
18:55:45 I think that was probably one of the factors.
18:55:47 I didn't have that that evening.
18:55:50 But the biggest thing was they were really focusing
18:55:52 in, I think, a little bit um, narrowly on a lot of
18:55:57 those issues that come up more on the PD process, and
18:56:01 they weren't getting -- they weren't really aware,
18:56:07 either, of what I had done back in 2006.
18:56:12 Look, I got the units to work, I wasn't affecting
18:56:14 trees, you know, and those issues would come up during
18:56:17 the PD.
18:56:19 And I don't know.
18:56:21 Honestly, I was very deprived of that because to me
18:56:24 it's just such an important thing, when you look at
18:56:28 the bigger picture of Westshore, and everything that's
18:56:31 happening there, that we need to have -- I just
18:56:34 thought they would see the big picture.
18:56:37 And comment a little further on that.
18:56:41 >> These units are 700 square feet, that's without a
18:56:45 >>> No.
18:56:46 What I'm saying is, it would be a range of size one
18:56:53 Probably between 700 and 600.
18:56:55 Some variability.
18:56:58 We have got something that's going to be appropriate
18:56:59 for whoever, you know, would want it.
18:57:02 I don't know yet how the garage and the parking and
18:57:07 things like that would be handled at this point.
18:57:09 My preference would be to have the same kind of
18:57:13 garage, similar type of thing that I had before.
18:57:15 But I haven't gotten to the design stage yet.
18:57:18 When we get to the PD part, if council directs me, if
18:57:23 you are good enough to approve this for me, I mean, if
18:57:26 you requested us, I could bring you the old PD plan
18:57:29 and the new PD plan, and you can make comparisons and
18:57:32 so forth, if that's what you would like.
18:57:35 But, you know, I tried to do the very best possible
18:57:38 job I can in terms of presenting a design that meets
18:57:42 all of the appropriate guidelines for parking and
18:57:51 everything else you need do in a good project.
18:57:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?
18:57:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: From listening to you and your body
18:57:57 language I think you are one of the most sincere guys
18:58:00 that come here.
18:58:01 When you don't know, you said "don't know" and things
18:58:04 of that nature.
18:58:05 What troubles me is the size, not the development but
18:58:08 the size of the development.
18:58:09 Let me tell you why.
18:58:13 From the interstate on Dale Mabry to Kennedy
18:58:19 Boulevard, you have got one traffic light, and that's
18:58:22 on Gray.
18:58:25 From Kennedy, the next traffic light heading west is
18:58:30 on Lois.
18:58:34 From Lois and Kennedy, heading north, the other
18:58:39 traffic light is on the ramp of the expressway.
18:58:42 So the amount of traffic that it's going to create in
18:58:48 one area -- and I would suspect because of the -- from
18:58:53 the location close to Gray, which is a single-family
18:58:57 unit area, the traffic is going to be backed up pretty
18:59:01 much on Gray, and you have got a commercial building
18:59:07 at the corner, and a photographic shop in the corner,
18:59:10 across the street, an empty restaurant, on the other
18:59:12 side Jordano's restaurant which used to do quite a
18:59:20 good business.
18:59:21 So I want to help you and I want to see you be
18:59:23 >>> If I may.
18:59:26 When you are talking about traffic, I know traffic is
18:59:30 always concerning, talking about any type of
18:59:36 And really in this particular case, I don't think that
18:59:42 this project is necessarily contributing to more
18:59:44 If anything, it's going to continue contain the
18:59:46 traffic here because of all of that commercial and row
18:59:51 tail development that's taking place there, because --
18:59:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may.
18:59:57 What was your original that you had, and how many more
19:00:01 units are you asking for?
19:00:04 >>> Well, the original is for 30 units.
19:00:06 And as I stated, it's not economically feasible.
19:00:10 Today, I don't know when it will be.
19:00:14 This PD would allow -- I'm sorry, this plan amendment
19:00:17 would allow up to 53 units.
19:00:19 Now, I don't know that when I come in here and present
19:00:24 the PD that I will actually get --
19:00:30 >> Mathematically.
19:00:32 >>> I don't know that for sure that we'll get that
19:00:34 money many.
19:00:37 To fit properly and do everything.
19:00:39 The thing about it is, when you are talking about like
19:00:44 the building and things like that, one of the reasons
19:00:48 I showed the one slide that I was showing where in the
19:00:52 town home scenario, with 30 units, showing a total of
19:00:58 6,000 square feet, and there's smaller units and
19:01:03 actually ends up being less.
19:01:05 It's like 5500 square feet.
19:01:07 So I don't think that I actually have to go any
19:01:12 That was a concern of the commission that, I don't New
19:01:14 York City the point was I don't think I have to go any
19:01:17 higher than what I was going before.
19:01:19 And I will tell you this.
19:01:20 If I tried to, you know, they have a map in terms of
19:01:24 what it can be.
19:01:27 And to try to go for that map.
19:01:32 I to get the support, I know that -- it's going to be
19:01:36 reasonable in terms of what I am proposing.
19:01:37 When I come back and actually do the PD, I have got to
19:01:43 do something that the neighbors are going to like,
19:01:46 that you are going to like, to make it something that
19:01:49 can actually work.
19:01:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me ask the -- is it traffic is
19:02:02 too great than anticipated? I don't know if I heard
19:02:05 You he's willing to scale to the 30.
19:02:08 I don't recall all of it because he gave me so much
19:02:10 information so quickly, I thought I was looking at a
19:02:15 phone book.
19:02:16 And nothing against you.
19:02:18 But can you tell us to some degree what happened in
19:02:20 the process, in a few minutes only?
19:02:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Succinctly.
19:02:28 >>> The Planning Commission did consider the
19:02:32 neighborhood compatibility issues.
19:02:33 They were concerned with building height.
19:02:36 They were concerned with the compatibility of the
19:02:41 proposed density with the adjacent development, and
19:02:43 with the intensity of the impact on the area.
19:02:46 They also discussed traffic, water use and treatment.
19:02:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: There's a lot of roads back there
19:02:54 that don't go all the way through.
19:02:56 You have to snake your way around.
19:03:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
19:03:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Second?
19:03:08 Second to close?
19:03:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
19:03:11 69 motion and second to close.
19:03:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Excuse me, I just want to be clear.
19:03:18 I don't believe there was any request for any other
19:03:20 comments beyond this gentleman.
19:03:24 >> He was the only one.
19:03:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to ask for the record if
19:03:31 there's anyone else?
19:03:32 >> Before we close the public hearing did anyone wish
19:03:34 to address council on this petition?
19:03:35 Anyone else from the public?
19:03:39 You're from the Planning Commission, right?
19:03:43 Come on up, yes.
19:03:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Succinctly.
19:03:49 >>> Randy Goers, Planning Development Coordination.
19:03:51 Just for the record the city staff did review the
19:03:53 proposed plan amendment, and there were concerns from
19:03:55 the city staff related to the height of the -- what
19:04:00 could be potential height, the intensity of the
19:04:02 development, and the character of the surrounding
19:04:06 Most of those properties have an R-20 but have not
19:04:09 developed even at the R-20 threshold.
19:04:11 So there was a concern at R-35 that it's asking for
19:04:16 more than what really -- much more than what's really
19:04:18 on the ground there today.
19:04:22 We did make those comments to the Planning Commission
19:04:24 as well.
19:04:25 Thank you.
19:04:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a comment for Mr. Goers.
19:04:32 On page 7 that begins with the city staff does not
19:04:34 support the proposed plan amendment, and then recites
19:04:38 all the reasons.
19:04:39 >>RANDY GOERS: Yes.
19:04:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner, do you want to add
19:04:44 anything else?
19:04:44 Just take a minute.
19:04:48 >>> Well, I guess -- I would just urge to you look a
19:04:51 little bit beyond what just those comments are, and
19:04:58 the neighborhood association actually in this scenario
19:05:04 is actually very supportive and wants to see the
19:05:07 change take place.
19:05:10 And the council will have the opportunity when I come
19:05:12 back to you with the PD where a lot of those other
19:05:15 issues will certainly be addressed.
19:05:17 And I will certainly work with staff in terms of a
19:05:20 dressing all of those issues, and very diligently and
19:05:26 trying to make sure that any of those types of things
19:05:28 would be cleared up before coming to you.
19:05:31 And when I do come to you I hope to have a very good
19:05:34 plan, one that hopefully you will at that point
19:05:37 So I would hope that you would take that into
19:05:41 consideration, because I have been in that
19:05:44 neighborhood, owning property there for over eight
19:05:47 years, and the neighbors actually really do want to
19:05:50 see some change take place, positive change, and those
19:05:56 other PDs aren't going -- because of the way things
19:06:00 are today, and it's really going to be something
19:06:02 ultimately, and as a plan amendment this is something
19:06:06 to be looking at the bigger picture in terms of the
19:06:08 overall trend in Westshore.
19:06:10 And then let me come back to you working out all the
19:06:13 things at the PD.
19:06:14 And I'll try to give you like a plan.
19:06:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Can he would move to continue?
19:06:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you have any questions I will be
19:06:22 glad to answer.
19:06:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion to close.
19:06:27 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
19:06:30 Council, what's your pleasure?
19:06:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19:06:33 I think the petitioner did a great job of making his
19:06:36 But this neighborhood is -- this site is landlocked to
19:06:41 the top because of the Internet interstate.
19:06:44 The site itself has some fabulous trees on it and the
19:06:47 staff said, how can this possibly build to the
19:06:49 proposed density when you have got these major trees?
19:06:53 And I quoted from page 7, the city staff does not
19:06:57 support it, the predominant land use is R-20 with,
19:07:02 R-10 one block to the east.
19:07:04 The proposed amendment would place higher density
19:07:07 residential, and the area predominantly R-20 which was
19:07:13 pointed out by Mr. Goers, almost all single-family
19:07:15 detached house as round it.
19:07:18 There are a number of concerns listed in the city
19:07:21 staff report.
19:07:22 And based on the concerns cited by the staff, I would
19:07:25 recommend denial.
19:07:40 >> Second.
19:07:41 And I say again, believe the gentleman is sincere.
19:07:44 (off microphone)
19:07:46 And it is quite large.
19:07:49 For the system of roadways, and traffic patterns that
19:07:52 we have.
19:07:54 And I understand the support that he's had.
19:07:57 But I think this long-term would create a problem for
19:08:00 the city.
19:08:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
19:08:05 That's a motion to deny, given the backup material
19:08:11 based on staff recommendation and on reports.
19:08:13 It's been moved by Councilwoman Saul-Sena, seconded by
19:08:16 councilman Miranda.
19:08:17 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
19:08:20 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
19:08:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
19:08:25 I think that concludes all items for us today.
19:08:27 We move now to new business.
19:08:30 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to receive and file.
19:08:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
19:08:32 (Motion carried).
19:08:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
19:08:39 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to follow up.
19:08:40 I don't know if this is me or anyone else but today we
19:08:43 set up a workshop on water and we didn't have the
19:08:45 dates and now we have the calendar.
19:08:49 I'm wondering what we should do.
19:08:52 Did we say we wanted to do it in July?
19:08:59 Let's see.
19:09:03 Mr. Chairman, I think you said we should have it on a
19:09:16 I think we are pretty booked up on the workshops.
19:09:18 So what --
19:09:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A Tuesday the 23rd?
19:09:27 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm trying to get it out here.
19:09:32 Sounds good.
19:09:32 So move to -- you know, I was thinking that there are
19:09:37 a lot of people interested in this issue.
19:09:40 I'm wondering what other people think.
19:09:42 Should we just have it here?
19:09:45 >> Yes.
19:09:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
19:09:47 >>MARY MULHERN: So in council chambers. Can we do it,
19:09:49 Jim, on that date?
19:09:50 >>THE CLERK: Want to collect the calendar and see if
19:09:56 there's an ARC meeting.
19:09:58 I'm not sure.
19:10:02 Cathy's calendar.
19:10:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Muscle all right.
19:10:08 He's going to look at that.
19:10:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really do believe that if we need
19:10:13 to have a meeting in our chambers, that we should have
19:10:15 it in our chambers, and another group should have to
19:10:18 move because --
19:10:21 >>MARY MULHERN: A public hearing, code enforcement or
19:10:25 It's a Tuesday.
19:10:26 There's probably not anything going on.
19:10:31 Let me go to the other thing I wanted to bring up.
19:10:34 And hopefully it hasn't been signed by house bill
19:10:40 number 360 --
19:10:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It has been.
19:10:43 >>MARY MULHERN: It has?
19:10:44 The bill has?
19:10:45 Was it part of the budget?
19:10:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I talked to a planning staff member
19:10:48 It's terrible.
19:10:54 >>MARY MULHERN: that's what I was going to ask, that
19:10:57 we write a letter to governor Crist.
19:11:02 I didn't know he had signed it because he just did it
19:11:08 Is that Tuesday the 23rd?
19:11:11 >> So 9:00 we have a workshop.
19:11:15 So 9:00 we would have a workshop on the wastewater.
19:11:20 Reclaimed water.
19:11:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Reclaimed water.
19:11:23 But I thought we should talk about the other issue,
19:11:25 and that's the watering at the same time.
19:11:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: More extensive --
19:11:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Higher surcharges for higher users.
19:11:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be master plan based on
19:11:44 today and the proposed recommendations of the
19:11:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
19:11:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that of course would be a
19:11:52 televised public hearing?
19:11:54 >> That's correct.
19:11:55 >> Not a televised meeting, a workshop.
19:12:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Workshop on the 23rd at nine in
19:12:03 the morning and the only issue again is the master
19:12:06 plan, or proposed plan, a draft plan, draft
19:12:11 recommendation, along with other water issues.
19:12:13 It's been moved by Councilwoman Mulhern and seconded
19:12:16 by councilman Miranda.
19:12:18 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
19:12:23 >>MARY MULHERN: That's all I have.
19:12:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19:12:26 I have one thing.
19:12:34 Mr. Ragsdale has been with the city for 30 years.
19:12:36 He's retiring.
19:12:37 I have a commendation made up by council on our behalf
19:12:40 for him.
19:12:42 In two weeks, whatever, something to that effect.
19:12:45 Next council meeting.
19:12:48 >> Second.
19:12:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
19:12:50 All in favor?
19:12:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One thing else T. Young lady who
19:12:56 got nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court,
19:12:59 I'm so tired of hearing her name mispronounced.
19:13:06 It's Sonia Sotomayer.
19:13:10 I wanted to make sure you got it correct.
19:13:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I do want to thank you for clarifying
19:13:18 Especially with all the national media.
19:13:21 Okay, yes.
19:13:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone) I want to get a
19:13:30 We have an arborist who comes to the meeting --
19:13:35 >> Microphone.
19:13:35 >> I want to get a report from the arborist of the
19:13:38 recreation department who handles the arborist.
19:13:40 I was at a code enforcement meeting and I see him
19:13:44 there for three hours.
19:13:45 I have seen him in our meetings for four, five hours
19:13:48 to answer a couple of questions when something is
19:13:49 going to come up.
19:13:51 How is this person enumerated for his work?
19:13:54 Does he get time off?
19:13:56 I want to see how he's compensated.
19:14:02 69 part of his job.
19:14:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can either inquire of the
19:14:09 department, as a council member, or if council wishes
19:14:11 to do it as a motion, to have perhaps a written
19:14:14 I don't know whether you want a staff report with
19:14:17 somebody present from a meeting.
19:14:18 Is that your intention?
19:14:20 >> It's a written report probably.
19:14:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: A written report, right.
19:14:24 Because he sometimes is here four hours, three hours,
19:14:28 does he get time off?
19:14:30 Or is he on time and a half or what?
19:14:34 >> I'm assuming he's being comp -- compensated through
19:14:38 his salary, but if that's your motion, is there a
19:14:41 second for that?
19:14:44 Moved and seconded.
19:14:46 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
19:14:49 Written report, next meeting.
19:14:54 Yes, sir.
19:14:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I have one item briefly.
19:14:57 I will not be present with you next Tuesday morning.
19:14:59 I will be back in the afternoon.
19:15:01 It will be the occasion of my daughter's high school
19:15:04 I hope you forgive me.
19:15:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tuesday morning?
19:15:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did I say Tuesday?
19:15:16 I mean Thursday morning, June 4th.
19:15:20 I will be back in the afternoon.
19:15:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Was that approved by the chair?
19:15:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I certainly hope so.
19:15:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anything else?
19:15:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you noticed to make a motion?
19:15:33 >> No.
19:15:34 We stand adjourned.
19:15:35 Thank you.
19:15:36 (Tampa City Council meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.)
The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.