TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
March 10, 2016
6:00 p.m.
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
06:03:19 >> FRANK REDDICK: Call the city Council meeting to order.
06:03:21 Roll call.
06:03:22 [ ROLL CALL ]
06:03:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
06:03:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
06:03:26 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
06:03:27 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
06:03:29 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
06:03:29 Just for the record, Miss Capin will not be here this
06:03:34 evening.
06:03:35 She would like the record to reflect that.
06:03:41 All right, number one, item number one, Mr. Shelby.
06:03:50 >> MARTIN SHELBY: yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
06:03:51 The resolution has been prepared and I would ask that
06:03:52 council consider moving the resolution, please.
06:04:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
06:04:45 Mr. Cohen?
06:04:47 >>HARRY COHEN: Yes.
06:04:47 Ms. Capin was the maker of this motion, and as its
06:04:51 seconder, I would like to move this resolution.
06:04:53 It is urging the United States Department of
06:04:56 Transportation to grant the applications of Southwest
06:04:59 Airlines and JetBlue Airways for twice daily flights to
06:05:03 Havana, Cuba, from Tampa International.
06:05:06 >> Second.
06:05:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Cohen, seconded by
06:05:09 Mr. Miranda.
06:05:09 All in favor of the motion say aye.
06:05:11 Opposed?
06:05:12 All right.
06:05:12 Thank you.
06:05:13 All right.
06:05:13 Staff?
06:05:18 Want to clean up the agenda?
06:05:21 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Yes, sir.
06:05:22 Items number two and three on your agenda, I am
06:05:25 requesting that they are removed from the agenda.
06:05:27 They are items that were originally set for the
06:05:29 January 14th meeting.
06:05:30 They were continued to tonight's meeting.
06:05:32 However, the applicant is still working with staff on
06:05:35 revising the plan and amending the application.
06:05:38 So, we'll remove it from the agenda and set it at a
06:05:40 future date.
06:05:42 That's it.
06:05:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
06:05:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move to remove items number two and
06:05:50 three from the agenda.
06:05:52 >> Second.
06:05:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Suarez, second by
06:05:54 Mr. Miranda.
06:05:55 All in favor of that motion say aye.
06:05:56 Opposed?
06:05:57 Okay.
06:05:58 Anyone going to speak on item 4 -- can we get a motion to
06:06:03 --
06:06:04 >> I move to open hearings 4 through 15.
06:06:08 >> Second.
06:06:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
06:06:10 Got a motion from Mr. Suarez, second by Mr. Cohen.
06:06:14 All in favor of the motion say aye.
06:06:15 Those opposed?
06:06:17 All right.
06:06:17 Anyone going to speak on item 4 through 15, please stand
06:06:21 and be sworn in.
06:06:22 Four through 15.
06:06:25 [Oath administered by Clerk]
06:06:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Cohen?
06:06:36 >>HARRY COHEN: I have a memorandum here, Mr. Chair, that
06:06:37 I received a little while ago from the Gandy Sun Bay
06:06:40 South Civic Association asking that I read it, their
06:06:44 support for items 4 and 5 into the record.
06:06:47 Mr. Steenson was not able to be present tonight and
06:06:51 specifically wanted this announced.
06:06:53 Thank you.
06:06:54 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
06:06:54 Item number 4.
06:06:59 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: If I may, sir, Mr. Reddick, I'd like to
06:07:01 have four and five both heard together.
06:07:04 They're adjoining properties and have the exact same
06:07:07 request.
06:07:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
06:07:09 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 4 is REZ 16-09 and item
06:07:11 number 5 is 16-10.
06:07:46 They are properties at 4714 west Pearl Avenue and 4712
06:07:48 West Pearl Avenue respectively.
06:07:51 Both requesting a rezoning from RS-50 to RM-18.
06:07:58 >>DAVID HAY: Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hey with
06:08:00 your Planning Commission staff.
06:08:01 I have been sworn.
06:08:03 We start the night out down in the South Tampa planning
06:08:06 district.
06:08:07 We are dealing with those two cases.
06:08:11 They're both in the South Tampa planning district.
06:08:15 16, rezoning 16-09 is a .29-acre site, while rezoning
06:08:21 16-10 is a .36-acre subject site.
06:08:24 Both are located within a mixed use corridor village.
06:08:29 They both are within that Gandy Sun Bay South
06:08:31 neighborhood.
06:08:32 There is transit, the closest transit is over on
06:08:36 Westshore Boulevard.
06:08:37 And the closest public recreational facility, Palma Ceia
06:08:42 Lions Park is located approximately 1,500 feet to the
06:08:45 east on Pearl Avenue.
06:08:46 And both sites are located within a level B evacuation
06:08:50 zone.
06:08:51 On to the aerial.
06:08:54 You can see the subject site right here.
06:08:56 We have got a town home community directly to the north.
06:09:01 This is Westshore Boulevard, Tyson avenue going out to
06:09:06 rattlesnake point, is to the west.
06:09:08 We have got the Westshore yacht club down on the
06:09:11 southwest of the subject site.
06:09:13 And then can you see the majority of the neighborhood is
06:09:16 single-family detached with some town home development
06:09:20 further south.
06:09:25 On to the future land use map, again, here's site 16-09.
06:09:55 The next, the other rezoning site, 16-10 is immediately
06:10:00 to the east.
06:10:01 The subject site and the area to the south is all that
06:10:05 community mixed use 35.
06:10:07 You've got actually urban mixed use 60 on the west side
06:10:11 of South Westshore Boulevard.
06:10:12 And then some more community mixed use 35 over at the
06:10:16 Westshore yacht club.
06:10:17 The tan color is all that residential 10 and then we
06:10:22 actually have some community commercial 35 a little bit
06:10:26 to the south.
06:10:26 Overall, both sites are located within a single-family
06:10:32 neighborhood that -- on the edge of a single-family
06:10:35 neighborhood that does have convenient access to both
06:10:38 public transportation and nearby recreational facilities.
06:10:42 The city's comprehensive plan promotes locating housing
06:10:45 at an increased density on the periphery of single-family
06:10:49 detached neighborhoods.
06:10:51 Furthermore, subject site is located on a mixed use
06:10:53 corridor which seeks to provide a broader mix of uses and
06:10:57 promote alternative methods of transportation.
06:11:00 Therefore based on those findings, the goals, objectives
06:11:03 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning
06:11:05 Commission staff finds both proposed rezonings consistent
06:11:08 with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
06:11:10 >> Thank you.
06:11:18 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Here's the zoning map of the property.
06:11:25 There are two properties here zoned RS-50.
06:11:28 To the south is a development.
06:11:32 You may remember these two pieces of property.
06:11:35 Beginning in 2014, they're part of RAB 1424, which was
06:11:41 three large apartment buildings.
06:11:44 Then a year later that applicant came back with RED 1552,
06:11:48 to revive the project and to eliminate these two pieces
06:11:52 of property from that overall PD.
06:11:55 At that time, the developer of the larger project
06:12:02 elected, or thought to just revert the rezoning back to
06:12:05 RS-50 what it was.
06:12:07 However, property owners at that meeting, if you
06:12:09 remember, they spoke, said well we don't really want to
06:12:11 go back to RS-50.
06:12:13 We want to go to multi-family district and they were
06:12:15 instructed they would have to make filing independently
06:12:18 of that previous 2015 case.
06:12:20 So this is what we're here today doing.
06:12:22 So each of the individual property owners filed a rezone
06:12:26 from RS-50 to RM-18.
06:12:29 Here are the two properties.
06:12:34 This is going to be that larger two building apartment
06:12:38 complex.
06:12:39 These are existing town homes.
06:12:41 These are apartments over here.
06:12:42 And this is a larger town home development as well.
06:12:45 Here is 4712 west Pearl.
06:12:54 One of the subject properties.
06:12:55 And then the other one is 4714 the second subject
06:12:59 property.
06:13:00 Both single-family houses.
06:13:02 Further to the west, which we're going this area, is part
06:13:05 of that vacant lot, that apartment development hasn't
06:13:08 started yet.
06:13:09 This is look at the intersection of Westshore and Pearl.
06:13:12 This is across the street on Pearl.
06:13:16 Town home apartment development.
06:13:19 Further south directly across the street from the subject
06:13:22 properties are these two houses.
06:13:25 And then adjoining on the east to the existing property
06:13:28 is another detached single-family house.
06:13:30 If this application would be approved, all future
06:13:39 development would be required to comply with RS 18 zoning
06:13:42 district standards, which are 50-foot minimum lot width.
06:13:46 5,000 square foot minimum lot areas, setbacks 25 feet,
06:13:51 7 -- 25-foot from 7 corner side and 15-foot rear.
06:13:56 Maximum height is 35 feet.
06:13:58 The zone reviewing found both applications consistent
06:14:03 with the land development code.
06:14:05 You have any questions?
06:14:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
06:14:09 Petitioner?
06:14:10 >> Good evening, my name is Renee Rogero.
06:14:21 1463 citrus street, Clearwater.
06:14:23 I'm here this evening to represent property owners of the
06:14:27 next two rezoning applications.
06:14:29 4714 west Pearl avenue and 4712 west Pearl avenue.
06:14:34 One of the owners, Mr. Craig Densham is also here in
06:14:40 attendance with me this evening.
06:14:41 As our planner, Mary explained, we are here actually to
06:14:46 continue our conversations that start last year for the
06:14:49 rezoning.
06:14:50 At the last Council meeting, owners requested to amends
06:14:55 the application to allow RM-18 in lieu of reassigning the
06:14:59 RS-50 and during that meeting it was determined that in
06:15:04 order to do so, the neighboring PD would need to allow
06:15:10 that and in order for them to stay on schedule, it was
06:15:15 determined we needed to apply for this process at a
06:15:20 separate time.
06:15:21 So bringing us to today in our current request.
06:15:24 Recent approvals in the development activity in the area
06:15:29 is resulted in these two single-family houses basically
06:15:33 being surrounded by PD assignments of multi-family
06:15:36 development.
06:15:36 With higher densities, much higher densities.
06:15:41 I think at 36 units per acre.
06:15:43 Upon completion of the newest, the plan development, the
06:15:48 single-family residential properties would be encased by
06:15:52 developments of multi-family developments to the west,
06:15:56 south and north of their properties.
06:15:59 We understand the need for multi-family development in
06:16:02 the area, and considering the multi-family development is
06:16:06 basically the new normal for this portion of west Pearl
06:16:11 avenue.
06:16:12 The character and context of that western portion of the
06:16:17 neighborhood has changed as the needs of the community
06:16:20 has changed with regards to multi-family development.
06:16:25 The requested RM-18 designation will create an
06:16:29 appropriate transition, if you will, between the
06:16:33 surrounded higher densities and to the north, south and
06:16:36 to the west, with the lower residential development to
06:16:39 the east.
06:16:40 It basically will step down the density in terms of
06:16:45 height as it moves east along Pearl avenue.
06:16:47 The RM-18 designation will allow much lower density than
06:16:52 the larger PD that's been approved to the south of us.
06:16:56 Which will respect the lower height setbacks and
06:16:59 character of the residentially zoned property of the
06:17:02 neighborhood.
06:17:02 Our request has been found to be consistent with the
06:17:06 applicable city departments.
06:17:08 The development code and the goals and objectives and
06:17:11 policies of the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.
06:17:14 Proper notice of the request to rezone has been provided
06:17:19 to all the required neighbors and neighborhood
06:17:22 associations.
06:17:23 We have not received any objections or negative feedback
06:17:27 from anyone.
06:17:28 In fact, I believe you have a letter of support from the
06:17:33 Gandy civic association.
06:17:37 We stand ready to respond to any questions you may have
06:17:39 and thank you for your time and consideration.
06:17:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
06:17:44 Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 4 or
06:17:48 5?
06:17:49 Please come forward.
06:17:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mrs. Montelione,
06:17:55 second by Mr. Miranda.
06:17:56 All in favor of that motion say aye.
06:17:57 Opposed?
06:17:59 The motion carries.
06:17:59 Ms. Montelione?
06:18:02 Item number four.
06:18:03 Hurricanes thank you, sir.
06:18:05 I move an ordinance being presented for first reading
06:18:08 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the
06:18:11 general vicinity of 4714 west Pearl avenue in the City of
06:18:14 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section
06:18:17 1, from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
06:18:20 single-family to RM-18, residential multi-family,
06:18:23 providing an effective date.
06:18:24 >> Second.
06:18:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from police Montelione, seconded
06:18:28 bring Miranda.
06:18:29 Automatic those in favor of the motion say aye.
06:18:31 Opposed? Motion carries.
06:18:33 >> Motion carried with Capin being absents.
06:18:35 Second reading and adoption April 7th, 9:30 a.m.
06:18:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Would you like me to do number five as
06:18:41 well.
06:18:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, ma'am.
06:18:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance being presented
06:18:43 for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning
06:18:46 property in the general vicinity of 4712 west Pearl
06:18:48 avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida and more
06:18:50 particularly described in section 1 from zoning districts
06:18:54 classification, RS-50 residential single-family, to RM-18
06:18:58 residential providing an effective date.
06:19:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Ms. Montelione, seconded by
06:19:02 Mr. Miranda.
06:19:03 All those in favor.
06:19:04 Motion carries.
06:19:06 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.
06:19:08 Second reading and adoption April 7th, 9:30 a.m.
06:19:13 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item number 6.
06:19:17 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 6, REZ 16-13, it's a
06:19:21 rezoning application for the property located at 1814
06:19:24 north 47th street from commercial CI and multi-family
06:19:31 residential RM-16 to CI.
06:19:34 >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hey with your
06:19:37 Planning Commission staff.
06:19:38 I have been sworn.
06:19:39 We move up to the central Tampa planning district for
06:19:44 this next case.
06:19:45 The subject site located right there.
06:19:47 It is located at the southwest corner of east 10th avenue
06:19:52 and north 47th street.
06:19:53 It is adjacent -- it is along a mixed use ka corridor
06:19:58 village as defined by the comprehensive plan.
06:20:00 It is a 3.1-acre subject site.
06:20:03 There is transit within the area down on Broadway.
06:20:07 HART's route 15 and the subject site is not located
06:20:11 within a evacuation zone.
06:20:12 On to the aerial to see the subject site right in the
06:20:17 center, Broadway is down here.
06:20:19 To the south, we have got east 10th avenue to the north.
06:20:24 Everything basically from 10th down to about the railroad
06:20:28 tracks is heavy commercial and industrial and then you
06:20:33 even get some heavy industrial further south.
06:20:35 Down here.
06:20:37 And then here we have I-4 and then Columbus Drive coming
06:20:42 over to 50th street.
06:20:43 You can also see there's all this commercial and heavy,
06:20:47 but there is a pocket of residential neighborhood back
06:20:52 there up against the side of I-4.
06:20:58 There are a number of heavy truck uses on Broadway.
06:21:02 Here we have the future land use map.
06:21:07 Subject site and properties to the east and west all
06:21:10 within that red color are that community commercial 35.
06:21:13 We have got directly to the north, that residential 20,
06:21:18 and then down on Broadway, we have got light industrial
06:21:21 and then south of the railroad tracks, it goes down to
06:21:23 heavy industrial.
06:21:24 The applicant is requesting approval through this
06:21:27 rezoning petition to rezone to that commercial intensive
06:21:31 zoning district.
06:21:33 To allow for the operation of a business professional
06:21:36 office with open storage.
06:21:38 The requested commercial intensive zoning district would
06:21:42 provide for intensive commercial use and permits heavy
06:21:45 commercial uses and service uses on the property.
06:21:47 There are existing homes and vacant properties north of
06:21:49 the applicant's site just across east 10th avenue.
06:21:53 Due to the presence of these residentially planned areas,
06:21:56 Planning Commission staff requested the applicant to
06:21:58 ensure that any future development of the site is done in
06:22:02 a manner sensitive to the neighborhood north of the
06:22:04 property.
06:22:05 The city's comprehensive plan testifies that areas
06:22:09 adjacent to or within neighborhoods that are planned for
06:22:12 non-residential uses must be developed in a way which is
06:22:16 sensitive and compatible to effect the neighborhoods.
06:22:20 The applicant must ensure that the proposed commercial
06:22:22 use of the property is appropriately buffered from the
06:22:25 residential neighborhood north of the subject site and
06:22:28 meeting all buffering and screening requirements.
06:22:31 And those are policies 18.4.1 and 18.6.5.
06:22:37 Over all the requested rezoning if approved would
06:22:40 stimulate business employment opportunities and economic
06:22:43 benefits to this East Tampa neighborhood.
06:22:45 And continued that intensification of the Broadway
06:22:49 corridor.
06:22:50 Therefore based on those findings and the goals,
06:22:52 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
06:22:55 Planning Commission staff finds proposed rezoning
06:22:57 consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
06:22:59 Thank you.
06:23:11 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Here is an aerial photograph of the
06:23:13 subject property.
06:23:14 As David showed you, here is the zoning map.
06:23:18 As you can see the subject property is in green.
06:23:21 The majority or I would say three-fourths of the property
06:23:27 is already zoned CI.
06:23:29 And the northern fourth is in the RM-16 category.
06:23:32 This rezoning request would be to establish CI throughout
06:23:37 the entire property.
06:23:38 Let me show you where I'm going to go here.
06:23:45 Going, look at the subject property, then come back down
06:23:48 this street and then go back down 47th.
06:23:50 Here is the subject property from 47th, moving north.
06:23:56 Small temporary trailer there.
06:24:03 Continuing moving north is the applicant's business is a
06:24:12 repo business.
06:24:14 They went through formal determination with the zoning
06:24:16 administrator to try to define what that use would be
06:24:19 under the definitions in the zoning ordinance.
06:24:21 And it was determined that that business is defined as an
06:24:25 office slash water house use.
06:24:27 And that open storage is an accessory use.
06:24:30 This is around the corner on 10th.
06:24:34 This is directly to the west on 10th, a vacant lot.
06:24:39 And then the second, single-family house.
06:24:45 Then beyond that is a warehouse in use.
06:24:48 Across 10th from the warehouse, moving back towards the
06:24:51 application site is a single-family house.
06:24:54 Another one.
06:24:55 This is directly across from the subject property as well
06:24:58 as the vacant lot.
06:24:59 Now I'm going to start going down 47th.
06:25:05 This is on the catty-corner to the subject property on
06:25:10 10th and 47th, another house.
06:25:13 This is a large storage yard directly across 47th.
06:25:17 Another storage yard in a very large warehouse
06:25:21 distribution business that's on the corner of 47th and
06:25:24 Broadway.
06:25:25 As I stated earlier, this request is really to rezone the
06:25:32 RM-16 portion to the CI zoning districts.
06:25:37 Being that this property is in the community commercial
06:25:40 35 land use designation, it allows for consideration of
06:25:44 the CI zoning district.
06:25:46 If this were to be approved, any development would be
06:25:51 required to comply with the CI zoning district standards
06:25:55 for uses, setbacks, the setbacks specifically are 10-foot
06:25:58 front, ten corner, zero side rear as well as the height
06:26:02 of 45 feet.
06:26:03 As well as any, for this specific use, again, this is a
06:26:09 Euclid rezoning, it is not a site plan controlled zoning
06:26:12 district.
06:26:13 But for this specific use they would also be required to
06:26:15 comply with the open storage standards.
06:26:17 You have any questions for me?
06:26:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions by Council?
06:26:23 Petitioner?
06:26:24 >> Good evening.
06:26:26 My name is Larry Wasierski, I'm the operations manager
06:26:30 for rapid recovery agency.
06:26:32 In essence we just need to make the rest of the property
06:26:37 commercial industrial.
06:26:38 We're a repossession company.
06:26:42 It's basically a giant parking lot.
06:26:44 We store personal property for the debtors that we
06:26:49 repossess the vehicles.
06:26:51 Our office is there on-site.
06:26:53 In a nutshell, that's it.
06:26:55 We just ask that you guys rezone the property and make it
06:26:59 all whole.
06:27:00 Any questions?
06:27:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
06:27:02 Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 6?
06:27:07 >> Move to approve.
06:27:08 >> Second.
06:27:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
06:27:09 Got a motion from Mr. Maniscalco, second by
06:27:11 Ms. Montelione.
06:27:12 All in favor of that motion say aye.
06:27:14 Opposed?
06:27:15 All right.
06:27:16 Mr. Maniscalco, please take the honor?
06:27:20 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I have an ordinance being presented
06:27:21 for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning
06:27:23 property in the general vicinity of 1814 north
06:27:26 47th street in the City of Tampa, Florida and more
06:27:28 particularly described in section 1, from zoning district
06:27:32 classification RM-16 residential multi-family and CI
06:27:36 commercial intensive to CI commercial intensive,
06:27:39 providing an effective date.
06:27:40 >> Second.
06:27:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Maniscalco, second by
06:27:43 Mr. Miranda.
06:27:44 Any discussion of the motion?
06:27:46 All in favor of the motion say aye amount of motion
06:27:48 carries.
06:27:49 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.
06:27:51 Second reading and adoption April 7th, 9:30 a.m.
06:27:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
06:27:55 Item number 7.
06:28:00 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 7 on your agenda is REZ
06:28:03 16-15.
06:28:04 It's property located at 4511 west Gray Street, it's a
06:28:09 request to rezone from RS-50 to RM multi-family 18.
06:28:15 >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hey with your
06:28:20 Planning Commission staff.
06:28:21 I have been sworn.
06:28:22 We move over to the Westshore planning district for this
06:28:24 next case.
06:28:25 The subject site located talent northside of West Gray
06:28:27 Street between North Trask Street and North Hesperides
06:28:36 Street.
06:28:36 It is .2-acre subject site.
06:28:39 There is transit within the area.
06:28:41 Actually a couple transit routes connected to a number of
06:28:45 the city's activity centers.
06:28:46 The closest public recreational facility, Charles B
06:28:50 Williams Park is located approximately 2,100 feet to the
06:28:53 east on west Fig street and the subject site is located
06:28:57 within a level B evacuation zone.
06:28:59 On to the aerial, the subject site is right here.
06:29:04 We have got West Gray Street to the south.
06:29:07 And you can see of course interstate 275, the Westshore
06:29:12 Business District, Jefferson high school and then you
06:29:17 have the Westshore plaza about two blocks further to the
06:29:22 west.
06:29:22 And as you can see by this aerial, subject, the
06:29:26 neighborhood has a mixture of single-family, multi-family
06:29:30 town homes.
06:29:31 So it is one of our more diverse neighborhoods.
06:29:35 On to the future land use map, the subject site and all
06:29:41 these properties in this kind of lighter brown, they're
06:29:45 RS 20.
06:29:46 As you go west of north Trask Street it goes into that
06:29:50 residential 35.
06:29:51 And then we really go up to the regional mixed use 100 in
06:29:56 these, I don't know, dark pink I guess is what you call
06:30:00 it.
06:30:01 Over all the applicant is seeking that rezoning to
06:30:05 residential multi-family 18.
06:30:08 The city's comprehensive plan does encourage the use of
06:30:11 its limited land resources in a more efficient way by
06:30:15 supporting infill development at hire densities.
06:30:17 This would, is an underutilized site with the underlying
06:30:22 lands use category, so that's supportive of the rezoning.
06:30:28 City's comprehensive plan also recommends a greater
06:30:30 variety of allowable development patterns, which
06:30:33 encourage good community design, reflect character of its
06:30:36 neighborhood surroundings.
06:30:37 The proposed rezoning does relate to that mixed character
06:30:41 in that neighborhood, while also providing alternative
06:30:45 housing choices, which is also encouraged in the comp
06:30:47 plan.
06:30:48 Therefore based on those findings and the goals,
06:30:51 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
06:30:53 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning
06:30:55 consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
06:30:57 Thank you.
06:31:04 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Again, this property is located at 4511
06:31:09 West Gray Street.
06:31:10 Here's an aerial photograph of the property.
06:31:15 Here -- well, that's too close.
06:31:19 Here's 275.
06:31:22 Here is the Westshore ramp.
06:31:24 This is Trask.
06:31:28 This is Gray Street and subject property is this existing
06:31:32 house in the center.
06:31:33 Here is the zoning of the surrounding area.
06:31:42 Subject property is in green.
06:31:44 It's zoned RS-50 as well as the property surrounding it
06:31:48 across the street is a planned development for town
06:31:50 homes.
06:31:53 Also which has not been updated on is the zoning map.
06:31:56 Two months ago you approved another PD for more town
06:31:59 homes at this intersection.
06:32:00 Which I will show you pictures of.
06:32:02 It's under construction.
06:32:04 Here is the subject property.
06:32:06 I'm going to go east across the street and then come back
06:32:10 down around.
06:32:10 To the east is existing home.
06:32:12 Across the street is another existing single-family
06:32:15 house.
06:32:16 Directly across the street, these town homes begin.
06:32:22 You can see, it's hard to see because of the trees, but
06:32:25 this is a little landscape median in between all the
06:32:29 driveways and garages and doors are in the back.
06:32:32 There's a continuation of those town homes.
06:32:34 This is at the intersection of gray and Trask.
06:32:38 This is another town home development, like I said, just
06:32:41 approved several months ago.
06:32:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mary, before you go on to the next
06:32:45 picture, go back one.
06:32:47 You said that the doors were in the back?
06:32:49 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: No, the doors are back behind the
06:32:51 landscape.
06:32:52 No, no, no.
06:32:54 Just can't really see them.
06:32:55 I'm trying to make sure you can tell those are all town
06:32:58 homes.
06:32:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I wasn't sure if it was a courtyard
06:33:00 type of situation.
06:33:01 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: No, it's like, snout.
06:33:09 This is on the same side, just west of the subject
06:33:15 property.
06:33:15 Another house.
06:33:16 Then this is directly to the west of the subject
06:33:18 property.
06:33:18 As David indicated, this area is in the RS 20 land use
06:33:26 category, which allows consideration of multi-family
06:33:28 districts including RM-18.
06:33:32 Any development that would be constructed on this
06:33:35 property would have to comply with all RM-18 zoning
06:33:38 standards, being 5,000 square foot minimum lot size,
06:33:42 50-foot lot width, front setback 25 feet.
06:33:46 Sides are 7.
06:33:46 Rear is 15.
06:33:48 And the maximum height is 35 feet.
06:33:50 Given that this type property is .2 acres, maximum
06:33:56 density they could get under the RM-18 zoning district
06:33:59 would be three dwelling units.
06:34:01 Other than that, that's the reviewed the application and
06:34:08 found the request consistent with the City of Tampa land
06:34:11 development code.
06:34:13 Do you have any questions?
06:34:14 Thank you.
06:34:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
06:34:19 All right.
06:34:21 >> Steve Michelini here on behalf of the petitioner.
06:34:24 We respectfully requesting to rezone this property to
06:34:28 allow for redevelopment.
06:34:29 Area is already undergoing a great deal of change.
06:34:32 Some of it was brought about by the widening and
06:34:35 construction along the interstate, the interstate 275
06:34:40 redevelopment.
06:34:41 This proposal is consistent in every respect with the
06:34:45 surrounding property owners.
06:34:47 And in the other new developments that are occurring in
06:34:50 the area.
06:34:51 Certainly will be happy to answer any questions you have,
06:34:53 but the intention is to build new units in this property
06:34:57 area and then redevelop.
06:35:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions for Council?
06:35:02 Anyone in the audience wish to speak of on item number 7?
06:35:08 Anyone in the audience wish.
06:35:10 >> Move to close.
06:35:11 >> Second.
06:35:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mr. Maniscalco,
06:35:16 seconded by Ms. Montelione.
06:35:18 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
06:35:19 Opposed?
06:35:20 Okay.
06:35:24 Mr. Cohen?
06:35:25 >>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance being presently for
06:35:26 first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning
06:35:30 property in the general vicinity of 4511 West Gray Street
06:35:33 in the City of Tampa, Florida, and Missouri more
06:35:36 particularly described in section 1, from zoning district
06:35:39 classification RS-50, residential single-family to RM-18,
06:35:43 residential multi-family, providing an effective date.
06:35:46 >> Second.
06:35:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mr. Cohen, seconded
06:35:50 bring Suarez.
06:35:50 All those in favor of the motion say aye.
06:35:52 Opposed?
06:35:54 >> Thank you.
06:35:55 >> Motion carried with Capin being absents.
06:35:57 Second reading and adoption will be April 7th at
06:35:59 9:30 a.m.
06:36:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
06:36:01 All right.
06:36:02 Before -- we're going to move to item number 12 because
06:36:15 there's a special request.
06:36:19 Ask petitioner to come forward with that request.
06:36:22 >> Before the party makes the request, I have to recuse
06:36:25 myself from voting on number 12.
06:36:28 And the reason is that I have a contractual relationship
06:36:30 with the petitioner.
06:36:33 And I think it would be inappropriate for me to vote.
06:36:35 >> Clayton Bricklemyer, representing the applicant.
06:36:44 As a result of that recusal, that first of all leaves me
06:36:50 with five Councilmembers with Councilwoman Capin not
06:36:53 being here.
06:36:54 And I had heard a rumor and just confirmed by checking
06:36:58 the sign-in sheet that I appear to have opposition I've
06:37:02 never heard from before.
06:37:03 I guess I'd like to ask if we could maybe have a two week
06:37:07 continuance and be back for the next hearing, which would
06:37:10 give me a chance to meet with these folks and also
06:37:13 potentially a fuller Council to present to.
06:37:16 I know it's not by right.
06:37:20 It's a request.
06:37:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: If you're requesting two weeks.
06:37:23 We got a calendar date?
06:37:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, the next night, if it were
06:37:28 to be a night meeting, it would have to be set.
06:37:32 >> Whatever the next available.
06:37:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your night meeting in April I believe is
06:37:38 set for April 14th, is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
06:37:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: April 14th.
06:37:45 >>THE CLERK: April 14th at 6:00 p.m.
06:37:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Staff, you want to say something?
06:37:50 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: I'm just informing you that April 14th,
06:37:51 there is available room on the agenda.
06:37:58 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone in the public wish to speak on
06:38:02 this, the Council continuing it?
06:38:08 How many would like to speak?
06:38:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I may suggest that if they do speak
06:38:18 tonight, it would not be on the merits of the case.
06:38:21 It would be either whether they agree to the continuance
06:38:25 or if they have an objection, why they would have that
06:38:28 objection.
06:38:28 But to not speak on the merits of the case because that
06:38:30 is, would not come up at this point.
06:38:33 It's Council's decision when it's, it's not as matter of
06:38:38 right.
06:38:38 Council would have to grant the continuance.
06:38:40 If Council grants it, then it would be in April.
06:38:42 If not, it would go back to be in line to be heard at
06:38:46 item number 12.
06:38:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
06:38:48 Understanding what the counsel just informed you, please
06:38:51 come forward if you wish to tell us why you, you're
06:38:55 against or for the continuance.
06:38:57 >> Are we just saying why we do not, because we came
06:39:18 tonight.
06:39:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: First, state your name.
06:39:21 If you're going to speak, please everyone in the
06:39:24 audience, if you're going to speak, please state your
06:39:26 name and address before.
06:39:27 >> Cathy sis barks 3614 east Starling circle.
06:39:32 I came tonight to take care of this tonight.
06:39:36 Not in April.
06:39:37 So I'd like to take care of it tonight.
06:39:39 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next.
06:39:41 >> My name is Mary, 4106 West Obispo Street.
06:39:49 I did have to take off and leave early from work as a
06:39:52 nurse to come and do this.
06:39:53 I'm here tonight.
06:39:57 I'd like to carry through.
06:39:58 They have spoken to us many times, the lawyers and so
06:40:05 forth.
06:40:07 And I just feel like he got caught off guard and doesn't
06:40:11 want to be.
06:40:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
06:40:13 >> So I am opposed to doing it in April.
06:40:16 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
06:40:17 All right.
06:40:17 Anyone else?
06:40:20 If you plan on speaking, please make your way down.
06:40:23 We need to move this rapidly as possible.
06:40:28 >> Good evening.
06:40:28 Emily Gaffney, 4116 West Obispo Street.
06:40:34 Much the same as everyone else.
06:40:36 Scheduling conflict, parking, et cetera.
06:40:39 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
06:40:39 Next?
06:40:43 >> My name is Eugene Soustek.
06:40:47 I live at 4117 West Obispo Street.
06:40:52 Been there for 49 years.
06:40:54 Don't want to see no changes like they want to do.
06:41:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: All we need to know if you're for or
06:41:04 against continuance to April.
06:41:09 >> For or against?
06:41:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: The council allowing him continue to
06:41:14 April, that's all we need to know.
06:41:15 >> Oh, we wanted to solve it tonight if possible.
06:41:18 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
06:41:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next speaker?
06:41:22 >> James at ally, 4110 West Obispo Street, two doors 0
06:41:28 down from where this proposed lot.
06:41:30 Same thing as everybody else.
06:41:31 We all made it an effort to be here tonight and would
06:41:34 like to get it taken care of tonight.
06:41:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
06:41:36 All right.
06:41:39 Understanding we do not have a full Council tonight, what
06:41:41 is the right of the Council, petitioner to not having a
06:41:45 full Council?
06:41:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your rule states, 6-C if at a
06:41:51 quasi-judicial public hearing only four members of the
06:41:53 City Council are available to take action, then any
06:41:55 petitioner shall have the right to continue the matter
06:41:58 until there's a minimum of five members.
06:41:59 If there is less than a full Council, then petitioner may
06:42:02 request to continue a matter but it will not be as a
06:42:05 matter of right.
06:42:06 So if there are five members tonight, excuse me, five
06:42:09 members tonight to be able to hear this and Council
06:42:12 wishes to proceed, it may do so.
06:42:15 If Council wishes to grant the continuance, that is also
06:42:17 in its prerogative.
06:42:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, sir, Mr. Suarez.
06:42:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Shelby, as a matter of law, not a
06:42:26 matter of our rule, if we do proceed now with only five
06:42:29 members and if there are some other procedural or
06:42:32 problems with the case itself, how does that affect us
06:42:35 when it comes to another court of law that might look at
06:42:41 this?
06:42:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be my understanding, and
06:42:45 Miss Kert can certainly chime in or correct me if I'm
06:42:48 wrong.
06:42:48 I believe it would be appropriate for you to go forward.
06:42:51 You have in the past gone forward with five members.
06:42:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
06:42:56 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any other question or comments from the
06:42:59 Council?
06:43:00 All right.
06:43:00 What's the pleasure of the Council?
06:43:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Chair, I think we might as well go forward
06:43:05 at this point.
06:43:06 If it had only been four members, I could see our rule
06:43:09 would affect this.
06:43:10 Since we don't, I think we should probably go ahead.
06:43:13 Do I have to make it a formal motion?
06:43:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually, if no one declines to make the
06:43:24 motion in favor of the continuance, it might as well just
06:43:27 proceed as number 12 in its normal course.
06:43:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
06:43:30 In that case, your request being turned down.
06:43:35 We'll move forward.
06:43:36 All right.
06:43:37 Item number 8.
06:43:43 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 8 on your agenda REZ 16-17.
06:43:47 It's for the property located at 2607 east Martin Luther
06:43:52 King, Jr. Boulevard, 2710, 2612, and 2614 east 33rd
06:44:02 avenue.
06:44:03 The applicant is Hillsborough County.
06:44:04 And the request is to rezone from CI commercial intensive
06:44:09 and RM multi-family residential 16 to CN commercial
06:44:17 neighborhood.
06:44:18 >> DAVID HEY: Good evening, David Hey with your Planning
06:44:19 Commission staff.
06:44:20 I have been sworn.
06:44:21 We move over to the central Tampa planning district for
06:44:25 this next case.
06:44:27 It's located within the East Tampa urban village at the
06:44:31 southeast quadrant of east Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
06:44:34 Boulevard and north of 26th street.
06:44:36 It is a 1.5-acre subject site.
06:44:42 It is located on a mixed use corridor village as defined
06:44:47 by the comprehensive plan.
06:44:48 This portion of east Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
06:44:53 Boulevard is designated as a transit emphasis corridor
06:44:57 and transit is provided along this portion of the
06:44:59 Boulevard by HART route 32 connecting the subject site to
06:45:03 net park and west Tampa transfer centers.
06:45:08 And there is also additional transit in the area.
06:45:11 And the site is not located within an evacuation zone.
06:45:13 On to the aerial, we have got the subject site right
06:45:18 here.
06:45:18 Right in the middle.
06:45:20 This is east Dr. Martin Luther King.
06:45:23 We have got north 26th street.
06:45:26 And then north 29th street.
06:45:28 This large area just to the west is memorial park
06:45:35 cemetery.
06:45:35 We have got Lomax magnet elementary school.
06:45:40 Just block or two to the north.
06:45:42 And then to the east is the cottage hill Baptist church
06:45:48 right in there.
06:45:48 You can see that the area is mostly residential.
06:45:53 It's mostly single-family detached, with some duplexes
06:45:58 scattered throughout.
06:45:59 And then actual Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard has a
06:46:03 mix of general and intensive commercial uses and
06:46:07 residential and civic uses and a whole bunch of stuff on
06:46:11 that corridor.
06:46:12 On to the future land use map, it's hard to see on here
06:46:18 but the north part of the subject site is in that red
06:46:22 area along east Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
06:46:26 That's all that community commercial 35.
06:46:28 To the south, the southern portion of the site and all
06:46:32 within this brown, that is all the residential 20.
06:46:37 We have got some community mixed use 35 centered on north
06:46:41 29th street corridor.
06:46:42 We have got the public, quasi-public use of the cemetery
06:46:46 immediately to the west.
06:46:47 And then some additional residential 35 down to the
06:46:52 southwest.
06:46:53 And residential 10 up to the north.
06:46:56 Due to the request for that commercial neighborhood
06:47:04 zoning district on that southern portion of the site, the
06:47:09 request must be reviewed to ensure compliance with
06:47:12 commercial locational criteria.
06:47:14 The request for CN zoning would expand the potential for
06:47:18 commercial uses on the subject site, especially along
06:47:21 33rd avenue.
06:47:22 The request though would also reduce the overall
06:47:25 intensity of potential commercial along that northern
06:47:29 portion along east Dr. Martin Luther King because it's
06:47:32 technically they're removing the CI zoning.
06:47:34 But the county's intention is to expand the library.
06:47:39 Overall though the request for the commercial
06:47:41 neighborhood zoning would meet the intent of the
06:47:43 locational criteria for neighborhood commercial and
06:47:45 residential office uses as outlined under the residential
06:47:49 20 future land use category.
06:47:51 That's outlined in your report.
06:47:53 The subject site is currently under that public ownership
06:47:56 and access is limited to the site to north 26th street.
06:48:00 During any future expansion of this public library,
06:48:09 sensitivity should be shown to the existing single-family
06:48:13 residential use to the south by limiting vehicular access
06:48:16 from 33rd avenue and providing appropriate buffering and
06:48:19 screening and limiting any potential activity areas such
06:48:22 as entrances and solid waste storage areas to the
06:48:26 northern portion of the site.
06:48:27 Thus limiting any potential negative impacts on those
06:48:30 adjacent uses immediately to the south.
06:48:33 Based on those considerations and the goals, objections
06:48:37 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning
06:48:38 Commission staff did find proposed rezoning request is
06:48:41 consistent with the provisions of the Tampa comprehensive
06:48:45 plan.
06:48:45 Thank you.
06:48:52 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Here's another closer aerial of the
06:48:59 subject property, as David said, the existing site,
06:49:05 public library operated by Hillsborough County.
06:49:08 Here's is the zoning map.
06:49:10 Zoom out a little bit.
06:49:12 Along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard is zoned CI,
06:49:19 again when you go further to the south, it's in the RM-16
06:49:23 land use category.
06:49:25 The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire site,
06:49:29 illustrated in green to CN.
06:49:31 A library is considered under the land development code
06:49:34 as a public cultural facility.
06:49:36 That is a permitted use in the CN zoning district.
06:49:40 So they're requesting to go to CN.
06:49:42 So whatever expansion they're proposing would be a
06:49:45 permitted use.
06:49:46 Here is a photograph of the subject property from
06:49:53 26th street.
06:49:55 I'm going to go down 26th, back up 33rd and then MLK.
06:50:02 Around the corner, back view of the property that's
06:50:09 currently occupied by the parking lot for the library on
06:50:12 33rd.
06:50:13 Moving to the east, this is vacant property that's
06:50:15 included in this rezoning, which is a future expansion
06:50:18 area.
06:50:19 This is across the street.
06:50:24 This is the cemetery across 33rd.
06:50:27 Across -- I'm sorry, that's across 36th.
06:50:32 Across 33rd is a single-family house.
06:50:35 Now moving down 33rd.
06:50:36 All a series of single-family detached houses, all the
06:50:40 way down 33rd between 26th and 28th.
06:50:43 Then there's this house directly to the east of the
06:50:58 library on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
06:51:02 Next to it is a strip commercial center.
06:51:07 Across the street, catty-corner to the library is a
06:51:11 funeral home and across the street directly from the
06:51:13 library, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard is a
06:51:17 vehicular, major vehicular repair and a barber shop.
06:51:22 I had a photograph but it didn't turn out.
06:51:24 So again, the property, the applicant is requesting that
06:51:31 the property rezoned to commercial neighborhood.
06:51:33 Any future developments for the property would have to
06:51:36 comply with the CN zoning district standards, which are
06:51:43 square foot minimum lot size, 50-foot lot width, setbacks
06:51:48 are 20 front, 20 corner, 10 side 10 rear.
06:51:55 Maximum height is 35 feet.
06:51:57 Staff reviewed it.
06:51:59 Again, the CN zoning district is allowable consideration
06:52:04 under both the CC-35 lass land use category as well as
06:52:08 R-20 land use category.
06:52:10 And the development review and compliance reviewed the
06:52:13 application and found it consistent with the City of
06:52:15 Tampa land development code.
06:52:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
06:52:18 Petitioner?
06:52:19 Anyone from Hillsborough County?
06:52:23 >> Good evening, Erthel Hill with Hillsborough County
06:52:31 real estate department.
06:52:33 We are petitioning for this rezoning because we have a
06:52:35 capital project to replace the current C. Blythe Andrews,
06:52:37 Jr., library with a larger two-story one.
06:52:41 Similar to what we did with the Seminole Heights library.
06:52:44 In order to make this happen, we need to have the
06:52:48 rezoning to CN.
06:52:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
06:52:52 Are you expanding that vacant lot she showed, that's the
06:52:57 expansion?
06:52:58 >> The expansion -- the library's pretty much going to
06:53:01 stay along MLK edge.
06:53:02 The expansion was for the additional parking that we're
06:53:05 going to need.
06:53:06 But we'll do the buffering and everything that's required
06:53:08 for us to be a good neighbor and required by code.
06:53:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Ms. Montelione?
06:53:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Is the library going to be relocated
06:53:19 temporarily?
06:53:21 Or is it going to remain open for as long as possible?
06:53:26 >> The current plan is library service does not plan on
06:53:28 relocating it temporarily while the construction is being
06:53:31 done.
06:53:32 There's not enough space in the site even to set up a
06:53:35 temporary one.
06:53:36 When we go to tear it down, then the library will shut
06:53:39 down its functions for the duration of the project.
06:53:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I was kind of hoping you were going to
06:53:45 ask for a portable modular, like they do with classrooms.
06:53:51 >> There's not enough space on that site.
06:53:53 It's a tight site.
06:53:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: What is your anticipation to start the
06:53:56 project?
06:53:57 >> Right now, we are going before the board this month,
06:54:01 bring on our professional services for architects.
06:54:04 We look to start construction in December and finishing
06:54:08 within 12 months from then.
06:54:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
06:54:12 Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 8?
06:54:15 Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 8?
06:54:18 Got a motion from Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mr. Miranda.
06:54:24 All in favor of the motion say aye.
06:54:26 Opposed?
06:54:27 Mr. Suarez?
06:54:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.
06:54:30 I present an ordinance for first reading consideration,
06:54:32 an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
06:54:35 2607 east Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, and
06:54:40 2610, 2612, 2614 east 33rd avenue in the City of Tampa,
06:54:46 Florida and more particularly described in section 1,
06:54:48 from zoning district classification RM-16 residential
06:54:52 multi-family and CI commercial intensive to CN commercial
06:54:57 neighborhood, providing an effective date.
06:54:59 >> Seconds.
06:55:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mr. Suarez, seconded
06:55:02 by Mr. Cohen.
06:55:03 All those in favor of that motion say aye.
06:55:05 Any opposed?
06:55:06 Thank you.
06:55:08 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.
06:55:11 Second reading and adoption April 7th, 9:30.
06:55:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item number 9.
06:55:17 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item nine on the agenda is Special
06:55:21 Use-2-15-06, property located at 2015 north Central
06:55:26 Avenue and 2010 Lamar street.
06:55:29 It's a special use request approval for a residential
06:55:32 treatment facility in residential zoning district.
06:55:37 >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hey with your
06:55:40 Planning Commission staff.
06:55:41 I have been sworn.
06:55:42 We are remaining in that central Tampa planning district.
06:55:46 More specifically the Tampa Heights urban village.
06:55:50 It is a .2-acre subject site located at the southeast
06:55:55 corner of east Ross Avenue and north Central Avenue.
06:55:58 There is, the subject site is located within proximity to
06:56:03 east Palm Avenue.
06:56:04 That's where the Hart has its transit.
06:56:06 And that road is served by HART route 5 and 18, which
06:56:10 connects to downtown Tampa and the university area.
06:56:13 And the subject site is not located within an evacuation
06:56:17 zone.
06:56:17 On to the aerial.
06:56:20 The subject site is right here right in the center.
06:56:24 We have got north Central Avenue right to the west.
06:56:28 And then you have Ross on the north.
06:56:30 Of course you've got the whole I-4, 275, can't really --
06:56:35 I guess you can call it malfunction junction still.
06:56:38 But that's all there.
06:56:39 You can see the, really the single-family portion of the
06:56:46 neighborhood, a lot of these are office uses.
06:56:49 There is multi-family to the south.
06:56:51 And then over to the west on Florida Avenue is more the
06:56:56 intensive uses.
06:56:57 And then there is some additional uses up on Columbus,
06:57:02 some multi-family.
06:57:06 On to the future land use map.
06:57:10 It is interesting, but this area has one of the highest
06:57:13 residential land use categories in the whole city.
06:57:16 Residential 83.
06:57:18 83 dwelling units per acre can be considered under that
06:57:23 very dark brown category.
06:57:25 So, even though it's planned long-term to be a very urban
06:57:29 neighborhood, but right now we have some offices and
06:57:32 things like that.
06:57:33 To the north, this lighter brown, I believe that is the
06:57:37 residential 35.
06:57:39 And then you've got the community commercial 35 over on
06:57:44 Florida.
06:57:44 And then we have got actually on the other side of the
06:57:47 interstate, some urban mixed use 60.
06:57:50 And some community mixed use 35 in this pink color.
06:57:53 But then the big gray of course is the interstate
06:57:58 interchange.
06:57:59 Comprehensive plan does encourage the placement of group
06:58:02 homes within residential neighborhoods so long as the
06:58:06 requested use does not create a concentration of a
06:58:09 particular use within a neighborhood.
06:58:11 City staff has stated to Planning Commission staff that
06:58:15 the proposed special use meets all its distance
06:58:18 requirements within the land development code.
06:58:20 And Mary will probably go into that in her presentation.
06:58:23 Overall the requested special use will use an existing
06:58:27 structure built in 1923 and will fit seamlessly into the
06:58:32 Tampa Heights neighborhood.
06:58:33 There are no major modifications to the existing
06:58:35 structure proposed to this special use request.
06:58:38 Therefore based on those findings and the goals,
06:58:41 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
06:58:43 Planning Commission staff finds the special use request
06:58:47 consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
06:58:49 Thank you.
06:59:06 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Before I start, I wanted to make sure I
06:59:11 did receive copies of two letters that should've been,
06:59:14 they were addressed to you sometime ago, they should've
06:59:16 been in your quasi box.
06:59:19 One from Tampa Heights Civic Association.
06:59:24 All right.
06:59:36 So here is the subject property.
06:59:39 It is on both sides of this existing alleyway.
06:59:43 Across the street is another historic structure that was
06:59:49 converted into multi-family.
06:59:51 Here is an existing church with a day care and this is
06:59:55 DOT property.
06:59:56 I'll show you more detail in the photograph.
06:59:58 And here is the series of single-family dwellings, which
07:00:02 some have been converted into small offices.
07:00:05 Here is the zoning map.
07:00:10 Of the surrounding area.
07:00:12 Again, interestingly this area is in the Tampa Heights
07:00:16 local historic district.
07:00:17 Also it's in the residential 83 land use categories which
07:00:22 is encouraging medium to high density residential.
07:00:26 Also interestingly, it's all, most of it is zoned RM-24,
07:00:31 which allows for 24 dwelling units to the acre.
07:00:34 So the long-term plan for this area is to convert to
07:00:38 higher residential uses.
07:00:39 Here is the subject property from Central Avenue.
07:00:46 Let me show you where I'm going to go first.
07:00:52 I'm going to go -- let me think.
07:00:54 Down central and then back up Lamar and across Ross.
07:00:58 This is the vacant property right here.
07:01:05 It's all vacant right now.
07:01:07 This is looking at the subject property from Lamar.
07:01:11 Interestingly enough here's some historic photographs of
07:01:14 the property.
07:01:15 It was a grocery store.
07:01:19 This property, this building was constructed in 1923 and
07:01:23 served as this area's grocery store.
07:01:26 Then here's another historic photograph of the property.
07:01:30 Again, this is the other historic building that's been
07:01:33 converted to apartments looking to the south down
07:01:38 central.
07:01:38 Here is the single-family detached house directly to the
07:01:45 south on Central Avenue.
07:01:47 Note these stairs on the subject property's building.
07:01:50 They are the subject of a use to use buffer request.
07:01:55 There's a required five foot separation from the property
07:01:58 line to structures or parking for use-to-use buffer
07:02:04 between a residential treatments facility and a house.
07:02:07 However, they're requesting a waiver because this
07:02:10 existing stairway encroaches into that five foot.
07:02:13 No other permits encroach into that five foot area.
07:02:17 However we need to recognize this because the property
07:02:18 line is right there.
07:02:20 It's right on the property line.
07:02:21 So we need to recognize that stairwell as an encroachment
07:02:24 into that use-to-use buffer.
07:02:26 That's the only waiver they're requesting for this
07:02:28 application.
07:02:28 Further to the south on central, another single-family
07:02:32 house.
07:02:33 Another single-family house.
07:02:36 Across the street.
07:02:37 Series of houses.
07:02:41 This is directly across.
07:02:44 This is catty-corner across central and Ross.
07:02:47 A larger historic house.
07:02:48 This is directly across Ross.
07:02:50 Again it's been converted into apartments.
07:02:52 This is across Ross and la map.
07:02:55 Right over here.
07:02:59 This is DOT property that's being used as some sort of
07:03:03 storage.
07:03:03 Directly across the vacant portion of this site.
07:03:07 Here's is the playground and here's the existing church.
07:03:12 Then directly to the south of this subject property,
07:03:19 here's the historic -- this is all vacant.
07:03:22 Here's a site plan.
07:03:30 I know the applicant will go through this in more detail,
07:03:34 but quickly, here's a site plan.
07:03:36 The proposal is the currently approved for a 43 bed
07:03:41 congregate living facility.
07:03:43 That approval was granted in 1989, V 89-15 for facility
07:03:54 large group care.
07:03:55 The applicant is proposing to convert it to 43 bed
07:03:58 professional residential treatment facility.
07:04:00 The parking lot will be slightly improved in order to
07:04:05 meet standards.
07:04:06 These parking spaces will need to be paved and moved a
07:04:09 little bit further to the east.
07:04:11 Again, to establish a large drive aisle.
07:04:19 So both the spaces can back up accordingly.
07:04:21 All specific standards for the special use for
07:04:28 professional residential treatment facility.
07:04:30 They are found to be compliant.
07:04:33 The first one is that no such use shall be established
07:04:37 within 2,000 feet of another such use.
07:04:39 There is, these uses are regulated by the state under the
07:04:46 Florida health department and there's a web site you can
07:04:48 get on and put in the address of a particular site and it
07:04:51 will tell you how close some of the uses are.
07:04:55 So I entered this into that database and was found that
07:04:59 no other similar use was within 2,000 feet.
07:05:02 Similarly the second criteria is that no establishment
07:05:08 within a 1200 feet of a congregate living facility.
07:05:18 It's using an existing structure.
07:05:21 The requirements and standards from the state, department
07:05:24 of health must be met, so they have to get a state
07:05:29 license to operate.
07:05:30 And then the site plan must describe the type and
07:05:33 treatment and security provided at this facility.
07:05:37 There are notes to that effect on the site plan the
07:05:40 applicant will detail.
07:05:43 So this was reviewed by the development review compliance
07:05:47 staff.
07:05:47 Land development coordination has a couple of site
07:05:50 modifications that are required between first and second
07:05:53 reading.
07:05:53 Just adding a general note that space that is in fact
07:05:58 within the Tampa Heights historic district, a note that
07:06:02 says facilities required to be licensed by the state of
07:06:04 Florida department of health.
07:06:06 And then some clarification as to the facility treatment
07:06:12 facility notes.
07:06:14 There were no other changes between first and second
07:06:17 reading.
07:06:19 All the other departments found it consistent with the
07:06:23 land development code.
07:06:24 And land development itself found it consistent provided
07:06:27 those changes are made between first and second reading.
07:06:29 Do you have any questions for me at this time?
07:06:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez?
07:06:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have one quick question but it actually
07:06:39 goes to Mr. Hey.
07:06:40 Because it goes directly to your, your statement about
07:06:45 the 1200 feet distance between different types of
07:06:50 congregate living facilities.
07:06:52 Mr. Hey, during your presentation, you made a comment
07:06:55 about not trying to concentrate in neighborhoods these
07:07:00 type of facilities.
07:07:01 What's the definition you use for neighborhood?
07:07:05 Obviously, we have this distance separation in terms of
07:07:08 congregate living facilities.
07:07:12 >>DAVID HAY: Well, we defer, when they make the
07:07:14 determination, I mean, the policies kind of general in
07:07:21 that they're encouraged within residential neighborhoods.
07:07:25 But not to encourage a concentration of them.
07:07:28 So, if the land development staff determined that there
07:07:33 was others in the area, it could be considered that that
07:07:37 would generate a concentration.
07:07:40 But since they determined that there's none within the
07:07:44 distance that's required in the land development code, we
07:07:49 refer back to them, that there's no concentration because
07:07:53 it's not separated -- there's not what units within the,
07:07:58 within that distance.
07:08:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I guess my point is that it's kind of
07:08:02 arbitrary number when we do the land use because you use
07:08:05 the term neighborhood.
07:08:06 Which of course is not necessarily defined as part of our
07:08:09 land use development code.
07:08:10 As opposed to what our Planning Commission tells us.
07:08:13 So that's kind of the difference.
07:08:15 And that's the thing that we weigh sometimes, which is
07:08:18 what does it generally mean in a neighborhood in terms of
07:08:20 that distance?
07:08:21 Of course there are no other facilities within 1200 feet
07:08:25 of it.
07:08:26 But is it better to congregate to put a lot of facilities
07:08:32 in an area, whether it's 1300 feet from each other or
07:08:35 2,000 feet from each other? See what I'm saying.
07:08:38 So that description within our general rules and then our
07:08:42 specific distant requirements are things I have to
07:08:45 consider and we.
07:08:47 I wanted to make sure there was no specific terminology
07:08:50 when you use neighborhood.
07:08:52 >>DAVID HAY: No I mean I could look up the definition but
07:08:54 the definition would probably be very general.
07:08:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ: That's what I thought.
07:08:58 Just wanted to make sure.
07:09:00 Thank you, Mr. Hey.
07:09:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any other questions from Council?
07:09:03 All right.
07:09:04 Petitioner?
07:09:09 >> Steve Michelini, I'm here on behalf of Tampa
07:09:11 Crossroads.
07:09:13 The petition is actually to modify an existing approved
07:09:20 assisted living facility.
07:09:23 As it sits right now, the facility can be used for
07:09:26 residential assisted living.
07:09:31 Exactly the way it is, without coming before you as a
07:09:34 City Council.
07:09:34 So that's not a new approval coming before you.
07:09:38 What is coming before you is the ability to provide
07:09:41 medication on premises under the care of a licensed
07:09:45 professionals.
07:09:46 So, let's just say for argument sake that you decided you
07:09:51 didn't want to see that happen.
07:09:52 That's not going to stop the facility from operating.
07:09:55 What it will stop is the treatment on premises for the
07:10:00 individuals that are residing there.
07:10:02 The approval up until 2015 was for 43 beds.
07:10:08 And this is consistent with that.
07:10:10 We picked up all of the previously approved documents
07:10:13 that were in place, and that's why it was, as I said, was
07:10:19 previously licensed up into 2015.
07:10:21 And then the ownership under a new contract for sale with
07:10:25 Tampa Crossroads, and they operate other facilities
07:10:28 throughout the Tampa Bay area.
07:10:29 These will all be operated under the licensing and the
07:10:34 supervision of professionals.
07:10:35 There is no in and out provision for the residents.
07:10:38 They are always supervised.
07:10:41 They have on premises educational programs.
07:10:44 They have health care programs.
07:10:46 They have job skills training.
07:10:52 They have mental health counseling and abuse, alcohol --
07:10:57 not alcohol, but substance abuse counseling.
07:10:59 There are no people in here that are either sex offenders
07:11:03 or violent offenders.
07:11:05 They're male and for the most part, they're veterans.
07:11:11 They are referred to this facility through a variety of
07:11:14 means.
07:11:15 They come through all the health care professional
07:11:17 organizations in the bay area.
07:11:19 And then they are referred to Tampa Crossroads where they
07:11:22 are evaluated and then they are placed here.
07:11:26 They can't stay there for more than one year.
07:11:28 And then at that time they are matriculated out into
07:11:32 either a permanent residents of their own, permanent job
07:11:36 placement or permanent employment and some other
07:11:38 location.
07:11:39 As the staff has already said, we meet all the locational
07:11:44 criteria and there are no objections and we have been
07:11:47 found consistent with the code.
07:11:49 And that includes land use as well as the City of Tampa
07:11:53 code.
07:11:53 The residential areas for the placement of facilities
07:11:58 like this, when you apply the distance requirements, they
07:12:02 are very strict about that and the state will not issue a
07:12:05 license if you violate those distant separations.
07:12:08 Everything is a lock in and lock out and every individual
07:12:12 is supervised 24/7.
07:12:14 There's a complete security system 24/7, 365 days a year.
07:12:19 A couple of the notes that says, they wanted me to read
07:12:24 in here.
07:12:24 All the doors are locked, there's a 9:00 p.m. curfew.
07:12:28 And there's nobody wandering around outside ever that's
07:12:31 not supervised.
07:12:32 Let's see, what's we have.
07:12:38 There's a staff of 20 individuals that are all licensed
07:12:46 professionals.
07:12:46 Tampa Crossroads has had over 40 years experience in the
07:12:51 Tampa Bay area.
07:12:51 And they are licensed and recognized as one of the
07:12:57 leaders in professional counseling.
07:12:58 They hold individual and group counseling sessions daily.
07:13:03 And all these individuals are continually monitored and
07:13:06 evaluated.
07:13:07 They have daily skills training and building of personal
07:13:12 hygiene programs to teach them how to survive and be
07:13:15 successful parts of the community.
07:13:17 They have access to complete health care.
07:13:22 There's a case management services.
07:13:24 They do have social outings but they're all conducted by
07:13:28 supervised vans with their own security they also refer
07:13:32 them for job skills and they refer them out to
07:13:36 individuals that are willing to hire them.
07:13:39 There was a letter that was filed by the homeowners
07:13:44 association and subsequent to that, the director Sara
07:13:47 Romeo met with them.
07:13:49 And presented them with a list of exactly what happens on
07:13:52 this premises.
07:13:53 I'd be happy to have this filed.
07:13:56 I understand that based upon their letter, they were
07:14:05 concerned about the concentration of facilities of this
07:14:08 type.
07:14:08 This petition will not stop that.
07:14:11 The petition will in effect, what we're asking you for is
07:14:16 the ability to administer medications on premises with
07:14:20 licensed professionals.
07:14:21 And that's the only reason we are before you this
07:14:23 evening.
07:14:24 I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
07:14:29 >>FRANK REDDICK: Ms. Montelione?
07:14:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: When you said that this application,
07:14:34 the granting of this application would not stop that, is
07:14:37 the facility currently up and operating?
07:14:41 >> It's vacant currently.
07:14:44 And is in the process, pending resolution of this
07:14:48 hearing, will either be renovated and then operated as a
07:14:50 residential facility without medications or it will be
07:14:56 renovated and become a facility with medication --
07:14:59 medical administration approval.
07:15:01 It's currently vacant.
07:15:08 It's under contract to Tampa Crossroads.
07:15:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I may have more questions later.
07:15:13 That was the one I had immediately.
07:15:16 Thank you.
07:15:16 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez?
07:15:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: One quick question.
07:15:19 It's vacant now.
07:15:21 Is there another facility that they're currently
07:15:23 providing these type of services at now that's not at
07:15:27 this location?
07:15:29 >> I'm not sure.
07:15:30 You'll have to ask Sara Romeo.
07:15:34 I'll have to bring her forward.
07:15:35 I don't know there is an unmet need in the community
07:15:38 right now for this type of individual.
07:15:40 And this proposing to meet that unmet need.
07:15:43 They may be dispersed throughout other areas within the
07:15:46 Tampa Bay area.
07:15:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Right now there is nothing there -- they
07:15:51 currently, Tampa Crossroads currently owns the building
07:15:54 but, or does not?
07:15:56 >> It's under contract.
07:15:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Do you know what is there now?
07:15:59 >> It's vacant.
07:16:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Just vacant.
07:16:02 >> It previously was an assisted living facility.
07:16:05 >> So was primarily for the elderly, that type of thing?
07:16:09 >> It was a different type of treatment facility.
07:16:11 And it started in 1988.
07:16:13 And it was active until 2015.
07:16:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
07:16:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Will people be allowed to roam the
07:16:23 premises or the neighborhood?
07:16:25 Say for example someone wants to go to the convenience
07:16:29 store down the street, could they leave that property and
07:16:32 walk down to the convenience store and come back?
07:16:35 >> No, sir.
07:16:35 They are locked in and they do not leave the premises
07:16:38 without a staff member with them.
07:16:40 And they're only transported off premises in a van.
07:16:44 As I said, there's a 9:00 p.m. curfew.
07:16:48 And it's wholly -- treatment is wholly contained within
07:16:55 inside the building itself.
07:16:57 There's no roaming around and no off-premises walk-abouts
07:17:02 or anything like that allowed.
07:17:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me ask you just one follow-up
07:17:06 question.
07:17:07 If there's a 9:00 p.m. curfew, and they're not allowed to
07:17:11 roam off the premises, why would you need a 9:00 curfew?
07:17:18 >> That's the lights out provision.
07:17:19 They're inside the facility.
07:17:21 There's no more programs after 9:00 p.m.
07:17:23 And there's no off site programs.
07:17:25 For example, if they decided to take them to an exhibit
07:17:29 or something off premises, 9:00 p.m. is the deadline for
07:17:33 being back in the facility.
07:17:35 It's completely supervised by the staff and then they're
07:17:38 brought back in.
07:17:39 But there are no visitors allowed in after 9:00 p.m.
07:17:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: So this is a 24 hour operations?
07:17:48 >> 24 hours.
07:17:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: So staff will be there 24 hours a day?
07:17:52 >> Yes, sir, there's no time when there's not staff
07:17:54 member there is and professional counselors and
07:17:57 professional medical personnel.
07:17:59 May not be a doctor, but there will be professional
07:18:03 medical people as well as health care people.
07:18:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any other questions from Council?
07:18:06 Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 9?
07:18:10 Please come forward.
07:18:12 >> I haven't been sworn in.
07:18:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
07:18:32 We need to get through this, so we need to do this
07:18:35 quietly as possible.
07:18:36 Again, if you have not been sworn in and you wish to
07:18:39 speak, please raise your hand and be recognized and be
07:18:42 sworn in.
07:18:44 [Oath administered by Clerk]
07:18:44 >> I am Pawan K. Rattan, also known as Dr. Rattan.
07:18:59 I am representing today our temple, which is within a
07:19:00 stone's throw of this facility.
07:19:04 Last year we celebrated 25 years in this neighborhood.
07:19:11 I remember crack houses behind our temple and on the side
07:19:15 of our temple and picking up needles.
07:19:19 We have seen a tremendous change.
07:19:23 It is like Hyde Park used to be when I moved here in
07:19:26 1982.
07:19:28 Tremendous change has happened.
07:19:31 Contrary to what was said, what they are proposing, they
07:19:34 are trying to put a drug rehab center.
07:19:36 It is absolutely and totally inconsistent.
07:19:39 Totally inconsistent with the character of the
07:19:43 neighborhood.
07:19:44 We have 300 people and I represent the temple and also
07:19:48 represent the southeast quadrant of the association and
07:19:51 we are totally opposed to this.
07:19:53 This has been building has been empty for more than a
07:19:56 year.
07:19:56 I was told by somebody that it doesn't even qualify to be
07:20:00 facility let alone a drug treatment facility.
07:20:03 Thank you so much.
07:20:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next speaker.
07:20:09 >> Good evening, Council.
07:20:11 My name is Rick Fernandez.
07:20:13 2906 north Elmore avenue, Tampa, 33602.
07:20:18 That's in Tampa Heights.
07:20:19 I'm the president of the Tampa Heights civic association.
07:20:22 You should have and I hope you have two letters from the
07:20:26 civic association that were authored in October of 2015.
07:20:31 And February of 2016.
07:20:32 Both of which are in opposition to this special use
07:20:36 petition.
07:20:36 Also I submitted an email in my own name on March the
07:20:41 3rd, providing my own comments and objections as an
07:20:45 individual resident and citizen.
07:20:47 I wish to adopt all of those previous comments as part of
07:20:50 my comments here for the record and under oath.
07:20:53 The core objection that I make and we make on behalf of
07:20:57 the association is that the requested use is not
07:20:59 compatible with the local use with surrounding property.
07:21:07 Quote, directly from the letter I mentioned earlier, from
07:21:11 the February 29 letter.
07:21:13 The subject property is located at 2015 north Central
07:21:17 Avenue at the corner of central and Ross.
07:21:19 This location is in a residential neighborhood surrounded
07:21:22 by single-family homes, the sanctuary lofts, our
07:21:27 community center, which is the home of the Tampa Heights
07:21:29 civic association, and site of an after hours school
07:21:33 program.
07:21:34 The kaboom playground and the Tampa Heights community
07:21:37 garden.
07:21:38 The area in question is a central hub of the Tampa
07:21:41 Heights national historic district.
07:21:44 This is an area that's about families, it's about
07:21:49 neighborhood.
07:21:49 It's about community.
07:21:50 It's difficult for me to understand how staff could look
07:21:56 at this and tell us, tell you that this particular use is
07:22:02 seamlessly to be integrated into the community.
07:22:04 The only way I think you'd come up to that done collusion
07:22:07 if you've never been there, never driven there, never
07:22:12 walked it, never biked it.
07:22:14 If all the conclusions are based on lines on a map, maybe
07:22:17 you can get there, but you can't connect those dots if
07:22:19 you know what the community is, where it's been and where
07:22:21 it is today.
07:22:22 Quoting again from the letter, the residents of Tampa
07:22:29 Heights have labored mightily to improve our community.
07:22:32 We have weathered or weathering the damage caused by
07:22:35 interstate construction in the '60s, the threat of more
07:22:37 such damage in the next decade.
07:22:40 Clustering of social service agencies.
07:22:43 Homeless populations and sexual predators.
07:22:46 We are at a tipping point and seek relief from the
07:22:49 community killing trends of the past.
07:22:51 You are the safeguard.
07:22:53 This is another straw in the camel's back.
07:22:56 I've been here before talking to you about TBX.
07:23:01 The hits keep on coming.
07:23:02 At some point somebody has to say no and give us a break.
07:23:06 One other issue, I've got five seconds.
07:23:09 That's the question of standing and relative interests.
07:23:11 Please just note the people that are standing behind me
07:23:15 here have sunk treasure, sweat and tears into this
07:23:20 neighborhood.
07:23:21 Mills Romeo has not.
07:23:23 She does not own this property.
07:23:25 Maybe she will one day.
07:23:26 But she does not now.
07:23:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: My name is Kevin Lee.
07:23:35 I'm the owner of 408 east Palm Avenue.
07:23:38 My house was depict untilled the photograph.
07:23:44 I look at it as not compatible with the neighborhood and
07:23:48 also inconsistent with residential homes.
07:23:50 What I would recommend is that one lady, miss San Diego
07:23:55 put up a picture of a historic version of our area.
07:24:01 I suggest that reverts back to a store of some sort.
07:24:05 We have Lee's groceries or Lee's pizzeria on the same
07:24:09 street.
07:24:09 This does not adhere to the historical nature of our
07:24:13 community.
07:24:13 Also I challenge, I mean I don't understand the official
07:24:17 definitions, but it says assistant living.
07:24:21 My definition of assistant living is where elderly people
07:24:25 go and loved ones.
07:24:26 But this sounds like a prison to me.
07:24:28 No in and out privileges.
07:24:30 Substance abuse people, not say that's bad.
07:24:34 But -- well, maybe it's bad.
07:24:36 But this sounds like a prison.
07:24:37 It's like you're not allowed out by yourself.
07:24:40 Why would you put a prison in a neighborhood next to a
07:24:43 playground?
07:24:44 So, whether it's drugs or not drugs.
07:24:47 And also the representative who spoke said that they can
07:24:50 proceed regardless.
07:24:51 I was under the impression that since the building was
07:24:54 empty for at least six months, they lost the use, or the
07:24:59 right to use that building as such.
07:25:01 So we may want to look at that.
07:25:04 So I don't think that this person is accurate because
07:25:07 when we had our civic meeting, it was understood that no,
07:25:11 that special use right has already expired.
07:25:14 So, that's all I have to say.
07:25:17 Thank you.
07:25:22 >> Good evening, my name is Orlando Fabelo and I've lived
07:25:23 in Tampa Heights at 2007 North Central Avenue for almost
07:25:23 20 years.
07:25:30 My beautiful bungalow directly next door to the proposed
07:25:33 treatment center.
07:25:34 I'm here to respectfully ask you -- no -- plead with you
07:25:37 to please not do this.
07:25:39 When I purchased my home 20 years ago, I was told that
07:25:44 there was an office building next door.
07:25:47 It was the ALS.
07:25:50 That was not elderly people.
07:25:51 It was mentally ill and drug, on the drug addicted and
07:25:55 alcoholics.
07:25:56 It was a nightmare.
07:25:59 People having sex under that stairwell they showed you.
07:26:02 Drug use.
07:26:03 People constantly coming to the door, knocking.
07:26:07 Asking for money and cigarettes.
07:26:08 Loitering out on the sidewalk.
07:26:11 This is totally inconsistent with the feeling of the
07:26:14 neighborhood.
07:26:15 The neighborhood is nothing like it used to be.
07:26:18 We used to have crack house has.
07:26:21 My neighbor Athena when she moved there 20 years ago,
07:26:25 said several mornings she got up and would have to step
07:26:28 over bums on her porch.
07:26:30 It is not like that any more.
07:26:32 So, you know, there is a, as was mentioned, there is a
07:26:36 playground right there, right behind this place.
07:26:40 And I don't think that the way this was portrayed, I was
07:26:46 told multiple times when I would try to work with the
07:26:49 management of this previous place, well, you know they're
07:26:52 not supposed to be doing this, they're not supposed to be
07:26:54 doing that.
07:26:55 And they did what they wanted.
07:26:57 They would come and go.
07:26:58 There was supposed to be a curfew.
07:27:00 There was supposed to be in by a certain amount of time.
07:27:03 Then they'd pals out on the stairs because they wouldn't
07:27:05 make the curfew.
07:27:06 It was a nightmare.
07:27:07 And as my neighbors said, we were told that since it's
07:27:12 been over six months, it's been actually about a year and
07:27:15 a half, well over a year since this place was shut down
07:27:18 because it lost its funding.
07:27:20 And it has been heavenly.
07:27:23 Heavenly since this place closed down.
07:27:25 It is so much more like a true neighborhood.
07:27:28 And Tampa's historic core is coming back.
07:27:32 And please do not do this to us.
07:27:34 Please.
07:27:36 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilwoman Montelione has a question.
07:27:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Before you three of podium.
07:27:39 Who is it?
07:27:39 Because you're the second person who mentioned that you
07:27:41 were told the special use, who told you that?
07:27:44 >> At one of the civic association meetings.
07:27:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Was it staff person from the City of
07:27:49 Tampa?
07:27:50 >> There were several people there.
07:27:51 And that's what we were told.
07:27:53 That since it had been over six months or a certain
07:27:55 amount of time and this had been well over a year, that I
07:27:58 don't think that they can put an.
07:28:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm not asking your opinion.
07:28:03 I'm asking who told you that?
07:28:05 >> I don't remember specifically.
07:28:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But it was the City of Tampa staff
07:28:08 person?
07:28:09 >> No, no.
07:28:10 This was at a Tampa -- does anybody remember?
07:28:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE: If anybody remembers, please share
07:28:15 that.
07:28:16 Thank you.
07:28:19 >>HARRY COHEN: No, when it's your turn.
07:28:21 Go ahead.
07:28:23 Next.
07:28:23 >> Laura Clark.
07:28:30 203 north Central Avenue, three doors down from the
07:28:33 property in question.
07:28:34 I do want to point out that they're saying 43 residents.
07:28:40 They're very small space for 43 residents.
07:28:43 The building itself is just 7300 square feet.
07:28:48 You're also talking about a proposed 20 employees.
07:28:52 So if everyone came to work that day, talking about over
07:28:55 60 people.
07:28:56 In a neighborhood block that currently with my children,
07:28:59 has eight people.
07:29:00 It's a very small area.
07:29:03 Very concentrated.
07:29:05 You're looking at something like 101, 171 square feet per
07:29:13 resident just counting 43 people.
07:29:15 That is not going on anywhere in the surrounding area.
07:29:20 Not compatible with the surrounding area as it's being
07:29:24 proposed.
07:29:24 Even if you were to give 400, 500 square feet, you're
07:29:30 talking about less than 14 people, 14 residents there.
07:29:33 14 residents there would be a lot of people.
07:29:35 My family if we add one more child, we're going to have
07:29:38 to start looking at bigger houses because we're running
07:29:41 out of room.
07:29:42 I would itself point out that they have not proposed any
07:29:48 changes to the building.
07:29:50 That they are going to use it as is.
07:29:52 We're in a historic district.
07:29:54 If I make any changes to my home, I have to have them
07:29:57 approved.
07:29:58 If you look at all those pictures, all the homes on our
07:30:01 street have been renovated.
07:30:03 We're coming back.
07:30:04 We're now a beautiful residential neighborhood.
07:30:07 And like saw that building before, the 1920s, it was a
07:30:11 gorgeous old building.
07:30:12 They're not proposing that they do anything to return it
07:30:15 to its previous historic state.
07:30:17 They're saying they're going to use it as is.
07:30:19 So for those two reasons, I think that the good enough
07:30:24 reason to say that they couldn't be using it here.
07:30:26 They're talking about approval they previously had.
07:30:29 The approval was in the 1980s.
07:30:31 I believe it was actually approved as a residential
07:30:34 treatment facility before I was born.
07:30:37 And I now have children.
07:30:38 And it's been 30 years.
07:30:41 And I mean, if we're saying that we can use their
07:30:45 previous approval for it, can I use against them what the
07:30:49 previous tenants were doing?
07:30:50 Because we now have, wasn't when it opened.
07:30:53 We now have little kids that sit out in that
07:30:55 neighborhood.
07:30:55 Of all the pictures you saw, the houses, half of thoughts
07:30:59 have small children.
07:30:59 So the neighborhood is quite different than it was
07:31:01 previously.
07:31:02 And I don't think that this works with the neighborhood
07:31:05 as it is currently.
07:31:06 Or as it's growing.
07:31:08 And as we have been asked to grow it.
07:31:10 City of Tampa has said that they believe in Tampa
07:31:12 Heights.
07:31:13 That they believe in the historic district.
07:31:15 They believe in the urban core.
07:31:17 My family is trying to do that.
07:31:18 We're a young family with small children.
07:31:20 We're trying to make it something.
07:31:23 And places like this are going to hurt that they're going
07:31:25 to hurt our efforts.
07:31:27 Thank you.
07:31:27 >> Jim heart net, live 2302 of north Central Avenue, few
07:31:38 blocks from this location.
07:31:40 I've been there for 16 years and I've been on the board
07:31:43 Tampa Heights civic association board for 16 years.
07:31:46 Every year also.
07:31:49 So well aware of this place.
07:31:51 I really don't want to talk about the history.
07:31:53 I think you're going to hear about it, you've heard a
07:31:55 little bit.
07:31:56 But I think you're probably going to hear more as to why
07:31:58 we don't want it.
07:32:00 We know firsthand, this isn't conjecture.
07:32:03 We have been down this road before.
07:32:05 Finally got rid of the treatment facility and now it's
07:32:08 coming back.
07:32:09 So we really, we do not want to go there I have a couple
07:32:12 maps I really want to share with you.
07:32:15 This is our neighborhood plan that was put together by
07:32:26 the neighborhood.
07:32:27 It was much was adopted by City Council.
07:32:37 We are talking about right here as you see, light yellow
07:32:43 designates housing.
07:32:45 And that's where we are.
07:32:47 Just south of it, south of palm, that is considered the
07:32:52 office village, which is, you know, that's the use.
07:32:56 Not where this location is.
07:32:58 So, this is not something that should be allowed in this
07:33:04 location.
07:33:04 A lots of people have thrown out where this is.
07:33:11 But this really I think kind of shows it maybe a little
07:33:16 too well.
07:33:17 Too close.
07:33:18 So the red is the location.
07:33:33 The kaboom play ground, as you can see, it's not just
07:33:36 close.
07:33:37 It is across the street.
07:33:38 What was referred to as a church earlier is not a church.
07:33:44 It's a community center.
07:33:45 A lot of love and money and time has been put into that
07:33:50 place.
07:33:53 And it's not just the community center.
07:33:55 It's also a youth center.
07:33:56 It has after-school programs.
07:33:58 There's homes all around this.
07:34:02 Every direction except the community center.
07:34:05 There's also community garden just north of this.
07:34:11 There's green space that's right now used as a dog park
07:34:16 and kids go and play there, as can you see right here.
07:34:20 The Greenway runs right across it.
07:34:22 This is the heart and soul of our community.
07:34:25 And it's this location is right in the middle of it.
07:34:28 It makes absolutely no sense.
07:34:30 The only other worse place you could probably put this in
07:34:34 Tampa Heights would be in the middle of Waterworks Park.
07:34:36 Thank you very much.
07:34:43 >> Good evening.
07:34:47 My name is Lima Young-Green.
07:34:49 3406 north avenue.
07:34:55 We're here to oppose this project.
07:34:57 I will not repeat all that everyone has said before
07:35:02 because the facts are the facts and they've already
07:35:04 shared those with you.
07:35:05 Every person on City Council has worked with us in the
07:35:10 past to help bring Tampa Heights back from where it was
07:35:14 to where it is today.
07:35:16 We worked consistently.
07:35:18 We have come before you.
07:35:20 You've joined us in this effort on many levels.
07:35:24 And it doesn't make sense for us to take steps backwards.
07:35:30 That's just not what we do.
07:35:31 One of your jobs as the CRA is to help develop all over
07:35:36 Tampa Heights.
07:35:37 And you have worked consistently to do this.
07:35:41 This is a part of the area only not designated as a CRA,
07:35:45 but the goal remains the same.
07:35:48 We got some information from the homeless coalition that
07:35:52 told us that there is a study that was done that stated
07:35:56 that the neighborhoods have identified by zip codes as to
07:36:01 where the services are needed.
07:36:04 And we were told in that study that that documented that
07:36:08 Tampa Heights is not an area that needs more services.
07:36:14 We are the area that has so many services already, that
07:36:19 they are concentrated and continuously sent to Tampa
07:36:23 Heights.
07:36:23 But the study says that the calls for these services come
07:36:27 from areas outside of Tampa Heights.
07:36:29 It's just not fair to overburden our community.
07:36:33 We have, we understand the largest homeless facility in
07:36:38 Metropolitan Ministries in the southeast area.
07:36:42 We have Salvation Army.
07:36:44 If I could take the pictures before I got here today, I
07:36:47 would show you what's going on in our neighborhood.
07:36:49 Sometimes we feel like we're making progress and then we
07:36:52 look back again and things are happening the same way.
07:36:55 But we're here consistently.
07:36:59 We have not left.
07:36:59 If you approve this today, believe me we'll be back
07:37:04 again.
07:37:05 You all have worked with us to get us where we are today
07:37:07 and we are depending on you to help us continue to build
07:37:11 in the direction that we want our neighborhoods to go.
07:37:13 Thank you.
07:37:14 >> My name is Ralph Schuler.
07:37:21 2101 north Jefferson street, about one block from this
07:37:25 facility.
07:37:26 I've lived in Tampa Heights 18 years.
07:37:28 I've been a former board member and former member of the
07:37:32 Tampa Heights business association.
07:37:33 When I saw this was being proposed, it was almost
07:37:39 laughable.
07:37:39 I almost said these people really think this is something
07:37:42 that this neighborhood needs?
07:37:44 But unfortunately I'm here.
07:37:45 So apparently facts are the facts.
07:37:49 So, I think way Mr. Michelini described it was very
07:37:54 accurate.
07:37:55 Sounds like a prison to me.
07:37:56 Don't think prison in the middle of the neighborhood.
07:37:59 Can't go anywhere, can't leave, can't come.
07:38:01 Summer advised all the time.
07:38:03 Devoid of bars, it's a prison.
07:38:05 Let me tell but Central Avenue.
07:38:08 Central Avenue when I moved here 18 years ago was
07:38:10 probably one of the biggest drug haven untiles the whole
07:38:13 neighborhood go not the whole community and whole area.
07:38:16 Maybe Nebraska had more drugs than Central Avenue.
07:38:18 But I didn't live on Nebraska.
07:38:20 I lived near Central Avenue.
07:38:21 So, that's changed.
07:38:25 Russ Versaggi came in and transformed the church into a
07:38:30 nice place for people to live.
07:38:34 The Lee's grocery was a detriment to the neighborhood.
07:38:38 Now it's an asset.
07:38:39 This facility in 1989 when it was approved was probably,
07:38:45 maybe 35 years ago or 25 years ago, maybe was something
07:38:51 that the neighborhood needed.
07:38:54 That was biggest blow to our neighborhood ever is this
07:38:57 facility.
07:38:58 I can't think of any good reason why anyone would think
07:39:01 that it's a good thing for this to be here today.
07:39:04 My kids take the bus to and from, two blocks north of
07:39:10 this.
07:39:11 Would walk right by this facility twice a day.
07:39:13 Once in the morning, once in the afternoon.
07:39:15 I have a 12-year-old daughter.
07:39:17 I don't -- and I didn't let her do that.
07:39:20 She started taking the bus recently.
07:39:22 But of course that facility is gone.
07:39:24 That facility comes back, I'll have to reevaluate if I
07:39:28 would let my 12-year-old daughter walk by this facility.
07:39:31 So, social services, we got them.
07:39:34 We got more social services than anybody else in the
07:39:37 whole community, the whole neighborhood.
07:39:39 Whole state.
07:39:40 Probably any other neighborhood in Tampa, Tampa Bay area
07:39:42 combined.
07:39:43 So, I'm for you guys, don't even think about doing this
07:39:50 find a way to help us out.
07:39:52 And I come to rezoning from time to time.
07:39:57 I'm an architect by trade.
07:39:59 And I can't believe this isn't the grandfathering clause
07:40:02 has not been available in this six months this should've
07:40:04 been reverted back to RM-24 like the rest of the
07:40:08 neighborhood.
07:40:08 If that's the case, probably the biggest travesty of all,
07:40:12 that that hasn't happened.
07:40:13 With that I thank you very much.
07:40:17 >> Good evening, I'm Russ Versaggi, 720 South Orleans
07:40:24 Avenue.
07:40:25 I own the property directly across the street from this
07:40:28 facility, the Sanctuary Lofts.
07:40:31 And 15 years ago, my partners who couldn't make it here
07:40:36 tonight, Vivian Salaga and John Tennison, architects, we
07:40:40 purchased a boarded up burned out dilapidated old church
07:40:46 building and renovated it into the sanctuary loft
07:40:49 building that you see.
07:40:52 And I can tell you in the 15 years that we have owned and
07:40:56 managed this property, about ten of them, this
07:40:59 residential facility was operating, and they were not
07:41:05 contained.
07:41:06 Maybe under a different ownership.
07:41:08 But they were not contained.
07:41:09 They were at times allowed out and would hang out on
07:41:14 those very doorsteps and people had to step over them to
07:41:18 go home or leave to go to work.
07:41:20 And as Ralph pointed out, we have come a long way in this
07:41:27 neighborhood.
07:41:27 My wife and I have renovated, rescued old housing in the
07:41:34 neighborhood and made them productive.
07:41:37 As this building shows, put them on the tax rolls.
07:41:40 It would be a step backward to approve this facility
07:41:43 under the request that you're hearing tonight.
07:41:47 Just to give you a little idea of how concentrated this
07:41:53 facility is, 43 beds and a little over 7,000 square feet.
07:41:57 We have got 36 beds and over 30,000 square feet, over
07:42:03 four times the size facility with less beds.
07:42:06 So this is, as people said, a prison.
07:42:09 It's not a desirable component to be bringing back into
07:42:12 this neighborhood.
07:42:13 We have come a long way and we would appreciate your
07:42:17 consideration in denying this request tonight.
07:42:21 Thank you.
07:42:31 >> Hi.
07:42:32 I'm Leigh Wilson Versaggi.
07:42:35 And I am Russ' wife.
07:42:38 I live 720 south Orleans avenue.
07:42:41 And I would like to say that I think that the special use
07:42:46 permit or whatever it is, that this would be granted, is
07:42:51 not helping the neighborhood at all.
07:42:53 I don't believe that that facility belongs at all in this
07:43:01 neighborhood.
07:43:01 Tampa street, Florida Avenue, that whole corridor,
07:43:10 someone, I don't know if it's a fact, but said that there
07:43:13 were 40 social services facilities.
07:43:19 And I would question really how many are in the very near
07:43:23 borders of the neighborhood.
07:43:25 And the other things, most everyone has spoken eloquently
07:43:30 and I don't really need to reiterate, but my question is,
07:43:34 what kind of neighbor would that facility that would be
07:43:42 rehabbing drug addicts, while it's a good cause, I don't
07:43:47 think it belongs there.
07:43:48 What kind of neighbor would they be?
07:43:52 And what kind of neighbor are the social services that
07:43:55 are there presently going to be 20 years from now?
07:43:58 Because that's what we're doing right now, we're sort of
07:44:01 setting the road ahead.
07:44:03 So, thank you very much.
07:44:10 >> Hi.
07:44:11 My name is Helen Ann Travis, 304 east park, directly,
07:44:16 almost around the corner from this residents.
07:44:19 I'm here to speak in opposition of the planned use
07:44:21 because I don't believe that it's compatible with the
07:44:24 surrounding property.
07:44:25 As they stated the building is located in a residential
07:44:28 neighborhood.
07:44:28 Surrounded by historic single-family homes.
07:44:31 This beautiful renovated church that's turned into an
07:44:33 apartment complex, a new playground, community center and
07:44:37 a community garden.
07:44:38 My fiance and I we moved into the sanctuary, the
07:44:42 apartment across the street in May 2014.
07:44:44 Our front door directly faces the building that we're
07:44:48 discussing tonight.
07:44:49 It was empty when we moved in.
07:44:50 And we heard that it had been a halfway house of sorts
07:44:53 and we heard stories of people who were sleeping in the
07:44:56 streets and alarms going off in the middle of the night.
07:44:59 We asked ourselves, would we have moved here if that was
07:45:02 here?
07:45:03 But the building was empty and we moved in.
07:45:06 And we fell in love with the community and the
07:45:08 neighborhood.
07:45:08 Tampa Heights is located in the middle of everything that
07:45:11 is going right in our city.
07:45:13 We can walk to Ulele, walk to waterworks, downtown, we're
07:45:18 just a short bus ride to all the great restaurants?
07:45:21 Seminole Heights.
07:45:22 After 11 years of renting in Tampa, kind of always having
07:45:26 one foot out the door, we were ready to make Tampa our
07:45:30 home.
07:45:30 Last November we closed on our first home.
07:45:32 It is 114 years old.
07:45:34 It was abandoned before we moved in, foreclosure.
07:45:38 We love it.
07:45:38 What you're deciding on tonight is one of the small but
07:45:41 critical decisions that lay the ground work for our
07:45:44 city's future.
07:45:45 What kind of businesses we want in the neighborhood
07:45:47 surround being our downtown core.
07:45:48 Do we want to attract people to these neighborhoods or
07:45:51 push them away?
07:45:52 How do we present Tampa to visitors?
07:45:55 Do we want to be known as the city where the
07:45:59 neighborhoods surrounding downtown have more rehab
07:46:00 facilities than restaurants, more homeless shelters than
07:46:01 locally owned businesses?
07:46:04 Or do we want a healthy mix of both?
07:46:05 Right now there's a heavy saturation of service oriented
07:46:08 businesses in Tampa Heights.
07:46:10 My new home is a block away from Metropolitan Ministries,
07:46:13 just a short walk to Salvation Army.
07:46:15 Daytime shelters, free lunches and rent-by-the-hour motel
07:46:19 all within a few blocks of my home.
07:46:21 Tampa Heights is doing its share to shelter and help city
07:46:24 people in need.
07:46:25 Please don't get me wrong this is a very commendable
07:46:28 project but this is not the right location for it.
07:46:30 Not the middle of a residential neighborhood.
07:46:33 Please let's encourage growth and density in the downtown
07:46:36 core by saying that Tampa Heights has done its share to
07:46:38 serve the area's needy.
07:46:40 Thank you.
07:46:41 >> Good evening.
07:46:49 My name is Michael Spokas, 210 East Ross Avenue.
07:46:54 My wife and children, we have lived in the neighborhood
07:46:58 for little over 10 years now.
07:47:02 And actually, we have both of them living in the
07:47:11 neighborhood, so this is home to them.
07:47:13 Over this period of time, things have gotten really good,
07:47:18 or a lot better from where they were when we originally
07:47:21 moved in.
07:47:21 But the facility that was there was always an eyesore.
07:47:27 Always had issues.
07:47:29 Now that it's empty, it's been great.
07:47:33 And I feel that if this facility comes back into use,
07:47:39 that no matter what said as far as having no cure few and
07:47:44 things like that, there's going to be an issue.
07:47:46 There's nothing good that can come of this.
07:47:48 In the middle of our neighborhood.
07:47:50 As well, we have, a lot of people, not just myself but
07:47:58 there are so many families now that have children in the
07:48:01 neighborhood.
07:48:01 There's so many families that have put blood, sweat and
07:48:05 tears into rehabilitating their homes.
07:48:11 And I just feel that, you know, this property is just a
07:48:17 huge step backward.
07:48:19 Thank you.
07:48:20 >> My name is Ralph Eugene Meeks senior.
07:48:31 I live on 2804 north Central Avenue.
07:48:34 I'm really concerned because my wife, my ex-wife, I and
07:48:41 my son bought property on 3008 north Morgan street in
07:48:46 1985.
07:48:47 We have seen the changes.
07:48:49 And I agree with everyone here that has opposing this,
07:48:53 for all the reasons that they have.
07:48:56 I feel the same way.
07:48:58 I have one question.
07:48:59 All this rehabilitation, all this drug treatment, do you
07:49:05 all know what it's all about?
07:49:07 We all also know, we all also know what relapse is and
07:49:15 who is going to be held responsible?
07:49:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: They're not going to vote, speak to
07:49:19 us.
07:49:20 >> I apologize.
07:49:21 We all know what relapse is.
07:49:24 Who is going to be responsible for these persons bringing
07:49:28 their problems into our neighborhood and when they
07:49:32 relapse, and their activities, who's going to be
07:49:37 responsible?
07:49:56 >> My name is Mary McCann.
07:50:01 I live 20812 north Central Avenue.
07:50:05 I would like to call to the attention of the Council and
07:50:08 to the city staff some interesting observations and
07:50:13 considerations that you need to take into your
07:50:16 decision-making consideration tonight.
07:50:19 There's little project going on that you may have heard
07:50:22 of.
07:50:23 The reconstruction of the interstate.
07:50:25 And the TBX.
07:50:27 If we come down along the Greenway, those are more than
07:50:32 just vacant lots that are south of the parcel, 210 Lamar
07:50:37 that the applicant is needing to use for their parking.
07:50:40 Those lots are owned by DOT.
07:50:42 And they are intended to be part of the permanent
07:50:45 Greenway.
07:50:46 So we're going to have very dense development.
07:50:51 Then let's understand that this is parkland.
07:50:54 When I figured this out, I called the FDOT consultant
07:50:59 that prepared the memorandum of agreement, Elaine and she
07:51:05 told me this parcel, 210 Lamar Street is in fact
07:51:09 something the DOT intends to acquire and incorporate into
07:51:14 the Greenway for the mitigation for the reconstruction of
07:51:19 the park, the interstate.
07:51:21 So there goes their park.
07:51:23 And if they're going to be all these people and coming
07:51:25 and going, I think we ought to have an understanding of
07:51:28 what is going to happen to the parcel at 2010 Lamar
07:51:32 Street.
07:51:33 And as you can see, the other thing that Elaine said is
07:51:37 the maps are never right.
07:51:38 This shows it is not intended to be purchased.
07:51:40 But she said definitely that it is.
07:51:43 I'd like to talk now about.
07:51:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Wait, can I ask a question?
07:51:49 Before you change subjects, if you could put the map back
07:51:53 up there.
07:51:53 So, if I'm looking at our land use map that was provided
07:52:10 as part of our package and that Mr. Hey and both
07:52:14 Ms. Samaniego referred to earlier, the two parcels that
07:52:19 are just -- okay, there we go.
07:52:28 The two parcels that are I guess are north of that steps,
07:52:32 the orange line, see where your arrow is?
07:52:37 >> Here's the parcel in question.
07:52:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The parcel in question, the two
07:52:41 parcels according to my subject property map are the two
07:52:45 that are not colored in.
07:52:48 >> That is correct.
07:52:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Those two.
07:52:51 So the parking on the vacant lot is the one to the east?
07:52:55 And the building, the existing building is the one to the
07:52:58 west.
07:52:59 >> That's right.
07:52:59 On the 60 by 100-foot lot is the building.
07:53:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So the purple, because I'm familiar
07:53:07 with this project just a little bit.
07:53:10 And the purple are lots that have already been purchased
07:53:16 by FDOT.
07:53:17 >> That is correct.
07:53:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And the orange are parcels to be
07:53:20 acquired.
07:53:22 >> Red are parcels to be acquired.
07:53:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Neither one of the two lots that are
07:53:26 the subject that is rezoning or special use hearing are
07:53:31 part of this identified.
07:53:35 >> Have that key.
07:53:36 But I spoke to miss rush.
07:53:38 She said that the map is not accurate.
07:53:40 The first, I had the map in my hand.
07:53:44 She said the map is not accurate.
07:53:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: When was that she said that the map
07:53:47 was not accurate?
07:53:48 >> Week ago today.
07:53:49 And this afternoon in a phone conversation.
07:53:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Do you have documentation of that?
07:53:55 >> I have a record on my cell phone that she called me,
07:53:57 yes.
07:53:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, I mean a record of her saying the
07:54:00 map is not accurate?
07:54:02 >> There would've been people that would've been in that
07:54:04 group, yes, ma'am.
07:54:06 I don't think any of them are in this room.
07:54:08 It was on preservation round table walking tour of Tampa
07:54:11 Heights neighborhood.
07:54:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Preservation walking tour of.
07:54:18 >> Presentation roundtable walking tour of the
07:54:20 neighborhood.
07:54:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's when she identified that this
07:54:22 map was not correct?
07:54:23 >> She said that the map is not correct.
07:54:26 She reiterated that again to me today several times.
07:54:30 So I think this is a question that needs to be resolved.
07:54:34 Because if this is their parking area, and there's a
07:54:38 higher and better use that's intended for the public good
07:54:41 of being part of the park, we should know that.
07:54:44 And I agree that FDOT has not done a good job at keeping
07:54:49 us informed.
07:54:50 It's pretty frustrating.
07:54:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
07:54:58 >> If I could have the rest of my three minutes, what I'd
07:55:01 like to do is go back to the Tampa Heights neighborhood
07:55:05 and ask you as our discretionary official, this is a
07:55:11 return to the bad old dies with the higher use zoning.
07:55:14 That's why we have zoning.
07:55:16 It's RM-24.
07:55:18 When we have a grandfather, when we have a lapse of use,
07:55:23 the purpose of zoning is to bring nonconforming
07:55:26 properties like this one back into compliance with the
07:55:30 prevailing zoning.
07:55:31 Which is residential.
07:55:32 That would give this property about three units.
07:55:37 This was a neighborhood commercial establishment.
07:55:40 It was a grocery store with residents above, just like my
07:55:44 aunt Margaret and uncle Pete.
07:55:46 Please give us back residential for our neighborhood and
07:55:50 neighbor commercial.
07:55:51 Not neighborhood Y.
07:55:53 Thank you.
07:55:54 >> Hello.
07:56:03 Abbey Dohring Hearn, 306 East Ross Avenue.
07:56:10 My husband and I and our 18-month-old son, well, the
07:56:14 18-month-old hasn't been as long.
07:56:16 I've been there 10 years.
07:56:17 He's hopefully going to be there for a while.
07:56:21 We love the neighborhood.
07:56:23 This property is about two blocks from our house.
07:56:26 Years ago when it was open for services, quite a bit of
07:56:32 threatening issues when you pass by there.
07:56:35 It wasn't comfortable to walk by.
07:56:37 But you heard that.
07:56:38 We don't need, I don't think we need to dwell into that.
07:56:42 You guys are asking the right questions.
07:56:44 I commend you on the questions that you're asking.
07:56:48 And you're very informed about it.
07:56:50 Already seems like you know the area pretty well.
07:56:52 So I thank you for that.
07:56:57 Biggest item is, no meds, no treatment.
07:57:00 No variance, no use.
07:57:02 Right?
07:57:02 If they don't get the variance to do their -- no?
07:57:08 It's what?
07:57:10 For the stairwell in the back?
07:57:15 The variance waiver?
07:57:16 The waiver.
07:57:16 Okay.
07:57:17 I appreciate it.
07:57:19 It's not the right use for the neighborhood.
07:57:24 Beside the park and elementary school and all the
07:57:27 children in the neighborhood and facilities already
07:57:28 there.
07:57:29 And then the question you asked me.
07:57:30 Which was who told me that it couldn't be used for this?
07:57:35 And it was the seller's representative that told us when
07:57:38 multiple people from the neighborhood went there to try
07:57:40 to find the right buyer for it.
07:57:44 Said that the current use wouldn't be approved because it
07:57:48 had been shut down for a period of time.
07:57:54 I understand it doesn't have sexual abuse folks there.
07:57:59 Mental illness can be just as dangerous.
07:58:02 I just request that you take that into consideration.
07:58:04 Thank you.
07:58:05 >> Good evening.
07:58:11 My name is Dominic Martinez.
07:58:13 Currently residing officially at historic fire station
07:58:17 number 5 at 1910 North Florida Avenue.
07:58:20 I tell you, back in 1998 is when I first heard about
07:58:23 Tampa Heights.
07:58:24 Didn't know where it was because I was living down in
07:58:27 Channelside.
07:58:27 But this is one neighborhood that's been kicked around
07:58:30 quite a damn bit.
07:58:31 With all the arson fires going on in 1998, that's how I
07:58:35 found out about Tampa Heights and then recently the
07:58:37 battle going on with TPX.
07:58:40 The homeless issue that surrounds and plagues the area.
07:58:44 All these maps presented here tonight are really
07:58:45 interesting because if you really zoom in, take a look at
07:58:47 all the businesses that have developed the area.
07:58:50 You've got Ulele, the armature works building, you've got
07:58:53
07:58:54 Beck Construction.
07:58:54 You've got Lina Young's project, you've got Russ
07:58:57 Versaggi.
07:58:58 You've got Metropolitan Ministries has invested a great
07:59:03 deal of money in beautifying the area.
07:59:05 At the same time, look at the saturation from a
07:59:08 bird's-eye view of what's happened.
07:59:10 Look at what happened to Bush Ross.
07:59:12 He developed a whole park.
07:59:13 On Sundays it's quite a barren sight to witness
07:59:16 firsthand.
07:59:17 Being fire station number five for the past several
07:59:22 months, I've had to call the police 14 times with a
07:59:24 certain individual that I do not know.
07:59:26 That I do not care to know.
07:59:27 And I don't know what their problem is.
07:59:29 But it's really gotten to be frightening situation.
07:59:32 And when I moved into the neighborhood, invested the
07:59:35 money and time I have into this property, it's not
07:59:38 something that I was expecting.
07:59:40 I don't like sleeping with a loaded shotgun at night but
07:59:43 it comes to that point unfortunately.
07:59:44 That was my personal experience.
07:59:52 A great detail of us have invested large amounts of money
07:59:55 in beautifying this neighborhood and its historic sights
07:59:58 that have been refurbished, renovated and more and more
08:00:02 of that is going on.
08:00:03 This is that added value to the neighborhood by putting a
08:00:07 center like this, I don't feel will add any value.
08:00:11 And I ask owners of the property how would they feel was
08:00:14 right there down the street from them?
08:00:16 Thank you very much.
08:00:17 >> Hi.
08:00:24 Kimberly overman, 4610 north Central Avenue.
08:00:27 I don't live in Tampa Heights.
08:00:30 I live in Seminole Heights.
08:00:31 I'm currently wearing the hat of the president of the
08:00:35 business guild of the Heights.
08:00:37 We're in the process of reorganizing, so we're
08:00:40 representing all the business owners from 275 north all
08:00:43 the way up into Sulphur Springs.
08:00:45 Normally when I come in front of a party that is actually
08:00:50 a business, I'm very much pro making sure that happens.
08:00:55 But I do recognize with that the businesses have to
08:00:57 actually be symbiotic to the relationships of the people
08:01:01 who live there.
08:01:01 And take into consideration some concerns.
08:01:04 Obviously you heard this evening with this type of
08:01:06 facility that there are some concerns.
08:01:08 A good example of that is not the same but a similar
08:01:12 problem that actually Seminole Heights has experienced
08:01:15 with the methadone clinic on Nebraska Avenue at Crawford.
08:01:19 All the neighbors are very concerned about the people who
08:01:21 wander in and out for treatment.
08:01:23 It's an off site treatment.
08:01:25 They don't need to be there.
08:01:26 But they also live underneath the houses.
08:01:28 They live underneath the businesses.
08:01:30 And they burn down the building next door to the, what
08:01:33 was the closed Bourgeois pig.
08:01:38 So while there may be a lock down facility.
08:01:41 Unless you have the police support and to cover and
08:01:45 protect the residents here, this type of facility is
08:01:49 going to bring problems.
08:01:50 If they stay locked down, you have way too many people in
08:01:55 too small of a place for them to become mentally healthy,
08:01:58 in my opinion.
08:01:59 But I don't know a whole lot about that, but I would
08:02:01 suggest that it does seem like an excess capacity for the
08:02:05 kind of care that is needed for individuals that are
08:02:09 veterans or otherwise.
08:02:10 So do take into consideration the neighbor's concerns.
08:02:15 It does need to make some sense.
08:02:18 This area has a very high percentage of social services
08:02:21 support in it already.
08:02:22 And when you do have a few facilities around, it's easier
08:02:27 to work with the police department to get the support
08:02:30 that is necessary to keep the residents safe.
08:02:33 But the concentration in that area is very high.
08:02:36 To further continue that process and basically challenge
08:02:42 these citizens that have worked so hard for their
08:02:45 neighborhood to survive and deal with it, I think is a
08:02:48 lot to ask.
08:02:49 Please take that into consideration when you make your
08:02:52 deliberations.
08:02:53 Thank you.
08:02:58 >>FRANK REDDICK: Excuse me.
08:02:59 Before you speak, because every time I look up, I see one
08:03:03 person keep adding on to the line.
08:03:05 So how many more people wish to speak?
08:03:07 All right.
08:03:11 If you're going to speak, if you line up, let's line up,
08:03:15 let's move this along.
08:03:16 Go ahead.
08:03:19 >> My name is Juan Carlos, 502 east Ross Avenue in the
08:03:24 building across the street from the property in question,
08:03:26 of the sanctuary apartments.
08:03:29 When I moved in, beautiful neighborhood.
08:03:32 Back in 2001, I moved into Tampa and I looked at the
08:03:35 neighborhood.
08:03:35 And it looked like a crack den.
08:03:37 I wouldn't have considered living.
08:03:39 Recently, I saw the neighborhood.
08:03:41 It looked really nice.
08:03:42 So I moved into the sanctuary.
08:03:44 Now I'm considering buying a Louis in the neighborhood.
08:03:46 If you want to attract young business professionals that
08:03:49 are hoping to build a family, this facility goes up, I
08:03:53 wouldn't buy in this neighborhood.
08:03:55 And I know a lot of my colleagues and friends and other
08:03:57 respectful citizens wouldn't either.
08:03:59 Thank you so much.
08:04:03 >> My name is Matt Wooden.
08:04:09 I live at 502 East Ross in the sanctuary apartments.
08:04:12 I just moved here not too long ago from North Carolina.
08:04:17 This is a great neighborhood that we live in.
08:04:21 It really is.
08:04:22 It's a home.
08:04:22 It really.
08:04:23 I am not a homeowner so I don't have as much stake in
08:04:27 this community as the homeowners do.
08:04:31 But this is a neighborhood.
08:04:32 This is, I mean, there's a sense of community.
08:04:37 And putting this type of facility right next door, it's
08:04:41 just a detriment.
08:04:43 I live not much further than from me to you, sir, right
08:04:48 here.
08:04:49 From that, where that facility is supposed to be.
08:04:56 I not only myself live there, but my girlfriend as well.
08:04:59 There are many times I'm not around, who's to say if
08:05:03 she's outside, you know, it's just -- this is not what it
08:05:09 should be.
08:05:10 And one thing that they said is, there's supervision.
08:05:15 They're supposed to be supervised when they're out.
08:05:18 They're supposed to be 43 occupants.
08:05:22 20 staff.
08:05:24 Who's going to monitor all 43 people?
08:05:28 Say 21 people want to be out?
08:05:30 How are they going to monitor that without, you know,
08:05:34 who's going to hold them accountable?
08:05:36 That's the question I want to know.
08:05:38 Who is going to hold these people accountable for making
08:05:40 sure that there are supervised.
08:05:43 I mean -- that's all I have.
08:05:47 I'm sorry.
08:05:51 >> Hi.
08:05:57 My name is Athena McBride.
08:06:01 I live at 2008 north Central Avenue.
08:06:05 It's right across the street from the building that's in
08:06:09 question.
08:06:09 I moved in there 20 years ago when this home was boarded
08:06:15 up.
08:06:16 It had been changed into six small apartments.
08:06:21 The neighborhood, there was places that you could get any
08:06:25 kind of a drink or drug.
08:06:28 And I just said to myself, is this what I want?
08:06:33 And you know way said?
08:06:35 It is.
08:06:35 Because I wanted to live in the historic district.
08:06:39 That was the number one thing.
08:06:41 Now I have the home finished except it's got 22 rooms in
08:06:46 it.
08:06:47 And I decided when I bought the home, I'm single woman,
08:06:53 that I was not going into debt.
08:06:55 But I had a good job.
08:06:57 I flew all over the United States.
08:06:59 And I'd be gone just long enough that will I already
08:07:03 contracted with someone to do the electricity and I knew
08:07:08 how much that was going to cost me and I stayed out there
08:07:11 on the road until I had that money.
08:07:13 Then I went back and I just kept working at it.
08:07:19 Now it's 20 years later and that home and it's gorgeous.
08:07:23 And I'm so happy.
08:07:26 But I also saw the other side of it.
08:07:28 Because being there 20 years, there were times when, when
08:07:34 there was a mental health establishment and there would
08:07:38 be ambulances, at least two a day.
08:07:40 And there was a murder.
08:07:43 One time I awaken until the middle of the night and I
08:07:47 could see policemen out there and they were putting
08:07:50 yellow tape all around.
08:07:51 So I asked the police man what was going on.
08:07:54 Someone just got murdered.
08:07:56 That was across the street from me.
08:07:58 But you know, I guess, I'm not afraid of much.
08:08:03 And I've got that home all paid for.
08:08:07 I don't owe a cent to anyone.
08:08:09 And I've been all over the United States, making money.
08:08:13 And I remember one girl in Anaheim, she said come on,
08:08:19 there's a sale right over here.
08:08:21 Come with me.
08:08:23 And she said you can get two nice shirts for $10.
08:08:27 I said, do you know what I can do with $10?
08:08:31 I can buy a doorknob for my house.
08:08:35 But I love the neighborhood.
08:08:38 I love the neighbors.
08:08:40 It's been fantastic.
08:08:42 We don't want another mental health situation in our
08:08:46 neighborhood.
08:08:46 Thank you.
08:08:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
08:08:51 Party, rebuttal?
08:08:52 >> My name is Jim Jacob.
08:08:57 My address is 607 west Bay Street in Tampa.
08:09:01 In 19 --
08:09:06 >> Mr. Chairman, this is not a rebuttal.
08:09:13 >> Just my three minutes.
08:09:15 I'll try to speak quickly.
08:09:17 >> Basically in 1995 I represented mental health care
08:09:26 Inc.
08:09:27 It's now grace point.
08:09:29 Metal health care received a grant for a little over
08:09:33 $3 million to operate a homeless safe haven.
08:09:37 The property that we had used for the grant application,
08:09:43 laurel estates, was taken by the interstate widening of
08:09:48 275 in the north end of, north Hyde Park.
08:09:53 The bottom line was, is that the grant had been received
08:10:00 and we needed to have a place where we could operate the
08:10:04 facility and the Gilleys at that time operated Gilley's
08:10:09 adult care at this property.
08:10:11 They had purchased it in 1988 and renovated it with
08:10:15 community development block grant money.
08:10:17 When we approached them, they were, the business was
08:10:22 laboring.
08:10:22 And they were having some issues with their lender, that
08:10:28 the, we worked out a lease and that lease initially was a
08:10:32 three year lease and then it got renewed every year.
08:10:35 Up until the HUD and the homeless coalition re-purposed
08:10:40 the money.
08:10:40 So, facility had been furnished ALF for quite sometime.
08:10:49 But a homeless safe haven is decidedly different than
08:10:52 what Tampa Crossroads is proposing to operate there.
08:10:55 Back in the 80s, I worked with Frank boardman, at that
08:11:01 time the executive director of Tampa Crossroads.
08:11:04 And they have a facility that is in Tampa Heights.
08:11:08 It's a beautiful old home but most people don't know that
08:11:12 they're there or they don't know what they do.
08:11:14 I think the, what's happened in Tampa Heights is
08:11:16 remarkable. When Matthews corporation bought the
08:11:21 property and built their office on Marion street, in the
08:11:25 1600 block back in the late '90s, Dick Greco at the
08:11:34 groundbreaking said that was the first building permit
08:11:35 that had been pulled for new construction in 25 years.
08:11:36 You know, Tampa Heights has been remarkable.
08:11:40 I think the other issue, if you were to try to go a
08:11:43 little higher, tucked in right there next to the
08:11:48 interstate and with all of, what's been written in the
08:11:51 paper about the widening of the interstate and the taking
08:11:54 that will basically wipe out the community center that
08:11:59 was built in the church and all of that, and hopefully
08:12:03 none of that is decided.
08:12:05 But it's very, very hard.
08:12:07 I have immediate family members that have been
08:12:09 incarcerated.
08:12:10 I have immediate family members that have drug and
08:12:13 alcohol issues, mental health issues.
08:12:16 It's just very, very tough.
08:12:18 Where do you site these uses?
08:12:21 Thank you.
08:12:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: Ms. Montelione.
08:12:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mr. Jacob, before you leave the
08:12:25 podium.
08:12:26 Do you have a relationship with Tampa Crossroads now?
08:12:31 You said you were a consultant.
08:12:34 >> Actually, I am on the board of acts.
08:12:39 Acts does a lot of work with other non-profits, but
08:12:42 Julian rice, who was the executive director of mental
08:12:45 health care for many years, involved me in the real
08:12:48 estate for many, many years.
08:12:51 And every municipality, every project we ever did with
08:12:55 mental health care because they serve primarily the
08:12:57 chronically mentally ill and dual diagnosed folks.
08:13:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Wait, before you go on, I'm still
08:13:02 unclear.
08:13:03 I'm trying to get to your --
08:13:06 >> Other than being a commercial real estate broker.
08:13:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So that's my question.
08:13:10 So you're a commercial real estate broker.
08:13:13 >> I represented mental health care when they leased this
08:13:15 facility.
08:13:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: As a commercial real estate broker,
08:13:20 are you involved in this transaction?
08:13:22 >> Yes, ma'am.
08:13:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's my question.
08:13:23 Okay.
08:13:24 What is your role in this transaction?
08:13:29 >> I am the listing broker.
08:13:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:13:32 So you -- wait a minute.
08:13:36 So you represent the seller?
08:13:38 Of the property?
08:13:41 >> In the purchase contract, I do.
08:13:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And it is currently, as we heard
08:13:46 before, under contract, so the sale has not been
08:13:49 completed?
08:13:50 >> That's true.
08:13:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:13:51 The other question I have for you is, the other facility
08:13:58 that Tampa Crossroads operates, I know where it is.
08:14:01 But I just need to put it on the record because I can't
08:14:04 state because then I would be testifying.
08:14:07 Where is that facility that you represent?
08:14:10 >> I don't know the address.
08:14:11 I know how to get there.
08:14:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What street is it on?
08:14:15 >> I couldn't tell you.
08:14:19 >> ACTS?
08:14:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, not ACTS.
08:14:21 I'll ask Miss Romeo.
08:14:24 >> I'm sure she can tell you.
08:14:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Before we go on.
08:14:28 I think the three minutes used by this gentleman should
08:14:30 be taken away from the party.
08:14:32 By virtue of his financial relationship.
08:14:35 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Miranda?
08:14:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that I understand the
08:14:40 concern, Mr. Suarez, but I really don't want to get into
08:14:42 three minute case and have to spend millions of dollars
08:14:45 in a lawsuit.
08:14:47 That's just my feeling.
08:14:49 >> I understand.
08:14:50 >> Thank you.
08:14:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Can I ask Mr. Shelby?
08:14:54 In reference to Mr. Suarez's request, or suggestion that
08:15:01 the testimony that was given during public comment by
08:15:04 Mr. Jacob seemingly would be part of the petitioner's
08:15:12 presentation since he is a party to the transaction?
08:15:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: He may very well have an interest in the
08:15:18 transaction, but you also heard Mr. Michelini state
08:15:21 unequivocally that that was not part of his rebuttal.
08:15:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I know what Mr. Michelini stated.
08:15:28 But by law or by our procedure, if you have a vested
08:15:33 interest in the transaction, a monetary interest in the
08:15:39 financial transaction, does that not make you a part of
08:15:43 the applicant's presentation?
08:15:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
08:15:46 The petitioner and the party's representative are the
08:15:50 applicant.
08:15:51 In this case, I believe what is important for the public
08:15:55 to remember --
08:15:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But you used a word right there that
08:15:58 the speaker used as well.
08:16:00 You said he was the representative.
08:16:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Of the listing seller to the
08:16:07 transaction, which is under contract.
08:16:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But when you make application for land
08:16:11 use petition, do you not have to have the authority of
08:16:14 the seller in order to file that application?
08:16:18 >> If I could answer.
08:16:19 Mr. Jacob is not an authorized agent on this transaction.
08:16:22 Or this application.
08:16:23 That's an entirely different matter.
08:16:25 I didn't know what Mr. Jacob was going to say.
08:16:29 And certainly he wasn't, as far as I know, address the
08:16:33 questions that were raised by the public.
08:16:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I still is a very gray area for me,
08:16:40 Mr. Shelby.
08:16:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Let me say this because you have a rule
08:16:43 that addresses it.
08:16:45 Which may resolve it for you.
08:16:47 I think it's important for members of the public tonight
08:16:49 and generally to remember this rule and we actually use
08:16:52 told have it printed outside.
08:16:54 Maybe it's time we refresh peoples recollection.
08:16:57 Rule 6-G.
08:17:00 To all persons who provide testimony, information or
08:17:03 opinion regarding a petition in a quasi-judicial matter
08:17:06 pending before City Council must disclose any direct or
08:17:10 indirect business or personal interest between themselves
08:17:13 and the petitioner or applicant which is requesting
08:17:16 action.
08:17:16 The information shall not be used to deny the petition or
08:17:20 matter but goes to the weight of the evidence,
08:17:24 information or opinion provided.
08:17:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:17:26 So thank you, Mr. Shelby.
08:17:28 Because he did not disclose it and it was only through my
08:17:31 questioning repeatedly and rephrasing that we eventually
08:17:36 got to the fact that he does have a financial interest in
08:17:39 this transaction.
08:17:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that shows significant benefit of
08:17:43 City Council's questioning potential witness who offer
08:17:46 testimony.
08:17:49 >>HARRY COHEN: I think everyone understands now what the
08:17:51 situation is here.
08:17:52 Rather than quibble over the time.
08:17:55 It's very clear what we're looking at.
08:17:58 Let's move on.
08:18:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: You're going into the rebuttal phase
08:18:05 now.
08:18:05 >> Yes, sir.
08:18:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: You're going to use your time allotted
08:18:08 or you got someone else going to speak with you?
08:18:10 >> I think Miss Romeo is going to, there's going to be
08:18:13 questions for her perhaps on the operation specifically.
08:18:16 And then I'll call her up to address any questions you
08:18:20 might have with her.
08:18:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
08:18:22 Let's go.
08:18:22 >> I don't think I'm going to need the five minutes.
08:18:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, I would just remind city
08:18:28 council that the purposes of rebuttal is to have the
08:18:31 final word.
08:18:32 If there are any questions of Council, specifically for
08:18:34 Ms. Romeo, those should be addressed before the rebuttal.
08:18:37 So the rebuttal would actually end the hearing.
08:18:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right, Mr. Miranda?
08:18:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
08:18:44 Mr. Michelini, during the process of your presentation,
08:18:46 you mentioned various times the treatments and
08:18:49 medication.
08:18:49 Can you list the treatments and medications, what are
08:18:52 they?
08:18:52 >> Ms. Romeo will have to tell you that.
08:19:01 >> Sara Romeo, CEO and director of Tampa Crossroads for
08:19:06 the past 14 years.
08:19:07 I would like to say, first I'll answer your question,
08:19:10 Mr. Miranda, that the treatments are considered
08:19:16 counseling, one on one counseling, group therapy and
08:19:19 behavioral modification.
08:19:20 We are licensed by department of children and families.
08:19:25 We're licensed by AHCA and we are CARPA credited as one
08:19:30 of the international accreditation for our treatment
08:19:32 services.
08:19:33 We do provide round-the-clock care.
08:19:36 We provide 7-day-a-week therapeutic sessions for our
08:19:40 clients.
08:19:41 And the medication management, one of the things that is
08:19:46 most predominant in a person that is diagnosed with a
08:19:49 mental illness, whether it be PTSD or bipolar, trauma or
08:19:54 whatever the result is, there is a medication protocol
08:19:57 that is required in order to stabilize that person.
08:20:00 The medications that our clients take, we call this
08:20:03 medication management.
08:20:04 We make sure that they have the correct medications
08:20:07 prescribed appropriately for their condition and that
08:20:10 they learn specifically how and when to take their
08:20:13 medication.
08:20:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You haven't mentioned, what are the
08:20:20 medications?
08:20:21 >> What are they?
08:20:22 I don't know that I could really name -- I mean, it runs
08:20:25 the gamut from gabapentin to every kind of psychotropic
08:20:32 you could possibly think of.
08:20:34 Some of our clients have a very, very small amounts of
08:20:36 medication.
08:20:37 We have other clients who take medications for every
08:20:40 condition from diabetes, blood flow, heart problems,
08:20:45 including the psychotropic medications.
08:20:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
08:20:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
08:20:54 >> Any more questions for Miss Romeo?
08:20:57 >> You wanted to know the location.
08:21:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I have other questions.
08:21:06 So you go ahead.
08:21:09 I have questions for Miss Romeo.
08:21:10 Mr. Suarez may as well.
08:21:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Michelini may not be able to answer
08:21:12 the question.
08:21:15 I'll go ahead.
08:21:16 On the site plan under the treatment facility notes and
08:21:20 this, you know, was mentioned in here.
08:21:23 I'm curious about it because it doesn't make sense in my
08:21:26 mind.
08:21:26 I may be wrong about it.
08:21:28 On one of the notes it says 24/7, 365 staff on duty
08:21:33 exceeds our state licensure, which is for DCF and AHCA.
08:21:37 But then the next bullet point says staff to patient
08:21:41 ratio during daytime hours is 3 to 15 ratio.
08:21:45 After 9:00 p.m., a 2-15 ratio.
08:21:48 So I'm not sure I understand -- it's a contradiction in
08:21:52 terms of the way it's written because if you can't meet
08:21:56 the definition from AHCA or from DCF, how can you also
08:22:01 provide the service?
08:22:02 >> We actually exceed, we exceed the state requirements,
08:22:07 which is one staff member for every 15 clients.
08:22:10 We do not think that's adequate, so we actually have more
08:22:14 staff.
08:22:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Just want to make sure because the way it
08:22:18 reads, could be either way.
08:22:19 It means you can staff it as opposed you are staffing
08:22:24 more than enough people.
08:22:25 I know Mr. Miranda mention billion dollar the times of
08:22:27 drugs.
08:22:28 Obviously we're not expecting you to know all the drugs
08:22:31 but you probably do know some of them.
08:22:33 But based on what Mr. Michelini had said earlier, one of
08:22:36 the reasons why you are changing is to dispense some
08:22:40 drugs too, is that correct?
08:22:42 >> Yes.
08:22:42 We do what's called medication management.
08:22:44 We actually teach our clients about the drugs and the
08:22:48 need for the drugs that they are taking, that they've
08:22:50 been prescribed.
08:22:51 We teach them why it's important that they take it
08:22:54 regularly and we set up programs for them so that they
08:22:57 can remember to take their medications and take it on
08:23:00 time and take it appropriately.
08:23:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: But do you dispense them there also or is
08:23:05 it just a process in which you are teaching them how to
08:23:08 take their medication?
08:23:10 >> They do not maintain their own drugs.
08:23:12 Like everybody doesn't have their own little drug
08:23:15 cabinet.
08:23:15 We lock everything up according to our state lines
08:23:19 you're, everything is triple locked.
08:23:21 When they do take medications, we have a staff person who
08:23:24 actually administers the medication to them, watches them
08:23:28 take it and makes records of it.
08:23:30 Again, according to state licensure.
08:23:32 There are some very, very strict policies and guidelines
08:23:34 and standards for medication management.
08:23:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm going to ask a question,
08:23:39 Mr. Michelini.
08:23:40 He may not know this answer.
08:23:41 I may have to ask staff about this, which is, according
08:23:43 to our staff report, this was, it is currently zoned
08:23:49 residential multi-family.
08:23:51 But we had a residential treatment facility there before.
08:23:54 Was it not -- was it being used -- Mrs. Samaniego, you
08:24:01 may want to answer -- that was it being used outside
08:24:04 their use or did they have a special use permit allowing
08:24:08 them to use it under that particular zoning
08:24:10 classification?
08:24:13 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Yes, during my presentation I indicated
08:24:15 there was a special use.
08:24:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thanks for making me feel bad for
08:24:19 forgetting it.
08:24:20 I apologize.
08:24:21 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: It's your staff report.
08:24:23 Was approved by City Council for assisted living facility
08:24:27 large group care.
08:24:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: That's a good thing.
08:24:30 Make sure you point out what mistakes I've made.
08:24:33 [ Laughter ]
08:24:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Always helpful Miss Samaniego.
08:24:38 Thank you.
08:24:38 I appreciate it.
08:24:39 I missed it.
08:24:40 And I will say that's what I'm confused about in terms of
08:24:44 the special use because why wasn't it zoned previously
08:24:48 like this?
08:24:49 Maybe there wasn't a zoning classification, that's the
08:24:52 only other question I had about that thank you, chair,
08:24:54 for right now.
08:24:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Ms. Montelione?
08:24:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
08:24:57 Councilmembers, you'll have to bear what me because I
08:25:00 have several questions.
08:25:02 Some of Ms. Romeo, I'll ask you next.
08:25:05 Where is the location, actually, there are two locations
08:25:09 referenced in the document that you provided.
08:25:13 It says the women's program is located in historic Queen
08:25:16 Anne home.
08:25:17 We have operated this program in Tampa either for over 25
08:25:21 years along with a second home for women also in Tampa
08:25:24 Heights.
08:25:25 Where are those two locations?
08:25:27 >> Actually the actual address, physical addresses are
08:25:31 confidential, Lisa.
08:25:32 But the particular building you're referencing is in
08:25:35 Tampa Heights.
08:25:36 It's about a mile to the west of this location.
08:25:39 It is at the gateway Holland and Columbus Drive.
08:25:43 It is a 1923 Queen Anne, which we have operated as a
08:25:48 licensed treatment facility for more than 27 years.
08:25:53 Without any problems whatsoever.
08:25:54 We have another building in Ybor City, about less than a
08:26:00 mile to the east of this property.
08:26:03 Also that is a housing facility, one of the first in the
08:26:09 United States for homeless female veterans.
08:26:11 We have operated that in a historic building for over
08:26:14 eight years now.
08:26:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Are those the two that are referenced
08:26:16 in here?
08:26:17 >> Yes.
08:26:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So only one of the two that you
08:26:20 reference are actually in Tampa Heights?
08:26:24 And the other is in Ybor.
08:26:26 >> Yes.
08:26:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I think the other questions I have are
08:26:31 going to be for staff.
08:26:35 Oh, there is one other thing on this document.
08:26:38 The very first sentence says we are proposing to restore
08:26:41 the residential services buildings located at 2015 north
08:26:46 Central Avenue.
08:26:47 When you say restore, do you mean restore as in fix up
08:26:53 the property?
08:26:55 Because then the second paragraph says, the very first
08:26:59 sentence of the second paragraph says we are not
08:27:02 proposing any changes to the physical structure other
08:27:04 than repairs and general maintenance.
08:27:10 >> It's referring to additions to the building.
08:27:12 >> Exactly.
08:27:13 We're not going to go in and make any extreme changes to
08:27:15 the building whatsoever.
08:27:16 The building on the exterior, the building was in
08:27:21 excellent condition.
08:27:21 It was very clean, it was very non-conspicuous.
08:27:25 We don't put up big signs.
08:27:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The very first sentence of both
08:27:32 paragraphs seem to be contradictory.
08:27:34 First one says restore the residential services building
08:27:37 and second one said we are not proposing any changes.
08:27:40 >> What the restoration is referring to, Ms. Montelione,
08:27:43 is that during the time this building has been vacant, it
08:27:47 has been vandalized and about probably somewhere in the
08:27:52 neighborhood of $50,000 worth of damage, including all
08:27:55 the interior fixtures have been stolen.
08:27:58 So we have a lot of work to do to restore the interior of
08:28:02 that building to make it nice.
08:28:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:28:04 So my other questions then are going to be for staff.
08:28:07 Ms. Kert, one of the reasons I asked about restore
08:28:19 because that word can be used in many different forms.
08:28:21 And I'm curious as to the special use and the vacancy of
08:28:26 this property for over a year.
08:28:28 So, when Council granted these special use back in 1989,
08:28:36 for the assisted living facility, it's my understanding,
08:28:42 and correct me if I'm wrong, that if a special use, or
08:28:46 any permit is granted, alcohol, beverage or many of our
08:28:50 other special uses, if that use is not in continuous
08:28:55 utilization for that purpose, and there's a break in
08:29:01 time, that that special use would have to be reapplied
08:29:05 for because it goes away.
08:29:09 >>REBECCA KERT: There has been some use of language
08:29:14 between like a nonconforming use versus a special use.
08:29:17 This was a special use permit.
08:29:18 So it was considered a legal permitted use as opposed to
08:29:21 a nonconforming use.
08:29:23 However, your code does currently contain a provision
08:29:25 that if a special use is not utilized for I believe a
08:29:30 period of 180 days, correct me if -- she is nodding I am
08:29:35 correct.
08:29:36 Then the special use permit ceases.
08:29:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So referring to the previous use of
08:29:44 the property and the special use was granted, that's not
08:29:48 a consideration because we would be discussing this
08:29:51 application as if there was no special use ever on this
08:29:55 property before.
08:29:56 This is a brand new application and that special use that
08:30:00 was granted in 1989 has been set aside because it's over
08:30:04 180 days?
08:30:08 >>REBECCA KERT: I am not aware there's been a formal
08:30:10 determination made that there's ceased for 180 days.
08:30:13 I'm certainly not in any position to testify whether it
08:30:15 has or has not been.
08:30:17 You've certainly heard testimony that it has ceased.
08:30:20 It's very possible that that determination could and
08:30:22 would be made.
08:30:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The testimony just now, Ms. Romeo
08:30:27 saying the property has been vacant, it's been
08:30:29 vandalized.
08:30:31 But not how long that property has been vacant.
08:30:35 >>REBECCA KERT: There -- I don't want to get in the
08:30:37 position of testifying.
08:30:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm saying would it be appropriate for
08:30:41 me to ask the seller's representative how long this
08:30:43 property has been on the market and how long it's been
08:30:45 vacant?
08:30:47 >>REBECCA KERT: I certainly can ask those questions.
08:30:50 As far as the relevancy, one time there was a permitted
08:30:53 use there for assisted living facility.
08:30:56 I think you've heard testimony and I haven't heard any
08:31:01 contradictory testimony that it's been vacant for a
08:31:04 period over 180 days.
08:31:05 So I think it would be fair to assume that at this point
08:31:09 they would need to come in for a new permit.
08:31:11 I'm just saying there has not been a formal
08:31:15 determination.
08:31:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Is that what they're doing now?
08:31:17 Coming in for a new permit?
08:31:20 >> They're coming in for new permit for different use.
08:31:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So the idea this was granted in 1989
08:31:25 has no relevance whatsoever?
08:31:27 >>REBECCA KERT: I'm not going to say it has no relevant.
08:31:29 I think it's relevant other some point in 1985 there was
08:31:32 a permit issued for a use of an ALS.
08:31:35 I mean that's the use was permitted in 1985 amount of
08:31:39 what -- 89.
08:31:40 This is way get in trouble for when I start talking.
08:31:43 And it was in existence.
08:31:46 What that relevance is is for you all to determine.
08:31:49 It's not binding.
08:31:51 It's not saying that you have to then grant this use.
08:31:54 But it certainly it is a fact for you all to consider.
08:31:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: All right.
08:31:58 Understood.
08:31:58 I guess my next question then is for Mr. Hey.
08:32:08 You're up.
08:32:09 So many of the public comments mentioned that it's not a
08:32:20 contributing structure -- it's not a contributing use to
08:32:23 the neighborhood.
08:32:23 It's not compatible.
08:32:25 It's located near parks and elementary schools.
08:32:33 There's a concentration of services in the neighborhood.
08:32:38 And we have in our code, what is it 1200 feet -- but
08:32:44 that's more to the code than it is to the comprehensive
08:32:48 plan.
08:32:48 So I think someone tried to talk about it earlier, was --
08:32:54 Mr. Suarez did, about the neighborhood.
08:32:56 So, Tampa Heights has unfortunately a reputation for
08:33:05 having a high number of social services in the area.
08:33:08 Part of that is from driving down Florida Avenue and
08:33:11 Nebraska Avenue and actually seeing them on the street
08:33:13 and actually somebody said that this might be more suited
08:33:17 to being on one of those streets.
08:33:21 I have an issue with that.
08:33:22 But I'm not testifying.
08:33:24 I'm asking the question.
08:33:25 Does the comprehensive plan address the perception of an
08:33:34 area that it's a depository for services?
08:33:40 So if you're going to go to a certain neighborhood,
08:33:43 you're going to expect that that's where you're going to
08:33:46 receive services.
08:33:50 >> The policy direction -- David Hey, Planning Commission
08:33:54 staff.
08:33:54 About to lose my voice.
08:33:56 Policy direction in the plan, you can see that it's
08:34:02 policy 24.5.3.
08:34:04 And it talks about the city shall continue to support
08:34:07 standards and land development regulations that address
08:34:10 location excessive concentration of locally unpopular
08:34:13 land uses such as group home, land fills, jails, parol,
08:34:17 work release facilities, power lines and public housing.
08:34:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But there's -- unlike the land
08:34:23 development code, or our Chapter 27, as people refer to
08:34:27 it, there's no distance.
08:34:31 >>DAVID HAY: Correct.
08:34:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It would be a perception of that area?
08:34:34 >>DAVID HAY: That would be a judgment for you all.
08:34:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:34:39 That -- the other, besides concentration of services, the
08:34:48 compatibility, the comprehensive plan also speaks to
08:34:51 compatibility?
08:34:53 >>DAVID HAY: It does speak to compatibility.
08:34:55 But it also speaks to, that these uses are, they're an
08:35:00 allowed use in residential zones.
08:35:03 This is not a rezoning hearing.
08:35:07 They're already considered an allowable use.
08:35:10 So, you know, we look at it, this is part of a
08:35:17 neighborhood.
08:35:17 You have to have these services in neighborhoods.
08:35:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, I understand that.
08:35:23 But in your staff analysis of goals objectives and
08:35:25 policies on page they it says the comprehensive plan
08:35:28 encourages the placement of group homes within
08:35:30 residential neighborhoods, which you just said.
08:35:32 So long as the requested use does not create a
08:35:35 concentration of a particular use within a neighborhood
08:35:38 and that's what I'm asking, is, since there is no
08:35:43 delineated number of feet in relation to one another, is
08:35:49 the perception that this is the place where you go for
08:35:53 services, what you're eluding to?
08:35:58 >>DAVID HAY: Well, we as staff cannot make that
08:36:00 determination.
08:36:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, but we can.
08:36:02 >>DAVID HAY: Right.
08:36:03 You can.
08:36:03 And we refer to the land development code.
08:36:06 But then you guys can interpret these policies.
08:36:08 But we as staff can make this recommendation to you that
08:36:12 these are, this is what a neighborhood, there are uses in
08:36:17 neighborhoods that are popular uses and there's uses in
08:36:21 functioning neighborhoods that are unpopular uses.
08:36:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:36:24 I have two final questions.
08:36:28 For miss Samaniego.
08:36:30 So in the staff report, it says on page -- there are no
08:36:42 page numbers on the staff report.
08:36:44 On the second what I'm perceiving as the second page,
08:36:50 this would be continuation of the section of the report,
08:36:54 summary of request.
08:36:55 It says this facility requires five parking spaces and
08:36:59 nine are being provided.
08:37:01 So it seems that they're over parked.
08:37:04 But we have heard several times tonight and on one of the
08:37:07 documents that was presented to us from the applicant, it
08:37:12 says there will be 20 staff at this location.
08:37:16 How are 20 staff people going to only have nine parking
08:37:20 spaces?
08:37:25 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: It's a 24 hour facility.
08:37:27 So I would assume that the 20 staff members are total
08:37:31 staff members and they work on shifts.
08:37:37 The five parking space requirement is based on the code,
08:37:41 for this type of use, that's a required number of parking
08:37:44 spaces.
08:37:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:37:47 And the second question I have and the last question,
08:37:52 thank you for your indulgence, Council.
08:37:55 43 people and 7,370 square feet.
08:37:58 That was another statement made by someone from the
08:38:03 public comment.
08:38:05 So can you tell me how that math works out?
08:38:11 I mean, the density for it under our code?
08:38:16 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: The density for this type of use is
08:38:18 regulated by, it's spoken to in the comprehensive plan
08:38:22 and it is regulated by the state.
08:38:24 So the state determines based on their dimensional
08:38:31 standards, square footage per bed or per person, the
08:38:34 total number of residents that can be in a given square
08:38:37 footage of a building.
08:38:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: In a hospital, you would have three or
08:38:42 four beds or 15 beds in a ward.
08:38:44 You wouldn't have that in a normal residential home?
08:38:47 >> No.
08:38:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But you would have it in a hospital
08:38:50 setting where there are a lot of beds and the person is
08:38:52 only taking up.
08:38:56 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: It's the same consideration we do for
08:38:58 congregate living facilities.
08:39:00 The density or number of beds per facility is regulated
08:39:05 by the state.
08:39:06 It's an exemption from our intensity or floor to area
08:39:09 ratio as well as density.
08:39:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I'm sorry, from the public
08:39:14 comment, somebody, Mr. Hartnett I believe, put up a map,
08:39:19 Tampa Heights community plan.
08:39:20 How does that document play into what our code says and
08:39:27 what the comprehensive plan says?
08:39:29 Because if the neighborhood has spent time and worked on
08:39:33 a community plan and that community plan is adopted by
08:39:37 the Planning Commission, how does that play into your
08:39:39 analysis?
08:39:42 Or does it?
08:39:43 >> That would be under the analysis of the Planning
08:39:46 Commission.
08:39:47 One of their addendum documents, I would assume.
08:39:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I didn't see it mentioned in Mr. Hey's
08:39:53 report.
08:39:57 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: It's an interesting situation again.
08:39:59 They look at a plan that shows certain areas to be
08:40:02 single-family.
08:40:03 However, the comprehensive plan has this area to be high
08:40:05 density residential and then again it's a multi-family
08:40:09 zoning district.
08:40:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What I'm hearing, the community plan
08:40:13 doesn't play in at all because the residents can say this
08:40:16 is what we want, even though it's an adoptive community
08:40:19 plan?
08:40:21 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: I wouldn't say that.
08:40:22 If it's an adopted plan, adopted through the planning
08:40:25 commission I would assume --
08:40:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Was that map that was shown part of
08:40:29 adopted community plan?
08:40:33 >>DAVID HAY: Those are, within the comp plan as
08:40:36 referenced.
08:40:37 We do not review against neighborhood plans.
08:40:39 They are put in the comp plan and this was the city's
08:40:45 determination.
08:40:46 They're put in for reference and they, they are supposed
08:40:51 to be used by residents to talk about there was a
08:40:53 planning process that went forth and there were
08:40:57 discussions and this was what the neighborhood consensus
08:41:01 was.
08:41:01 But they are not -- they're not formally adopted portion
08:41:05 of the comp plan.
08:41:07 So we do not, we do not review special use requests under
08:41:14 the community plans.
08:41:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Hey.
08:41:18 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Cohen?
08:41:22 >>HARRY COHEN: I'll be brief, Mr. Chair.
08:41:23 I think it is only fair to say this prior to the
08:41:28 applicant making their rebuttal.
08:41:30 Because there are, after listening to the testimony
08:41:33 tonight, two provisions exception 27-129 general
08:41:40 standards that I'm looking at in evaluating this matter.
08:41:44 One is A-1 which says that the use, the proposed use will
08:41:50 ensure the public health, safety and general welfare if
08:41:54 located where proposed and developed and operated
08:41:57 according to the plan as submitted.
08:42:00 And the second is section 27 129 A-3, use is compatible
08:42:07 with contiguous and surrounding property.
08:42:09 It seems to me that the testimony tonight from main
08:42:13 members of the public raised serious questions about
08:42:18 whether or not this application meets those criteria.
08:42:22 And I know that for me, those are significant questions
08:42:28 to answer when evaluating how to vote on this type of a
08:42:33 matter.
08:42:34 So, that's all.
08:42:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: Ms. Kert?
08:42:37 >>REBECCA KERT: Mr. Chairman, before we get into
08:42:38 rebuttal, I wanted to make a quick statement for the
08:42:41 record.
08:42:41 I know City Council knows this.
08:42:43 Please don't think I'm being insulting, but just for
08:42:46 record purposes based upon the nature of this request, I
08:42:48 just want to remind you that it can't be a basis for
08:42:52 denial that there are people with disabilities looking to
08:42:55 reside in this home, assuming that is in fact the case.
08:42:58 And again I know you all know that I'm just saying that
08:43:01 for record purposes.
08:43:02 But you need to evaluate whether or not the applicant has
08:43:04 met their initial burden to demonstrate that they meet
08:43:08 your criteria.
08:43:09 This is a permittable use but the applicant has the
08:43:11 burden to demonstrate that they meet the criteria in your
08:43:14 code and that is both the specific criteria for this use
08:43:17 and the general criteria for use.
08:43:19 And if they do -- if they don't, then it should be
08:43:23 denied.
08:43:24 If they do, then it should be approved unless there's
08:43:26 substantial competent evidence that they do not meet it
08:43:30 and it's adverse to the public interest.
08:43:32 >>HARRY COHEN: Just to be clear, issues I raised were
08:43:34 part of the general standards that you were referring to
08:43:36 in the code.
08:43:37 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes.
08:43:38 Thank you.
08:43:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Michelini?
08:43:42 >> Let me back up for a minute and tell you how this
08:43:45 process started.
08:43:46 When Tampa Crossroads indicated that they had an interest
08:43:50 in this property, we went to the City of Tampa land use
08:43:53 development center and asked them to sign the state
08:43:57 application authorizing the license.
08:44:00 And they said are you providing medical treatment of any
08:44:06 kind in this facility?
08:44:08 And when Miss Romeo said yes, they said well, if you were
08:44:12 not providing that medical administration of medicine and
08:44:16 management, then we will sign your application.
08:44:19 And those notes are in the code, I mean they're in the
08:44:22 computer for this address indicating that it is allowed
08:44:25 to operate an assisted living facility without the
08:44:29 medicine.
08:44:30 Today.
08:44:31 So the argument about whether or not that can operate or
08:44:35 not is, compatibility, whether or not you have assisted
08:44:40 living facilities operating there or not, according to
08:44:43 the city and according to the documents that we have been
08:44:46 presented with, that is a moot point.
08:44:49 The issue is, and the reason we were before you was
08:44:53 according to the code, we have to come and ask for the
08:44:56 addition of medical management from the City Council.
08:45:00 So, and that goes to your point, Mr. Cohen, about
08:45:05 compatibility of use.
08:45:07 The use has been approved and has been consistent.
08:45:10 This was a licensed facility up through 2015, when it
08:45:16 went under contract to Tampa Crossroads.
08:45:18 And at that point, we have been in the process of trying
08:45:22 to determine whether or not medicines could be
08:45:25 administered or not.
08:45:26 And that's why the application is before you.
08:45:29 It's not a matter of, you know, whether or not we like it
08:45:32 or not.
08:45:33 We didn't ask for any waivers.
08:45:35 We meet the code.
08:45:35 We meet the land use code.
08:45:37 The Planning Commission has told you that.
08:45:45 The waiver is for the stairwell that's required.
08:45:48 That's not going to go away.
08:45:50 The stairwell is an emergency exit.
08:45:53 It can't be deleted.
08:45:54 In terms of drug treatment, that's the issue.
08:46:00 Will you or will you not allow them to have medical
08:46:04 treatment on premises or not?
08:46:07 In terms of the code for parking, it's an existing
08:46:11 facility.
08:46:11 You asked the question about what restoration was going
08:46:14 to take place.
08:46:15 It's an interior remold he will and cleaning up the
08:46:18 exterior of the building.
08:46:19 The reason we said no construction was because we're
08:46:23 trying to maintain the historic integrity of the building
08:46:26 and not modify it.
08:46:28 [light laughter]
08:46:33 >> No one laughed at anybody else.
08:46:34 That's the truth.
08:46:35 It's cleaning up the building, maintain the facility as
08:46:39 it is and cleaning up the interior.
08:46:41 There is no letter of intent to acquire this property or
08:46:45 any adjacent property from DOT or from anyone else.
08:46:49 Except for Tampa Crossroads its under contract to.
08:46:54 And this is -- it's not a nonconforming use.
08:46:56 It's a conforming use.
08:46:58 So when we came to you and said okay and went through the
08:47:01 staff review, there were no other objections.
08:47:04 So I think that's also important and it's the first sheet
08:47:07 of your review says that it's consistent.
08:47:10 I think that we have met the intent of the code.
08:47:15 It is a needed facility.
08:47:16 It's a needed service for various individuals that are
08:47:20 being referred out of the courts and out of the various
08:47:24 hospitals.
08:47:24 We meet all of the distance criteria.
08:47:29 We're not asking for any waivers of any of that.
08:47:31 We clearly meet the land use code.
08:47:39 I don't know what else to tell you.
08:47:42 Going forward.
08:47:44 Goes forward, you know, with land use development, as far
08:47:50 as I know, as of even standing here tonight, a
08:47:55 residential treatment facility without medicine,
08:47:58 residential facility is approved and allowed to exist at
08:48:03 that property.
08:48:04 I don't know -- Sara, you want to say anything else?
08:48:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Please wait till you get to the Mic.
08:48:14 >> I just have one more comment.
08:48:15 It's been talked a lot tonight about 43 beds and how
08:48:18 tight that is.
08:48:19 My licensure is for 26.
08:48:22 We do not fill our programs.
08:48:25 We do not stuff people in.
08:48:27 And the implication that we operate this as a prison is
08:48:30 really something that I really have to refute because we
08:48:34 operate this as a very caring and respectful environment
08:48:37 for people, our neighbors, our fathers, our sons, our
08:48:41 brothers and people in our community who have lived here
08:48:43 all their lives and who would like to return to their
08:48:46 families in a very stable and healthy way.
08:48:49 We are assisting them to do that.
08:48:50 Thank you very much.
08:48:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
08:48:55 Thank you.
08:48:55 Council, any questions of Council?
08:48:59 What's the pleasure-council?
08:49:01 Nobody else can speak.
08:49:02 It's our time now.
08:49:03 Not your time.
08:49:05 It's our time.
08:49:06 All right.
08:49:08 Who would like to read number nine?
08:49:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Two things, Mr. Chairman.
08:49:13 Number one is a motion to close the public hearing would
08:49:16 be in order.
08:49:17 Number one, but before you do that, I would just ask that
08:49:20 relative to this hearing and all other hearings tonight
08:49:22 that you receive and file all documents that have been
08:49:24 available for public inspection prior to taking action.
08:49:27 If you would do that please as a motion.
08:49:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to motion to close the public
08:49:34 hearing.
08:49:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: All in favor of the motion.
08:49:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Make a motioning to receive and file
08:49:40 all the documents not only this hearing but all the
08:49:43 hearings we have had and will have this evening.
08:49:45 >> Second.
08:49:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mr. Miranda, second by
08:49:48 Mr. Cohen.
08:49:49 All in favor of the motion say aye.
08:49:51 All right.
08:49:52 Item number 9.
08:49:53 Wish to read?
08:49:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'll take item number nine, sir.
08:49:57 I'm going to move to deny the applicant's petition for
08:50:01 special use hearing, based on some of the things
08:50:05 Mr. Cohen has brought up in section 27.129-A, number one,
08:50:12 the useful ensure public health safety and general
08:50:15 welfare located where proposed and developed and operated
08:50:18 according to the plan submitted.
08:50:19 I think we have heard competent and substantial evidence
08:50:22 tonight that there is concern for the public health,
08:50:26 safety and general welfare and if Mr. Cohen wants to
08:50:30 offer friendly amendments to further example of the
08:50:33 testimony given tonight, that would be welcome.
08:50:35 Number three, the use of compatible with contiguous and
08:50:40 surrounding property.
08:50:43 It appears from looking at the map, hearing the testimony
08:50:46 of residents, that the surrounding property is not
08:50:53 compatible with the use that is proposed.
08:50:56 I would also cite number 4, the use is in conformity with
08:51:03 the Tampa comprehensive plan.
08:51:04 Three questions that were posed to the representative,
08:51:07 Mr. Hey, from the Planning Commission, specifically
08:51:11 policy 24.5.3, the city shall continue to support
08:51:15 standards in land development regulations that address
08:51:18 the location and excessive concentration of locally
08:51:21 unpopular land uses such as group homes, landfills, jails
08:51:25 parole offices, work release facilities, power lines and
08:51:28 public housing, as Mr. Suarez had pointed out again if
08:51:32 you want to add anything as a friendly amendment, that
08:51:36 would be welcome.
08:51:36 But I don't believe the applicant is in conformity with
08:51:40 policy 24.5.3 and under the staff analysis and goals and
08:51:45 objectives, it says comprehensive plan encourages the
08:51:50 placement of group homes within residential neighborhoods
08:51:52 so long as the requested use does not create a
08:51:55 concentration of a particular use within a neighborhood.
08:51:58 I think we have heard evidence both in public testimony
08:52:02 and also in the letters, emails that we received that
08:52:06 there is a concentration in the Tampa Heights
08:52:12 neighborhood for these types of facilities.
08:52:14 I believe that adding another facility would be
08:52:20 detrimental to the survival of this neighborhood and for
08:52:22 the advancement of this neighborhood.
08:52:24 That is my motion.
08:52:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
08:52:28 Got a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
08:52:32 Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
08:52:33 Any discussion of the motion?
08:52:34 All in favor of the motion say aye.
08:52:35 Those opposed?
08:52:37 Motion carries.
08:52:39 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.
08:52:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: We're goes to take -- at this time,
08:52:45 we're going to take a five minute break.
08:52:47 We stand in recess for five minutes.
08:52:49 [ RECESS ]
08:52:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: Roll call?
09:04:16 [ ROLL CALL ]
09:04:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:04:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
09:04:23 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
09:04:24 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
09:04:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
09:04:27 Item number 10.
09:04:32 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 10, REZ 15-66 for the
09:04:37 property at 2713 St. Louis street and 2801 north Habana
09:04:43 Avenue.
09:04:43 It's a request from rezoning from RS-50 to planned
09:04:47 development for detached single-family residential.
09:04:50 I've just been informed by the applicant that they want
09:04:52 to revise the site plan, which will include additional
09:04:57 waivers.
09:04:58 As you know, waivers can only be heard during a first
09:05:01 reading.
09:05:01 And revisions to a site plan that would include waivers
09:05:05 needs to be reviewed by staff.
09:05:06 So, I anticipate that the applicant is going to ask for a
09:05:10 continuance.
09:05:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
09:05:12 The applicant?
09:05:17 >> My name is David Clisset.
09:05:19 I'm president of Divine Design & Development.
09:05:20 We're a small Florida certified engineering firm.
09:05:26 I'm the authorized agents for the owners of the property.
09:05:29 Currently reside, our offices 822 first street in Indian
09:05:32 Rocks Beach.
09:05:33 I thank you for the opportunity to present this evening,
09:05:36 but unfortunately we do have some additional changes that
09:05:38 have been requested by the property owners and the
09:05:42 company that has the equitable title and contract, so I'm
09:05:46 asking we have a continuance to make some minor
09:05:48 modifications to the site plan.
09:05:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: What are your timeframe for the
09:05:52 continuance?
09:05:54 How much time?
09:05:56 >> April 14th.
09:06:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
09:06:01 Any questions from Council?
09:06:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Will we be re-noticed then?
09:06:09 >> No.
09:06:10 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Statement of the continuation in this
09:06:13 public hearing is notice.
09:06:15 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone in the public wish to speak on
09:06:17 the continuance for item number ten?
09:06:20 >> Move to continue to April 14th, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
09:06:25 >> Second.
09:06:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mr. Miranda, second by
09:06:27 Mr. Cohen.
09:06:28 All in favor of that motion say aye.
09:06:31 Thank you.
09:06:35 >>FRANK REDDICK: We go to item number 11.
09:06:39 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item 11, REZ 15-82, it's rezoning
09:06:44 request from commercial general and RS-50 to planned
09:06:47 development for medical office, bank, bank drive-in,
09:06:52 clinic, laboratory, office business professional and
09:06:56 strip commercial center with CG uses.
09:07:01 >>DAVID HAY: Good evening, David Hey with your Planning
09:07:02 Commission staff.
09:07:03 I have been sworn.
09:07:05 We're in the central Tampa planning district for this
09:07:09 next case located, the subject site, which is 2.89 acres
09:07:13 is located at the northwest corner of North Armenia
09:07:15 Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
09:07:18 It's right about right there.
09:07:21 Right up against two transit emphasis corridors.
09:07:25 The transit emphasis corridors are important on this
09:07:30 segment.
09:07:31 There are four transit routes that run either on Armenia
09:07:35 or on Dr. Martin Luther King.
09:07:37 So it's a very high transit frequency on those corridors
09:07:41 in that section.
09:07:43 So, outside of downtown and some other limited areas,
09:07:46 it's a very high transit area.
09:07:48 They are -- let's go on to the aerial.
09:07:59 Here we have the subject site.
09:08:00 You can see North Armenia Avenue running north-south.
09:08:04 We have Martin Luther King Boulevard on the south.
09:08:08 There's basically, you can see St. Joseph's Hospital over
09:08:13 here on the west of the subject site.
09:08:16 The Tampa medical tower is about two blocks to the west.
09:08:22 We also have some basically medical office facilities,
09:08:27 mostly on Armenia.
09:08:31 The Dr. Martin Luther King corridor has more commercial
09:08:37 type character.
09:08:37 The residential areas are predominantly that you see
09:08:40 scattered off the corridors predominantly single-family
09:08:44 detached.
09:08:44 On to the future land use map, you can see the subject
09:08:49 site has two future land use designations.
09:08:52 The majority of the site in this pink color is, is
09:08:59 approximately 2.32 acres of that community mixed use 35.
09:09:03 Future land use category.
09:09:05 And then up in the northwest portion of the subject site,
09:09:10 it's about a .57 acres of that residential 10 future land
09:09:16 use category.
09:09:17 Again, the tan collar is that residential 10.
09:09:21 You've got some residential 20.
09:09:23 This is actually urban mixed use 60, where the Tampa
09:09:27 medical tower is.
09:09:28 And then the public quasi-public where St. Joseph's
09:09:31 Hospital is.
09:09:33 The subject site is located within a mixed use corridor
09:09:40 village and is adjacent to those two transit emphasis
09:09:44 corridors.
09:09:45 In keeping with the emerging urban development patterned
09:09:49 envisioned under the mixed use 35 future land use
09:09:52 category, applicant has located the buildings within
09:09:54 proximity to east Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
09:09:58 Also a pedestrian entrance has been provided along east
09:10:01 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
09:10:04 That furthers a number of mixed use corridor village
09:10:08 policies regarding these creating a more urban type
09:10:13 development pattern on these streets.
09:10:15 Though the proposed use is consistent with the overall
09:10:19 intent of the community mixed use 35 future land use
09:10:21 category, there are two opportunities identified by
09:10:24 Planning Commission staff that would provide further
09:10:27 consistency with the comprehensive plan.
09:10:29 The comprehensive plan specifically policy 18.7.8 seeks
09:10:34 to minimize potential negative impact related to traffic
09:10:37 and noise on adjacent residential uses.
09:10:40 The proposed vehicular access point onto to Melton avenue
09:10:44 as shown on the submitted site plan is directly across
09:10:47 from existing single-family residential uses.
09:10:50 Planning Commission staff would recommend that the
09:10:52 proposed vehicular access point on to Melton Avenue
09:10:56 either be removed or moved further south so as to be
09:10:59 across from areas designated that community mixed use 35.
09:11:04 So that would be the exit now to the garage is about
09:11:09 right here.
09:11:09 And it should, it would be the recommendation of Planning
09:11:14 Commission staff that it be further south or limited in
09:11:18 some way so it matches up with a similar development
09:11:23 pattern expected directly across the street.
09:11:26 To the west on Melton.
09:11:29 Regarding the building placement, and the placement of
09:11:37 shade trees, Planning Commission staff would recommend
09:11:39 that any proposed setback reductions along Dr. Martin
09:11:43 Luther King, Jr. Boulevard should not reduce potential
09:11:47 for shade tree placement along the corridor due to not
09:11:52 planning area.
09:11:54 The building is close to the street.
09:11:55 That's encouraged.
09:11:56 Also there's policy direction in the plan about that our
09:11:59 corridors are to be for pedestrian amenities, shaded and
09:12:03 things like that.
09:12:04 There's an opportunity here because there is actually no
09:12:06 power lines on that segment of Dr. Martin Luther King.
09:12:09 So you could actually have some shade trees there.
09:12:12 We just don't want to have the building too close where
09:12:15 you couldn't have that opportunity.
09:12:16 Overall the proposed plan development with consideration
09:12:20 given to those recommendations would provide for
09:12:23 development that is comparable and compatible with the
09:12:26 existing development pattern found along this portion of
09:12:29 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and North Armenia
09:12:31 Avenue and the development pattern that is expected and
09:12:35 encouraged under that community mixed use 35 future land
09:12:38 use category.
09:12:39 Based on that Planning Commission staff found the
09:12:42 rezoning request consistent with the provisions of the
09:12:44 Tampa comprehensive plan.
09:12:46 Thank you.
09:12:52 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Here is an aerial photograph of the
09:13:01 subject property.
09:13:02 This is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
09:13:04 This is north Armenia Avenue.
09:13:07 It's bounded really as a complete city block.
09:13:10 On the north, northern boundary and along the west is
09:13:16 Munson avenue.
09:13:17 It's currently a bank that's within this area and then
09:13:21 the remaining northern say third is vacant.
09:13:24 Here's the zoning map.
09:13:28 The site currently has split.
09:13:36 Majority is commercial general.
09:13:38 This north-west quadrant is in the RS-50 land use
09:13:41 category.
09:13:42 There is single-family houses in RS-50 to the north and
09:13:46 to the west.
09:13:47 This is a planned development, some of you remember from
09:13:51 two years ago, this is the congregate living facility
09:13:54 that expand their development to expand their facility.
09:13:57 And then there's miscellaneous commercial uses across
09:14:00 Armenia and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
09:14:03 We'll take a photographic tour of the area.
09:14:08 There is the subject property.
09:14:11 The parking lot looking from Melton.
09:14:13 We're going up Melton, down all what and around.
09:14:17 This is the subject property.
09:14:19 Existing bank, the drive-thru.
09:14:21 Here is one of the large trees that is going to be
09:14:23 protected.
09:14:24 Through the site plan.
09:14:26 There's a number of large trees that are in close
09:14:29 proximity to the property lines that we worked with the
09:14:31 applicant to protect.
09:14:33 And to provide the adequate protective radii.
09:14:36 Here's the back of the property from Alva.
09:14:42 This is across the street and located gas station.
09:14:46 Another retail use across from Dr. Martin Luther King,
09:14:50 Jr. Boulevard.
09:14:52 Here is the congregate living facility across Melton.
09:14:57 These two houses will be demolished.
09:15:00 With expansion of that congregate living facility.
09:15:03 I believe this is the house that's across the street from
09:15:06 where the access from the parking lot, which I'll show
09:15:09 you the site plan in a moment.
09:15:10 These are the other single-family houses that will abut
09:15:15 this development across the street.
09:15:16 And then at the corner of Armenia and Alva right here is
09:15:22 a small medical supply store.
09:15:25 Here's the site plan.
09:15:32 I know the applicant will go over this in more detail.
09:15:36 But basically what we're looking at is a five story
09:15:41 building that will have a mix of medical office, clinic,
09:15:46 some retail on the first floor, possibly office and still
09:15:50 retaining a bank and you drive-in use.
09:15:55 Approximately 109,000 square feet.
09:15:57 This whole area is a parking four level parking garage.
09:16:04 I have revised revision sheets for you that staff worked
09:16:09 out with the applicant.
09:16:11 The development review and compliance staff has reviewed
09:16:37 the application and found it inconsistent with the
09:16:39 applicable is City of Tampa land development regulations.
09:16:44 Specifically findings from land development coordination
09:16:47 and transportation referencing street access parking
09:16:52 reduction and the special street setback.
09:16:54 As you know, commercial uses, which is really
09:17:00 non-residential uses, cannot access a local street
09:17:04 without a waiver.
09:17:05 Local street that has residential uses.
09:17:09 There are clearly residential uses on Melton and Alva.
09:17:13 So they are requesting a waiver for both access to Melton
09:17:17 as well as Alva.
09:17:20 They have access on Armenia.
09:17:23 Staff is finding this inconsistent.
09:17:25 We don't feel they need three access points into this
09:17:28 garage.
09:17:28 Secondly, a second concern is that based on the most
09:17:34 intensive use that would be allowable, in the land
09:17:38 development, a total of 763 parking spaces are required.
09:17:43 And only 545 spaces are being proposed.
09:17:47 That is a waiver of approximately 29%.
09:17:53 Concern with staff and finding inconsistency that park
09:17:56 will start spilling over into the residential
09:17:59 neighborhood.
09:17:59 If this parking lot fills up, there will be no
09:18:03 alternative but to park adjacent to some of the houses.
09:18:07 Transportation, as they try to remedy the issue with
09:18:16 access to local, on the revised revision sheet, applicant
09:18:22 is proposing to make this a right in and a left out only.
09:18:27 So therefore none of this traffic exiting from Melton
09:18:31 would be able to take a right and go through this
09:18:33 residential portion to exit.
09:18:35 There is a special street setback waiver.
09:18:48 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard is required 60-foot
09:18:52 setback from the center line.
09:18:54 The building is currently at 56 feet.
09:18:59 From center line, which requires a waiver.
09:19:02 And then also one caveat they would like an additional
09:19:06 ten feet of encroachment into that setback to allow for
09:19:09 awnings, canopies and architectural features, which is
09:19:13 kind of a standard encroachment that's built into the
09:19:16 code.
09:19:16 They need a waiver to remove for loading berth.
09:19:19 They're required one loading berth.
09:19:21 They have one loading berth but it doesn't satisfy code
09:19:25 standards so they need a waiver to reduce from one down
09:19:28 to zero.
09:19:28 They are asking waiver from chapter 13, section 1345 G 4
09:19:40 to reduce 50% tree retention for non-wooded lot to 36%.
09:19:45 However, natural resources did not find this inconsistent
09:19:49 because they worked with the applicant to try to preserve
09:19:53 the best and healthiest trees on-site.
09:19:56 You can see, there are a number of large trees that are
09:19:58 being preserved.
09:20:00 So even though they need that waiver, it was not found to
09:20:06 be inconsistent.
09:20:07 Then the last waiver is to contribute to the tree trust
09:20:10 fund for mitigation trees as well as require trees.
09:20:13 Again, limited space to plant the replacement trees for
09:20:16 the trees that are removed as well as the required trees.
09:20:19 As far as Land Development Coordination, we had an
09:20:25 overall concern with the compatibility of the mass and
09:20:28 scale of the project.
09:20:29 Considering that it is right up against single-family
09:20:34 residential.
09:20:35 The revised height is 75 feet.
09:20:40 And then this is quite a long distance.
09:20:42 This is almost entire city block right up against
09:20:45 single-family houses.
09:20:47 We had concern about the compatibility again, with the
09:20:50 mass and scale and between larger development next to a
09:20:54 single-family detached residential neighborhood.
09:20:56 Given the context within the larger stage medical
09:21:01 development area, there are larger office in the area.
09:21:07 But this immediate area, residential houses on Alva and
09:21:11 Melton, it seems like a stark contrast.
09:21:14 So that's another one of the inconsistency findings.
09:21:17 Minor changes to be made between first and second
09:21:21 reading.
09:21:22 Again based on the revised revision sheet I just handed
09:21:25 out.
09:21:26 Natural resources, transportation and Land Development
09:21:29 Coordination.
09:21:30 Other than that, I'm available for questions.
09:21:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
09:21:35 All right.
09:21:37 Petitioner?
09:21:38 >> Good evening.
09:21:49 Truett Gardner, I'll be brief.
09:21:51 I don't think we have any objections to this at all.
09:21:53 We have worked hard with staff, worked hard with the
09:21:56 neighborhood and I do want to just touch on a couple of
09:21:59 the points that Mary made.
09:22:01 I represent hired properties, local development.
09:22:05 Been here 7 over 30 years.
09:22:07 This is their proposal here.
09:22:08 It's really a new offering in the health care industry.
09:22:12 And which goes directly to this parking issue, which is
09:22:16 kind of the one last issue that's out there.
09:22:19 What it is, it will be basically, I'm probably going to,
09:22:22 the developer could say this much more eloquently than
09:22:26 me.
09:22:26 But it's going to be a one-stop shop for medical
09:22:28 treatment.
09:22:30 So person breaks their arm, they could go in, see their
09:22:33 doctor, have an x-ray on-site, go back, get it casted,
09:22:37 stop by the pharmacy on the way out and leave.
09:22:40 So the whole point of this is to capture people so
09:22:43 they're not running from one office to the clinic to
09:22:46 another office and so it's complete one stop shopping.
09:22:50 They have done five of these across the country, all to
09:22:56 great success.
09:22:57 This will be the first one in Tampa, I believe and Graham
09:22:59 Harper and Steve Racine are here, they can answer
09:23:01 questions.
09:23:03 I did want to just state with staff, when we first
09:23:06 submitted, it was 144,000 square feet.
09:23:10 We reduced that by 35,000 square feet.
09:23:13 We have retained another 19 trees, five of which are
09:23:16 grand, or large species.
09:23:19 Three of which are grand.
09:23:20 So done that.
09:23:22 And then lastly, to address the issue with the
09:23:25 integration with the neighbors, we have increased the
09:23:28 setback on the south from ten to 56 feet.
09:23:31 And then just three issues that were brought up that I
09:23:37 believe we have addressed with staff.
09:23:41 One is the access to local street.
09:23:43 This is Melton here on the west side.
09:23:46 It currently has four points of ingress and egress.
09:23:51 We are reducing that to one.
09:23:53 In addition we have just committed today to restricting
09:23:56 the movements to right in and a left out.
09:24:01 There is this access point on Alva.
09:24:06 The reason for all this is to distribute traffic better.
09:24:09 The left out would get people out of the complex and onto
09:24:16 Martin Luther King to be able to go west.
09:24:18 The Alva exit will be to get them to this light here to
09:24:22 be able to go north and then this exit here will be able
09:24:25 to allow people to get to Armenia and head south.
09:24:28 So that's the reason for the three different access
09:24:30 points.
09:24:31 Again, all Melton, there are currently four points.
09:24:35 We're reducing to one.
09:24:37 But would ask for the one on Alva to -- I'm being laughed
09:24:43 at already.
09:24:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm laughing at myself really, because
09:24:47 banking has changed.
09:24:49 The bank there has done a great service to the community
09:24:51 and been an asset to everyone involved.
09:24:54 However, there's really no need to have any ingress and
09:24:58 egress now because banking the way it's changed, you
09:25:02 don't have need for five drive-in windows or one drive-in
09:25:06 window.
09:25:08 It's done electrically.
09:25:09 What you have there is really apples and oranges.
09:25:12 Because one ingress and egress will have more traffic
09:25:17 than 15 would have on Melton presently.
09:25:20 So I understand what you're saying, but I like the way
09:25:22 you threw that knuckleball at me.
09:25:25 >> You hit it.
09:25:26 >> I didn't hit it.
09:25:27 I tipped it.
09:25:28 But I understand what you're saying.
09:25:30 The report came in, Mr. Chairman, if I may, is there any
09:25:34 possible way that address Melton ingress and egress could
09:25:39 be moved further south?
09:25:40 >> That was actually our original proposal.
09:25:44 But transportation wanted it further to the north in
09:25:47 order to allow for queuing.
09:25:51 And then the other thing that moved it was before we
09:25:59 had -- this is the area in a the rear where we increased
09:26:04 the setback from ten feet to 56 feet.
09:26:06 And the way that we did that was previously there was a
09:26:12 drive -- the garage was detached from the structure and
09:26:17 there was a drive-thru here.
09:26:19 And we eliminated that, moved everything forward.
09:26:22 So it would've been here, but in order to address that
09:26:25 concern, we needed the access to be moved further to the
09:26:29 north.
09:26:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
09:26:33 >> That being said, the current AS across the street, I
09:26:40 believe, I'm somewhat estimating here.
09:26:44 Currently runs to this point.
09:26:45 There are two additional houses that Mary mentioned that
09:26:48 are going to be demolished for it to increase.
09:26:51 So really that area is going to push further to the north
09:26:53 with an ALF facility.
09:26:57 Then lastly just to wind up, on the parking issue, it's a
09:27:02 little bit, we're asking for 29% reduction.
09:27:07 What transportation has done, rightfully so, they have
09:27:10 made the assumption that this whole thing is a medical
09:27:13 clinic.
09:27:15 We're actually going to keep a banking use potentially,
09:27:19 add some retail on the ground floor is the intent.
09:27:22 And then really the medical facility operates as your
09:27:25 traditional medical office as well as a clinic.
09:27:27 The city's definition and distinction aren't the
09:27:31 greatest.
09:27:32 So they decided to make it all medical clinic.
09:27:34 Unfortunately in the code it has a very punitive parking
09:27:37 result, which is 7 spaces per thousand for medical
09:27:40 clinic.
09:27:41 So you multiply that over 109,000 square feet, you end up
09:27:46 with a big number.
09:27:47 To make you feel a little bit better about it, the ITE
09:27:50 report, which is the manual that all traffic engineers
09:27:52 use, they use 4.94 for a medical clinic.
09:27:55 So at 7 per thousand, is where they're getting the
09:28:01 requirement of 763.
09:28:03 Using the ITE guidelines at 4.94, results in 538.
09:28:08 We're actually providing 545, so excess to what the ITE
09:28:13 standards would be.
09:28:14 And that's again just assume the worst-case scenario that
09:28:18 we're 100% medical clinic.
09:28:22 The developer in their other locations, if you would like
09:28:27 to ask and speak to what they have experienced there, is
09:28:29 definitely not their intent to under-park this.
09:28:32 If they under-park, they're going to lose tenants.
09:28:36 So they want to provide adequate parking.
09:28:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mr. Gardner, you actually hit on both
09:28:44 of the questions that I had.
09:28:47 So I know medical is six per one thousand parking spaces.
09:28:53 And the clinic as you stated just now is 7 per one
09:28:57 thousand.
09:28:57 Are you dropping the clinic use and only having medical,
09:29:05 and that may be a question for Ms. Samaniego.
09:29:09 >> I can actually speak to that.
09:29:10 Mary can add more.
09:29:12 She spoke to Gloria, Abbye and I were working on the
09:29:15 possibility of reducing the clinic aspect of it to reduce
09:29:18 that waiver.
09:29:20 And then Mary ended up talking to Gloria and she said
09:29:23 when you add these integrated type uses and I believe she
09:29:27 use --
09:29:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You probably should say who Gloria is.
09:29:32 >> Gloria Moreda.
09:29:33 She said it's better in this situation to just classify
09:29:39 the whole thing as a clinic.
09:29:41 That's why we're still left with the 7 per thousand.
09:29:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So is miss Samaniego, is this a matter
09:29:49 of semantics or is there going to be some permitting
09:29:53 issues when they come in and how the space is classified?
09:30:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because when they go to building
09:30:03 permitting, aren't they going to look at the uses?
09:30:06 >> Yes.
09:30:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: How are they going to determine, if we
09:30:08 grant medical bank drive-in and clinic, how are they
09:30:13 going -- what the right number of spaces is.
09:30:16 And other is, why does our code differ so tremendously
09:30:21 from the ITE recommendation for parking?
09:30:26 Do you know?
09:30:27 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: I can't answer that.
09:30:28 I can't answer the difference between that.
09:30:32 Yes, we had a conversation about what, how did you find
09:30:39 the use?
09:30:40 The applicant's representative was going to define just
09:30:45 the office space and then the technical, medical
09:30:48 technical aspects being like the radiologist, the x-ray
09:30:52 area, the place to get your colonoscopy, that would be
09:30:57 just the clinic.
09:30:59 After I viewed that with zoning administrator, she made a
09:31:02 determination that if all the doctors share the same
09:31:05 technical equipment and same technical personnel, that
09:31:12 that is a clinic.
09:31:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That that is a clinic?
09:31:16 So they're required.
09:31:20 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: 20 doctors, they all use the same techs
09:31:22 on the first floor, that's a clinic.
09:31:24 She made that determination that that is a clinic use.
09:31:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What's the difference of medical use?
09:31:30 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Medical office is not where you get,
09:31:32 you don't share treatment.
09:31:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's just where you go for a check up?
09:31:40 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Right.
09:31:40 Medical office.
09:31:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: All right.
09:31:43 I think that clarifies it for me.
09:31:45 The other question I had, and this is for either of you.
09:31:50 When you were talking about the egress and ingress on
09:31:55 Melton, yes, you're going from four down to one, with the
09:32:03 ingress and egress on Alva and ingress and egress on
09:32:07 Armenia, it's just -- I guess my question would be, why
09:32:14 is not the circulation plan interior to the property
09:32:19 instead of the circulation plan being exterior to the
09:32:22 property?
09:32:23 Because typically when we see a parking lot, you'll see
09:32:26 the drive aisles serve as circulation.
09:32:30 So, it seems to be your intent, and correct me if I'm
09:32:36 wrong, to use the actual streets as your circulation
09:32:38 plan.
09:32:39 >> Correct.
09:32:39 And the reason is what I've stated previously, which was
09:32:43 really to do a better job of distributing this traffic.
09:32:47 So you don't end up with bottlenecks in the neighborhood.
09:32:51 So again...
09:32:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But if the circulation plan was
09:32:55 internal to the property, there wouldn't be bottlenecks
09:32:58 in the neighborhood.
09:32:59 >> They still need to get out to be able to go these
09:33:02 different directions.
09:33:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I guess what I'm asking, why three and
09:33:06 not just two?
09:33:07 It seems, seems like you're using three different --
09:33:13 well, Armenia is not a local street.
09:33:16 Seems like you're using two different local streets and
09:33:19 having to disrupt maybe neighborhoods on two different
09:33:22 sides instead of just one.
09:33:24 >> I think one distinction here we have two major
09:33:27 arteries that this property phases.
09:33:30 You have Armenia as well as MLK.
09:33:33 Where typically you have an interior site, you're only on
09:33:36 one.
09:33:36 So there was a need to be able to access both of those
09:33:39 adequately.
09:33:40 I wanted to go back to your permitting question, which is
09:33:46 a good one.
09:33:47 The reason why it's safe to make the assumption of health
09:33:52 care clinic even though it spits out a very punitive
09:33:56 number.
09:33:56 That is the worse case scenario.
09:33:58 So for all the other uses, retail we'd like to have, the
09:34:02 bank wield like to have, the fact, overwhelming majority
09:34:05 is going to function as a medical office, is they're
09:34:08 going to use the worst-case scenario so when we go to
09:34:11 permit there won't be an issue.
09:34:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, it just seems to me that two,
09:34:18 using the Armenia -- going back to the circulation plan,
09:34:23 Armenia and Melton would be sufficient.
09:34:26 I'm not sure why Alva would have to be utilized.
09:34:30 That's an opinion, not a question.
09:34:36 >> Biggest reason why, just to answer you honestly, it's
09:34:40 the best way to access the traffic signal, which is
09:34:44 really underutilized on Alva.
09:34:48 And Armenia.
09:34:49 So that will get, that traffic that wants to go north to
09:34:53 move north.
09:34:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Fair enough.
09:34:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
09:34:57 Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 11?
09:35:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Is the bank going to be part of this
09:35:10 organization, that structure there?
09:35:12 >> That is the plan.
09:35:13 Yes.
09:35:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: These doctors, are they inland or
09:35:17 related to any hospital in Tampa?
09:35:21 >> Unrelated.
09:35:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.
09:35:23 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
09:35:24 Anyone wish to speak on item number 11?
09:35:28 Seeing none.
09:35:30 >> Move to close.
09:35:31 >> Second.
09:35:32 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Miranda, seconded by
09:35:34 Mr. Cohen.
09:35:35 All in favor of the motion say aye.
09:35:36 Opposed?
09:35:37 Mr. Miranda.
09:35:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, move an
09:35:40 ordinance presently for first reading file REZ 15-82, an
09:35:43 ordinance rezoning property in general vicinity of 4400,
09:35:47 4438, 4446, 4450 and 4452 North Armenia Avenue City of
09:35:52 Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section
09:35:55 one from zoning district classifications CG commercial
09:35:59 general and RS-50, residential single-family, to PD,
09:36:02 planned development office, medical, bank, drive-in,
09:36:06 clinic, laboratory, office, business and professional,
09:36:09 strip commercial center with CG uses, providing an
09:36:12 effective date.
09:36:13 >> Second.
09:36:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Along with the revision sheet.
09:36:18 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Miranda, second by
09:36:20 Mr. Suarez.
09:36:21 All in favor of the motion say aye.
09:36:23 Opposed?
09:36:23 All right.
09:36:24 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.
09:36:26 Second reading and adoption on April 7th at 9:30 a.m.
09:36:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item number 12.
09:36:36 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 12 REZ 16-12 is the
09:36:40 property located at 4104 West Obispo Street, presenting a
09:36:46 request from RS-60 to PD.
09:36:47 This is the subject of the request to continue.
09:36:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me restate for the record that
09:36:52 Councilman Cohen abstained from participating in this
09:36:58 process on item number 12.
09:37:00 >> Good evening, David Hey with your Planning Commission
09:37:04 staff.
09:37:05 I have been sworn.
09:37:06 We move down to the South Tampa planning district for
09:37:10 this next case.
09:37:11 It is located on the south side of West Obispo Street
09:37:19 between south Lois and south Clark street.
09:37:22 It is within the Virginia Park neighborhood.
09:37:26 It is a .23-acre subject site.
09:37:30 The subject site is located within the boundaries of
09:37:36 HART's south Tampa flex service.
09:37:38 And the closest fixed transit stop is approximately half
09:37:42 mile to the east along south Dale Mabry Highway.
09:37:45 The subject site is located within an evacuation, level C
09:37:50 evacuation zone.
09:37:51 And the closest public recreational facility, Friendship
09:37:55 Park, is located approximately 1,300 feet to the north at
09:38:00 the southeast corner of west Bay to Bay Boulevard and
09:38:03 south Lois Avenue.
09:38:05 On to the aerial, you can see that it's within a
09:38:10 single-family detached neighborhood.
09:38:12 Varied lot sizes, but it's predominantly all
09:38:17 single-family detached.
09:38:19 There are some commercial uses up near the intersection
09:38:21 of Bay to Bay and Manhattan.
09:38:24 Besides that, it's mostly single-family detached.
09:38:29 The requested planning development seeks to allow for
09:38:35 construction of two single-family detached residential
09:38:38 units as part of the comp plan preserving and maintaining
09:38:42 the stability of existing single-family neighborhoods
09:38:46 while increasing housing opportunities for Tampa's
09:38:48 growing population are vital components of the city's
09:38:53 comprehensive plan.
09:38:53 In the city's staff report, and we have stated this
09:38:58 before, so it's going to sound like a broken record.
09:39:01 They've quoted in their staff report policy 18.4.10,
09:39:16 which basically says that it's intent of the city that
09:39:21 new residential redevelopment projects shall be minimally
09:39:24 disruptive to adjacent area to achieve this, is city
09:39:28 shall assess the negative and positive impacts on the
09:39:31 physical development pattern and character of the
09:39:34 surrounding area.
09:39:35 When we look at that as planning commission staff, we
09:39:38 refer then to the objective of the policy.
09:39:42 The objective of the policy is objective 18.4 that says
09:39:46 compatible development and redevelopment to sustain
09:39:49 stable neighborhoods and ensure social and economic
09:39:52 health of the city.
09:39:53 Then what we do at staff is look up the definition of
09:39:56 compatibility.
09:39:57 I know we have had this discussion before.
09:39:59 Compatibility is defined as the characteristic of
09:40:02 different uses or activities or design which allow them
09:40:05 to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.
09:40:09 It goes, then goes into some elements of that, which I'm
09:40:13 not going to list them all.
09:40:14 Height, scale, bulk of structure, pedestrian vehicular
09:40:18 circulation noise and architecture.
09:40:20 And others.
09:40:21 Then it says specifically.
09:40:22 Compatibility does not mean the same as rather refers to
09:40:26 the sensitivity of development proposals and maintaining
09:40:29 characteristic of existing development.
09:40:31 When Planning Commission staff went out there, we
09:40:35 observed single detached neighborhood with mixture of
09:40:38 live lot sizes.
09:40:39 The applicant is not requesting a different form of
09:40:42 residential.
09:40:43 It's the same as or very similar to the single-family
09:40:49 detached residential that's found within the area.
09:40:52 On to one other issue during Planning Commission staff
09:41:01 was made aware of by the natural resources staff, this
09:41:05 may have been dealt with already.
09:41:06 But at the time that this report was written, there was
09:41:11 some concern about an off site tree, so we do have
09:41:14 policy, direction in the plan that talks about the
09:41:16 importance of our tree canopy in the city and that every
09:41:20 effort should be made to preserve and protect the canopy.
09:41:25 So encouraging the applicant to continue to work with
09:41:27 natural resource staff to ensure that tree is not
09:41:31 negatively impacted.
09:41:32 Found the approval of the applicant's request will
09:41:37 increase supply of single-family detached housing in the
09:41:40 south Tampa manning district while also meeting the
09:41:43 intent and provisions of the city's comprehensive plan.
09:41:46 So based on that Planning Commission staff recommends
09:41:49 that the rezoning be found consistent with the Tampa
09:41:55 comprehensive plan.
09:42:06 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Here's an aerial photograph of the
09:42:18 subject property.
09:42:19 One lot to the west of the intersection of West Obispo
09:42:25 Street and south Clark avenue.
09:42:28 Zoned single-family detached residential neighborhood.
09:42:31 Here is the zoning map of the area.
09:42:38 Subject property is in green.
09:42:41 It is all zoned RS-60.
09:42:42 You can see there have been some rezonings to RS-50 or to
09:42:46 planned development kind of scattered around this part of
09:42:51 Maryland manor subdivision.
09:42:52 Here is the red-blue map that the Land Development
09:42:58 Coordination staff uses to analyze requested changes to
09:43:03 reduce the lot sizes.
09:43:05 This application is requesting to create two lots, each
09:43:12 one 51 feet wide by 100, or 5100 square feet.
09:43:16 We analyzed the conformity with the existing zoning
09:43:20 district, which is RS-60, which are 60-foot wide lots
09:43:24 which are called conforming.
09:43:26 Those are in the red.
09:43:27 The nonconforming is any lot that's less than 60 feet in
09:43:30 width.
09:43:30 This is the subject property.
09:43:32 Typically we look at the nine surrounding blocks.
09:43:37 For this instance, there were 159 lots reviewed.
09:43:41 66 were found to be conforming and 34% were found to be
09:43:45 non-conforming.
09:43:46 In the subject block, similarly 17 lots, 53 of the lots
09:43:51 were found to be conforming with RS-60 zoning district
09:43:54 and 47 were found to be nonconforming.
09:44:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What were those numbers again?
09:44:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 53, 47.
09:44:10 [Inaudible]
09:44:15 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: 66% conforming and 34% nonconforming.
09:44:19 Here is the site plan, planned development asking for the
09:44:31 creation of two detached single-family residential lots.
09:44:35 Typically they just create a building envelops that still
09:44:39 comply with the RS-60 standards.
09:44:41 Typically RS-50 would have 20-foot setback.
09:44:46 They've proposed to have the setbacks comply with RS-60
09:44:50 standards.
09:44:50 There's only couple slight changes to the setbacks
09:44:54 because of protective radii for the trees.
09:44:57 Mr. Hey brought up an issue with on off site tree that
09:45:01 was not particular protected or was not indicated on the
09:45:04 plan.
09:45:04 There are revisions requested between first and second
09:45:07 reading from natural resources to address those concerns,
09:45:11 to show that off site trees and for consideration at the
09:45:17 time of permitting for that house on this subject
09:45:21 property to be reviewed so there's not canopy conflict
09:45:26 with offsite trees.
09:45:29 Staff found it inconsistent.
09:45:31 Staff will remind City Council that there are two
09:45:34 distinct zoning districts, RS-60 and RS-50.
09:45:37 RS-60 is 60 feet wide and 6,000 square feet.
09:45:42 RS-50 is 50 feet wide and 5,000 square feet.
09:45:46 Prior to the current zoning ordinance in the late '80s,
09:45:49 there were two distinct zoning districts then as well.
09:45:52 50 feet wide, 5,000 square feet was R-1.
09:45:57 RS-60 was originally R-1-A, which was 60 feet wide 7 and
09:46:02 6,000 square feet.
09:46:04 So for the past several decades, back into the '60s,
09:46:07 there's always been two distinct zoning districts that
09:46:10 have 50-foot wide lots and 60-foot wide lots.
09:46:14 That's kind of the basis on the analysis, we kind of hone
09:46:17 in tighter than the Planning Commission review.
09:46:20 Do you have any questions for me?
09:46:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ms. Samaniego, so, what you're saying is
09:46:27 that the reason why we went the blue-red map, part of the
09:46:32 reason why we might have some conforming, some
09:46:35 non-conforming because there were two classifications at
09:46:37 some point, RS-50 and RS-60, within that neighborhood or
09:46:41 just at that, that's the definition?
09:46:43 Because obviously the PD makes it seem like it's asking
09:46:47 for two RS-50 type lots, if I'm correct.
09:46:53 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: What I was trying to drive home is that
09:46:56 the Planning Commission always looks at these red-blue
09:46:58 maps, as long as it's conforming or kind of compatible or
09:47:03 not the same as.
09:47:04 Not saying it has to be the same as but as far as
09:47:07 consistency, there's two distinct zoning districts.
09:47:10 The Land Development Coordination staff feels they have
09:47:13 distinct characters.
09:47:14 Difference between S 50 and RS-60 they're not enter
09:47:21 changeable.
09:47:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: When we look at the red-blue map, all
09:47:24 you're showing is there are some that conform to what the
09:47:27 zoning classification is and there are some that don't.
09:47:31 Most of them, from what we have seen, at least what I've
09:47:34 seen my five years here, is that typically is a
09:47:37 historical accident.
09:47:38 The reason why they're either conforming or nonconforming
09:47:41 just based on historical platting, plats change.
09:47:45 All of a sudden now there's a majority that's different
09:47:47 plat.
09:47:48 And it's becoming new plats that is different than what
09:47:51 the original character was supposed to be.
09:47:54 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: I think, my professional opinion is
09:47:56 that it's the result of the, don't at one time say the
09:48:00 whim.
09:48:01 Nature of the initial builders of all these houses.
09:48:04 First people that came in and bought these lots, some
09:48:07 neighborhoods, lot of people bought double lots, some
09:48:09 people bought lots and a half.
09:48:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ: They were doing it just to figure out how
09:48:14 much money they can make based on 50-foot lot.
09:48:18 >> Most of these subdivisions are from the '20s.
09:48:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, Mary.
09:48:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: Petitioner?
09:48:24 >> Good evening, Clayton Bricklemyer representing the
09:48:32 applicant.
09:48:34 I think we have covered what the request is.
09:48:36 So I'll spend my time going over the inconsistent versus
09:48:40 consistent issue I think.
09:48:41 Actually before I say that the request site plan changes
09:48:46 we're fine with.
09:48:47 We're obviously happier with the Planning Commission
09:48:49 report than the staff report.
09:48:53 I just as a general matter, red-blue map has been up,
09:48:57 you'll see my sweet graphic did I with my pen in a
09:49:00 second.
09:49:01 I think that the general pattern over all here is a
09:49:05 mixture of lots.
09:49:06 I think that's what you saw and what you'll see.
09:49:09 Some of this stuff has maps.
09:49:12 Since it's personals, I'm putting my points.
09:49:14 This is an old school PowerPoint.
09:49:20 To make these points.
09:49:21 I think it's consistent.
09:49:26 I think it looks consistent on the map if you look the
09:49:29 way the development pattern is proceeding in this area.
09:49:31 I think the percentages are coin flip.
09:49:33 The Planning Commission in its report has done really
09:49:37 good job of saying why.
09:49:39 They've looked at the character and they've come to the
09:49:42 same conclusion that I have.
09:49:44 The city staff has noted in its report that the actual
09:49:51 block face, which is your experience on that street, we
09:49:54 are actually consistent at 51 feet wide on that block
09:49:58 face.
09:50:00 What did I put down?
09:50:01 It's more than half.
09:50:03 On the block face. 7 of those 17 are actually 50-foot
09:50:06 lots, exactly 50 by 100 lots.
09:50:09 Which is exactly the way the thing was platted.
09:50:12 However long ago.
09:50:13 To our west, the west of this property is a 50 by 100
09:50:18 lot.
09:50:18 To the east of this property is a 55 by 100 lot.
09:50:22 So you'll see, you can see an I'll show you again in a
09:50:25 sec on the red-blue map, you can see we are sitting in a
09:50:29 run of nonconforming slightly smaller lots.
09:50:32 To sort of -- it goes against what the Planning
09:50:38 Commission is saying as far as not having to be the same
09:50:41 as.
09:50:41 But if we're talking about, if you want to look at it
09:50:44 that way, lots that are 100 feet or more make up nine
09:50:50 percent of the study area.
09:50:53 It's arbitrarily drawn study area.
09:50:56 But I have 102-foot lot.
09:50:58 Basic options are 102 lot or two 50-foot lots.
09:51:03 There's no splitting it any other way.
09:51:06 There are nine percent of this area is 100-foot lots.
09:51:09 That's not very much.
09:51:11 Whether it's 35% are non-conforming sub 60-foot lots.
09:51:16 Just to sort, I think there's a concern with these sorts
09:51:21 of things, Pandora's box being opened.
09:51:25 There are, I counted 13 of 14 lots that are 100-foot wide
09:51:30 or more in this study area.
09:51:32 Three of those had new construction on them, so there's
09:51:36 nothing happening there.
09:51:37 Two more of them would result if you split them in half,
09:51:40 into lots, one of them actually into a third, there's a
09:51:43 very wide lot.
09:51:44 Lots resulting lots would be 57 and 58 feet.
09:51:47 Which I think is pretty close to 60.
09:51:50 There is maybe you'll see all of those.
09:51:55 My guess is maybe in the next 10 or 15 years.
09:51:58 There's not that many of these that you are subjecting
09:52:01 this to.
09:52:02 It's not a dangerous precedent that you allow.
09:52:06 This area in the comp plan, which is your policy
09:52:11 document, has a density of ten use to the acre.
09:52:17 This is a REZ 10.
09:52:19 If you took our lots, 51 by 100, 5100 square foot lots
09:52:23 and you laid them out over an acre, as the planning
09:52:26 commission notes in its report, that comes out to 8.6
09:52:28 units an acre, which is theoretically inefficient use of
09:52:33 land in accordance with your policy.
09:52:35 And that's with what we're requesting.
09:52:37 So this gets you closer to your stated goal in your
09:52:42 comprehensive plan of the density and it does so without
09:52:47 interfering, I think, with the pattern of the
09:52:50 neighborhood.
09:52:51 And the reason is the pattern of the neighborhood is this
09:52:53 patchwork of lot sizes.
09:52:58 This is going to blow you away how good this is.
09:53:00 You're welcome.
09:53:02 [ Laughter ]
09:53:02 >> This is the red-blue map with my mark-ups.
09:53:06 I struck out where the new construction was on the
09:53:10 oversize lots.
09:53:12 I note that these are 57 and a half.
09:53:14 When they get split, that's three 58s.
09:53:21 When it gets split, somebody's got a big lot there.
09:53:22 What you see is, except for this block and I think this
09:53:25 is literally the only one, I think on the whole page,
09:53:28 that doesn't have something sub 60 feet. That there are
09:53:31 lots throughout this neighborhood, you got a whole run
09:53:34 over here.
09:53:35 There's obviously a large run there.
09:53:37 There are scattered in lots.
09:53:38 You can see there are some very large, there's a large
09:53:41 lot.
09:53:42 There's a lot of medium size lots.
09:53:44 There is no set pattern, certainly not that this would be
09:53:52 a departure from, and I think that's pretty clear looking
09:53:55 at that map.
09:53:55 Setting aside the fact that you sort of arbitrarily draw
09:54:00 this nine block area, you could kind of gerrymander this
09:54:06 and probably fix the percentages a little bit.
09:54:08 But pretty much every block has half to a third 50-foot
09:54:15 lots.
09:54:15 Which is pretty much where we are at.
09:54:17 I have some letters of support and no objection from some
09:54:25 neighbors.
09:54:26 I think it may have not escaped your notice earlier there
09:54:30 may be some people talking after me.
09:54:32 There are some people here in support, that were able to
09:54:37 write down their support.
09:54:39 I'll turn them in.
09:54:40 My secretary made many, many copies.
09:54:43 I have 7 or 8 of those.
09:54:45 I wanted to circle back, Mary pointed this out.
09:54:49 Real quick.
09:54:49 We did a PD on this.
09:54:51 If you look, the zoning map, there were some folks that
09:54:55 have gone through here and done RS-50.
09:54:58 We didn't do RS-50 on purpose and the reason was we
09:55:02 wanted to keep the setbacks where they are.
09:55:04 Comparable to everyone else in that RS-60.
09:55:10 That was just something that I advised my client to do
09:55:14 and they said yes to.
09:55:15 I think when you drive down this street with those two
09:55:19 houses there, you're going to say here are a bunch of
09:55:22 houses.
09:55:23 There's no experience of oh, my goodness, what has
09:55:25 happened here?
09:55:28 You got two 51-foot lots, you go 55, 51, 51, 50, and then
09:55:32 60 and then maybe a 65 and another 50 and that's the
09:55:35 experience on the street.
09:55:36 That's it.
09:55:39 I'm here for questions.
09:55:41 And would ask for your approval.
09:55:43 Thanks.
09:55:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
09:55:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Did you meet with neighbors?
09:55:50 If you have support letters and there are some in
09:55:53 opposition, so what was the interaction your office had
09:55:56 with the neighborhood?
09:55:58 >> My office had no interaction.
09:56:00 We sent, we have actually a sales guy, Smith and
09:56:05 associates agent that works with Devonshire homes.
09:56:08 And he went out and talked to various people.
09:56:13 I had one relationship that I reached out to and spoke to
09:56:16 him.
09:56:17 No objection from him.
09:56:20 Scott made rounds and talked to some people.
09:56:24 I was informed -- we actually circled back with the one
09:56:29 person that we have communicated with, who is our
09:56:32 neighbor.
09:56:32 And we were under the impression that we were sending him
09:56:35 to collect a support letter.
09:56:38 And we're told no, no, that they were no longer
09:56:42 supporting us because of whatever.
09:56:44 I actually waiting to hear.
09:56:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So there wasn't a meeting --
09:56:48 >> No organized meeting, no.
09:56:49 That's not a neighborhood association.
09:56:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, it's Virginia Park residential
09:56:54 neighborhood association.
09:56:54 They would've gotten notice.
09:56:57 >> We went through the regular notice thing.
09:56:59 Then we actually did reach out.
09:57:01 We have had personal conversations.
09:57:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Did you hear from anyone from the
09:57:05 Virginia Park neighborhood association?
09:57:07 >> No.
09:57:07 So that was my first knowledge of any opposition
09:57:11 whatsoever.
09:57:11 That's why I asked for a continuance for a chance to
09:57:14 maybe have a conversation because I have no idea what I'm
09:57:16 about to hear.
09:57:17 My first knowledge of this was trying to pick up a letter
09:57:22 from our neighbor we thought I was going to add to this
09:57:24 stack and being told no, we now oppose this.
09:57:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That answers the question.
09:57:30 Thank you.
09:57:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
09:57:32 Anyone from the public wish to speak on item number 12?
09:57:35 Please come forward.
09:57:37 >>FRANK REDDICK: Please state your name and address for
09:57:56 the record.
09:57:57 >> My name is Mary -- I am that neighbor that changed
09:58:02 support after learning a little bit more.
09:58:04 I do want to add, I have live in that neighborhood for 30
09:58:08 plus years and I do not know anything about a Virginia
09:58:11 Park home association.
09:58:14 Some of the reasons I'm against it that I've decided is
09:58:21 that we have had two new people buy property across the
09:58:28 street with lots that are bigger than 50.
09:58:30 And homes that were built in 1940.
09:58:33 And they're preserving them.
09:58:34 They're fixing them up.
09:58:36 They didn't come in and tear them down.
09:58:38 I feel like the builder bought the lot knowing the zoning
09:58:41 rules.
09:58:42 And that those rules should be followed and it was
09:58:45 rezoned for a reason.
09:58:46 I feel like it would be only a benefit to the builder and
09:58:52 not to the neighborhood because of the hardship due to
09:58:55 the increased traffic, overcrowding in schools, strain on
09:59:01 the roads, the canopy conflicts, but he said he would
09:59:05 fix.
09:59:06 Also feel like it would decrease our property values if
09:59:09 we continue to allow rezoning in this neighborhood,
09:59:14 considering that the zoning north of Bay to Bay Boulevard
09:59:18 is a hundred foot and to the west of Manhattan is
09:59:21 75-foot.
09:59:22 And I think that puts us at a financial disadvantage as
09:59:25 homeowners, for resale property because we're having
09:59:29 smaller lots and different types of homes put in.
09:59:32 Than our neighboring areas.
09:59:36 The staff also found it inconsistent with the area, which
09:59:43 I support, that yes, there are lots that are 50 by a
09:59:49 hundred and as you said, pretty much a lot of those were
09:59:52 zoned back in the 1920s and 30s.
09:59:55 And I just feel like put a lot more stress on the
09:59:59 neighborhood, a lot more density and that I am not at all
10:00:02 for this at this point.
10:00:04 Thank you.
10:00:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next speaker?
10:00:14 >> My name is Eugene Soustek.
10:00:19 I live at 4117 West Obispo Street.
10:00:24 And have lived there for 49 years.
10:00:27 My lot is a 75-foot lot.
10:00:33 My house was built 75 years ago.
10:00:38 We got an RS-60 and now they want to knock it back down
10:00:46 to a 50.
10:00:47 The house that they tore down was about 60 or 65 years
10:00:56 old on a hundred foot lot.
10:00:58 When she died, the daughter sold it.
10:01:02 The builder bought it with, we thought the intentions
10:01:07 would be for one house.
10:01:09 Now they want to build two houses.
10:01:12 When is it going to stop?
10:01:15 Why do they got to keep crowding everybody in one little
10:01:21 area?
10:01:27 They tell you all their damn problems, they went and got
10:01:34 letters of approval.
10:01:39 I got petitions here that we went around and got 63
10:01:45 people that are opposed to making those two 50-foot lots.
10:01:52 Now where did they get their approval?
10:01:57 All of these names are all in that area that they showed
10:02:01 on the map a little while ago.
10:02:03 Do you need these?
10:02:08 These are all people who don't want made 50-foot lots.
10:02:16 Like they're saying, the 50-foot lots and the hundred
10:02:30 foot lots, 51-foot lots, they were 25-foot sections.
10:02:37 And when they started building Merlin manor in the '20s
10:02:41 and the '30s, they sold 25-foot at a time.
10:02:47 So some builders put them on 50-foot lots.
10:02:51 Some builders put them on 75, like the house next door to
10:02:56 me is on a hundred foot lot.
10:02:58 The house across the street from me is on a 75-foot lot.
10:03:02 Why do we got to keep pushing them on 50-foot lots?
10:03:09 Like he's saying, a lot of the properties are 50-foot,
10:03:18 but like I said, they were zoned in when there were legal
10:03:25 50-foot lots.
10:03:26 Thank you.
10:03:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
10:03:29 Next speaker?
10:03:30 >> Hi.
10:03:33 Cathy Soustek.
10:03:35 I live at 3614 East Sterling Circle.
10:03:39 That was my father.
10:03:41 He lives on this block and we did get the people right
10:03:47 next door to the house to sign, saying they don't want
10:03:52 two homes.
10:03:52 The other side of the property, we got signed.
10:03:55 Across the street we got signed.
10:03:57 We only had one person that wouldn't sign.
10:03:59 The people that this property is going to back up to,
10:04:05 that these homes are in her backyard, she signed.
10:04:07 Some people had to leave because this ran really late.
10:04:11 They would've spoken up.
10:04:12 So I'd like to know who is saying that they want these
10:04:15 two 50-foot lots because we have got people that are
10:04:19 right there on that block saying no way we don't want two
10:04:22 homes.
10:04:23 Under land use and single-family neighborhoods, chapter
10:04:29 261.2, preserve the character of single-family home
10:04:34 resident areas and discourage the demolition of
10:04:38 single-family residences.
10:04:40 Under 26.1.5, maintain the current density and the
10:04:46 character of the existing single-family area and chapter
10:04:50 4 of the city of Tampa comprehensive plan, policy,
10:04:57 23.2.4, a plan should reflect the neighborhood history,
10:05:02 character, current conditions, needs, values, visions and
10:05:06 goals and under opportunities, honor residents' sense of
10:05:12 identity, the city will help residents preserve their
10:05:16 specialness and will not use a one size fits all
10:05:20 approach.
10:05:21 In my neighborhood, they tore down two homes and built
10:05:26 three right across the street from me.
10:05:28 I'm still in this neighborhood, but I'm not directly in
10:05:31 this block.
10:05:32 So I did not get one of these letters.
10:05:35 But I've lived in that house 14 years.
10:05:37 I've Nevada had flooding on that street.
10:05:39 I've been through many hurricanes.
10:05:42 And that one day that it rained for 24 hours because they
10:05:45 have built so many new homes in my, on my block, where
10:05:50 they've torn down two homes and built three, torn down
10:05:53 one home and built two, my street completely flooded.
10:05:58 It has never done that before.
10:05:59 So I believe that the problem is going to be that the
10:06:05 water retention and street flooding in the area is going
10:06:07 to increase because of the impervious surfaces.
10:06:11 We also have narrow streets.
10:06:13 We have people not parking in their driveways when they
10:06:16 build these big homes.
10:06:18 And the streets are just loaded with cars.
10:06:22 And the fact that this neighborhood a few years ago
10:06:26 fought for RS-60.
10:06:28 The Virginia Park neighborhood before the Mayor was just
10:06:34 a person, he wasn't the makes he was at that Virginia
10:06:37 Park fighting for this 60-foot.
10:06:41 So why did we fight for it and we have to now come and
10:06:44 fight again just to keep the RS-60 in this neighborhood?
10:06:48 Thank you.
10:06:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Before you leave, what were the first
10:06:51 two numbers?
10:06:51 I got the 23.2.4, but it was 26 point?
10:06:57 >> 26.1.2.
10:07:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And the other one?
10:07:02 >> 26.1.5 and 23.2.4.
10:07:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
10:07:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next speaker?
10:07:13 >> Jim Turley, 4110 West Obispo Street.
10:07:18 Quite honestly, I'm on one of the 60-foot lots.
10:07:21 I can understand RS-60, RS-50.
10:07:24 When they get into this planned development, I'm a little
10:07:26 bit in the dark.
10:07:28 I don't completely understand what planned development
10:07:30 means.
10:07:30 I understand it's going to be two single-family detached
10:07:33 homes.
10:07:34 That's great.
10:07:35 50 and 60 makes sense planned development doesn't make
10:07:38 sense to me.
10:07:39 I've heard a lot about consistency, inconsistency.
10:07:43 Tonight I look at my report that I received dated
10:07:46 March 3rd on page one, says development review and
10:07:49 compliance staff has reviewed the application and finds
10:07:52 the request inconsistent with City of Tampa land
10:07:55 development code.
10:07:56 Then if you flip back a couple pages, page 7, top of this
10:08:04 Land Development Coordination lot width patently
10:08:07 inconsistent.
10:08:08 Then I go back a few more pages to the Planning
10:08:12 Commission, comprehensive plan finding consistent.
10:08:16 All this report tells me is that things her consistently
10:08:20 inconsistent.
10:08:21 [ Laughter ]
10:08:22 >> I understand this is money.
10:08:25 The developers are coming in, taking larger lots.
10:08:28 They're knocking two houses down, they're knocking down
10:08:31 one big house, or one small house on a large piece of
10:08:35 property, breaking them up and building two little
10:08:38 McMansions.
10:08:39 Just the way it is.
10:08:40 I don't like it.
10:08:41 I don't like the density down there.
10:08:43 As Miss Soustek said, I agree with her, it's going to
10:08:49 increase flooding issues.
10:08:50 Parking issues.
10:08:51 As a developer, I understand it.
10:08:54 I know where the guy's head's at.
10:08:56 Trying to make a buck.
10:08:57 As a property owner in that area, I totally disagree with
10:09:00 it.
10:09:01 PD to me just means it's a poor decision.
10:09:04 >> Good evening again.
10:09:11 Emily Gaffney, 4116 West Obispo.
10:09:15 I am four streets from the subject lot.
10:09:19 And my husband and I just bought this lot about two years
10:09:22 ago.
10:09:23 And the reason why we bought in this neighborhood was
10:09:26 because there is green space in the houses that are
10:09:29 there.
10:09:29 What's going to be happening and we see it, because we
10:09:33 walk the neighborhoods and we see the builders coming in.
10:09:36 They're going to be building these giant mansions.
10:09:39 The lots are going to be smaller.
10:09:41 The houses are going to be closer and it's going to take
10:09:43 away the value of the neighborhood.
10:09:45 Plain and simple.
10:09:47 The houses that were built in the plots until 1925 were
10:09:50 not the same size as the houses that they're building
10:09:52 today.
10:09:53 So that's an inconsistency.
10:09:55 I know that they're trying to save trees but the yard
10:09:59 space is risking.
10:10:00 I do think that as a homeowner that it is, along with
10:10:08 everybody else on the street, it is not the experience of
10:10:10 the street that Mr. Bricklemyer mentioned.
10:10:14 Because there are 63 signatures.
10:10:18 And Gene and his daughter Cathy who spoke, they got the
10:10:22 signatures.
10:10:23 We watched them.
10:10:24 So I'm feeling that there's an inconsistency with the
10:10:28 number of people who support this and perhaps it's the
10:10:30 larger homes that are being built.
10:10:31 Those are the ones who signed.
10:10:33 Thank you.
10:10:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: Petitioner, rebuttal time.
10:10:48 >> The 63 thing, here's what I'll say about that.
10:10:52 I've never seen that list before.
10:10:54 I can tell you which 7 or 8 I turned in.
10:10:57 I do know that if we have the neighbors signing from
10:11:01 either side, then we have somebody who is living on a 50
10:11:04 by 100 lot and somebody living on a 55 by 100 lot who
10:11:08 have signed to oppose a 51 by 100 lot, which seems like
10:11:12 inconsistent position to me.
10:11:14 I understand and I do this for a living and it's hard
10:11:18 when neighborhoods change a little bit.
10:11:20 And I know you guys hear it even more than I do.
10:11:24 This area is designated as REZ 10 in your comp plan,
10:11:30 which is your policy document.
10:11:32 You are well below that.
10:11:34 You are below that at 51-foot lots.
10:11:36 You are below the density that you have prescribed for
10:11:39 this area.
10:11:39 I would urge you that what we have here is two 51-foot
10:11:47 lots are going to be more compatible than one 102-foot
10:11:49 lot and it will move you closer to your intention set out
10:11:53 in your comp plan and on top of that, the builder is
10:11:57 going to do a nice job and these people are going to like
10:12:00 what they see at the end of the day.
10:12:01 But that's all I have.
10:12:03 I'm here for questions if you need.
10:12:05 We'd appreciate your approval.
10:12:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Questions from Council?
10:12:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, we're short two Councilmembers,
10:12:20 so I'm making up for the questions that they may have
10:12:23 asked.
10:12:23 I'm doubling up.
10:12:25 First question is for Mr. Shelby, about, I want to
10:12:30 clarify about petition signatures.
10:12:31 So when we're hearing evidence, it's competent and
10:12:36 substantial evidence that weighs in on us making a
10:12:39 decision.
10:12:40 Where does petitions fall on the scale of competent and
10:12:43 substantial evidence?
10:12:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The courts don't even put it on the
10:12:50 scale.
10:12:50 In other words, petitions do not constitute competent
10:12:56 substantial evidence.
10:12:56 Whether everybody is all a hundred percent in fave or a
10:12:59 hundred percent opposed is irrelevant to your decision.
10:13:02 You cannot base a decision on how many people support or
10:13:06 oppose it.
10:13:07 That's not the criteria upon which you have to base a
10:13:10 decision.
10:13:10 If you do base a decision based on petitions, a court
10:13:13 would reject that.
10:13:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So I mean I would venture to say
10:13:16 looking at the letters that we received even in support,
10:13:20 they don't, they don't give any reason.
10:13:24 They just say I am in favor, I am in favor.
10:13:28 I am not opposed to the application.
10:13:34 But I don't see any specifics of why they are in favor.
10:13:39 Well, here's one.
10:13:42 Approval will increase tax base, which is a good thing.
10:13:45 But that's not part of our discussion, it's not in our
10:13:49 land use code.
10:13:50 Okay.
10:13:51 So, on either side really, neither one would be on the
10:13:56 scale.
10:13:57 Okay.
10:13:59 The other question I guess Ms. Samaniego, couple of
10:14:08 things in the public testimony struck me.
10:14:10 One was Mr. Turley who said he was okay with 50 and
10:14:15 60-foot loss but doesn't understand the PD.
10:14:18 Could you explain what the PD shows and how the 50-foot
10:14:25 lot scenario plays into this?
10:14:27 Maybe at the same time also about the 7-foot setback.
10:14:33 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Okay.
10:14:34 So there are two types of rezoning applications.
10:14:40 There are Euclid rezoning applications, which is where
10:14:44 you rezone into a standard zoning district, say RS-50.
10:14:47 When you rezone into the Euclidean zoning district,
10:14:51 you're committing to complying with all of those
10:14:54 standards.
10:14:54 The RS-50 zoning district has a 20-foot front yard
10:14:59 setback.
10:15:00 Whereas the RS-60 zoning district has a 25-foot front
10:15:05 yard setback.
10:15:06 The other type of rezoning application is a site plan
10:15:10 control zoning district.
10:15:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What is the side setbacks for?
10:15:15 >> 7.
10:15:16 >> On both?
10:15:17 >> Yes.
10:15:17 And so, a planned development is a site plan controlled
10:15:22 zoning district.
10:15:23 We have had a number of them tonight, where you can
10:15:25 determine your own uses, your own height and your own
10:15:29 setbacks.
10:15:29 The applicant has stated on the record that they elected
10:15:33 to do a planned development in lieu of doing an RS-50
10:15:37 zoning district application because they wanted to retain
10:15:42 the 60-foot, the RS-60 25-foot setback.
10:15:48 Again, because through the PD process you can establish
10:15:51 your own setbacks.
10:15:52 So if they were to rezoning to RS-50, the builder could
10:15:57 legally have a 20-foot setback.
10:16:00 >> I'm looking at the site plan, which is going to
10:16:02 dictate how these houses are built.
10:16:04 And it appears that the front yard setback on both lots
10:16:08 is 25 feet.
10:16:10 So that's meeting the RS-60 zoning requirement of 25 feet
10:16:16 front yard setback.
10:16:18 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Correct.
10:16:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE: They're also, both lots have 7-foot
10:16:21 setbacks on the sides, on all the sides.
10:16:25 So both houses.
10:16:27 That also meets the 60-foot lot requirement.
10:16:32 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Correct.
10:16:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The only difference is that the lots
10:16:35 are 50 feet wide.
10:16:38 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Correct.
10:16:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So they're meeting all the
10:16:40 requirements of the 60-foot zoning lots, with the
10:16:44 exception of the lot is 50 feet instead of 60.
10:16:49 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Exactly.
10:16:49 The planned development does not have any waiver request
10:16:54 either.
10:16:54 So the only differentiation between the RS-60, which is
10:16:58 the existing zoning district and what they're proposing
10:17:02 is individual lot widths of two lots.
10:17:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I did see that -- I think Mr. Suarez
10:17:08 brought this up earlier -- that Maryland manor was
10:17:12 originally platted in 1925, with lots that measured in
10:17:16 varied widths from 50-foot to 61 and a half feet with a
10:17:20 depth of 100.
10:17:22 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Correct.
10:17:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
10:17:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
10:17:24 Any other questions from Council?
10:17:26 Mr. Suarez?
10:17:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ms. Samaniego, if I could ask you one last
10:17:33 thing.
10:17:33 A lot of times when you write these staff reports, very
10:17:38 seldom do you put something that has a modifier like you
10:17:42 have in this one, which is patently inconsistent.
10:17:46 Typically you're pretty straightforward.
10:17:49 It's just inconsistent or it's consistent.
10:17:52 What made you put patently inconsistent?
10:17:55 The reason, it's unusual.
10:17:57 Haven't seen it very often.
10:17:58 I mean, I assume you wrote it, so I'm going to ask you.
10:18:04 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: That patently inconsistent is from the
10:18:07 code.
10:18:07 I was informed by my supervisor that that would be the
10:18:11 appropriate recommendation for these types of reviews.
10:18:15 So that's why I began using the term patently
10:18:17 inconsistent because it's a defined term in the code.
10:18:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You might've had a more strong modifier,
10:18:23 but that's the one the supervisor suggested you use?
10:18:27 >> We had a conversation about what patently inconsistent
10:18:32 means.
10:18:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I haven't seen that happen very often.
10:18:37 The problem I have is that when we do the blue-red map,
10:18:41 it does make a difference to me because when we start
10:18:44 looking at things that are 60% or over one way versus
10:18:50 another, if it were, when it comes to these development
10:18:53 patterns, that's important to me because when, if
10:18:56 something naturally, and this has happened in some of our
10:19:01 other zonings, where it's gone back to the original plat,
10:19:04 that's one thing.
10:19:05 But when the consistent pattern is the way it is now and
10:19:07 to say let's do something more to change it back to the
10:19:10 other pattern, I always have a problem with that because
10:19:14 people should have an expectation as to where they're
10:19:17 living in terms of what the classification is.
10:19:20 But I appreciate you explaining what patently means.
10:19:27 Thanks.
10:19:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Petitioner, any final comments in
10:19:32 response to anything?
10:19:35 >> No, sir.
10:19:37 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion to close public hearing.
10:19:39 >> So moved.
10:19:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Miranda.
10:19:42 Second by Ms. Montelione.
10:19:43 All in favor of the motion say aye.
10:19:45 All right.
10:19:46 Who would like to take number 12?
10:19:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'll take it, sir.
10:19:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance being presented
10:19:56 for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning
10:19:59 property in the general vicinity of 4104 West Obispo
10:20:02 Street in the City of Tampa, Florida and more
10:20:06 particularly described in section one, from zoning
10:20:08 district classification RS-60, residential single-family
10:20:10 to PD planned development residential single-family
10:20:13 detached, providing an effective date.
10:20:15 >>FRANK REDDICK: Do we have a second?
10:20:18 Going once?
10:20:19 Do we have a second?
10:20:20 Going twice.
10:20:21 Do we have a second?
10:20:23 No second.
10:20:24 So the motion fails.
10:20:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Chair, if I could.
10:20:33 I'd like to move to deny the application basing it on
10:20:38 policy 18.4.10, as stated in page 3 of the staff report,
10:20:46 that the proposed lot split, although is consistent with
10:20:51 pattern of the 4100 block of Obispo, the staff still
10:20:55 finds proposed reestablishment of the original platted
10:20:59 lots patently inconsistent with the existing development
10:21:01 patterns of the area.
10:21:03 I refer also to the blue-red map concerning the
10:21:07 conforming nonconforming lots as listed, 66% of
10:21:11 nonconforming lots and 54 -- excuse me, 34% of
10:21:16 nonconforming lots within the study area.
10:21:22 And that in addition -- let me just find the other
10:21:27 purpose.
10:21:28 Under section 27-136, purpose, it would not promote the
10:21:35 efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure
10:21:37 consideration of potential adverse effects.
10:21:41 To on-site natural elements surrounding impacted
10:21:47 neighborhoods, which is the emphasis here.
10:21:49 And cultural resources.
10:21:51 That is section 27-136 sub 1.
10:21:56 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mr. Suarez, seconded
10:21:59 by Mr. Maniscalco.
10:22:01 All those in favor of the motion.
10:22:03 Opposed?
10:22:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Opposed.
10:22:06 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.
10:22:09 Cohen abstaining and Montelione voting no.
10:22:13 >>FRANK REDDICK: We will go to item number 13.
10:22:17 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 13 on your agenda is REZ
10:22:19 16-14.
10:22:21 It's a rezoning application from RM-16 to planned
10:22:25 development for a business professional office.
10:22:29 The site is located at 3411, 3413 and 3415 north
10:22:34 29th street.
10:22:40 >>DAVID HAY: David Hey with your planning commission
10:22:42 staff.
10:22:42 I have been sworn.
10:22:43 We are in the central Tampa planning district for this
10:22:46 next case.
10:22:47 The subject site located at the northeast corner of north
10:22:51 29th street and east 27th avenue.
10:22:54 It is located within the East Tampa urban village.
10:23:00 It's .35 acres in size.
10:23:03 It is located within the East Tampa Community
10:23:07 Redevelopment Area.
10:23:08 And it is not within an evacuation zone.
10:23:14 That's always a plus.
10:23:16 And the subject site is located within proximity to
10:23:20 HART's route 18, which connects the subject site to a
10:23:25 number of the region's activities centers, including the
10:23:28 University of south Florida and downtown Tampa via the
10:23:32 university area transit center.
10:23:34 On to the aerial.
10:23:36 I have the zoomed-out one.
10:23:37 Mary has the closer version.
10:23:47 You could see this is 29th street.
10:23:53 It's kind of unique because 29th street, there's actually
10:23:56 a commercial area just to the north of this site.
10:24:00 Kind of to the east and the west it's more residential in
10:24:05 character.
10:24:06 We have got 27th street right here on the south.
10:24:08 But you can see that even though it's residential, there
10:24:11 is this kind of historic commercial area there on 29th.
10:24:18 You can also see it better represented, here's the
10:24:23 subject site again on the future land use map.
10:24:25 The subject site is that residential -- 20.
10:24:40 This brown color.
10:24:41 This pink area is community mixed use 35 future land use
10:24:44 category.
10:24:45 Actually there are some commercial uses up here.
10:24:49 Then as you get further east of North 30th Street, it's
10:24:53 where the residential 10 begins.
10:24:57 In looking at the consideration of non-residential uses
10:25:04 and residential categories, Planning Commission staff
10:25:06 first looks at whether the site meets commercial
10:25:08 locational criteria.
10:25:11 That commercial locational criteria is only one
10:25:15 consideration that is given to commercial uses.
10:25:19 When reviewing it, staff found that it technically does
10:25:24 not meet the commercial locational criteria.
10:25:27 But since it doesn't meet that technical commercial
10:25:32 locational criteria, when staff looked at it, we looked,
10:25:41 the south is the PD, there's a Laundromat there.
10:25:44 Been there a long time.
10:25:48 Right to the south.
10:25:49 And then you have this commercial air to the north.
10:25:51 The applicant is seeking a general office use and under
10:25:58 that, due to its proximity to that commercial area, staff
10:26:02 thought it would be appropriate, especially with that PD
10:26:05 for the Laundromat directly to the south.
10:26:08 In conclusion, Planning Commission staff finds that the
10:26:12 proposed redevelopment of the site will represent a
10:26:14 sensitive transition between the commercial development
10:26:16 to the north and south of the site and the existing
10:26:20 residential to the east and west and will therefore be
10:26:24 compatible and complement the existing neighborhood
10:26:27 character found within the area and based on those
10:26:30 considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the
10:26:33 proposed rezoning plan development consistent with the
10:26:36 provisions of the Tampa comprehensive plan.
10:26:37 Thank you.
10:26:41 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Here is a zoomed in aerial of the site.
10:26:49 This is in the College Hill civic association area.
10:26:52 We have got 29th street, 27th, Chipco, 26, et cetera.
10:26:58 The site is currently occupied by a structure that was
10:27:02 approved several years ago as assisted living facility
10:27:10 for children.
10:27:11 It is currently a vacant building.
10:27:13 Part of the development for the ALF for the children was
10:27:16 a mobile home.
10:27:18 That's a note on the site plan that the mobile home is to
10:27:21 be removed upon site visit to the application site.
10:27:25 Mobile home has already been removed.
10:27:29 Here is the zoning map of the surrounding area.
10:27:31 The subject property is in the RM-16 zoning district.
10:27:35 That is that planned development for Laundromat that
10:27:38 David referred to that was approved in 1983.
10:27:41 These two uses together if this is approved would
10:27:44 constitute like a small commercial node to serve the
10:27:47 neighborhood.
10:27:48 There's a smaller commercial nodes over to west.
10:27:51 Then a larger commercial general area to the north.
10:27:54 Here is the application site.
10:28:02 The applicant is proposing to retain the existing
10:28:05 building as is with some required and proposed site
10:28:09 improvements.
10:28:10 This is across the street on 29th.
10:28:14 There's a vacant lot.
10:28:15 Directly across the street is a single-family house.
10:28:19 I'm going to go down, this is a dead end road.
10:28:23 I'm going to go down 27th.
10:28:25 It dead ends at the railroad track.
10:28:28 Single-family house directly next door.
10:28:31 Another single-family house.
10:28:33 Then this is the Laundromat across the street.
10:28:38 The applicant has my site plan, so I can't show you the
10:28:49 site plan.
10:28:51 But he'll review it -- I'll do it.
10:28:53 Here is the application site.
10:28:57 Again, really it's just a change of use in effect.
10:29:00 Here is the existing building.
10:29:04 Parking lot there will be repaved and some additional
10:29:07 spots, parking spaces will be provided.
10:29:10 There is a 6-foot high masonry wall already existing that
10:29:14 will be finished.
10:29:15 And the existing gate that's on the driveway will be
10:29:18 removed to be in accordance with the code.
10:29:20 Sidewalks being installed.
10:29:23 That's pretty much it.
10:29:24 Really the site will just be bought in compliance but the
10:29:28 overall building will stay the same.
10:29:31 I think they're doing some facade changes as indicated on
10:29:34 the elevation.
10:29:35 Some improvements.
10:29:36 The development review and compliance staff reviewed this
10:29:43 application.
10:29:43 There are some minor changes to be made between first and
10:29:46 second reading from Land Development Coordination, just
10:29:48 cleaning up some of the notes.
10:29:50 Solid waste adding the required solid waste notes for
10:29:55 refuse character urban design, just has the note the
10:29:59 design they'll review the specific design of the building
10:30:03 at permitting because this is in the East Tampa overlay
10:30:07 district.
10:30:08 And natural resources just had a couple notes to clean up
10:30:11 as well.
10:30:11 Based on the findings, staff found this request
10:30:16 consistent provided those changes are made between first
10:30:18 and second reading.
10:30:19 You have any questions?
10:30:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
10:30:23 All right.
10:30:24 Petitioner?
10:30:36 >> Good night, I guess.
10:30:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You leaving?
10:30:39 >> I'm Carlos Castilla.
10:30:41 1936 West Martin Luther King, Suite 205.
10:30:45 I'm representing the owner.
10:30:46 After all she saying, the only thing I have to say, this
10:30:53 elevation may come to me, they changed, they want
10:30:55 something more traditional.
10:31:16 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: For the record, the elevations you show
10:31:20 are just for mass and scale.
10:31:22 Not the specific architecture.
10:31:24 So you're not held to that.
10:31:25 >> Thank you.
10:31:26 So we are going to fix the building.
10:31:33 No addition, no nothing.
10:31:34 Fix the parking, fix the lot.
10:31:36 And use it like an office building.
10:31:38 That's all we want.
10:31:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: Is it currently a Laundromat?
10:31:44 >> No.
10:31:45 Across the street.
10:31:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Day care or something.
10:31:51 >> Used to be a day care.
10:31:55 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: The petition site used to be an
10:31:58 assistive living facility for children.
10:32:01 Across the street to the south where I showed the picture
10:32:03 with my lady friend, that is the Laundromat.
10:32:07 That's got an apartment above it.
10:32:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions for the petitioner?
10:32:13 All right.
10:32:15 Something else you want to say?
10:32:19 >> No.
10:32:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone in the audience want to speak on
10:32:21 item number 13?
10:32:23 >> Move to close.
10:32:26 >> All in favor of the motion say aye.
10:32:27 Mr. Maniscalco.
10:32:32 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Thank you very much, I have an
10:32:33 ordinance being presented for first reading
10:32:34 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the
10:32:37 general vicinity of 3411, 3413, 3415 north 29th street in
10:32:42 the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described
10:32:44 in section one, from zoning district classification RM-16
10:32:47 residential multi-family to PD planned development office
10:32:51 business and professional, providing an effective date.
10:32:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Maniscalco, seconded by
10:32:56 Mr. Miranda.
10:32:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Along with the revision sheet.
10:33:01 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Including the revision sheet.
10:33:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any discussion?
10:33:05 All those in favor say aye.
10:33:07 Opposed?
10:33:08 Okay.
10:33:09 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent and Suarez
10:33:13 being absent at vote.
10:33:14 Second reading and adoption April 7th, 9:30 a.m.
10:33:18 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item 14.
10:33:21 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item number 14 on your agenda is REZ
10:33:29 16-05.
10:33:30 It's rezoning request from RM multi-family residential 24
10:33:34 to planned development for multi-family residential at
10:33:37 405 South Melville Avenue.
10:33:42 >>DAVID HAY: Good evening.
10:33:45 David Hey with your Planning Commission staff.
10:33:47 I have been sworn.
10:33:48 We're still in that central Tampa planning district.
10:33:51 We're in the cur Courier City Oscawana neighborhood at
10:33:56 the west side of South Melville Avenue between west
10:33:59 Azeele street and west Horatio avenue.
10:34:02 It is a .19-acre subject site.
10:34:07 There is public transit within the area.
10:34:12 HART's route 19.
10:34:14 It is located within a level D evacuation zone.
10:34:18 And the closest city recreational facility is Hyde Park,
10:34:23 approximately two blocks to the south.
10:34:26 On to the aerial, we have got the subject site again,
10:34:31 Mary has a more zoomed in version.
10:34:35 You can see that this area, there's a mix of
10:34:39 single-family detached and town homes within this core
10:34:43 area here.
10:34:44 Then you have the Post Hyde Park apartments over here to
10:34:47 the east.
10:34:48 Here's the Selmon expressway.
10:34:49 Swann is to the south and then Howard over here.
10:34:54 We know all the wonderful places on Howard.
10:34:57 Restaurants and stuff.
10:35:00 On to the future land use map, you can pull out that
10:35:04 pocket of residential that the subject site is in.
10:35:09 It's all that residential 35.
10:35:11 Actually, the Post Hyde Park, there's REZ 50 to the east.
10:35:18 Then we have community mixed use a 35 and community
10:35:22 commercial 35 in the red.
10:35:23 So it is in a very intensive area.
10:35:26 The city's comprehensive plan encourages a greater
10:35:30 variety of allowable development patterns, which
10:35:32 encourage good community design and reflect the character
10:35:35 of the surroundings.
10:35:36 The proposed rezoning does relate to the character of the
10:35:39 neighborhood while providing alternative housing choices
10:35:42 and the plan also furthers the use of limited land
10:35:44 resources in a more efficient way by supporting
10:35:47 development at higher densities.
10:35:49 The proposed development is employing underutilized land,
10:35:53 helping to continue a changing development pattern that
10:35:56 is encouraged for the Courier City Oscawana neighborhood
10:36:00 and the central Tampa planning district.
10:36:03 Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff
10:36:05 finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the Tampa
10:36:07 comprehensive plan.
10:36:11 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Thank you, David.
10:36:12 Here is the aerial of the application site.
10:36:23 It is one block -- one lot to the south of the
10:36:27 intersection of south Melville Avenue and west Azeele
10:36:30 Street.
10:36:31 As David indicated, this area has really transitioned
10:36:37 over time.
10:36:38 You can see more clearly on the zoning map.
10:36:41 So the current property zoned RS-24 to the north is a
10:36:48 planned development, catty-corner is a planned
10:36:51 development.
10:36:51 Directly behind it is RM-16.
10:36:54 And all of these properties along Freemont are rezonings.
10:36:58 A bunch of other rezonings on Horatio.
10:37:03 These are all to increase the density.
10:37:06 You can see the development pattern that's really changed
10:37:08 over because of the R-35 land use category.
10:37:13 Here is the aerial, I'm sorry, photographic tour of the
10:37:16 area.
10:37:17 Subject property, currently vacant.
10:37:19 This is directly to the south.
10:37:25 Semi detached single-family housing.
10:37:28 Here are several other units, probably about four, looks
10:37:31 like there are four electrical meters.
10:37:33 Continue south as existing single-family house.
10:37:37 Across the street now coming back towards the application
10:37:40 site, detached structure.
10:37:43 Multi-family structure.
10:37:47 This one is a semi detached structure with two doors.
10:37:51 Directly across, again semi detached.
10:37:55 Here is one single-family house.
10:37:58 Then on the other side, detached on one side and
10:38:02 multi-family on the other side.
10:38:04 This is catty-corner to the site.
10:38:06 Another project under construction.
10:38:08 As I indicated, this is a planned development.
10:38:15 Here is the site plan.
10:38:18 I know the applicant's representative will go over this
10:38:21 in more detail.
10:38:21 It's for four units.
10:38:26 Two behind two, within small interior courtyard.
10:38:29 This courtyard, so the code requires that for
10:38:33 multi-family residential, that all doors on the ground
10:38:37 floor face the rights-of-way.
10:38:39 However, there is a provision in the code that the zoning
10:38:43 administrators can entertain design alternatives where
10:38:46 the grand front doors can face interior courtyards.
10:38:56 Applicant elected to create this small courtyard access.
10:38:59 And all four front doors accessing off it for the four
10:39:03 separate units.
10:39:04 So that is the only waiver that's been requested.
10:39:06 To that specific standard, which is 27-28210.
10:39:11 To allow for alternative designs which permits ground
10:39:14 floor entrances to face interior courtyard.
10:39:17 Other than that, there were no other waivers being
10:39:19 requested.
10:39:19 The proposed setback for this planned development are
10:39:24 front, which is east, 15 feet, rear, west, 18 feet.
10:39:29 Side, north and south are 7 feet and the proposed height
10:39:33 is 35 feet.
10:39:34 Total of 9 parking space are required.
10:39:38 And a total of 16 spaces are being provided, including
10:39:41 those spaces within the garages.
10:39:43 And there are some required changes between first and
10:39:47 second reading.
10:39:48 Land Development Coordination just to clean up some of
10:39:51 the notes, natural resources to address some of the
10:39:55 protection for the on-site trees and that's it.
10:39:58 So the development compliance staff found it consistent
10:40:04 providing those changes are made between first and second
10:40:07 readings.
10:40:09 Any questions for me?
10:40:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
10:40:11 Petitioner?
10:40:12 >> Good evening.
10:40:16 Matthew Campo, 1725 East 70th.
10:40:19 Just briefly, kind of like the last two of the night, so
10:40:23 keep it short.
10:40:24 As Mary mentioned, originally when we came in to staff,
10:40:33 we were potentially going to do a variance for this
10:40:34 application.
10:40:34 It really came down to setbacks.
10:40:37 Just end the discussion, we thought it would be better
10:40:41 product, obviously more conducive process to go through
10:40:46 PD zoning.
10:40:48 Particular site plan as Mary had mentioned, we actually
10:40:51 had four units, complies with current density.
10:40:54 The access that you see from the front with the
10:40:58 courtyard, this is something we have done in the city.
10:41:02 Similar projects, using similar type of access.
10:41:06 Each unit has side access as well as access from this
10:41:10 front as well right here.
10:41:12 Then they actually have side doors as well.
10:41:14 So with that said, it really came down to setbacks.
10:41:18 Along this particular segment of Melville, there are
10:41:21 structures that are closer to the street.
10:41:23 Not the typical 25-foot.
10:41:25 South of this, you have structures that adjust the
10:41:29 setbacks, also made it more consistent with the other
10:41:32 structures on the street as well, as far as depth off the
10:41:35 front.
10:41:35 As Mary mentioned, we have the one waiver, which is
10:41:38 associated to the access.
10:41:40 We did have arborist do assessment of the trees on the
10:41:44 site.
10:41:44 We work with Mary Danielewicz-Bryson, gave her a site
10:41:49 plan to address the items Mary had mentioned.
10:41:52 So we know once this hearing is concluded, hopefully with
10:41:55 favorable results, we can easily take care of her plan.
10:41:58 The project has been set up with dual garages as well as
10:42:05 two driveways, every unit has potentially four cars
10:42:08 available for guests or for individual parking.
10:42:13 Obviously within this area, street side parking is a
10:42:16 challenge.
10:42:16 These will be simple town homes.
10:42:20 Also had a representative with David Weekley Homes.
10:42:24 He's available just to speak briefly about their
10:42:27 objective for this project.
10:42:32 >> Good evening.
10:42:32 My name is Adam Smith.
10:42:35 Office 3404 West Bay to Bay.
10:42:38 I'm David Weekley Homes project manager for central
10:42:43 living.
10:42:44 Which is a residential home builder that is looking to
10:42:47 focus on single-family homes that would be attached or
10:42:51 detached in the urban core.
10:42:54 This project that we're proposing is three story project
10:42:58 with four units and two car garages as my engineer
10:43:02 mentioned.
10:43:04 This home site, this lot is replacing a distressed
10:43:08 four-unit building that was previously there.
10:43:10 We feel that it's consistent with the neighborhood and
10:43:13 that the majority of the surrounding parcels that have
10:43:18 been developed in similar fashion.
10:43:20 We have been successful in building in this neighborhood
10:43:26 as well, as the engineer said, at the corner of Freemont
10:43:30 and Azeele, with a 12 unit project which resembles this
10:43:35 product type that we're proposing today.
10:43:37 I'm available for any questions.
10:43:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
10:43:42 Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 14?
10:43:47 >> Move to close.
10:43:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Miranda, seconded by
10:43:49 Mr. Suarez.
10:43:51 All in favor of the motion.
10:43:52 Mr. Cohen?
10:43:55 Have you do the honor of 14.
10:43:58 >>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance being presented for
10:43:59 first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning
10:44:02 property in the general vicinity of 405 South Melville
10:44:06 Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly
10:44:09 described in section one, from zoning district
10:44:12 classification RM-24 residential multi-family to PD
10:44:17 planned development, residential, multi-family, providing
10:44:19 an effective date.
10:44:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Cohen, seconded by
10:44:24 Mr. Maniscalco.
10:44:34 >> And including the revision sheet.
10:44:37 >>FRANK REDDICK: All those in favor of the motion say
10:44:39 aye.
10:44:39 Those opposed?
10:44:40 All right.
10:44:41 Motion carries.
10:44:42 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.
10:44:44 Second reading and adoption will be on April 7th at
10:44:46 9:30 a.m.
10:44:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Last item of the night, number 15.
10:44:52 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Item 15 is REZ 16-06.
10:44:55 It's a rezoning request from RM-16 to planned development
10:45:00 for residential single-family attached for the property
10:45:03 located at 210 South Arrawana Avenue.
10:45:13 >>DAVID HAY: We continue our string of cases in the
10:45:17 central Tampa planning district.
10:45:20 This one located at the northeast corner of south
10:45:23 Arrawana avenue and West Platt Street.
10:45:26 It is located again within that central Tampa planning
10:45:29 district.
10:45:30 It's a .23-acre subject site.
10:45:32 Again, similar to last one.
10:45:35 There's transit available, route 19.
10:45:39 It is located within a level D evacuation zone.
10:45:42 And the nearest public recreational facility, Vila
10:45:45 Brothers park is located north of west John F. Kennedy
10:45:49 Boulevard about a half mile away.
10:45:53 Since the aerial that I have is sitting on my, at the
10:45:58 printer back at the planning commission, I'm going to use
10:46:02 wonders of Google.
10:46:04 Here's the subject site right here.
10:46:06 You can see that the whole area here, this is Kennedy
10:46:11 Boulevard up to the north.
10:46:13 And then you've got Azeele to the south.
10:46:17 But you can see that the entire area has a mixture of
10:46:21 single-family detached, attached, multi-family, we have
10:46:25 got Mitchell elementary right about three blocks to the
10:46:29 west.
10:46:29 And we have got the Publix Greenwise about four blocks to
10:46:34 the east.
10:46:35 On to the future land use map, the subject site and all
10:46:42 the properties around it are all at that residential 20.
10:46:47 Which is represented by the brown color.
10:46:51 And then you've got proximity, you've got the urban mixed
10:46:55 use 60 to the north and community mixed use 35 in the
10:46:59 pink to the east.
10:47:00 The Tampa comprehensive plan does contain a policy
10:47:06 encourage single-family attached housing to be designed
10:47:09 to include front doors to streets, because the two
10:47:13 internal use have a common courtyard that contains their
10:47:15 front door, therefore allows the units to access the
10:47:19 public sidewalk from the front of the unit, this design
10:47:21 meets that policy.
10:47:22 The intent of that policy.
10:47:25 Considering the property is surrounded by a variety of
10:47:27 residential uses in all directions, planned development
10:47:30 to develop four attached residential units would be
10:47:33 compatible with the existing character of the area.
10:47:36 Residential development of four units on the subject
10:47:41 parcel would complement the existing neighborhood uses
10:47:44 and fit well into the overall character of the
10:47:47 neighborhood and on the development pattern envisioned
10:47:50 under that residential 20.
10:47:52 So based on all those considerations, Planning Commission
10:47:54 staff finds proposed plan development consistent with the
10:47:58 Tampa comprehensive plan.
10:47:59 Thank you.
10:48:01 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: David indicated, here is the aerial for
10:48:14 the subject property.
10:48:15 In yellow.
10:48:17 So on the corner of south Arrawana avenue and West Platt
10:48:20 Street.
10:48:21 Here is the zoning map.
10:48:29 Of the subject property again in green.
10:48:34 You can really see the change in development in this
10:48:41 probably square mile area.
10:48:42 There are a number of planned developments and
10:48:46 multi-family rezonings that have happened over the course
10:48:49 of the last probably several decades.
10:48:51 So this area is definitely transitioning.
10:48:55 Away there single-family residential detached.
10:48:59 Here is the subject property in the foreground.
10:49:02 Currently vacant.
10:49:04 This is from Platt.
10:49:06 Here is the property from Arrawana.
10:49:08 Currently vacant with silt fence up.
10:49:12 Now I'm going to start looking at surrounding properties.
10:49:15 This is north on Arrawana.
10:49:17 Multi-family building.
10:49:18 Further north on Arrawana, single-family detached.
10:49:24 More multi-family to the north of that.
10:49:26 Now we're going to cross the street on Arrawana and go
10:49:29 back towards the application site.
10:49:31 Single-family semi detached.
10:49:34 Another single-family semi detached.
10:49:40 Single-family detached house.
10:49:42 This is around the corner on Platt.
10:49:45 This is the side of probably two units there.
10:49:51 >> One unit.
10:49:52 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Okay.
10:49:53 One unit.
10:49:56 On Platt is further to the south is the existing
10:49:59 single-family detached house.
10:50:01 Here is the site plan the applicant is proposing from
10:50:09 the, through the planned development.
10:50:11 Again, they will speak in more detail about it.
10:50:13 There are four units, three with driveway accesses on the
10:50:17 plat.
10:50:18 One with an access on to Arrawana.
10:50:21 Here are the front doors, again, one front door second,
10:50:25 third and fourth.
10:50:27 They're asking for the waiver.
10:50:28 I will note one correction in this staff report for the
10:50:32 waiver.
10:50:32 The waiver should be section 27 282 9, not 10, because
10:50:39 this is single-family attached.
10:50:42 Separate code section, to allow for the alternative
10:50:44 design which permits the ground door to face the
10:50:51 courtyard.
10:50:51 Because this is a planned development, they established
10:50:53 their own setbacks.
10:50:54 Setbacks they're proposing are front 25 feet, rear
10:50:57 17 feet, corner 7 feet and north, 7 feet as well.
10:51:03 Maximum height of 35 feet which is comparable to the
10:51:06 Euclidean zoning districts in this area.
10:51:08 Do you have any questions for me at this time?
10:51:10 Staff found it consistent, provided minor changes are
10:51:14 made between first and second reading.
10:51:16 From Land Development Coordination and natural resources,
10:51:18 again just to clean up the site plan.
10:51:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
10:51:22 All right.
10:51:23 Petitioner?
10:51:27 >> Again, Matthew Campo.
10:51:32 725 East 5th avenue.
10:51:32 On this particular application, the zoning is RM-16 as
10:51:42 mentioned.
10:51:42 This actually would allow 3.84 density ratio.
10:51:48 Applicant seeking four units.
10:51:49 That's actually, that's the reason why this application
10:51:52 essentially here from the site plan, one thing you'll
10:51:55 notice, a substantial amount of green space with this
10:51:57 particular project did not take the opportunity to
10:52:00 oversize the building and maximize the lot with respect
10:52:03 to square footage.
10:52:05 There's significant amount of opportunity for exterior
10:52:09 landscaping and green space associated with each unit.
10:52:12 I thought that was obviously relative point given the
10:52:15 fact we see so much in south Tampa where they max out
10:52:18 every square inch of lot.
10:52:20 This is not the case here.
10:52:21 Very similar to the previous David Weekley project.
10:52:25 Where this particular one has same type of access.
10:52:28 It has additional side access, so you have that situation
10:52:32 where each unit has direct access to the fronting street.
10:52:37 The site with respect to stormwater, again with the large
10:52:42 green space, we'd be complying with the city's criteria.
10:52:46 The opportunity for a stormwater treatment pond as needed
10:52:49 by code, is clearly available.
10:52:51 The project will also be feasible to town homes.
10:52:56 The setbacks I wanted to point out, short of the one
10:53:01 17-foot setback, on all three sides, essentially it's
10:53:05 more than 7-foot side.
10:53:07 7-foot is the code but we're around 12 to 13 feet
10:53:11 setbacks on the side.
10:53:12 With that said, I'll have Adam Smith if he'd like to
10:53:16 comment on this one as well.
10:53:17 >> Thank you, Matt.
10:53:19 Again, my name is Adam Smith with David Weekley.
10:53:24 3404 west Bay to Bay.
10:53:26 This project is very similar to the one we just spoke on
10:53:30 before.
10:53:31 It's a Mediterranean style building that we're proposing
10:53:34 that has four units, three stories and two car garages.
10:53:40 I know that there's been concern, I've had the
10:53:42 opportunity to speak with two neighbors that have
10:53:45 contacted me directly in regards to this project.
10:53:47 In regards to parking and traffic.
10:53:50 I think our plan addresses those with the parking spaces
10:53:55 that are above the requirements.
10:53:58 So I would hope you take that into consideration.
10:54:02 We believe that this project is consistent with what the
10:54:05 changes that are going on in the neighborhood.
10:54:07 Revitalization that's going on in the neighborhood.
10:54:09 And we ask for your approval in regards to this project.
10:54:15 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from Council?
10:54:17 Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 15 in
10:54:20 please come forward.
10:54:22 >> My name is Matthew Britton, 308 --
10:54:38 >>FRANK REDDICK: Have you been sworn in?
10:54:40 >> I have.
10:54:41 308 South Arrawana Avenue.
10:54:43 I appreciate you letting me speak so late.
10:54:45 As a father of a six day old, I can assure you this is
10:54:48 late to me.
10:54:49 I bought single-family bungalow about four years ago.
10:55:02 And I have seen some evolution with the boom.
10:55:06 And seen some bungalows get torn down to do two story
10:55:10 town homes.
10:55:11 That's kind of the standard around the neighborhood.
10:55:13 Single-family half, two story town home.
10:55:17 Weekley has done a bunch of those in the last year.
10:55:20 On this particular property it was a single-family home.
10:55:23 On all three sides, adjacent and single-family homes.
10:55:27 On the backside of the pictures you showed, is the only
10:55:31 three story four unit on Arrawana.
10:55:34 I thought that story was a little bit misconstrued of the
10:55:37 consistency of the neighborhood.
10:55:38 That's the only one on Arrawana.
10:55:39 A little bit east, one street east on Audubon and east of
10:55:42 that towards Howard is a lot more density.
10:55:45 But on Audubon is about 50-foot wide street, where
10:55:48 Arrawana is the normal typical Tampa wide street.
10:55:54 That's pretty much west all the way to New Jersey, where
10:55:57 the Bank of America is, is kind of that mix of duplexer
10:56:00 single-family.
10:56:02 I think the big differentiator of our neighborhood is
10:56:07 Mitchell elementary.
10:56:07 Especially Melville, if you know the neighborhood, you
10:56:10 know there's a lot more density east of Howard's versus
10:56:13 west.
10:56:13 I think a lot has to do with the school, as residents and
10:56:17 father of a two-year-old and six day old, I would
10:56:19 definitely appreciate keeping density down a little bit.
10:56:22 Gets pretty crowded around the school in the mornings and
10:56:26 afternoons.
10:56:26 You see a lot of kids walking to school.
10:56:28 I would be concerned with the added traffic, it's already
10:56:31 busy through there, of adding four units.
10:56:35 I know there are driveways and parks, but everybody knows
10:56:39 that lives there is kind of UT students and those will
10:56:42 park on the street, that street Arrawana up there on the
10:56:45 northern edge is pretty crowded for parking already.
10:56:48 Call it the death corner.
10:56:50 Coming around you saw the angled streets.
10:56:53 I had a lot of neighbors approach me because I know a
10:56:57 little bit more about this than others, asking what PD
10:57:01 meant.
10:57:01 That's been confusion of the night.
10:57:03 I've seen some zoning letters come to the neighborhood
10:57:05 that actually explain what is going on, maybe site plan.
10:57:09 This is PD single-family attached.
10:57:12 That's kind of deceptive.
10:57:14 I think in my opinion, nobody knows what that means.
10:57:16 So I brought five letters of opposition with me, of the
10:57:20 neighbors that couldn't make it.
10:57:22 They were going to come to the February meeting.
10:57:24 I'll turn those in.
10:57:26 Include a pediatrician, assistant state attorney and
10:57:29 naval captain who is over in the middle east right now
10:57:32 fighting ISIS.
10:57:33 I'll bring those forward and I recommend disapproving
10:57:36 this just because of the proximity to the school.
10:57:38 Issue of traffic and a lot of these flood the, we had
10:57:41 major flood the issues over the summer.
10:57:43 Which is a big difference going from --
10:57:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, sir.
10:57:47 >> Can't believe I'm still here.
10:57:59 My name is Patricia Hall.
10:58:02 I live at 2910 Harbor View Avenue.
10:58:05 And I'm one of 12 owners at Arrawana park condominiums
10:58:09 and I'm speaking for those 12 owners.
10:58:12 I'm on the board of directors.
10:58:13 We are not opposed to new smart development.
10:58:20 We appreciate livable, sense of place neighborhoods and
10:58:25 green space and a large canopy of trees.
10:58:28 We have concerns regarding stormwater, water retention,
10:58:37 heavy rainfall, as several people mentioned, August
10:58:41 rainfall was unbelievable.
10:58:42 And I don't care if it's historic, our condominium has a
10:58:49 very large retention pond, the size of a swimming pool.
10:58:52 We have a large drainage pipe under our parking lot.
10:58:57 And we still were close to flooding.
10:58:59 Weekley homes has built a two family town home adjacent
10:59:05 to our southern border.
10:59:08 Mr. Smith told me the setback was only five feet on the
10:59:11 fence when I told him the fence should be 7 feet from the
10:59:14 building, it isn't.
10:59:15 They butchered a grand oak tree on our property because
10:59:19 it was so close to their roof.
10:59:21 I've spoken to him about that.
10:59:24 I've spoken to Kathy Beck, code enforcement is going to
10:59:27 get involved.
10:59:28 There's a lack of parking, as this gentleman mentioned,
10:59:37 there's a lot of traffic.
10:59:41 The developer's lot is 10,018 square feet.
10:59:46 .23 of an acre.
10:59:47 And that's according to the Planning Commission document.
10:59:51 Tawanna in zoning told me 10,892 square feet is required
10:59:58 to build four units.
11:00:00 This lot is only zoned for three units.
11:00:02 And they are requesting PD, so they can go to four units.
11:00:07 Isn't three units enough?
11:00:09 I realize it has more green space than their other double
11:00:14 town homes.
11:00:14 But when you look at the map of, I believe it's 314 --
11:00:24 214 south Habana.
11:00:26 There were eight trees on that lot.
11:00:28 That he built their town home.
11:00:30 Now there's one tree that looks like it's dying.
11:00:33 We have no objection to three units with adequate green
11:00:38 space.
11:00:38 The trees include a 28-inch oak on the northside that
11:00:41 must remain.
11:00:43 The developer's plan removes this tree and maybe that has
11:00:46 been changed by somebody, but it's the plan I received
11:00:51 today from Randy Lazooly and construction or whatever has
11:00:57 that the 28-inch tree on the northwest corner is to be
11:01:01 removed.
11:01:01 Why weren't their trees required to be put on these
11:01:08 properties by code?
11:01:09 Just a question.
11:01:10 I looked at your tree program today.
11:01:17 And trees clean the air, they save our water, they give
11:01:21 us a -- they slow traffic, et cetera.
11:01:27 Flooding in south Tampa is outrageous.
11:01:30 I'm sure you know that and we hope you will refuse this
11:01:34 four unit building, three would be nice.
11:01:36 Thank you.
11:01:38 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
11:01:39 All right.
11:01:40 Petitioner?
11:01:41 >> Thank you.
11:01:44 I'll touch on a few of the items mentioned.
11:01:47 This is a residential RM zoned zoning.
11:01:51 And she is correct.
11:01:52 They could do three units there today.
11:01:54 Obviously for economics and other reasons, they wouldn't
11:01:57 be here today if they didn't feel that was appropriate
11:02:00 for the entire over all redevelopment of that parcel to
11:02:02 seek that fourth unit.
11:02:04 The one comment made about the tree.
11:02:07 That was one of those items we had worked out with
11:02:10 natural resources and on our plan that Bob coming between
11:02:13 first and second reading, dogs show that tree to be
11:02:16 saved.
11:02:17 So that we did work out.
11:02:18 The building height, its appearance, whether three units
11:02:23 or four units, same height, same configuration, same
11:02:28 architectural standards.
11:02:29 We do as we show on our site plan have four driveways and
11:02:34 the driveways are sized with depth and width to allow two
11:02:39 cars per driveway.
11:02:40 Essentially you're required to have one guest space per
11:02:44 four units.
11:02:45 We essentially have 7 guest spaces over the code.
11:02:48 With respect to green space this site is four times of
11:02:51 the green space that's required by the code again, if we
11:02:54 were to do a Euclidean type zoning process.
11:02:57 You heard for yourself from your staff, zoning and
11:03:01 Planning Commission that this application is consistent.
11:03:03 Immediately next door there is a multi-family parcel
11:03:07 development.
11:03:07 It is four units.
11:03:09 It's actually probably quite a bit more condensed than
11:03:12 this particular parcel.
11:03:14 But within this area multi-family is definitely a
11:03:16 pattern.
11:03:17 I think the applicants, one of the last speakers actually
11:03:20 lives in one of the condo developments just up the
11:03:23 street.
11:03:24 That is the pattern in the area.
11:03:25 So we believe this is consistent with the application and
11:03:29 if you have any questions, we'd be glad to answer those
11:03:31 for you.
11:03:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: Questions by Council?
11:03:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sir, I have a couple questions.
11:03:40 During your presentation, did you member something about,
11:03:43 I didn't sigh it this the site plan.
11:03:45 Did you mention something about a retention pond of some
11:03:47 kind?
11:03:49 >> I said we would comply with the city's code
11:03:52 requirement.
11:03:52 Being there's a substantial amount of green space.
11:03:55 We're not trying to squeeze in.
11:03:57 We have ample space for that purpose.
11:03:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Obviously it's not on the site plan, so
11:04:01 I'm not asking you about that.
11:04:03 Have you thought about putting a retention pond on that?
11:04:07 Obviously some of the neighbors have issue with some of
11:04:09 the flooding that were there, letters that we received
11:04:11 also included that.
11:04:12 Is that something that you would consider?
11:04:14 >> I believe I can speak for the applicant, I don't think
11:04:17 they would be opposed, to do something in addition to
11:04:20 code.
11:04:20 I don't think they would be opposed to that Adam could
11:04:24 speak to that if he disagrees with my statements.
11:04:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm sure he'd jump up.
11:04:29 >> I done think there would be an issue.
11:04:31 Essentially we have the space to basically go little
11:04:34 above.
11:04:34 On that one particular corner, we can maximize that with
11:04:38 surface stormwater pond that would accommodate any flow.
11:04:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Also in terms of some of the driveway
11:04:45 space, the apron and stuff, have you thought about using
11:04:48 other types of pervious surfaces instead of impervious
11:04:53 surfaces?
11:04:55 >> We didn't get to that detail.
11:04:57 But there are several projects, same projects where we
11:05:00 have used parking ribbons, used porous concrete, a
11:05:04 variety of surfaces to promote that when we start having
11:05:08 stormwater issues, we try to create pervious surfaces
11:05:12 versus other means of delaying stormwater.
11:05:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Obviously, I'm looking at what some of the
11:05:17 concerns might be in the neighborhood.
11:05:18 Would that be something you would be willing to put
11:05:21 on-site plan, those are some things you might want to
11:05:23 change?
11:05:26 >> May I speak with ply client?
11:05:27 What we could do, just because of the appearance, like
11:05:31 porous paver type approach, which obviously has that same
11:05:35 type of surface but obviously it has a decorative appeal
11:05:39 to it.
11:05:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Does it, is it more porous type of
11:05:44 material that then drains a little bit better?
11:05:46 >> Yes, exactly.
11:05:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Goes backing into the aquifer.
11:05:50 On the retention pond, is that something that you would
11:05:53 be able to stipulate on the site plan?
11:05:57 >> What I was thinking we could do between first and
11:05:59 second reading, make notation to change to a pervious
11:06:05 paver and actually depict stormwater pond.
11:06:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.
11:06:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any other questions?
11:06:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Ms. Samaniego, when you look at the
11:06:17 zoning map, there are a preponderance of PDs in this
11:06:24 neighborhood on this map.
11:06:27 Why is that?
11:06:28 I mean it seems like we're rezoning the area by PD.
11:06:37 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Well...
11:06:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's late and I put you on the spot.
11:06:44 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Ironically today is my two year
11:06:47 anniversary working here.
11:06:48 I would assume normally people, normally developers, it
11:06:53 is my professional opinion, normally developers or
11:06:56 applicants don't like being in a planned development.
11:06:59 But the planned development allows you to establish your
11:07:01 own setbacks, your own height and to ask for waivers.
11:07:05 So my thought is that all those planned developments they
11:07:09 must all have different setbacks than what a Euclidean
11:07:12 would have and or waivers.
11:07:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So -- the pattern before everybody
11:07:22 start coming in and asking for PDs, it was single-family
11:07:26 neighborhoods.
11:07:28 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Correct.
11:07:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Then over the years, and the map
11:07:30 doesn't give us ability to say how long a period of time.
11:07:36 But it's becoming I guess in line with the RM-16, a
11:07:47 multi-family neighborhood as opposed to a single-family
11:07:51 neighborhood.
11:07:52 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Right.
11:07:52 At some point, and there is other areas around the city
11:07:55 that this is probably the most, that we see that most
11:08:00 often.
11:08:00 Yes, decades ago it was single-family residential
11:08:04 neighborhood.
11:08:04 At some point, I can't say when, the comprehensive plan
11:08:07 had this area designated for increased density.
11:08:10 So therefore, all the rezonings begin to happen.
11:08:14 Let me adjust way said earlier about planned
11:08:17 developments.
11:08:17 You do setbacks, use height, waivers, but then a PD is
11:08:22 the only way to invoke the higher density than that would
11:08:26 be allowed under the comprehensive plan.
11:08:28 So RM-16 can only have three units.
11:08:33 The only way to get to the higher density that's
11:08:36 permissible under the comprehensive plan is to a POD.
11:08:39 Even if PD.
11:08:42 Even if I didn't have setbacks or waivers.
11:08:44 -softball way to get to higher density.
11:08:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
11:08:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Cohen?
11:08:54 >>HARRY COHEN: Just one question.
11:08:55 It seems like a lot of the opposition to this from, based
11:09:00 on some of the letters that just were sent around, has to
11:09:04 do with the height.
11:09:05 I wanted to clarify, under the current zoning, which is
11:09:11 RM-16, what is the maximum allowable height?
11:09:18 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: I believe the maximum allowable height
11:09:20 is 45 feet.
11:09:22 Single-family --
11:09:27 >>HARRY COHEN: It's 35.
11:09:28 So my read of this is that it is 34 feet ten inches and
11:09:34 some, so it comes in right under the 35.
11:09:37 But that would be a height that would be basically
11:09:41 allowed in any residential district in the city, C
11:09:46 equity?
11:09:46 >> Correct.
11:09:48 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.
11:09:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Just want to address one more thing,
11:09:52 Mr. Suarez touched on it, about the flooding.
11:09:55 I mean we know South Tampa floods.
11:09:59 And with projects that have to retain the stormwater
11:10:03 on-site.
11:10:04 And then to reinforce Mr. Suarez's point, that will be
11:10:07 addressed at permitting?
11:10:10 Because I am also surprised that there's no retention
11:10:14 pond or stormwater detail on this site plan.
11:10:21 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: For this particular case, when the
11:10:23 stormwater division determines, or calculates whether
11:10:27 on-site retention is required, they take what the
11:10:31 existing impervious area is, which this site was
11:10:34 developed.
11:10:34 And then you can, you only have to retain on-site if you
11:10:38 increase the existing impervious surface by 3,000 square
11:10:42 feet.
11:10:43 This project did not meet that threshold.
11:10:45 I talked to one of the stormwater engineers this morning
11:10:48 about it and confirmed that, given the existing pervious,
11:10:53 what they're proposing did not increase it by 3,000
11:10:56 square feet, so they're not required to do on-site
11:10:58 retention.
11:10:58 [ Multiple speakers ]
11:10:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Found that there were no storm sewers
11:11:07 on the street.
11:11:08 And that they discovered or felt that there were no plans
11:11:13 for the city to add any.
11:11:15 I mean, a lot of that falls to us.
11:11:18 Sorry.
11:11:23 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
11:11:24 Petitioner, any final comment?
11:11:31 >> I just touch on, as Mr. Suarez mentioned, we will
11:11:34 certainly provide a stormwater pond.
11:11:36 I was going through the areas on my plan as we talked.
11:11:39 We certainly are under the threshold.
11:11:41 So there will be a stormwater pond where there would've
11:11:44 not been one required anyway.
11:11:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion to close by Ms. Montelione,
11:11:50 seconded by Mr. Cohen.
11:11:52 All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:11:53 Opposed?
11:11:54 All right.
11:11:55 Mr. Suarez.
11:12:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir. I present an ordinance
11:12:04 for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning
11:12:08 property in the general vicinity of 210 South Arrawana
11:12:13 Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly
11:12:15 described in Section 1, from zoning district
11:12:17 classification RM-16, residential multi-family to PD,
11:12:21 planned development, residential single-family attached,
11:12:24 providing an effective date and providing for any changes
11:12:26 between first and second reading.
11:12:27 >> Second.
11:12:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion --
11:12:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sorry to interrupt.
11:12:35 I just wanted to clarify.
11:12:36 You're asking for the revision sheet.
11:12:39 I guess the question then is with regard to the on-site
11:12:42 retention raised by the party, you raised it earlier.
11:12:45 Does that include adding that between first and second
11:12:48 reading as a mitigation adversity impact?
11:12:53 >> Correct.
11:12:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
11:12:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
11:12:55 Got a motion from Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
11:12:58 All those in favor of the motion say aye.
11:13:00 Those opposed?
11:13:02 All right.
11:13:03 Motion carries.
11:13:04 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.
11:13:08 Second reading and adoption April 7th, 9:30 a.m.
11:13:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: New business, Mr. Miranda?
11:13:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have three
11:13:16 commendations if I may.
11:13:17 One is for Doris Weatherford, who is the League of Women
11:13:22 Voters celebrating Doris' lifetime achievement for more
11:13:26 than 30 years she has fought for women's rights, authored
11:13:30 books and if we can do that, I know that the award by the
11:13:35 League of Women Voters will be on the 24th.
11:13:38 Possibly if we can call and make it on the 21st --
11:13:42 24th before she goes to the luncheon.
11:13:44 >> Second.
11:13:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Miranda, second by
11:13:47 Mr. Suarez.
11:13:48 All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:13:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second for Dr. Rick Garrity, same
11:13:55 thing, present the civic award to Dr. Rick Garrity for
11:14:00 his work and leadership in environmental issues, same
11:14:05 date.
11:14:05 And same time if possible.
11:14:07 >> Second.
11:14:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Miranda.
11:14:09 Second by Mr. Suarez.
11:14:10 All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:14:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The third is to David Straz for 20
11:14:14 years board member Tampa General doing outstanding job.
11:14:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Mr. Miranda, seconded
11:14:23 by Mr. Cohen.
11:14:24 All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:14:26 Opposed?
11:14:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: He had a date attached to all three.
11:14:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'd like to make a motion that we have a
11:15:00 commendation presented to the water department to
11:15:02 recognize April as water conservation month.
11:15:05 It's to be presented at the April 7th Council meeting.
11:15:08 9:00 a.m.
11:15:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Suarez, seconded by
11:15:12 Mr. Maniscalco.
11:15:13 All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:15:15 All right.
11:15:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Nothing else, thank you.
11:15:21 I'm going to, want to present a resolution to allow Mr.
11:15:29 Shelby to review and report back March 17th, reference to
11:15:33 TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, asking elected officials
11:15:38 in the United States Senate and United States House of
11:15:40 Representatives to oppose TPP.
11:15:43 And ask that he present this resolution back to us on
11:15:47 March 17th at 9:00 a.m., staff report.
11:15:51 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Reddick,
11:15:54 seconded by Councilman Maniscalco.
11:15:57 Any discussion?
11:15:57 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
11:16:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Cohen?
11:16:03 >>HARRY COHEN: No new business.
11:16:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Maniscalco?
11:16:06 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Yes, earlier today at our morning CRA
11:16:09 meeting, Councilwoman Capin requested that Jean Duncan
11:16:15 appear before CRA on April 14th to provide a staff report
11:16:19 regarding the proposed rail service included in GO
11:16:22 Hillsborough.
11:16:22 Further that said report include information on the route
11:16:25 chosen for said rail service, technology costs and
11:16:28 funding sources other than GO Hillsborough.
11:16:31 I want that motion to stay as it's written but change the
11:16:35 date to next Thursday.
11:16:36 Because time is of the essence, via the county
11:16:40 commission, whatever they're going to do.
11:16:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Actually you're making a new motion
11:16:44 because the other was a CRA motion.
11:16:46 Are you asking for a new motion to come before Council
11:16:49 next week or is that a CRA meeting?
11:16:54 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: For next Thursday.
11:16:55 Under staff report.
11:17:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: That would be March 17th.
11:17:03 Motion from Mr. Maniscalco, seconded by Ms. Montelione.
11:17:08 All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:17:10 Okay.
11:17:11 That's it.
11:17:13 Ms. Montelione?
11:17:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
11:17:16 I'd ask for a motion to bring Dr. Glenn Currier, the
11:17:22 chair of the University of South Florida's department of
11:17:24 psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at the Morsani
11:17:27 College of Medicine to make a ten-minute presentation
11:17:32 before Tampa City Council April 28.
11:17:35 It will focus on college outreach effort to educate
11:17:38 community on mental illness and treatment.
11:17:40 Further more that Dr. Currier receive a commendation on
11:17:43 the college's behalf.
11:17:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Got a motion from Ms. Montelione,
11:17:47 seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
11:17:49 All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:17:50 Opposed?
11:17:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And my public service announcement,
11:17:56 Gasparilla music festival is this weekend.
11:17:58 Saturday and Sunday.
11:17:59 Get down to Curtis Hixon Park.
11:18:00 And enjoy the festival.
11:18:02 It's always a great time.
11:18:04 The St. Patrick's parade is that evening.
11:18:10 I'll be there.
11:18:11 I don't know who else will be.
11:18:12 So some of us, and some of us won't be throwing beads on
11:18:17 Saturday night.
11:18:18 So, come out and enjoy some of the fun things going on.
11:18:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mr. Miranda, seconded by
11:18:26 Mr. Cohen.
11:18:27 All in favor of that motion say aye.
11:18:29 Opposed?
11:18:30 All right.
11:18:30 If there's nothing else to come before us at this time,
11:18:33 we stand adjourned.
11:18:35
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.