TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, June 9, 2016
6:00 p.m. session
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.
06:00:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Call to order.
06:08:45 Roll call.
06:08:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
06:08:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
06:08:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Here.
06:08:51 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
06:08:52 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
06:08:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.
06:08:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
06:08:55 Before we start with our public hearings, we do
06:08:58 have item number 1 which is to set for a public
06:09:02 hearing, if I can get a motion.
06:09:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved, public hearing, June
06:09:06 23rd, 2016, 6 p.m.-and July 14, 9:30 a.m.
06:09:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mr. Miranda.
06:09:18 Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
06:09:19 All in favor?
06:09:21 Any opposed?
06:09:21 Thank you.
06:09:22 All right, staff.
06:09:23 I think we have a walk-on item that we want to
06:09:26 come and do.
06:09:27 Is that the walk-on item?
06:09:29 Okay, thank you.
06:09:32 I believe that was on 2907 west Bay to Bay
06:09:36 Boulevard.
06:09:36 Is that the one?
06:09:42 I'm asking you, is that the item that you wanted
06:09:44 to walk on?
06:09:46 Thank you so much.
06:09:47 Enjoy your vacation.
06:10:04 Vanessa, you can come up and we will have it done.
06:10:08 >> I have a walk-on item.
06:10:10 Obviously this is my first time.
06:10:12 (Laughter)
06:10:17 My vacation is already there.
06:10:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I need a motion to set the public
06:10:21 hearing for this walk-on item.
06:10:24 What date is that?
06:10:26 Is that for June 23rd?
06:10:28 >> June 23rd at 5:30.
06:10:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: The item is planning development
06:10:34 for the tax resolution, it's the action plan for
06:10:38 FY 17 HUD allocation of $7.9 million.
06:10:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
06:10:45 >> Second.
06:10:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
06:10:48 Second by Mr. Cohen.
06:10:49 All in favor of that motion?
06:10:51 Any opposed?
06:10:53 Now you can go on vacation.
06:10:56 (Laughter)
06:10:58 Okay, terrific.
06:11:01 I apologize to the audience for your wait before
06:11:03 we started today, but we will start the public
06:11:06 hearings now.
06:11:07 If anyone that is going to be sworn in be prepared
06:11:10 to be sworn in on the item that we are going to
06:11:13 start.
06:11:14 >> Move to open 2 through 11.
06:11:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
06:11:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Cohen.
06:11:19 Second by Mr. Miranda.
06:11:20 All in favor?
06:11:21 Any opposed?
06:11:22 Anyone that's going to speak on items number 2
06:11:24 through 11, 2 through 11, please rise and be sworn
06:11:29 in.
06:11:29 (Oath administered by Clerk).
06:11:37 Staff?
06:11:41 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
06:12:04 On your agenda tonight, item 6 and 7 did not
06:12:09 provide proper notice.
06:12:12 I believe those are going to be moved to the July
06:12:16 hearings, and anyone that's going to here to speak
06:12:23 on those items, I believe that will be going to
06:12:25 our July evening meeting.
06:12:27 Those are the only items tonight of the everything
06:12:29 else is ready to move forward.
06:12:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Go ahead.
06:12:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could ask --
06:12:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I will do that after I ask the
06:12:41 public if there's any -- can I get a motion to
06:12:49 remove item 6?
06:12:53 Motion by Mr. Miranda.
06:12:57 All in favor?
06:12:58 Any opposed? Okay.
06:12:59 Abbye.
06:13:00 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 2 on your agenda this
06:13:03 evening is a special use request, FU 2 --
06:13:09 SU-II-15-08, located at 2406 east 8th Avenue,
06:13:16 for a catering shop in the YC 2 zoning district.
06:13:20 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
06:13:26 I have been sworn.
06:13:28 We start the night off in the central Tampa
06:13:30 planning district.
06:13:31 The subject is a .22-acre subject site located on
06:13:35 the north side of east 8th Avenue between
06:13:38 north 24th and north 25th street.
06:13:42 It does fall within the Ybor City urban village.
06:13:45 There is transit service provided along 7th
06:13:50 Avenue just to the south of the subject site, and
06:13:52 it is located within the level D evacuation zone.
06:13:57 Also this application was received prior to
06:13:59 February 20th, so it gets reviewed under the
06:14:02 2025 comprehensive plan.
06:14:09 Onto the aerial.
06:14:10 We have the subject site right here in the center.
06:14:14 8th Avenue runs east-west.
06:14:17 We have 25th street running north-south.
06:14:21 Mostly the surrounding area to the north is
06:14:25 multi--single-family detached with some duplexes.
06:14:29 Then we have some commercial uses and then even
06:14:32 some light industrial uses in proximity to the
06:14:35 railroad tracks to the south.
06:14:38 Onto the future land use map, the subject site is
06:14:42 right here in the center.
06:14:43 The subject site in all this light brown color is
06:14:46 the residential 20 future land use category.
06:14:50 Directly to the south facing the subject site in
06:14:53 the red south of 8th Avenue is the community
06:14:57 commercial 35, and then further to the east we
06:15:00 have some light industrial, and then further to
06:15:03 the west we get into the mixed use, community
06:15:09 mixed use 35 and the urban mixed use 60 along
06:15:12 portions of 7th.
06:15:14 The applicant is requesting approval for the
06:15:17 special use petition to construct a new 2,290
06:15:22 square foot building in the east Ybor neighborhood
06:15:24 to be used as a catering shop.
06:15:26 The applicant site is located within that urban --
06:15:30 Ybor City urban village.
06:15:31 A component of the city's comprehensive plan is to
06:15:34 promote a mix of uses within those urban villages.
06:15:38 In addition, the plan supports a high quality
06:15:40 built environment that respects Tampa's
06:15:42 historical.
06:15:46 The applicant is proposing a two-story building
06:15:49 with a residential style.
06:15:50 Another component of the city's comprehensive plan
06:15:52 is to promote safe pedestrian traffic by providing
06:15:55 amenities such as sidewalks and shade trees.
06:15:58 The proposed site design does include a sidewalk
06:16:00 along the western and southern elevations of the
06:16:03 building that connect into the existing sidewalk
06:16:05 on the north side of east 8th Avenue.
06:16:09 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals,
06:16:12 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
06:16:14 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
06:16:16 request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
06:16:18 plan.
06:16:19 Thank you.
06:16:19 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
06:16:23 Thank you, David.
06:16:24 The applicant is requesting a special use.
06:16:28 The property at 2406 east 8th Avenue for a
06:16:33 catering shop as David mentioned, 2,290 square
06:16:37 feet, built in a residential style.
06:16:40 There are no waivers being requested with this
06:16:43 application this evening.
06:16:45 It does meet all requirements related to parking
06:16:48 and buffering.
06:16:49 The property contains a 48-inch grand tree at the
06:16:53 northeast corner and a 32-inch large tree at the
06:16:59 southwest corner.
06:17:00 The required protective radius is 20 feet for the
06:17:03 preservation of the tree and that has been
06:17:04 provided.
06:17:05 The building is oriented to 8th Avenue in a
06:17:08 two-story residential style.
06:17:11 The YC 2 setbacks are as follows.
06:17:13 Front 10-foot.
06:17:14 Side 3-foot.
06:17:15 Rear 10-foot.
06:17:17 The building setbacks are proposed as follows:
06:17:20 Front 10-foot.
06:17:22 East side 18 feet.
06:17:24 West side 3 feet.
06:17:25 And rear 20 feet.
06:17:29 I will show you the zone zoning atlas, here in
06:17:39 green.
06:17:41 24th to the west. 25th to the east.
06:17:44 As David mentioned East to the south. This is one
06:17:46 block north of 7th Avenue.
06:17:48 And actually along the center line of 8th is
06:17:50 where the zoning district changes to a YC 7.
06:17:55 YC 2 north of that red line and YC 7 south of that
06:17:59 red line, which when I show you the photos I took
06:18:02 out at the site, you will see that YC 7 is far
06:18:05 more intensive zoning district as the YC.
06:18:08 So this property is interfacing with light
06:18:13 industrial, factory, commercial uses that you will
06:18:18 see in my photo presentation.
06:18:24 Here is the aerial of the site as David mentioned,
06:18:26 predominantly north is single-family, and
06:18:29 single-family attached residential.
06:18:33 8th Avenue here. This is where that
06:18:35 commercial district and that YC 7 really begins.
06:18:42 My photo presentation that I will show you now
06:18:44 starts at the corner here and moves down 8th
06:18:49 showing you the north side, then I will come back
06:18:53 and show you the south side.
06:19:03 This is the northwest corner of 8th and
06:19:05 24th.
06:19:06 This is looking up 24th.
06:19:08 Still moving east.
06:19:10 You can see the weather was a little difficult.
06:19:14 I apologize if they are dark.
06:19:18 This immediately to the west of the subject site.
06:19:29 Still moving east.
06:19:30 This is the subject.
06:19:31 Immediately east of the subject.
06:19:33 There are two residences.
06:19:37 And a third residence at the corner.
06:19:40 This is looking at 26th.
06:19:48 The corner of 25th and 8th.
06:19:52 Northeast corner.
06:19:53 And now on the south side.
06:19:55 This is the south side, the southeast corner of
06:19:58 25th and 8th.
06:20:00 And this is looking down 25th.
06:20:03 And now we are directly on the south side of the
06:20:05 block at the subject.
06:20:13 There are commercial uses.
06:20:15 There is commercial communication tower
06:20:16 immediately south.
06:20:20 Another shot.
06:20:24 Directly across the street and now we are
06:20:32 approaching the corner of 24th and 8th.
06:20:35 So this is catty-corner southwest of the subject.
06:20:38 And then looking down 24th at 8th.
06:20:47 The subject application is located in Ybor City
06:20:49 and is subject to review by the Barrio Latino for
06:20:52 a recommendation on the use.
06:20:55 In my report, I have indicated that this went
06:20:59 before the barrio on April 26th and was
06:21:01 recommended for denial, and a copy of the motion I
06:21:07 attached to your staff report.
06:21:08 Dennis Fernandez is here this evening to present
06:21:11 the barrio's findings to you.
06:21:15 Historic preservation staff did support the
06:21:17 application.
06:21:18 Land development does support the application.
06:21:21 The existing zoning is YC 2. This use can be
06:21:25 considered as a special use.
06:21:27 And that is what is before you this evening.
06:21:30 There are two criteria related to that in a
06:21:34 district to the general standards.
06:21:35 And those you can find on page 5 of my report.
06:21:38 The first is that nonresidential development must
06:21:40 be designed to be compatible with existing,
06:21:45 potential future residential uses.
06:21:46 The site plan that you see before you tonight and
06:21:49 the elevations align with the proposed building
06:21:52 with the residences to the east.
06:21:54 The elevation depicts a two story residential type
06:21:57 structure.
06:21:57 The north side of 8th as I just showed you has
06:22:01 three residences, two that are oriented to 8th
06:22:04 and one on 25th.
06:22:06 The property immediately to the west of the
06:22:08 subject is vacant.
06:22:10 As I showed you on the south side of 8th, you
06:22:14 have nonresidential uses, and the proposed --
06:22:19 staff found the proposed design was consistent
06:22:23 with this criteria.
06:22:24 The second is that the compliance with the design
06:22:26 guidelines developed and recommended by the Barrio
06:22:28 Latino commission included the criteria set forth
06:22:33 in 2797 is required.
06:22:34 If approved by council this evening, this
06:22:36 application is subject to certificate of
06:22:39 appropriateness, so it would go back before the
06:22:41 barrio.
06:22:44 The proposed -- the one thing I did not mention is
06:22:47 that they are required -- I don't see in the my
06:22:52 report -- 7 parking spaces, and all of those
06:22:56 parking spaces have been provided, as well as all
06:22:59 required vehicle use area buffers and use to use
06:23:03 buffers.
06:23:03 Staff did find the request consistent.
06:23:05 I am available for any questions.
06:23:06 Thank you.
06:23:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Questions?
06:23:11 Okay.
06:23:14 Yes, I see we have one question, Mrs. Montelione.
06:23:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
06:23:19 It was my understanding that this was between the
06:23:23 Barrio Latino staff and the board?
06:23:27 Is that right?
06:23:28 Maybe Dennis can answer that.
06:23:29 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation
06:23:37 manager.
06:23:37 I do have the motion that the barrio did make
06:23:40 during the hearing on April 26th.
06:23:45 The code does require that for different types of
06:23:49 land use activities, including special use 2, that
06:23:52 those properties that have been designated as
06:23:55 historically located, historic district, there is
06:23:58 indeed a recommendation.
06:23:59 The staff does prepare a staff report for the
06:24:03 various commissions.
06:24:05 It is correct that the staff did support the
06:24:10 proposed site plan.
06:24:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We don't have a copy of that
06:24:15 staff report, nor backup material.
06:24:18 Can you discuss -- we'll get it later.
06:24:25 I'm looking at our copy.
06:24:27 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I can read the memorandum.
06:24:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a copy.
06:24:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I understand it's in here.
06:24:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Good.
06:24:35 Everything is in there.
06:24:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Someone in the audience is
06:24:38 indicating that it's in here.
06:24:40 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: But the staff does participate
06:24:41 within the design review process and does
06:24:45 participate with advising and consulting with the
06:24:50 applicant's staff time.
06:24:51 However, the code really dictates that the barrio
06:24:55 provide you with a recommendation, and the staff
06:24:58 doesn't want to marginalize the importance of that
06:25:00 particular activity by overshadowing it with the
06:25:03 staff report.
06:25:04 So I don't know -- the barrio's recommendation on
06:25:10 this particular application.
06:25:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So you wouldn't care to
06:25:13 elaborate on what the difference of opinion is?
06:25:15 >> I'm fine to elaborate on that difference of
06:25:18 opinion.
06:25:21 I am here to represent the barrio.
06:25:22 And then I will provide you with some background.
06:25:25 At its hearing of April 256, 2016 is the board
06:25:30 recommended it's denial at the public hearing with
06:25:33 following considerations.
06:25:34 The proposed site plan would not allow for the
06:25:36 preservation of the historical integrity within
06:25:38 the YC 2 historic district.
06:25:42 That was the first point and reason for their
06:25:45 denial.
06:25:45 The second point was the placement of the
06:25:48 structure on the lot with adjoining parking area
06:25:52 would adversely impact the alignment along the
06:25:57 block face.
06:25:58 Then the third point was more of a consideration
06:26:02 wanted to provide to City Council in the event
06:26:03 that City Council chose to make any modifications
06:26:06 to the site plan, and that is if the City Council
06:26:08 were to approve this, the commission would ask
06:26:10 that the council look at the location of the
06:26:12 structure and the parking so that they could be
06:26:15 adjusted to allow for consistent pattern of
06:26:17 development along the block face that would
06:26:20 respect individual structures along the originally
06:26:22 platted lot.
06:26:24 Probably the best way for me to demonstrate to you
06:26:27 exactly what the conversation was focused on, this
06:26:37 is a block-up of the site plan.
06:26:41 So as you are along the portion of 8th Avenue,
06:26:45 in the northern portion of 8th Avenue, which
06:26:48 is the YC 2 district, this is the site plan that
06:26:50 you will see from the applicant in just a moment.
06:26:52 You see the structure that's being proposed for
06:26:56 the catering shop, and then the adjacent parking
06:26:59 to the west.
06:27:02 The barrio was concerned about the placement of
06:27:05 the structure on the site and how that structure
06:27:08 essentially moves over the property line to where
06:27:14 in the future if this were not being used as a
06:27:17 catering shop, that someone would introduce
06:27:21 single-family, they would eliminate the
06:27:24 single-family infrastructure from going in here.
06:27:26 And this was one of the major points of discussion
06:27:28 is that it does prevent the reestablishment of the
06:27:34 residential vernacular along 8th Avenue for
06:27:37 potential future use.
06:27:38 Also, the parking which is adjacent, and which
06:27:41 fronts 8th Avenue, was a major point of
06:27:44 discussion.
06:27:44 There was discussion about if there was a way to
06:27:47 redevelop the site in a way that actually shielded
06:27:49 that parking more from 8th Avenue more from
06:27:52 the surrounding neighborhood.
06:27:54 Within that scope, when the staff reviewed this,
06:27:58 and reviewed the site plan, we have been working
06:28:00 with the applicant for over a number of months
06:28:05 with changes and whatnot.
06:28:06 And we did feel that this particular site plan,
06:28:09 given some of the site constraints, did preserve
06:28:13 the historic integrity of the neighborhood, and
06:28:15 that's why we voted it as inconsistent with the
06:28:19 design standards for the area.
06:28:22 I'm happy to answer any questions.
06:28:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So the property line shows
06:28:30 that the building itself is within -- there's no
06:28:35 setback, but it's up to the property line.
06:28:39 Since the overhang that is the encroachment on the
06:28:46 plan.
06:28:51 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I believe that's sidewalk,
06:28:53 actually.
06:28:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, the dashed line.
06:28:55 The overhang --
06:28:56 >> The overhang is right here.
06:28:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So one says sidewalk.
06:28:59 The other says overhang.
06:29:01 So the -- I mean, the sidewalk -- I don't know --
06:29:09 I mean, would be a detriment to the lot, where the
06:29:15 parking lot is to not be there, and the overhang
06:29:19 doesn't -- I mean, eventually if somebody wanted
06:29:28 to do something with that parking lot, they could
06:29:31 redesign the overhang.
06:29:35 But it doesn't seem to be -- doesn't seem to be
06:29:40 obstructive encroachment.
06:29:45 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I think it's also important to
06:29:47 go back to what the barrio is charged with,
06:29:50 evaluating when it's looking at these type of
06:29:52 applications.
06:29:53 And their jurisdiction with regard to the
06:29:56 application is to review and recommendation to the
06:29:59 extent necessary to preserve the historical
06:30:02 integrity and appearance of a locally designated
06:30:05 resource.
06:30:06 And in that way they do understand the YC 7 is
06:30:09 south of the lot, center line of 8th Avenue,
06:30:13 but they do respect the fact that the north part
06:30:16 of that is YC 2, and their recommendation is based
06:30:19 on the preservation of the visual integrity of
06:30:23 that particular zone classification.
06:30:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Looking at the elevation, it
06:30:29 really more of the parking lot.
06:30:32 And the parking lot is on 8th Avenue and is in
06:30:36 direct view, the aesthetics of the parking lot
06:30:40 being right there.
06:30:41 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: That was a major discussion.
06:30:42 I am think it was pretty evenly split, the
06:30:45 discussion point between the positioning of the
06:30:48 structure on the lot to the east and the proximity
06:30:54 of the parking to 8th Avenue to W, the parking
06:31:00 space basically very front to this elevation.
06:31:03 So those were the basic points T-bar owe was
06:31:06 striving in its questions to determine if there
06:31:08 had been other alternatives layouts that might be
06:31:14 able to conceal the parking behind, perhaps
06:31:18 redesigning the footprint of the building or
06:31:22 relocating the footprint of the building to
06:31:25 different proximity on the site.
06:31:27 With that said, the applicant did request a
06:31:30 recommendation at that particular hearing based on
06:31:32 the -- on the plan that they presented, their
06:31:37 ability to do so, and the board made the
06:31:40 recommendation I delivered to you.
06:31:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
06:31:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
06:31:43 Mr. Cohen.
06:31:44 >>HARRY COHEN: I mean, it looks to me from what
06:31:50 you just showed us that the main issue is they
06:31:52 were trying to avoid the tree.
06:31:54 Correct?
06:31:56 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: The applicant?
06:31:58 >>HARRY COHEN: Yes.
06:31:59 The building is positioned the way it is.
06:32:02 It's clear that to clear enough room for the row
06:32:06 of trees on one side of the property.
06:32:10 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Well, the one tree that I
06:32:11 think is protected is this tree in the corner.
06:32:14 And these are new trees, actually.
06:32:16 So the trees, the grand tree, trying to respect
06:32:23 the radius.
06:32:26 The board dealt with these situations before.
06:32:29 Sometimes there's some construction techniques
06:32:31 that allow to you lump over root systems, and that
06:32:38 would be an option to allow that building to be
06:32:40 repositioned maybe a few feet more to the west.
06:32:42 >>HARRY COHEN: Do you recall what the vote was?
06:32:46 Was it unanimous?
06:32:48 >>HARRY COHEN: The vote was 6-0 and I think a
06:32:52 commissioner was out.
06:32:53 So 6-0-1.
06:32:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
06:32:58 Petitioner?
06:33:13 >>GINA GRIMES: Hill, Ward, Henderson, 111 East
06:33:17 Kennedy Boulevard.
06:33:17 I'm here tonight representing Frank and Ashley
06:33:21 Marsiat.
06:33:24 The Marsiats purchased the property back in 2016,
06:33:28 and they purchased it because they own a small
06:33:33 catering business, a catering business that
06:33:37 catered mostly to corporations, and they bought
06:33:40 the property planning to construct their catering
06:33:43 shop on the property.
06:33:45 So we are here before you tonight requesting
06:33:47 special use permit for this catering shop in the
06:33:51 YC 2 zoning district.
06:33:53 And I can't emphasize enough that again this is a
06:33:57 special use permit, not a rezoning.
06:34:01 There was someone that spoke in opposition at the
06:34:05 BLC hearing who was concerned about the use and
06:34:08 the zoning, and again I want to emphasize that is
06:34:12 not a rezoning, it's a special use permit.
06:34:21 There are a couple of points that I would like you
06:34:23 to know at the outset, and they relate to the
06:34:25 location of the property on several important
06:34:27 boundaries that affect the use of the property.
06:34:31 To begin, as we can see, the property is not far
06:34:36 from the edge of the historic district.
06:34:39 The red line is the edge of the historic district.
06:34:41 The green line is actually the national historic
06:34:43 district.
06:34:44 But this red line is the local one.
06:34:46 So they are right on the edge of the historic
06:34:48 district.
06:34:50 They are also on the boundary of several zoning
06:34:55 districts.
06:34:56 The YC 2 is a residential zoning district but yet
06:34:59 the YC 7 is a mixed use zoning district.
06:35:02 And then immediately to the east you have IG,
06:35:05 industrial general.
06:35:07 So you have a mixture of uses in this area.
06:35:11 So in order for a business or any development,
06:35:16 including residents, to survive or be viable, it
06:35:20 has to be compatible, has to be compatible with
06:35:23 all of those surrounding uses.
06:35:25 This is an area that is north of 7th, and it's
06:35:29 in an area that there's a lot of industrial uses.
06:35:33 It's a little rough in this area.
06:35:35 They had problems initially when they bought the
06:35:37 property with homeless people sleeping on the
06:35:40 property.
06:35:40 They were cited by code enforcement because code
06:35:43 enforcement felt that the grass had grown too high
06:35:46 on the property so they asked them to cut it and
06:35:48 keep it down to keep it from hiding any homeless
06:35:51 people.
06:35:52 The same thing happened on the vacant lot to the
06:35:58 west.
06:36:00 This is the vacant lot to the west.
06:36:02 And this is my client's property.
06:36:04 This lot owned by Mr. Schulter who is one of the
06:36:08 BLC mechanics who finally recused himself, owns
06:36:12 this piece of property here and he also was cited
06:36:15 and was required to cut the grass.
06:36:17 It's been cleaned up.
06:36:20 But security is an issue.
06:36:22 But we believe that this catering shop, which is
06:36:26 the business that mostly outputs business --
06:36:30 people don't necessarily come there, they come to
06:36:32 your location -- this is the perfect transitional
06:36:35 use between something like industrial or heavy
06:36:38 commercial to the south along 7th Avenue where
06:36:41 you have a manufacturing business, the cell tower
06:36:44 and another manufacturing business, and then the
06:36:46 residences to the north.
06:36:48 We think it's an appropriate commute to the bridge
06:36:57 for different types of uses.
06:36:58 As Abbye mentioned this special use permit is
06:37:02 subject to a couple of special use standard.
06:37:04 It's interesting there's only two.
06:37:06 Usually there are several more than that but in
06:37:08 this instance there's only two special use
06:37:10 standard.
06:37:11 And I have it included in your book as well.
06:37:15 The first standard is the nonresidential
06:37:18 development must be designed to be compatible with
06:37:21 existing and potential future residential uses,
06:37:25 and a second one is that you must comply with the
06:37:27 Ybor City design guidelines developed by the BLC.
06:37:32 And it goes on without saying that nothing can be
06:37:35 developed on this site, it's a historic district,
06:37:37 you have to go before the BLC to get a certificate
06:37:40 of appropriateness and condition on the site plan
06:37:43 under the general note number 5.
06:37:45 It's expressly stated we have to get a certificate
06:37:49 to develop. So it's clear that the condition on
06:37:53 the site plan requiring it be met.
06:37:55 As to the first special use standard, that the
06:38:00 design has to be compatible with existing or
06:38:04 future residential uses, there are several reasons
06:38:07 we think the design is compatible, the first of
06:38:09 which is my client works with the Barrio Latino
06:38:14 staff for close to one year in developing this
06:38:17 design.
06:38:19 So for that reason, we know, their goal was to
06:38:24 make it compatible with the adjacent uses.
06:38:26 They worked very closely with Ron Villa, and in
06:38:31 fact Ron required at the outset the business
06:38:33 design be changed.
06:38:34 It was initially developed similar to the
06:38:38 industrial businesses to the south with a pre-fab
06:38:42 metal building.
06:38:43 He said no, that's not going to work.
06:38:45 And they changed it.
06:38:47 And they changed the use -- I'm sorry, they
06:38:50 changed the design to make it more compatible with
06:38:52 the adjacent residential uses.
06:38:55 He also had issues with the access point.
06:38:58 It looked too commercial to him.
06:38:59 They changed to the look more like a residential
06:39:03 driveway.
06:39:07 He also had an issue with the placement of the
06:39:10 structure.
06:39:11 And Ron and Abbye worked closely with my client.
06:39:18 I was not involved at that stage nor the BLC
06:39:21 stage, worked closely with them.
06:39:22 They moved this building every which way they
06:39:24 could to try to address the tree and try to
06:39:27 address the parking lot issue.
06:39:31 Ron also had requirements related to the elevation
06:39:37 grade, how high up the building is above the
06:39:39 ground so that it would be consistent and level
06:39:42 with the adjacent residential structures to the
06:39:46 east.
06:39:47 He made sure that the setbacks were exactly
06:39:49 identical so that there was a straight line down
06:39:53 8th Avenue, and that all the houses were in a
06:39:57 row, and also that that rhythm that existed with
06:40:01 those other two structures was maintained.
06:40:04 Overall, he found that this was a positive in-fill
06:40:08 development.
06:40:08 And the reason why it was is because there were a
06:40:12 lot of vacant lots in this area.
06:40:13 And again as I mentioned there is a problem with
06:40:15 homeless.
06:40:16 And the more activity and the more people, the
06:40:19 fewer homeless that you are going to have, and
06:40:21 really it's better for the whole area regardless
06:40:23 of the type of use it is.
06:40:26 Probably the most important aspect that makes it
06:40:28 compatible with than the existing and fought
06:40:32 residential uses is the extent of buffering.
06:40:35 We have the three foot landscape buffer that goes
06:40:38 around the entire site as required by code.
06:40:41 There's also a 6-foot wood opaque fence that goes
06:40:46 around the entire site.
06:40:49 I have the existing trees marked in yellow. There
06:40:51 are seven exhibiting trees on our site that will
06:40:54 be maintained including, very importantly, the
06:40:57 48-inch oak, and I think this is a 32-inch oak
06:41:01 down here.
06:41:02 One of the outside trees, which is a large tree,
06:41:05 is also on the protected radius being maintained,
06:41:08 and using impervious pavers there.
06:41:14 Also oaks on this side will within the existing
06:41:21 residential and palms in front.
06:41:22 As you can see from some of the pictures that I
06:41:25 submitted that the perimeter landscaping on this
06:41:28 property is pretty extensive.
06:41:31 You can see that -- I'm sorry this is so dark, but
06:41:34 you can see that the whole outside of the property
06:41:36 is basically lined with trees.
06:41:39 And so also to the buffering for the residential .
06:41:47 The location of the buildings far exceeds the
06:41:50 standard setback requirements in the YC 2.
06:41:53 Actually the building itself is located 50 feet
06:41:57 from the west located 18 feet from the east and 25
06:41:59 feet in the rear.
06:42:01 And the standard setbacks under the YC 2 are 10 in
06:42:04 the front, 3 on the side, 10 in the rear.
06:42:07 So it exceeds that.
06:42:08 As far as operational activity that might affect
06:42:11 the residential area, it is designed so that the
06:42:16 delivery and pickup of the food will be in the
06:42:20 rear, in the back of the property.
06:42:22 And away from the existing residential tore
06:42:26 potential residential.
06:42:27 There is residential here, but that's the back of
06:42:31 the homes.
06:42:32 We also have an area in the back where the
06:42:34 dumpsters will be stored.
06:42:36 In keeping with the residential area, they will be
06:42:38 rolled out to the street so it won't be a garbage
06:42:41 truck going in there to pick them up.
06:42:44 Then this parking on the side is in fact the only
06:42:47 area after they tried several iterations where
06:42:51 this parking could be located to be avoid asking
06:42:54 for any waivers.
06:42:56 That was very important to them.
06:42:57 They didn't want to come before you asking for any
06:43:00 waivers of any of the criteria. So they have in
06:43:03 fact seven parking spaces here, again with the
06:43:06 fence and the landscape buffer, and the existing
06:43:09 trees surrounding the site, we think it
06:43:12 establishes that it's more than compatible with
06:43:16 the existing and future residential uses.
06:43:21 So again, we are down to the only issue which is
06:43:23 the BLC recommendation to City Council.
06:43:28 Again as I mention Maryland, it's critical to note
06:43:30 that Ron and the BLC staff worked eight months
06:43:34 with the petitioner.
06:43:35 In fact they recommended approval.
06:43:38 I included in the package of materials, I believe
06:43:42 tab 7, a copy of the BLC staff report.
06:43:48 Nonetheless, you have a situation where the BLC
06:43:51 recommended denial.
06:43:52 We believe their recommendation is erroneous.
06:43:55 And I think it's based on the difference in their
06:43:58 perspective welt they look at these kind of cases.
06:44:01 You all are looking at it from a different
06:44:03 standpoint and with different priorities than they
06:44:05 are.
06:44:07 You look at the project as a whole.
06:44:09 You look at whether compromises have been made.
06:44:13 You look at whether there's other ways to do this
06:44:15 or accomplish this.
06:44:16 You look to make sure that waivers are minimized.
06:44:19 They really just look at designs.
06:44:21 You know, I watched the tape.
06:44:24 I wasn't at the hearing.
06:44:25 But they were suggesting things like instead of
06:44:28 having a parking lot, ask for a waiver of the
06:44:31 parking requirements.
06:44:32 Because they are just looking at design.
06:44:34 They clearly said that the use was acceptable, but
06:44:40 the site plan was not.
06:44:41 Again based on design.
06:44:44 They had a huge issue with the lot.
06:44:48 They all supported the use of the catering shop
06:44:50 but they didn't like the parking on the side.
06:44:53 And again they referred and used certain buzz
06:44:57 words like alignment, rhythm and spacing.
06:44:59 But when you look at standard in the code chapter
06:45:02 27-95 under which they are supposed to be
06:45:04 reviewing this and making their recommendation to
06:45:06 you, what this says is they have to make a
06:45:09 recommendation to the extent that this is to
06:45:14 preserve the historical integrity and appearance,
06:45:17 in accordance with the design standards.
06:45:20 But yet even though the code says that, they never
06:45:24 really went back or looked at the design
06:45:26 standards.
06:45:26 Instead, they again used these buzz words of
06:45:29 alignment, rhythm and spacing.
06:45:31 But when you go to those design standards in the
06:45:36 Ybor City design guidelines, and you go to the
06:45:40 section dealing with new construction, we believe
06:45:45 that we are in accord with these design standards.
06:45:50 They talk about height and width at the property.
06:45:53 Instead it has to be consistent with those
06:45:55 structures in the same block.
06:45:56 That's why Ron Villa worked so hard with my client
06:46:00 to do, was to make sure that the which had though
06:46:02 of the structure was similar to the adjacent
06:46:06 structure.
06:46:08 There's also a requirement in here that there be
06:46:13 similarity of detail and form, and that the
06:46:16 architectural details, new construction, should
06:46:20 echo those in the neighboring historic structure.
06:46:23 So here you have the elevation for the front, and
06:46:30 you can see that it mimics almost entirely the
06:46:35 design of the adjacent existing structure.
06:46:38 You can see all the architectural details that
06:46:41 were followed and effectively mimicked.
06:46:44 Same thing with the second structure further to
06:46:46 the east that's right here.
06:46:48 Very similar in style.
06:46:51 So when you look at these standard, and again I
06:46:57 admit the BLC did not will cite to them, tough
06:47:01 requirement for height and width to be met, and
06:47:05 again I want to point to a structure further to
06:47:08 the west, this structure, two-story structure.
06:47:14 Again, very similar in design.
06:47:17 I should do it like that.
06:47:18 Very similar in design to what my clients have
06:47:21 proposed.
06:47:23 The width of the structure is almost identical to
06:47:25 the adjacent residential structure.
06:47:28 The height is different.
06:47:30 But the setback maintaining the uniform setback of
06:47:34 the buildings that's what Ron worked so hard to
06:47:38 do, pull the building to the front and make it as
06:47:40 the same setback as this house and this house.
06:47:45 Also, the spacing between the buildings should be
06:47:47 consistent within the block or within the complex,
06:47:50 and it says that they are supposed to be close
06:47:54 together, but in other areas they are spread
06:47:56 further apart, look to the zoning regulations,
06:47:59 work consistent with the zoning regulations.
06:48:01 Then when it comes to alignment what it says is
06:48:04 that you should align to the existing buildings.
06:48:11 Again Ron was very diligent about assuring that
06:48:13 that occur in this instance.
06:48:15 We think for those reasons that the BLC
06:48:19 recommendation was not appropriate.
06:48:21 I think a lot of it is driven by the fact that Mr.
06:48:24 Schiller was opposed to it.
06:48:26 (Bell sounds)
06:48:28 It meets all requirement of code.
06:48:29 You have staff recommendations of approval.
06:48:31 And we are asking for your approval here tonight.
06:48:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
06:48:35 Any questions from council?
06:48:38 Mr. Maniscalco.
06:48:39 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: As I understand this, this
06:48:42 structure will match the architectural design of
06:48:46 the current neighborhood.
06:48:47 Correct?
06:48:49 >>GINA GRIMES: Yes.
06:48:51 By the facade.
06:48:52 It has to go back before the BLC to get a
06:48:55 certificate of appropriateness as to the design of
06:48:57 materials and color, et cetera.
06:48:58 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: If I are two drive down the
06:49:00 street and this structure existed today it would
06:49:02 look to me like an older, larger home that was
06:49:06 maybe renovated?
06:49:08 It would wouldn't look commercial.
06:49:11 It would look like a multifamily university and
06:49:13 that's why you have a parking lot on the side.
06:49:15 But regardless, it matches the integrity of the
06:49:17 neighborhood.
06:49:18 I think it's appropriate in-fill.
06:49:21 It's an empty lot where people are dumping trash,
06:49:24 where there's homeless folks congregating or use
06:49:27 it.
06:49:30 I really don't see the issue that the Barrio
06:49:32 Latino would have.
06:49:35 It's all the aesthetic points have been met.
06:49:38 Minus the parking lot.
06:49:39 But regardless, you know, it's tastefully done.
06:49:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions from council?
06:49:46 I have one quick question, Ms. Grimes.
06:49:49 You said a comment that Mr. Schiller was against
06:49:52 this project.
06:49:53 Was that stated publicly at the BLC?
06:49:57 >>GINA GRIMES: He came down from the podium and
06:49:59 spoke at the dais against the project.
06:50:02 And that this proposal would put a, quote, parking
06:50:09 lot in his backyard.
06:50:11 Again the other two lots to the east.
06:50:15 And they really latched onto that issue, these two
06:50:19 lots.
06:50:22 If they have a 24th street address he's going
06:50:24 to have them facing this way as opposed --
06:50:27 >> Well, you answered my question.
06:50:30 Because the only information we have about Mr.
06:50:33 Shill certifies he recused himself. Nor he was an
06:50:36 owner.
06:50:36 >> He was the only person there in opposition.
06:50:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, terrific.
06:50:39 Any other questions, council? Okay.
06:50:42 If we could get the members -- is F there's anyone
06:50:46 that wishes to speak, please come forward now on
06:50:48 this item.
06:50:50 Item number 2.
06:50:51 SU-2-15-08.
06:50:54 Is there anyone in the public who would like to
06:50:56 speak on this item at this time?
06:50:59 >> Move to close.
06:51:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion to close from Mrs.
06:51:01 Montelione.
06:51:02 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
06:51:04 All in favor of that motion please indicate by
06:51:06 saying aye.
06:51:07 Any opposed?
06:51:09 Thank you.
06:51:11 All right, Mr. Miranda, would you like to take
06:51:14 item number 2, sir?
06:51:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: File SU-II-15-08.
06:51:19 Ordinance presented for first reading
06:51:21 consideration, an ordinance presenting special use
06:51:24 permit SU-2 approving a catering shop in YC 2 Ybor
06:51:33 residential neighborhood in the general vicinity
06:51:35 of 2406 east 8th Avenue in the city of Tampa,
06:51:39 Florida and more particularly described in section
06:51:41 1 hereof providing an effective date.
06:51:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Second by Mr. Reddick.
06:51:44 All in favor?
06:51:45 Any opposed?
06:51:45 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
06:51:48 Second reading and adoption will be on June
06:51:50 23rd at 9:30 a.m.
06:51:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
06:51:53 Item number 3.
06:51:55 Staff?
06:51:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: REZ 16-34 located at approximate
06:52:10 104 west Julia Avenue.
06:52:12 The request before you this evening is from an
06:52:14 RS-60 residential single-family to an RM-16
06:52:18 residential multifamily.
06:52:20 This is a Euclidean zoning request.
06:52:22 Therefore, there is no site plan and there are no
06:52:24 waivers that may be requested as part of the
06:52:28 application.
06:52:28 >> Jennifer Moore, Planning Commission staff.
06:52:40 This is in the South Tampa planning district.
06:52:43 It was reviewed under the 2025 comprehensive plan.
06:52:47 It is a .16-acre subject site located on Julia
06:52:52 circle off south MacDill Avenue.
06:52:53 The closest transit stop is 417 feet to the south
06:52:56 along MacDill Avenue, and served by route 4.
06:53:03 This is in the vicinity of the South Tampa service
06:53:08 by Hart.
06:53:09 Recreational facility, a park, located 0.63 miles
06:53:14 to the west, and it's in an evacuation zone C.
06:53:18 Here is an aerial of the site.
06:53:20 The surrounding area is residential.
06:53:22 This is MacDill Avenue right here.
06:53:25 This is a neighborhood commercial place that kind
06:53:27 of abuts the subject site on South MacDill Avenue.
06:53:32 There are several commercial and multifamily along
06:53:34 MacDill Avenue.
06:53:35 We also have single-family detached over here, and
06:53:38 then the single-family attached and multifamily
06:53:42 over here, and to the north is the school.
06:53:55 Future land use site.
06:53:56 MacDill Avenue.
06:53:58 This is the public quasi-public.
06:54:00 The lighter orange is residential 10.
06:54:03 This brown is residential 35.
06:54:05 And the city's comprehensive plan encourages the
06:54:11 location of higher density housing located on the
06:54:13 periphery at single-family detached neighborhoods,
06:54:16 and the site is detached neighborhood.
06:54:21 The proposed rezoning of RM 60 to RM-16 future
06:54:25 land use pattern of the neighborhood while
06:54:27 providing alternative housing.
06:54:29 Overall it is compatible and to the comprehensive
06:54:36 plan.
06:54:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
06:54:38 Is this your first time presenting?
06:54:39 >> Yes.
06:54:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Good job.
06:54:41 >> Thanks.
06:54:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
06:54:46 The request before you tonight is 3104 west Julia
06:54:51 circle from residential single-family RS-60 to
06:54:54 RM-16, development of the property with RM-16
06:54:59 uses.
06:54:59 The subject site is 7,140 square feet.
06:55:02 The lot configuration is a 62 by 95.6.
06:55:07 My report says it's currently vacant.
06:55:10 It's not.
06:55:10 There is a single-family residence there.
06:55:13 And I'll show you some pictures of it.
06:55:21 It's one block south of MacDill on south Julia
06:55:25 circle, surrounded by commercial to the east along
06:55:28 MacDill.
06:55:29 Academy of the Holy Names which you recently
06:55:33 PD'ed for a modification on that west side, you
06:55:35 will see some of that construction, and then
06:55:38 single-family attached townhomes to the south,
06:55:42 which is a little interesting.
06:55:46 There's RM-16 requirements require a minimum of
06:55:49 5,000 square feet which this lot does satisfy.
06:55:52 The setbacks a 25-foot front, a 7-foot side
06:55:56 corner, so you have a 7-foot and then a 15-foot
06:55:59 rear.
06:56:02 This is the zoning atlas sheet.
06:56:05 That PD there that we just talked about comes all
06:56:08 the way down to the north side of Julia there.
06:56:10 And you will see construction going on there.
06:56:14 You have approved an expansion for Performing Arts
06:56:16 Center.
06:56:17 That partially has been constructed.
06:56:21 This PD here was formerly Adams house, was an
06:56:25 expansion, also, just got bought by another
06:56:27 assistive living company.
06:56:29 There are apartments here and a mix.
06:56:33 You have some townhomes here.
06:56:34 Really along that corridor at MacDill with
06:56:37 Julia street, and Julia circle, you have a mix of
06:56:42 housing types.
06:56:45 There is the aerial.
06:56:48 Jennifer just showed you some of that.
06:56:52 There you have some pictures of the site.
06:57:00 That is from Julia street.
06:57:02 So this is the north side of the property coming
06:57:05 across, coming kind of -- I started here, and I am
06:57:11 going to come down Julia a little bit.
06:57:14 I'll show you some pictures of these.
06:57:16 And then I came back around.
06:57:17 I'll show you pictures here.
06:57:19 And then back out toward MacDill.
06:57:27 Now, the subject, this is the south end of the
06:57:29 subject it.
06:57:31 What's interesting is that RM-16 that's here does
06:57:35 not have access off of Julia, but the units and if
06:57:38 parking kind of come out and wrap around that part
06:57:41 of Julia circle.
06:57:45 This is that wrap-around section where you can see
06:57:48 the single-family attached, we call town home,
06:57:51 single-family attached residential.
06:57:55 CM, the commercial piece, that is to the east.
06:57:59 On MacDill.
06:58:01 This is immediately adjacent.
06:58:04 These got out of order.
06:58:06 This house is immediately adjacent to the
06:58:08 townhomes on Julia circle.
06:58:12 This is on the north side of Julia circle.
06:58:16 This also Julia circle.
06:58:19 Coming back toward Julia street where
06:58:24 construction, fencing, and this is the view,
06:58:30 pulling in off of Julia street and approach Julia
06:58:33 circle.
06:58:33 The Adams house, a new name.
06:58:37 And this is the site back to MacDill, the site
06:58:41 on the right-hand side.
06:58:43 And then again that commercial.
06:58:49 This does meet the Merry Christmas standard for
06:58:51 the RM-16 request, the land use and the lot size
06:58:54 as far as loaning requirements are concerned, and
06:58:55 staff did find the request consistent.
06:58:57 I'm available for any questions.
06:58:59 Thank you.
06:58:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Cohen.
06:59:02 >>HARRY COHEN: Just one question, Ms. Feeley.
06:59:07 If this is approved, what is the maximum number of
06:59:09 units that can go on the property?
06:59:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: It will be -- let me double check
06:59:18 my calculations.
06:59:19 Yeah, go.
06:59:20 The company is required 27-23 a unit, and he has
06:59:26 just over 7,000.
06:59:27 But it wouldn't be enough for three.
06:59:30 He could have two.
06:59:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
06:59:33 Petitioner?
06:59:35 Mrs. Montelione.
06:59:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's really hard to see
06:59:38 through the trees and the lot.
06:59:44 It looks like a historic Spanish mission style
06:59:48 home.
06:59:48 I was wondering about the historic nature of the
06:59:50 property.
06:59:51 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I saw the one piece and it was
06:59:57 hard to see also.
06:59:59 But the --
07:00:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Petitioner?
07:00:09 >> Good evening.
07:00:10 Dennis Johnson, currently under contract to fur
07:00:14 property, 3104 south Julia.
07:00:19 She did a great job on giving you the gist of the
07:00:23 neighborhood.
07:00:23 We have a mix of everything in the neighborhood.
07:00:25 We have Academy of Holy Names doing construction
07:00:28 immediately to the north.
07:00:29 We have a regional center to the east.
07:00:30 We have single-family and also townhomes to the
07:00:33 west and the south.
07:00:36 The current zoning would allow for one
07:00:38 single-family home which would face north, which
07:00:41 would face Academy of Holy Names and MacDill
07:00:44 Avenue, if you can envision that.
07:00:46 To give an idea this is single-family zoning, to
07:00:56 help you. This is Julia coming around here.
07:00:59 This would be one single-family home here.
07:01:02 Two or three car garage off the side.
07:01:05 This is what is currently around.
07:01:08 And this is a conceptual site plan.
07:01:11 It's pretty representative of what we would do.
07:01:15 It would be two townhomes facing west.
07:01:18 It would be two garages off of Julia, which is the
07:01:21 west face.
07:01:22 We would be abutting a strip center to the east.
07:01:25 And they would have their yards on the side.
07:01:27 And taking around the edge here.
07:01:31 As you can see the footprint overlay as far as
07:01:34 density is almost identical, whether we do a
07:01:37 single-family home, the blue with the overlay of
07:01:42 the existing two town home configuration.
07:01:45 So the green space, the overlay, the setbacks are
07:01:48 almost identical.
07:01:48 The height is also exactly the same, would be 35
07:01:52 feet.
07:01:52 We are planning to build two-story townhomes.
07:01:55 It's kind of a resistance in the market to the
07:01:58 three townhomes lately so we are going to go with
07:02:02 two townhomes.
07:02:06 As far as the current property, there is an older
07:02:08 mission Spanish home on the property.
07:02:12 It's my understanding it's been unoccupied for six
07:02:15 to nine years.
07:02:17 The roofs are completely collapsed.
07:02:19 As you can see, this is the larger in the kitchen
07:02:28 inside the house.
07:02:29 These are portions of the interior of the house.
07:02:35 It's probably close to a combination.
07:02:38 This is the existing pool.
07:02:40 If you can see.
07:02:44 The pool.
07:02:50 I believe this is the front entry.
07:02:54 This is the part of the living area.
07:03:02 And I have renovated a lot of houses in South
07:03:06 Tampa over 30 years, and this is way past.
07:03:15 Additionally, this is an interesting thing.
07:03:19 If you look at MacDill Avenue, from all the
07:03:22 way up to the country club at San Nicholas up here
07:03:27 all the way down to Waverly Avenue, east and west
07:03:31 of MacDill Avenue, the two parcels, even three
07:03:34 parcels in, there is no single-family zoning
07:03:37 district at all.
07:03:39 We are the only parcel from that 1.1-mile stretch
07:03:45 that's multifamily preponderance of the evidence
07:03:48 or commercial.
07:03:49 As you carry further south all the way down to be
07:03:52 Wellcraft there's a total of four parcels.
07:03:54 We are one of the four parcels, San Nicholas down
07:03:58 to be Wellcraft Avenue which is nearly two miles.
07:04:01 We would be the only parcel east or west within
07:04:03 the first 100 feet not zoned multifamily,
07:04:06 commercial or PD.
07:04:12 This is a better version of that.
07:04:15 It goes all the way up almost to the country club
07:04:18 down to almost to past Euclid, the corridor.
07:04:24 Very consistent.
07:04:29 I have talked to and met with almost as many
07:04:32 neighbors as I could.
07:04:32 I would like to submit into the file -- I have a
07:04:37 letter from the gentleman that owns the strip
07:04:40 center to the east in favor of it.
07:04:43 I have a letter from the Economou court town home
07:04:49 project to the south with eleven owners.
07:04:51 They are in favor of it.
07:04:53 And then I have a list of the other 24 parcels
07:04:56 that I either spoke with or met with, went over
07:04:59 the project, and either in favor or in support of
07:05:04 it.
07:05:05 I would like to put these in the pile.
07:05:07 Lastly, as I mentioned, it's consistent with the
07:05:09 surrounding neighborhood.
07:05:10 We can only put two units.
07:05:11 There will be two townhomes.
07:05:13 And they will face west into the neighborhood that
07:05:17 are close in the neighborhood res neighborhood and
07:05:21 we plan on immediate demolition because it is an
07:05:26 eyesore.
07:05:26 I'm sure we have a rat problem et cetera in the
07:05:28 property so it does need to come down.
07:05:30 It's structurally not sound.
07:05:32 My understanding is my agent visited the property
07:05:37 and literally fell through the floor when she was
07:05:40 taking pictures so it's that kind of property
07:05:42 right now.
07:05:43 I would be glad to answer any questions.
07:05:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Can you give those documents?
07:05:49 >> Yes, sir.
07:05:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions, Mr. Miranda?
07:05:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't have a question.
07:05:53 One of those individuals that signed the petition
07:05:55 that evidently voted to be in favor of this
07:05:58 project has a financial interest.
07:06:07 Anyway.
07:06:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions of the
07:06:08 petitioner before we go forward?
07:06:09 Thank you.
07:06:11 Are there any members that would like to speak on
07:06:13 this item, REZ 15-3?
07:06:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
07:06:18 >> I have a motion by Mr. Miranda. I have a
07:06:19 second from Mr. Maniscalco.
07:06:23 All in favor?
07:06:24 Any opposed?
07:06:24 Thank you.
07:06:25 Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take item number 3?
07:06:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance being
07:06:38 presented for first reading consideration, an
07:06:40 ordinance rezoning property in the general
07:06:41 vicinity of 3104 west Julia circle south in the
07:06:45 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
07:06:47 described in section 1 from zoning district
07:06:49 classifications RS-60 residential single-family to
07:06:53 RM-16 residential multifamily providing an
07:06:56 effective date.
07:06:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
07:06:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mr. Reddick.
07:07:00 Second by Mr. Miranda.
07:07:01 All in favor of that motion?
07:07:02 Any opposed?
07:07:03 Thank you.
07:07:03 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being
07:07:06 absent at vote.
07:07:07 Second reading and adoption will be on June
07:07:09 23rd at 9:30 a.m.
07:07:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
07:07:13 Item number 4.
07:07:14 Staff.
07:07:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
07:07:16 Item number 47 on your agenda this evening is REZ
07:07:19 16-36.
07:07:21 It is also Euclidean rezoning request.
07:07:23 It's located at 3301 west San Juan, and the
07:07:27 request before you tonight is from an RM-16
07:07:30 residential multifamily to an RM-18 residential
07:07:34 multifamily.
07:07:35 It is the Euclidean rezoning request, and
07:07:37 therefore there is no site plan and no waivers may
07:07:40 be permitted.
07:07:41 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
07:07:47 I have been sworn.
07:07:48 We are in the South Tampa planning district for
07:07:50 this next case.
07:07:52 It was reviewed under the -- the new comprehensive
07:07:58 plan.
07:07:58 The application was received after February
07:07:59 20th.
07:08:00 It is located at the northwest corner of west San
07:08:02 Juan street and south Ferdinand Avenue, it is
07:08:09 located within the Palma Ceia neighborhood.
07:08:11 The applicant site is in an area with access to
07:08:15 public transit, routes 4 and 36 currently serve
07:08:20 that portion of the city.
07:08:21 It is located within a level C evacuation zone.
07:08:24 The Palma Ceia springs park is the closest public
07:08:27 recreational facility.
07:08:31 Onto the aerial.
07:08:33 The subject site, we have San Juan running
07:08:37 east-west.
07:08:39 Ferdinand Avenue running north-south.
07:08:42 We have got Bay to Bay to the north.
07:08:44 It's mostly offices and commercial uses along that
07:08:49 corridor.
07:08:49 Then you can see right off the corridor you get
07:08:52 into the residential neighborhood, and in this
07:08:55 area there's a mix of existing duplexes, a number
07:09:00 in proximity to the subject site, but the majority
07:09:02 of the area is single-family detached in
07:09:06 character.
07:09:07 Also have the Roosevelt elementary school to the
07:09:10 south.
07:09:11 And here is the off-ramp from the Lee Roy Selmon
07:09:15 Expressway.
07:09:16 Onto the future land use map.
07:09:19 The subject site and all the property that light
07:09:26 brown color, are the residential 20.
07:09:27 There are some pockets, residential 10, that
07:09:31 increase as you get further closer down to the
07:09:34 school.
07:09:35 And then up on Bay to Bay, you do have that
07:09:38 community mixed use 35 future land use category.
07:09:41 The applicant is seeking approval to rezone from
07:09:44 the residential multifamily 16 to residential
07:09:48 multifamily 18 zoning district to allow
07:09:51 construction of a duplex.
07:09:53 In-fill developments on the utilized site is
07:09:58 encouraged by the Tampa comprehensive plan.
07:10:00 The city's plan also encourages compact higher
07:10:04 density development that is compatible with the
07:10:08 neighborhood-surrounding character.
07:10:10 The requested rezoning relates to the character of
07:10:12 the neighborhood and also will provide alternative
07:10:14 housing choices to city residents, also encouraged
07:10:18 in the comprehensive plan.
07:10:19 Overall the proposed development is comparable and
07:10:24 compatible and the development planned under that
07:10:29 residential 20 future land use designation.
07:10:32 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals
07:10:33 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
07:10:36 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
07:10:39 rezoning consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive
07:10:40 Plan.
07:10:41 Thank you.
07:10:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thank you, David.
07:10:48 Abbye Feeley, land development.
07:10:56 As David stated request is from RM-16 to RM-18.
07:11:01 Right now there is a duplex on the property and it
07:11:03 has been there since the early 1920s, and the
07:11:06 applicant wishes, I believe, and he may seek to
07:11:10 tear that down and reconstruct a new duplex, but
07:11:14 under the RM-16 they are only allowed one unit.
07:11:17 So today it's legal nonconforming on the property,
07:11:20 but once it is demolished it can't be built back.
07:11:24 So the request before you tonight is 16, RM-18 one
07:11:30 allow for two units to be constructed in lieu of
07:11:33 one.
07:11:35 There is some history with this site, and I had
07:11:38 the opportunity to talk with Gloria Moreda, zoning
07:11:42 administrator, concerning it.
07:11:44 This area was under chapter 43 which started in
07:11:49 1956, which allowed for single-family attached,
07:11:54 which, in addition, through zoning conformance in
07:11:59 1987, it went through the RM-16.
07:12:03 Some of the lots there were built through the 80%
07:12:08 rule, which also was applicable, and you heard
07:12:13 that brought before you on a number of occasions
07:12:15 in the RS district.
07:12:16 It was also applicable in the RM district, and
07:12:20 would allow for the construction of two units if
07:12:22 you had the 80%, the lot area.
07:12:26 So I will go ahead and show you the zoning atlas,
07:12:31 and you will see, in 2006, I believe, there was a
07:12:37 voluntary study done by the Planning Commission as
07:12:40 to the area and whether or not it should be R-20
07:12:46 or R-10 and allow for single-family, predominantly
07:12:52 single-family detached residential.
07:12:53 And when David put up the map, it's kind of
07:12:58 interesting because the subject is here.
07:13:02 There is one R-10 to the northwest, there's one R
07:13:07 oat 10 down the street, there's one R-107 at the
07:13:10 other end.
07:13:13 These people voluntarily asked to have a comp plan
07:13:16 change from R-10 and there was an associated area
07:13:19 wide rezoning to then bring the zoning down to an
07:13:23 RS.
07:13:24 However, the others remained at the R 22 with an
07:13:27 RM-16 and somebody of them also had an RM-18 which
07:13:32 is what occurred directly across the street and to
07:13:37 the west and also a couple blocks over there are
07:13:43 several of them.
07:13:44 I am going to go ahead and show you some pictures
07:13:46 of the site.
07:13:48 By going around the neighborhood, you can see that
07:13:50 there is an eclectic mix, you will have three
07:13:55 single-family universities, or you will have four
07:13:58 units, or a multifamily residential building in
07:14:01 the surrounding blocks.
07:14:03 I did my best to try to show you the character of
07:14:07 the area.
07:14:09 Here is the subject property.
07:14:13 And this is looking north.
07:14:20 I'm sorry, on the aerial, what I did was took
07:14:26 pictures of the site.
07:14:27 I'll take you down the block.
07:14:29 And then I will bring you down the south side of
07:14:31 the block.
07:14:31 And then I did go to the block next to it.
07:14:34 And then also you will see.
07:14:36 And you can see just on the aerial here that you
07:14:40 have attached units, and multifamily units.
07:14:48 This is the subject.
07:14:50 The subject from Ferdinand looking west.
07:14:54 So the existing structure that was built in 1926
07:14:59 is set substantially back.
07:15:01 This is the property to the north.
07:15:04 This is immediately west of the subject site.
07:15:10 This is my first apartment in Tampa, down on south
07:15:13 DeSoto and Howard where you walk in, and then
07:15:16 there is one unit, two units, throw units, four
07:15:18 units, and four units in the back, and you had a
07:15:21 shared stair and then access off the alley, and it
07:15:27 looked through the will apartments.
07:15:32 There are several units in there.
07:15:33 Probably more than two.
07:15:34 This is immediately to the west.
07:15:38 That's single-family residence.
07:15:41 Another single-family.
07:15:42 Some of the use in this area don't have garages in
07:15:44 the front.
07:15:45 This is still moving west on that same north side,
07:15:50 and we are about to encroach two additional units.
07:15:52 These actually have access in the rear also.
07:16:28 That's the end of the block.
07:16:31 Immediately south of the subject, at the corner of
07:16:35 San Juan and Concordia, single-family residence.
07:16:39 Now moving back west towards Concordia.
07:16:55 And toward the west end on the south side is again
07:17:00 mix of residential zoning types.
07:17:05 This is duplex units.
07:17:07 And again as you approach the corner.
07:17:11 Immediately to the east of the subject on the
07:17:15 north side, so coming across now from the other
07:17:24 side.
07:17:29 This is the RM-18 piece.
07:17:30 It is two units.
07:17:35 It has an A and a B.
07:17:38 As well.
07:17:48 Now, I take all my own pictures.
07:17:52 I do all my own stunts.
07:17:54 I take all my own pictures and I very rarely rely
07:17:59 on Google. This is the adjacent side.
07:18:02 I missed the north side but I did pull it on
07:18:05 Google earth because I wanted you oh to have a
07:18:07 holistic picture so I apologize for that.
07:18:10 What I am going to do is come back down the street
07:18:15 now from Esperanza back to Ferdinand and then come
07:18:21 back and take you down this street as well.
07:18:37 This is again units -- now, this is less than 3
07:18:41 because we put in single-family residential.
07:18:50 These were built prior to those standards going
07:18:53 into effect.
07:18:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ: They are very dark.
07:18:59 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I know.
07:19:02 This is a wall with two windows.
07:19:04 Single-family.
07:19:07 And these are a little better.
07:19:16 And this is my last set.
07:19:18 And then having the two residences, this is now
07:19:26 moving down the north side of the adjacent block
07:19:30 to the east toward the Crosstown expressway.
07:19:34 The RM-18 does require a thousand square foot lot.
07:19:50 It does require setbacks 25-foot front, 7-foot
07:19:54 corner side and 15-foot rear.
07:19:57 And maximum building height allowed is 35 feet.
07:20:01 Staff did find the request consistent.
07:20:03 And we are available for any questions.
07:20:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council?
07:20:08 Thank you.
07:20:16 Petitioner?
07:20:16 >> Good evening.
07:20:18 So as Abbye stated -- oh, Dan Crosson, owner of
07:20:23 the house.
07:20:24 As she stated, to be tear down the current duplex
07:20:29 and build a larger duplex on the lot.
07:20:31 There are several multifamily houses that surround
07:20:34 the area.
07:20:37 During the notification process with the neighbors
07:20:40 we had several phone calls asking to describe what
07:20:43 we were going to do, and what it was for, and all
07:20:46 of them stated that they did not have any problems
07:20:49 with it.
07:20:50 And in addition, we have spoken with the direct
07:20:54 neighbors that surround us, and we have actually
07:20:58 been planning this for a couple of years at this
07:21:00 point; how it's all going to work.
07:21:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council of the
07:21:08 petitioner? Is there anyone in the public that
07:21:10 would like toke speak on item number 4, REZ 16-36?
07:21:14 Please come forward.
07:21:19 >> Good evening, City Council.
07:21:23 Ethan Crosson, brother of the petitioner but also
07:21:27 resident.
07:21:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Do you have financial interest in
07:21:29 the property itself?
07:21:30 >> I do not, no.
07:21:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Go ahead, sir.
07:21:32 >> Currently live there.
07:21:35 There's multiple people living there.
07:21:41 In the initial picture as Mrs. Feeley mentioned
07:21:44 it's an old structure built in the 20s.
07:21:47 There's mold in the ceilings.
07:21:50 I currently lived there for around five years.
07:21:52 And we bought it from our -- he bought it from a
07:21:56 previous landlord, Mike McNeil, a dentist within
07:21:59 the area.
07:22:00 Our goal is to for Dan to rebuild it and make a
07:22:06 nicer structure to the neighborhood.
07:22:07 We are trying to -- again the picture doesn't do
07:22:10 justice but it's kind of an eyesore.
07:22:13 As has been mentioned there are multiple units
07:22:16 around it.
07:22:17 There are actually less people in the new
07:22:20 structure than are currently inhabiting it. We
07:22:22 think overall it will be a better structure.
07:22:25 We hope to stay in the Palma Ceia area, a place to
07:22:29 live and be so we hope we can get your approval
07:22:33 tonight.
07:22:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
07:22:35 Next, please.
07:22:35 >> My name is Robert Foss.
07:22:40 I'm a resident of Palma Ceia parks since 1985.
07:22:44 I have been sworn in.
07:22:47 I would like to submit materials for the record.
07:23:00 My wife Kim and I are requesting that you deny the
07:23:03 petition.
07:23:05 16-36.
07:23:07 Rezoning for the property at 3301 Hillsborough San
07:23:11 Juan street.
07:23:13 Together with RS-50 zoning, and I will show you an
07:23:16 attached zoning map, it's a very consistent
07:23:18 residential area, kind of contrary to the Julia
07:23:21 circle.
07:23:23 The green on this map is either RS-50 or RM-16.
07:23:29 These parcels are the RM-18, and this is the
07:23:33 subject parcel.
07:23:35 But if you look at the rest of the neighborhood,
07:23:37 it's a very consistent, basically a single-family.
07:23:40 There are duplexes.
07:23:42 A lot of those duplexes were thereby prior to a
07:23:48 comprehensive plan that we worked very long and
07:23:53 hard at several years back.
07:23:54 The lot is 50 by 1,500 square feet and under RM-16
07:24:01 it can't be two units.
07:24:02 I think the requirements are it 5400 square feet,
07:24:06 something like that, for two units.
07:24:11 And so that's the same size, 50 by 100, about the
07:24:16 same size as most lots in this area.
07:24:19 As currently zoned, the lot would only allow
07:24:22 single-family dwelling unit.
07:24:26 We believe that granting the rezoning -- there's
07:24:29 no hardship here, significant impacts and erodes
07:24:33 the intent of the long existing comprehensive plan
07:24:35 process that our neighborhood went through in the
07:24:39 late 80s.
07:24:40 My wife Kim and I are among those, long-term
07:24:42 residents.
07:24:43 I remember the upheaval that was going on and the
07:24:47 townhouses that were being built at that time so
07:24:49 we were trying very hard to slow that down.
07:24:57 But there was a process at that time to
07:24:59 grandfather in people who wanted to have their
07:25:02 property zoned or grandfathered in, to respect and
07:25:12 verify those rights and not bully anybody in the
07:25:17 neighborhood so we now kind of feel bullied.
07:25:20 Most of the residents fought for the RS 16 zoning
07:25:23 that would keep the neighborhood intact.
07:25:25 We are trying to put a hold on the traffic,
07:25:28 parking, flooding, tree removal issues of the
07:25:30 neighborhood.
07:25:31 RM-16 intentionally does not allow two dwelling
07:25:34 units on a 5,000 square foot lot.
07:25:37 We request that you do not grant this rezoning.
07:25:42 Thank you.
07:25:42 >> McMahon, here on behalf Palma Ceia
07:25:56 neighborhood association.
07:25:56 We are opposed to the rezoning of this lot.
07:26:00 And I have a letter from the neighbors.
07:26:21 It.
07:26:22 Jack Rodriguez, 3318 San Juan.
07:26:26 I have a letter here.
07:26:33 [Off microphone.]
07:26:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire?
07:26:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Go ahead.
07:26:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Kathy Long, are you present?
07:26:41 Bob Atkins?
07:26:43 And Rita Skia?
07:26:50 Three additional minutes for a total of six.
07:26:52 >> So some of the history, there's a lot of the
07:26:56 Mediterranean style apartments built in the 20s,
07:26:59 so buildings were built in the 40s, the block
07:27:03 duplexes were built in the 70s sevenths and the
07:27:06 townhouses in the 80s.
07:27:08 The area was originally zoned R-2.
07:27:11 Chapter 43 was replaced by chapter 27 in 1989.
07:27:16 The neighborhood was reclassified to RM-16 and
07:27:20 RS-60.
07:27:21 RM-16 provides -- recognized the area of 5,000
07:27:24 square feet.
07:27:26 Lots which prohibit duplexes.
07:27:29 Council recognized the issue based on testimony of
07:27:34 our neighborhood.
07:27:34 City Council changed the requirements of duplex
07:27:37 and townhouses could not be built unless they had
07:27:40 more than 5500 square feet.
07:27:43 It's obvious and most important that this was the
07:27:46 intent of council.
07:27:47 Of this new zoning allowed apartments, duplexes
07:27:51 and townhouses rezone nonconforming.
07:27:56 If it burned down you had to put a house back.
07:27:59 And those ten unit apartment houses, and it's a
07:28:05 very neglected neighborhood.
07:28:06 We just don't want anymore.
07:28:08 There's they're was no distinction made by that
07:28:11 council on the multifamily units.
07:28:15 The rezoning, there's been about five since 89
07:28:19 when the chapter was done, and those were all done
07:28:22 to recognize townhouses that have been built prior
07:28:26 to 89.
07:28:27 There's about five or six in there.
07:28:29 And they were done to protect the ownership
07:28:32 interest of those property owners, because you
07:28:34 have two owners on one lot, if it burned down, one
07:28:40 house.
07:28:41 So those lots, properties, were accommodated by
07:28:44 the council at the time to make them legal
07:28:48 conforming.
07:28:49 The rezonings since 1996, which was the last one,
07:28:55 therein hasn't been any request for RM-18 in the
07:28:58 neighborhood.
07:29:02 Less than 5500 square feet.
07:29:05 All development in our neighborhood has been
07:29:07 single-family detached.
07:29:10 Transportation down those narrow streets, there's
07:29:13 parking on the street, parking on the
07:29:15 right-of-way, parking in the yards, parking on the
07:29:18 right-of-way, the Main Street that goose to
07:29:21 Roosevelt.
07:29:22 The residents pay to put up 5-minute signs in
07:29:27 their front yard because cars park, block the
07:29:30 driveways.
07:29:31 This request is a spot zoning, in my opinion, that
07:29:36 it will set the precedent and open the door for
07:29:40 other development of R-26 -- not R-2, but duplex
07:29:45 type development.
07:29:47 You guys hear it all the time.
07:29:49 Precedent.
07:29:52 You set the precedent sometimes, and other people
07:29:54 follow and use what you all did before to deal
07:29:58 with.
07:29:59 The neighborhood is 22 square blocks.
07:30:02 It's got about 440 properties, about 09% of those
07:30:07 are single-family detached residences.
07:30:12 Most of the structures were built prior to 1989.
07:30:16 All the houses built in there now are all
07:30:20 single-family detached.
07:30:25 Let's see, what else?
07:30:26 The value.
07:30:29 I practiced real estate, and all kind of real
07:30:33 estate for over 40 years, and to be allow
07:30:36 multifamily in this neighborhood will reverse the
07:30:39 positive effect single-family detached housing
07:30:42 that has been bringing the neighborhood back and
07:30:45 increasing property values.
07:30:48 So why should he deny the request?
07:30:51 The RM-16 recognized the existing single-family
07:30:54 and multifamily development in a 22-block area.
07:30:58 The RM-16 allows duplexes to be built if there is
07:31:04 more than 5,000 square feet.
07:31:07 Petitioner only has 5,000 square feet.
07:31:10 Our lots in Palma Ceia park, all lots in Palma
07:31:13 Ceia park are plotted 5,000 square feet.
07:31:18 City Council recognized that, and made all the
07:31:23 apartment buildings, townhouses and duplexes,
07:31:29 nonconforming.
07:31:30 There are parking issues, parking on the
07:31:33 right-of-way I mentioned.
07:31:37 The request is spot zoning that will only
07:31:39 encourage more requests for duplex development.
07:31:43 The request will impact the character of the
07:31:45 neighborhood by encouraging multifamily
07:31:49 development.
07:31:51 The rebirth -- and I mean that -- a rebirth of
07:31:54 multifamily will discourage new single-family
07:31:57 detached housing to be D developed in the eclectic
07:32:02 neighborhood.
07:32:03 Thank you very much for your time this evening.
07:32:06 If you have any questions I would be glad to
07:32:08 answer them.
07:32:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there anyone else in the public
07:32:12 who would like to speak on item number 4, REZ
07:32:16 16-36?
07:32:20 We may have some questions.
07:32:21 Is there anyone else?
07:32:24 Okay.
07:32:24 Do you have any rebuttal, petitioner? You have a
07:32:29 question.
07:32:29 I apologize, Mrs. Montelione.
07:32:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Abbye?
07:32:35 Mrs. Feeley?
07:32:38 If we do not grant this petition request, they can
07:32:44 rebuild exactly what they have down there?
07:32:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: In a, they may not.
07:32:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And the inconsistency was
07:32:57 about whether or not a hardship was needed.
07:33:01 This is a PD rezoning.
07:33:02 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This is an RM-18 request.
07:33:10 It's not a PD.
07:33:12 There was one PD, it's interesting, that was
07:33:16 granted in 2002 for two duplexes just off the
07:33:20 Crosstown.
07:33:22 That was after the modification.
07:33:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: A hardship --
07:33:32 >> They don't have to prove you a hardship, no.
07:33:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And it sounds consistent. No
07:33:42 waivers are permitted.
07:33:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Right.
07:33:46 They would need to meet all of the setback
07:33:48 requirements.
07:33:48 They will need to meet all of their parking
07:33:50 requirements on-site.
07:33:51 They will need to meet all modifications.
07:33:56 I'm a little confused because it's two units for
07:33:58 two units so it's not actually an increase in
07:34:00 units.
07:34:01 Or an increase in the intensity of the development
07:34:05 on the property.
07:34:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And looking at the review
07:34:15 agency sheet, everybody found it consistent.
07:34:22 So it's difficult for me to see why --
07:34:28 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I had the pleasure of speaking at
07:34:31 the property several times and I put together for
07:34:33 him a document that I sent this morning showing
07:34:36 him, you know, what had been zoned since that
07:34:39 modification and comp plan modification.
07:34:42 RM-16 does not prohibit residential single-family
07:34:46 attached which is what we consider, or
07:34:50 semi-detached, which is a town home.
07:34:53 You just have to have more lot area.
07:34:55 So you would have to have a lot and a half, but
07:34:57 it's not prohibited.
07:34:59 So I wanted to just clarify that for council.
07:35:01 RM-16, if they are two buy the lot next to them
07:35:05 which already has, I believe, four units I showed
07:35:07 you, you know, they would have more lot area and
07:35:11 they could increase the density.
07:35:12 So just like the other ones, and as you come down
07:35:17 off of the Crosstown, here is that PD.
07:35:20 So these were all the ones since zoning
07:35:22 conformance as well.
07:35:26 Here was the area understood chapter 43.
07:35:31 It was R-2 which would have allow for
07:35:34 single-family attached by right, which is what all
07:35:36 of this was built under from 56 forward.
07:35:38 And then it became RM-16 and CG.
07:35:43 So that's that same overlay.
07:35:45 This was quite an education.
07:35:48 And then you will see here are those RM-18s that
07:35:51 were placed there.
07:35:52 And I provided here the V numbers and the years
07:36:00 that they were done since zoning conformance.
07:36:02 And the RS-50s were done area wide, that was
07:36:06 done per Gloria in 2006, and I brought that staff
07:36:12 report for you tonight as well to show that there
07:36:15 was a movement, that the neighborhood wanted.
07:36:19 It was a voluntary movement.
07:36:21 People had the option to opt in or out.
07:36:25 Some of these single-family residents kept the TR
07:36:30 20 but went to RS-50 zoning.
07:36:32 Some of them kept the R 20 and the RM-16 and their
07:36:36 house.
07:36:36 So there were different scenarios that played out.
07:36:40 I think when you all look at these, and especially
07:36:44 when we look at a change from an RS 60 to RS 50,
07:36:50 and we look at the existing development pattern in
07:36:52 the area, and if there is an eclectic mix in the
07:36:55 area, and some of the single-family houses you see
07:36:57 are actually zoned RM-16.
07:36:59 Some of the duplexes you see are RM-16.
07:37:02 Some of the multifamily you see, you know,
07:37:05 townhomes have the zoning code as single-family
07:37:09 semi-detached.
07:37:10 That's two units.
07:37:11 Semi-detached.
07:37:12 They share one wall.
07:37:13 Attached is three units or more.
07:37:16 Multifamily remains that.
07:37:19 So this was definitely, in my tenure in front of
07:37:26 you for over ten years, was a good education in
07:37:29 understanding what has transpired as far as the
07:37:31 historic nature of the neighborhood and being able
07:37:33 to convey that to you from a process standpoint.
07:37:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You say some people kept the
07:37:40 RM when you just went through --
07:37:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, this is Mr. Rodriguez house,
07:37:44 I believe, lot 17.
07:37:46 And he's zoned RM-16.
07:37:49 And he has an R-20.
07:37:52 So what you see on the map and what you see on the
07:37:56 ground and what you see in the zoning is very
07:37:58 different.
07:38:00 And that's why going back and setting these things
07:38:05 up, say okay, who had what, and part of the comp
07:38:10 plan --
07:38:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And this area when they did
07:38:12 this back whatever year you said it was --
07:38:18 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The area wide was done in 06 and
07:38:22 the comp plan, future land use change was just in
07:38:25 November of 2005, the plan amendment category was
07:38:29 changed.
07:38:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But it still allows -- I mean,
07:38:33 there's some flexibility in there, like you said,
07:38:40 some own 16 with the R-20.
07:38:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: And have a house.
07:38:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And have a house.
07:38:48 So not everybody went out and immediately sold
07:38:50 their property or decided to reconfigure it.
07:39:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The V 06100, and the VO 62, not
07:39:11 just in that area, but it was very interesting.
07:39:15 Beautiful neighborhood down there.
07:39:16 It definitely is.
07:39:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Miranda.
07:39:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Feeley, a long those same
07:39:24 lines, there's been evidence presented of that if
07:39:27 you do have 5,000 square feet that was
07:39:29 grandfathered in, you continue using it as it is
07:39:32 until something happens.
07:39:33 >>ABBYE FEELEY: That's correct.
07:39:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And if you want to do that
07:39:37 according to the evidence that was presented this
07:39:38 evening, you need to have great earth than 5,500
07:39:42 feet.
07:39:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.
07:39:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's correct?
07:39:46 >> 54, I two of do 16 -- 16 divided by 43,506
07:39:54 would have give you the amount per unit for the
07:39:56 RM-16.
07:39:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 43 being an acre.
07:40:01 >> Yes.
07:40:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I did it for the RM-18.
07:40:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The question I am asking is if
07:40:11 you have something now you can use it as long as
07:40:12 it stays there under the grandfather rules, way
07:40:15 back whenever.
07:40:16 >> Right Miranda then you can continue use it and
07:40:21 make repairs, and 50% of the structure is correct.
07:40:25 >> And that's 75%, the code states.
07:40:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And then if you want to change
07:40:30 it, something happens and you can't do anything
07:40:32 but build.
07:40:34 Unless you have 5500 square feet or more of land.
07:40:38 That's all I wanted to ask.
07:40:39 Thank you.
07:40:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Other questions of council?
07:40:43 Okay, petitioner, rebuttal.
07:40:48 Okay, petitioner is not rebutting.
07:40:50 So you waive the rest of your time, sir?
07:40:53 Okay.
07:40:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the purposes of the
07:41:00 record if you can come up and say that.
07:41:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Crosson, if you don't mind
07:41:04 coming up and stating that, please.
07:41:07 >> No rebuttal.
07:41:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
07:41:10 I have a motion to close from Mr. Reddick.
07:41:12 A second from Mr. Miranda.
07:41:14 All in favor of that motion?
07:41:16 Any opposed?
07:41:17 Okay.
07:41:18 What is the pleasure of council?
07:41:20 Anyone want to take this one?
07:41:22 Mrs. Montelione.
07:41:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance being
07:41:30 presented for first reading consideration, an
07:41:32 ordinance rezoning property in the general
07:41:33 vicinity of 3301 west San Juan street A/B in the
07:41:40 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
07:41:42 described in section 1 from zoning district
07:41:44 classification RM-16 residential multifamily to
07:41:47 RM-18 residential multifamily providing an
07:41:49 effective date.
07:41:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mrs.
07:41:52 Montelione.
07:41:53 Do I have a second?
07:41:57 Is there any second?
07:41:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, move to deny --
07:42:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Let me just clear out this one.
07:42:05 It dies for lack of a second.
07:42:07 Mr. Miranda.
07:42:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to deny the petition REZ
07:42:11 16-36 based on the fact that under the rule if I
07:42:16 interpret that of Mrs. Feeley that something was
07:42:20 grandfathered, in awed structure there of 5,000,
07:42:23 county remain thereby as long as nothing happens,
07:42:25 but once something happens and you want to redo it
07:42:28 you had to have 5500 square foot.
07:42:29 That does not meet the requirements of this
07:42:31 petition.
07:42:31 >> Second.
07:42:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
07:42:34 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
07:42:37 All in favor of that?
07:42:39 Do you have a question?
07:42:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we could add to the purpose
07:42:43 of quoting a section of the code on page 3 of the
07:42:46 staff report, it references section 27-156
07:42:50 subsection A.
07:42:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move that a be added,
07:42:55 chapter 27-156-A.
07:42:57 >> Second.
07:42:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Miranda.
07:43:01 Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
07:43:03 All in favor? Any opposed?
07:43:05 Thank you.
07:43:05 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Montelione being
07:43:09 absent at vote.
07:43:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
07:43:12 Item number 5.
07:43:27 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination, REZ
07:43:29 16-41.
07:43:30 The request before you tonight is from an RS 06
07:43:33 and RM-24.
07:43:35 It's to RM-24.
07:43:39 So if I may just briefly, before the Planning
07:43:42 Commission comes up, give me one second.
07:43:56 Just for reference, we were over on Julia.
07:44:01 We are now on the other side of MacDill.
07:44:03 Also on Julia.
07:44:05 What I just explained to you is that this is
07:44:07 partially RS-60, the south end, and the front end
07:44:10 is RM-24.
07:44:14 They want to bring it all into the RM-24.
07:44:17 >> Jennifer Moore, Planning Commission staff.
07:44:35 This is under the newly adopted 2014 comprehensive
07:44:39 plan, .17-acre site located on Julia street
07:44:42 between MacDill Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard
07:44:44 and it's residential 35.
07:44:46 The closest transit stop is 392 feet south of the
07:44:50 subject site at MacDill and El Prado, a park,
07:44:56 there's many recreational facilities in the area,
07:44:59 though, and this is evacuation zone C.
07:45:08 Here is an aerial of the site.
07:45:11 MacDill.
07:45:12 Bayshore Boulevard.
07:45:15 This area is single-family detached home.
07:45:18 Directly to the east of the site is the former
07:45:21 colonnade restaurant right here.
07:45:29 This is the future land use map.
07:45:31 Here is the subject site in the lighter brown,
07:45:34 residential 35. This is to the north, public
07:45:37 semi-public.
07:45:38 This is the site that Abbye pointed out before we
07:45:44 began on Julia circle right across the street.
07:45:48 And then the lighter brown is residential 20.
07:45:58 The city's comprehensive plan is to encourage
07:46:00 development of the multifamily to meet the needs
07:46:03 of Tampa's population.
07:46:06 Overall the proposed rezoning is comparable and
07:46:08 compatible with surrounding development pattern
07:46:10 within the neighborhood, and development pattern
07:46:12 planned under the residential 35 future land use
07:46:15 designation, and furthers the intent of the
07:46:17 comprehensive plan.
07:46:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
07:46:22 Mrs. Feeley.
07:46:29 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Before you tonight is 3004 west
07:46:33 Julia street, as I explained, has a split from
07:46:35 RS-60 and RM-24, and this would allow for one
07:46:39 comprehensive development, orb redevelopment of
07:46:41 the property.
07:46:42 The site is 75 by 100 for a total of 7500 square
07:46:46 feet, and it is located southwest corner of Julia
07:46:49 and Carter.
07:46:50 It's just west of the colonnade restaurant, and as
07:46:53 I explained split zoned.
07:46:55 It would convert the entire parcel to the RM-24.
07:47:01 By doing this, this plot would actually allow for
07:47:04 four dwelling units.
07:47:10 I showed you the zoning atlas.
07:47:13 The other one I scribbled on.
07:47:15 This RS 06 right here is actually only for the
07:47:18 south piece of this subject site.
07:47:20 Everything to the east of Carter including the
07:47:23 colonnade is RM 50.
07:47:26 Everything to the west is RM-24.
07:47:30 Of the subject.
07:47:31 There is a PD to the south I'll show you that is
07:47:35 townhomes.
07:47:36 Two buildings, four units, approximately each.
07:47:38 And then you are pretty familiar with the area
07:47:41 that we are in.
07:47:46 I just showed you pictures.
07:47:48 Here is the subject. On Julia. This is from the
07:47:54 Carter side.
07:48:09 This is looking down Carter.
07:48:12 This is immediately to the south of the subject.
07:48:17 This is down at the end of Carter.
07:48:25 This is at the corner of MacDill and Julia.
07:48:29 Now moving east toward the bay.
07:48:33 So there are three single-family residences
07:48:37 located in that RM-24, and then there is one RS-60
07:48:43 lot in there as well.
07:48:44 This is immediately adjacent to the west.
07:48:49 This is looking down Julia toward MacDill.
07:48:52 This is the property to the north.
07:48:59 Owned by the colonnade and used for overflow
07:49:02 parking.
07:49:03 And this is Julia toward Bayshore.
07:49:08 And this is the parking lot of the colonnade
07:49:12 immediately to the east.
07:49:14 Staff did find the request consistent and we are
07:49:17 available for any questions.
07:49:19 One thing I did want to note that's in your staff
07:49:21 report, there are information a comments. This
07:49:25 property did safe variance for removal of a grand
07:49:28 tree, 69-inch tree, and it will require 32-inch
07:49:32 trees be planted as mitigation for that variance
07:49:35 that was granted.
07:49:36 So that will be at the time of permitting.
07:49:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
07:49:43 Petitioner, buff come forward just for purposes of
07:49:45 the record, Mrs. Capin is feeling ill and she will
07:49:48 not be returning back.
07:49:50 Mr. Bricklemyer.
07:49:51 >> Bricklemyer law group here on behalf of the
07:49:56 petitioner.
07:49:56 I think we got a pretty good tour of this area.
07:49:59 And staff did a really good job.
07:50:02 I don't have a whole lot to add.
07:50:04 You can see there's multifamily all over the
07:50:06 place.
07:50:06 I will say my client is planning on doing a duplex
07:50:10 P.I know that the Euclidean is going to allow for
07:50:13 units but for what it's worth I don't think you
07:50:15 could fit four units that are market sustainable
07:50:19 there.
07:50:19 I think it's a good fit for the neighborhood.
07:50:21 I think it's going to be the redevelopment of that
07:50:23 area is going to be exciting for that particular
07:50:27 site.
07:50:27 So I'm available for questions.
07:50:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If he's questions by council?
07:50:33 Okay. Is there anyone in the public that would
07:50:35 like to speak on item number 5, REZ 16-41?
07:50:41 Anyone?
07:50:45 >> Move to close.
07:50:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Miranda.
07:50:47 Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
07:50:51 Any opposed?
07:50:52 Thank you.
07:50:53 Mr. Cohen, item number 5.
07:50:54 >>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance being
07:50:57 presented for first reading consideration, an
07:50:59 ordinance rezoning property in the general
07:51:01 vicinity of 3004 west Julia street in the city of
07:51:05 Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in
07:51:08 section 1 from zoning district classifications
07:51:11 RS-60 residential, single-family, and RM-24,
07:51:15 residential, multifamily, to RM-24, residential,
07:51:20 multifamily, providing an effective date.
07:51:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
07:51:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Cohen,
07:51:25 second by Mr. Maniscalco.
07:51:26 All in favor? Any opposed?
07:51:28 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin and
07:51:31 Montelione absent at vote.
07:51:33 Second reading and adoption will be on June
07:51:36 23rd at 9:30 a.m.
07:51:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
07:51:39 We have removed items 6 and 7 earlier.
07:51:42 Number 8.
07:51:44 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
07:51:45 Number 8 on your agenda tonight is REZ 15-35,
07:51:53 located at 2917 west Kathleen street, the request
07:51:57 is from RS 50 to a PD.
07:52:00 This is to reestablish the original plotted lot,
07:52:05 50 by 95.
07:52:06 So there are 500 short. I did not provide a map
07:52:13 as this is actually dealing with lot depth this
07:52:17 evening.
07:52:17 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
07:52:27 I have been sworn.
07:52:28 Up to the central Tampa planning district nor next
07:52:31 case.
07:52:34 The application was received prior to February
07:52:36 20th so it is being reviewed under that 2025
07:52:39 comprehensive plan.
07:52:40 The subject site is on the north side of west
07:52:43 Kathleen street between north Gomez Avenue and
07:52:46 north Habana Avenue, a .23-acre subject site.
07:52:50 It's located within the MacFarlane park
07:52:54 neighborhood.
07:52:54 There is transit available within the surrounding
07:52:57 area, Hart blue 7 and 15 currently serve that
07:53:03 area.
07:53:03 It is not within an evacuation zone.
07:53:05 And Pez park is the closest public facility,
07:53:13 recreation facility to the applicant's site.
07:53:18 Onto the aerial.
07:53:21 The subject site is right in the center.
07:53:23 We have Kathleen running east-west, just directly
07:53:27 to the south is west Columbus Drive.
07:53:31 There's the park located up to the northeast of
07:53:33 the subject site.
07:53:39 Again Habana.
07:53:40 A Columbus.
07:53:42 The dollar general. The assistive living facility
07:53:46 to the south and the cafe right there at Habana
07:53:51 and Columbus intersection.
07:53:54 Onto the future land use map.
07:53:56 The subject site and all that kind of tan color is
07:54:01 the residential 10 future land use category.
07:54:05 To the east down the road is Habana.
07:54:09 There is some community mixed use 35.
07:54:11 That's represented by the pink.
07:54:13 It's also located on the north side of Columbus.
07:54:15 The south side of Columbus gets more intensive.
07:54:18 You have got that community commercial on 5 which
07:54:22 then leads down into the Armenia and Columbus
07:54:26 intersection with all that nonresidential use
07:54:30 further to the east.
07:54:33 This is a request to rezone the .23-acre subject
07:54:37 site from that single-family residential
07:54:40 single-family 50 zoning district to that planned
07:54:42 development to allow construction of two
07:54:45 single-family detached residential units.
07:54:48 The proposed development is comparable and comb
07:54:51 patible with surrounding development pattern for
07:54:54 the neighborhood and the development pattern
07:54:56 planned under that residential 207 future land use
07:54:59 designation.
07:55:01 The primary -- one of the primary objectives of
07:55:03 the city's comprehensive plan is to provide an
07:55:05 adequate supply of housing to meet the needs,
07:55:08 preferences and financial capabilities of
07:55:12 residents now and in the future.
07:55:17 Approving the applicant's request will increase
07:55:19 the supply of housing in the MacFarlane park
07:55:21 neighborhood and the city overall.
07:55:23 Therefore, based on those findings, the goals,
07:55:25 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
07:55:28 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
07:55:29 planned development consistent with the Tampa
07:55:31 comprehensive plan.
07:55:32 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
07:55:37 This is a PD request for two residential
07:55:39 single-family lots.
07:55:41 There are no waivers being requested before you
07:55:43 tonight.
07:55:45 These are the original platted lots, 17 and 18 of
07:55:48 John H. Drew subdivision, and each lot as
07:55:53 mentioned is platted at 50 it by 98.
07:55:57 So they are 4900 square feet.
07:56:01 They are 100 square feet short a lot.
07:56:04 And they have been in single ownership so they are
07:56:11 nondevelopable individually.
07:56:14 I'll go ahead and show you the zoning atlas.
07:56:19 This is one block north of Columbus.
07:56:27 And there are two historic structures at the east
07:56:33 end of the block.
07:56:34 I'll show you some pictures of those.
07:56:36 And they are nonresidential uses that located
07:56:40 there.
07:56:40 And then you have the commercial general here.
07:56:45 The PD to the south is the Family Dollar we did a
07:56:49 few years ago, and then it should soon be a Waffle
07:56:53 House.
07:56:55 Waffle House purchased the property and I believe
07:56:57 they are going to put an urban Waffle House up at
07:57:00 the front next to the Family Dollar.
07:57:02 So go get a grilled cheese, one of my favorites.
07:57:10 (Laughter)
07:57:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Did you eat today, Mrs. Feeley?
07:57:18 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Okay.
07:57:18 So here is the site shown in yellow.
07:57:21 Kathleen to the south.
07:57:23 Gomez to the west.
07:57:24 Habana to the east.
07:57:28 And Columbus again to the south.
07:57:37 Write just wanted to show up, actually start here
07:57:41 at the south end of Kathleen and come around, come
07:57:44 down, and then come back up the other side.
07:57:54 This is this juncture.
07:57:58 And I forgot, it has the scientologists had bought
07:58:02 this structure for a while and had a library
07:58:07 there.
07:58:08 This is a single-family residential.
07:58:12 Down the street.
07:58:14 South side again moving toward Gomez.
07:58:23 And then coming back the other direction.
07:58:28 This is the corner of Gomez and Kathleen.
07:58:32 There is the Family Dollar, the Waffle House site.
07:58:38 North side coming back toward the subject.
07:58:43 This is the subject.
07:58:48 And the subject, the existing house will be
07:58:52 demolished.
07:58:53 And two new structures will be placed there.
07:58:59 Immediately adjacent is to the east.
07:59:03 This is at the corner of Habana and Kathleen.
07:59:13 And staff did find the request consistent.
07:59:17 We would ask that they remove the waiver for
07:59:21 the -- along Kathleen is impractical and than the
07:59:32 fee in lieu would be paid at the time of
07:59:33 permitting.
07:59:34 And let me just go over that.
07:59:42 There's a large tree that require a projected
07:59:47 radius, fanned we put the sidewalk in adjacent to
07:59:49 be the lot, it would interfere with the
07:59:55 preservation of that tree.
07:59:58 There are no sidewalks on that side.
08:00:00 So it would be a 100-foot seeing.
08:00:02 That would not be connecting to anything.
08:00:04 So I just wanted to make you aware of that.
08:00:07 An notation will be placed on it .
08:00:13 >>HARRY COHEN: Just to be clear when I looked at
08:00:16 this, they are staying in conformance on the RS-50
08:00:21 setback?
08:00:23 >>ABBYE FEELEY: With the exception of the 7 in
08:00:28 between.
08:00:30 They have 7 side.
08:00:32 They have a 5-foot 8 interior side.
08:00:36 The 20-foot front is correct.
08:00:38 And the rear, because of a 5-foot, the two-foot
08:00:43 depth there at 16 or 15-foot in the rear against
08:00:47 an unimproved alley that is still platted.
08:00:52 But it would typically have a 20-foot rear.
08:00:55 And it is asks for a small reduction.
08:00:58 But typically on a PD, there are waivers.
08:01:02 >>HARRY COHEN: No, I am just getting a sense of
08:01:06 whether or not it's roughly -- maybe I will ask
08:01:10 petitioner, is there a reason because they are
08:01:15 avoiding some trees?
08:01:20 >> I'll let the petitioner present.
08:01:23 Not that I am aware of.
08:01:28 That was kind of the proposal on the house that's
08:01:31 a little wider than -- it's a foot.
08:01:37 And a few inches.
08:01:38 >> Petitioner?
08:01:47 >> Martinez, 5027 north Lois Avenue.
08:01:51 We are requesting to rezone the property at 2917
08:01:54 west Kathleen.
08:01:56 As stated current lot is 98 by 100.
08:02:00 We are requesting two lots equal in size, 98 by 50
08:02:04 each, to construct two single-family homes, each
08:02:08 property has their own address so there would be
08:02:11 no address disruption on the rest of the street.
08:02:13 The project will comply with Florida building
08:02:15 standards.
08:02:16 And all City of Tampa ordinances, historical
08:02:21 preservation had no objection to be the demolition
08:02:23 of the existing structure, and personally as a
08:02:26 third generation Tampa native, I think that two
08:02:29 new homes on that street would be a really good
08:02:31 benefit to the West Tampa neighborhood.
08:02:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Questions?
08:02:37 Did you grow up in the neighborhood?
08:02:38 >> I actually live in West Tampa right now on
08:02:42 Azeele street.
08:02:42 >> Did you grow up in West Tampa?
08:02:45 >> No, but my family did, my father-in-law.
08:02:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
08:02:51 Any other questions?
08:02:52 Is there anyone in the public that would like to
08:02:54 speak on item 8, REZ 16-35?
08:02:57 >> Move to close.
08:02:58 >> Second.
08:02:59 >> Motion to close by Mr. Cohen.
08:03:00 Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
08:03:02 All in favor are? Any opposed?
08:03:05 Mr. Maniscalco, will you please take number 8?
08:03:09 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I have an ordinance being
08:03:10 presented for first reading consideration, an
08:03:12 ordinance rezoning property in the general
08:03:13 vicinity of 2917 west Kathleen street in the city
08:03:17 of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
08:03:19 in section 1 from zoning district classification
08:03:22 RS-50 residential single-family to PD planned
08:03:26 development, residential, single-family detached,
08:03:28 providing an effective date.
08:03:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
08:03:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
08:03:33 Second by Mr. Miranda.
08:03:34 All in favor of that motion?
08:03:35 Had any opposed?
08:03:41 >>THE CLERK: The motion carried with Capin and
08:03:43 Montelione and Reddick being absent at vote.
08:03:46 Second reading and adoption will be on June
08:03:48 23rd at 9:30 a.m.
08:03:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you. Before we go forward I
08:03:52 would like to ask for a recess of three minutes
08:03:54 and be back here at 8:05.
08:03:56 Thank you.
08:03:57 We are recessed.
08:03:58 (City Council recess.)
08:03:58
08:03:59 [Sounding gavel]
08:11:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Tampa City Council is called back
08:11:17 into order.
08:11:18 Roll call, please.
08:11:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
08:11:27 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
08:11:27 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
08:11:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.
08:11:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
08:11:31 We are on item number 9.
08:11:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
08:11:37 Item number 9.
08:11:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I don't know.
08:11:46 She stopped.
08:11:47 Continue.
08:11:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Item number 9 is REZ 16-38.
08:11:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You got spooked there for a
08:11:54 second.
08:11:54 That's okay.
08:11:57 (Laughter).
08:11:57 >> REZ 16-38 located at 2907 west Bay to Bay
08:12:05 Boulevard, and the request before you tonight is
08:12:08 PD planned development, office, business,
08:12:11 professional, to PD, planned development, office,
08:12:13 business, professional, residential, multifamily,
08:12:16 and restaurant.
08:12:17 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
08:12:23 I have been sworn.
08:12:24 We are in the South Tampa planning district for
08:12:27 this next case.
08:12:30 The applicant was received after February
08:12:33 20th.
08:12:34 So the application was reviewed under that 2040
08:12:39 comprehensive plan.
08:12:40 The subject site is a 3.56 acres and on the
08:12:45 northwest corner of west Bay to Bay Boulevard and
08:12:49 south Isabel Avenue.
08:12:51 In the Bayshore Gardens neighborhood.
08:12:53 It is in a mixed use corridor as defined by the
08:12:56 comprehensive plan.
08:12:58 There actually is transit service directly in
08:13:00 front of the subject site, Hart route 4 connection
08:13:05 to downtown Tampa and Air Force Base, Britton
08:13:09 plaza transfer center.
08:13:10 The closest recreational facility a ballpark a
08:13:15 approximately 2.7 miles to the northeast of the
08:13:17 subject site.
08:13:18 And the subject site is located within a level C
08:13:21 evacuation zone.
08:13:23 Onto the aerial.
08:13:26 Here is the subject site right here.
08:13:28 Of course we have Bayshore Boulevard running this
08:13:31 way.
08:13:32 We have Bay to Bay running east-west.
08:13:34 Directly to the west of the subject site is Lee
08:13:37 Roy Selmon Expressway.
08:13:39 You can see by this aerial, and the area primarily
08:13:45 east of the Selmon expressway is mostly
08:13:50 multifamily, got single-family attached, more
08:13:53 multifamily, townhomes all in this section of the
08:13:59 city.
08:14:01 Onto the future land use map.
08:14:05 The subject site and that parcel directly kind of
08:14:08 to the north in color, that's the community mixed
08:14:11 use 35.
08:14:12 Again here is Bay to Bay.
08:14:15 Bayshore.
08:14:16 Directly to the south, we actually have
08:14:20 residential 50.
08:14:21 We have got residential 20 directly to the east.
08:14:27 We actually have residential 83 directly to the
08:14:29 north.
08:14:30 And then to the west under the Lee Roy Selmon you
08:14:37 have that commercial 35 and all the commercial
08:14:40 services related to that.
08:14:43 The applicant is requesting approving through this
08:14:46 rezoning petition to allow for recognition of an
08:14:48 existing 91,000 square foot office and retail
08:14:52 building and to allow for the development of the
08:14:54 219,147 square foot residential building.
08:14:58 The subject site is located within an identified
08:15:01 mixed use area within the South Tampa planning
08:15:04 district.
08:15:05 A number of multifamily structures are existing
08:15:08 and/or planned for the surrounding area.
08:15:10 Transit service is provided.
08:15:12 And retail services are actually provided within
08:15:15 walking distance to the subject site.
08:15:18 The building is oriented toward the adjacent
08:15:20 public right-of-way with a clearly defined
08:15:23 pedestrian oriented lobby.
08:15:25 Parking is also provided within an internal
08:15:27 parking structure.
08:15:29 Overall the proposed intensification in keeping
08:15:31 with the overall character of this portion of west
08:15:34 Bay to Bay Boulevard would be comparable and--
08:15:38 compatible to the existing pattern, the overall
08:15:40 pattern envisioned under the community mixed use
08:15:43 35 future land use category.
08:15:45 Therefore based on those findings, goals,
08:15:47 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
08:15:49 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
08:15:51 rezoning consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
08:15:54 plan.
08:15:54 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thanks, David.
08:16:03 If I may for a minute, this is the original PD
08:16:05 from 1986.
08:16:10 Many of you are familiar with this intersection
08:16:13 and these office buildings.
08:16:14 And if you have been past it you have eaten in the
08:16:18 restaurant on the property.
08:16:20 Here is Bay to Bay Boulevard.
08:16:22 Isabella, Barcelona to the north.
08:16:28 The existing buildings, this was rezoned in 1986
08:16:32 to allow for another office building and a
08:16:37 extraordinary garage that was never constructed.
08:16:39 So what's being requested buff tonight is to
08:16:42 retain that original access and then to allow for
08:16:47 the construction of a multifamily residential
08:16:49 tower with associated structure parking.
08:16:52 The structured parking will for both the office
08:16:57 and the residential as well.
08:17:00 The access, there are three waivers on the plan.
08:17:04 The first one for the access to local, that does
08:17:08 not need to be on there.
08:17:10 The property actually was granted access to the
08:17:13 local which is for a nonresidential use, and the
08:17:16 addition of a residential use wouldn't actually
08:17:19 require that.
08:17:20 So we would put it on the site plan as per the
08:17:25 86-50 that that access was granted.
08:17:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: So that waiver should not be in
08:17:30 your report?
08:17:32 >> Well, it should be as previously granted for
08:17:34 the 8650 is normally how we put that on here, and
08:17:38 it didn't dawn on me until I read it and thought,
08:17:41 wait, when you are adding residential that
08:17:43 wouldn't require it and it was already granted.
08:17:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
08:17:47 >> The second is the access to be allow for the
08:17:50 loading on the new building, the loading is
08:17:54 actually on Barcelona and requires maneuvering
08:17:57 into Barcelona.
08:17:59 Barcelona dead-end at the Crosstown expressway.
08:18:03 And the last is to allow for any wall signage on
08:18:08 the building to be distributed among the three
08:18:10 buildings facade, not to exceed what would be
08:18:13 permissible individually.
08:18:16 As David mentioned to you, the request before you
08:18:19 tonight is for a little over 200,000 square feet
08:18:23 for residential multifamily, and it would be 22
08:18:29 stories and 175 units.
08:18:32 It is designed within the first five levels of
08:18:35 parking and amenity floor and 16 levels of
08:18:38 residential units.
08:18:39 The existing office building including the
08:18:42 ancillary restaurant are proposed to remain.
08:18:47 This property does have a future land use C Mu 35
08:18:50 which allows for consideration of a floor area
08:18:53 ratio, 3107 bonus provision.
08:18:58 This application was in prior to you modifying the
08:19:02 code to have a different calculation for bonus.
08:19:06 This is proposing three of the ten, the three
08:19:08 being proposed are structured parking, transit
08:19:12 stop improvements, and then enhanced pedestrian
08:19:15 streetscape and landscape that will be placed
08:19:17 along Isabella.
08:19:19 I do have an exhibit of those modifications that
08:19:25 have been provided with your report.
08:19:30 That enhancement will take place along Isabel.
08:19:33 A they are going to remove the on-street parking
08:19:35 spaces there, and really provide a better entry.
08:19:38 It will also have street furniture, trash
08:19:44 receptacles, and those plantings are above and
08:19:47 beyond what is required by code.
08:19:49 Code plantings and requirements will be done
08:19:50 on-site.
08:19:51 This will be done adjacent to the property and
08:19:53 would have a maintenance agreement with the
08:19:55 maintenance of the area at that level.
08:19:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione.
08:20:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The maintenance agreement
08:20:05 would be the landscaping even though it's on city
08:20:09 roadway?
08:20:11 >> Yes.
08:20:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But we can't tell them to if
08:20:15 they decide they don't want to --
08:20:17 >> This agreement is going to go into the
08:20:19 development agreement and they will be required to
08:20:21 enter into the maintenance agreement, and then --.
08:20:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The plantings in the first
08:20:28 place.
08:20:28 >> You are always required to maintain, yes.
08:20:30 That's code.
08:20:32 Let me go ahead and show you -- David did a good
08:20:36 job showing you where we were, the PD here at
08:20:41 Crosstown to the west, Selmon expressway, Bay to
08:20:44 Bay to the south, Isabella, Barcelona. You will
08:20:48 remember recently this piece here that belonged to
08:20:50 the synagogue was rezoned to RM-18.
08:20:55 Bayshore Presbyterian is RM 75.
08:20:57 There is a CG portion.
08:20:58 You may also recall that property that recently
08:21:01 came before you on an appeal for setback
08:21:05 determination, I believe, for townhomes, and that
08:21:08 was granted.
08:21:09 That site has been cleared.
08:21:10 I'll shop you some pictures.
08:21:11 And it has begun construction.
08:21:17 Here again to the site.
08:21:26 Here are some pictures.
08:21:31 Of the property.
08:21:34 It's a large property.
08:21:36 It took a substantial amount of pictures.
08:21:41 This on Bay to Bay. This is the west side
08:21:43 adjacent.
08:21:45 This is looking down Isabella.
08:21:54 The other existing office building.
08:21:55 Of this is approaching the surface parking area.
08:21:58 Coming towards Barcelona.
08:22:02 Of this approaching Barcelona.
08:22:04 The rear of Barcelona.
08:22:07 Northern portion of the site.
08:22:09 This is the existing parking area behind the
08:22:13 existing office that will remain.
08:22:17 This is looking back north.
08:22:20 You can get a feel for the multifamily high-rise
08:22:25 in the immediate area.
08:22:30 That picture.
08:22:31 This is currently under construction at the corner
08:22:33 of Bay to Bay.
08:22:35 And Bayshore.
08:22:36 I think that was the 08-63.
08:22:41 Immediate on the south side, approaching the
08:22:43 Crosstown on Bay to Bay.
08:22:56 Property immediately to the east.
08:23:00 The women's club.
08:23:01 I think you are all familiar with this.
08:23:04 Townhomes.
08:23:06 This is the piece at Barcelona.
08:23:10 And Isabella, demoed, getting ready for
08:23:16 construction.
08:23:18 Then Bayshore Presbyterian.
08:23:19 A look down Bayshore.
08:23:21 And a look at the end of Barcelona.
08:23:24 Towards Bay to Bay.
08:23:29 I walked that one.
08:23:33 Okay.
08:23:33 There are some modifications.
08:23:34 The PD -- the site plan before you is identified
08:23:38 as two parcels.
08:23:40 Parcel one is the existing office.
08:23:41 Parcel two is the proposed -- the building
08:23:44 setbacks for parcel one are as follows.
08:23:46 South five foot.
08:23:47 North 15 foot.
08:23:48 West 20-foot.
08:23:50 East 5-foot.
08:23:51 The building setbacks for parcel 2 is Isabella,
08:23:54 5-foot.
08:23:56 Barcelona 2-foot.
08:23:58 The south which would be internal 15-foot.
08:24:01 And the west adjacent to the Selmon as 5-foot.
08:24:04 The maximum building height is proposed at 250
08:24:07 feet.
08:24:08 The vehicle entry is going to be off of Isabella
08:24:12 and Bay to Bay.
08:24:13 There are two access points on Isabella.
08:24:15 The first is just to that surface parking in front
08:24:18 of the office that is more just a circular kind of
08:24:22 parking area.
08:24:24 And the second would be to be go into the garage,
08:24:27 and we will provide for both the office and the
08:24:29 residential.
08:24:30 The service area is proposed on Barcelona for
08:24:35 loading and solid waste.
08:24:36 There would not be vehicular entry for residence
08:24:40 or office tenants.
08:24:41 The property is required 5393 spaces, and 393
08:24:45 spaces are being provided.
08:24:47 There are some modifications that would need to be
08:24:50 made in between first and second reading.
08:24:52 First of all under transportation, there are two
08:24:54 findings of inconsistency.
08:24:56 One was the local street access which is not a
08:25:00 waiver.
08:25:00 The second is maneuvering in the right-of-way.
08:25:03 They do find that inconsistent.
08:25:05 Code does require that you maneuver all in one and
08:25:08 that it is done on the private property.
08:25:10 Jonathan is here tonight in relation to that
08:25:13 finding.
08:25:14 Land development, I do need some clarification on
08:25:17 the notation for the three frontages.
08:25:21 For the sign, the building does have four facades.
08:25:25 Dimension, setbacks on the plan, the setbacks for
08:25:28 parcel 2 on the east need to be adjusted to
08:25:30 provide for area of enhancement.
08:25:35 Placement of the building currently set back
08:25:37 approximately 25 feet.
08:25:38 The setback table allows for reduction to shall
08:25:41 5-foot which would change the intent of this area
08:25:45 as serving for the enhanced streetscape and
08:25:48 landscape improvements.
08:25:49 Staff would like to see that corrected for a
08:25:51 minimum of 20 feet.
08:25:53 In relation to note number 6, either amend the
08:25:56 note or add a new note that offsite parking
08:25:59 agreements to accommodate required parking for the
08:26:02 office building during construction of the
08:26:03 residential tower shall be reviewed by the zoning
08:26:05 administrator, city legal department prior to the
08:26:08 issuance of the site building permit.
08:26:10 When this was rezoned in 1986 there were strong
08:26:14 concerns by the neighborhood related to
08:26:15 construction saving, and in fact there is a note
08:26:17 on that 1986 plan that the garage would be
08:26:20 constructed first in order to allow for the
08:26:22 tenants of the office to go back and park on the
08:26:26 site and not be parking in the neighborhood and
08:26:28 having impact on the surrounding area.
08:26:31 The applicant has notified us that they are in
08:26:33 negotiation for leases during that time to
08:26:36 accommodate the required office parking.
08:26:39 We are asking this notation be added to ensure
08:26:42 that those leases are reviewed and that adequate
08:26:45 parking is being provided prior to construction.
08:26:49 Natural resources had threw site plan
08:26:53 modifications also.
08:26:54 They need the dimension for the 36-inch off-site
08:26:58 oak to be shown as 15-foot, measured from the edge
08:27:02 of the trunk.
08:27:03 Based on the arborists report a 12-inch limb would
08:27:06 be impacted so add a note, the site plan that a
08:27:10 pruning permit will be applied for and approved by
08:27:12 natural resources, show the 10-foot projected
08:27:15 radius on all remaining trees and revise the tree
08:27:18 table debit there, should be two 20-inch to
08:27:22 29-inch for a total of 8 debits and the total
08:27:25 debits should reflect 26.
08:27:30 If it's this council's pleasure to grant the where
08:27:35 waiver in relation to the maneuvering in the
08:27:36 right-of-way, modifications would need to be made
08:27:40 between first and second reading of the ordinance.
08:27:42 Staff is available to answer any questions.
08:27:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Cohen.
08:27:45 >>HARRY COHEN: I will make one comment.
08:27:47 I never said this related to an application
08:27:49 before, but I live in this neighborhood.
08:27:51 And this really has nothing to do with the
08:27:53 specific application.
08:27:55 But there is a lot of construction going on in the
08:27:58 immediate vicinity.
08:27:59 And the city is doing a tremendous amount of work
08:28:02 there right now.
08:28:03 The condition of the pavement and street is
08:28:06 absolutely abominable.
08:28:09 It is the worst I have driven on any whereof.
08:28:13 And it would be very, very helpful.
08:28:16 The city has done a lot of work on the streets and
08:28:18 some of the water lines and the pipes.
08:28:21 It would be very, very helpful if they complete
08:28:23 this work, if they would fix the pavement.
08:28:27 It would make it a lot easier for people when they
08:28:29 are maneuvering around the construction.
08:28:32 The problem is there's construction, and you go to
08:28:35 move people around it and you find yourself, you
08:28:39 know, in almost impassable pavement conditions.
08:28:42 And I am really making the statement, appealing to
08:28:45 the city staff and transportation to do everything
08:28:49 they can to try to improve the pavement conditions
08:28:54 in the neighborhood.
08:28:57 If you were there in the last couple weeks, it's
08:28:59 unbelievable how bad it is.
08:29:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
08:29:04 Any questions? Mrs. Montelione.
08:29:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I want to try to clarify, what
08:29:10 they are going above and beyond we can't tie them
08:29:13 or bind them to going above and beyond the
08:29:16 landscaping.
08:29:17 We can only tie them --
08:29:19 >> Councilwoman Montelione, this is a bonus.
08:29:24 There is a development agreement.
08:29:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That is so unlike some of the
08:29:27 things that we talk about.
08:29:28 >>ABBYE FEELEY: They are seeking to execute an
08:29:34 additional F.A.R., and that is their commitment.
08:29:37 And there is a development agreement.
08:29:38 And that will run with the project.
08:29:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
08:29:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
08:29:44 >> Truett Gardner, north Ashley drive.
08:29:49 First I'll take on the two comments already made.
08:29:52 On yours, Lisa, the first item that was on your
08:29:55 agenda was the development agreement for this
08:29:57 project.
08:29:57 That will be heard on June 23rd.
08:29:59 And that will be the legal document that Rebecca
08:30:02 and I have been working on, which will bind us to
08:30:04 that.
08:30:05 And then that will serve as the justification for
08:30:08 our bonus density.
08:30:09 And Harry, to your question, I hear you loud and
08:30:13 clear.
08:30:13 We have been working closely with the Bayshore
08:30:14 Gardens neighborhood association, met with their
08:30:17 full board and residents, my client, Skyway
08:30:23 capital, the owner of the office building, for
08:30:26 their concerns tore neighbor concerns or your
08:30:29 concerns, and we all want to bind together to be
08:30:31 see what we can do to help that situation, because
08:30:33 we all agree that it is atrocious, especially this
08:30:40 past week, everybody back there.
08:30:43 Anything we can do to help with that cause would
08:30:45 be great.
08:30:46 We would be happy to.
08:30:47 >>HARRY COHEN: I wasn't implying it was your
08:30:54 responsibility.
08:30:54 >> No, no.
08:30:55 We feel your pain in sharing that.
08:30:57 The biggest question we have got with this whole
08:30:59 project is are we affecting patches?
08:31:04 The answer is absolutely not.
08:31:05 As a matter of fact they are not complying L.and
08:31:10 the reason why outside of our outreach why you
08:31:13 don't feel a lot of feedback on this is the item
08:31:16 that Abbye brought up, it's currently zoned for
08:31:18 100,000 square feet of office when you look at
08:31:21 that as far as how it works with the neighborhood,
08:31:23 how it affects traffic, because this is a far
08:31:26 better use than that.
08:31:28 And so those were the two big issues I wanted to
08:31:31 cover.
08:31:32 We have worked from the beginning of this with the
08:31:34 neighborhood association.
08:31:36 Steve is here tonight to speak.
08:31:39 And I didn't want to let Albert to have hook
08:31:43 because chairman Suarez, I at least wanted him to
08:31:47 try to explain that.
08:31:49 But we are here to answer any questions.
08:31:50 We have our full game, civil engineer,
08:31:53 transportation, where.
08:31:58 This is for Harry and Lisa.
08:32:11 [Off microphone.]
08:32:25 That transit stop.
08:32:26 And the
08:32:37 With that I will turn it over to Albert Alfonso,
08:32:42 our architect.
08:32:53 >> I'll keep it short.
08:32:55 I believe you guys have this rendering in your
08:32:57 packet.
08:32:58 Albert Alfonso, Alfonso architects, Ybor City.
08:33:03 We are so excited that skyway capital has got us
08:33:08 engaged in this project and I really want to be
08:33:10 say from the get-go they really are interested in
08:33:14 putting a good, strong piece of architecture on
08:33:17 this site, on the skyline.
08:33:19 We feel like it's a really appropriate tower, as
08:33:25 it stacks up onto the Crosstown, so it's sort of
08:33:30 pushed way back.
08:33:31 You know, it's going to have really nice views,
08:33:34 kind of 306 all the way around.
08:33:37 So trying to really design an elegant building,
08:33:40 and we thank you for your support.
08:33:42 Thank you.
08:33:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions of petitioner?
08:33:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I just have -- I have a
08:33:52 question.
08:33:52 Is it an optical illusion or are all of those
08:33:56 balconies --
08:33:57 >> Optical.
08:34:00 (Laughter)
08:34:01 Although -- we'll see.
08:34:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay, thanks.
08:34:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
08:34:09 Petitioner?
08:34:10 Is there anyone in the public that would like toke
08:34:12 speak on item number 10, REZ 16-39?
08:34:16 Excuse me.
08:34:17 Item number 9.
08:34:18 Excuse me.
08:34:19 REZ 16-38.
08:34:20 >> Steve Hearn.
08:34:26 I am reside in the neighborhood, in fact right in
08:34:29 front of Councilman Cohen's residence.
08:34:32 And I am Vice President of our neighborhood
08:34:35 association.
08:34:36 Our normal president Vicki Pollyea who I know you
08:34:39 are all familiar with has called in the second
08:34:42 team for various reasons.
08:34:45 We first commend the group and developers for
08:34:48 working with us.
08:34:49 They did meet with us very early.
08:34:51 They made a great presentation to our association
08:34:54 board and to the full association.
08:34:56 Unfortunately, the association was not able to
08:34:58 reach a consensus regarding support or nonsupport
08:35:03 of the project.
08:35:05 From a personal standpoint, I think residential is
08:35:08 better than office building in terms of activity
08:35:11 in the area.
08:35:12 Bust I do want to repeat some of the comments that
08:35:14 Councilman Cohen made.
08:35:17 The traffic and the conditions are deplorable.
08:35:20 It's not just the current construction.
08:35:22 Even before they tore up the roads, they didn't
08:35:25 have much trouble tearing them up because they
08:35:27 were pretty much torn up themselves as it was.
08:35:29 You heard them say 593 parking spaces are going to
08:35:34 be added into that building.
08:35:35 We have got aquatica at the corner of Bay to Bay
08:35:40 and Bayshore.
08:35:41 This part of town is probably the most active
08:35:43 residential development area right now in the
08:35:45 city.
08:35:47 The streets there and the infrastructure cannot
08:35:49 support that volume of increased traffic.
08:35:52 Bay to Bay is a nightmare.
08:35:54 Bay to Bay and Isabella where people are trying to
08:35:57 turn left to come into that neighborhood is a
08:36:00 night mayor.
08:36:01 And it's not just aesthetics.
08:36:04 This is actually a really important area.
08:36:06 I heard several people comment on the traffic
08:36:08 during the storm.
08:36:09 Every time they close Bayshore, the known way to
08:36:13 get around is come up Isabella to palm where I
08:36:16 live and up to Howard and go north.
08:36:18 And likewise south town.
08:36:20 The Gasparilla pirates love our neighborhood
08:36:23 because that's the cut-through not only for the
08:36:25 parade but also for emergency vehicles during the
08:36:28 parade to get through there.
08:36:30 The potholes, the water leaks, the manholes
08:36:34 bubbling all over the place, the infrastructure
08:36:36 from our neighborhood is horrendous.
08:36:38 And as a neighborhood association we do have a
08:36:41 consensus asking the council to please consider
08:36:44 moving this up on the infrastructure improvement
08:36:47 list to the extent there are financial concessions
08:36:49 being made in conjunction with this project, that
08:36:53 those funds be voted to improvements at the Bay to
08:36:55 Bay intersections as well as in the neighborhood
08:36:59 and the streets.
08:37:00 Otherwise, it's going to create a gridlock in
08:37:04 front of a very beautiful project.
08:37:05 So overall, we beg the council, pleas move us up
08:37:09 and use some funds to help fix the drainage and
08:37:12 the traffic so that we can all live together.
08:37:17 Thank you.
08:37:17 >>HARRY COHEN: I wish we had the power to move --
08:37:22 quote, move you up.
08:37:23 What we can do, though, is urge the administration
08:37:27 to move you up.
08:37:28 And I promise I am going to continue to do that,
08:37:30 Bruce it is -- some of the photographs I have
08:37:34 taken in the last couple of weeks, there's
08:37:38 really -- it don't even know if you can call it
08:37:40 pavement anymore, because it's so disjointed and
08:37:44 uneven.
08:37:44 >> Yes, the walking catfish that was in front of
08:37:49 my house on Tuesday would appreciate better
08:37:51 conditions to swim on it, himself.
08:37:53 There were some fish that washed up because of the
08:37:55 flooding.
08:37:56 It's like a river down the drive during a
08:37:59 rainstorm.
08:37:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
08:38:03 Next.
08:38:08 >> My name is Brodus Byrd, 2510 Mystic Point road,
08:38:16 here tonight as a manager of RBI Barcelona.
08:38:21 We are the neighbors to this property at the
08:38:24 corner of Barcelona and Isabella.
08:38:27 And we would like to -- we have had opportunity to
08:38:32 look at the plans in details of this project.
08:38:36 We think this is a very impressive project, a
08:38:38 sustainable project, a transportation oriented
08:38:42 development, and we would like to -- we have our
08:38:47 full support.
08:38:48 We think this is a great opportunity for Tampa.
08:38:53 This is a big investment for the owners to make,
08:38:58 and we think it's in the appropriate place.
08:39:00 I think they have hired a premiere local
08:39:03 architectural firm to make this a reality.
08:39:06 And we just generally would let now that we
08:39:11 support the project.
08:39:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
08:39:13 Is there anyone else in the public who would like
08:39:15 to speak on this item, number 9, REZ 16-38?
08:39:19 Before I go -- I was going to go to rebuttal from
08:39:22 the petitioner.
08:39:23 Do you have anything to add, Mr. Burke?
08:39:26 >> Two things.
08:39:28 One, that I need to agree to the revisions that
08:39:30 are proposed.
08:39:32 >> You don't need to.
08:39:32 >> I'm sorry.
08:39:35 With requested that I request that --
08:39:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That would you agree between
08:39:40 first and second reading.
08:39:42 Be.
08:39:42 >> Truett Gardner: Yes.
08:39:45 And we appreciate Brooks being here.
08:39:47 Brooks and his partner Marty own this property
08:39:50 here.
08:39:51 This is Barcelona street that dead-ends into the
08:39:54 Crosstown.
08:39:55 And one of the things that we discussed, and I
08:39:57 only bring to the your attention because I will
08:39:59 hopefully be back in front of you on this, is we
08:40:01 are going to pursue vacating Barcelona really
08:40:06 serves their purpose now.
08:40:07 We will need to be allow access, and we have the R
08:40:13 not present on Isabella but it will basically
08:40:16 function as a road here, and one of the concepts
08:40:18 we are talking about is a little dog park or dog
08:40:22 walk in the neighborhood.
08:40:24 I just want to make you aware of that because we
08:40:28 will be back in front of you on that issue.
08:40:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione, you had a
08:40:34 question?
08:40:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It was a different question
08:40:36 before he said that.
08:40:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No problem.
08:40:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mrs. Feeley?
08:40:40 Or Mrs. Kert?
08:40:41 I'm not sure.
08:40:43 So if Mr. Gardner does what he says and pursues
08:40:49 the vacating and the vacating gets approved, would
08:40:54 adding the dog park as an amenity or as part of
08:40:58 the project change the development agreement that
08:41:00 was announced here?
08:41:03 To make that part of the development?
08:41:06 It might be a timing issue.
08:41:08 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
08:41:09 No, the application before you tonight isn't
08:41:12 contingent on any of that.
08:41:14 What was just added at the end by Mr. Gardner.
08:41:17 What is before you tonight is whole, regardless.
08:41:22 I don't know that you couldn't amend the
08:41:24 development agreement but that's not part --
08:41:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because it's a PD --
08:41:30 >> The development agreement isn't --
08:41:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, does the vacating does not
08:41:36 become part of the project.
08:41:37 >> Whereby Truett Gardner: We were working about,
08:41:49 but there need to be some easements in the
08:41:51 right-of-way which didn't allow us to run the two
08:41:52 together.
08:41:53 So the PD is going to be totally independent.
08:41:57 Really assuming we go forward and are successful
08:42:00 with vacating, usual getting a bonus on top of the
08:42:02 bonus with dog park amenity.
08:42:07 It won't be part of the development agreement.
08:42:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And it doesn't become part of
08:42:11 the PD?
08:42:12 >> Totally independent.
08:42:13 We had to make sure --
08:42:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: To be amended.
08:42:16 >> We had to make sure they could live
08:42:18 independently.
08:42:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, the thing I was going to
08:42:22 ask before he brought that up is about the
08:42:24 mitigation.
08:42:25 Because not only from the statement, but also in
08:42:31 the letter that Vicky had sent about the
08:42:35 mitigation funds.
08:42:39 So considering the improvements that the
08:42:41 neighborhood wants, and that you had expressed
08:42:44 needed, is there an assurance that we can get to
08:42:51 the neighborhood of how these mitigation funds
08:42:54 will be spent?
08:42:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We had it just if other day.
08:43:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But it's not on the record at
08:43:07 this hearing.
08:43:08 Mrs. Kert?
08:43:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: One of the lawyers?
08:43:11 Anyone?
08:43:11 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
08:43:14 I think transportation staff is best able to
08:43:16 explain how they come up with the mitigation
08:43:18 amount and where that money can be spent.
08:43:23 When we spoke about this previously we were
08:43:25 talking about impact fees which are different
08:43:26 things from the mitigation amount.
08:43:30 There are separate things --
08:43:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And Mr. Samson was here a
08:43:34 couple weeks ago.
08:43:35 >>REBECCA KERT: Correct.
08:43:36 And that was the question about the impact fees.
08:43:38 What you are asking today is where the mitigation
08:43:41 money is going.
08:43:43 The mitigation will be required to mitigate the
08:43:46 impact of this development.
08:43:48 It can't, therefore, be utilized to repave roads
08:43:52 that are not required -- I mean, that are not in
08:43:57 the shape they are in based on this.
08:43:59 It's got to go to a project that's going to
08:44:01 address the impact.
08:44:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Some of the things where the
08:44:05 intersection -- [Off microphone.] -- with this
08:44:10 development and others pending many residents
08:44:12 shall concerned about the already overly congested
08:44:15 intersections at Bay to Bay and Bayshore, Bay to
08:44:17 Bay and Isabella and Bay to Bay and MacDill
08:44:21 that will have increased difficulty handling any
08:44:23 increases in traffic.
08:44:24 It is our desire that any traffic mitigation money
08:44:28 be used to improve these intersections.
08:44:38 She also talked about --
08:44:39 >>REBECCA KERT: I think the question you are
08:44:41 asking is where is this mitigation money, the
08:44:43 calculated amount that would be directly
08:44:45 proportional to the impact that they are having on
08:44:48 the transportation in that area.
08:44:50 And where the project remedy is at isn't something
08:44:55 that can be addressed to this rezoning but you can
08:44:58 certainly talk to transportation about what they
08:44:59 know about plans for the area.
08:45:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
08:45:03 Where is that money likely to be spent.
08:45:06 Where.
08:45:07 >>REBECCA KERT: Sure.
08:45:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
08:45:08 Jonathan?
08:45:09 >> Jonathan Scott: Transportation and planning.
08:45:16 They do have transportation mitigation in the
08:45:18 study that they did, about $15,000.
08:45:22 And they have to go to the district, I think,
08:45:31 transportation division to get a project together.
08:45:33 It's impossible to --
08:45:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But the mitigation is only
08:45:37 $15,000?
08:45:39 >> Jonathan Scott: That's correct.
08:45:41 From the study.
08:45:42 But with transportation -- right.
08:45:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
08:45:50 They were vested for the office so the increase in
08:45:52 the mitigation that was set is only for the
08:45:55 difference between the office, the residential,
08:45:58 the office.
08:45:58 They got investing to the amount for the office
08:46:01 that wasn't built.
08:46:02 So what Jonathan was explaining to me is those
08:46:06 mitigation fees go into the plot.
08:46:08 Now, other people have mitigation in the area,
08:46:10 they would use that to pull together a project in
08:46:12 the district to use those funds to make the
08:46:16 improvements.
08:46:16 But the mitigation goes to the proportionate fair
08:46:19 share of the project.
08:46:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And it's because of the office
08:46:22 that's already vested that is only 15,000.
08:46:26 >> more or less.
08:46:27 >> Jonathan Scott: It's the transportation
08:46:32 analysis, there is going to be an impact.
08:46:34 Another transportation fee, permitting as well.
08:46:38 >> They got credit for the office --
08:46:45 >> The kind of permitting.
08:46:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
08:46:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
08:46:53 Petitioner?
08:46:57 Oh, go ahead and make your statement.
08:46:59 >>HARRY COHEN: The way I heard Mrs. Kert said was
08:47:02 because the road are already -- this is not what
08:47:07 is the cause of that.
08:47:08 However, it does not mean than the city should not
08:47:12 place hey priority on fixing the infrastructure in
08:47:16 this clear developing, very, very dense corridor.
08:47:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Right.
08:47:22 And one of the things she mentioned, too,
08:47:24 pedestrian-friendly system.
08:47:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: All right.
08:47:28 Mr. Gardner, do you have anything else?
08:47:31 >> Truett Gardner: I have nothing else except we
08:47:34 are not getting a free ride on transportation
08:47:36 impact fees. We pay full freight on those plus
08:47:39 the 15,000 which is reduced because of the impact
08:47:43 fees.
08:47:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
08:47:45 >>THE CLERK: Jim Crew, city clerk's office.
08:47:50 Nay toad clarify the second reading if it will be
08:47:53 in conjunction with the development on July
08:47:55 14th.
08:47:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Yes.
08:47:56 Thank you.
08:47:57 Okay.
08:47:59 I have a motion to close from Mr. Reddick.
08:48:01 I have a second from Mr. Miranda.
08:48:03 All in favor of that motion please indicate by
08:48:05 saying aye.
08:48:07 Okay.
08:48:07 Mrs. Montelione, will you take item number 9?
08:48:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance being
08:48:13 presented for first reading consideration, an
08:48:15 ordinance being prevent rezoning property in the
08:48:17 general vicinity of 2907 west Bay to Bay Boulevard
08:48:20 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
08:48:22 particularly described from section 1 from zoning
08:48:24 district classification PD planned development,
08:48:26 office, business/professional, to PD, planned
08:48:29 development, office, business/professional,
08:48:31 residential, multifamily, and restaurant,
08:48:34 providing an effective date with changes to be
08:48:35 made between first and second reading.
08:48:37 >> second.
08:48:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mrs.
08:48:40 Montelione, second by Mr. Maniscalco.
08:48:42 All in favor? Any opposed?
08:48:44 Thank you.
08:48:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being
08:48:47 absent at vote.
08:48:48 Second reading and adoption will be on July
08:48:50 14th at 9:30 a.m.
08:48:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
08:48:53 Item number 10.
08:49:05 Item number 10 is at 1901 Holly Lane, and the
08:49:12 request is a request from an RS 100 residential
08:49:15 single-family to PD planned development,
08:49:17 residential single-family detached.
08:49:19 There are no waivers being requested.
08:49:21 >> Jennifer Moore for the record, Planning
08:49:34 Commission staff.
08:49:38 This was reviewed under the newly adopted 2040
08:49:41 comprehensive plan.
08:49:43 It's 1.44 acres located on Holly Lane, and the
08:49:48 Palma Ceia golf and country club, the closest
08:49:52 transit stop is located on Dale Mabry Highway and
08:49:54 Palma Ceia park is the closest public recreational
08:49:57 facility located east and west San Nicholas street
08:50:02 and in evacuation zone D.
08:50:04 There is an aerial of the site.
08:50:05 The surrounding area is single-family detached
08:50:08 housing.
08:50:09 This is the Palma Ceia golf and country club
08:50:11 directly to the north and abuts the site here.
08:50:16 Dale Mabry highway right here, and Plant High
08:50:18 School.
08:50:21 Of this aerial kind of shows this larger
08:50:23 lot residential pattern typical of this
08:50:26 neighborhood.
08:50:30 This is the future land use map.
08:50:32 Here is the subject site in yellow which indicates
08:50:35 residential 6.
08:50:36 This green is recreational open space.
08:50:40 This is the golf course.
08:50:41 The orange is the residential 10.
08:50:43 And then Plant High School, that public where
08:50:49 venue.
08:50:49 The residential PD one split the property into
08:50:52 three parcels and return the lot line to the
08:50:54 original plat.
08:50:56 There is currently one single-family detached
08:50:57 dwelling unit on site.
08:50:59 The city's comprehensive plan promotes preserving
08:51:01 and maintaining single-family neighborhoods while
08:51:03 planning for the growing population of Tampa.
08:51:05 This is an area without parks and public transit
08:51:10 and in-fill department while protecting the
08:51:12 residential character of the surrounding
08:51:14 neighborhood.
08:51:15 Overall, staff finds the requested rezoning of RS
08:51:19 100 to PD consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
08:51:21 plan.
08:51:22 Thank you.
08:51:36 >>ABBYE FEELEY: What's requested at 1901 Holly
08:51:39 Lane is to establish the original three platted
08:51:41 lots for development.
08:51:43 I did -- this subdivision as you will see here in
08:51:54 the original from 1950 had lots A, B and C, and
08:52:02 Holly Lane dead-ended into the property.
08:52:07 As Jennifer said, there is T primary residence is
08:52:11 on B, as you will see on your site plan, there is
08:52:16 a playground area on A, and then on C there is a
08:52:19 guest house and pool area.
08:52:22 The plan before you asks for the reestablishment
08:52:24 of these three lots with Holly Lane coming not as
08:52:30 a public road but coming through as an access
08:52:33 easement onto the property.
08:52:37 Lots were part of the original saint Andrews park.
08:52:44 It was a portion of this larger lot here, and this
08:52:48 remains as one single lot just to the west.
08:53:02 The area, this is the zoning atlas.
08:53:08 The area does have a mix.
08:53:10 It is north of San Miguel and San Nicholas, it is
08:53:14 RS 100 south of this area, and east of plant is
08:53:20 RS-60.
08:53:21 There are a couple RS-75 in the area.
08:53:27 We did do an red-blew map, although these lots all
08:53:34 contain 100 by 100.
08:53:36 It's a little bit misleading to show you.
08:53:38 They would be a red as well.
08:53:40 The RS-75.
08:53:43 I did not do an analysis of this because it's
08:53:45 really not a question of the 100 feet, and he has
08:53:49 100 feet.
08:53:50 But I did want to provide you with just an idea of
08:53:52 the existing development pattern.
08:53:56 There were 61 lots.
08:53:58 37 of them were conforming and 18 of them were
08:54:03 nonconforming.
08:54:04 These two would be nonconforming and consistent
08:54:07 with the development pattern.
08:54:10 I did talk to Mr. Gardner about in between than
08:54:16 the two hearings listed in my staff report, and I
08:54:22 will show you pictures.
08:54:23 And we do need to go ahead and establish the
08:54:25 building envelope on each of these lots
08:54:27 independently.
08:54:30 I had a talk with Mr. Gardner and his civil as far
08:54:35 as that goes and we will be assigning the front
08:54:37 yard, the side yards and the rear yards for each
08:54:41 of these properties in between first and second
08:54:43 reading and showing them on the plans, and it was
08:54:48 representative of what have been he discussed.
08:54:51 Let me go ahead and show you pictures of the site.
08:54:54 Here is the existing structure.
08:55:00 The west side of the property.
08:55:04 This is the east side.
08:55:06 Here is looking from the property down Holly Lane.
08:55:11 This is at the corner of Holly Lane and San
08:55:13 Miguel.
08:55:14 Coming back up Holly Lane just to the north
08:55:17 approaching the subject.
08:55:19 And then on the other side of the street, there
08:55:21 are two houses, and a third, and then immediately
08:55:27 across it Holly Lane.
08:55:34 I just went over a couple of the modifications.
08:55:36 Land development Ringling Brothers, natural
08:55:41 resources was asking for some modifications to the
08:55:46 site related to the tree survey and overlay.
08:55:49 And prior to final design, staking some of the
08:55:56 buildings out there, there was some informational
08:55:58 comments being provided from them as well.
08:56:00 Staff is available for any questions.
08:56:03 We did find the application consistent.
08:56:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions of staff?
08:56:06 Petitioner?
08:56:07 >> With the only thing I wanted to add was this
08:56:16 was -- I'm sorry, Truett Gardner, 400 Ashley
08:56:20 drive. This is a property of that could be --
08:56:24 eight lots could be requested.
08:56:25 We are requesting three which are exactly in line,
08:56:28 almost exactly in line with the plat.
08:56:32 It's a pretty easy fill.
08:56:33 We did for a lot of neighbors including the
08:56:36 neighbor most impacted which is the neighbor
08:56:37 immediately to the east.
08:56:39 So his backyard will be looking at lots A and lot
08:56:43 C, and we have agreed as Abbye mentioned to you
08:56:48 all establishing our setbacks on second reading.
08:56:52 And in exchange for that, we have got a letter of
08:56:56 support, and with that I am here to answer any
08:57:06 questions.
08:57:06 >>HARRY COHEN: We did get alert of support from
08:57:14 the golf view Civic Association.
08:57:16 They did raise the question of concern about
08:57:20 precedence, and I just would say for the record
08:57:22 that, of course, the decisions don't create
08:57:26 precedence.
08:57:27 We take them on a case-by-case basis.
08:57:29 So that's not really something that they should be
08:57:33 concerned about.
08:57:33 >> Anything else?
08:57:37 >> That's it.
08:57:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions of the
08:57:39 petitioner?
08:57:40 Is there anyone in the public that would like to
08:57:42 speak on item number 10, REZ 16-39?
08:57:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
08:57:46 >> Second.
08:57:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Miranda.
08:57:48 I have a second by Mr. Maniscalco.
08:57:54 All in favor?
08:57:54 Any opposed?
08:57:55 Will you kindly take number 107?
08:57:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: File number 10, REZ 16-39, an
08:58:00 ordinance for first reading consideration, an
08:58:02 ordinance rezoning property in the general
08:58:03 vicinity of 1901 Holly Lane in the city of Tampa,
08:58:06 Florida and more particularly described in section
08:58:08 1 from zoning district classifications RS 100
08:58:12 residential, single-family, to PD, grand
08:58:15 development, residential, single-family detached,
08:58:17 providing an effective date.
08:58:19 Along with all the comments that were put into the
08:58:21 record.
08:58:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Second.
08:58:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Miranda.
08:58:24 Second by Mr. Cohen.
08:58:26 All in favor of that motion?
08:58:27 Any opposed?
08:58:28 Thank you.
08:58:28 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being
08:58:32 absent at vote.
08:58:33 Second reading and adoption will be on June
08:58:35 23rd at 9:30 a.m.
08:58:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Item number 11.
08:58:41 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
08:58:42 Your last case this evening is item number 11, REZ
08:58:47 16-40.
08:58:48 If I may just a moment before the Planning
08:58:50 Commission comes up, this property was PD in 1985
08:58:57 to convert a single-family residence to an office.
08:59:00 It has existed that way.
08:59:03 On the original PD, there was a small accessory
08:59:06 structure in that back corner.
08:59:09 The applicant wants to come in and replace that
08:59:14 and modify its location, and in doing so exceeded
08:59:18 the substantial change criteria.
08:59:20 So I have him back before you this evening in
08:59:25 order to request those modifications which
08:59:27 exceeded that.
08:59:29 That can be administratively approved in this
08:59:31 location, but it is for an accessory structure in
08:59:34 that southwest corner, and a minor reconfiguration
08:59:38 of the parking area.
08:59:38 >> Good evening.
08:59:44 David Hay, Planning Commission staff.
08:59:46 I have been sworn.
08:59:47 We are down to the last case down in the South
08:59:49 Tampa --
08:59:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Why did you come back?
08:59:56 We liked her.
08:59:58 >> Well, I have to get paid.
08:59:59 I have to do something.
09:00:00 (Laughter)
09:00:01 The subject site is located on the south side of
09:00:03 west Azeele street between south Himes Avenue and
09:00:06 south Sterling.
09:00:07 It is a .25-acre subject site.
09:00:10 It is being reviewed under the 2025 comprehensive
09:00:14 plan.
09:00:15 The applicant was received prior to February
09:00:17 20th.
09:00:19 There is transit service provided within proximity
09:00:23 to the subject site.
09:00:25 Up on Kennedy Boulevard.
09:00:27 And the subject site is also within a level D
09:00:30 evacuation zone.
09:00:32 Onto the aerial.
09:00:36 You can see the subject site is right here right
09:00:38 in the center.
09:00:39 We have Azeele running east-west.
09:00:43 Henderson Boulevard over to the east.
09:00:45 Kennedy up to the north.
09:00:48 You can see by the aerial that this is mostly
09:00:55 single-family detached with so duplexes scattered
09:01:00 throughout.
09:01:01 The Azeele corridor is an emerging office
09:01:04 corridor.
09:01:05 There's been some office development along this
09:01:06 corridor.
09:01:07 And of course you can see the commercial pattern
09:01:10 further to the east over on Henderson.
09:01:13 And then up on Kennedy Boulevard.
09:01:19 Onto the future land use map.
09:01:20 The subject site is right here.
09:01:23 We have Azeele again, Henderson.
09:01:25 You can see that Azeele street has that
09:01:28 residential 20 future land use category which does
09:01:31 have different locational criteria for office
09:01:34 uses.
09:01:35 And then to the north and south we have that
09:01:37 residential 10, identifying the residential
09:01:43 single-family detached neighborhood.
09:01:44 Then we have got the community mixed use 35 over
09:01:48 on Dale Mabry, and then portion of Henderson.
09:01:54 The applicant is speaking to this rezoning to
09:01:57 recognize a previously approved 1,150 square foot
09:02:01 office use and allow for the construction of a 672
09:02:04 square foot accessory structure located at the
09:02:08 rear of the subject site.
09:02:10 Site plan includes new pedestrian connections from
09:02:12 the main building and public sidewalk, along west
09:02:15 Azeele street.
09:02:16 No alterations are being proposed to the existing
09:02:19 structure.
09:02:19 Over on the proposed intensification is in keeping
09:02:22 with the overall character of this portion of
09:02:24 weather Azeele street consisting of single-family
09:02:27 detached residential and residential office type
09:02:29 uses.
09:02:30 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals,
09:02:33 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
09:02:35 Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
09:02:37 planned development consistent with the Tampa
09:02:39 comprehensive plan.
09:02:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
09:02:43 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
09:02:48 There are a couple of waivers being requested for
09:02:51 drive-aisle reduction from 24 to 21 and from 20 to
09:02:56 18.
09:02:57 And then for use to use buffer from 15 to 6.
09:03:02 To be 3-foot with a 6-foot high fence along the
09:03:05 south and west.
09:03:06 And those are existing conditions.
09:03:08 But in 1986 we didn't quantify those things on
09:03:12 this site plan than the way of that we do today.
09:03:14 So we go ahead and clean that up as well.
09:03:19 This property is existing in the approved
09:03:22 configuration per the 1985 PD and as mentioned
09:03:26 would like to be replace the accessory structure
09:03:28 with a larger one that they could park in.
09:03:32 The cumulative impact to the modifications exceed
09:03:35 that which could be granted administratively, and
09:03:38 they are seeking to update the PD zoning.
09:03:42 Let me go ahead and show you, I 9 along Azeele,
09:03:50 it's almost like I 11 over to the side.
09:03:52 Lots of PDs.
09:03:53 The majority of the PDs along this segment are for
09:03:56 business professional offices.
09:03:59 I will show you some pictures of that, and also
09:04:01 personal services.
09:04:02 There are some spots along here that we did quite
09:04:05 a few years back.
09:04:10 Here is the site again.
09:04:15 Then I am going to show you final pictures of the
09:04:18 night.
09:04:20 Here is the subject property.
09:04:27 This is the existing parking area.
09:04:33 This is the property to the west.
09:04:39 Further to the west.
09:04:40 The property to the east.
09:04:45 Then the north side.
09:04:55 Bay to Bay is a very hard segment to photograph.
09:05:02 There are just minor modifications, if they could
09:05:05 correct the setbacks, the west and east should be
09:05:08 7 feet and on the west 3-foot for the accessory
09:05:11 structure slash garage. The way it's currently
09:05:13 written, the plan one allow for the main structure
09:05:15 to be located at 3-foot if they made
09:05:17 modifications.
09:05:20 I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
09:05:22 Also natural resources wanted them to remove note
09:05:25 number 10 if there are no grand trees on the site.
09:05:28 Staff analysis is on pages 3 and 4.
09:05:30 We did find the request consistent.
09:05:32 Thank you.
09:05:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
09:05:34 Any questions from council?
09:05:35 Petitioner?
09:05:36 >> Good evening.
09:05:43 Mark Jordan, I am the owner at 3612 west Azeele.
09:05:51 It was already PDed general office.
09:05:55 We just wanted to add an accessory structure for
09:05:57 parking and lawn equipment and so forth.
09:06:00 The proposed accessory structure mimics the
09:06:02 surrounding RS-60 structure criteria in the area.
09:06:06 We are going to be less than the 750.
09:06:09 We are going to be less than 15-foot high.
09:06:11 And we will be that 3 foot side yard -- rear and
09:06:17 setback.
09:06:18 We are going to be providing those 8 parking
09:06:20 spacings which include a paved handicapped
09:06:23 accessible spot.
09:06:25 Pedestrian walkway and a bike rack.
09:06:29 All improvements are going to avoid any damage to
09:06:33 any of the trees and so forth.
09:06:36 No trees will be removed or pruned.
09:06:41 We are going to provide some stormwater.
09:06:43 And collection ponds.
09:06:45 And there are no proposed changes to the existing
09:06:48 structure.
09:06:48 We are also going to replicate the structure to be
09:06:52 identical.
09:06:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions of petitioner?
09:06:59 Is there anyone in the public that would like to
09:07:01 comment on item number 11, REZ 16-40?
09:07:05 If so please come forward.
09:07:07 I see no one.
09:07:08 >> Move to close.
09:07:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion to close by Mr. Maniscalco.
09:07:12 Second by Mr. Miranda.
09:07:13 All in favor of that motion?
09:07:15 Any opposed?
09:07:16 Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take number 11, sir?
09:07:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance being
09:07:23 presented for first reading consideration, an
09:07:25 ordinance rezoning property in the general
09:07:26 vicinity of 3612 west Azeele street in the city of
09:07:30 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
09:07:32 section 1 from zoning district classifications PD
09:07:35 planned development, office,
09:07:37 business/professional, to PD, planned development,
09:07:40 office, business/professional, providing an
09:07:43 effective date.
09:07:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
09:07:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Reddick.
09:07:48 I have a second by Mr. Miranda.
09:07:49 All in favor of that motion?
09:07:51 Any opposed?
09:07:55 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being
09:07:57 absent at vote.
09:07:58 Second reading and adoption will be on June
09:08:01 23rd at 9:30 a.m.
09:08:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have information reports and
09:08:04 new business.
09:08:04 Before we go to our members.
09:08:06 Mr. Shelby, off request.
09:08:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:08:11 Members of council, I had sent to you a memo
09:08:13 earlier this week.
09:08:15 There is an item that is settle regarding the
09:08:17 charter review commission with a special call
09:08:20 meeting.
09:08:20 There are additional items in motion that council
09:08:23 had made that will be coming back on the 23rd.
09:08:26 I am asking that the item that's set for the
09:08:30 special call meeting on June 16th be removed
09:08:33 and combined with the relating items for the
09:08:35 second week and I ask that the combined motion be
09:08:37 reset in its entirety as a five minute staff
09:08:40 report for August 4 of 2016 because of council
09:08:44 schedule, there won't be a full council on the
09:08:46 23rd.
09:08:46 There's only one regular meeting in July.
09:08:48 I anticipate a very full agenda.
09:08:50 The additional time will allow me to work with the
09:08:52 legal department, get to meet with you
09:08:54 individually.
09:08:55 You will see the draft, and in the process I will
09:08:58 discuss the whole problem sees in detail.
09:09:02 So I am providing this to the clerk.
09:09:04 I have previously done so.
09:09:05 But I would ask that council remove that until the
09:09:09 4th of August, please.
09:09:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Do I get a motion to that effect?
09:09:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes, that went by me real
09:09:15 fast.
09:09:16 >>HARRY COHEN: [Off microphone.] Whether we have
09:09:23 enough time to deal with it and get it onto the
09:09:26 ballot.
09:09:28 August 4th, that's a long way away.
09:09:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: These items with the charter
09:09:38 review are not the time sensitive matters that
09:09:40 will be on your special called meeting that are
09:09:40 still set for the special called meeting.
09:09:43 >>HARRY COHEN: So you are not removing them?
09:09:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
09:09:46 But what I am doing is I am combining all the
09:09:48 motions, because some of them were set to come
09:09:51 back on the 23rd.
09:09:52 And that's not going to be a full council.
09:09:54 You only have one meeting in July.
09:09:56 This will not affect your ability to fully vet and
09:10:00 have the charter review commission fully formed
09:10:03 and in place on schedule.
09:10:06 Mrs. Montelione.
09:10:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Did you say you sent us a
09:10:08 memo?
09:10:09 I did not see the memo.
09:10:11 Did you say you sent us a memo? I guess May
09:10:15 didn't present it out for me and I did not see in
09:10:17 the my e-mail.
09:10:18 I don't have the motion in front of me.
09:10:20 Ah, thank you.
09:10:24 Jim just gave to the me.
09:10:25 When you read it off, I thought, that was a lot to
09:10:29 digest very quickly.
09:10:31 So it's just the establishment of the charter
09:10:37 review commission?
09:10:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, the establishment of the
09:10:42 charter review commission was actually set for the
09:10:45 23rd.
09:10:45 Because of the way the calendar was put together
09:10:47 and the way the motions were --
09:10:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: On this memo there's one, two,
09:10:52 three, four motions.
09:10:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
09:10:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Two set for the 23rd and one
09:11:02 has no date.
09:11:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
09:11:07 And you are asking that all of these be combined?
09:11:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
09:11:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Into one.
09:11:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
09:11:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And heard on the 24th?
09:11:18 Let I mean August 4th.
09:11:20 >>
09:11:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
09:11:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But I just asked if you this
09:11:23 has to do with charter review commission and you
09:11:25 said no.
09:11:26 But the first motion says develop language in the
09:11:29 form of a solution to establish a charter review
09:11:32 commission.
09:11:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, if I understand what the
09:11:35 question was, the things that are related to TFR
09:11:40 special call meeting are the time sensitive
09:11:42 matters.
09:11:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Is it the establishment of the
09:11:46 charter review commission consisting of nine
09:11:48 members, two alternates and seven members as we
09:11:52 stated it time sensitive?
09:11:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
09:11:55 Not to the degree that things will have to be on
09:11:58 the ballot that you wish to have with regard to
09:12:01 the auditor.
09:12:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
09:12:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: How many items did we have to
09:12:09 place on the ballot?
09:12:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which ballot?
09:12:15 2016 ballot?
09:12:17 You had the issue of the auditor.
09:12:22 Let's see what's coming back.
09:12:23 You had the issue of the -- the auditor is to be
09:12:29 on this ballot.
09:12:30 And then there was a decision of whether the
09:12:33 whistleblower would be on the ballot.
09:12:34 But there was a motion to bring it back as an
09:12:36 ordinance that contained a whistleblower
09:12:39 provision.
09:12:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So that would not have to be
09:12:41 on the ballot?
09:12:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Not necessarily, no.
09:12:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because it would be an
09:12:44 ordinance.
09:12:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: An ordinance.
09:12:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So just the one.
09:12:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Just one we are going to talk
09:12:49 about on the 23rd S.that what you are saying?
09:12:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
09:12:52 The special --
09:12:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But everything else would be
09:12:58 moved to August 4?
09:12:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's correct.
09:13:01 And I will work with the legal department and we
09:13:03 will meet with each of you to discuss the draft
09:13:07 and the process.
09:13:08 >>HARRY COHEN: I'll move the item and ask the
09:13:12 clerk to refer to the memo in terms of getting the
09:13:17 details of what needs to be moved.
09:13:19 I think the salient thing is the auditor
09:13:25 discussion.
09:13:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
09:13:27 All in favor of that motion?
09:13:29 Any opposed?
09:13:30 Mr. Reddick, any new business, sir?
09:13:38 >> In a new business.
09:13:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Maniscalco?
09:13:42 Where it.
09:13:42 >> No, sir.
09:13:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione?
09:13:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes, Mr. Shelby just kind of
09:13:48 referred to it, lobbyists.
09:13:51 We had that scheduled and I was asking for a
09:13:53 calendar because my calendar is back on my desk.
09:13:57 Everybody took their calendar off the dais when we
09:14:01 went inside after CRA.
09:14:03 So I had scheduled a discussion about the lobbyist
09:14:07 and the ordinance to come with the staff report.
09:14:10 But then in talking to Mr. Shelby and to Sarah
09:14:13 Lang and others, it becomes a little more of a
09:14:16 complicated discussion, and in the interest of how
09:14:19 we all feel about really long staff reports, to
09:14:22 move that to a workshop discussion so that we are
09:14:26 not tying up the whole meeting with a long staff
09:14:29 report.
09:14:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Did you want to go for the next
09:14:32 workshop session?
09:14:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes.
09:14:35 A calendar would really come in handy.
09:14:37 Mr. Shelby, when does the next workshop session
09:14:41 look like?
09:14:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Crew, do you want to look as
09:14:45 well?
09:14:45 I believe the next workshop is in September.
09:14:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because I would rather not
09:14:54 wait that long.
09:14:56 And we just -- August 4 is now --
09:15:04 >>THE CLERK: September 22nd is the next workshop
09:15:08 date.
09:15:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you think this conversation
09:15:10 would be a quick one?
09:15:11 Put it on the same August 4th?
09:15:14 >> Yes, I feel confident.
09:15:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So then I'll move the
09:15:18 discussion about lobbyists and the ethics of
09:15:22 ordinance from the date currently scheduled as a
09:15:26 staff report to August 4th workshop at 9 a.m.
09:15:31 immediately following the discussion of the
09:15:34 charter review commission.
09:15:36 >> Second.
09:15:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mrs. Montelione.
09:15:38 Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
09:15:39 All in favor of that motion?
09:15:41 Any opposed?
09:15:43 Anything else, Mrs. Montelione?
09:15:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: There was another request --
09:15:48 and you will have to be help me within the date
09:15:50 here because we might have just moved that
09:15:52 around -- that the T&I department with the legal
09:15:56 department and ethics offices appear now on August
09:16:02 4th to be part of the workshop session to
09:16:08 discuss adopting Hillsborough County's lobbyist
09:16:12 registry.
09:16:13 Additionally, that Sarah Lang and the legal
09:16:16 department draft language to revise the ethics
09:16:19 code in accordance to the item that was
09:16:21 continuously from April 271st which is now
09:16:23 going to be the workshop, August 24th, and
09:16:26 that Sarah Lang inform City Council of the next
09:16:30 expected ethics commission meeting and request
09:16:33 that the draft language be put on their next
09:16:36 agenda.
09:16:36 >> Second.
09:16:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That would be after August
09:16:40 4th.
09:16:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What you just stated was for
09:16:44 August 4.
09:16:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes.
09:16:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Rut okay with that, Mr. Clerk?
09:16:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's written?
09:16:51 Motion from Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr.
09:16:54 Maniscalco.
09:16:54 All in favor?
09:16:55 Any opposed?
09:16:56 I need a motion to receive and file all documents
09:16:58 today.
09:16:58 I have a motion from Mr. Cohen, a second from Mr.
09:17:01 Reddick.
09:17:01 All in favor of that motion please indicate by
09:17:03 saying aye.
09:17:04 Okay.
09:17:04 Anything else? We are adjourned.
09:17:09
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.